The Best of The Blunt Bean Counter - What Small Business Owners Need to Know - The Debits and Credits of Shareholder Loans

This summer I am posting the "best of" The Blunt Bean Counter blog while I work on my golf game. Today, I am re-posting a March, 2017 blog on what you as a small business owner need to know and understand about the debits and credits of your shareholder loan balance.

________

As an owner-manager, you can withdraw funds from your corporation as a salary and/or a dividend or as a shareholder loan. The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has incorporated strict guidelines into the Income Tax Act (Act) when shareholder loans have to be repaid and the tax consequences therein. These rules are often misunderstood by shareholders and can result in adverse income tax consequences where care is not taken.

The following discussion relates to situations where you have taken more shareholder loans than you have contributed to your corporation. This is often known as a shareholder “debit” as opposed to a shareholder “credit." A shareholder credits results when your corporation owes you money, since you have advanced funds or loaned back salary or dividends in a prior year on which you were personally taxed.

The Rules

Section 15(2) of the Act outlines these rules which also encompass loans to a person or partnership who does not deal at arm’s length (i.e., family members) with the shareholder.

The basic rule for shareholder loans is that they must be repaid within one year after the end of the corporation’s taxation year in which the loan was made. For example, if you borrow money from your corporation in 2016 and the corporation's fiscal year end is December 31, 2016, the loan must be repaid by December 31, 2017. If the amount is not repaid within the time frame above, it will be added to the income of the shareholder in the year the loan was received (i.e., 2016 in this example). Therefore, a T1 adjustment may be necessary for the shareholder to correctly include the loan in income in that particular year (2016) plus accompanying interest. If anyone related to the shareholder receives the loan the amount will be included in his/her income and not the shareholder.

The Exceptions

There are some exceptions to the 15(2) shareholder loan rules which would allow the loan amount not to be included in an individual’s income. If any of the criteria below are met than 15(2) does NOT apply:

i) If the loan was repaid within one taxation year;

ii) If the loan was made in the course of a money lending business i.e. bank, and bona fide terms of repayment are made.

Employees/Shareholders Exceptions

Absent of the criteria above, certain types of loans may still be exempt from 15(2) as described below for shareholders who are also employees of their business.

If the loan is to a specified employee (person who owns directly or together with related persons more than 10% of the shares of the business) the loan must be made for one of the following purposes:

1) Purchase a home (includes a house, condo, cottage);

2) Purchase a vehicle used for employment purposes; or

3) Purchase newly issued shares of the business.

Each of these loans must have bona fide arrangements for repayment within a reasonable time period and the loan must be provided as a result of the individual’s employment rather than shareholdings. This has generally been interpreted to mean that loans must be available to other employees who are not shareholders or related to shareholders, which could be difficult to prove if the owner is the sole employee of the business and preclude the loan where you have employees (unless you provide such loans to all other employees, which is very unlikely).

Where loans are made for a home purchase, the CRA often audits the loan and it can be problematic if not impossible to prove such a loan would have been made to other employees if there actually were such. As result of this burden of proof, where housing loans were once routinely recommended by accountants, they are now typically selectively recommended.

If the loan is to an employee-shareholder who deals at arm’s length with the corporation and together with related persons own less than 10% of the shares then the loan can be made for any purpose. This provides an exception for many employees who are minority shareholders. However, similar to specified employees above, the loan must have bona fide arrangements for repayment within a reasonable time period and the loan must be provided as a result of the individual’s employment rather than shareholdings.

Interest Benefits

Section 80.4(2) of the ITA provides for an imputed interest benefit if 15(2) does not apply. Meaning if the shareholder loan does not have to be included in income, a deemed interest benefit will still need to be reported by the individual. This interest benefit arises when the interest rate charged (if any) on the shareholder loan is less than the CRA prescribed rates per quarter - currently at 1%. The amount of the interest benefit is reduced by any interest actually paid on the loan no later than 30 days after the end of the calendar year.

If the loan is included in income by virtue of 15(2) than no imputed interest benefit would be reported.

Questions to Ask

Some of the key questions to ask when an individual shareholder or connected person (e.g. daughter) receives a loan:

1) Is it reasonable to assume the loan was received by virtue of employment?

2) Is the individual receiving the loan a specified employee (i.e., owns more than 10% of any class of shares of the corporation)? If so, was the loan made to acquire a dwelling, vehicle or shares are described above?

3) Are there bona fide terms of repayment?

If the answer is NO to any of the questions above, 15(2) applies to include the loan in income, unless the entire loan is repaid within one taxation year. Repayment of all or part of the loan that has been included in income will be eligible for a deduction by the individual on his/her personal tax return in the year of repayment.

It is very important that the loan(s) not be considered to be a series of loans and repayments or else CRA could deny the deduction upon repayment. E.g. repaying an amount at the end of 2016 only to borrow again in 2017. One of the more common ways to reduce or eliminate a shareholder loan is to convert it into a salary, bonus or dividend. Since this gives rise to taxable income, it is generally not considered to be a series of loans and repayments.

See Archived IT119R4 for more details and exceptions regarding shareholder loans.

Section 15(2) is one of the most commonly applied and misunderstood sections of the Act. You should always consult your accountant or tax specialist when dealing and planning with your shareholder loans.

I would like to thank Lorenzo Bonanno, tax manager for BDO Canada LLP for his extensive assistance in writing this post. If you wish to engage Lorenzo for tax planning, he can be reached at lbonanno@bdo.ca

The content on this blog has been carefully prepared, but it has been written in general terms and should be seen as broad guidance only. The blog cannot be relied upon to cover specific situations and you should not act, or refrain from acting, upon the information contained therein without obtaining specific professional advice. Please contact BDO Canada LLP to discuss these matters in the context of your particular circumstances. BDO Canada LLP, its partners, employees and agents do not accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any loss arising from any action taken or not taken by anyone in reliance on the information on this blog or for any decision based on it.

Please note the blog posts are time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation.

BDO Canada LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership, is a member of BDO International Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, and forms part of the international BDO network of independent member firms. BDO is the brand name for the BDO network and for each of the BDO Member Firms.

CRA Adjustment and Information Requests and Tax Update

Today, I provide an update on what I am seeing between my clients and the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) as far as T1 Adjustment Requests, personal and corporate information requests and administration issues. I also provide a reminder relating to Deferred Security (Stock) Option Benefit balances.

T1 Adjustment Requests

A T1 Adjustment Request is probably the most often filed tax form with the CRA. You or your accountant would use this form to report a late received tax slip, an amended tax slip, information that was inadvertently missed, or anything else that should have been reported or claimed as a deduction and was not on your return.

The CRA is often inundated with these forms and last week I was told there could be up to a 6-7-month turnaround on the reassessment of a T1 adjustment; so keep this in mind if you are waiting for a response on a previously filed T1 Adjustment Request or filing a request.

I was also informed by a CRA representative, that the CRA can only process one T1 adjustment per taxpayer at a time (I was not aware of this) and thus, if you have an adjustment in progress, wait until it is resolved before sending in the second adjustment.

Information Requests

These requests continue to arrive on a frequent basis for my clients:

Personal Tax Requests

For personal tax returns, the information request which is essentially a request to provide back-up documents to substantiate deductions and credits claimed on your 2017 tax return, continue, as in prior years, to be typically for the following deductions and credits:

Medical receipts – I have noted in prior blog posts, make your life easier: ask your pharmacy and medical practitioner to print out one yearly receipt. That way you won’t need to provide 20 or 50 individual receipts when you receive a request.

Donation receipts – Typically for larger donation claims.

Tuition Tax Credit – This request is typically for the children of taxpayers attending University, especially when outside Canada. These claims often indirectly also affect the parents, as their child may have transferred up to $5,000 in tuition credits to their parent.

Corporate Information Tax Requests

These requests seemingly arrive daily for my corporate clients. Surprisingly to me, the majority of these request still relate to professional fees (I noted this in a prior blog post). Clients are still getting requests to support their professional fee claims as far back as 2015.

I can only presume the CRA has had some success in the last two years reviewing such claims. I am not sure exactly what they are finding, but I would guess personal type expenses such as professional fees for matrimonial or family law advice, will preparation and/or corporate organizations (that often need to be amortized rather than deducted on a current basis) are the type of expenses they are looking at. But that is just my own conjecture.

If you receive a brown CRA envelope in the mail, there is probably a  good chance you will be asked to provide back-up documentation for one of the above type requests.

Deferred Security (Stock) Option Benefits

I have noticed over the last couple years that some new clients have reminders on their Notice of Assessment that they have deferred stock option balances (from where they deferred reporting the stock option benefit on stocks they owned between 2000-2010). I don't want to get into the details of this, since the history is fairly complex. I just want to remind you that if you previously elected to defer stock option benefits, ensure you keep track of the benefits deferred (you should be filing a Form T1212) and what stock they relate; since if you sell the stock, the benefits need to be reported.

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation. Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.

What Small Business Owners Need to Know - Management Fees - The Importance of Having Proper Support

Management fees may be used to reduce taxes amongst a corporate group and/or to gain access to a greater small business deduction (i.e.: a company with taxable income pays a management fee to reduce its taxable income to a related company with losses that can absorb the management fee income and not pay taxes).

In other cases, management fees are used by an owner-manager as a “lazy” way to pay salaries to the owner.

Sometimes these fees are well thought out and supported with documentation. However, I also see these fees paid recklessly. In either case, the use of management fees have some risk associated with them, as they are often challenged by the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") where they are not considered reasonable and justifiable. 

Today, Howard Kazdan, a tax expert with BDO Canada LLP, discusses management fees and what kind of support is suggested to strengthen the payer’s case for deducting such fees.

I thank Howard for his excellent post

Management Fees – The Importance Of Having Proper Support

By Howard Kazdan

As noted above, management fees are often used as a tax planning tool. Of course, to be effective, the fees must be deductible to the payer.

The criteria that are required for the management fees to be considered deductible, were established by the courts many years ago:

1. The expense must have been incurred (either actually paid or subject to a legal liability to pay);

2. The fees must have been incurred for the purpose of income from a business and

3. The fees must be reasonable in the circumstances.

In order to make a determination of whether the fees are deductible, the courts may:

1. Require documentation to support the expense, for example an intercompany agreement and/or invoices for work done.

Where the only documentation for intercompany fees is an accounting journal entry, the courts have concluded that such entries are not sufficient to establish that the amount was incurred during the year and represent a true liability at year end.

2. Require evidence from the corporation describing what services were provided and how incurring the expense contributed to the process of earning income.

3. Require evidence of the basis for the amount of fee, since a bona fide fee for service should be based on services performed and not profit. If a payment is based on profit (which may not be known until after year end) the CRA may argue that the payment is a distribution of profit and not a deductible expense.

The CRA has administratively allowed corporations to bonus down to the small business limit and considered such bonuses as reasonable when paid as salary to owner-managers. This administrative position is not available when such amounts are paid as management fees. In the latter case, the CRA will look at the nature of services performed, the time spent to perform those services and whether the fees paid are similar to what would be paid to other arm’s length sources.

Taking the above into consideration, successful claims of management fees that have been subject to CRA review and the courts have the following similarities: 

(a) written management fee agreements/service arrangements be in place describing services, fees, responsibilities

(b) documentation of a bona-fide business purpose for the intercompany fee (for example, use of a management corporation to keep compensation of key management confidential). 

(c) adequate records to keep track of services provided (time sheets)

(d) periodic invoicing rather than only once at the end of the year

(e) company rendering the servicing invoice should have the staff and ability to provide the services. 

(f) the fee should be based on services provided, not profit.

Claims which have not been as successful generally lack the above noted characteristics (for example, there is no agreement; could not provide details of services provided; company earning the income did not have the ability to provide the services; general lack of documentation other than journal entries).

In reviewing management fees, the CRA may send a questionnaire. It is possible that even if the deduction is disallowed in one entity, the company including the fees as income will still be taxed (effectively double taxation). This is why you will want clear documentation that fees are bona-fide management fees and treated consistently each year. 

Don’t forget that such fees may be subject to GST/HST unless the entities qualify for the closely related exception and the Form RC4616 has been properly filed. 

In addition to the criteria already discussed, an additional reason to issue invoices is GST/HST. An invoice will provide clarity on timing of when GST/HST is payable (i.e. when fee becomes legally enforceable) and ensure there is adequate documentation for the company incurring the expense, in support of any ITCs claimed.

If you or your related companies use management fees as a tax planning tool, ensure you review the criteria noted above with your accountant. 

Howard Kazdan is a Senior Tax Manager with BDO Canada LLP. If you would like to engage Howard for tax planning, he can be reached at 905-946-5459 or by email at hkazdan@bdo.ca

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation. Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.

What Small Business Owners Need to Know - The Debits and Credits of Shareholder Loans

As an owner-manager, you can withdraw funds from your corporation as a salary and/or a dividend or as a shareholder loan. The Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) has incorporated strict guidelines into the Income Tax Act (”Act’) when shareholder loans have to be repaid and the tax consequences therein. These rules are often misunderstood by shareholders and can result in adverse income tax consequences where care is not taken.

The following discussion relates to situations where you have taken more shareholder loans than you have contributed to your corporation. This is often known as a shareholder “debit” as opposed to a shareholder “credit”. A shareholder credits results when your corporation owes you money, since you have advanced funds or loaned back salary or dividends in a prior year on which you were personally taxed.

The Rules

Section 15(2) of the Act outlines these rules which also encompass loans to a person or partnership who does not deal at arm’s length (i.e. family members) with the shareholder.

The basic rule for shareholder loans is that they must be repaid within one year after the end of the corporation’s taxation year in which the loan was made. For example, if you borrow money from your corporation in 2016 and the corporation's fiscal year end is December 31, 2016, the loan must be repaid by December 31, 2017. If the amount is not repaid within the time frame above, it will be added to the income of the shareholder in the year the loan was received (i.e. 2016 in this example). Therefore, a T1 adjustment may be necessary for the shareholder to correctly include the loan in income in that particular year (2016) plus accompanying interest. If anyone related to the shareholder receives the loan the amount will be included in his/her income and not the shareholder.

The Exceptions

There are some exceptions to the 15(2) shareholder loan rules which would allow the loan amount not to be included in an individual’s income. If any of the criteria below are met than 15(2) does NOT apply:

i) If the loan was repaid within one taxation year;

ii) If the loan was made in the course of a money lending business i.e. bank, and bona fide terms of repayment are made.

Employees/Shareholders Exceptions

Absent of the criteria above, certain types of loans may still be exempt from 15(2) as described below for shareholders who are also employees of their business.

If the loan is to a specified employee (person who owns directly or together with related persons more than 10% of the shares of the business) the loan must be made for one of the following purposes:

1) Purchase a home (includes a house, condo, cottage);

2) Purchase a vehicle used for employment purposes; or,

3) Purchase newly issued shares of the business.

Each of these loans must have bona fide arrangements for repayment within a reasonable time period and the loan must be provided as a result of the individual’s employment rather than shareholdings. This has generally been interpreted to mean that loans must be available to other employees who are not shareholders or related to shareholders, which could be difficult to prove if the owner is the sole employee of the business and preclude the loan where you have employees (unless you provide such loans to all other employees, which is very unlikely).

Where loans are made for a home purchase, the CRA often audits the loan and it can be problematic if not impossible to prove such a loan would have been made to other employees if there actually were such. As result of this burden of proof, where housing loans were once routinely recommended by accountants, they are now typically selectively recommended.

If the loan is to an employee-shareholder who deals at arm’s length with the corporation and together with related persons own less than 10% of the shares then the loan can be made for any purpose. This provides an exception for many employees who are minority shareholders. However, similar to specified employees above, the loan must have bona fide arrangements for repayment within a reasonable time period and the loan must be provided as a result of the individual’s employment rather than shareholdings.

Interest Benefits

Section 80.4(2) of the ITA provides for an imputed interest benefit if 15(2) does not apply. Meaning if the shareholder loan does not have to be included in income, a deemed interest benefit will still need to be reported by the individual. This interest benefit arises when the interest rate charged (if any) on the shareholder loan is less than the CRA prescribed rates per quarter - currently at 1%. The amount of the interest benefit is reduced by any interest actually paid on the loan no later than 30 days after the end of the calendar year.

If the loan is included in income by virtue of 15(2) than no imputed interest benefit would be reported.

Questions to Ask

Some of the key questions to ask when an individual shareholder or connected person (e.g. daughter) receives a loan:

1) Is it reasonable to assume the loan was received by virtue of employment?

2) Is the individual receiving the loan a specified employee? (I.e. owns more than 10% of any class of shares of the corporation). If so, was the loan made to acquire a dwelling, vehicle or shares are described above?

3) Are there bona fide terms of repayment?

If the answer is NO to any of the questions above, 15(2) applies to include the loan in income, unless the entire loan is repaid within one taxation year. Repayment of all or part of the loan that has been included in income will be eligible for a deduction by the individual on his/her personal tax return in the year of repayment.

It is very important that the loan(s) not be considered to be a series of loans and repayments or else CRA could deny the deduction upon repayment. E.g. repaying an amount at the end of 2016 only to borrow again in 2017. One of the more common ways to reduce or eliminate a shareholder loan is to convert it into a salary, bonus or dividend. Since this gives rise to taxable income, it is generally not considered to be a series of loans and repayments.

See Archived IT119R4 for more details and exceptions regarding shareholder loans.

Section 15(2) is one of the most commonly applied and misunderstood sections of the Act. You should always consult your accountant or tax specialist when dealing and planning with your shareholder loans.

I would like to thank Lorenzo Bonanno, tax manager for BDO Canada LLP for his extensive assistance in writing this post. If you wish to engage Lorenzo for tax planning, he can be reached at lbonanno@bdo.ca

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation. Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.

The CRA’s 2016 Compliance Letter Campaign

Since 2010, the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") has been sending letters to specific Canadians to in their words “inform selected taxpayers about their tax obligations and to encourage them to correct any inaccuracies in their past income tax and benefit returns”. The 2016 campaign, for which the CRA estimates it will send approximately 30,000 letters, has already begun. Today I will discuss

A better caption would be "You Are Maybe Getting Audited"

these letters.

Favoured Taxpayers

The letters are sent to selected groups of individuals where the CRA feels the taxpayers may not fully grasp the technicalities regarding the deductibility of specific expenses. These groups tend to fall into the following three main categories:

1. Self-employed business owners

2. Commission employees

3. Rental property owners

Expenses That Catch the CRA's Eye

The letters tend to focus on the following type of expenses:

Self-employed and commission employees
 

• Advertising and promotion, specifically meals and entertainment

• Wages, often in relation to spouses and for commission employees, any deductions for assistants

• Auto expenses, especially the quantum of business related mileage

• Home office use

Rental property owners 

• Capital cost additions (cost of property)

• Repairs and maintenance

• Travel expenses

 

What the Letters Look Like

The typical compliance letter will say something like this:

“You have reported $XX of XX expenses in 2014 as business/employment expenses/rental expenses. The CRA is asking you to review this amount as taxpayers often make common errors with XX expenses”…….

The CRA includes an appendix with a detailed description of the expense they are reviewing and what the criteria are to qualify for deducting the expense at issue.

The letters clearly state that you are not being audited at this time, but that if changes are required you should make them within 45 days using a T1-Adjustment Form. The CRA also notes that later in the year they will be auditing taxpayers who earn a certain type of income and claim certain types of expenses. They then add that an audit may cover tax years or other items not noted in the compliance letter.

Since in cases other than misrepresentation, the CRA can audit you three years back from the date of your notice of assessment, you can be at risk for three years of audit review.

Obviously, the audit discussion scares the heck out of most people, even where they have properly claimed their expenses.

The Possibility of Being Audited

On its website, the CRA says the following regarding the possibility of an audit.

“Receiving this letter does not necessarily mean that you will be selected for an audit. We consider a number of risk factors before conducting audits.

We rely on risk-assessment systems and research to determine which taxpayers are most likely to misunderstand their tax obligations. We also randomly select tax returns and conduct reviews to verify that taxpayers are paying their taxes in full and on time. If our review indicates that certain activities are more at risk for non-compliance than others, we may conduct more audits of taxpayers reporting these types of activities”.

Should You Be Concerned if You Receive a Letter?

I would suggest, that in the vast majority of situations, taxpayers have claimed expenses that are within the rules of the Income Tax Act ("ITA") and adjustments will typically not be required. The ITA rules can be interpreted differently and while most people attempt to stay on the straight and narrow, some people push to the grey areas. If you are one of those people, you may want to consider a possible adjustment if your grey is hinging on black. In addition, some people do not keep the best of records to support their deductions and that could be a cause for concern.

If you have an accountant, you should speak to them once you receive the letter. They can review with you, if they perceive you to have any audit risk.

If you do not have an accountant, you will need to consider if you have been “aggressive” in claiming deductions or misinterpreted the rules. If so, filing the T1 adjustment may make sense.

You are probably wondering if filing a T1 adjustment will minimize the risk of an audit? Unfortunately, I cannot answer that question, as I have no access to the rates of follow-up audits on those who have filed T1-adjustments. If I had to guess, filing an adjustment would only minimally affect a future audit (you cleaned up your affairs, but are noting they were not clean to begin with), but again, I have no substantive proof one way or another and this is just my opinion.

If you feel you have filed your return accurately and correctly, you do not need to take any action. However, there is no guarantee you will not be audited and that the CRA will not reassess you on expenses claimed (since your interpretation of what is say a deductible advertising expense may be different than the CRA’s, even if you feel it clearly meets the criteria of the ITA).

So the long and short of this; if you have filed your returns accurately, you have no need to fear these letters. However, the letter may be indicative you have claimed expenses the CRA has found are often claimed incorrectly or aggressively and you may be audited in the future.

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation.

CRA Audit Update for Individuals and Corporations

There is probably no five letter word that strikes more fear into your heart and pocketbook than the word "AUDIT". We are anxious receiving any letter from the CRA, in case it is the dreaded "you have been selected for audit" letter. So today, I thought I would provide you with a mini update on some interesting wording the CRA is now using in audit adjustment proposal letters. For those of you that own small or mid-sized companies, I provide some information on audit selection criteria and what is happening in the small and medium-sized enterprises ("SME") audit area.

Audit Proposal Letters

Gross negligence penalties under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act can be imposed when the CRA can show that a taxpayer knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, makes a false statement or omission in a tax return. The penalty for doing such is equal to the greater of $100 and 50% of the tax due to the false statement or omission.

This subsection has been applied sparingly by the CRA in the past. However, lately I have seen reference to this subsection in a number of audit adjustment proposal letters where the CRA states it is considering imposing penalties. It appears this wording may have become common or standard wording in audit proposal letters, likely to provide the CRA greater leeway to levy the penalty if the facts of the situation later lend themselves to a negligence penalty. This type of language can be scary to clients who receive the audit proposal letter, but have not done anything untoward, and would not be anywhere close to being subject to the gross negligence provision.

Thus, if you receive such a letter, do not "freak-out" if the letter has the gross negligence paragraph, it is not necessarily directed at you.

SME Audits

One of the audit initiatives the CRA has is the SME sector. No one knows for sure how a SME is selected for audit, but it is thought that the CRA uses a risk-assessment system to select businesses for an audit based on various factors. Some of these factors may include:

1. Random Selection - You hit the reverse jackpot and your company is just randomly selected.

2. Audit Tips - This is the worst possible way to be selected. This usually involves a disgruntled spouse, employee or ex-partner. They can be vindictive with knowledge they actually have or think they have that may not even be factual.

3. Past Errors or Non-compliance - This would include revised and amended returns, late filing of corporate and HST returns.

4. Comparative Information -Corporate tax returns must include General Indexed Financial Information known as "GIFI". This information provides a comparative year to year summary of income and expenses. It is suspected by many accountants that the CRA uses this information to review year to year expense and income variances of the filing corporation and to also compare corporations within a similar industry sector to identify those outside the standard ratios.

5. Cash Transaction Industry - If your company is in an industry in which the CRA has seen other companies involved in cash transactions, you are at a high risk for an audit, even if you are compliant. In addition, even if your industry is not known as a "cash industry", if several companies in your space have had audit issues, the entire sector comes under scrutiny.

Record Keeping and Personal Records

The CRA perceives many SME's to have less than stellar record keeping. They also find that many small business owners tend to mix their personal and business expenses (so when your accountant tells you to get a separate credit card for your business, please listen to them).

As result of the above, the CRA may now request personal records such as your personal bank statements, mortgage documents and personal credit card statements to support the SME's expenses. This is something new and upsetting to clients. As per this CRA link to business audits, the CRA states:

• Your personal records and the personal or business records of other individuals or entities are legally considered to be part of the items that relate, or may relate, to the business being audited.
• An auditor can examine the records of family members.
• An auditor may ask questions of the employees who do your accounting entries or know about the operations of your business.

You should speak to your accountant if you get such a request; however, the reality is the CRA feels they are legally entitled to these records and while some disagree, until there is a court case to  the contrary, you will probably be stuck having to provide these records.

Working Backwards

It appears that the CRA is now auditing parallel tracks (business and personal). They audit your actual corporation, while at the same time they are reviewing your net worth and sources of personal funds to support your corporate income and expenses. This new audit tack requires significant time and energy to provide such information (which is often not easily accessible), let alone significant stress. In addition, you may now need to document legitimate non-taxable sources of funds, such as gifts and inheritances, in order to support that they are not subject to tax.

I assume reading this post is not the way you wanted to start your Monday morning. But I figured you rather know what is happening on the audit front than not. Or maybe not :)

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation.

The Best of The Blunt Bean Counter - Dealing With the Canada Revenue Agency

This summer I am posting the "best of" The Blunt Bean Counter blog while I work on my golf game. Today, I am re-posting a May, 2011 post on dealing with the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") that is as relevant today as it was four years ago. I would not be surprised if many of you have not already received an information request as detailed below. I know I have already received 25 to 30 of these requests to date, in relation to my client's e-filed tax returns.

Dealing With the Canada Revenue Agency

I discuss below, the six typical circumstances by which an individual may end up dealing with the CRA during the year. 

The least worrisome of the six situations is where you initiate contact with the CRA to report a late income tax slip (such as a T3 or T5 slip), or you realize you missed a deduction or credit (such as a donation slip, medical expense or RRSP receipt). These situations are very straight forward and relatively painless. You or your accountant file a T1 adjustment request using form T1-ADJ E to report the additional income or claim the additional expense or credit. You would typically attach the receipt to the form and most of these requests are processed without further query from the CRA.

The second circumstance is where you receive an information request from the CRA. These requests often strike fear into my client's hearts, but are typically harmless. In this situation, the CRA usually sends a letter asking for back up relating to a deduction or credit claimed on the return. Generally these requests by the CRA are to provide support for items such as a donation tax credit, medical expense claim, a child care expense claim, a children's fitness tax credit claim or an interest expense claim. These requests are fairly common and more often than not, relate to personal income tax returns that are e-filed. You have 30 days to respond to these requests, however, time extensions are typically granted if you call the CRA and request such.

The third situation, and a step up on the anxiety meter, is the receipt of a Notice of Reassessment (“NOR”) from the CRA. A NOR may be issued for numerous reasons such as; not responding to an information request, the receipt by CRA of a T3/T4/T5 slip that was not reported in your return, or a reassessment based on an audit or review of your return as discussed below.

The fourth circumstance is typically not pleasant. Under this scenario, the CRA has selected you for an audit, either randomly or because you have come to their attention for some reason. An audit can take the form of a desk audit which is less intrusive or a full-blown field audit. Desk audits are typically undertaken to review a specific item that the CRA finds unusual in nature and you have 30 days to respond.

A full-blown audit could encompass a review of self-employment expenses, significant expense or deduction claims, or a full review of your personal or corporate income tax filings for a specific year or multiple years. In this situation, you will be sent a letter requesting certain information and you will be required to provide such to a CRA auditor. This process could take months, and if the CRA auditor is not satisfied by your documentation, or reasons for claiming certain expenses or deductions, they will issue a revised NOR.

Upon the receipt of the reassessment, you will have to determine, likely in conjunction with your accountant, whether the CRA’s assessment is justified. If you don’t feel it is justified, you need to consider if the amount of reassessed tax is significant enough to warrant the time and energy to fight the reassessment. If you decide to "fight" the reassessment, you and/or your accountant would file a Form T400A Notice of Objection. In this fifth situation, the Notice of Objection would state the facts of your situation and the reasons that you object to the CRA’s reassessment. The objection will then be reviewed (probably months later) by a CRA representative and you can make and support your case as to why the CRA has incorrectly assessed or reassessed you.

It is very important to make sure that you file a Notice of Objection on a timely basis. For an individual (other than a trust) the time limit for filing an objection is whichever of the following two dates is later: one year after the date of the returns filing deadline; or 90 days after the day the CRA mailed the reassessment. For corporations, the time limit is 90 days.

Finally, the sixth and final situation, and last resort, is to go to tax court because your Notice of Objection was not successful. There is an informal tax court procedure if your income tax owing is less than $12,000. Where the income tax owing exceeds $12,000, the process becomes formal and is costly and time consuming.

The above summarizes the various circumstances and situations under which you may deal with the CRA in any given year. Hopefully if you have any contact with the CRA it is only in connection to situation #1 or #2.

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation.

The Best of The Blunt Bean Counter - Cottages - Cost Base Additions, are They a New CRA Audit Target?

This summer I am posting the "best of" The Blunt Bean Counter blog while I work on my golf game. Today, I am re-posting a May, 2012 blog on cost base additions to your cottage. You may want to print this out and read it while you have a beer at your cottage next weekend and then search your cottage for all your missing receipts :)

Cottages - Cost Base Additions, are They a New CRA Audit Target?

Canadians have a love affair with their cottages. They enjoy the fresh air, the tranquility, the loons calling out, drinks on the dock, the gathering of friends and family and in many cases; they often enjoy a substantial financial profit on their cottage properties.

When a cottage property has increased in value, it often brings unwanted income tax and estate planning issues. I wrote about some of these issues a year ago April, in a three part series for the Canadian Capitalist titled Transferring the Family Cottage - There is no Panacea. In Part 1, I discuss the historical nature of the income tax rules, while in Part 2 I discuss the income tax implications of transferring or gifting a cottage and finally in Part 3 I discuss alternative income tax planning opportunities that may mitigate or defer income tax upon the transfer of a family cottage.

Today, I want to discuss the fact that the CRA seems to be looking at cottage sales as audit targets and in particular, they are reviewing additions to the original adjusted cost base (“ACB”) of the cottage.

Income Tax Issues

Before I charge ahead with this post, I think a quick income tax primer is in order. Prior to 1982, a taxpayer and their spouse could each designate their own principal residence (“PR”) and each could claim their own principal residence exemption (“PRE”). Therefore, where a family owned a cottage and a family home, each spouse could potentially claim their own PRE, one on the cottage and one on the family home, and accordingly the sale of both properties would be tax-free.

Alas, the taxman felt this treatment was too generous and changed the Income Tax Act. Beginning in 1982 a family unit (a family unit of the taxpayer includes the taxpayers spouse or common-law partner and unmarried children that are 18 years old or younger) could only designate one principal residence between them for each tax year after 1981.

As if the above is not complex enough, anyone selling a cottage must also consider the following ACB adjustments:

1. If your cottage was purchased prior to 1972, you will need to know the fair market value (“FMV”) on December 31, 1971; the FMV of your cottage on this date became your cost base when the CRA brought in capital gains taxation.

2. In 1994 the CRA eliminated the $100,000 capital gains exemption; however, they allowed taxpayers to elect to bump the ACB of properties such as real estate to their FMV to a maximum of $100,000 (subject to some restrictions not worth discussing here). Many Canadians took advantage of this election and increased the ACB of their cottages.

3. Many people have inherited cottages. When someone passes away, they are deemed to dispose of their capital property at the FMV on the date of their death (unless the property is transferred to their spouse). The person inheriting the property assumes the deceased's FMV on their death, as their ACB. 

The Principal Residence Exemption

As noted above, if you owned a cottage prior to 1982, you can make a PRE claim for those years on your cottage. Where the per year gain on your cottage is in excess of the per year gain on your home, you may want to consider whether for years after 1982, it makes sense to allocate the PRE to your cottage instead of your home, if you have not already used the PRE on prior home or cottage sales. In these cases, I would suggest professional advice due to the complexity of the rules. In completing the PR Designation tax form (T2091), there are cases where you may need the ACB and FMV at December 31, 1981, but I will ignore this issue for purposes of this discussion.

Putting together the pieces of the ACB Puzzle

So how do all these rules come together in determining your ACB? First, if you owned your cottage prior to 1972, you will need to determine the FMV at December 31, 1971 as that is your opening ACB. If you purchased the cottage after 1971, but before 1994, your ACB will be your purchase cost plus legal and land transfer costs. Next, you will have to determine whether you increased your ACB by electing to bump your ACB in 1994.

If you inherited the property, you will need to find out the FMV of the cottage on the date of the death of the person you inherited the property from. If the property was inherited before 1994, you will have to determine whether you increased your ACB by electing in 1994.

Finally, most people have made various capital improvements to their cottages over the years. For income tax purposes, these improvements are added to the ACB you have determined above. Examples of capital improvements would be the addition of a deck, a dock, a new roof or new windows that were better than the original roof or windows, new well or pump. General repairs are not capital improvements and you cannot value your own work if you are the handyman type. I would argue however, that the cost of materials for a capital improvement would qualify if you do the work yourself.

Unfortunately, many people do not keep track of these improvements nor do they keep their receipts (in addition, I suspect one or two cottage owners may have done the occasional cash deal with various contractors for which there will not be a supporting invoice), which brings us to the CRA, who appear to be auditing the sale of cottages more intently.

I think it was six pages back I said something about a quick income tax primer before I discussed the CRA audit issue :(

The Audit Issue

Anyways, on to the audit issue (or more properly called an information request). Some accountants think the CRA is going directly to cottage municipalities to determine cottages that have been sold and then tracking the owners to ensure they have reflected the disposition for income tax purposes. Others think the CRA is just following up reported dispositions of cottages on personal income tax returns. In either event, we have seen a couple information requests/audits recently.

So once the CRA decides to review your cottage sale, what are they looking at and what information are they requesting?

Amongst other things they are asking you to support the adjusted cost base of the property, by providing the following:

a. your copy of the original purchase agreement stating the purchase price;

b. the statement of adjustments where the purchase of the property involved the services of a lawyer;

c. if the property was either inherited or purchased in a non-arms length transaction, indicate the FMV of the property on the date of acquisition and supply documentation to support your figure. If the property was inherited, indicate the date of acquisition;

d. a schedule of all capital additions to the property. The schedule must indicate the nature of the addition or improvement (i.e. new roof) as well as the cost.

A and B above just provide the CRA the original ACB. Item C is interesting in that where there was a family sale or inheritance, the CRA is asking for validation of the sale price, but surely it is also cross-checking to see if the family member reported the sale of the cottage and in the case of a deceased person, to ensure the terminal income tax return of the deceased reported the value of the cottage at death.

Item D is where the CRA is zeroing in on; the capital additions, which as I noted above, are often not tracked and source documents are often not maintained.

The CRA is also asking for support of the proceeds of disposition, requesting such items as a copy of the accepted offer to purchase, the statement of adjustments and the full name of the purchaser in addition to their relationship, if any, to you (i.e. relative or otherwise).

They are also asking if while owned by you, was the property your principal residence for any period of time. This relates to the discussion above on whether the gain was larger on your cottage than your house and thus you designated your cottage. The CRA will then most likely confirm you did not sell any other residence during that time period.

Another request is that if you elected to report a capital gain on the property in 1994, they want you to supply a copy of the form T664, Election to Report a Capital Gain on Property Held at the end of February 22, 1994, that was filed with your 1994 income tax return. This is interesting since many people have not kept their older tax returns and I don’t think the CRA keeps its returns that far back. I am not sure what the CRA is doing in cases where taxpayers have destroyed their elections.

In conclusion, if you have sold a cottage in the last couple years, make sure you have all your documentation in place should you receive an information request, and if you currently own a cottage, use this road map to ensure you have updated your cottage ACB and have a file for any documentation needed to support that ACB.

Bloggers Note: Here is a link to an excellent BDO tax memo titled "Calculating cottage capital gains: have you accumulated all eligible costs? " which you may also wish to read. 

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation. Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.

Transfer Pricing - Common Issues & New Documentation Requirements

One of the most nefarious concepts in corporate taxation is transfer pricing. Today I have a guest post by Dan McGeown, an expert on transfer pricing discussing new Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development  ("OECD") documentation guidelines that Canadian companies are expected to follow.

What is Transfer Pricing?

Before we get to Dan’s post, a quick primer on transfer pricing. Transfer prices are the prices charged between related parties for goods, services, assets and/or the right to use intangibles. Transfer prices also include interest on related party debt, guarantee fees and factoring fees. When a transaction involves related parties in two or more different tax jurisdictions, the tax authorities become interested, with the focus being on whether the parties are paying their fair share of tax in each jurisdiction (there are often huge disagreements between countries as they fight over what they consider their share of tax dollars being shifted to another country).

Simply put, transfer pricing revolves around the the setting of the price for goods and services sold between controlled (or related) companies. For example, if a subsidiary company sells goods to a parent company, the cost of those goods is the transfer price.

As a result, transfer prices must be set following the arm’s length principle. The arm’s length principle requires that all transfer prices, and the related terms and conditions, must be established on the same basis as would occur if the parties were not related, i.e., the prices, terms and conditions should reflect what two unrelated parties would agree to in similar circumstances.

Penalties and Traps

In Canada, failing to follow the arm’s length principle exposes the Canadian entity to a 10% penalty on any transfer pricing adjustment made by the CRA. The CRA may not impose that 10% penalty when the entity has made reasonable efforts to determine and use arm’s length prices, as evidenced by preparing and maintaining Contemporaneous Transfer Pricing Documentation.

Dan advises me that some of the common issues that most often trip up Canadian companies include the following:

1. Either no analysis/documentation to support a conclusion that transfer prices are arm’s length, or self-serving analysis/documentation for transfer prices not considered arm’s length;

2. Operating losses incurred in one or more years, with no documented loss justification based on business and/or economic reasons;

3. Fluctuating operating results that are not sufficiently analyzed and documented;

4. Inappropriate cost allocations used in the determination of management services fees, i.e. costs included that would not benefit the recipient of the services; and,

5. Royalty payments being made but lower than acceptable operating results do not justify charging a royalty.

A company’s Transfer Pricing Documentation is its first line of defense in any transfer pricing audit and, therefore, it needs to be prepared from that perspective.

Speaking of documentation, Dan’s post provides an update on changing expectations in respect of transfer pricing and he briefs us on some specific Canadian requirements. I thank Dan for his blog on this controversial income tax issue.

TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION: CHANGING EXPECTATIONS

By Dan McGeown

ERODING TAX BASES

The prolonged recession, and the difficulties many countries were and are still having in balancing budgets and managing debt loads, caused them to focus on the perception that each country’s tax base was being eroded by companies entering into activities that created tax deductions in higher tax jurisdictions with the offsetting income being reported in low tax or no tax jurisdictions, i.e., Base Erosion. In addition, many companies were moving valuable intangibles and/or value-adding activities to low tax or no tax jurisdictions to reduce the company’s overall effective tax rate, i.e., Profit Shifting strategies.

As result of this base erosion, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) is now calling for three distinct levels of documentation, being: a Master File; Local Country Files; and Country-by-Country Reporting (“CBCR”). For Canadian companies both the Master File and CBCR are new requirements.

Master File

The Master File will provide: a high-level overview of the group of companies; the value chain and value drivers; a description of intangibles and where they are located; financial arrangements; where functions are performed, risks are borne and assets are employed; and the consolidated financial and tax position for the group.

Local File

The Local File for a Canadian company is the Study prepared to comply with section 247 of the Income Tax Act, focusing on the specifics relating to intercompany transactions with other companies in the group. The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”) impact on Local Files is that there must be more detailed analysis and documentation regarding risks, intangibles, financing and capital transactions, and high risk transactions.

Country-by-Country Report

CBCR is effectively a risk assessment tool for the tax authorities around the world. CBCR reports jurisdiction-wide information regarding the global revenues and income, taxes paid, assets employed, number of employees and retained earnings.

There is no small business exemption relating to the requirement to prepare the Master File and Local Country File. For CBCR, only groups of companies with global revenues in excess of Euros 750 million are required to complete and file the CBCR Template.

What Does This Mean to Your Canadian Company?

If your company is the parent of subsidiaries in other countries, you will be required to complete a Master File to be shared with your subsidiary companies for filing with their respective tax authorities, and you will also be required to complete a Local File to be maintained, along with the Master File, to be provided to the CRA if and when requested by the Agency at the commencement of an audit. Whether you need to complete the CBCR Template will depend on whether your global revenues exceed Euros 750 million or approximately CA$1 billion. If so, this Template would actually be filed with the CRA no later than one year after the end of the tax year in question. The CRA would share this information with the other relevant tax authorities.

If your company is a subsidiary of a parent company elsewhere in the world, you will be responsible for preparing and maintaining the Local File, while relying on your parent company to provide you with the Master File. The CBCR Template would be filed by the parent company with its local tax authority, to be shared with the CRA and other tax authorities in accordance with the guidance put forth by the OECD.

CANADIAN SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

The CRA issued three Transfer Pricing Memorandum (“TPM”) to provide its guidance with respect to certain transfer pricing issues: revised TPM-05R, Requests for Contemporaneous Documentation; TPM-15, Intra-Group Services and Section 247; and, TPM-16, Role of Multiple Year Data in Transfer Pricing Analyses.

From your perspective TPM-05R, clarifies the CRA’s expectations regarding your company’s response to a CRA request to provide your contemporaneous documentation to the Agency. The main take away for you and your company is that the CRA expects that some level of documentation will be prepared and maintained for each taxation year. Even if your company has a Study for its 2014 taxation year, the CRA will expect some form of documentation for 2015. That may mean the preparation of a Memo that confirms there have been no material changes in 2015 to all of the factual information in the 2014 Study, and testing the 2015 results against any benchmarks use in the Study.

TPM-15 elaborates on certain requirements for the analysis of intra-group service charges as set out in the Information Circular on transfer pricing, with more discussion about the use of mark-ups to reflect how arm’s length parties would charge fees for a given service to recover their costs plus an element of profit. Your company’s documentation may need to be revised to justify and support charging or paying a services fee that includes a mark-up.

TPM-16 confirms the CRA’s long held position that when you are setting your company’s transfer prices, and later testing and documenting them, the CRA expects you to use the results of a single year of data from comparable company information, as opposed to averaging multiple years of data.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

Given the increasing focus on transfer pricing, both here in Canada and around the world, now is the perfect time to take stock of how your company sets its transfer prices for all of its intercompany transactions, and what support you have on file to support a conclusion that your company made a “reasonable effort to determine and use arm’s length prices or allocations.”

Note: I have disabled the comment/question feature of the Blog. I just do not have the time to answer questions during income tax season (this includes emails to my BBC or business email accounts). If you have questions or wish to engage Dan, his information is below.

Dan McGeown is a transfer pricing specialist and the National Practice Leader of BDO’s Transfer Pricing team, a team comprised of accountants and economists providing transfer pricing planning, compliance and controversy management services to a wide variety of companies having cross border transactions with related parties. You can reach Dan by phone at 416-369-3127 or by email at dmcgeown@bdo.ca.

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation.

Foreign Exchange Translation on Capital Gains and Dividends

One question that constantly arises during income tax season is; what exchange rate should be applied to foreign transactions? The Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") has re-iterated/set forth their position in respect of the translation requirements for capital gains and dividends and I discuss their views below.

Capital Gains

During a roundtable discussion at the October 2014 Association de Planification Fiscale et Financière (APFF) conference, the CRA was asked the following question:

Principales Questions: What is the CRA's position with respect to the use of average foreign exchange rates for the conversion of amounts of income and capital gains?

Position Adoptée: An average rate may be acceptable for items of income, but not for capital gains.

Raisons: The definition of relevant spot rate in subsection 261(1) provides that a rate other than the rate quoted at noon by the Bank of Canada at the relevant date may be used, provided it is acceptable to the Minister.

The above comment reflects that the CRA typically accepts the use of an average yearly rate for income items (dividends etc.) but expects you to use the Bank of Canada noon rate or other acceptable exchange rate in effect at the time of purchase and sale for any capital transaction.

While I would suggest that most accountants strive for reporting capital gains in this manner, many financial institutions and investment managers do not provide such information when they provide capital gain/loss summaries and thus, such reporting can be problematic. See this blog post by Justin Bender for an example of how financial institutions often report U.S. capital gains transactions.

I have also observed that when individual taxpayers prepare their own returns, very few report using the rate in effect at the time and most use an average exchange rate for the year for their capital gains reporting. Ignoring the ease of preparation, using an average rate can result in a significant under/over reporting of capital gains/losses where exchange rates fluctuate significantly.

I would thus suggest, you attempt to adhere to the CRA’s position of using the rate in effect at the date of transaction, especially for specific large transactions.

Dividends

As noted above, the CRA stated at the roundtable that an average rate may be acceptable for items of income. John Heinzl of The Globe and Mail addressed this issue in a recent Q&A column.

Here is the question and answer.

Q: I hold some U.S. stocks in a non-registered account and pay U.S. withholding tax of 15 per cent on the dividends. My tax slips provide the dividend and tax information in U.S. dollars. Given the currency fluctuations we’ve seen recently, how do I report these amounts on my Canadian income tax return?

A: Because U.S. dividends do not qualify for the Canadian dividend tax credit, in a non-registered account you would pay Canadian tax at your marginal rate on the full amount of the U.S. dividend – just as if it were interest income. To avoid double taxation, you may be able to claim the 15-per-cent U.S. tax withheld as a foreign tax credit on line 405 of your return.

For tax purposes, you’re required to convert foreign income and foreign tax withheld to Canadian dollars, using the Bank of Canada exchange rate in effect on the transaction date.

However, according to the Canada Revenue Agency, if there were “multiple payments at different times during the year,” it is acceptable to use the average annual exchange rate. This simplifies the process of converting U.S. dividends and tax withheld to Canadian dollars.

You can find a list of average annual exchange rates on the Bank of Canada website.

Between the foreign exchange compliance and the T1135 Foreign Reporting requirements (see next week's blog post), it is enough to make one want to keep all their investments in Canada to avoid the complications of tax reporting :)

Note: I have disabled the comment and question feature on the blog. Unfortunately, I just do not have the time to answer questions during income tax season. I will enable comments in May. Thank you for your understanding.

Money Sense - Retire Rich 2015 Giveaway

On April 8th in Oakville, Money Sense is presenting “Retire Rich 2015” a four hour evening of wealth-building insights and practical advice, in which you’ll learn the proven tactics and strategies that can help any Canadian establish a low-cost retirement plan for a rich and rewarding retirement.

The presenters include Bruce Sellery, Duncan Hood, Preet Banerjee and Dan Bortolotti, four of Canada’s leading retirement-planning experts.

Money Sense has provided me 6 tickets to giveaway to my readers. If you are interested, please send me an email to bluntbeancounter@gmail.com by April 3rd and I will select three winners (2 tickets each).

If you wish to learn about the event or register, here is the link.

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation.Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.