DAVID WILKENFELD, CA, canadian tax CONSULTANT

Posts Tagged ‘Law’

, , , , , , , , ,

Support Payments Redux

In Canadian Income Tax, Personal Tax on February 13, 2012 at 1:46 pm

So you’ve split up with your significant other, and you’re forced to make support payments. The first thing you’ll be asking me is, “are they deductible?” Well, just like your relationship, it’s complicated. That’s what The Tax Issue is here for.

There are two basic requirements before you even consider taking a deduction. First, the payments must be based on a written agreement or a court order. Second, they must be periodic payments. Lump sums or payments based on a mutual, non written understanding are not deductible.

Once you’ve passed these hurdles the rules are different depending on when your agreement or court order was signed. We’ll tackle them one at a time, but before we do, you should be aware of one more thing: any amount that is deductible to the payer is also taxable to recipient.

Written Agreement or Court Order After April 1997

If your document is dated after April, 1997, only payments made in support of your spouse (or common law partner) are deductible. Child support is not.

Your agreement must clearly specify which payments are exclusively for spousal support. If no mention is made of the purpose of the payments, they are deemed to be for child support and are not deductible.

Payments made to a third party qualify as long as they are for the benefit of your spouse and he or she has control over them. For example, if a court order specifies that payments are to be made to a landlord for your spouse’s rent, it must also be made clear that your spouse may at any time have those payments made to her instead if he or she so desires.

If you qualify for a deduction under the above rules, you must register your agreement or court order with the CRA by filing form T1158.

Written Agreement or Court Order After April 1997

If your document is dated prior to May, 1997, then payments for spousal support and child support are deductible.

However, if the agreement was amended after April, 1997 and the amount of child support payments is modified, then you fall into the new rules, and they will no longer be deductible.

You can also choose, if your spouse agrees, to have the new rules apply to make the payments non-deductible (and non-taxable to the recipient) by filing an election on Form T1157.

Those are the basic rules. If you need more information, try the CRA guide P102. That should answer most of your questions.

, , , , , , , ,

Introducing The Tax Issue Tax Organizer for 2011!!

In Canadian Income Tax, Personal Tax, Uncategorized on January 17, 2012 at 2:06 pm

Organizing tax information for your tax preparer can be a daunting task. Do you use a shoebox? a shopping bag? Despite your best intentions, you may not have the time or the knowledge necessary to provide a complete and organized dossier.

Those of use who prepare your taxes just don’t have the time or energy to instruct their clients on how to properly prepare their income tax papers.

And so, as a public service to those beleaguered tax preparers, and to those of you who want your accountant to love you at tax time, The Tax Issue introduces the Tax Issue Tax Organizer.

The Tax Issue Tax Organizer is a free PDF file that you can download and use as an accountant, to give to your client, or as a client to use yourself to help organize the information you give to your tax preparer and make his or her life a little easier.

How to use the Tax Issue Tax Organizer

Simply download and print the Organizer. Each page represents a section that will let you organize the information for that topic. It starts with a list of the relevant documents you should submit to your tax preparer. Attach each page to a separate envelope or file folder containing the documents for that section.

Each page has a list of Do’s and Don’ts to help ensure that you help your tax preparer by including all the necessary documents and receipts he needs to efficiently prepare your taxes.

Finally, each page contains a few tax tips to help guide you through the process.

Even if you prepare your own tax returns, The Tax Issue Tax Organizer is a great tool to help you prepare.

Have a great tax season and enjoy using the Tax Issue Tax Organizer!

, , , , , , , , , , ,

What’s Your Tax Issue? Residence in a Trust

In Canadian Income Tax, Personal Tax, Principal Residence on January 7, 2012 at 8:19 pm

Our House is a very very very fine house

                  –Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young

The Tax Issue

I am a member (beneficiary) of a family trust that was set up years ago by my Dad. The trust currently owns two houses. I live in one, and my sister, who is also a member of the trust, is married and lives in the other. We were told that we will have taxes to pay we sell our homes. Can this be true? Please help, as no one seems to know the answer.

The Answer

The principal residence rules that apply to personal trusts are surprisingly restrictive and can be a trap for the unwary.

A trust is treated as a person for tax purposes. As such, it does have access to the principal residence exemption on the sale of a home. But here’s the kicker: if a trust designates a home as a principal residence for a given year, then every beneficiary of that trust who lived in a home owned by the trust is deemed to have made the designation. And remember, a person can only designate one property as her principal residence. This applies to a trust as well. This means that if you sell the home you are living in and the trust claims it as a principal residence, then when the trust sells your sister’s home, the trust is precluded from making the designation on the second home. Her home becomes ineligible for the exemption for those years even though it may be the only home she’s lived. This might come as a shock, and it seems unfair, but that is the way the law works.

So, let’s look at an example. Say the trust owned your home since 2000 and it is sold in 2012 at a gain of $500,000. Furthermore, let’s assume the trust owned your sister’s home since 1996, and sells in 2012 at a gain of $400,000. If the trust claims the full principal residence exemption on your home, then it will be precluded from claiming the exemption for the years 2000 – 2012 on your sister’s home. In fact, for the 16 years the trust owned your sister’s home, only 4 will qualify, so only 4/16 of the gain will be exempt. (Actually, the formula generously adds 1 year to numerator, so technically 5/16, or $125,000 of the total gain will be exempt).

Taxpayers thinking about placing personal homes in a family trust should always seek professional tax advise.

, , , , , , , , , ,

Tax Court Rules On Ponzi Scheme Victims

In Canadian Income Tax, Losses on January 3, 2012 at 2:00 am

The Tax Court of Canada has recently confirmed the tax treatment of Ponzi scheme victims as I feared they would in the very first issue of The Tax Issue.

In a Ponzi scheme, taxpayers unwittingly entrust funds to a promoter, who, rather than investing them, uses them to make payments to other investors. The flow of funds continues this way until enough people finally ask for their money back, at which point, the fraud is exposed.

The taxpayer in the case of Johnson (2011 TCC 540) was a winner because the court ruled that in a Ponzi scheme, there is no investment and thus no source of income. The good news for this taxpayer, a victim of Andrew Lech, was that she was one of the few who cashed in her capital after a few years of receiving what she thought was a great return on her investment. The “income” she dutifully reported over the years was held not to be “income from a source” and thus not subject to income tax.The court stated that “the net receipts were nothing more than the shuffle of money among innocent participants.”

The bad news for those who have lost their investment, however, is that there is no tax relief available for the loss of their capital.  In a normal investment, the loss would be considered a capital loss, 50% of which can be used to offset capital gains. For these victims of fraud, since no income source existed, no tax deduction is available on the loss of the investment.

The only consolation is for taxpayers who reported income in past years to amend their returns and request refunds on the tax they paid on the payments received from fraudulent schemes.

Update: The CRA has decided to appeal this decision….To be continued…..

, , , , , ,

Mr. CA Goes To Tax Court

In Canadian Income Tax on October 26, 2011 at 11:36 am

Years ago, the Tax Court of Canada introduced its informal procedure, a type of “small claims” court for tax cases. I was intrigued at the time, because it allowed for non-lawyers such as myself to represent taxpayers, under certain conditions. So, I did some research and wrote an article on the topic which was published by CA Magazine. At the time, I hadn’t ever been to Tax Court (I’m confessing this now, years later, having successfully represented 3 clients since). My article was based strictly on research, and some anecdotes from a colleague. Anyhow, I thought I’d reprint an abridged version of that article for old times sake, so here it is:

Entering the courtroom I was less than impressed. It was smaller than I had imagined. And although there was a generous amount of oak trim surrounding me, it somehow felt cold and clinical. Perhaps my expectations were too high. I’ll admit to being a bit zealous. After all, here I was, about to plead a case in the Tax Court of Canada, and I was not even a lawyer.

As a chartered accountant, I was within my rights to represent my client in a tax case. The Informal Procedure Rules were established in 1991 to provide a “small claims court” environment where an individual taxpayer could represent himself without the need to adhere to strict rules of procedure and evidence. A lawyer or an agent, such as an accountant, may also represent an individual in an Informal Procedure case.

Under the rules of the Tax Court, the Informal Procedure may be invoked in an appeal where, for each assessment, the amount of federal tax involved, plus applicable penalties, is equal to or less than $12,000. In the case of a loss determination, the amount in dispute must not be more than $24,000, and where the dispute is in respect of an amount of interest only, the threshold is $12,000.

I explained to my client that the objective of these rules was expediency. Her case would be heard relatively quickly, within a few months of her application. The hearing would be short and a decision would be rendered quickly, usually in the same day, but generally not later that 90 days after the hearing. She would not be subjected to examination by the opposing counsel prior to the hearing. Her risk in the case of an unfavourable judgement would be reduced by the fact that costs could not be claimed against her by the Crown.

After our objection was denied, I had filed a timely Notice of Appeal on behalf of my client with the Registrar of the Tax Court. Since I was a layman, the strict rules of format regarding such a document were relaxed. The court had accepted my Notice, which was prepared in a letter style. However, I had still made certain that the letter contained all the necessary elements. Similar to what you might find in a Notice of Objection, the letter indicated the name of the taxpayer, the details of the assessment and the issues surrounding the appeal.

The judge gave me a curt nod and asked me to begin. I rose from my seat, thanked him respectfully, and gave my opening statement. I tried to avoid showing my anger at the injustices heaped on my poor, suffering client by the cold-hearted tax department. I would be better off, I figured, with a brief and logical summary of my case.

I guided my client logically through the sequence of events, ensuring that she stayed to the point at all times. As we went along, I introduced documents to support the testimony. In the Informal Procedure, the rules governing the introduction of evidence are markedly relaxed.

After cross-examination, I was asked to give my closing argument. I reviewed the evidence and referred to a court case as an authority to support our position. I came to a conclusion based on the facts and the law surrounding the issues, and I once again concluded with a request to have the Minister’s assessment altered. I thanked the court and sat down, hoping no one had seen me sweat.

I was done. I had presented a concise and forceful case. Although I was feeling exhilarated, I wasn’t sure whether I would give up my accounting practice just yet to pursue a law degree. The judge had been lenient with me, knowing I was a layman. The Informal Procedure was designed with non-lawyers in mind…

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

What’s Your Tax Issue? Home Built By Company

In Canadian Income Tax, Shareholder Benefits on October 3, 2011 at 10:12 am

The Tax Issue

I recently built our “dream” home for 2.50M$. However, not having sufficient funds personally, my professional corporation financed the construction of the house for me, writes off the maintenance, utilities and taxes, and I rent the house from my company at a market value rent, having researched comparable rents in the neighbourhood. Apart from forgoing the principal residence exemption – are there any other detriments to this strategy?

The Answer

Could be. I’m assuming, since you are paying rent, that you’re aware of the shareholder benefit rules. That is, by virtue of the fact that the company has financed your house and pays expenses on your behalf, you are exposed to tax on the value of the benefit you are receiving from the company.

What you may not be aware of is how the CRA might establish the value of the benefit. It could be the market value rent as you have researched, and if so, the rent you’re paying would be enough to offset the taxable amount completely.

In your case, however, it may not be so simple. There is a line of jurisprudence, starting with the case of Youngman v. The Queen, that suggests that the benefit or advantage conferred on you is not merely the right to use or occupy a house; it is the right to use or occupy a house that the company, at your request, had built specially for you in accordance with your specifications. How much would you have had to pay for the same advantage if you had not been a shareholder of the company?

So what is this “alternative” calculation? Generally, the value of the benefit could be calculated by reference to the income the corporation would have earned if its capital had been productively employed and not based on the fair market rental value (which might be considerably lower).

As an example, on a $2.5M capital outlay, the company could have been expected to earn interest in a relatively risk-free investment of, say anywhere from 2% to 5%. This would mean an annual rent of $50,000 to $125,000, plus expenses. If you are paying any less than this in rent, despite what the market rents are in the area, then you could be exposed to a greater taxable benefit than you thought.

, , , , , , ,

Harassment, Conflict and Litigation – Part Three

In Business Expenses, Canadian Income Tax on September 21, 2011 at 9:50 am

In the final instalment of this series on what creates the most HCL with the CRA in our SAS (“harassment, conflict and litigation” with the “Canada Revenue Agency” in our “self-assessment system”), we cover the granddaddy of disputable expenses – automobile costs. Any tax auditor worth his salt will zero right in on auto expenses like my tee shots to water. Why? Because everybody loves to drive and everybody loves to deduct car expenses. The problem is that the rules in this area are so onerous and complex, few taxpayers under investigation ever come out of it with no HC or L. It’s the record-keeping burden that gets most people into the HCL zone. So heed the following, and minimize your grief.

First, let’s summarize the basic rules for deductibility. As with any expense, the costs deducted must be in connection with your business. So how do we identify the business portion of the cost of something we regularly and continuously use for both personal and business purposes?

Kilometres.

Anyone who uses a car for business should keep track of the total amount of kilometres driven during the year, and a detailed account of which of those kilometres were driven in the performance of their business or employment functions.

Keep receipts and a detailed account of all your auto expenses, such as gas, repairs and maintenance, insurance, licence, registration, car loan interest and leasing costs. If you own your car, you may be able to claim depreciation (CCA).

Now you’re almost there, but you should be aware of certain limits that apply. If you lease your vehicle, deductible payments are restricted to $800 per month (or less, based on a formula, if the value of the car exceeds $30,000).

If you’ve borrowed to purchased your car, loan interest is limited to a maximum of $300 per month. For CCA purposes, there is a maximum on the capital cost of $30,000.

Finally, if you receive a non-taxable per-kilometre allowance from your employer, then you are not entitled to claim any auto expenses personally.

These rules are fairly detailed and objective, so where does the HCL come in? Problems normally arise in two areas – record-keeping, and what constitutes business mileage.

Most people by nature do not keep records as meticulously as the CRA would love to see. If you are audited, and need to justify the amount of kilometres you drove in a year for business purposes, the best evidence you could have would be a logbook where you keep track of where you drove, the number of kilometers, and the business purpose. Compare that to the total kilometres driven for the year, and you have pretty well justified your calculation. In most cases, however, a logbook does not exist, and the taxpayer is left to plead, cajole, regale and negotiate with mostly unsympathetic auditors to have them accept his ad-hoc percentage of business use.

In Quebec, the law requires that you keep a logbook if you drive a company car. Employees must provide their employer with a logbook within ten days after the end of the year, or face a fine of $200.

The second issue of concern is that sometimes it is not clear whether a trip qualifies as business use. Some taxpayers are unaware that travel from home to the place of work does not constitute business travel. However, here’s a tip: if you start out at home, make a stop for business purposes, say at a client’s premises, then proceed from there to your office, then the entire trip would qualify.

What about the case where home is the regular head office and work is carried out at remote sites, such as in the case of a self-employed contractor? If you can establish that your home is your center of operations, then all travel to a work site should be considered for business.

In this series of posts, we touched on some of the most common areas where taxpayers find themselves in hot water with the CRA. Our SAS requires good record-keeping and knowledge of the law. Hopefully, these articles have helped you with the SAS and your HCL level should go down from here.

, , , , , , , , , ,

Harassment, Conflict and Litigation – Part One

In Business Expenses, Canadian Income Tax on September 5, 2011 at 2:50 pm

I took a client to lunch the other day and he made an interesting observation. He thinks the income tax system in this country is based on harassment, conflict and litigation (what I will hereafter refer to with your permission as the HCL of Canadian tax). I felt obliged to point out to him that although HCL is a dominant feature, the actual basis of our tax mechanism is quite the opposite. In fact it relies at its core on the “self assessment system” of taxes by the taxpayer himself (Let’s call it the SAS). If a taxpayer practices accurate and honest SAS, then he will completely avoid the HCL. Well, that’s what our government (the CRA) tells us anyway, and I guess that would be true, at least in a perfect world (APW). Of course we don’t live in APW, and in our constant efforts to SAS, we might inadvertently cross the line, receive a friendly visit from the CRA and get into some stressful HCL.

The next three articles will deal with what I believe to be among the most common causes of HCL in our system: meals and entertainment, and automobile expenses (MENTA). When MENTA are related to the process of earning taxable income they may be deducted from income for tax purposes. Therefore, I should have been allowed to write-off the cost of that lunch as well as the gas and other car expenses for my trip downtown, right? True, but what about the personal element to my expenses? Arguably, I had to eat anyhow, and what about my little side trip to Golf Town on the way back to the office?

Now you’ve got the picture, right? These business expenses will invariably contain some personal element and it is this problem that not only causes a great deal of HCL, they have led to constantly changing sets of rules developed and refined over the years that are so difficult to understand and comply with, that only The Tax Issue could be relied upon to explain them to you, kind reader.

Before we get into the actual details of what can be deducted, let’s talk about who can take these deductions. For the purposes of our discussion, let’s divide the world into two types of taxpayers: those who are employed and those who are in business. If you are in business, then you generally have no restrictions on what you can deduct as an expense as long as it relates to your earning of income. All you have to do is follow the specific rules relating to the MENTA as we will discuss later.

One more general note about business (and forgive the digression) – the calculation of deductible expenses is generally the same, whether the business is run by an individual (sole proprietor), partnership or corporation. So please don’t ask again.

Employees are not so lucky. In fact, they are treated in an opposite fashion. In general, they are allowed no deductions from income unless specifically provided for them under the law. In the case of MENTA, luckily, such provisions do exist, but there are certain conditions.

The most common MENTA deductions allowed to employees are automobile expenses. In order to claim auto expenses, employees must meet strict conditions. They must have a contract (verbal or written) with their employer providing that they are required, as part of their employment duties to travel, and that they must bear the cost of their auto expenses. As evidence, they must have their employer complete and sign a prescribed form stating the terms of their employment and whether auto expenses are reimbursed either directly or through an allowance.

Generally, you cannot deduct meals and entertainment costs if you are an employee. The only exception to this rule is if you earn commissions. A commissioned employee is generally treated similar to a person earning income from a business. That is, there is a general rule allowing the deduction of expenses relating to the earning of that income. The only restriction is that the deductions are limited to the amount of commission earned in the year.

Next time, we’ll be discussing the deduction of meals and entertainment expenses and the HCL that goes along with it!

, , , , , , , , , ,

What’s Your Tax Issue?

In Canadian Income Tax, Non-residents, Personal Tax, Principal Residence on March 15, 2011 at 4:10 pm

Tax season is upon us, and here at The Tax Issue, the questions are streaming in at a furious pace. I had a few free minutes this afternoon, so I thought I’d tackle some of the backlog.

The Tax Issue:

My partner and I each have holding companies that have joint ownership of our operating company.  If we wanted to sell a 1/3rd share in the operating company is there a mechanism to utilize our personal capital gains exemption?

The Answer:

The capital gains exemption is a $750,000 lifetime limit available to all Canadian resident individuals. It can be used to shelter capital gains on the sale of either qualified farm property or qualified shares of a small business corporation.

Since the shares of your operating company are held through a holding company, the exemption would not be available in the situation you describe. Your holding company would be the vendor of the shares and the exemption is available to individuals only.

Having said that, there may be some “reorganization” of shares you could perform to get you into a better position. Such planning would go beyond what I could explain here, so I would explore these options with a tax professional.

The Tax Issue:

I am a Canadian living/working in the US and considered non-resident of Canada for tax purposes. I do have a rental property in Canada and looking for an easy way to file my income tax on the rental property. What I have read so far makes me believe that I must file my taxes through an agent in Canada. I am wondering if I can file my taxes without using an agent and what is the process to do that.

The Answer:

The short answer is that you do not need to file a tax return through an agent.

Since you are a non-resident of Canada, the Canadian person who pays you rent must withhold taxes and remit them to the CRA on a regular basis. This person could be your tenant directly, or a Canadian agent who manages the property and collects rent on your behalf. Either way, there has to be a Canadian responsible for withholding and remitting these taxes.

You then have the option of filing a tax return under section 216 of the Income Tax Act. The taxes previously withheld would be treated as a credit against your taxes payable. There are two options for withholding and filing under section 216. I have discussed this mechanism in a previous post. Check it out. Also, the CRA has an extensive section on their web site dealing with the issue.

The Tax Issue:

My mother passed away in 1995 and my father gifted her 50% portion of a house to me, however kept himself on title for the other 50%.   He had another house that he resided in.   He kept his name on solely to protect my interest in case of divorce.    He passed away in May 2010 and now I’m told that I may have to pay capital gains.   I don’t understand why I have to pay capital gains if I’m not selling the property and the property has been my principal residence.   He had nothing to do with the house.   Is there anything I can do to avoid paying this capital gains tax?

The Answer:

Unfortunately, it sounds like your father was the owner of more than one principal residence. Upon the death of an individual, he is deemed to have disposed of all his capital property at fair market value. That includes any real estate he owned. There is an exemption for a principal residence. The definition of “principal residence” includes, not only the house he lived in, but can also include a house occupied by his child. The downside is that his estate can only claim one property as a principal residence.

Your father’s executor will have to determine which of the properties he should claim as his principal residence in order to minimize the taxes on his death. I would call in the help of a good tax accountant to crunch those numbers.

, , , , , , ,

What’s Your Tax Issue? Province of Residence

In Canadian Income Tax, Personal Tax, Residency on February 11, 2011 at 10:25 am

The Tax Issue:

I recently accepted a job position with my current employer which will transfer  me from Toronto to Montreal. Now I love Montreal however I hate Quebec income tax and I was looking for a way to physically work in Montreal (Quebec) however keep paying taxes as a resident of Ontario.  Any advice would help.

The Answer:

Welcome to the club! We Montreal-lovers and Quebec tax-haters have been struggling with this question for years. Some of have moved away never to return. Unfortunately, loving Montreal comes with a price (and I don’t mean Carey :-) ).

Individuals are subject to Canadian income taxes in the province where they reside on December 31 of any given year. Residency for income tax purposes is not a choice one makes by ticking a box on a tax return. It is a question of fact, based on your residential ties.

The most important residential ties are where your home (owned or rented) is, and where your spouse or common-law partner or dependants reside. Other ties that may be relevant include social ties, bank accounts, driver’s licence and medicare.

So, unless you’re move is temporary or you plan to commute from Toronto each day, you’re pretty much going to have to set up residential ties in Montreal and pay Quebec taxes.

If you really feel very strongly about staying out of the Quebec tax system (as a resident of Ontario you’d be saving less than 2 per cent in income tax if you’re at the top marginal bracket), you could make your home in nearby Cornwall, Ontario, which is only about a 45 minute commute from Montreal (on a Sunday Morning :-) ).