Month: February 2018

INPUT TAX CREDITS: Checking Up On Suppliers

Do I have to check up on a supplier when paying them GST/HST? Yes!

In a January 29, 2016 Tax Court of Canada case it was noted that CRA had denied over $500,000 of input tax credits (ITCs), and assessed penalties and interest, in respect of GST and QST paid to twelve suppliers. Unknown to the taxpayer, the suppliers did not remit the tax.

The taxpayer, a scrap metal dealer, obtained evidence of prospective suppliers’ GST and QST registration prior to accepting them as suppliers.

Taxpayer wins – mostly

A taxpayer must use reasonable procedures to verify that suppliers are valid registrants, their registration numbers actually exist, and that they are in the name of that person or business.

The Court held that the taxpayer’s procedures (reviewing the suppliers’ registrations, stamped by Revenue Quebec) were generally sufficient. It was not relevant that some suppliers did not have scrapyards and/or vehicles to carry on scrap businesses, nor that payment was often made in cash, making it difficult to verify the suppliers’ revenues. The taxpayer could not be expected to query government officials to ensure that GST registrations were properly issued.

However, in respect of one supplier, the facts showed that the taxpayer had been sloppy to the point of gross negligence in accepting evidence of registration where it was clear that the registered supplier was not acting on their own account. Those ITCs were denied, and the related gross negligence penalty upheld.

As well, one purchase was made on the date the supplier’s registration was cancelled, so the supplier was not a registrant on that date, and the ITC was properly denied. However, the related gross negligence penalty was reversed, based on the due diligence undertaken in respect of the supplier previously.

 

Action Item: Implement a system for checking GST/HST numbers, especially for major purchases, in CRA’s GST/HST registry. You may want to select a purchase dollar level for which extra revision of supplier GST/HST numbers is performed. The registry is located at https://www.businessregistration-inscriptionentreprise.gc.ca/ebci/brom/registry/

 

 

The preceding information is for educational purposes only. As it is impossible to include all situations, circumstances and exceptions in a blog such as this, a further review should be done by a qualified professional.

No individual or organization involved in either the preparation or distribution of this blog accepts any contractual, tortious, or any other form of liability for its contents.

For any questions… give us a call.

LOANS TO A RELATIVE’S BUSINESS: What Happens When It Goes Bad?

You’ve loaned money to a family member’s corporation. Perhaps it was an investment, maybe it was a favor, or both. Or, perhaps, it was made for a completely separate reason. Regardless, sometimes the loan may go bad and you are not able to collect on the debt. What happens from a tax perspective when this occurs?

If the loan was made to earn income and other conditions are met, you may be able to write-off half against your regular income as an allowable business investment loss (ABIL). A recent tax court case shed some light on defining whether the loan was made to earn income.

In a November 3, 2016 Tax Court of Canada case, at issue was whether an ABIL could be claimed in respect of the loan from a taxpayer to his daughter’s start-up company. Within approximately two years, operations had ceased and the daughter had claimed personal bankruptcy.

The loan agreement stipulated that interest at 6% was to be charged from the onset, but no payments would be made for approximately the first two years, which, as it would turn out, was after the business eventually ceased. The Minister argued that no interest was charged, and therefore, there was no intent to earn income. This was partially based on accounting records of the daughter’s company which were inconsistent in their reflection of accrued interest.

Taxpayer wins

Despite the conflicting records, the Court opined that the interest rate included in the agreement was legitimate and that there was an intent to earn income. The ABIL was allowed.

The Court did not opine on whether the intention to earn income requirement would have been met if the agreement only stipulated that interest would begin to be charged or accrued at the time that repayment commenced (i.e. interest-free loan for first two years, but interest generating thereafter).

 

Action Point: Loans to businesses of relatives are more closely scrutinized by CRA due to the inherent possibility that it was made for non-income earning reasons. If considering a loan to a relative’s business, ensure that the income earning nature is clearly documented.

 

The preceding information is for educational purposes only. As it is impossible to include all situations, circumstances and exceptions in a blog such as this, a further review should be done by a qualified professional.

No individual or organization involved in either the preparation or distribution of this blog accepts any contractual, tortious, or any other form of liability for its contents.

For any questions… give us a call.

NON-COMPLIANT GST/HST REGISTRANTS: Impact on Tax Refunds or Credits

In a recent release (Excise and GST/HST News No. 102), CRA reminded taxpayers that they may place a non-compliance hold on a taxpayer’s account if they are a non-compliant GST/HST registrant. That is, for example, if income tax or GST/HST returns are outstanding. This would prevent the provision of any refund or credit to the taxpayer. In other words, refunds or credits will be held if returns are outstanding.

 

This may be the case, for example, if a taxpayer that is a quarterly GST/HST filer, prepares their GST/HST returns with their year-end work. The first quarter of the next year is generally late by the time the year-end is filed, so GST/HST or income tax refunds may not get paid out.

 

Action Item: Ensure that you are up to date with GST/HST filings and remittances.

 

The preceding information is for educational purposes only. As it is impossible to include all situations, circumstances and exceptions in a blog such as this, a further review should be done by a qualified professional.

No individual or organization involved in either the preparation or distribution of this blog accepts any contractual, tortious, or any other form of liability for its contents.

For any questions… give us a call.

MARIJUANA: A Growing Industry

As the legislation to legalize marijuana for non-medical purposes works its way through parliament (Bill C-45 entered the Senate phase on November 27, 2017), producers, vendors, regulators, enforcement, and potential customers are seriously considering the implications. Although it has been expected legalization would occur by July, 2018, the timeline is not certain (as the Senate has recently been scrutinizing draft legislation and other stakeholders have noted concerns).

Where are we at from a tax perspective?

The exact allocation, rates, and method for taxation are dependent on the final legislation.

 

Where will it be retailed?

While retailing cannabis will vary across the country, many provinces are currently looking to either sell, or at least regulate sales through provincial liquor boards or commissions.

For example, in Ontario, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) itself will oversee the sale and distribution of recreational cannabis through a subsidiary corporation. Standalone stores, which would not also sell liquor, will be set up and online distribution will be made available. Approximately 150 standalone locations are expected to be open by 2020.

In Alberta, in-person sales are planned to occur through private corporations but regulated provincially, while on-line sales will be conducted directly by the province.

Most provinces/territories are still working out the details.

 

Getting compliant?

CRA has significant, and rapidly improving tools for detecting the underground economy. In addition, they have methods for estimating yields and unreported income having to do with grow operations.

If one wanted to get compliant and onside with CRA, a voluntary disclosure may be made. However, it is important to note that the Voluntary Disclosure Program is changing March 1, 2018 such that reduced relief will apply in some cases, and no relief will be available in others.

 

Action Point: Monitor provincial/territorial regulations to determine if your industry will be impacted.

 

The preceding information is for educational purposes only. As it is impossible to include all situations, circumstances and exceptions in a blog such as this, a further review should be done by a qualified professional.

No individual or organization involved in either the preparation or distribution of this blog accepts any contractual, tortious, or any other form of liability for its contents.

For any questions… give us a call.

BUSINESS FAILURE: Personal Liability for Corporate Tax Debt

There are special laws which hold a director personally liable for certain amounts that their corporation fails to deduct, withhold, remit, or pay. Most commonly, these amounts include federal sales tax (GST/HST) and payroll withholdings (income tax, EI and CPP). It does not generally include normal corporate income tax liabilities.

In a June 22, 2017 Tax Court of Canada case, at issue was whether the director of a corporation could be held liable for $66,865 in unremitted source deductions, related penalties, and interest six years after the corporation went bankrupt. The taxpayer presented various defenses.

 Two-Year Limitation

In general, CRA must issue an assessment against the director within two years from the time they last ceased to be a director. The taxpayer argued he should not be liable since he was forced off the property and denied access by the Trustee in bankruptcy more than two years before the assessment. However, the Court determined that only once one is removed as director under the governing corporations act will such liability be absolved. In this case (under the Ontario Business Corporations Act), bankruptcy does not remove directors from their position. As the taxpayer never officially ceased to be a director, the two-year period had not commenced, and therefore, had not expired at the date of assessment.

Due Diligence

Liability can be absolved if the director can show due diligence. In this case, the director argued that he was waiting for large investment tax refunds to fund the liability, and also, entered into a creditor proposal so as to enable the corporation to continue to pay off the liability. However, the Court noted that diligence was required to prevent non-remittance rather than simply diligence to pay after the fact. As there was insufficient proof to demonstrate diligence at the prevention stage, this argument was also unsuccessful.

With All Due Dispatch

Finally, the taxpayer argued that the issuance of the assessment 6 years after bankruptcy was inordinate and unreasonable, thereby contravening the requirement to assess with all due dispatch. The Court, however, found that this requirement related to the assessment of a filed tax return as opposed to the assessment of director liability. In particular, the law allowing CRA to hold the director liable states that “the Minister may at any time assess any amount payable”. This defense was also unsuccessful.

The Minister’s assessment of liability to the director was upheld.

 

Action Point: Ensure that the charging, collecting, and payment of GST/HST and source deductions is always done properly. Not doing so can result in personal liability for the director. Also, note that CRA has the ability to directly garnish a corporation or person’s bank account for such amounts, even if an objection has been filed.

 

The preceding information is for educational purposes only. As it is impossible to include all situations, circumstances and exceptions in a blog such as this, a further review should be done by a qualified professional.

No individual or organization involved in either the preparation or distribution of this blog accepts any contractual, tortious, or any other form of liability for its contents.

For any questions… give us a call.

GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT: Change in an Individual’s Circumstance

The guaranteed income supplement (GIS) provides a monthly benefit payment to lower income individuals resident in Canada. Payments from July of one year to June of the next, are based on income of the previous calendar year (i.e. 2016 income is used to determine July 2017 to June 2018 payments).

Where an individual is married or in a common-law relationship, GIS entitlements are based on the combined income of a couple. Where an individual enters into a spousal relationship, the payment issued in the following month will be modified to account for the combined income and new GIS reduction threshold.

An estimate of current year income may be used to calculate the GIS rather than using the base year if a major event affecting income occurs in the year (e.g. job loss, business loss, loss of pension). This is commonly referred to as the “Option Method”. The “Option Method” may also be used part way through a payment year when a marital status change occurs. The recalculation would occur for the second payment after the event occurred. This option may provide for increased monthly payments immediately rather than waiting until the following July when the payments are revised based on the prior year income.

For more information on GIS eligibility and the payment calculation, see Service Canada’s information (https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/publicpensions/cpp/old-age-security/guaranteed-income-supplement.html).

 

Action Item: If you experience a change in income or relationship status, consider applying for an adjustment to your GIS payments using the alternative “Option Method”.

 

The preceding information is for educational purposes only. As it is impossible to include all situations, circumstances and exceptions in a blog such as this, a further review should be done by a qualified professional.

No individual or organization involved in either the preparation or distribution of this blog accepts any contractual, tortious, or any other form of liability for its contents.

For any questions… give us a call.

COMMISSION PAID TO A CORPORATION: Any Issues?

Consider the successful real estate or insurance agent, the financial product vendor, the area sales representative, or any other person earning commission income. One day they are asked, if they ever considered running their activities through a corporation as opposed to providing the services personally. There are definitely some valuable possibilities, but there are dangers too.

In a July 11, 2017 Technical Interpretation, CRA opined that whether a corporation is actually carrying on a business and earning commission income is a question of fact and requires more than a mere assignment of income.

CRA noted that “if insurance agents, realtors, mutual fund salespersons, or other professionals are legally… precluded from assigning their commissions to a corporation, then the commission income must be reported by the individuals, and cannot be reported through a corporation, regardless of the documentation provided”.  Care must be taken to document that it is truly the corporation providing the services and not just an individual. Commission contracts identifying the corporation as the service provider rather than simply the individual would be valuable.

While some professionals earning commission income are legally prohibited from incorporating (due to the provincial/ territorial laws), others may be practically precluded from doing so due to, for example, a refusal by customers or key suppliers to contract with a corporation.

If a corporation does earn commission income, one must ensure that the corporation would not be considered a personal services business (PSB). A PSB is essentially an individual acting as an employee for a third party, but for the presence of their own personal corporation as an intermediary. For example, consider John, an employee of a car manufacturer (CarCo). If John set up a new corporation, had CarCo pay his corporation, but kept on doing the same things under the same terms and conditions as his previous employment contract, he would likely be conducting a PSB. If classified as a PSB, the worker and their corporation could be subject to substantially higher taxes, plus the denial of several types of deductions.

 

Action Point: Take care when incorporating a business to earn employment-like commissions. Talk to an advisor to determine if it is right for you.

 

The preceding information is for educational purposes only. As it is impossible to include all situations, circumstances and exceptions in a blog such as this, a further review should be done by a qualified professional.

No individual or organization involved in either the preparation or distribution of this blog accepts any contractual, tortious, or any other form of liability for its contents.

For any questions… give us a call.

CHARITY FILING AND COMPLIANCE OBLIGATIONS: The CRA Has Checklists to Help

The CRA Charity Directorate provides a number of fairly comprehensive and easy to read checklists relating to various responsibilities associated with operating a registered charity. These can be particularly helpful as a reminder for individuals who are involved (employee, volunteer, or even Board Member) with a charitable organization. For example, clear guidance is provided on what is required to be included on a donation receipt for both cash and non-cash donations.

Provided checklists include: Basic guidelines, Activities, Books and records, Receipting, Spending requirement, T3010, Legal status, Changes, GST/HST, and Terrorism.

 The Checklists can be found at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/charities/checklists-charities.html.

 

Action Item: If participating as a Board Member with a charitable organization, it may be useful to encourage or require use of these checklists by staff or volunteers.

 

The preceding information is for educational purposes only. As it is impossible to include all situations, circumstances and exceptions in a blog such as this, a further review should be done by a qualified professional.

No individual or organization involved in either the preparation or distribution of this blog accepts any contractual, tortious, or any other form of liability for its contents.

For any questions… give us a call.

BUSINESS LOSS OR PERSONAL VENTURE: Can I Deduct Losses Against Other Income?

In order for an individual to apply their business loss (where reasonable expenses exceed revenues) to another source of income such as employment earnings (thereby reducing the overall tax liability), the taxpayer must be able to prove that they are truly running a business. That is, they have to show that the undertaking was in the pursuit of profit.

An April 28, 2017 Tax Court of Canada case considered whether a practicing lawyer had a source of business income in respect of her law practice for the 2011-2014 years.

The taxpayer incurred losses in all of the years in question ranging from $4,014 to $12,613 and reported annual revenues ranging from $0 to $3,850. The taxpayer reported that the time she spent on the proprietorship was diverse, however, on average she worked about 5 to 10 hours per week. The taxpayer testified that she did no pro bono or volunteer work, but rather, charged clients depending on their circumstances. In some cases, the clients did not end up paying for the services.

Taxpayer loses

The Court found that while the lawyer’s work was very commendable, the practice did not have a view to profit. For example, the gross revenue per hour for the 2011-2014 years were, $5, $1.70, $1.70 and $7.70 (assuming 50 weeks at 10 hours/week for the year). These amounts were not even minimum wage, much less amounts which could sustain a law practice operating with a view to profit.

Although the taxpayer’s work was not strictly volunteering, it was very close. As the venture was not carried out with a view to profit, there was no business, so the losses were not deductible against other sources of the taxpayer’s income.

 

Action Item: If your proprietorship is in a loss position, ensure to document evidence to support your efforts to be profitable.

 

The preceding information is for educational purposes only. As it is impossible to include all situations, circumstances and exceptions in a blog such as this, a further review should be done by a qualified professional.

No individual or organization involved in either the preparation or distribution of this blog accepts any contractual, tortious, or any other form of liability for its contents.

For any questions… give us a call.

Marsha MacLean Professional Corporation