The Best of The Blunt Bean Counter - Legacy Stocks - To Sell or Not Sell? That is the Question?

This summer I am posting the "best of" The Blunt Bean Counter blog while I work on my golf game. Today, I am re-posting a March, 2017 blog on whether to sell Legacy stock positions. People are often frozen into "in-action" because of the tax consequences of selling a legacy position, especially where you have a large unrealized capital gain.

Legacy Stocks - To Sell or Not Sell? That is the Question?

Some people, typically seniors/baby boomers have owned stocks for decades, either through direct purchase or an inheritance of some kind (stocks transferred from a deceased spouse pursuant to their will generally have an adjusted cost base equal to what the deceased spouse originally paid for the shares; shares inherited from a parent or grandparent will generally have a cost base equal to the fair market value on the day of inheritance). These stocks are commonly known as Legacy Stocks; more often than not, they will include shares of Bell Canada, the Canadian bank(s) and/or insurance companies.

In early 2017,  Rob Carrick, The Globe and Mail’s excellent personal finance columnist  mentioned to me that several of his readers had asked him about selling their legacy stocks (or as more typically is the case, not selling their legacy stocks). I told him I thought the issue would make a good blog topic and asked him if he was okay with me using his idea to write a post. He gave me his blessing, so today I am writing about the issues and considerations for those of you holding legacy stocks and similar type securities.

The Common Quandary

The issue with selling legacy stocks is that they:

1. Typically have huge unrealized capital gains and thus the sale of these stocks creates a large tax bill

2. The realization of the capital gain can result in a clawback of Old Age Security ("OAS"), which seniors are loathe to ever repay

I know some readers, especially my millennial readers are thinking to themselves “Is Mark really going to write about minimizing the large capital gains of baby boomers that have already benefited from the huge increases in real estate? Cry me a river that they owe some tax.” The answer is yes, since a tax issue is a tax issue and this blog, although meant for everyone, is targeted to high-net-worth individuals and owners of private corporations.

There Is No One Size Fits All Answer

If you have a legacy stock(s) you are considering selling, there is not a standard “one size fits all” answer. There are various investment and income tax considerations. I discuss these issues and considerations below.

Capital Gains Rates

The marginal tax rate for capital gains in Ontario for income in the $45-$75k range is approximately 12-15%. This rate jumps to 19-22% or so between $90-$140k in taxable income and hits 26.8% once your taxable income exceeds $220,000.

Capital gains rates are the lowest tax rates you get in Canada. So from my perspective, the taxes you would pay from the sale of a legacy stock should not be the determinant in deciding to sell. The key factor (subject to the discussion below) should always be what the best investment decision is. Watching a stock drop 15%, to save 20% in capital gains tax, makes absolutely no sense, when viewed in isolation.

There has been concern the last few years that the Federal government may change the taxable inclusion amount of a capital gain from 1/2 to 2/3 or even 3/4. However, as this is only conjecture, if you were to sell for this reason only, you would be accelerating your tax payable.

Old Age Security Clawback

As noted above, the capital gains tax tail should not wag the tax dog. However, there is one issue that complicates the matter for seniors and that is the Old Age Security Clawback.

As evidenced by many accountants’ scars and wounds, never cause even the sweetest senior to have an OAS claw back, because all hell breaks loose :). I am only half-joking; seniors really resent having their OAS clawed back. I assume it is because they feel they have an entitlement to this money and the government does not have the right to claim all or some portion back (even though, they did not directly fund this program).

Seniors must pay back all or a portion of their OAS as well as any net federal supplements if their annual income exceeds a certain amount. For 2017, if your net income before adjustments is greater than $74,789 ($73,756 for 2016) then you will have to repay 15% of the excess over this amount, to a maximum of the total amount of OAS received. The maximum repayment is hit around $119,000.

So if you have a capital gain on a legacy stock of $90,000 ($45k taxable) and you are right at the $74,789 OAS limit before the capital gain, the tax cost of the capital gain would be around $15,000 or 17% of the $90,000 gain. However, when you add the OAS clawback that would be applicable, the combined tax and OAS clawback could approach $22,000 or 25% or so. That is why you cannot look at the gain in isolation.

If you do not have an investment reason to sell your stock, you may want to consider selling the stock over a few years to minimize the tax and OAS clawback, assuming you wish to keep the stock each year.

Holding Company

A “sexier” alternative, especially for seniors is to transfer your stocks to a holding company. You should be able to do this on a tax-free basis under Section 85 of the Income Tax Act. The benefit to doing this is any dividends earned and the eventual capital gain are taxed in the holding company and thus, do not affect your OAS clawback. In addition, if you have any potential U.S. estate tax exposure (see this prior blog post on estate tax), the U.S. stocks in your holding company will not be subject to U.S. estate tax if there is estate tax in place at the time of your passing (estate tax is a U.S. political issue that keeps changing depending upon the party in charge). So while you do not save any actual income tax, you can save your OAS from being clawed back and possibly gain some U.S. estate protection.

The downside to this strategy is the cost to transfer the stocks (legal and accounting) and ongoing accounting costs, which can be high for a holding company and thus, potentially a significant part of the OAS clawback savings is now paid to your accountant instead of the government, so you have to weigh the savings versus the costs.

Capital Losses

If you plan on triggering capital gains on legacy stocks, you should review if you have any capital losses you can apply against these gains. The CRA notes your capital loss carryforward balance on your notice of assessment and if you have a My CRA account, you can get this information online. It should be noted, the application of the losses only reduce the capital gains tax, not the OAS clawback.

Charitable Donation

Where you donate public securities to a registered charity, the capital gains inclusion rate is set to zero. Thus, there would be no capital gain to report on the donation of a legacy stock (have your accountant run the numbers, but this should minimize or eliminate the clawback) and you receive a donation credit. This is reported on Form T1170 . This strategy is effective if you make large donations every year or were planning to make a substantial donation and helps the charity since you have more funds to donate than with an after-tax donation.

The decision to sell a legacy stock is not a simple one. The overriding decision should still be an investment decision; however, where you are indifferent to selling, you need to consider the various issues and options I have noted above. Before undertaking any legacy stock selling, you should consult your investment advisor and possibly your accountant.

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.

Public Retirement Systems: Comparing CPP/OAS in Canada to Social Security in the United States

I'm back. I made it through yet another tax season. I request your indulgence for a paragraph, as I have one last rant about the timing of the issuance of tax season T-slips.

You would not believe (or maybe you would, since you are probably like many of my clients, who received their tax slips into the first ten days or April, let alone the number of amended slips received up to the third week of April) how many returns we had to amend or hold because of late or amended T-slips. With current technology and payroll services, I really don't see why the CRA does change the required issuance date for T4's and T5's from the end of February to either the end of January or the middle of February. This would allow the corresponding acceleration of T3's for public entities and T5013's to say March 1st or 15th (I would keep trust filings for private trusts to March 31st so they would not have to amend each return for the tax slips received after March 31st). By doing such, taxpayers could file their returns on a timely basis without being rushed and constantly amending their returns.

Okay, let's move on to today’s post, which contrasts and discusses retirement benefits under the social insurance systems of Canada and the United States. 

 This post lays the groundwork for a future guest post by Alyssa Tawadros a senior manager U.S. tax with BDO Canada LLP, which will discuss various cross-border aspects of social insurance, such as:

• How CPP/Social Security contributions work when one goes on a temporary cross-border assignment (i.e. totalization agreements and certificates of coverage) 
• How contributing to the U.S.’s social security during one’s lifetime affects their ability to claim benefits for CPP (and vice versa)
• How each respective country taxes a resident’s social security benefits

Public Retirement Systems

As noted above, today’s post will compare retirement benefits under the social insurance systems of Canada and the United States. In Canada, this would be the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS), and in the U.S. this would be Social Security.

  The Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

The CPP is a contributory public pension plan administered for employees and self-employed individuals. It provides a basic level of earnings replacement in retirement for workers throughout Canada, with the exception of Quebec. Quebec workers are covered by the Quebec Pension Plan (QPP), which is an almost equivalent plan. For simplicity’s sake, we will focus on the CPP only. In addition to retirement benefits, the CPP also provides disability and survivor benefits.

The CPP is financed by employer, employee and self-employed contributions as well as income earned on CPP investments. Contributions begin at age 18 and end at age 65 unless the individual has already begun receiving benefits or has died. Currently, the CPP contribution is 9.9% of annual pensionable income. Employees make half (4.95%) of the contribution and the other half is paid by their employer. Self-employed contributors pay the full 9.9%, and they receive a corresponding tax deduction on their tax return for one half of the contribution to represent the “employer” portion of the contribution. When calculating the contribution, there is an annual exemption of $3,500 that is deducted from the annual pensionable income. CPP contributions are limited by the “year’s maximum pensionable earnings”, which in 2017 is $55,300. The year’s maximum pensionable earnings approximates the average Canadian wage and is indexed to average wage growth annually.

For example, let’s say you’re employed and your total annual income in 2017 is $130,000. Since this income is in excess of the maximum pensionable earnings, the CPP contributions are calculated based on pensionable earnings of $55,300. After the deduction of $3,500, you and your employer’s contribution would each be $2,564.10 (4.95% of $51,800), for a total contribution of $5,128.20.

Currently, when the contributor reaches the normal retirement age of 65, the CPP provides retirement benefits equal to 25% of the contributor’s pensionable earnings for the years that the contributor is aged 18 to 65. A certain number of months with lowest earnings may be automatically disregarded under a general “drop out” provision to account for certain periods when one wasn’t working (e.g. unemployment, attending school, etc.). The maximum CPP retirement pension one could be entitled to is calculated as 25% of the average of the maximum pensionable earnings for the last five years. For 2017, that maximum is $13,370.04. The average annual amount of benefit for new beneficiaries is typically much lower than the maximum. In 2016, the average amount of benefit collected was $7,732.202.

It is possible to apply for and receive CPP benefits as early as age 60, but the pensioner will receive a reduced amount. On the other hand, by delaying CPP benefits until the age of 70, the pensioner will get an increased benefit. Calculating what your benefit might be at retirement is quite intricate, but estimates can be requested for ages 60, 65 and 70 from the Service Canada website. In order to qualify for CPP benefits, the pensioner must be at least a month past their 59th birthday, have worked in Canada, have made at least one valid contribution to the CPP, and want their CPP retirement pension payments to begin within 12 months.

You may be aware that in 2016 the government introduced Bill C-26, which sets out amendments to enhance CPP benefits. The main changes will be an annual payout target raised up to 33% from 25% and to increase the Year’s Maximum Pensionable Earnings to $82,700 when the program is fully phased in by 2025. The program will be funded by an increase in contributions by employees and employers from 4.95% to 5.95%, phased in slowly starting in 2019. In today’s dollars, the Department of Finance has indicated that the maximum benefit under the enhanced CPP will increase to nearly $20,000.

Old Age Security (OAS)

OAS is a government program that provides a basic level of retirement income and is funded out of the general revenues of federal government. It is not tied to past work history or funded through payroll taxes. It operates as a monthly payment available to seniors aged 65 and older who are Canadian citizens or legal residents living in Canada or elsewhere – provided that the minimum residence requirements are met. In addition, low-income seniors who qualify for OAS may be eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), which is a tax-free benefit. To qualify for the GIS in 2017, a single pensioner’s income must be $17,544 or below and married pensioners’

combined income must be $23,184 or below.

The OAS maximum monthly benefit for 2017 is $578.53. The benefit is subject to a reduction also known as a “clawback” starting at incomes of around $70,000. The benefit is fully clawed back at incomes around $120,004. It should be noted that when people complain their OAS is clawed-back, it is not their own money, but the governments money. Here is a link to a post I wrote on strategies to reduce the claw-back.

The annual retirement benefit for someone who is entitled to maximum CPP and OAS benefits is around $20,312 ($578.52 x 12 + $13,370.04). However, as the average CPP benefit in 2016 was lower than the maximum, an estimate of the average retirement benefit from CPP and OAS would be around $14,674 ($578.52 x 12 + $7,732.20)

How Does Social Security Compare?

Social Security is similar to CPP in that it is a mandatory publicly-provided system providing retirement assistance which is funded by contributions from employees and employers and the self-employed. The funding is by way of FICA taxes (FICA stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act) where contributions to Social Security are 12.4% of eligible earnings. Similar to CPP, half (6.2%) is paid by the employee and half by the employer. Those who are self-employed are liable for the full 12.4%, but receive a deduction for 50% of their contribution on their tax return to represent the “employer” portion. Similar to CPP, there is a maximum earnings cap known as the “wage base limit” which is $127,200 for 2017. So as you can see, Social Security requires higher annual contributions than CPP, mainly because the both maximum pensionable earnings and contribution rate is significantly higher.

Using our example from above to compare both systems, the individual earning $130,000 a year would contribute the maximum under both systems since the salary is higher than the maximum earnings cap in both countries. For 2017, the individual would contribute $7,886.40 to Social Security ($127,200 x 6.2%) or $2,564.10 to the CPP (ignoring exchange rate considerations).

With a high contribution you would hope it would come with a high reward at retirement – especially since the U.S. does not have an analogous program to OAS. Social Security is a credit-based system and the number of credits one has determines whether one is eligible to collect. In 2017, one credit is received for every $1,300 in earnings up to a maximum of four credits per year. To claim retirement benefits, 40 credits are needed, generally representing ten years of work. However you can’t collect retirement benefits until you earn 40 credits and reach the age of 62 or older. Retiring at age 62 is considered early retirement, with the full retirement age being 67 for those born in 1960 or later. Similar to CPP, if one collects early starting at age 62, they get a reduced payment. Conversely, if they wait to collect after age 67 they get a higher payment, which tops out at age 70.

The retirement benefits depend on how much money was earned during one’s working years and when they started collecting. The program was designed to replace roughly 40% of pre-retirement wages for an average earner. Getting the highest benefit possible means that the income must have been at or above the Social Security ceiling each year for at least 35 years. In 2017, the maximum benefit for one retiring at the full retirement age is $32,244. However the published average benefit for 2016 was around $16,092. Similar to CPP, the average collected is typically less than the maximum benefit.

Expanding CPP – was it a necessary step?

Currently, Social Security covers a much higher income range (and requires a higher contribution) than CPP and generally aims to replace more pre-retirement wages than CPP. However, the U.S. does not have an analogous program to OAS. Social Security tends to provide a larger benefit at retirement to those who were high income earners during their working years in comparison to CPP and OAS. In contrast, Canada’s system can provide more benefits to those who had lower incomes when they are working. This is consistent with the Department of Finance’s study that found lower income families had the lowest risk of undersaving for retirement as OAS and CPP benefits provide a relatively high income replacement at their income range.

CPP reform appears to be targeted more toward middle class families. The Department of Finance found that 24% of families nearing retirement age are at risk of not having adequate income in retirement to maintain their standard of living. They also suggest that roughly 1.1 million families will have trouble maintaining their standard of living at retirement. The Department of Finance identified a number of factors which have increased the level of savings required, such as the decline of workplace pension plans, the shift from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans, and younger workers living longer lives. The enhancement to the CPP is meant to provide higher, predictable retirement benefits. Although the mandate is arguably needed in today’s world, both employees and the employers must now take on a higher burden through increased contributions. Where labour can often be one of the largest costs of a small business, the increase in contributions lowers the bottom line and can be an inhibitor of growth. Ideally, the gradual phase-in will help small businesses integrate the changes into their business and financial planning. 

I would like to thank Alyssa Tawadros, Senior Manager, U.S. Tax for BDO Canada LLP for her extensive assistance in writing this post. If you wish to engage Alyssa for individual U.S. tax planning, she can be reached at atawadros@bdo.ca

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

Legacy Stocks - To Sell or Not Sell? That is the Question?

Many people, typically seniors/baby boomers have owned stocks for decades, either through direct purchase or an inheritance of some kind (stocks transferred from a deceased spouse pursuant to their will generally have an adjusted cost base equal to what the deceased spouse originally paid for the shares; shares inherited from a parent or grandparent will generally have a cost base equal to the fair market value on the day of inheritance). These stocks are commonly known as Legacy Stocks; more often than not, they will include shares of Bell Canada, the Canadian bank(s) and/or insurance

companies.

Several weeks ago, Rob Carrick, The Globe and Mail’s excellent personal finance columnist  mentioned to me that several of his readers had asked him about selling their legacy stocks (or as more typically is the case, not selling their legacy stocks). I told him I thought the issue would make a good blog topic and asked him if he was okay with me using his idea to write a post. He gave me his blessing, so today I am writing about the issues and considerations for those of you holding legacy stocks and similar type securities.

The Common Quandary

The issue with selling legacy stocks is that they:

1. Typically have huge unrealized capital gains and thus the sale of these stocks creates a large tax bill

2. The realization of the capital gain can result in a clawback of Old Age Security ("OAS"), which seniors are loathe to ever repay

I know some readers, especially my millennial readers are thinking to themselves “Is Mark really going to write about minimizing the large capital gains of baby boomers that have already benefited from the huge increases in real estate? Cry me a river that they owe some tax.” The answer is yes, since a tax issue is a tax issue and this blog, although meant for everyone, is targeted to high-net-worth individuals and owners of private corporations.

There Is No One Size Fits All Answer

If you have a legacy stock(s) you are considering selling, there is not a standard “one size fits all” answer. There are however, various investment and income tax considerations. I discuss these issues and considerations below.

Capital Gains Rates

The marginal tax rate for capital gains in Ontario for income in the $45-$75k range is approximately 15%. This rate jumps to 22% or so between $90-$140k in taxable income and hits 26.8% once your taxable income exceeds $220,000.

These capital gains rates are the lowest tax rates you get in Canada. So from my perspective, the taxes you would pay from the sale of a legacy stock should not be the determinant in deciding to sell. The key factor (subject to the discussion below) should always be what the best investment decision is. Watching a stock drop 15%, to save 20% in capital gains tax, makes absolutely no sense, when viewed in isolation.

Some tax pundits think the upcoming (no date yet announced) Federal budget may change the taxable inclusion amount of a capital gain from 1/2 to 2/3 or even 3/4. If you are one of those people, now may be a time that the capital gains rate becomes a more significant factor in making your decision to sell a legacy stock (some people are selling and buying back). However, this is only a rumour and if there is no change in legislation, you would accelerate your tax payable.

Old Age Security Clawback

As noted above, the capital gains tax tail should not wag the tax dog. However, there is one issue that complicates the matter for seniors and that is the Old Age Security Clawback.

As evidenced by many accountants’ scars and wounds, never cause even the sweetest senior to have an OAS claw back, because all hell breaks loose :). I am only half-joking; seniors really resent having their OAS clawed back. I assume it is because they feel they have an entitlement to this money and the government does not have the right to claim all or some portion back (even though, they did not directly fund this program).

Seniors must pay back all or a portion of their OAS as well as any net federal supplements if their annual income exceeds a certain amount. For 2017, if your net income before adjustments is greater than $74,789 ($73,756 for 2016) then you will have to repay 15% of the excess over this amount, to a maximum of the total amount of OAS received. The maximum repayment is hit around $119,000.

So if you have a capital gain on a legacy stock of $90,000 ($45k taxable) and you are right at the $74,789 OAS limit before the capital gain, the tax cost of the capital gain would be around $15,000 or 17% of the $90,000 gain. However, when you add the OAS clawback that would be applicable, the combined tax and OAS clawback could approach $22,000 or 25% or so. That is why you cannot look at the gain in isolation.

If you do not have an investment reason to sell your stock, you may want to consider selling the stock over a few years to minimize the tax and OAS clawback, assuming you wish to keep the stock each year.

Holding Company

A “sexier” alternative, especially for seniors is to transfer your stocks to a holding company. You should be able to do this on a tax-free basis under Section 85 of the Income Tax Act. The benefit to doing this is any dividends earned and the eventual capital gain are taxed in the holding company and thus, do not affect your OAS clawback. In addition, if you have any potential U.S. estate tax exposure (see this prior blog post on estate tax), the U.S. stocks in your holding company will not be subject to U.S. estate tax (if there is U.S. estate tax -President Trump intends to eliminate the tax). So while you do not save any actual income tax, you can save your OAS from being clawed back and possibly gain some U.S. estate protection.

The downside to this strategy is the cost to transfer the stocks (legal and accounting) and ongoing accounting costs, which can be high for a holding company and thus, potentially a significant part of the OAS clawback savings is now paid to your accountant instead of the government, so you have to weigh the savings versus the costs.

Capital Losses

If you plan on triggering capital gains on legacy stocks, you should review if you have any capital losses you can apply against these gains. The CRA notes your capital loss carryforward balance on your notice of assessment and if you have a My CRA account, you can get this information online. It should be noted, the application of the losses only reduce the capital gains tax, not the OAS clawback.

Charitable Donation

Where you donate public securities to a registered charity, the capital gains inclusion rate is set to zero. Thus, there would be no capital gain to report on the donation of a legacy stock (have your accountant run the numbers, but this should minimize or eliminate the clawback) and you receive a donation credit. This is reported on Form T1170 . This strategy is effective if you make large donations every year or were planning to make a substantial donation and helps the charity since you have more funds to donate than with an after-tax donation.

The decision to sell a legacy stock is not a simple one. The overriding decision should still be an investment decision; however, where you are indifferent to selling, you need to consider the various issues and options I have noted above. Before undertaking any legacy stock selling, you should consult your accountant and investment advisor to account for all your personal circumstances.

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.

Tax Planning Strategies to Minimize the Old Age Security Clawback

Question: How does an accountant enrage a sweet, mild mannered genteel grandmother?

Answer: Tell her some or all of her Old Age Security (“OAS”) payments were clawed-back on her tax return.

One lesson I have learned over the years is that whether a senior is a multi-millionaire or just well to do, they consider their OAS payment as sacred and any tax planning that causes even one dollar to be clawed-back may result in a tirade against their shell-shocked accountant.

I can only surmise that people feel they are entitled to so little in retirement related payments that they feel it is very unfair to have any of it taken away. I also think some people mistakenly think they have paid taxes to fund the Old Age Security program; however, that is a common misconception. The plan is funded out of the general revenues of the Government of Canada, which means that you do not directly pay into the OAS plan.

In any event, it is prudent for you and/or your accountant to plan to minimize any OAS clawback and that is my topic for today.

Old Age Security

The OAS is a monthly payment available to most Canadians 65 years of age (will gradually increase from 65 to 67 over six years, starting in April 2023). The eligibility requirements are here:

The maximum monthly OAS payment is currently $563.74 (October to December).

For 2014, you must reimburse all or part of your OAS pension if your net individual income exceeds $71,592 (including the OAS pension). The total amount of this reimbursement is equal to 15% of your net income (including the OAS pension) that exceeds $71,592. The full amount of OAS will be repaid when net income exceeds approximately $117,700.

Avoiding the Clawback

Split Income Election

For most people, the best income splitting technique available, and the most effective way to reduce your income, and thus reduce your OAS clawback, is to elect to split pension income (pension income includes most types of pension income, excluding OAS, CPP/QPP). The election is made by filing Form T1032, “Joint Election to Split Pension Income” with you and your spouse’s annual tax returns. CPP can be split also, but a request must be made to Service Canada (Pension sharing form ISP-1002A)

Income Sources

Not all income is treated equally. Only ½ of your capital gains are taxed, while interest income is fully taxable. Dividends are a strange animal as they are subject to a dividend gross-up (38% for public co. dividends) which causes your income to be increased. Thus, dividends can be detrimental for OAS planning purposes; however, the dividend tax credit tail should not solely wag the investment decision.

Holding Company

If you transfer your non-registered investments into a Holding Company (a rollover tax election form needs to be filed), you will no longer earn this income personally and you may reduce or eliminate your holdback. This sounds like a sexy solution, however it often comes with complications. First of all, you will most likely have to pay an accountant to prepare financial statements and tax returns, which will eat up around half your OAS savings. In addition, upon your death, or upon the death of your spouse if you leave your assets to them, you will have a deemed disposition of your Holding Company shares. That means your estate must pay tax on the value of your holding company at death. This may cause a double tax on death that can often only be alleviated by undertaking some complicated tax planning.

However, you may be able to plan around the double tax issue as discussed by Tim Cestnick in this article: 

To quickly paraphrase Tim’s plan; you transfer your investments into a Holdco and take back an interest free loan. Each year the Holdco declares a dividend to you equal to the full amount of the after-tax earnings of the company. It is important to note the dividend is payable, not actually paid. To cover your yearly cash requirements, you repay your interest free loan as required. Depending upon your financial situation and longevity, at some point the loan is paid off and the company then begins to actually pay the declared dividends, but this could be 15-20 years from now.

When you pass away, your heirs become the owners of the Holdco. The investments can then be distributed from the company in the form of the declared and unpaid dividends and may allow for some income tax savings. More importantly, the value of the company’s shares at the time of your death may have minimal value because the dividend liability owing by the company may be around the same value as the investment assets. This significantly reduces the double tax issue.

This planning is complicated and before you undertake Tim’s plan, you should consult your accountant to ensure the plan makes sense based on your personal circumstances.

A Holdco also is very effective if you have significant US assets, as the Holdco assets are not subject to US estate tax.

Finally, if you have a separate will for your Holdco (at least in Ontario) you can minimize your probate fees.

TFSA

If you have not maximized your TFSA, you should transfer non-registered money that is generating taxable income into your TFSA, to the extent of your unused contribution limit.

Alter Ego Trust

Alter Ego Trusts are special trusts that can only be created by individuals 65 or over. During the individuals lifetime they must be the only person entitled to receive the income of the trust and the individual creating the trust must be the only person entitled to receive the assets of the trust prior to the death of the individual. There is also a similar concept known as a “joint partner trust” with pretty much the same rules, for married or common law partners.

Where you have non-registered assets throwing off significant interest and dividend income that is causing an OAS clawback, it may make sense to transfer these assets to an Alter Ego Trust to reduce your clawback. Generally the transfer of these assets to the trust is tax-free.

However, since the income earned on these assets will be taxed at the highest marginal rate in the Alter Ego Trust, you have to consider whether the OAS clawback savings and other advantages (probate protection), outweigh any extra income tax costs (i.e.: is the extra tax payment a result of having all this income tax at the highest rate, less than the OAS you get to now keep by moving those assets into the trust).

I have outlined various strategies above that may be used to reduce your OAS clawback. However, I caution you; the complications and extra costs of some of these strategies need to be compared to the actual OAS savings they produce, as I have found that many clients over 65 want fewer complications in their life, not more. Consequently, you may face a tug of war between complicating your financial life or just accepting an OAS clawback.

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.

2012 Federal Budget

The Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, today presented the 2012 Federal Budget. As with Tuesday's Ontario Budget, there are no personal income tax rate changes. However, there is a significant change to the age of eligibility for Old Age Security ("OAS") which will be pushed back to age 67 from age 65 for anyone who has not yet reached the age of 54 as of March 31, 2012.

There are no corporate income tax rate changes, however, there are various measures related to the Scientific Research and Development Program ("R&D") and taxpayer compliance.

Other than the OAS change for individuals and the R&D changes for corporations, I don't think there is much to get most people excited about in the budget. Thus, I am going to take the lazy way out, and link to my firm Cunningham LLP's budget summary (which I helped write) for those who want details of the budget.

As someone who is just below the OAS age cut-off, I feel like my year of birth, has been a little unlucky. It was bad enough that I was born too late for Woodstock and got stuck with Disco, now I get screwed on the OAS cut-off :).

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.