Eugene Lysak thought he was entitled to $24,000 from the 2003 CAIS program.
So did administrators from the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization plan, at least initially. They sent him half that amount last spring.
“Now they turn around and say I’m entitled to zero,” said Lysak, who farms near Foxford, Sask.
He’s not the only one who received a letter saying he would have to repay program benefits. His son-in-law at Assiniboia, Sask., has been asked to give back $84,000.
Lysak wonders how many others are out there, and why.
Read Also
Solution offered for crackdown on fake honey
U.S. and Canadian beekeepers producing genuine honey need someone or some organization to test and detect fake honey to keep it out of the domestic market.
“My figures, when I sent them in, everything was sold and the expenses were right on,” he said.
Lysak grows only wheat, canola and alfalfa seed and said his income tax had already been filed.
“Mine was simple,” he said of completing his interim application. “There was no guessing.”
CAIS spokesperson Ellen Funk said officials couldn’t yet estimate how many producers might have been overpaid.
Processing of 2003 applications won’t be complete until the end of January or early February, she said.
Funk said there are several reasons why overpayments occur. For example, a producer may estimate a loss that doesn’t materialize, the forms may be filled out incorrectly or farm size may have changed and a structure change calculation applied.
“We expect that most producers will be under the $10,000 mark,” she said of the overpayments.
Producers who were overpaid don’t have to write a cheque. The amount can be taken out of future program payments.
“We don’t want to cause hardship,” Funk said.
Producers could also appeal. They have 90 days from receipt of their calculation of benefits statement to file an appeal.
The formal appeal committee is not yet in place, but adjustments can be made without an appeal.
Diana Dolack, an accountant with H & R Block in Biggar, Sask., said she was initially concerned that adjustment requests would have to wait.
One of her clients who expected a payment was denied because of a typing error. Instead of $40,000 in deferred income, the amount became $49 million.
Dolack herself required an adjustment because a note attached to her application indicating that 38 tonnes of No. 2 mustard had spoiled and was no longer part of her inventory was never seen by the CAIS administration.
CAIS forms are keyed in by staff from the Canada Revenue Agency and sent electronically to the CAIS office.
“They didn’t notice the note,” Dolack said. “It increased my inventory by $12,000, and I was expecting an $11,000 payment.”
Since then, her case has been dealt with and she said most of those types of adjustments are proceeding. However, she remains concerned about the time it will take for appeals to be heard.
She is also wary of filing interim applications. She said the estimates from those forms should be closer than they are turning out to be.
Lysak agrees.
“Somebody’s making these mistakes and (they) are still working,” he said. “This is disturbing a lot of lives.”
