I think there are maybe a couple of points to that, if I understand your question correctly. One, you'll see in the revenue estimates published as part of the budget supplementary information that when it was initially a two-year deferral, there was a short three-year period of income inclusion—extra revenues for the government—and then it went down to zero, representing the fact that it was a timing change. You are absolutely correct that we had not booked any revenues after the phase-in period. Of course, moving from two years to five years would prolong that phase-in and would reduce the impact per year for affected professionals.
In terms of the public policy, this arose as part of the tax expenditure review undertaken by this government over the past year—or more than a year. They looked at all the tax expenditures, deferrals, and the like available and determined which ones continued to meet a good public policy goal and which did not.
In the 1980s, professionals, other than the enumerated professionals in section 34, were required to move from a billed-basis system over to an accrual accounting system.