Jamie Golombek: Whereas spousal employment relationships will be reliable, tax company will count on to see proof
Evaluations and suggestions are unbiased and merchandise are independently chosen. Postmedia might earn an affiliate fee from purchases made via hyperlinks on this web page.
Article content material
With taxpayers in eight out of 10 provinces going through a 2024 prime marginal private income tax charge exceeding 50 per cent, it ought to come as no shock that some {couples} are methods to revenue break up, particularly when one partner or associate is in a a lot larger tax bracket than the opposite. Think about, for instance, a British Columbia high-income taxpayer going through a prime marginal charge of 53.5 per cent. If their partner or associate earns beneath about $55,000, their marginal charge is just 22.7 per cent — a ramification of greater than 30 share factors.
Commercial 2
Article content material
There’s quite a lot of methods to legally break up sure forms of revenue with a partner. For instance, on the subject of retirement revenue, pension income splitting or CPP/QPP sharing will be efficient. For buyers, utilizing a prescribed rate spousal loan to have any extra returns above the prescribed rate of interest taxed within the palms of the lower-income partner was the best way to go when the prescribed charge was just one per cent or two per cent. With that charge now at 5 per cent as of July 1, 2024, discovering an funding with a assured return in extra of that charge is difficult, which is why we’ve seen only a few new spousal revenue splitting loans arrange previously 12 months.
However one methodology of revenue splitting that’s usually tried, however doesn’t all the time move muster with the Canada Revenue Agency, is to “rent” your partner or associate to both work in your online business or, in case you’re an worker, to grow to be your “assistant.” Whereas this is usually a tax-effective technique when it includes reliable work and acceptable pay, the CRA is commonly fairly skeptical of spousal employment preparations, as one taxpayer not too long ago discovered in a tax case determined final month.
Article content material
Commercial 3
Article content material
Beneath the Revenue Tax Act, an worker is permitted to deduct any “wage” paid to an assistant supplied their employment contract “required” the worker to incur the expense and that is licensed by the employer on CRA Form T2200, “Declaration of Conditions of Employment.” The place an expense isn’t explicitly required to be incurred by an worker of their employment contract, it could nonetheless be deductible if it’s discovered to be an implied requirement. In making this willpower, the courts have reviewed whether or not the failure to satisfy this requirement might consequence within the worker’s termination, a poor efficiency analysis or different disciplinary motion on the a part of the employer.
The latest tax case coping with spousal employment concerned a commissioned worker who wrote off quite a lot of employment bills, together with motorized vehicle bills (which had been allowed) and quantities paid to his partner, which had been disallowed.
The taxpayer was within the enterprise of promoting air conditioners, furnaces and warmth pumps, and different comparable home equipment. He had a contractual association with Costco and an unique territory. On the Costco entrance, there was a kiosk with clean pre-printed varieties that potential purchasers might fill out to specific their curiosity in these merchandise. These varieties had been collected, and calls had been made to qualify the possible purchasers. If certified, an appointment was scheduled. The taxpayer would then meet with the possible shopper and put together a proposal. If it was accepted, the shopper signed a contract, and the taxpayer was entitled to a fee.
Commercial 4
Article content material
Through the years beneath assessment, 2016 and 2017, the taxpayer reported employment revenue of roughly $80,000 and $90,000 respectively, of which about $33,000 annually was fee revenue. Among the many employment bills the taxpayer claimed had been $20,000 “alleged to have been paid” to his partner for every of the 2016 and 2017 taxation years.
The taxpayer claimed that it was his spouse who made the calls and scheduled the varied appointments, and accordingly was paid for her providers as a self-employed contractor. Whereas the taxpayer admitted that she was not paid instantly, he acknowledged that roughly $35,000 in complete was paid to her in 2016, and $31,000 in 2017. The funds had been “paid” to her as her share of mortgage funds, money withdrawals or different debit transactions from a joint checking account.
In denying these bills, the CRA maintained that the taxpayer didn’t have a contract along with his partner, and did not submit some other particulars or paperwork that demonstrated that he paid commissions (or salaries) to her, or {that a} working relationship existed between them. These might have included proof of funds, duties description, timesheets, worker log e-book, T4 slips, and so forth. The taxpayer did produce some documentation, together with a Kind T2200, in addition to joint checking account statements.
Commercial 5
Article content material
Throughout cross-examinations, the taxpayer admitted that he had not saved any data of the funds made to his partner and that, though the quantity claimed on his returns for the 2 years in query was lower than the quantity alleged to have been paid to her, he had no understanding as to the way it had been quantified as he relied solely on his accountant to find out the suitable quantity to be claimed. He additionally admitted that the money withdrawals and debit transactions had been for “unusual family bills” and weren’t essentially particular to his partner. No deposits had been made to her private checking account.
The CRA’s place was that any quantities that had been alleged to have been paid to his spouse had been, the truth is, “joint household bills indirectly associated to her.” As well as, there was no proof of any providers carried out by her, and the taxpayer couldn’t produce a log or word e-book or checklist of shoppers allegedly contacted by her at any time in 2016 or 2017.
Advisable from Editorial
The taxpayer argued that there was no want to supply an precise contract and that his testimony alone should be enough to determine the standing of his spouse as an impartial contractor, in addition to the quantities paid to her.
Commercial 6
Article content material
The Tax Courtroom decide rejected these arguments, and agreed with the CRA as there have been no books and data and no supporting documentation to again up the taxpayer’s assertion that the quantities claimed on his return had been incurred or truly paid to his spouse. On that foundation, the decide dominated that the CRA accurately denied these employment bills.
Jamie Golombek, FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Personal Wealth in Toronto. Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com.
For those who appreciated this story, join extra within the FP Investor e-newsletter.
Bookmark our web site and help our journalism: Don’t miss the enterprise information that you must know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and join our newsletters here.
Article content material