My name is Mark Goodfield. Welcome to The Blunt Bean Counter ™, a blog that shares my thoughts on income taxes, finance and the psychology of money. I am a Chartered Professional Accountant. This blog is meant for everyone, but in particular for high net worth individuals and owners of private corporations. My posts are blunt, opinionated and even have a twist of humour/sarcasm. You've been warned. Please note the blog posts are time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.
Showing posts with label 000 capital gains exemption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 000 capital gains exemption. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

The $800,000 Capital Gains Exemption

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a blog post on how the $800,000 Capital Gains Exemption ("CGE") Isn't a Gimme for Corporate Small Business Owners and how many private small business owners incorrectly assume they will automatically be entitled to the CGE should they sell the shares of their corporation.

Last week I was interviewed on the contents of the aforementioned blog by Promod Sharma for his Tea at Taxevity series. Promod, is an actuary by trade and insurance advisor. He is also the writer behind the blog Riscario Insider. The interview can be found  here. If you own shares in a Canadian non-public corporation, you should probably watch this interview.




The blogs posted on The Blunt Bean Counter provide information of a general nature. These posts should not be considered specific advice; as each reader's personal financial situation is unique and fact specific. Please contact a professional advisor prior to implementing or acting upon any of the information contained in one of the blogs. Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.

Monday, September 22, 2014

Corporate Small Business Owners: Beware; the Capital Gains Exemption is not a Gimme

One of the biggest misconceptions small business owners have is that they have automatic access to the $800,000 capital gains exemption (“CGE”) upon the sale of the shares of their corporations (Note: beginning in 2015, the $800,000 will be indexed for inflation). Nothing can be further from the truth. There are three complex tests that must be met in order to qualify for the exemption and something as innocuous as imposing a holding company (with significant cash and investment assets) between you and your operating company may disqualify the shares.

Warning!!! Before I move forward, please note that I am “dumbing down this post”. You may think it complex, but I am leaving out significant issues, definitions and details to make it somewhat readable. Do not rely upon this blog for your capital gains planning, use it only to gain an understanding of the issues and please contact your tax advisor before undertaking any planning discussed in this post. In fact, to emphasize the complexity of this issue and how intricate and fact related the planning is, I will not answer questions and respond to comments on this post. Sorry about that.

The Capital Gains Exemption


In order to access the CGE, the shares you sell must meet the definition of a "qualified small business corporation share” (“QSBC shares”). Sounds simple, but this provision and the related provisions often prove to be a tax quagmire for many practitioners.

The shares must meet three tests to be considered QSBC shares and become eligible for the CGE.

Small Business Corporation Test


At the time you sell your shares, they must be shares of a Small Business Corporation (“SBC”). A SBC, amongst other criteria, must be a Canadian-controlled private corporation whereby all or substantially all (meaning 90% or greater) of the fair market value (“FMV”) of the assets of which at that time is attributable to assets that are used principally in an active business carried on primarily in Canada.

In plain English: at the time of the sale, the company must be using a minimum of 90% of its assets in carrying on an active business in Canada. In other words, if you have more than 10% of the FMV of your corporation in passive assets such as cash, stocks, rental real estate, you may be offside the rule.

It is important to note that the Goodwill (which is often the largest asset) of a business will count as an asset used in an active business. However, generally cash, portfolio investments and intercompany loans will not qualify as active assets.

Holding Period Ownership Test


This test requires that the shares cannot have been owned by anyone other than the individual or a person or partnership related to the individual, throughout the 24 months immediately preceding the disposition time. The two year test is very confusing. It is a rule that at its core is intended to prevent anyone not related to you from holding the shares within the last two years. However, on one hand the 24 month rule provides for exceptions such as if you transfer a proprietorship or partnership to a corporation, yet if you incorporate a new company and hold the shares less than 24 months, you will be disqualified.

In plain English: in most cases you will be required to have held the shares two years prior to the sale.

Holding Period Asset Test


If you thought the above rules were complicated, this test makes the other rules seem simple.

This test requires that throughout the 24 months immediately preceding the sale, more than 50% of the FMV of the corporation's assets must have been attributable to assets used in an active business. For this purpose, assets considered to be used in an active business consist of:

1) Assets used principally in an active business carried on primarily in Canada by the corporation or a related corporation;

2) Certain shares or debt of connected corporations; and

3) A combination of active business assets or certain shares or debt of connected corporations

In plain English: at least 50% of the company’s assets must have been used in an active business throughout the two-year period prior to sale.

Where you have a holding company ("Holdco") or stacked companies (Holdcos owning Holdcos) ultimately owning the shares of an operating company, the threshold percentage for meeting the Holding Period Asset Test may become 90% instead of 50%. These rules are far too complicated to discuss, suffice to say, if you have a chain of companies, at least one of the companies in the chain must meet the 90% threshold percentage over the two-year period.

As you can see, the CGE is no gimme. You need to ensure you hold the shares 24 months, at the time of sale 90% of the assets are used in an active business and over the prior 24 months, 50% (in some case 90%) of the FMV of the assets were used in an active business.

Traps and Obstacles


Holding Companies


Many small business owners utilize a Holdco for creditor proofing, which is often recommended. However, over years the Holdco may end up owning substantial investment assets. These assets may be problematic for the following reasons:

1. Since Holdco owns your operating company ("Opco"), you have to sell your holding company shares to a buyer to qualify for the CGE and if you have substantial assets, you need to remove them prior to a sale. This may trigger a substantial tax liability and/or cause the shares to fall offside the QSBC rules.

2. Many people use their Holdco to hold the shares of other corporations. This is very problematic when you want to sell your shares of Company A, but your Holdco not only owns Company A, but also owns shares of Company B and Company C. How do you get the shares of Company B and C out of your Holdco prior to the sale? The answer is - not easily.

As I have written in prior blogs, I often suggest rather than automatically interposing a Holdco between you and your Opco, you may wish to consider using a family trust with a corporate beneficiary (a Holdco typically owned by you). Thus, instead of the cash being plugged up in your Holdco and potentially putting you offside the QSBC rules, your Opco pays a dividend of the excess cash to your family trust which in turn allocates a tax-free dividend (in most cases) to the holding company beneficiary of the family trust.

This is a very subtle point, but now instead of having the dual problem of your Holdco company potentially having too many investment assets and/or you needing to sell your Holdco shares to access the capital gains exemption, you can now just sell the Opco shares, as the operating company is owned by the trust. The Holdco company even if it has accumulated substantial assets, is not part of the three CGE tests as it has no direct interest in the company being sold.

Safe Income


I have no desire to get into this complicated issue. However, where a Holdco or Opco has other assets such as excess cash, shares in other corporations or real estate that a purchaser does not require, it is often necessary to transfer these assets out of Opco or Holdco (known as purification). This is often done by cross share redemptions that result in dividends. All you need to know for purposes of this post is that if an operating company pays a dividend to another corporation in contemplation of a sale and the dividend exceeds the recipient’s proportionate share of safe income (in very simple terms, retained earnings of the dividend payer) the excess portion becomes a taxable capital gain. This can be very problematic when you are trying to purify your corporation of excess assets prior to the sale to qualify for the CGE and you definitely require your tax advisor's assistance.

Cumulative Net Investment Loss


The Cumulative Net Investment Loss (“CNIL”) account tracks an individual’s net historical investment income. Essentially it is the sum of your investment income, such as interest and dividends, less investment expenses such as interest expense, carrying charges, losses from limited partnerships and resource deductions from flow-through shares. If the cumulative balance is negative, this balance restricts access to the CGE. The negative balance can in many circumstances be eliminated by having your company pay you a dividend prior to any sale, subject to the safe income rules noted above.

Allowable Business Investment Losses


An Allowable Business Investment Loss (“ABIL”) typically results from capital losses on shares and debt in private Canadian corporations. If an individual has realized an ABIL in a prior year, it will reduce his or her CGE available to claim. Thus, you need to confirm if you have ever made such a claim prior to utilizing your CGE.

Insufficient Dividends


This issue is way beyond the scope of this article, however, where it is reasonable to conclude that a significant portion of the gain is attributable to the fact that a minimum amount of dividends has not been paid annually on any class of shares in the corporation, other than classes of "prescribed shares”, the CGE can also be restricted. Ask your accountant if this is an issue for you.

Planning


Prudent planning would suggest that you and your advisor consider these rules far in advance of any potential sale, so you can monitor whether your corporation is onside the rules. Where the corporation falls offside you can “purify” the corporation of any offending assets. Purification should be ongoing, because if you have to purify at the last minute, there is a good chance you will not meet the various criteria to qualify for the exemption.

If you are still with me, I am sure you will agree that you should never assume your corporation’s shares will qualify for the CGE. The morass of rules requires you and your advisors to carefully navigate the rules to ensure your shares will qualify when you decide to sell your corporation.

The blogs posted on The Blunt Bean Counter provide information of a general nature. These posts should not be considered specific advice; as each reader's personal financial situation is unique and fact specific. Please contact a professional advisor prior to implementing or acting upon any of the information contained in one of the blogs. Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

2013 Federal Budget

The Federal Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, today presented the 2013 Federal Budget. While there are no changes to corporate income tax rates, there is an increase to the personal income tax rate on non-eligible dividends paid by most private corporations out of active business income. There is no change to the taxation of eligible dividends paid by most public corporations.

Small corporate business owners planning to sell their business got a pleasant surprise in the budget when Mr. Flaherty increased the capital gains exemption for qualified share sales to $800,000 from $750,000 effective for 2014.

The Finance Minister seemed somewhat preoccupied with closing tax loopholes and stopping international tax evasion and ensuring compliance with the filing of the Foreign Verification Form T1135. To that end, the CRA will launch the Stop International Tax Evasion Program, or the more appropriately named “International Snitch Program”. Under this program, the CRA will pay rewards to individuals with knowledge of major international tax non-compliance when they provide information to the CRA that leads to the collection of outstanding taxes due. The CRA will require the outstanding tax liability to be in excess of $100,000 before entering into such a contract. The reward will provide for payment of up to 15% of the federal tax collected.

Therefore, please be advised, I will not be writing my blog anymore as I will be compiling my snitch list and retiring to Barbados on my 15% reward earnings (Just joking CRA, I have never met or heard of an international tax evader).

I provide a link to my firm, Cunningham LLP's budget summary (which I helped write) for those who want details of the budget.

The blogs posted on The Blunt Bean Counter provide information of a general nature. These posts should not be considered specific advice; as each reader's personal financial situation is unique and fact specific. Please contact a professional advisor prior to implementing or acting upon any of the information contained in one of the blogs.

Friday, March 1, 2013

Tax Tweets of the Day for the Week Ending March 1, 2013


My Twitter tax tips for this week are listed below. My twitter handle is @bluntbeancountr. Next week will be my last for tax tips.

As in prior years, I will again be posting Confessions of a Tax Accountant, starting in late March or the first week of  April. These posts highlight contentious and/or interesting personal income tax issues that arise in my practice during tax season that I think will be of interest to my readers.

Tips for Week of February 25 - March 1, 2013


File returns in the year your child turns 18.They maybe eligible for some claims at 18 & others at 19 are based on their age 18 return #blunttaxtip

If you sold capital property in 2012 that was held prior to 1994, review whether you elected to bump the value in 1994. #blunttaxtip

Note: In 1994 the $100,000 capital gains exemption was eliminated. However, you were entitled to make a final election to use your capital gains exemption on stocks, real estate etc. Many people forget they made such an election and that their cost base on certain property is higher, which reduces the capital gain to be reported. This election was used extensively by people on their cottages. So if your parents sold their cottage in 2012 remind them to check if they made the election in 1994.

There is no attribution on #Capital Gains if you buy stocks or capital property in your child’s name. #blunttaxtip

Do you pay investment counsel fees to an #investment advisor? If so, they are deductible. #blunttaxtip

If you receive a lump sum in 2013, considering making your 2013 #RRSP contribution early. #blunttaxtip

The blogs posted on The Blunt Bean Counter provide information of a general nature. These posts should not be considered specific advice; as each reader's personal financial situation is unique and fact specific. Please contact a professional advisor prior to implementing or acting upon any of the information contained in one of the blogs.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Cohesive Professional Advice

I have written a couple times about how important it is to ensure a client’s investment advisor, lawyer, insurance agent, banker, business consultant and accountant integrate their advice into one efficient coordinated plan. A plan that takes into account the client’s investment, retirement, income tax and successions needs. 

I have noted that when advisors operate in silos, only the client suffers. Even worse are situations where advisors operate at cross purposes, often trying to protect their own fiefdom and fees.

Thus, when Adrian Spitters, a senior Financial Planner with Assante and the blogger behind The Retiring Boomer blog, offered to write a guest blog on the importance of cohesive advice amongst professionals, I jumped at his offer.

In his blog below, Adrian discusses several situations in which the joint efforts of his clients team of professionals, prevented some potentially disastrous legal results and produced some significant income tax savings. Without further ado, on to Adrian’s blog.

Cohesive Advice

by Adrian Spitters

"Most Canadians find that they lack the financial knowledge, or the time required, to  research all the options available to them and to make the important financial decisions they need to make at critical points in their lifetimes." Individuals, who decide to forgo advice and think they can do it on their own, may find themselves ill-prepared for some of the most important financial and life changing decisions they will encounter in their lifetimes; especially since many of these significant decisions are complex and require cohesive planning from several professionals.

There are a lot of good financial, legal, accounting and insurance advisors to choose from. However, some are lone cowboys that focus on what they do best and give good advice, but rarely consult with their clients other advisors to understand how their recommendations affect their client’s overall financial well-being. This can lead to problems down the road.

For example, I had a client who resisted undertaking a detailed financial plan and financial check-up. Unfortunately, only when he took ill, did he relent and provide me all his financial documents (personal and business).

With his permission, I had a tax lawyer that I work with review his legal documents, as I had some concerns. The lawyer noted there was a $500,000 cash gift clause in his will that was potentially at cross purposes with an Alter Ego Trust that had been set-up previously. He asked my client if his intention was to give his wife $500,000 through his estate and an additional $500,000 from his Alter Ego Trust. My client replied that he only intended to give his wife $500,000 in total.

It turns out that years ago when my client remarried, he had a new will drafted that gave his new spouse a life interest in the home and $500,000 cash from his investment portfolio. As the years passed, it became apparent his only son and new wife did not see eye to eye. To deal with this situation, my client’s accountant recommended he settle an Alter Ego Trust.

My client then met with a new lawyer to create the Alter Ego Trust. He instructed the lawyer that it was his intention to give $500,000 of his estate to his spouse and the rest of his estate to his son. The lawyer, unaware that a $500,000 provision for his wife already existed in his original will, wrote this provision into the Alter Ego Trust. This resulted in a potential $1,000,000 obligation to his spouse, while potentially leaving his son out in the cold, which was not his intention. The new lawyer then redrafted the will to reflect the actual wishes of my client.

Another example of the benefit of cohesive advice is a client couple who wanted to retire and sell their respective 25% interests in a company that they owned with another couple. I had some concerns about certain assets reflected on the company's balance sheet, so I recommended to my clients that they have the financials reviewed by a lawyer and an accountant that I work with to determine if my concerns were well-founded and whether they had any recommendations. My client's agreed to the review. When the tax lawyer and accountant reviewed the company financials, they discovered that the company owned a condominium and also had a corporate insurance policy with significant cash value. As a result, the company did not meet the requirements of a qualified small business corporation (QSBC) and neither shareholder was entitled to their $750,000 lifetime capital gains exemption as the company was currently constituted.

Since the value of the company was approximately $1,200,000 and the shares had no adjusted cost base, the additional income tax owing would have been in the neighbourhood of $250,000 if the company could not be restructured to qualify for the capital gains exemption. However, we were able to work with their accountant and lawyer to restructure and purify their company by selling the condominium. I also arranged to have their insurance agent transfer the insurance policies form the company into their personal names. This process took two years and once the offending assets were removed they found a buyer to purchase their company shares. While there were some costs and taxes involved in selling the condominium and transferring the insurance policies out of the company into their personal names, these costs were minimal compared to the approximately $250,000 in combined tax savings to the shareholders.

In the process of working with this client, the accountant that I worked with discovered that their partners owned a holding company. He noted that the company had two $450,000 insurance policies on each of the partners. He had the insurance agent we work with review the policies. The agent found that the policies were owned by the company, the insurance payments were made by the company and the beneficiaries were the insured couple. This posed a significant tax liability should either of the insured die. When a company makes payments on an insurance policy on behalf of the insured and the insured’s estate receives the proceeds; the proceeds are taxable to the estate (Bloggers note: if the shareholders reported a personal taxable benefit for the insurance paid by their corporation on their behalf, the CRA typically does not deem the insurance proceeds taxable, although some professionals think the proceeds are taxable even if a benefit was reported).

To correct this, our insurance agent arranged to have my client’s insurance agent change the beneficiary of the policies form the insured’s estate to the company. This way the insurance proceeds will be received by the company tax free, and can then be paid as a dividend to the surviving shareholder tax free through the corporation’s capital dividend account. Soon after the changes were made the husband passed away and the spouse received the full $450,000 insurance proceeds tax free, saving her almost $220,000 in taxes.

These real life examples help illustrate the importance of seeking advice from a cohesive team of professionals, who work together to understand your complete financial picture. Otherwise you may find yourself inadvertently, negatively impacting your financial well-being.

Adrian Spitters, FSCI, CFP, FMA, is a Senior Financial Planner with Assante Capital Management Ltd in Abbotsford, BC. Adrian has extensive business experience that includes over two decades of helping individuals, business owners, professionals, and high-net worth families. For further information please visit http://www.assante.com/advisors/aspitters/ or contact Adrian at aspitters@assante.com

The blogs posted on The Blunt Bean Counter provide information of a general nature. These posts should not be considered specific advice; as each reader's personal financial situation is unique and fact specific. Please contact a professional advisor prior to implementing or acting upon any of the information contained in one of the blogs.