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 ccpc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ccpc. Show all posts

Monday, October 26, 2015

The Liberal Victory - How it May Affect TFSAs, Personal and Corporate Taxes

Last week on Twitter, one of my favourite tweets was by sportswriter Dave Hogg. He tweeted, “Two thirds of Canada is covered by the Liberal Party. The other third is covered by Kevin Pillar" (the Toronto Blue Jays center fielder). 

Unfortunately, since the Blue Jays are toast (how could they not score that man from third?), I will talk about the Liberal victory and what it may mean to income taxes. I say “may mean” because, until we see legislation, we are never sure as to what proposals or promises will be implemented and the exact wording of the actual legislation.

The Roll-back of the TFSA Contribution Limit


Liberal leader Justin Trudeau (as I understand it, Mr. Trudeau is a prime minister-designate, thus I will not call him Prime Minister in this article to be technically correct, and just stick with Mr. Trudeau for now) emphatically stated several times he would cancel the tax-free savings account (" TFSA") limit increase from $5,500 to $10,000. There is much hand-wringing and concern over what will happen to the extra $4,500 many people contributed this year.

This is probably much ado about nothing. Personally, I think the Liberals will probably just do something like this to clean up the issue:
  1. Send out a press release prior to December 31, 2015 (assuming they cannot pass legislation on time) saying that as of January 1, 2016, the maximum cumulative TFSA limit will be re-set to $42,000 ($36,500 old limit [before the 2015 increase to $41,000] plus $5,500).

  2. State that when the legislation is passed, it will be retroactive to January 1, 2016, so if anyone contributes in excess of $42,000, they will be subject to over-contribution penalties.
Assuming I guess correctly, this would clean-up the TFSA issue. Those who contributed the extra $4,500 in 2015 will only have another $1,000 to contribute in 2016 and they will be warned in advance that if they over-contribute they will be subject to a penalty. Easy peasy IMHO.

Potential Changes to Your Personal Taxes


The Liberal platform included some of the following potential changes:
  • Reduce the middle income tax bracket ($44,700 - $89,401) from 22% to 20.5%, resulting in a potential tax savings of up to $670 for those earning between $44,700 and $89,401.
  • Cancel the Family Tax Cut which provides for up to $2,000 in family income tax savings. This seems counter-intuitive based on the middle income tax cut, so there may be more to this proposal.
  • Increase taxes on people making more than $200,000 by creating a new tax bracket of 33%. My comments on this proposal were provided to Rob Carrick of The Globe and Mail in this article. As noted in Rob’s article, my concern is once you increase the highest marginal rate past 50%, you break a significant psychological barrier. I know this is a bit of an airy-fairy comment, but you would be surprised at how many people were already upset last year by their increase in personal taxes when Ontario changed the tax rates, and high-wage earners were paying 49.53% tax on income over $220k. Wait till this year when they will be paying 53.53% at the highest marginal rate.
  • Remove the Conservative plans to gradually raise the age of Old Age Security to 69.

Potential Streaming of the Small Business Corporate Tax Rate


The Liberals stated they plan to follow through with a proposed small business corporate tax rate decrease from 11% to 9%. However, they want to ensure that private corporations, known as Canadian Controlled Private Corporations ("CCPCs") are not used to reduce personal income tax obligations for high-income earners.

As noted in this National Post article, Mr. Trudeau said the following in a CBC interview, “A large percentage of small businesses are actually just ways for wealthier Canadians to save on their taxes. We want to reward the people who are actually creating jobs, and contributing in concrete ways. So there’s a little tweaking to do around that.”

In a follow up article  Mr. Trudeau said “that several studies have shown that more than half of small business owners are high-net-worth individuals who incorporate…to avoid paying as high taxes as they otherwise would”. The Post noted that “in that group are doctors and lawyers, groups that may find themselves squeezed by the policy Trudeau loosely outlined this week”.

Mr. Trudeau went on to say that “We want to focus on helping small business owners who are working hard, who are creating jobs for members of their community and serving their community. We are committed to evidence-based policies and I will make no apologies for that.”

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no discussion on how the Liberals would carve out part of the small business population from using the small business deduction. This would be an extremely complex piece of legislation.

In the Rob Carrick article, I noted that I would expect some people may start considering leaving Canada to move to a lower tax jurisdiction or consider moving their funds offshore. As discussed in one of my earlier blogs, in my personal experience, this is typically something only the ultra-rich undertake. What I have found is that once people understand the income tax consequences (deemed disposition of certain assets) that results upon emigration and when they account for family and healthcare, they typically grin and bear income tax increases. I do have some concern that higher tax rates may impact the amount higher income earners invest in their current or new businesses.

Last week a doctor told me he was starting to see other medical professionals consider leaving Canada for the United States. I told him I was surprised as I thought that exodus had been stemmed by better pay policies implemented over the last ten years or so. If that doctor is correct, it will be interesting to see if higher personal and corporate tax rates are implemented, whether mobile professionals and small business owners will in fact consider leaving Canada for lower taxing jurisdictions.

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.

Monday, February 2, 2015

The Two Certainties in Life: Death and Taxes - The Impact on Small Business Owners

In my two prior blog posts in this series on death and taxes, I discussed with you the general income tax rules as they relate to the death of an individual. Today, I am going to discuss the income tax issues that arise on death, where you own shares in a private Canadian corporation (“CCPC”).

Note:You may own shares in a private corporation (typically a Canadian company controlled by non-residents) as opposed to a CCPC  or shares in a private foreign corporation. Although the general deemed disposition rule will apply upon death, for purposes of this blog post, I am not considering any issues related to these type entities. Please seek specific advice if you own such shares.

It has been my experience that some owner-managers of CCPC’s are surprised to find out that their shares are subject to the general deemed disposition rules upon death. The rule being: that upon your death, the shares of your CCPC (assuming the shares are not transferred to your spouse) are deemed to have been disposed of for proceeds equal to the fair market value (“FMV”) of those shares and a capital gain results to the extent that FMV (which is often difficult to determine for a CCPC) exceeds the adjusted cost base (“ACB”) of those shares.

There are two reasons I typically hear as to why the private company owner-manager does not think their shares are subject to the deemed disposition rules:

(1) They thought the corporate taxes they paid each year took care of that issue.

(2) They thought if they left the company to their children, their kids would be the ones who pay the tax (as per my blog on estate freezes, this tax can be mitigated, but not eliminated by undertaking an estate freeze).

The owner-manager may also be surprised to hear that their shares are potentially subject to double taxation if proper steps are not undertaken to alleviate this liability. Double taxation can occur where the estate pays tax on the deemed disposition reported on the owner-manager’s terminal tax return, and then the estate pays further tax when it removes the assets from the corporation in the form of dividends to the estate.

There are two tax planning strategies that can generally eliminate any double tax; however, both techniques have some potential restrictions:

(1) The first is known as a subsection 164(6) loss carryback. In simple terms a loss is created on a share redemption by the estate that reduces or eliminates the capital gain that arose as result of the deemed disposition on death. It should be noted that new legislation related to the changes to “graduated rate estates” could impact this planning in the future, as the loss carryback may be restricted.

(2) The second, known as the pipeline strategy allows the estate to remove the corporate funds tax-free by in very simple terms, transferring the deceased owner-manager’s shares to a new corporation and using redemptions and a netting of promissory notes to remove those funds tax-free.

However, a pipeline strategy can be problematic in certain circumstances.

Capital Gains Exemption


In many cases the owner-manager can avail themselves to the $800,000 capital gains exemption ("CGE") to utilize against any deemed capital gain. However, as discussed in this post, it can be problematic to access the exemption where the corporation has excess cash or the owner-manager dies suddenly without implementing the proper planning.

In summary, as morose as this sounds, if you own shares of a private corporation, you and your tax advisor should be proactively planning for your death, which includes monitoring on an ongoing basis, whether your shares will qualify for the CGE.

The planning process would in general start with a determination of your potential income tax liability on death, including an estimate of the liability related to your private company shares. This will lead to a discussion of whether or not your estate will have enough liquidity to cover that anticipated liability or if you need to consider purchasing life insurance to cover any taxes potentially owing upon your death. The discussion should then morph into a succession planning discussion, and whether or not an estate freeze/sale to family member would make sense in your situation, or what plans you have in regard to an exit strategy.


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.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

The benefits of undertaking Scientific Research and Development in Canada

The Canadian government's Scientific Research & Experimental Development (“SR&ED”) program has been controversial at times, with some pundits calling for action to tighten the program and its eligibility requirements. However, the SR&ED program has been a lifesaver for a couple of my clients. These clients were cash starved in their formative years and were able to soldier on and to grow into substantial companies, thanks in part to the funding from the Federal and Ontario SR&ED programs. These companies now pay income tax and employ a significant number of people.

In this blog, I will not delve into the criteria required to make a SR&ED claim, nor all the machinations of the income tax calculations. However, I wish to draw attention to the substantive nature of the SR&ED claims available to those businesses with qualifying expenditures. These benefits are best illustrated through an example.

Assume Research in Lotions Inc. (“RIL”) a company trying to develop an anti-aging formula for men spends $10,000 in SR&ED wages and has various overhead expenses. Since the tracking and identification of overhead SR&ED costs was problematic for most companies, the government provided an alternative election known as the Prescribed Proxy amount. If a company elects to use the proxy, it does not need to track its SR&ED overhead costs, but can simply multiply the $10,000 in SR&ED wages by a predetermined ratio of 1.65. Thus, if a RIL incurs $10,000 in wage costs, it is actually allowed to claim $16,500 ($10,000*1.65) in qualifying expenditures for purposes of the Investment Tax Credit (“ITC”). The $16,500 is then reduced by approximately $2,320 in Ontario SR&ED incentives as discussed below, leaving a balance of eligible expenditures for the ITC of $14,180.

Generally, a Canadian-controlled private corporation ("CCPC") can earn an annual refundable ITC of 35 percent on its first $3 million of qualified expenditures for SR&ED carried on in Canada, and a 20 percent ITC on any excess amount ( 40% of the 20% ITC is refundable). The ITC would be refundable in cash to RIL, or would be applied against any income tax owing by RIL. Non-CCPC's can earn a non-refundable ITC of 20 percent of qualified expenditures for SR&ED carried out in Canada.

So continuing with our example, RIL would be eligible to claim an ITC of $4,963 ($14,180 x 35%). It should be noted that RIL would have to addback the $4,935 to income in the following year.

In Ontario, most companies are eligible for an additional 10% refundable Ontario Innovation Tax Credit. So again following our example, a further refundable credit of $1,650 would be earned ($16,500 x 10%). In Ontario there is also a research and development tax credit of 4.5% that can be applied against income tax, but is not refundable (this credit can be waived, which in certain circumstances makes sense).

For SR&ED incentives in other provinces see this link.

I have simplified the SR&ED tax credit process, as it is extremely complex. The key take away here is that if RIL incurs $10,000 in SRED cost, it would potentially be entitled to SR&ED refunds by the Federal and Ontario governments totaling $6,613 ($4,963 Federal and $1,650 Ontario), making the net cost to RIL of undertaking SR&ED only $3,387. In my opinion, this is a significant incentive for any company to undertake SR&ED, despite the complexities in filing and tracking expenses.

SR&ED Wages Incurred
$  10,000
Federal Investment Tax Credit
$ (4,963)
Ontario Innovation Tax Credit
$ (1,650)
Out of pocket SR&ED Cost
$    3,387


On Thursday I will have a guest post that clarifies several points of confusion in regard to the SR&ED program and provides examples of qualifying SR&ED in industries you would not expect to be eligible to make a SR&ED claim.

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.