Impact on Individuals with Capital Gains

Following the initial announcement, the CRA updated tax forms, including Schedule 3, to accommodate the proposed changes. The original plan involved a 1/2 inclusion rate for capital gains realized before June 25, 2024, and a 2/3 inclusion rate for those triggered on or after that date. With the delay in implementation, these forms must now be revised again to reflect the continued 1/2 inclusion rate.

The CRA released an updated version of Schedule 3 (Capital Gains or Losses) on February 10, 2025, but most commercial tax preparation software is still undergoing updates and awaiting CRA approval for public release. Many providers may not have their software ready to e-file until mid-March, and CRA systems will not be fully prepared to process tax returns with capital gains until late March.

As a result, some taxpayers may face delays in filing their returns. To accommodate this, the CRA has announced relief from late-filing penalties and arrears interest until June 2, 2025, for “impacted T1 individual filers.” This measure is intended to provide additional time for those reporting capital gains to meet their tax obligations.

As we highlight below, this relief may not go far enough.

Delays in T3 Slips

Investors in mutual funds, ETFs, and REITs may also experience delays in receiving their T3 slips. These investments often distribute income as capital gains, and under the originally proposed rules, issuers were required to separate gains realized before and after June 25, 2024. Since many issuers had already begun preparing their tax slips accordingly, the policy reversal means they must now recalculate and reissue T3s, causing further delays.

To address this, the CRA is granting relief from late-filing penalties and arrears interest until May 1, 2025, for impacted T3 trust filers. This means financial institutions and investment firms may not issue T3 slips until May 1, 2025, but taxpayers will still have until June 1, 2025, to file their returns without penalty.

Delays in T5008 Slips

The T5008 slip, which reports capital gains from investments, is also affected. The deadline for issuers has been extended from February 28, 2025, to March 17, 2025, giving investments brokerages additional time to prepare accurate reports. This means taxpayers may receive their T5008 slips later than usually.

Ongoing Issues and Unanswered Questions

Despite these administrative relief measures, several uncertainties remain:

• Definition of “Impacted T1 Individual Filers”: As noted by CPA Canada, The CRA has not clarified whether a spouse of an impacted filer, who has no capital gains, qualifies for the deadline extension.
• Effect on Related Forms: It remains unclear whether extensions apply to prescribed forms such as the T1135 (Foreign Income Verification Statement). The penalty for failing to file a return is $25 per day for up to 100 days (minimum $100 and maximum $2,500).
• Potential Tax Return Amendments: Many taxpayers may believe they have all their tax slips in April, file their returns, and later receive a T3 slip with a large capital gain in May. In such cases, they will need to amend their returns and pay any additional tax by June 1, 2025, to avoid interest charges.
• No Extension of Payment Deadlines: These relief measures do not extend the actual tax due date. If a taxpayer files after June 1, 2025, interest could still be calculated from April 30, 2025.

Final Thoughts

The situation has created unnecessary confusion, particularly during an already short tax season. Given the uncertainty surrounding the eventual implementation of the capital gains rate increase, it would be more practical for the CRA to grant a blanket extension until June 1, 2025. This would provide taxpayers with clarity and reduce administrative burdens for both filers and tax professionals. For individuals who may be affected, we advise awaiting additional updates from the CRA, as it is still early in the tax-filing season.

The post CRA Clarifies Tax Deadlines for Taxpayers Affected by Capital Gains appeared first on LRK Tax LLP.

But here’s the thing – if you don’t report those assets properly, CRA can go back multiple years, reassess you, and hit you with huge penalties. That’s exactly what happened in Azmayesh-Fard v. The King, 2025 TCC 20.

The Cost of Not Reporting Foreign Accounts

In this case, the taxpayer, Mr. Azmayesh-Fard, worked as an engineer in Libya and moved back to Canada in 1997. Before returning, he opened a Swiss bank account with $431,000 CAD, specifically to hide it from his wife. From 1998 to 2013, he never reported the account, its earnings, or filed the required T1135 Foreign Income Verification Statement.

Fast forward to a CRA audit – and the damage was brutal:

• CRA reassessed him for 16 years (1998-2013), adding all unreported income from the Swiss account.
• Gross negligence penalties under s.163(2) of the Income Tax Act (ITA) were applied for multiple years.
• Failure-to-file penalties under s.162(7), (10), and (10.1) ITA were also added for missing T1135 forms.

The Total Cost? Easily Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars

Although the exact amount Kamal Azmayesh-Fard had to pay in taxes and penalties isn’t specified, we can estimate the total cost based on the court’s findings and some reasonable assumptions.

• The CRA reassessed 16 years (1998–2013), increasing his taxable income by an average of 63% per year. If we assume his originally reported income was around $100,000 per year, that means an additional $1,008,000 in unreported income ($100,000 × 63% × 16 years = $1,008,000), resulting in approximately $403,200 in unpaid taxes ($1,008,000 × 40% tax rate = $403,200).
• On top of that, gross negligence penalties (50% of unpaid taxes) likely added $201,600 ($403,200 × 50% = $201,600).
• Failure-to-file T1135 penalties—which could include a $2,500 per year base penalty plus 5% of his highest unreported asset value ($431,000)—may have added $40,000 or more ($2,500 × 16 years + ($431,000 × 5%) = approx. $40,000).
• Interest, compounded daily over two decades, could have easily doubled or tripled the total amount owed, adding at least $400,000 (estimated based on CRA interest rates over 20+ years)

In total, his liability likely exceeded $1,000,000—far more than the $431,000 he originally deposited offshore.

Why Could CRA Reassess So Many Years?

Normally, CRA has three years (for most individuals) or four years (for certain situations) to reassess a tax return. But there’s a major exception:

• Under s.152(4)(a)(i) ITA, CRA can go back as far as they want if they determine there was “misrepresentation attributable to neglect, carelessness or wilful default.”
• In this case, the court ruled that failing to report a foreign bank account for 16 years was at least neglect, if not willful blindness.
• That meant CRA could reassess every single year all the way back to 1998.

Key Takeaways: Protect Yourself Before CRA Comes Calling

1. Own or hold more than $100,000 CAD in foreign assets? You must file a T1135.
   • It’s not optional. Failing to file can trigger daily penalties, and if CRA determines it was done knowingly, the penalties skyrocket.
2. Even if you “forget,” CRA can still go back decades.
   • As this case shows, neglect or carelessness is enough for CRA to reassess beyond the normal three-year limit.
3. Gross negligence penalties are severe.
   • These penalties can be 50% of the unpaid tax, and CRA often applies them when foreign income is hidden.
4. Just because your accountant didn’t ask doesn’t mean you’re off the hook.
   • The taxpayer in this case argued that his accountant never asked about foreign assets. The court didn’t care – it’s the taxpayer’s responsibility to report.
5. Thinking of coming clean? The Voluntary Disclosures Program (VDP) might help.
   • If you haven’t been reporting foreign income or assets, coming forward before CRA audits you could reduce penalties. But once CRA starts investigating, VDP is off the table.

Bottom Line: Don’t Play Games with Foreign Assets

As the court case demonstrates, the CRA is cracking down on unreported foreign accounts. If you have money overseas, make sure you’re reporting it properly – or you could end up like this taxpayer, facing years of reassessments, massive penalties, and a financial nightmare.

The post Have Foreign Bank Accounts? CRA Can Reassess You for Years – And It Could Cost You Big appeared first on LRK Tax LLP.

What Happens During Prorogation?

When Parliament is prorogued, all bills, including those associated with an NWMM, are effectively reset. This means the legislative process must restart in the new parliamentary session unless the NWMM is reintroduced and the corresponding bill is re-tabled in the House of Commons. The bill would then need to pass through the standard stages, including first reading, debates, committee review, and votes before reaching Royal Assent. Consequently, the capital gains inclusion rate changes remain in limbo until Parliament reconvenes and takes action, leaving taxpayers and the CRA operating in uncertainty.

Current Stance of the CRA

Despite the prorogation, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) will continue to administer the capital gains inclusion rate increase as if it were already in effect. The CRA has stated it will release updated tax forms by January 31, 2025, allowing taxpayers to file based on the new capital gains inclusion rate. Additionally, the CRA has promised arrears interest and penalty relief for corporations and trusts impacted by these changes that have a filing due date on or before March 3, 2025. However, there is currently no relief for individual taxpayers.

The CRA is adhering to traditional parliamentary procedures. This is consistent with the following parliamentary convention:

“It is the long-standing practice of Canadian governments to put tax measures into effect as soon as the notices of the ways and means motions on which they are based are tabled in the House of Commons, with the result that taxes are collected as of the date of this notice, even though it may be months, if not years, before the implementing legislation is actually passed by Parliament.”   

The Dilemma: What Should Taxpayers Do?

The CRA is updating its forms so that capital gains realized on or after June 25, 2024, will be subject to the new inclusion rate (however, the first $250,000 of capital gains for individuals in a given year will still be taxed under the old 50% inclusion rate).

Taxpayers do have the legal right to file their returns based on enacted legislation rather than proposed measures. The CRA’s audit manual outlines this principle:

“If the proposed legislation is not beneficial to a taxpayer, the CRA cannot require them to file on the basis of proposed legislation. In such cases, inform the taxpayer that they are responsible to apply the legislation according to the enacted legislation after royal assent, and that they may be subject to interest on amounts owing.”

However, there are risks associated with this approach. If taxpayers choose to file based on the current enacted law, which maintains the 50% capital gains inclusion rate, they may later face reassessment and be charged interest (currently 8% compounded daily) if the new legislation is enacted retroactively. This underscores the need for the CRA to consider providing an interest and penalty waiver for such cases, as noted below.

Conversely, if the legislation does not pass and the 50% inclusion rate remains, those who filed under the proposed changes may need to amend their returns, incurring additional tax filing costs and administrative burdens. This scenario also presents a challenge for the government: they would be required to repay overpaid taxes with interest (currently 6% compounded daily for individuals and 4% for corporations), further straining public finances. Note that the

If you have capital gains of up to $250,000, there’s no need to worry. You will continue to be taxed under the previous capital gains rates. This change only affects individuals with capital gains exceeding $250,000. For any capital gains above this threshold, the amount will be included in taxable income at a rate of 66.67% instead of 50%. Therefore, if you have capital gains above $250,000, please contact your tax advisor for a tailored approach.

To provide clarity on the positions of different political parties regarding the capital gains tax increase, the Federal Conservatives are requesting that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) assess taxpayers using the previous 50% capital gains inclusion rate until after the election. The Conservatives also pledge that if they form the government, they will “never allow it to become law.”

In contrast, the New Democratic Party (NDP) is advocating for the swift passage of the higher capital gains tax. They have criticized Prime Minister Trudeau for jeopardizing its full implementation by suspending Parliament. The NDP stated, “We firmly believe that the capital gains tax increase on the top 0.1 percent must go forward so the ultra-rich pay their fair share. Canadians are counting on us.”

A Practical Solution By CRA

A potential solution lies in subsection 220(3.1) of the Income Tax Act, which grants the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) discretion to waive or cancel penalties and interest. The CRA could establish a policy that allows taxpayers to calculate their capital gains using the previous 50% inclusion rate, while waiving interest and penalties until, for example, December 31, 2025—by which time a new Parliament, with a renewed mandate from the people, would likely be in session.

As a result, taxpayers who file their returns using the old capital gains tax rates will have the option to amend their tax returns if the change becomes law. If the change does not become law, no further action will be required. This approach means taxpayers will avoid unnecessary amendments, and the CRA will not need to issue large interest payments, helping to prevent further national debt.

The CRA has set such precedents before. For example, in the case of bare trust reporting, when the CRA temporarily relieved taxpayers from penalties, it stated:

“In recognition that the new reporting requirements for bare trusts have had an unintended impact on Canadians, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) will not require bare trusts to file a T3 Income Tax and Information Return (T3 return)…”

The CRA could adopt a similar approach for the capital gains inclusion rate increase.

What Can You Do?

Taxpayers should not have to bear the cost of uncertainty during this transitional period. There is still time for most taxpayers to file for their 2024 year. In response to public concerns, The CRA has, in the past, made last-minute concessions to address similar situations. Consider reaching out to your local Member of Parliament (MP) to share your perspective on the importance of a CRA administrative policy that could provide temporary relief and foster confidence among taxpayers. As John F. Kennedy once said, “One person can make a difference, and everyone should try.”

For further guidance or to discuss your specific situation, reach out to a tax professional.

The post Navigating the Capital Gains Tax Changes Amid Parliamentary Uncertainty appeared first on LRK Tax LLP.

Why a Tax on Vacant Land Could Backfire

While a vacant land tax might initially seem like a push for faster development, it could create unintended consequences. Free-market economists argue that such taxes can distort economic behaviour, particularly affecting smaller developers who may struggle with the added financial pressure. Larger developers could pass the costs onto homebuyers, worsening the housing affordability crisis. Studies in other countries show that, while the tax might initially encourage more land to be developed, this effect is likely temporary. Over time, developers may hold less vacant land, reducing their flexibility and the overall responsiveness of housing supply, exacerbating the housing shortage rather than solving it.

The Reality in Canada

Some studies on vacant land reveal that the reason for land remaining vacant was not as a result of owners holding it for speculative purposes rather that the cost of development was often too high. Evidence shows that government policies limiting the supply of housing are among the key causes of higher house prices. Studies show that, a single-detached home in Vancouver cost the home buyers $1.3 million more than it would have in a market without barriers to supply. Similarly, homes in the Toronto area now cost homebuyers an additional $350,000.

Instead of taxing real estate developers, it would be smarter to offer tax incentives to build sooner. Immediate tax breaks would motivate developers to start projects now, rather than holding out for higher returns in the future. One example is to reduce the tax rate for developers who successfully build homes, allow them to deduct interest costs during the period of construction, especially for those who reinvest the profits back into the business.

Canada’s Poor Track Record with Recent Tax Policies

Canada’s own history with new tax measures has shown inefficiency. The Underused Housing Tax and new bare trust reporting rules, for example, were poorly implemented, leading to confusion and last-minute relief measures. These didn’t raise much government revenues, and the costs to administer the UHT could “significantly reduce” revenue generated. Given these experiences, adding another layer of red tape with a vacant land tax could bog down the system and hurt productivity, instead of solving the housing crisis.

Recent tax measures like the UHT reveal that the CRA may not be equipped to handle the administration of this tax. There are fundamental grey areas that CRA employees need to make a judgement on:

1. What is considered “Vacant” Land?
2. Does someone’s extra large backyard count as “vacant land”?
3. What if a person can’t develop due to ongoing estate litigation or other hurdles?
4. What if a person can’t develop due to the costs?
5. What is the fair market value of the vacant land?

The CRA will need to employ people who understand zoning laws inside out and add another department filled with agents, auditors, administrators, lawyers, accountants, professional appraisers, and real estate experts. What is all this going to cost the average taxpayer?

Let’s Learn from Ireland’s Example

Ireland’s Vacant Site Levy was introduced in 2017 and phased in gradually. Initially set at 3% of the site’s market value in 2018, it was increased to 7% from 2019 onward. The levy applies annually to vacant or underutilized land in designated residential and regeneration zones, with landowners assessed based on the site’s market value.

Ireland’s experience with the Vacant Site Levy, as outlined in a report by the Parliamentary Budget Office (Challenges in Implementing and Administering the Vacant Site Levy), provides vital lessons for Canada. The report highlights issues like inconsistent enforcement, unclear definitions of “vacant land,” and administrative complexity, which undermined the policy’s effectiveness. If Canada proceeds with a vacant land tax, it will face similar challenges, leading to inefficiencies rather than solutions.

A Tax Incentive: A True Partnership Between Government and Taxpayers

A tax incentive approach represents more than just policy—it’s a partnership between the government and real-estate developers. Offering tax breaks to developers acknowledges their role in solving the housing problem while also providing mutual benefits. Developers receive immediate financial relief and are more likely to act quickly, while the government sees faster housing development and increased economic activity. By working together, both sides align in achieving a common goal: increasing the housing supply to meet the urgent needs of the population.

Why Tax Breaks Are a Better Solution

Tax incentives, such as reduced development costs or tax deductions/holidays, can speed up the decision-making process for developers. They would feel encouraged to start building immediately, knowing they’re receiving direct benefits for doing so. This avoids the potential drawbacks of punitive taxes and keeps housing development on track, with benefits flowing to everyone involved. The UK provided tax incentives such as Land Remediation Relief, which offered a 150% tax deduction for developers dealing with contaminated land, making redevelopment more financially attractive. Such relief will help offset cleanup costs, encouraging the use of previously neglected or derelict urban land.

Conclusion

Canada needs actionable solutions to address the housing shortage, but a vacant land tax is unlikely to provide the results the government hopes for. Examples from other countries show the pitfalls of such policies, and Canada’s recent tax missteps with the underused housing tax suggest a similar risk. Instead, tax breaks and incentives offer a practical way to work in partnership with developers, ensuring mutual benefits and a faster path to more housing. This collaborative approach could be the key to addressing Canada’s housing crisis effectively.

The government is seeking consultations on this new tax, so feel free to email your comments and feedback to VLT-TTV@fin.gc.ca.

The post Canada’s Proposed Tax on Vacant Land: Is It the Right Approach? appeared first on LRK Tax LLP.

Key Reforms Announced

The reforms, as outlined by Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Finance, include several measures designed to help Canadians enter the housing market:

1. Raising the Cap on Insured Mortgages: The government has increased the insured-mortgage price cap from $1 million to $1.5 million. This adjustment reflects the steep rise in housing prices, enabling buyers to purchase more expensive homes with down payments of less than 20%.
2. Extended Mortgage Amortization for First-Time Buyers: The government is allowing first-time homebuyers and purchasers of new builds, including condos, to access 30-year amortizations. This reduces monthly mortgage payments, providing short-term financial relief and increasing eligibility for mortgages.
3. Incentives for New Housing Construction: The federal government has also announced investments in infrastructure to support the construction of 4 million new homes. This move aims to tackle the country’s housing shortage by spurring new builds and enabling more supply in the market.

The Numbers Tell a Different Story

While these reforms aim to alleviate the financial stress of homeownership, an analysis of the numbers tells a more concerning story for young Canadians.

Let’s consider a scenario where you purchase a $1.2 million home with a 5% interest rate and a 30-year amortization. We’ll compare the monthly payments at various down payment levels. To live comfortably and avoid becoming “house-poor,” financial experts recommend keeping mortgage payments within 25% to 30% of after-tax income. We’ll also examine the income a single person and a married couple would need to comfortably afford these mortgage payments while staying within that recommended range.

For example, to afford a home worth $1.2 million with a 5% down payment, without overextending financially, a single Canadian would need to earn approximately $440,000 annually before tax, or a couple would need a combined income of $370,000. In stark contrast, the average income for Canadians aged 25 to 54 is around $68,000. This is why we believe this measure could end up hurting young Canadians than help in the long run. This could strain them financially, and could force them to make sacrifices in other areas of life, which could lead to more stress and increased mental health issues.

What This Means for Young Canadians?

While the government’s recent reforms are designed to help young Canadians achieve the dream of homeownership, the numbers reveal potential pitfalls.

• Stretching Young Canadians Thin: With the average home price in Toronto hovering around $1.1 million, even with extended amortizations, young Canadians will likely find themselves stretched. They may achieve lower monthly payments, but at the cost of taking on more debt and paying significantly more in interest over time. If interest rates go up in the future, variable interest borrowers could face unpleasant surprises in their monthly expenses.
• Jeopardizing Other Financial Goals: Spending a large portion of income on housing can leave young homeowners with little room for other expenses, including savings for retirement or emergency funds. By enabling buyers to take on more debt, these reforms might drive home prices even higher in the long run, exacerbating affordability issues. While the reforms might temporarily ease the burden, they do little to address underlying supply shortages, which continue to drive prices up. Higher debt loads may also lead to long-term financial instability for homeowners.
• Risk to Retirement: While monthly payments may become more manageable in the short term, the overall increase in total interest paid over the life of the loan may leave homeowners with less room to save for retirement or handle unexpected expenses. This could result in an increased reliance on credit or loans, further deepening financial vulnerability. This is particularly concerning in Canada, which has one of the highest household debt levels per capita among G7 countries[2] [3].

Conclusion

While the government’s mortgage reforms may provide some immediate relief to aspiring homeowners, they ultimately don’t address the deeper affordability crisis in Canada’s housing market. By raising the insured-mortgage cap and extending amortization periods, the government may inadvertently fuel further price increases, making it even harder for young Canadians to afford homes in the future. The focus should be on reducing barriers to building more homes, particularly in high-demand areas like Toronto and Vancouver, rather than enabling buyers to purchase homes they cannot truly afford.

For Millennials and Gen Z, these reforms may offer a temporary leg up, but the dream of owning a home remains elusive for many—especially without broader policy changes that address income inequality and the rising cost of living in major urban centers. As housing prices continue to soar, financial prudence and careful budgeting are more critical than ever for those navigating the increasingly difficult path to homeownership.

We’ve helped many small business owners enter the housing market tax-efficiently, maximizing after-tax income so you don’t become house-rich but cash-poor. If you’re a small business owner or incorporated professional looking for tax-smart strategies to buy a home, give us a shout.

Footnotes

[1] Government announces mortgage reform details to ensure Canadians can access lower monthly mortgage payments by December 15 – Canada.ca

[2] Canada’s household debt is now highest in the G7 (bbc.com)

[3] Research to Insights: Disparities in Wealth and Debt Among Canadian Households (statcan.gc.ca)

The post Liberal Government Mortgage Reforms: A Double-Edged Sword for Young Canadians? appeared first on LRK Tax LLP.

The government released draft legislation in August. In this article, we answer some key questions and discuss what we would like to see ironed out in the final version of the legislation.

Who Qualifies?

The Canadian Entrepreneurs’ Incentive is available where all the following conditions are met:

1. QSBC Shares: At the time of sale, the individual Claimant must directly sell qualified small business corporation shares[1]. One requirement is that 90% of the corporation’s value is derived from assets used in an active business carried on in Canada (other than the “excluded businesses” mentioned below).
   
2. 24-Month Holding Period and Minimum Ownership: For at least 24 continuous months before the sale, the claimant must have owned at least 5% of the shares (having full voting rights under all circumstances). The minimum ownership period can be any continuous 24-month period at any time since the business’ founding[2].
   
3. Active Engagement: The claimant was actively engaged in the business activities on a regular, continuous, and substantial basis for three years. This can be any combined three-year period at any time since the founding of the business[3].

Not Available to Which Businesses?

The following are considered “excluded businesses”. If you have capital gains from the sale of the following businesses, you do not qualify for the CEI.

• Professionals: such as accountants, lawyers, notaries, doctors, mental health practitioners, healthcare workers, veterinarians, optometrists, dentists, chiropractors, engineers, or architects.
• Businesses where the main asset is employee expertise or reputation.
• Consulting services.
• Financial Services: handling financial assets, transactions, credit facilitation, or changing ownership of assets.
• Insurance Services: covering underwriting, selling insurance, reinsurance, or related services.
• Property Services: appraising, renting, leasing, selling, or managing real property, including short-term lodging or vacation services, like hotels and campgrounds.
• Food and Beverage: preparing and serving food for immediate consumption.
• Cultural & Entertainment: running events, exhibits, sports, and recreation services, or showcasing historical and artistic interests.

When Does it Take Effect?

CEI would apply to sales that occur on or after January 1, 2025.

What if I Claim the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption?

The CEI would apply in addition to any available capital gains exemption. To the extent that the seller qualifies for both the lifetime capital gains exemption (LCGE) and the CEI, they can take advantage of both tax incentives. See the example below.

Can I Undertake a Corporate Reorganization to Qualify for CEI?

There are some anti-tax avoidance rules to watch out for.

First, there are rules to prevent using what is commonly known as “butterfly” transactions, where corporate assets are split off or sold to convert the corporate capital gain into a capital gain that qualifies for the CEI.

Second, there are also rules to deny the CEI, where a corporation sells assets to another corporation for less than the fair market value of the assets, and an individual realizes a capital gain on the sale of the shares of either corporation.

Rules to Prevent Converting Dividends to Canadian Entrepreneurs’ Incentive

Normally, dividends are taxed higher than capital gains. Some people might try to avoid paying tax on dividends by setting up shares that don’t pay dividends or pay very low dividends. Instead, they plan to sell these shares later at a high price and claim the CEI. There is an anti-tax avoidance rule that says you cannot claim the CEI if the capital gain you made from selling shares is because the company didn’t pay enough dividends (less than 90% of what would be a normal return on that share). The dividend that should be paid be equal to the rate of return that a knowledgeable and prudent investor would expect to receive.

While this rule aims to prevent tax avoidance, it introduces a level of uncertainty and subjectivity. Determining what constitutes a “normal return” or what a “prudent investor” would expect may lead to inconsistent interpretations. This could create challenges for business owners and shareholders, adding complexity and risk, especially in cases where companies have legitimate reasons for reinvesting profits rather than paying dividends. It raises the question: is the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) best positioned to make these determinations about what constitutes a reasonable rate of return?

Given the nuanced and varied nature of private business operations, it may be difficult for the CRA to consistently assess what an appropriate dividend payout would be for each business. First, it could discourage reinvestment in businesses requiring growth capital or create uncertainties for entrepreneurs trying to plan for the future. Second, it adds more red tape and work for CRA. As such, we believe that this anti-avoidance rule may not be the most effective approach and would benefit from further clarification or guidelines to provide more certainty and reduce the risk of inconsistent application.

Example: Sale in 2029

In 2029, Larry sells the shares of his tech business for $3 million. Let’s assume that Larry has $1 million remaining in the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption (LCGE) and that the sale qualifies for the CEI.

After applying his remaining LCGE of $1 million, Larry has $2 million in capital gains left. Under normal rules, with a two-thirds inclusion rate and a $250,000 capital gains allowance at a 50% inclusion rate, $1,291,667 would be taxable. However, with the CEI, the inclusion rate drops to one-third, so only $666,667 is taxable. At Ontario’s top tax rate of 53.53%, this results in estimated tax savings of around $335,000. As you can see the benefit could be significant.

Canadian Entrepreneurs’ Incentive and Family Trust Structure

Please note that these rules are still in draft form at the time of writing, and further clarification may be needed as the legislation evolves.

One notable comparison is with the LCGE, which allows individuals to claim a deduction on capital gains from the sale of Qualified Small Business Corporation (QSBC) shares. If a trust allocates capital gains from such shares to a beneficiary, the beneficiary may claim the LCGE, provided the shares meet the necessary qualification criteria.

In contrast, the CEI, based on the draft legislation, seems to apply more narrowly. It appears to exclude gains on trust-held property from eligibility, meaning that even if a trust allocates the gain to a beneficiary, the CEI deduction may not be claimed. The CEI is reserved for individuals who directly own and sell the qualifying shares. As a result, gains allocated through a trust may not qualify for the CEI, even if the shares themselves would otherwise meet the criteria. This is a key difference from the LCGE, which allows trust-allocated gains to flow to beneficiaries. However, if a trust rolls out shares to an individual beneficiary just before the sale, and the beneficiary sells them directly, the CEI may apply. In this scenario, the beneficiary is considered the direct owner of the shares, and if all CEI conditions are met, they may claim the deduction, avoiding the trust exclusion.

Our Comments on the Daft Legislation

The benefit is good for entrepreneurs. However, we are hoping future versions of the legislation will:

1. Address Family Trust Structures: Address issues like trust ownership with more clarity so that entrepreneurs with more complex structures – including family trusts – can qualify.
   
2. Expand the list of qualifying businesses: Under the draft rules, businesses whose “main asset is employee expertise or reputation” are explicitly excluded from CEI eligibility. However, these types of businesses, such as a dental practice or a consulting firm, often assume significant risks and play a key role in Canada’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. A dentist running their practice does not qualify. Similarly, a marketing consultancy or software development firm may also be ineligible because their main assets are tied to the knowledge and skills of their employees. Despite this, these businesses require substantial investment, face market volatility, and carry considerable operational risks. By expanding eligibility to include more “expertise-based” businesses, the CEI could better reflect the entrepreneurial spirit across a broader range of industries, aligning it more closely with the LCGE and supporting a broader range of business owners. One suggestion is to allow businesses exceeding a certain number of employees to qualify (such as more than 5 full-time employees).
   
3. Remove Rules to Prevent Converting Dividends to CEI: Many small businesses reinvest profits instead of paying dividends. These rules introduce unnecessary uncertainty and complexity, potentially discouraging small business owners from utilizing the benefit due to concerns that the CRA may later reverse the claim. The business cannot be cash-rich anyway because of the QSBC test, which requires 90% of the value of the assets to be deployed in an active business. So, this may not be required.

Footnotes:

[1] Note the property could also be qualified farm or fishing property, but we only cover this article in the context of qualified small business corporation shares.

[2] Government announces details on new Canadian Entrepreneurs’ Incentive – Canada.ca

[3] See note 2.

The post Canadian Entrepreneurs’ Incentive: A Promising Tax Break Needing Greater Clarity appeared first on LRK Tax LLP.

Last year’s tax season was challenging, with the government introducing a new requirement for bare trusts to file trust tax returns for the first time. Fortunately, at the last minute, the CRA announced that bare trusts would not need to file for 2023. This change came after recognizing the unintended impact on Canadians, particularly those with joint bank accounts or where parents were added to property titles to help their children secure mortgages.

Looking ahead to 2024, there’s good news. Recently released draft legislation confirms that bare trusts (that are otherwise not considered to be a “trust”) will also be exempt from filing tax returns in 2024. However, starting in 2025, bare trusts will need to file, with some exceptions, including:

• Arrangements where individuals jointly own property for their own use and benefit, such as joint bank accounts with family members.
• Situations where related individuals hold real property, such as when a parent is on title to help a child obtain a mortgage, and the property qualifies as a principal residence.
• Cases where real property is held by one spouse for the benefit of the other, where it serves as their principal residence.
• Partnerships (excluding limited partners) holding property for the partnership’s use or benefit.
• Instances where property is held under a court order.
• Arrangements where Canadian resource property is held for the benefit of publicly listed companies or their subsidiaries.
• Non-profits holding funds received from government bodies for the benefit of other non-profits.

New rules, effective for trusts with a December 31, 2025, taxation year-end, specify that a trust is deemed to include any arrangement where:

• One or more persons (the legal owners) hold property for the use or benefit of one or more persons or partnerships, and
• The legal owner can reasonably be considered to act as an agent for the persons or partnerships benefiting from the property.

Under these rules:

• Each legal owner in such an arrangement is deemed to be a trustee of the trust, and
• Each person or partnership that benefits from the property is deemed to be a beneficiary of the trust.

These exemptions provide some relief, ensuring that many common arrangements won’t trigger the filing requirement.

Beneficial Ownership Information

In 2023, all trusts were required to file a tax return and disclose detailed information about settlors, beneficiaries, and trustees through Schedule 15. However, an exemption existed for “Listed Trusts.” A Listed Trust was one that held assets with a total fair market value below $50,000 throughout the year, provided the assets were restricted to certain types, such as:

• Money,
• Certain government debt obligations,
• Listed shares, debt obligations, or rights,
• Mutual fund shares or units,
• Interests in related segregated funds,
• Beneficiary interests in listed trusts.

Listed Trusts only had to file a trust return if income from the trust property is subject to tax. However, it was exempt from filing Schedule 15.

The good news is that starting in 2024, for trusts with a December 31 year-end, Listed Trusts will include any trust where the total fair market value of its assets remains below $50,000 throughout the year, regardless of the types of assets it holds.

Additionally, a trust will qualify as a Listed Trust if:

• Each trustee and beneficiary is an individual,
• Each beneficiary is related to each trustee, and
• The total fair market value of the trust’s assets does not exceed $250,000 throughout the year, provided those assets are limited to money, GICs, certain debt obligations, listed securities, mutual fund units or shares, personal-use property, or rights to income from such assets.
• If these Listed Trusts have no tax payable, they are not required to file a tax return. If they do, they won’t need to file Schedule 15.

This means a Listed Trust with no tax does not need to file a trust return. If a Listed Trust does have to pay tax, it is still relieved from filing Schedule 15.

These changes simplify the filing requirements for smaller and family trusts, providing more flexibility. Note that, at the time of writing, these changes are still in draft.

The post Tax Filing Relief for Trusts in 2024 and Beyond appeared first on LRK Tax LLP.

For those in the top tax bracket, qualifying for this $250,000 capital gains allowance can save $22,000 in taxes. Many taxpayers are now looking for ways to multiply this benefit—especially by using spousal transfers.

How to Multiply the $250,000 Capital Gains Allowance with Your Spouse

One strategy to multiply the capital gains allowance is to split capital gains with a spouse, without triggering the attribution rules, which prevent income splitting. By following the correct steps, each spouse can claim the $250,000 allowance and reduce the overall tax liability.

Example: Andrew and Jane

Andrew and Jane are married, and Andrew owns a stock worth $100,000, which he bought for the same amount. He predicts the stock’s value will grow to $600,000 in one year. To maximize the capital gains allowance, Andrew takes the following steps:

1. Sell Half the Stock to Jane at Fair Market Value – Andrew sells half of his stock to Jane for $50,000, which is the fair market value. This avoids triggering attribution rules.
2. Elect Out of the Spousal Rollover – Normally, when you transfer assets to your spouse, a spousal rollover defers the tax on any unrealized capital gains. However, in this case, Andrew elects out of the rollover to ensure that Jane’s future capital gains and investment income are not attributed back to him. Jane issues Andrew a promissory note for $50,000 with an interest rate set at the CRA’s prescribed rate (currently 5%, though this rate may change as interest rates fluctuate).
3. Cost Basis Adjustment – Both now hold half of the stock with a cost basis of $50,000 each.
4. Stock Appreciates to $600,000 –After a year, the stock grows to $600,000, and both sell the stock, resulting in a $500,000 capital gain. Andrew and Jane each realize a $250,000 gain ($300,000 – $50,000).
5. Interest on the Loan –Jane pays Andrew $2,500 in interest (5% of $50,000), ensuring the attribution rules won’t apply.
6. Capital Gain Reporting
   • Andrew reports $250,000 in capital gains and $2,500 in interest income.
   • Jane reports $250,000 in capital gains and deducts the $2,500 interest as an expense.

Tax Savings Breakdown

• Total Capital Gains: $500,000
• Andrew’s Tax: Andrew reports $250,000 at the 1/2 inclusion rate, resulting in a taxable gain of $125,000.
• Jane’s Tax: Jane also reports $125,000 in taxable gains.
• Interest Treatment: Jane’s $2,500 interest payment reduces her taxable income while Andrew adds it to his.

If Andrew had reported the full $500,000 gain by himself, his tax bill would have been $156,000. By splitting the gains, their combined tax liability is $134,000, saving $22,000.

How This Strategy Works

This strategy doubles the capital gains allowance for married couples. Transferring assets at fair market value ensures the attribution rules don’t apply, allowing both spouses to claim the $250,000 capital gains allowance.

Final Thoughts

With the capital gains inclusion rate rising to 2/3 after June 25, 2024, taking advantage of the $250,000 allowance at the 1/2 inclusion rate is a valuable strategy for high-income taxpayers. Spousal transfers, like Andrew and Jane’s, can result in significant tax savings. However, with complex tax rules and potential scrutiny under the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR), careful planning is essential. Also note that the capital gains legislation is still in draft.

At LRK Tax LLP, our team can help you navigate these rules and maximize your tax benefits. Contact us today to learn how we can tailor your capital gains strategy.

The post How to Multiply Your Capital Gains Allowance Using Your Spouse: A Case Study appeared first on LRK Tax LLP.

The Small Business Deduction Eroded Faster Under New Rules

The small business deduction (SBD) in Canada offers significant tax relief to small businesses and entrepreneurs operating through Canadian-controlled private corporations (CCPCs). This deduction allows CCPCs to benefit from a lower corporate income tax rate on up to $500,000 of active business income annually, known as the corporation’s “business limit.”

In Ontario, eligible CCPCs benefit from a reduced tax rate of 12.2% under the SBD. However, the business limit is reduced on a straight-line basis when the “adjusted aggregate investment income” (i.e., passive income like rent, dividends, interest, and taxable capital gains) of the CCPC and its associated corporations falls between $50,000 and $150,000. We illustrate this with an example below.

Example: How the New Capital Gains Rate Also Increases Taxes on Business Income

Consider ACo, with a fiscal year from January 1 to December 31. Suppose ACo realizes a $225,000 capital gain in 2024 under the new capital gains inclusion rate, alongside $100,000 in regular business income in 2025.

Under the previous inclusion rate of 50%, ACo’s taxable capital gain would be $112,500. With the new inclusion rate of 66.67%, the taxable capital gain increases to $150,000.

This increase in taxable capital gain causes the tax on regular business income to also increase as follows:

• Under old rules, a $112,500 taxable capital gain would reduce the business limit by $312,500, resulting in an SBD after the grind of $187,500.
• Under new rules, a $150,000 taxable capital gain leads to a larger passive income grind of $500,000, effectively eliminating the SBD.
• Consequently, ACo faces a higher corporate tax rate on its business income, increasing from 12.2% to 26.5%, resulting in an additional tax burden of $14,300.

Under the old rules, assuming no other passive income, a corporation could realize between $100,000 and $300,000 in taxable capital gains without fully eroding the SBD. With the new inclusion rate, this range narrows to $75,000 to $225,000.

The Capital Gains Inclusion Hurts Small Business Owners and Entrepreneurs

Many small business owners and entrepreneurs, who often lack benefits like medical coverage and pensions, take risks to stimulate the economy by creating jobs, goods, and services. The lower business tax rate helps these entrepreneurs save for the future to offset risks. These business owners also have capital gains from selling off investments or rebalancing portfolios. Although the government asserts that the increased inclusion rate is fair and does not harm small business owners, this example illustrates the contrary.

A potential strategy for CCPCs might be to defer realizing capital gains in the hope that the inclusion rate might revert to the historical 50%. The capital gains tax in Canada, introduced in 1972 under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, initially included 50% of capital gains in taxable income. This rate was increased to 66.67% in 1988 and then to 75% in 1990 by the Progressive Conservative government to address budget deficits. Later, the Liberal government reduced the rate back to 66.67% in 2000 and then to 50% in 2001 to stimulate investment and economic growth. The 50% inclusion rate has been the most common, reflecting a balanced approach to encouraging investments.

Effective Tax Planning for Small Businesses

In conclusion, recent changes in capital gains inclusion rates emphasize the need for strategic tax planning to preserve small business wealth. As tax specialists, we are committed to helping small business owners and entrepreneurs navigate these challenges effectively. Our tailored strategies are designed to grow your wealth tax-efficiently amidst these new rules. Contact us today to explore how our expertise can support your business.

The post How the Capital Gains Inclusion Rate Increase Can Also Increase Tax on Small Business Income appeared first on LRK Tax LLP.

Understanding the Capital Gains Inclusion Rate Change

Under the current draft legislation, the capital gains inclusion rate is set at 2/3 for the taxpayer’s gains for the entire fiscal year. Transitional rules apply this rate to taxation years ending after June 24, 2024. For fiscal years that include June 25, 2024, such as January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024, the inclusion rate is determined based on net gains or losses in two periods: Period 1 (January 1, 2024, to June 24, 2024) and Period 2 (June 25, 2024, to December 31, 2024).

First, you calculate the “net capital gain” and/or “net capital loss” in two periods: Period 1 (“P1”) from the start of the tax year to June 24, 2024, and Period 2 (“P2”) from June 25, 2024, to the end of the tax year. Then, the capital gains inclusion rate for the entire tax year is determined using the following rules:

Condition	Capital Gains Inclusion Rate for the Entire Tax Year
Only net capital gains P1 and P2
Only net capital losses P1 and P2
Net capital gains and losses are $0 in P2 and P2	2/3
Net capital gains in P1  > net capital losses in P2	1/2
Net capital losses P1 > net capital gains P2	1/2
Net capital gains P1 < net capital losses P2	2/3
Net capital losses P1 < net capital gains P2	2/3

In the above:

• A = Net capital gains or net capital losses from the first period.
• B = Net capital gains or net capital losses from the second period.
• The taxpayer’s net capital gains for a period are the amount by which their capital gains exceed their capital losses in that period.
• The taxpayer’s net capital losses for a period are the amount by which their capital losses exceed their capital gains in that period.

Example

Suppose ABC Inc. has a fiscal period ending December 31, 2024. Suppose the net capital gain in P1 (from January 1, 2024, to June 24, 2024) is $100,000 and $200,000 in the second period (June 25, 2024, to December 31, 2024). The inclusion rate would be approximately 61.11% using the formula above, which applies for the entire fiscal period from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023.

Therefore, the taxable capital gain is calculated as follows:

Most people expected the rules to apply a 1/2 inclusion rate to the $100,000 capital gain in P1 and a 2/3 inclusion rate to the $200,000 capital gain in P2 rather than using a blended rate for the entire gain.

Problem with Capital Dividends and Inclusion Rate

Even though the final taxable capital gain ($183,333.33) works out as expected, this has unintended negative consequences when determining the Capital Dividend Account (“CDA”).

Private corporations use the CDA to track non-taxable capital gains. From the CDA, corporations can pay capital dividends out of the CDA balance to shareholders, allowing them to receive tax-free income. The CDA is evaluated at a specific point in time to determine the balance available for paying out tax-free capital dividends. This means that when a corporation wants to declare a capital dividend, it must check the CDA balance at that particular moment to ensure there are sufficient non-taxable capital gains to cover the capital dividend.

Very generally, the CDA at a point in time is calculated as the corporation’s capital gain minus the taxable capital gain. Assuming that ABC Inc. had a $0 CDA balance at the start of the year, the CDA balance at the end of P1 (June 24, 2024) would only be $38,888.89 instead of what most would have expected of $50,000.

If the corporation had paid a $50,000 capital dividend to its shareholders on June 24, 2024, then it would have paid too much! The practical issue is that the corporation cannot accurately determine the exact amount to be added to the CDA until the end of the year when all capital gains and losses for both periods are known.

Penalties for Excess CDA

If a corporation declares a capital dividend exceeding its CDA balance, it faces a penalty equal to 60% of the excess amount declared. In our example, if the corporation declares a $50,000 dividend in P1 but the actual CDA balance is only $38,888.89, the excess amount of $11,111.11 would result in a penalty of $6,666.67.

Potential Solution or Work Arounds

To manage this uncertainty, a conservative approach can be taken by initially estimating the inclusion rate at the higher end (2/3). If, at year-end, the actual inclusion rate is lower, the CDA can be adjusted accordingly.

For instance, initially estimating an inclusion rate of 2/3 for a $100,000 gain in the first period would result in an estimated taxable gain of $66,667 and a CDA addition of $33,333. After realizing additional gains of $200,000 in the second period and recalculating the inclusion rate to 61.11%, the actual CDA addition would be $116,667, requiring an adjustment of $83,334.

Another solution is to create a fiscal period ending on or before June 24, 2024. This could be done by amalgamating two or more corporations or by transferring appreciated assets to a holding company with a fiscal period ending on or before June 24, 2024, before realizing gains. This allows the taxpayer to close off the current taxation year before June 24, 2024, thus avoiding the split-period calculation of the inclusion rate for capital gains. The issue here is that this may not be practical, given the complexity and only a few more days left.

Will Finance Fix This?

We understand that the Department of Finance is aware of technical issues like the above. However, no one knows for sure if they will fix it or not. Updated draft legislation will be made available at the end of July 2024, and we will need to wait until then to see if the government will fix it. Until then, it may be a good idea to only add 1/3 of the capital gains realized in P1 to the CDA balance.

The post Unexpected CDA Issues from New Capital Gain Inclusion Rate appeared first on LRK Tax LLP.