Tax on Split Income (“TOSI”) Update

I have written several times on the Tax on Split Income ("TOSI") legislation and the impact these rules will have on small business owners and their families. However, the last time I wrote on this topic was in early January of this year when I discussed the December 13, 2017 update of the rules.

While the December 2017 update provided much clarity, the actual application of the rules is far from simple and further clarity is still required from the CRA on several fronts. I had hoped to have an update post on these rules several weeks ago, but for various reasons I could not provide the blog post until today.

As I have transitioned from tax to Wealth Advisory over the last couple years, I felt I should have a tax expert write this post. Thankfully, Howard Kazdan, a Senior Tax Manager with BDO Canada LLP, agreed to write an update on the TOSI rules; although, with this legislation, the devil is in the details, so you must review with your professional advisor.

Many of you will be familiar with Howard's writing as he has provided guest posts in the last couple years on such topics as What Small Business Owners Need to Know - Management Fees - The Importance of Having Proper Support and how 2016 tax changes Made Reviewing Your Will a Must.

I thank Howard for his excellent TOSI update posted below.

Tax on Split Income (“TOSI”) Update

By Howard Kazdan

If you own a Canadian private corporation, and wish to split income with your family members, you now have to deal the Tax on Split Income (“TOSI”) rules, which are complicated and full of uncertainty.

These rules were effective January 1, 2018, but since this is the transition year, taxpayers have the opportunity to rearrange their affairs by December 31, 2018, to avoid the application of these rules in 2018.

Prior to the introduction of the TOSI rules, there were restrictions in place to prevent income splitting on certain types of income with family members under the age of 18. The TOSI rules extend and expand those restrictions to adult family members who are not actively involved in the business. Generally, where family members can demonstrate that they have made legitimate and meaningful contributions to the business, the TOSI rules should not apply.

Any income caught under the TOSI rules will be subject to tax at the highest personal marginal tax rates, eliminating any advantage of income splitting.

In some cases, structuring put in place many years ago may no longer meet all of the original objectives, unless a further reorganization is undertaken.

What type of income is subject to TOSI?

The TOSI rules will apply to many types of income earned from a private corporation, including:

•  Dividends and shareholder benefits;

• Income received from a partnership or trust where the income was derived from a related business, or the rental of property in certain cases;

• Income on certain debt obligations (e.g., interest); and

• Income or gains from the disposition of certain property disposed of after 2017. However, if the shares of a corporation qualify for the capital gains exemption ("they are qualified small business corporation shares”), then taxable capital gains on the disposition of those shares will not be included in TOSI.

TOSI does not apply to:

• wages paid for work performed which are subject to a separate reasonableness test.

• capital dividends

• second generation income earned on a distribution previously subject to TOSI.

Is there any way out of TOSI?

If certain exceptions are met, TOSI may not apply to distributions from a private corporation:

Excluded shares

The “excluded shares” exception can apply where corporate distributions are paid to individuals who are 25 years of age or older. This will exempt distributions from TOSI where the individual owns shares with at least 10% of the votes and value of the company; where less than 90% of business income of the company is from services, and where less than 10% of the company’s gross income is earned from a related business.

Since there is a requirement for the individuals to hold shares directly under this exception, if an individual owns shares through a beneficial interest in a family trust, they will not be able to rely on this test to escape TOSI. Professionals will also not be able to rely on this test to be exempt from TOSI.

There is lack of clarity on exactly what is considered to be a service – for example, if goods are sold, they could potentially be considered to be service income, if they are incidental to providing a service. 

At a conference held in October 2018, the CRA shed some light on their views with respect to whether shares of a holding company may qualify under the excluded shares exception. In general, if its income is from carrying on a business, the purpose of which is to earn investment income, then it may qualify if the ownership and related business tests are met. This may be the case even if the capital used to buy portfolio dividends was originally derived from dividends previously received from a related operating company. Note that the distribution of the original capital may be subject to TOSI, therefore, only the income earned from the original capital would escape TOSI.

Due to all of the conditions that need to be met and many other technical requirements not discussed in this blog, this is considered one of the hardest tests to meet and you need to discuss and review this with your accountant.

Excluded Business

The “excluded business” exception can apply to any family member who is 18 years of age or older. To qualify for this exclusion, the family member must be engaged on a “regular, continuous and substantial basis” in the business in the year or for any five previous years. A bright line test has been established by the CRA so that an individual is considered to be actively engaged in the business if the person works at least an average of 20 hours per week in the business during the portion of the year in which the business operates in the taxation year or for any five previous years. However, there

is still some subjectivity to this test.

Also, in some cases, record keeping of time spent in the business by owners may not have been perfect, so there could be an issue of proving that the test has been met. It will be key to maintain proper file documentation to support any filing position taken in filing tax returns.

Reasonable Return

The reasonable return exception can apply for adult family members who are 25 years of age or older. In this case, a reasonable amount of dividends can be paid to these individuals and not be subject to TOSI if the amount paid represents a reasonable return on their contribution to the business (e.g. work performed, property contributed, risks assumed). This is an extremely subjective test, so your files will need to be adequately documented in order to support your position in case the CRA comes knocking.

There is also a reasonable return exception for family members between 18 to 24 years of age, however, the amount representing a reasonable return is limited to the prescribed rate of interest (currently 2%) on any investment made by that individual, into the business.

Other Exceptions

• There are certain exclusions from TOSI where the spouse who contributed to the business is aged 65 or over.

• Special rules will apply to ensure that individuals who inherit property will benefit from the same tax treatment realized by the deceased individual, had the deceased continued to own the property:

• An amount will be deemed to be excluded from TOSI for a surviving spouse if that income would have been excluded from TOSI if it was earned by the deceased in their last taxation year.

• Similarly, if income would have not been considered to be TOSI if it was earned by the deceased individual from whom the property was inherited, then such income will generally be excluded from TOSI for other individuals over 17 years of age.

•  TOSI should not apply in the case of marriage breakdown or on deemed capital gains on death.

Next Steps:

If these rules sound complicated, that’s because they are! Each corporate situation is unique with respect to every shareholder.

Before making any further distributions, or undertaking any reorganizations, it is suggested that you consult with your tax advisor on how the TOSI rules may impact you and your family for 2018 and onwards.

Note from Mark: 

1. As noted above, the rules are complex and unique to each situation. Thus, I nor Howard will answer any questions on this blog post.

2. If you have not already met with your professional advisor, you only have a couple weeks to rearrange your affairs for 2018. Thus, time is now of the essence and you may need to act immediately. 

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.

Prescribed Rate Loans – One Last Kick at the 1% Rate

I have discussed the use of prescribed rate loans several times over the years. In this post, I will review a couple of the best ways to use these loans. However, time is now of the essence, if you wish to implement one of these loans. The current prescribed rate of 1% will be rising to 2% effective April 1st as per this Advisor.ca article and many people only see the rate slowly rising from here over the next few years.

The two most common ways to use a prescribed rate loan are:

1. A loan to a spouse as detailed in this blog post.

2. A loan to minor children using a family trust as detailed in this blog post.

To recap (read the actual posts for all the details), the Income Tax Act contains income attribution rules that typically reallocate income to the higher income earner when he or she tries to income split with his or her spouse or children. However, there is an exception to the above attribution rules where an individual makes a loan to a spouse or minor child and interest is charged on the loan at a rate at least equal to the CRA’s prescribed interest rate at the time the loan was made. The benefit is as follows:

Where the loan carries interest at a rate no less than the prescribed interest rate, the attribution rules will not apply. For the loan to avoid the income attribution rules, the interest owing must be paid each year within 30 days after the end of the year (i.e. January 30th).

For example, say you make a $100,000 loan to a spouse with minimal income. Your spouse will be required to pay you $1,000 in interest by January 30th of each year. However, if they use the loan proceeds to invest in marketable securities and they make a 6% return, or $6,000, your family will have tax savings of up to $2,700 ($6,000-1,000 x 53.5% the highest tax rate in Ontario).

Income splitting with minors can be problematic because minors generally cannot enter into an enforceable contract. Thus, it is suggested that where you make a prescribed loan to a minor, a family trust be utilized to navigate the enforceability issues.

Tax Changes to Private Corporations

As I have discussed on this blog multiple times, the government has implemented changes to the taxation of private corporations. In December they released the legislation in relation to the revised tax on split income rules . We are still waiting (likely in the budget this week) for the rules on earning passive investment income in a corporation.

To date, it does not appear that these rules will impact prescribed rate loans, subject to this weeks budget. However, before you consider implementing a prescribed rate loan, you need to discuss this issue with your accountant to ensure they are onside with the idea and that you clearly understand the requirements and changes in legislation.

Finally, it would be prudent, based on what we know, that the proceeds of these loans only be invested in public marketable securities and not in private corporations or related corporations.

If you are interested in maximizing a prescribed rate loan, you only have a few weeks to get this loan in place to beat the increase to 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. Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.

Tax Planning Using Private Corporations - The Liberal’s go with Piecemeal Announcements

I have pushed back my second post on tax efficient investing to next week so I can comment on the Traveling Libburys tax damage control tour (instead of Dylan, Petty, Lynne, Harrison and Orbison, we got Justin Trudeau, Bill Morneau and Bardish Chagger).

The tour this week made stops in Stouffville Ontario, Hampton New Brunswick, Montreal Quebec and Erinsville, Ontario. At each location, the government provided a new tax morsel and comment on its tax proposals. However, without any details, many people are still not quite sure what the proposals really say or look like. A friend told me this is like a Trump tweet; do you take them at face value or is there more to them?

This is what we were told last week by the Prime Minister and Finance Minister in respect of the taxation of private corporations.

Income Splitting

The government announced the following in respect of the income splitting proposals:

• It has committed to lower the small business tax rate to 10 per cent, effective January 1, 2018, and to 9 per cent, effective January 1, 2019. To be clear, this reduction is a drop from the current 10.5% rate and the provincial tax still needs to be added on. So for example in Ontario, the rate will drop to 14.5% from 15% for 2018.

• The proposals to limit the ability of owners of private corporations to lower their personal income taxes by sprinkling their income to family members who do not contribute to the business will remain.

• It will simplify the proposed measures with the aim of providing greater certainty for family members who contribute to a family business. Specifically, "the Government will work to reduce the compliance burden with respect to establishing the contributions of spouses and family members including labour, capital, risk and past contributions, better target the proposed rules, and address double taxation concerns". I would suggest this will be much easier said than done and I would expect this determination to be fraught with issues.
  
• It will not be moving forward with proposed measures to limit access to the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption. I would not be surprised to see specific exclusions in the 2018 budget to this rule, such as excluding the exemption for those under 18.

Passive Income Proposals

This proposal was probably the most contentious issue to most small business owners who felt the initial proposal would impact their retirement planning and ability to fund the ups and downs of a business. The government gave a little here, but given the potential massive complexity of tracking passive income and the fact they say only 3% of the businesses will be caught by the rules, this is the one area I feel they should have left the status quo. Not one tax professional I spoke to understood how this is really going to work and could see any type of legislation that will not cause massive complexity and extra accounting costs to small businesses.

Here is what the government said:

• The new rules will not apply to existing savings and income from those savings (thus some kind of tracking mechanism will have to be put in place. I see this as an accounting and tax nightmare, how do you track amounts contributed from this pot of funds back into the business and then taken back out, let alone track the income earned from the existing pot of funds. Are the original funds referenced going to be current investments only, at cost or fair market value, will they include cash in the business or is the initial savings the current retained earnings)?

• The existing rules will apply on investment income earned from new savings up to a maximum of $50,000 of passive income in a year (equivalent to $1 million in savings, based on a nominal 5% rate of return). To the extent investment income from new investments exceeds $50,000 in a year, the new punitive tax rates will apply. The wording here is very simplistic and has been interpreted differently already by many commentators. The devil will be in the details.
• Incentives are in place so that Canada’s venture capital and angel investors can continue to invest in the next generation of Canadian innovation.

Capital Gain Stripping

Finally, the government announced these proposals will not move ahead. This is a head-scratcher. As  I noted in my last blog post on this topic, many would argue some of the tactics used here while legal, were aggressive. The issue in relation to capital gains stripping was the proposals were causing business transition issues and double taxation on death by not being able to use a "pipeline" planning technique to prevent double tax.

This is what the government said:

• They will not be moving forward with measures relating to the conversion of income into capital gains. "During the consultation period, the Government heard from business owners, including many farmers and fishers that the measures could result in several unintended consequences, such as in respect of taxation upon death and potential challenges with intergenerational transfers of businesses. The Government will work with family businesses, including farming and fishing businesses, to make it more efficient, or less difficult, to hand down their businesses to the next generation".

The National Post reported (sorry link has disappeared) that Mr. Morneau said “What I’m announcing this morning is we’re going to take a step back and reconsider that aspect of our tax reform proposal,” and "the government will instead embark on a year of consultations aimed at developing new proposals".

Thus, I think it fair to say, we may not have heard the end of these rules and the Liberal's will likely move to judiciously carve out the aggressive stripping while ensuring succession and estate planning are not side-swiped.

As noted at the outset, we are lacking clarity. We have no details, legislation, examples or FAQ, let alone confirmation or whether the effective date of these proposals has changed? We still have partial or full tax planning paralysis because of these ad hoc proposals and revisions.

In my humble opinion, the main miss here is the passive rules. The complexity of these rules will be overwhelming for such little tax gain to the government.

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.

Tax Planning Using Private Corporations - A Philosophical and Critical Review

I am back from my summer break. Today, I comment on the Liberal tax proposals put forth in July, in respect of the taxation of private corporations. I have a feeling I may be writing on this topic several times this year.

On July 24th, I wrote a blog post on the Liberal government’s proposals for tax planning using private corporations. As these proposals were released mid-summer, it took a while for small business owners and professionals to understand the potentially complex and punitive nature of these proposals. If you want to read an updated summary with recommendations on this issue,

this report by BDO Canada is very good.

I can tell your first hand that there is a lot of anger among business owners for what they consider a totally misguided government notion that business owners should be treated in exactly the same manner for tax purposes as their employees who take none of the business and financial risks and the implication private business owners are abusing the tax system. Opposition has been growing throughout the summer and there is a mounting backlash from professionals and small business owners against these proposals. Based on email responses I have been CC'ed on, local MPs are taking this issue seriously. Whether this pressure will cause Prime Mister Justin Trudeau and/or Minister of Finance Bill Morneau to change their stance on this issue remains to be seen.
Whether you philosophically believe these proposals are fair (and based on feedback both publicly and to my email inbox, most of my readers think they are not fair), these rules will create a very negative climate. Just as importantly, there is currently tax paralysis, as advisors are not sure what the rules are and will be and thus, they cannot properly assist their clients. One way or another, a clear path needs to be set as soon as possible.

I could provide a laundry list of reasons why I feel these proposals unfairly target small business owners and professionals, but that is not my objective for this post. What I want to discuss is the feedback I have received from those affected by the proposals, other accountants, and employees who may not feel as aggrieved.

The proposals target three specific areas:

1. Converting Income into Capital Gains

2. Income Splitting

3. Taxation of Passive Income

Converting Income into Capital Gains

When people speak frankly about this proposal, there is generally unanimous consent that the proposals for the conversion of income into capital gains are “fair”. I don’t think that if this proposal was released in a typical budget that it would cause much consternation. There is concern however; that the government has to distinguish between aggressive tax planning and tax planning that avoids double tax (such as pipeline planning upon death).

Income Splitting

When discussing this topic, most business owners and professionals feel these proposals are punitive and generally unfair save one provision (the capital gains exemption – which I discuss below). These proposals in general will prevent family income splitting (as the income will be taxed at the highest marginal tax rate) unless there is reasonable compensation and the compensation is based on labour and capital contributed.

Where I have discussed these proposals with people that are employees, in general they feel the proposals are unfair to restrict income splitting with spouses, but they tend to agree with the government that income splitting with children should be eliminated.

Business owners feel the income splitting rules are unfair is that they look at their business as a family business, not a business owned by a sole individual, even if that individual is the only one actually working the business full-time. For example, many spouses who do not work in the business either gave up a full or part-time career to enable the business owner to work the hours required. Spouses in many small businesses are sounding boards and consultants. When a spouse comes home they discuss over dinner or drinks decisions to be made regarding expansion, employee issues, equipment purchases, etc. The unpaid “consulting or sympathetic listening time” for spouses is immense. This does not even account for the family time lost due to the crazy hours worked by entrepreneurs. Children are often called in to assist with a new business in many ways for no pay and/or to have time to spend with the parent/owner.

Most business owners feel it is fair for spouses and children to own shares in a family corporation. Although when pushed, in general they feel that the $835,716 small business capital gains exemption should be restricted to spouses only and at most children over 18 years of age. Non-business owners feel that children should have no access to the capital gains exemption.

So in summary, I would suggest most business owners and non-business owners feel these proposals are extremely unfair in respect of spouses, but many non-business owners and some business owners feel the restrictions on income splitting with children are reasonable for those at least under the age of majority.

Taxation of Passive Income

As noted in my July 24th blog post, where a corporation earns less than $500,000 the company pays tax at 15% in Ontario and a similar amount in each province. This results in a tax deferral, not a tax saving of up to 38%. Where corporations earn income in excess of $500,000, or in the case of many professional corporations where access to the small business exemption is limited (they must share the $500k exemption with all their partners), the tax rate is 26.5% in Ontario and similar in most provinces, resulting in a tax deferral of 27% or so. The proposals effectively eliminate the tax deferral for all income not re-invested back into the active business.

I would say these rules have antagonized small business owners, professionals and tax advisors the most and there is unanimous consent these rules are not required and unnecessarily punitive. The reasons for this are as follows:

1. Unlike the income splitting and capital gains stripping rules, in general, these rules only result in a deferral of income tax, not an absolute saving.

2. This deferral has been used extensively by small business owners and professionals to create their own retirement fund. The fact that the government is considering removing the ability to save for retirement within a corporation has many people going apoplectic. The reason for this is essentially twofold. Firstly, business owners are furious the government is not providing any benefit for the risk they take for starting and owning a business and secondly, they look at government employees with gold plated pension plans and ask what right does the government have to prevent them from trying to create their own retirement fund?

3. Any new rules will be unbelievably complex and expensive for the business owners and advisors to administrate, especially given there is only a tax deferral and not an absolute tax savings. How do you track excess income earned between corporate use and passive use when they are often intermingled in some manner?

I have found that when you take emotion out of this issue, there is some agreement that the capital gains stripping and income splitting with children proposals were fair. However, the other proposals are considered prejudicial against high income earners, punitive, complex and totally ignore the risk that business owners must accept in starting a business. Finally, I think the Liberals are missing a very important consideration: that being mindset. When you tax people at 53% and restrict the benefits to start a business, you stunt business growth, create more underground transactions, and cause some of your best and brightest to leave the country. This does not even consider the massive spending power you are taking out of the economy by reducing the discretionary income of typically the highest spending Canadians.

Update

A couple important updates, one on this topic and one on the work-in-progress transition period announced in the 2017 Federal Budget.

In this editorial by the Finance Minister in The Globe and Mail, Mr. Morneau states the following " For those business owners and professionals who have saved and planned for their retirement under the existing rules, I want to be clear: We have no intention of going back in time. Our intent is that changes will apply only on a go-forward basis and neither existing savings, nor investment income from those savings, will be touched". This statement at least clarifies the passive income rules will at worst be go forward rules.

In this March, 2017 blog post on the federal budget, I discussed that professionals would no longer be allowed to deduct their work-in-progress ("WIP") from their taxable income and their current WIP deduction would be subject to a two year addback transition period (2018 & 2019) that would result in harsh income tax consequences for many. Late last week the government released draft legislation regarding the 2017 budget proposals and they have changed the transition period for WIP that has to be brought into taxable income to 5 years (20% a year starting in 2018 through 2022) from the initial two year proposal.

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.

Tax Planning Using Private Corporations - The New Liberal Proposals

I am going to set aside my summer "Best of The Blunt Bean Counter" series for one week, to provide my comments on the new tax proposals for private corporations set forth by the Liberal government last week.

Tax Planning Using Private Corporations - The New Liberal Proposals

On July 18th, Finance Minister Bill Morneau released a consultation paper and related draft legislation proposing changes to how private corporations will be taxed moving forward in the name of tax fairness. I would suggest most private business owners and professionals using PC's in particular (the government seems to take umbrage with professionals) are going to be very upset by these proposals.

Fairness is subject to personal interpretation. I could argue it is not fair government workers get gold plated pension plans while the rest of us have no company plans or restricted defined contribution plans and need to save for retirement through RRSPs and TFSAs. I could also argue that is not fair entrepreneurs who risk their life savings will now under these proposals end up tax neutral with their employees who take no risk. Rant over, let's get to the proposals

Income Splitting

Many private business owners pay salaries to family members and have structures where family members own shares. The government is proposing that effective for 2018 and later, any salaries or dividends paid to a spouse or child regardless of age (currently there are kiddie tax rules for children under 18) will be subject to a reasonableness provision (what an arms-length person would be paid) and any remuneration in excess of the reasonable amount will now be taxed at the top marginal personal rates of the parent. How the government will determine reasonableness is a good question. In any event, income splitting will be severely curtailed

Some specific reasonableness proposals include:

1. Determination of labour contributions by children. The rules will be different for those 18-24 than for those are 25.

2. Review of capital contributed to the business. Again based on age bracket tests.

These rules will significantly change how many families remunerate the family unit.

In addition to restricting salaries and dividends, the proposals will also restrict the use and multiplication of the capital gains exemption ($835,716 for 2017). Children under 18 will no longer qualify for the LCGE ("Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption") and for other family members that were subject to the reasonableness provisions; the LCGE will be restricted or eliminated.

Capital gains allocated out of a family trust will now generally not be eligible for the LCGE.

These rules will be effective for 2018, however, transitional rules are being proposed.

Passive Investments in Corporations

Currently if a corporation earns less than $500,000 the company pays tax at 15.5% in Ontario and a similar amount in each province. This results in a tax deferral, not a tax saving of up to 38%. This deferral provides corporations money to grow and invest and create jobs. The government is concerned that where this money is not used to grow the company but invested passively in GIC's stocks, others companies, real estate, etc. it is unfair when compared to a salaried person. The government is proposing to now tax this 38% deferral.

The proposals of how to do this are beyond complicated and I really don't understand the concern here (the government is asking for feedback to determine to how best implement this, thus, there is no timeline on these provisions as of yet). This is a tax deferral on risk capital and not an absolute tax saving. As per my various posts on whether to use a RRSP or leave the money in your corporation, many small biz owners are leaving money in their corporations and using this money to fund their retirement; so this will have a huge impact on many people.

Converting income into capital gains

The proposals include various provisions to prevent income from being converted into capital gains. I have no issue with this general provision as much of the planning is a pure tax play. However, as of now, some tax commentators suggest the proposals appear to have potentially created possible double tax on death where standard "pipeline planning" is undertaken. Essentially where the estate would have had a capital gain, that gain may become a dividend which is taxed 15-20% higher than the capital gain. Many private business owners have purchased insurance to cover their estate tax and the insurance may now be insufficient.These measures will be effective as of July 18, 2017.

What Now?

The proposals are very complex and I have simplified them for discussion purposes above. We need to see the final legislation after the consultation period and work through the implications before definitive answers and planning can be undertaken.

That being said, will you have to close down or wind-up your private corporation or professional corporations or wind up your family trust?

My preliminary thoughts are if your corporation has large retained earnings there would be a significant tax cost to wind up your corporation and thus you would likely still maintain the company (I say this because it appears the proposals will not impact prior earnings and/ or prior refundable taxes earned and thus, these retained earnings would not be subject to the potentially punitive rules). If your company's retained earnings are not significant, the answer will be less obvious and there will be other issues to consider such as asset protection and the adjusted cost base of partnership interests for professional corporations etc.

While new corporations will not have the same income splitting and tax deferral benefits, they will still likely make sense for asset protection purposes and if you may be able to access even one LCGE exemption and /or you will be using profits to invest back in the business and not for passive purposes.

The incorporation of new professional corporations likely will no longer make sense for tax deferral purposes if all the PC income is taxed at the highest marginal rate, but they may still make sense for other reasons, but I would expect their use to be curtailed.

Family Trusts will likely continue to make sense for ownership and estate planning purposes but may no longer be useful for tax only purposes

It is too early to definitively answer any of the above questions, but those are my initial thoughts.

In conclusion, the impact of these proposals is potentially massive. This is in essence a regime change and not a tinkering of the current rules. Unfortunately, I don't think most small business owners have any idea what is about to hit them in the next few months.

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 Best of The Blunt Bean Counter - Proprietorship or Corporation - What is the Best for Your (New) Business?

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 November, 2011 blog post on whether you should incorporate a new

or start as a proprietorship?  I also address the logical follow-up question for those that have already started their business as a proprietorship:  when should they convert their proprietorship into a corporation?

Proprietorship or Corporation - What is the Best for Your (New) Business?

Corporation – Non-Tax Benefit

The number one non-tax reason to incorporate a business is for creditor proofing. Generally, a corporation provides creditor protection to its shareholder(s) through its limited liability status, a protection not available to a proprietorship. (It is important to note that certain types of professional corporations while protecting your personally from corporate liability, do not absolve the individual professional from personal professional liability). Where an incorporated business is sued and becomes liable for a successful claim, the only assets exposed to the creditors are the corporate assets, not the shareholders personal assets.

In order to mitigate the exposure that a potential claim could have on corporate assets, a holding company can be incorporated. Once the holding company is incorporated, the active corporation can transfer on a tax-free basis the excess cash and assets to the holding company (as discussed in my blog creditor proofing corporate funds) to insulate those assets from creditors. The assets in the holding company cannot be encroached upon if there is a lawsuit against the operating company unless there was some kind of fraudulent conveyance.

The inherent nature of certain businesses leads to the risk of lawsuits, while other business types have limited risk of a lawsuit. Thus, one of your first decisions upon starting a business is to determine whether your risk of being sued is high and if so, you should incorporate from day one.

Corporation – The Tax Benefits

There are several substantial income tax benefits associated with incorporation:

1) The Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption

If you believe that your business has substantial growth potential and may be a desirable acquisition target in the future, it is usually suggested to incorporate. That is because on the sale of the shares of a Qualifying Small Business Corporation, each shareholder may be entitled to a $824,177 capital gains exemption. So for example, if you, your spouse and your two children are shareholders of the family business (often through a family trust), you could potentially sell your business for $3,300,000 tax-free in the future. It should be noted that typically businesses that are consulting in nature, have limited value, since the value of the company is the personal goodwill of the owner.

Where you start your business as a proprietorship, it is still possible to convert the proprietorship into a corporation on a tax-free basis and to multiple the capital gains exemption going forward. A couple of points are worth noting here: (1) incorporating a proprietorship after the business has been operating for a few years may result in substantial legal, accounting and valuation fees; and (2) the value of the business up to the date of incorporation will belong to you and will be reflected in special shares that must be issued to you (assuming you will include other family members as shareholders in the new corporation).

For example, let's say you operate a successful business which you started as a proprietorship because you were unsure of whether it would be successful. The business has taken off and you have engaged a valuator to value the business prior to incorporating. The valuator has determined that the fair market value of your business today is worth $500,000. Upon incorporation, the $500,000 of value would be crystallized in special shares that would be owned by you. The new common shares that would be issued would only be entitled to the future growth of the business above and beyond the $500,000 and thus, any future capital gains exemptions for the new common shareholders would only accrue on the value in excess of $500,000.

2) Income Splitting

A corporation provides greater income splitting opportunities than a proprietorship. With a corporation it is possible to utilize discretionary shares that allow the corporation to stream dividends to a particular shareholder or shareholders (e.g. a spouse or a child 18 years of age or older) who are in lower marginal income tax brackets than the principal owner-manager.

Dividends are paid with after-corporate tax dollars from the business, whereas salaries, the alternative form of remuneration, are paid with pre-tax dollars and are generally a deductible business expense. The deductibility of a salary by a business is subject to a “reasonability test”. In order to deduct a salary from the business’ income it must be considered “reasonable”. Unfortunately, there is no defined criteria as to what is considered “reasonable”; however, paying a family member a salary of $50,000/annually who has little or no responsibilities within the business is likely not “reasonable”. However, with dividends there is no such “reasonability test”, so paying a family member a dividend of $50,000 even though she/he may have little or no responsibilities within the business is perfectly acceptable. Salaries to family members can be paid in an incorporated business or unincorporated business; however, the dividend alternative is unique to a corporation. Sole proprietors cannot pay themselves a salary; they receive draws from the proprietorship.

3) Income Tax Rate

The first $500,000 of active business income earned in a corporation is currently subject to an income tax rate of only 15.0%  in Ontario. Since the personal rate on income can be as high as 53.53%, income earned within a corporation potentially provides a very large income tax deferral, assuming these funds are not required personally for living expenses. This potential 38% deferral of income tax allows you to build your business with pre-tax corporate dollars. It should also be noted that once you take the money from the corporation, in many cases you essentially pay the deferred 38% tax as a dividend.

Corporations – The Fine Print

1) Expenses

Many people want to incorporate their business because they feel they will be able to deduct many more expenses in a corporation. In a general, that is an income tax fallacy. For all intents and purposes, the deductions allowed in a proprietorship are virtually identical to the deductions permitted in a corporation.

2) Professional and Compliance Costs and Administrative Burdens

The costs to maintain a corporation are significantly larger than for a proprietorship. There are initial and ongoing legal costs and annual accounting fees to prepare financial statements and file corporate income tax returns. These costs can be significant in some cases and can even outweigh some of the tax benefits in certain situations.

In addition, the administrative burdens for a corporation are far greater and drive many a client around the bend. For example, in a proprietorship or partnership, the owner(s) can take out money from the corporation without payroll source deductions. This is not the case when the owner(s) take out money in the form of a salary from a corporation.

So Why Start as a Proprietorship?

If you do not have legal liability concerns and you cannot avail yourself to the enhanced income splitting opportunities with family members a corporation may provide, starting as a proprietorship keeps your costs down and reduces your compliance and administrative issues. More importantly, since most people need whatever excess cash their business generates in its early years to live on, there is generally little or no tax benefit from incorporating a business initially. Finally, a proprietorship essentially provides for an initial test period to determine the viability of the business and if there are business losses, the owner(s) can generally deduct these losses against his or her other income.

When to Incorporate your Proprietorship?

In my opinion, you should incorporate your proprietorship once it has proven to be a viable business and once it has begun to generate cash in excess of your living requirements, so that you can take advantage of the 30% tax deferral available in a corporation.

Once you satisfy the above two criteria and incorporate, you will then benefit from creditor protection and the potential income splitting opportunities with other family members (assuming you want to include other family members as shareholders) and potentially the capital gains exemption or multiplication of the capital gains exemption if you include other family members in the corporation.

There is no “one shoe fits all” solution in determining whether to incorporate a new or ongoing business; however, the answer should become clearer once you address the issues I have outlined in this blog.

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 Best of The Blunt Bean Counter- Should Your Corporation’s Shareholder be a Family Trust instead of a Holding Company?

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 June, 2012 post on whether your corporation's shareholder should be a family trust or holding company.

This determination is a very complex and requires analysis by a tax expert. If you are considering a family trust, you must obtain professional advice to ensure you do not trip over any tax "land mines".

Should Your Corporation’s Shareholder be a Family Trust instead of a Holding Company?

I am often asked by clients incorporating a new company, whether they should hold the shares of the new corporation directly or whether they should utilize a holding company or a family trust.

The exact same question often arises a second time, years later, when a business has been successful and the shares of the corporation have been held by the client and/or their spouse directly and the client is now contemplating whether it makes sense to introduce a holding company or family trust into their corporate ownership structure, for creditor proofing and/or estate planning purposes.

I have discussed utilizing a holding company and introducing a family trust as a shareholder of a private corporation in prior blogs. Today I will discuss these alternative structures in context of a newly incorporated business and a mature business.

When a person decides to start a new business and incorporates (see my blog on whether to start a business as a proprietorship or corporation) there is often a level of uncertainty as to whether the new venture will be successful and cost control is often paramount. Thus, most people opt to keep their corporate structure simple (which really means, they do not want to spend money on lawyers and accountants to set-up holding companies and trusts) which is very understandable.

However, if you have the resources upon incorporation, you may wish to consider having a family trust own the shares of the private corporation rather than directly owning the shares or using a holding company from the outset. The two reasons you may wish to consider this corporate structure are as follows: (1) you can have a holding company as a beneficiary of a family trust which can provide all the benefits of a direct holding company; and (2) a family trust provides the ultimate in tax planning flexibility.

There are several benefits to having a family trust as a shareholder of your private company (I am assuming your corporation is an active company, not an investment company, for which the above is problematic). If the company is eventually sold, a family trust potentially provides for the multiplication of the $750,000 lifetime capital gains exemption on a sale of qualifying small business corporation shares (as of July, 2016, the exemption has risen to $824,177). That is, it may be possible to allocate the capital gain upon the sale to yourself, your spouse, your children or any other beneficiaries of the trust, resulting in the multiplication of the exemption and creating substantial income tax savings. For example: where there are four individual beneficiaries of a family trust, the family unit may be able to save as much as $700,000 (closer to $880,000 as of July, 2016) in income tax if a corporation  is sold for $3,000,000 ($3,300,00 as of July, 2016) or more . In addition, where your children are 18 years of age or over, the family trust can receive dividends from the family business and allocate some or all of the dividends to the children. The dividends must be reported in the tax return of the child, but in many cases, the dividends are subject to little or no tax (if a child has no other income, you can allocate almost $40,000 in dividends income tax-free).

Finally, where you have surplus earnings in a corporation and you wish to creditor proof those earnings, but do not want to allocate those funds to your spouse or your children, you may be able to allocate those funds tax-free to the holding company if it is a beneficiary of the trust. This provides for an income tax deferral of the personal taxes until the holding company pays a dividend to its shareholders.

So you may be asking “Mark, why would I ever not choose a family trust? Some of the reasons are as follows:

1. The initial accounting and legal costs may be as high as $8,000 - $12,000.

2. You may not have children or, if you do have children, they are young and you cannot allocate them dividends without the dividends being subject to the “Kiddie Tax” (a punitive income tax applied when minors receive dividends of private companies directly or through a trust).

3. You are not comfortable with allocating to your children any capital gains from a sale of the business and/or any dividends since legally that money would belong to them.
4. If the business fails, it may be problematic to claim an Allowable Business Investment Loss (a loss that can be deducted against any source of income) that would otherwise be available if the shares of the company were held directly by an individual.
5. There are some income tax traps beyond the scope of this blog post when a holding company is a beneficiary.

As discussed in the opening paragraph, once a business is established and has become successful, clients often again raise the issue of whether they should introduce a holding company or a family trust into the corporate ownership structure. At this stage, a holding company can easily be introduced as a shareholder. The mechanics are beyond the scope of this blog but the transaction can take place on a tax-free basis. However, the holding company essentially only serves one purpose, that being creditor proofing. A holding company is also often problematic, as the level of cash the holding company holds can put it offside of the rules for claiming the lifetime capital gains exemption if the business is sold in the future. Thus, you may wish to consider utilizing a family trust, unless you do not have children or do not anticipate being able to sell the corporation.

If one waits until the business is successful to introduce a family trust, as opposed to introducing one as an original shareholder when the business is first incorporated, the value of the business as at the date of the reorganization must first be attributed to the original owner(s) utilizing special shares (typically referred to as an estate freeze). This means the beneficiaries of the trust only benefit from the future growth of the corporation (i.e.: if the corporation is worth $2,000,000, the parent(s) are issued shares worth $2,000,000 and the children will only benefit on any increase in value beyond the $2,000,000). The costs of introducing a family trust with a holding company beneficiary as part of an estate freeze could be as high as $15,000 -$20,000 as a business valuation is often required.

The above discussion is very complex. The key takeaway should be that having a holding company as a direct shareholder of an operating company, may not always be the most tax efficient decision. A family trust with a holding company beneficiary may be the more appropriate choice depending upon the circumstances.

In any event, believe it or not, the above discussion has been simplified and you should not even consider undertaking such planning without consulting a professional advisor to understand the issues related to your specific fact situation to ensure the planning makes sense and that you are not breaching any of the hidden income tax traps.

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.

Discretionary Shares – A Tool In Your Income Splitting Toolbox

When incorporating your small business (or in some cases your professional corporation), there are a multitude of issues to consider. Some of these concerns were discussed in my blog on Advice for Entrepreneurs. One of the most important decisions to be made upon incorporation is the determination of the corporate structure. Today, I will focus solely on the benefits of using discretionary shares in that corporate structure.

I have previously discussed using a family trust as the shareholder of a new entity in my blog post Should Your Corporation’s Shareholder be a Family Trust instead of a Holding Company?
and thus, will not broach that topic today.

Discretionary Shares – What are They?

Discretionary shares allow a corporation to pay dividends on one class of shares to the exclusion of another class or at varying percentages. This concept is best illustrated through an example: If Mr. Bean has discretionary Class A shares and Mrs. Bean has discretionary Class B shares and the directors wish to pay a dividend of say $25,000, they could pay the entire $25,000 dividend to Mr. Bean and nothing to Mrs. Bean. Alternatively, they could pay the entire $25,000 to Mrs. Bean and nothing to Mr. Bean. They could also pay any other combination that totals $25,000; say $10,000 to Mr. Bean and $15,000 to Mrs. Bean, or $7,000 to Mr. Bean and $18,000 to Mrs. Bean.

This differs significantly from the standard garden variety common shares many lawyers automatically issue upon incorporation. Those shares pay dividends based on the ownership of the shares. So if Mr. Bean owned 35 common shares and Mrs. Bean owned 65 common shares, any dividends must be paid in the 35/65 ratio with no discretion.

The Income Splitting Benefit

Discretionary shares allow for income splitting with adult family members. Typically the shares are issued to the husband and wife or common-law spouses; however, in some cases it may make sense to issue shares to children, especially those 18 and over (the kiddie tax limits the benefits for children under 18).

The benefit is again best described by an example. Say Mr. Bean owns 75% of the common shares of Baked Beans Inc. and Mrs. Bean owns 25% of the common shares. Mr. Bean, as a working owner of the company, also receives a salary of $100,000. Under the above 75/25 ownership scenario, if a $100,000 dividend was issued and Mrs. Bean had no other income, Mr. Bean would pay approximately $27,000 in income tax on his $75,000 dividend (assume dividend is non-eligible), and Mrs. Bean would not pay any tax on her $25,000 dividend. However, if the shares had been set up as discretionary upon incorporation, the company could pay the entire dividend to Mrs. Bean and she would pay approximately $16,700 in tax, a $10,300 tax savings over standard common shares.

Another benefit of discretionary shares is that they can be issued to a holding company and used to creditor proof a company to ensure it qualifies for the capital gains exemption.

Why Not Always Use Discretionary Shares?

In some cases, spouses do not want their spouse involved in the corporate ownership; or if the spouses are involved, they prefer to own standard common shares, with at minimum 51% common share ownership. Not necessarily the best tax planning, but you would be surprised at how often people want this type of structure.

Be Careful

Care should be taken to ensure any other family corporations are not considered associated because of the discretionary shares; this would cause the corporations to have to share the $500,000 small business deduction.

While not relevant for a newly incorporated company; because of the income splitting opportunities afforded discretionary shares, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) has done some sabre-rattling with respect to the valuation of the shares when they are issued as part of an estate freeze. It is important in these cases that the fair market value (“FMV”) of the property is accurately determined.

Discretionary shares are a valuable tool in the income splitting toolbox. However, in order to ensure you handle that “tool” with care, you must obtain income tax advice before implementing any structure with discretionary shares.

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.

Should You Transfer Your Sole Proprietorship into a Corporation?

To minimize costs and test the economic waters, many Canadians start their own business as a sole proprietorship. If your business proves successful, you are then faced with the decision of whether

or not to incorporate. Today’s post discusses the income tax and business issues you must consider before deciding to move from a sole proprietorship to a corporate structure.

Legal Liability

As a business grows, sales tend to become larger and the consulting engagements more complex. Consequently, the risk of a product flaw or error becomes greater. As a proprietor, any legal action taken against your business places all your personal assets at risk, including your home (if it is in your name and not your spouses). Therefore, the decision to incorporate often makes sense just to ensure your personal assets are protected.

Until you incorporate, it is vital to ensure you maintain adequate business insurance and minimize the assets held in your own name.

Profitability and Tax Rates

As a proprietor, you must report your business income on your personal income tax return. As such, your profits are taxed at your marginal income tax rate. If you require all your business profits to fund your lifestyle; it does not make sense to incorporate your business (subject to other issues I will discuss below). However, if your business has become profitable enough that you do not need all the income generated, incorporation begins to make some sense as a tax deferral mechanism.

For example: In Ontario, the first $500,000 of active business income is taxed at only 15.5%. If you need $80,000 to live on and can leave the rest of the money in the corporation, you would defer at minimum 20% in income tax by utilizing a corporation (The marginal rate of income tax in the $80k range is approximately 35.5% vs. 15.5% corporate rate). If you are in the highest Ontario personal marginal rate you could be deferring upwards of 34%. By the way, active business income means what it sounds like: running a real business - manufacturing, wholesale, consulting, etc. A passive business earns income from stocks, rental properties, etc.

Capital Gains Exemption

One of the main advantages of incorporating is potentially being able to access the capital gains exemption for qualified small business corporation shares. The exemption is currently $750,000 per shareholder, but is scheduled to rise to $800,000 beginning January 1, 2014. Based on the 2014 exemption, a husband and wife who are 50/50 shareholders could sell their business for $1,600,000 and not pay any income tax, subject to the criteria discussed below. If you think your company may be worth millions in the future, you may even want to consider utilizing a family trust that would provide an exemption of $800,000 for every family member you include in the trust.

The criteria to determine whether shares qualify for the capital gains exemption are very complicated. The rules look back at the last twenty-four months prior to a sale and at the company on the date of the sale. In addition, the more successful you are, the harder it is to qualify. If you have excess cash and investments in the company you may fall offside the rules. I will discuss these confusing and complicated rules in a separate blog post in the future; but keep in mind, tax planning is imperative to ensure you qualify for the capital gains exemption.

Income Splitting

Income splitting opportunities for a corporation are often over-estimated. However, if you include your spouse as an owner, there may be significant income splitting benefits through the use of dividends. Dividends may be based on pure ownership (i.e.: Mr. A and Mrs. A each own 50%, so they each get 50% of any dividend paid) or you may be able to structure the corporation with discretionary shares that allow the dividends to be paid in any proportion to either Mr. A or Mrs. A (i.e.: 100% of the dividends are paid to Mrs. A and none to Mr. A). This type of structuring is complex and again you need to ensure you get proper tax and legal advice before utilizing a discretionary share structure.

How Do I Go from a Sole Proprietorship to a Corporation?

There are specific rollover provisions contained in Section 85 of the Income Tax Act that allow for you to transfer your sole proprietorship to a corporation on a tax-free basis. Shares of the corporation must be received on the transfer. The rollover is undertaken by filing Form T2057. Although this is a standard transfer provision, it is fraught with landmines.

The combined legal and accounting fees to undertake this transaction can range from $5,000 to $10,000 depending upon the complexity of the transfer. As such, many people decide to forgo this step, especially when they consider their main proprietorship asset to be personal goodwill (you are  the business and without you, it is worthless) as opposed to business goodwill (the portion of the business value that cannot be attributed to business assets such as inventory and equipment. i.e. The value of your business name, customer list, intellectual property etc). However, if you ignore filing Form T2057, you do so at your own risk.

This is because when you transfer your assets and goodwill from your proprietorship to a corporation, you are deemed to have sold or disposed of these assets at their fair market value. In order to avoid this deemed sale and to ensure you do not create any income or capital gains upon the transfer of these assets, I always suggest filing the tax-free rollover under Section 85.

As noted above, I have had clients argue they have no business goodwill and that all their goodwill is personal in nature. While in some cases there may be some validity to this argument, I think it is penny wise and pound foolish to take the risk that the CRA will deem a large gain on the transfer of your proprietorship goodwill when you can just make the election and eliminate that concern.

Once you have decided to rollover your goodwill to the corporation, it needs to be valued for purposes of the T2057 form, which can be a costly exercise. While not recommended, if you will be issued all the shares of the corporation, accountants may accept a client’s estimate of their goodwill for purposes of the election if it is reasonable and supportable. However, where other family members will become shareholders, a professional valuation is required. For example, if John transfers his proprietorship to a corporation and a valuator determines his shares are worth $500,000, John must be issued special shares worth $500,000 to ensure he has not conferred a benefit on his spouse or children. Once the special shares are issued to John, his spouse, family and/or trust subscribe for new common shares at $1.

It is important to note that I am glossing over several complex attribution rules here and you should not consider including any family member in the new corporation until you obtain proper income tax and legal advice. It is crucial to understand the ramifications of either decision and whether dividends must be paid to you in order to avoid the attribution rules.

Cost and administrative considerations

The cost of maintaining an incorporated company is far more expensive than operating a proprietorship. You must file financial statements with the CRA and the corporate income tax returns are complicated. You require annual legal resolutions and the administration is far more costly. Thus, I would not recommend the use of a corporation (subject to the other factors such as creditor proofing and the capital gains exemption discussed above) unless you could leave approximately $50,000 at minimum, but more like $75,000 of taxable income in the corporation after any salary you require.

Proprietors sometimes have difficulty separating their corporate funds from their personal funds as they are used to taking draws and simply paying tax on their business income. The corporate structure is more formal and personal drawings must be paid in the form of salary with income tax withheld and/or dividends. Both require filing of government forms (T4/T5).

The income tax benefits of a corporation can be significant. However, the transfer of a proprietorship to a corporation is very complex, especially when introducing family members as shareholders. It is thus vital that you engage an accountant and a lawyer to explain all the income tax issues to you before undertaking the transfer.

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.

Why Spend Your Energy Being Frugal? Just Tax Plan!

This past February, I had some fun with a top ten list (look below the sports agent's fees post) on why you should vote for me in a blogging contest (thanks to all of you who helped vote me into the second round of the contest!). In this list I took some shots at frugal blogs and got some emails from furious Frugalites asking me what I had against frugality and frugal blogs? I responded to a couple of emails saying that I don't have anything against frugal bloggers or frugal blogs in particular: my issue is that I think people are far too focused on cost savings,
as opposed to increasing income and/or minimizing income taxes.

As per this tongue and cheek blog I wrote titled “Old and Not Thrifty”, I admit I am not thrifty, although my wife counterbalances my lack of frugality with her ability to get a great deal. Notwithstanding my personal spending habits, any long-time reader of The BBC will know I often write about how important it is to budget and spend within your means and I reiterate this now – always be cognizant of what you are spending. However, in my opinion, if you budget well and are frugal, I think you reach a point of diminishing returns. So you save $12 on a cheaper toaster, or $1.29 on a box of cereal. Yes, those are savings, but they are immaterial in my mind once you have already proven to be a disciplined spender. Why not put all that energy into producing more income or saving taxes?

Before you start sending me hate mail, this post is not intended for those whose financial situations are such that frugality is a necessity, but for those of moderate or greater income who seem to get a little carried away with their frugal efforts when they could be making a bigger change in another manner.

I can already hear the cries of “Mark don’t give me the you should earn more lecture. I am stressed out as it is with my current job and life.” So, I won’t tell you to consider turning a hobby or an expertise into a side business or to spend some energy creating a case for a raise from your current employer or to spend your energy looking for a better job opportunity. Nope, I am going to give you some lazy tips from my past blog posts to save you significant money in taxes so you won’t have to worry about saving money on the daily fresh fish special (if you call a fish floating with one gill above the water, fresh).

I have reviewed my past blog posts to unearth three effective if not fairly effortless ways to increase your cash-flow:

1. Capital Loss Planning

I have written several times about capital loss planning (see the third paragraph from the bottom of the post, “Creating Capital Losses – Transferring Losses to a Spouse Who Has Gains) where you have a capital gain and your spouse has an unrealized capital loss. If your situation meets the criteria in my post and you have, say, a $10,000 loss and your spouse has a gain greater than $10,000, you could potentially save almost $2,500 by undertaking this form of tax planning. That is a lot of cheap rolls of toilet paper. The only caveat for this tip is that you should probably get some professional advice to ensure you do not get tripped up by the technical rules with superficial losses.

2. Form T2200

How about spending your energy asking or prodding your company to provide you with a T2200 Form that allows you to claim your employment expenses. Many employees are shy about requesting these forms and many employers are reluctant to issue these forms (because of the administrative hassle). If you incur expenses such as automobile costs, telephone or home office costs and are not reimbursed or only partially

reimbursed, ask or convince your employer to issue this form so you can deduct any of your employment related expenses on your 2013 personal income tax return. Depending upon the amount of employment expenses you have been personally absorbing, you may save enough for a vacation, which to me is a lot more exciting than saving some money on steaks that expire that day.

3. Income Splitting with Your Spouse

Income splitting can be as simple as spending the higher income spouse’s money on living costs and using the lower income spouse’s salary to invest, so any investment income is earned by the lower tax rate spouse. Alternatively, income splitting can be as sophisticated as utilizing a family trust or a prescribed loan, the rate is currently only 1%.

I have just briefly touched on a few simple opportunities to save money through tax planning. My point? Frugality takes a lot of time and effort, whereas many tax planning strategies require only a few hours of consideration. Even if you require an hour of time from an accountant to review your plan, the tax savings can be substantial.

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.

Prescribed Rate Loans Using a Family Trust

In July 2011, I wrote about the income tax savings that may be derived by using a 1% prescribed interest rate loan to income split with your spouse and children. As the world economies would have it, interest rates have not moved very much over the last eighteen months; consequently, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) prescribed interest rate is still 1% for this quarter. I would therefore suggest that the use of a prescribed interest rate loan is still an attractive tax planning alternative, however, today I will expand the use of these types of loans to include a loan to a family trust for purposes of income splitting.

To recap the above blog post. The Income Tax Act contains income attribution rules that typically reallocate income to the higher income earner when he or she tries to income split with his or her spouse or children. However, there is an exception to the above attribution rules where an individual makes a loan to a spouse or minor child and interest is charged on the loan at a rate at least equal to the CRA’s prescribed interest rate at the time the loan was made. Where the loan carries interest at a rate no less than the prescribed interest rate, the attribution rules will not apply. For the loan to avoid the income attribution rules, the interest owing must be paid each year within 30 days after the end of the year (i.e. January 30th).

As I noted at the end of the blog post, income splitting with minors can be problematic because minors generally cannot enter into an enforceable contract. Thus, I suggested the use of a family trust to navigate the enforceability issues. Today, I want to expand on the use of a family trust for these type loans.

Using a Family Trust

Where a family trust is a shareholder in your company, the kiddie tax rules make income splitting with beneficiaries problematic and typically the trusts are only beneficial for children once they turn 18 or where the company is sold and you can "sprinkle" the $750,000 capital gains exemption amongst your family members.

Shockingly, for once, individuals have a planning advantage over corporations. Where you do not have a corporation or the circumstances don’t allow for the introduction of a family trust as a shareholder of a corporation, a family trust can still be utilized to income split, by utilizing a prescribed interest rate loan to a family trust. The beauty of making a prescribed loan to a trust is that the kiddie tax will not be applicable and if structured properly, children under 18 who are beneficiaries of the trust can be used to income split. 

To prevent any confusion, let me clarify. A family trust is not an “in trust” account that some institutions allow. What I am talking about here is a formal discretionary family trust governed by a trust agreement or trust deed drafted by a lawyer and properly settled, often by a grandparent. The beneficiaries of a family trust in the case of a prescribed loan trust would include both minor children and children 18 years of age and over and the trustees would typically include at least mom or dad, if not both, and an arm’s length third party.

Once the family trust is settled, mom or dad makes a loan to the trust at the prescribed interest rate in effect at the time of the loan (i.e. 1% if the loan was made this quarter). It is very important to understand that the Income Tax Act requires that the loan carry an interest rate at least equal to the prescribed rate at the time of the loan and that this interest rate remains in effect the entire time the loan is outstanding. Thus, the 1% interest rate will not change as long as the loan is in existence, even if the CRA’s prescribed interest rate increases in the future. I cannot emphasize what a huge benefit the low permanent interest rate is in our current low rate environment. If rates begin to rise, the trust will continue to only pay 1% interest, yet the family trust can earn say 7% interest without the risk that would be required today to try and achieve a 7% return.  

Once the trust receives the loan proceeds, it will then invest the funds, but must  pay mom or dad the 1% interest by January 30th of the following year. Mom or dad must report the interest earned on the loan in their personal income tax return and the trust is entitled to an interest expense deduction for the interest paid.

The income earned by the trust less the interest expense paid is then allocated out to the children and is taxed in their hands, which in most cases will result in no income tax.

The trust can be used to pay the children’s school costs, camp costs, etc.

So why isn't there a proliferation of family trusts used for income splitting of investment income? Well, the legal and accounting costs of setting up the trust can range from $4,000 to $8,000 give or take and there are also annual T3 Trust filing costs charged by an accountant. In addition, as noted yesterday, in order to make this worthwhile, the parents would typically need to advance at least $500,000, but probably closer to $1,000,000 in this low rate environment to make the additional income tax filings and administration costs worthwhile. However, you could establish or settle a trust and loan it, say $100,000 today, to lock in the 1% rate, if you believe the compounding effect of the invested money will provide you with significant investment income down the road or you expect the stock market is going to go gangbusters in the near future. Remember though, any loans advanced to the trust in the future will need to carry an interest rate at least equal to the prescribed rate at that time, so if you loan the trust more money in the future and the prescribed rate increases to say 5%, the additional loan will be subject to the higher interest rate.

Where you have funds available for investing and have children with significant private school or university costs, then you should consider the creation of a family trust and the use of a prescribed interest rate loan for income splitting purposes. Alternatively, you can just use the trust to build up funds in your child's name to help them buy a car or a house.

Tax planning of this nature is very complicated as you must navigate several income tax and trust law provisions to ensure compliance. Before considering tax planning of this nature, you must consult with an accountant and/or lawyer.

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.