Category: Domestic Tax

Taxpayers who contribute excess amounts to their TFSA are subject to a penalty tax of 1%/month that the excess contribution remains in the TFSA. If subject to the tax, an individual may apply to have the tax waived. If the individual is unsuccessful after the CRA’s first and second review of the application, the individual may apply for a judicial review of the denial in the Federal Court.

Moving Funds between TFSA Accounts

In an April 9, 2024, French Federal Court case, the taxpayer withdrew $40,000 from a TFSA at one financial institution and deposited it into another TFSA at a different financial institution at a time when he only had a TFSA contribution room of $6,270, leading to an overcontribution. Withdrawals from a TFSA are only added to an individual’s contribution room at the start of the following year. Had the taxpayer directly transferred $40,000 between the two TFSAs, there would have been no overcontribution. CRA held that the overcontributions were not the result of a reasonable error, so they could not waive the penalty tax.

The Court noted past cases that supported CRA’s interpretation that neither ignorance of the tax law nor bad advice constitutes a reasonable error. The taxpayer’s failure to transfer funds by direct transfer between the two TFSA issuers resulted in the penalty tax being properly applied CRA’s decision to deny relief was reasonable, and the application for judicial review was dismissed.

Relying On CRA Portals

In a March 27, 2024, Federal Court case, the taxpayer made TFSA contributions in line with the available TFSA room listed on CRA’s My Account; however, the balances online did not reflect some contributions, resulting in the taxpayer making excess contributions. CRA alerted the individual after the excess contributions were made. As the individual continued to contribute based on the values posted on My Account, the Court found CRA’s decision to deny relief on the penalty tax reasonable.

Do not overcontribute to your TFSA, as the penalty tax can become costly and difficult to pay. Balances posted in My Account may not be timely nor accurate.

Executive summary

The Department of Finance has proposed amendments to new trust filing rules introduced last year to relieve certain trusts from the obligation to file or to report certain information.

The types of trusts obligated to file a T3 tax return and information trusts must disclose were expanded for taxation years ending after Dec. 30, 2023. The changes were criticized as being overly broad and unclear, eventually resulting in the CRA administratively waiving the new filing requirement for bare trust arrangements just days before the filing deadline. On Aug. 12, 2024, the CRA released proposed technical amendments to the legislation (August Draft Legislation) to narrow the scope of the trusts required to file a T3 return. As these are only proposed amendments at the date of this article, they are subject to change.

Current Reporting Requirements

For taxation years ending after Dec. 30, 2023, Canadian resident express trusts must file a T3 return. For any trust which is a listed trust or is not a Canadian resident express trust, a T3 return must only be filed where income from the trust property is subject to tax and the trust:

• has Part I tax payable,
• is a Canadian resident trust who has a taxable capital gain or disposed of capital property in the year,
• is a non-resident trust who, except for excluded dispositions, has a taxable capital gain or disposed of Canadian capital property in the year, or
• Meets another criterion listed in the Canada Revenue Agency’s T3 Trust Guide (Guide).

Listed trusts include:

• Trusts in existence for less than three months during the year.
• Trusts who hold $50,000 or less in certain assets, including money or shares of a publicly traded company, throughout a year,
• General trust accounts for lawyers and;
• Non-profit organizations and graduated rate estates.

Additionally, these new rules introduce a filing requirement for bare trust arrangements.

All trusts which are not listed trusts must disclose information, including names and addresses, of each trustee, beneficiary, settlor and person who has the ability to exert influence over the trustees’ decisions regarding the appointment of income or capital of the trust. (Schedule 15 Requirement)

Proposed Amendments – Listed Trusts

Listed trusts are only required to file a T3 where they meet one or more criterion listed in the Guide and are exempted from the Schedule 15 Requirement. As a result, a listed trust will have less trust reporting requirements than other Canadian resident express trusts.

The August Draft Legislation amended the listed trusts to remove the restriction concerning type of assets for trusts at or below the $50,000 asset value limit mentioned above. As such, trusts who hold assets valued at $50,000 or less throughout the year, irrespective of the type of assets, will be considered listed trusts. The August Draft Legislation also proposed the following additional listed trusts:

• Trusts where:
  • All trustees and beneficiaries where individuals and the beneficiaries are related to each trustee,
  • The trust only holds certain types of assets, which includes money, GICs, shares of a publicly traded company, or personal use property throughout a year, and;
  • The value of those assets does not exceed $250,000 throughout the year.

• Trust that are required under rules of professional conduct or federal or provincial law to hold funds for the purposes of activities that are regulated under those rules or laws, provided the trust account that holds only $250,000 or less in money⁴ throughout the year, and no other assets. This would include lawyer’s trust accounts held for specific client(s).

and clarified that trusts created by statute, such as bankruptcy trustees or provincial guardians, will be considered listed trusts.

These amendments are proposed to apply to taxation years ending after Dec. 30, 2024.

Proposed Amendments – Bare Trusts

A bare trust arrangement is effectively where a trustee is acting as an agent of the trust beneficiaries in respect of the trust property. The trustee holds legal title of the trust property and deals with the property at the direction of the beneficiaries. These arrangements are common in the real estate, oil, gas and mining industries and partnership and joint venture business structures but may be used elsewhere, even unknowingly. Bare trusts are largely ignored for tax purposes, including that no tax is paid by the trust. Instead, any income of the bare trust is included in the beneficiaries’ taxes for the year.

The August Draft Legislation repeals the requirement for bare trust arrangements to file a T3 return for their 2024 taxation year. For the 2025 taxation year onward, it proposes that “deemed trusts” will be treated as express trusts for the purposes of filing an income tax return. As such, all Canadian resident deemed trusts will be required to file a T3 return if they are not a listed trust. Listed trusts and non-Canadian resident deemed trusts must file where income from the trust property is subject to tax and a criterion in the Guide is met. The Schedule 15 Requirement will apply to all deemed trusts who are not listed trusts.

Deemed trusts are bare trusts. However, the legislative definition is intended to be clearer and better rely on existing ownership concepts in trust law than the current definition of bare trusts in the Income Tax Act.

A deemed trust is defined as:

It also exempted the following arrangements which would otherwise be captured by the above definition:

Arrangement	Example
All legal owners are also beneficiaries	A joint spousal bank account
Legal owners are individuals and related persons, and the trust property is the principal residence of one or more of the legal owners.	A parent goes on title of their child’s house due to mortgage requirements. Child is also on title of the house.
The legal owner is an individual and the property would be their principal residence for the year (under the Income Tax Act), and the property is used by or held for for the benefit of their spouse or common-law partner.	A husband is solely on title of the family home where he and his spouse live.
A partner (other than a limited partner) holds property solely for the use of, or benefit of the partnership.	Two companies form a limited liability partnership to develop a piece of real estate and incorporate a general partner. The general partner goes on title for the piece of real estate.
The legal owner is holding the property due to a court order.
Canadian resource property is held for the use or benefit of one or more publicly listed companies (or subsidiaries or partnerships of such companies)	A publicly traded corporation holds the rights to explore and drill for petroleum at a particular site in Canada and allows use of that right by its wholly own subsidiaries.
A non-profit organization holds funds it received from federal or provincial governments for the use or benefit of other non-profits.

These amendments are proposed to apply to taxation years ending after Dec. 30, 2025.

 

---

This article was written by Cassandra Knapman, Deanna Fisher and originally appeared on 2024-09-10. Reprinted with permission from RSM Canada LLP.
© 2024 RSM Canada LLP. All rights reserved. https://rsmcanada.com/insights/tax-alerts/2024/proposed-changes-to-the-trust-reporting-requirements.html

RSM Canada LLP is a limited liability partnership that provides public accounting services and is the Canadian member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent assurance, tax and consulting firms. RSM Canada Consulting LP is a limited partnership that provides consulting services and is an affiliate of RSM US LLP, a member firm of RSM International. The member firms of RSM International collaborate to provide services to global clients but are separate and distinct legal entities that cannot obligate each other. Each member firm is responsible only for its own acts and omissions, and not those of any other party. Visit rsmcanada.com/about for more information regarding RSM Canada and RSM International.

The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. RSM Canada LLP guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for results obtained by others as a result of reliance upon such information. RSM Canada LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein. This publication does not, and is not intended to, provide legal, tax or accounting advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors concerning the application of tax laws to their particular situations. This analysis is not tax advice and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer.

Individuals can start collecting Canada Pension Plan (CPP) retirement benefits as early as age 60. However, benefits are decreased by 0.6%/ month (7.2% per year) prior to age 65 for a maximum reduction of 36%. They are increased by 0.7%/month (8.4% per year) that CPP is delayed past age 65 to a maximum increase of 42% if collection is deferred to age 70. In other words, monthly retirement benefits are more than 2.2 times as large for someone who waits until age 70 rather than collecting at age 60.

A recent National Institute on Aging report indicated that an individual with median CPP benefits and an average life expectancy loses over $100,000 of CPP benefits, in current dollars, by starting CPP at age 60 instead of 70. The report noted that 9 out of 10 individuals opt to start CPP by age 65 or earlier.

The report also noted that collecting earlier may be a rational decision for individuals with financial hardship or poor health, resulting in reduced life expectancy. However, it suggested that most individuals would be better off drawing on other savings (such as RRSPs) to bridge the gap until reaching age 70. The report indicated that 4 in 5 individuals with RRSPs or RRIFs would receive higher lifetime income using this approach.

Consider the lifetime benefits and costs when deciding at what age to commence CPP payments.

Under the Competition Act, employees posting reviews online about their employer or the competition must disclose their connection to the business, even if the individual provides their honest opinion. This requirement applies to all types of reviews, including testimonials. A January 18, 2024, Competition Bureau Canada News Release (Online reviews posted by employees: businesses could be liable) recommended that businesses establish policies and provide employee training to reduce the risk of liability. The release also recommended that if an employee cannot make the connection clearly visible in a review, they should avoid posting it. This may occur when an employee intends to provide a star rating for a product or service but cannot disclose their connection with the provider.

Ensure employees are aware of this requirement under the Competition Act and properly disclose relevant connections when posting online reviews.

In 2023, CRA issued Shopify an unnamed persons requirement (UPR) that required Shopify to provide information on more than 121,000 Canadian vendors for the past six years. CRA uses this information to verify whether the unnamed persons for whom it received information have fulfilled their income tax and GST/HST obligations.

CRA has recently been using UPRs to detect non-compliance in several other industries, such as construction, crypto-assets, and real estate. They can request various types of information in a UPR, including client information (e.g. names, addresses, phone numbers, date of birth) and books and records (e.g. sales and purchase records and legal and public records). CRA reiterated that a UPR differs from an audit as information requested from a business in an audit generally only pertains to the specific entity. However, for a UPR, the requested information typically pertains to an identified group of the business’ clients.

Taxpayers who have not complied with their tax obligations may qualify for penalty relief through the voluntary disclosure program. However, the program does not apply if CRA has commenced an enforcement action, such as a UPR, or received information about potential tax non-compliance.

Ensure you properly report all of your income. Once CRA commences an enforcement action, including receiving information about noncompliance, the voluntary disclosure program is no longer an option.

Directors can be personally liable for payroll source deductions (CPP, EI, and income tax withholdings) and GST/HST unless they are duly diligent in preventing the corporation from failing to remit these amounts on a timely basis. Individuals can be personally liable as directors for up to two years after their resignation.

A July 19, 2023, French Court of Quebec case reviewed whether the taxpayer had resigned as a director of a corporation, thereby protecting the individual from personal liability of the corporation’s failure to remit $22,418 in QST and $38,479 of source deductions. The taxpayer argued that she resigned in writing on the day the corporation declared bankruptcy. Revenu Québec (RQ) argued that even if the taxpayer had resigned, she continued acting as a dire

Taxpayer loses

The Court found that even after the taxpayer allegedly resigned, she continued to carry on the duties of a director. For example, she signed an income tax return for the corporation, authorized the corporation’s accountant to discuss matters with RQ, had conversations with RQ regarding collection activities but did not disclose that she was allegedly no longer a director, and sent two $500 cheques to RQ in an attempt to settle the corporation’s tax debts.

The Court also reiterated previous jurisprudence that found that a director who has resigned must inform the Minister of their resignation during exchanges of correspondence relating to the company’s tax debt and those relating to the liability of directors. While the Court’s comment was specific to the Quebec Companies Act, the Court stated that it did not believe the rules were different for corporations under other provinces or the federal act.

The Court also stated that just because a corporation is bankrupt, the director does not lose their status as a director.

Ensure that allowances paid to employees meet the strict conditions for being tax-free to avoid a surprise tax bill for the recipient.