Two quarterly newsletters have been added—one about personal issues, and one about corporate issues. They can be accessed below.

Corporate:

Issue #19 Corporate

Personal:

Issue #19 Personal

A number of circumstances and developments have come together over the past few years to make working from a home office—once almost unheard of—a common fact of business life. First and foremost, of course, is the technology (particularly communications technology) which enables the home-based worker to have access to all of the information and services available to his or her in-office counterpart. Given the right technology, it’s nearly as easy for an employee working from home to send and receive e-mails through the employer’s communications network and access the people, information, and services needed to do his or her job in the same way as it would be if he or she was at the office.

While technology has made it possible to work from home on a regular basis, other developments have made the daily commute to the office, and the maintenance of large offices in major urban centres less and less appealing. The ever increasing price of gasoline has made the cost of that daily commute prohibitively expensive in some cases. As well, there is an increased awareness of the environmental cost of having most major highways clogged each morning and evening with hundreds of thousands of cars sitting in traffic gridlock. And finally, the cost of renting office space in most major Canadian cities means that most employers are at least willing to consider the cost savings which might be realized from work-at-home or telecommuting arrangements for their employees.

Along with the greater availability of work-at-home arrangements for employees, there has been a significant increase in the number of self-employed Canadians. And while not all of the self-employed work from home, it’s fairly common for those venturing into the world of self-employment for the first time to save costs by operating their business, at least initially, out of a home office.

One of the things which makes a telecommuting or work-at-home arrangement attractive, aside from avoiding the daily commute, is the tax deductions which can be claimed. While those benefits, especially for employees, are not necessarily as generous as is popularly believed, it is the case that working from home can make costs which would be incurred in any event deductible for tax purposes.

As is usually the case in tax matters, the rules differ for employed taxpayers and for the self-employed, as the latter enjoy a greater degree of latitude in the deductions which may be claimed. That said, both the employed and the self-employed must meet the same basic two-part test in order to be eligible to deduct home office expenses, and that test is as follows:

• the home office must be the place at which the taxpayer principally (defined by the Canada Revenue Agency as more than 50% of the time) performs the duties of employment or must be the taxpayer’s principal place of business: or

• the home office must be both used exclusively for the purpose of earning income from employment or from the business and must be used on a regular and continuing basis for meeting customers or clients of the employer or the business.

A self-employed taxpayer who meets these criteria is entitled to claim (on Form T2124(E) (Statement of Business Activities)) expenses such as property taxes, rent, or mortgage interest (but not mortgage principal amounts), insurance, utilities costs etc. However, such expenses are not deductible in their entirety: rather, the taxpayer must apportion the expenses based on the percentage of the total space which is used as a home office. For example, a self-employed taxpayer whose home office takes up 15% of available floor space and who incurs $2000 each year in qualifying expenses would be entitled to deduct $300 ($2,000 times 15%) in home office expenses for that year. There is one further caveat, in that the amount of home office expenses claimed in a year cannot be greater than the amount of income from the business. It’s not, in other words, possible to run a business which produces $5,000 in income for the year and to then claim $10,000 in home office expenses relating to that business. However, where home office expenses exceed business income in any given year, the excess expenses can be carried over and claimed in a subsequent year in which there is sufficient business income to offset those expenses.

Employed taxpayers who meet the two-part test set out above must meet a further condition before being eligible to claim home office expenses, as follows:

• the employer must provide the employee with a Form T2200, which indicates that the employee is required by his or her contract of employment to provide and pay for the expenses related to the home office;
• the employee must not have been reimbursed by the employer for such expenses; and
• the expenses must have been used directly in the employee’s work at home.

Once the T2200 has been issued, and the other conditions are met, an employee who is a tenant can claim a proportionate part of his or her rent. An employee who owns his or her own home can claim a proportionate percentage of utilities and maintenance costs. An employee is not, however, entitled to claim any portion of mortgage interest, property taxes, or home insurance costs paid, and cannot claim capital cost allowance.

As is the case with self-employed taxpayers, an employee’s deduction for home office expenses cannot be greater than the income from employment income for the year to which the expenses relate. And, once again, carryover to a subsequent taxation year is allowed.

One of the tax benefits which is commonly supposed to exist for the home office workers is the right to claim depreciation (or capital cost allowance (CCA), in tax parlance) on one’s home for tax purposes. For employees, however, such a claim is simply not allowed. And, while the self-employed may be entitled to claim CCA on a home, making such a claim can create a short-term benefit with long-term costs. Making a CCA claim on one’s home is likely to erode the principal residence exemption from capital gains tax which is claimable when a home is sold, and that exemption is almost always more valuable, in monetary and tax terms, than any CCA claim which might have been made.

Being able to claim home office expenses doesn’t result in the huge tax benefits that some popular tax myths claim. However, it can and does permit qualifying taxpayers to claim a portion of home ownership (or rental) expenses which would have been incurred in any case while also avoiding the dreaded daily commute, making it a win-win scenario.

As if dealing with bills from the recent holiday season and trying to come up with the funds for an RRSP contribution weren’t enough, February is also the month in which millions of Canadian taxpayers receive an Instalment Reminder from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). For many of those taxpayers, who have received many such notices in the past, the reminder and the tax instalment process are familiar, although not necessarily welcome. For those who are receiving one for the first time, however, both the reminder itself and figuring out how to deal with it can be baffling.

Most Canadians, certainly those who are employed, have income tax deducted “at source”, meaning that their employer deducts an amount for income tax from their paycheques and remits it to the CRA on their behalf. However, for those who are self-employed or, frequently, those who are retired, no such deduction is automatically made from their income, and the issuance of an Instalment Reminder by the CRA may be the result.

The receipt of such a Reminder may be particularly puzzling to the newly retired, who have been accustomed to having tax deducted at source from their paycheques throughout their entire working life. However, no matter what the source of one’s income or the reason that tax has not been deducted at source, the options available to a taxpayer who receives such a reminder are the same.

Canadian federal tax rules provide that a taxpayer may be required to pay income tax by instalments where the amount of tax owing on filing is more than $3,000 in the current year (2012) and either of the two previous years (2010 or 2011). Essentially, the requirement to pay by instalments will be triggered where the amount of tax withheld from the taxpayer’s income is at least $3,000 less than their total tax liability for the current and either of the two previous years. Such instalment payments of tax are due on March 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15 of each year.

An Instalment Reminder issued by the CRA in February 2012 will specify two amounts, one to be paid by March 15 and the other due by June 15. Those amounts represent the CRA’s best estimate, based on the taxpayer’s return filed for the 2010 taxation year, of the net tax will which be payable by the taxpayer for 2012. The taxpayer then has the following three options.

First, the taxpayer can pay the amounts specified on the Reminder, by the respective due dates of March 15 and June 15. A taxpayer who does so can be certain that he or she will not face any interest or penalty charges, even if the amount paid turns out to be less than the taxes actually payable for the 2012 tax year. (If the instalments paid turn out to be more than the taxpayer’s net tax liability for 2012, he or she will of course receive a refund on filing.)

Second, the taxpayer can make instalment payments based on the amount of tax which was owed for the 2011 tax year. Where a taxpayer’s income has not changed between 2011 and 2012 and his or her available deductions and credits remain the same, the likelihood is that total tax liability for 2012 will be slightly less than it was in 2011, owing to the indexation of tax brackets and personal tax credit amounts.

Third, the taxpayer can estimate the amount of tax which he or she will owe for 2012 and can pay instalments based on that estimate. Where a taxpayer’s income will decrease from 2011 to 2012 and there will consequently be a reduction in tax payable, this option may be worth considering.

A taxpayer who elects to follow the second or third options outlined above will not face any interest or penalty charges where there is no tax payable when the return for the 2012 tax year is filed in the spring of 2013. However, should instalments paid be late or insufficient, the CRA can impose interest charges, at rates which are higher than current commercial rates. (The rate charged for the first quarter of 2012—until March 31, 2012—is 5%.) As well, where interest charges are levied, such interest is compounded daily, meaning that on each successive day, interest is levied on the previous day’s interest. It’s also possible for the CRA to impose penalties, but this is done only where the amount of instalment interest charged for the year is more than $1,000.

Most Canadian taxpayers are understandably disinclined to pay their taxes any sooner than absolutely necessary. However, ignoring an Instalment Reminder is never in the taxpayer’s best interests. Those who don’t wish to have to involve themselves in the intricacies of tax calculations can simply pay the amounts specified in the reminder. The more technical-minded (or those who want to ensure that they are paying no more than absolutely required, and are willing to take the risk of having to pay interest on any shortfall) can avail themselves of the second or third options outlined above.

It’s that time of year again, when advertisements about the wisdom of contributing to your registered retirement savings plan (RRSP) fills the airwaves and Web sites. And, since the introduction of tax-free savings accounts (TFSAs) in 2009, February is now also the month in which Canadians wrestle with the question of whether to put any available funds into an RRSP before the contribution deadline of February 29, 2012, or whether to deposit those funds instead in a TFSA.

It’s important to be clear, at the outset, that it’s not an either/or choice. Taxpayers can (and probably should) utilize both the RRSP and TFSA options in planning their financial affairs. Realistically, however, for most taxpayers the limitation is one of resources and cash flow, and it’s often not possible to fund contributions to both an RRSP and a TFSA in the same year, let alone in the same month. That said, what are the considerations which apply in determining which savings/investment vehicle is preferable for 2012?

There are some similarities between TFSAs and RRSPs. Both allow savings to grow and compound free of current tax, and for both, contributions not made in a year can be carried forward and made in any subsequent year. As well, the types of investments which can be made with RRSP or TFSA contributions are, for all intents and purposes, the same, meaning that one’s choice of investment (i.e., guaranteed investment certificates (GICs), mutual funds, bonds, etc.) should be irrelevant to the choice of RRSP vs. TFSA. However, the differences between the two savings vehicles are at least as significant as their similarities.

Perhaps most important to taxpayers, contributions made to an RRSP are deductible from income, resulting in a lower tax bill for the year of contribution and, for many taxpayers, a tax refund. Contributions to a TFSA are, on the other hand, made with after-tax funds, meaning that tax will already have been paid on the income used to make that contribution. Many taxpayers, when presented with an option which will reduce current year taxes, find that the most attractive choice. However, over the long-term, the tax consequences of choosing an RRSP over a TFSA can erode that benefit. When funds contributed (along with investment income earned on those funds) are withdrawn from a TFSA or an RRSP, the tax consequences are very different. Funds withdrawn from an RRSP (or a registered retirement income fund (RRIF) into which the RRSP has been converted) are fully taxable, without exception, at whatever tax rate applies to the taxpayer at the time of withdrawal. TFSA funds (including accumulated investment income) are withdrawn from the plan free of tax, regardless of when the withdrawal is made or the purpose to which the funds are put. And for taxpayers who are receiving Old Age Security benefits (or any other means-tested benefits) from the federal government, it is important to note that RRSP or RRIF funds withdrawn will be included in income for the purpose of determining eligibility for such benefits, while TFSA funds will not. Finally, while RRSP contributions for 2011 must be made by February 29, 2012, there is no similar deadline for TFSA contributions—they can be made at any time during the calendar year. Finally, when funds are withdrawn from a TFSA, the plan holder can “top up” the TFSA in any subsequent year by the amount of that withdrawal. Funds withdrawn from an RRSP cannot be re-contributed, unless the withdrawal was made as part of government-sanctioned withdrawal plans, like the Home Buyers’ Plan or the Lifelong Learning Plan.

The minority of working taxpayers who are members of registered pension plans will likely find the TFSA option particularly attractive. The maximum amount which can be contributed to an RRSP for the 2011 tax year is calculated as 18% of earned income for 2010, to a maximum contribution of $22,450. However, that maximum contribution is reduced, for members of RPPs, by the amount of benefits accrued during the year under the pension plan. Where the RPP is a particularly generous one, RRSP contribution room may be minimal, and a TFSA contribution the logical alternative.

In a similar way, for taxpayers over the age of 71, the RRSP v. TFSA question is simply irrelevant. Taxpayers over that age are not eligible to make contributions to an RRSP, making TFSAs the only tax-free savings vehicle to which they can make contributions. The benefit is greatest for older taxpayers whose required RRIF withdrawals are greater than their current needs. While such RRIF withdrawals must be included in income and taxed in the year of withdrawal, transferring the funds to a TFSA will allow them to continue compounding free of tax and no additional tax will be payable when and if the funds are withdrawn. And, unlike RRIF or RRSP withdrawals, monies withdrawn from a TFSA will not affect the planholder’s eligibility for Old Age Security benefits or for the federal age credit.

For younger taxpayers, where the savings goal is short-term (e.g., a down payment on a home or paying for next year’s vacation), the TFSA is clearly the better choice. While choosing to save through an RRSP will provide a deduction on that year’s return and probably a tax refund, tax will still have to be paid when the funds are withdrawn from the RRSP a year or two later. And, more significantly from a long-term point of view, using an RRSP in this way will eventually erode one’s ability to save for retirement, as RRSP contributions which are withdrawn from the plan cannot be replaced. While the amounts involved may seem small, the loss of compounding on even a small amount over 25 or 30 years can make a significant dent in one’s ability to save for retirement.

Taxpayers who are expecting their income to rise significantly within a few years (e.g., students in post-secondary or professional education or training programs) can save some tax by contributing to a TFSA while they are in school and their income (and therefore their tax rate) is low, and then withdrawing the funds tax-free once they’re working, when their tax rate will be higher. At that time, the withdrawn funds can be used to make an RRSP contribution, which will be deducted against income which would be taxed at the much higher rate, generating a tax savings. And, if a need for the funds should arise in the meantime, a tax-free TFSA withdrawal can always be made.

Financial planners and tax advisers are accustomed to being asked by clients at this time of year whether it makes more sense to pay down the mortgage (or other debt) or to contribute to an RRSP. That question has become more complicated now that the TFSA option has been added to the mix. There is, however, a solution which allows you to do both. Assuming a marginal tax rate of 45%, an RRSP contribution of $10,000 will generate a tax refund of $4,500. Contribute that $10,000 (or as much as you can) to your RRSP and, when the resulting tax refund lands in your bank account, move it to a TFSA or use it to pay down the mortgage or other debt, or split it between the two.

The Canada Revenue Agency has dedicated sections of its Web site to addressing the need of taxpayers for information about TFSAs and RRSPs, and those sections can be found at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/tfsa-celi/menu-eng.html and http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/rrsp-reer/menu-eng.html, respectively.

It’s almost impossible not to have heard that the amount of debt carried by Canadian households is at an all-time high—reaching, on average, just over 150% of household income. Carrying so much debt can be relatively painless when interest rates are at historic lows, but it’s clear that rates cannot and will not remain at such levels indefinitely.

Whether it’s because of the warnings issued by financial professionals and government officials, or just the sight of ever-increasing balances on the monthly credit card or line of credit statements, it seems that Canadians are starting to recognize that their debt loads have to be reduced. And—right on cue—a number of debt reduction companies have begun advertising their services, promising to do just that.

Typically, debt reduction companies promise to work or negotiate with an individual’s creditors in order to have the amount of outstanding debt reduced—a service for which the debtor will of course pay a fee. The claims made by some such companies can seem like a lifeline to debt-burdened families. For those dealing with calls from irate creditors and struggling to make minimum monthly payments on outstanding debts, the prospect of having those debts reduced by up to 70% is very compelling. When a promise to restore a good credit rating by removing past credit mistakes from the debtor’s credit history is added to the sales pitch, it can seem almost too good to be true. And that, in fact, is the title of a recent consumer alert issued by the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC): “Debt Reduction Companies: Beware of “Too Good to be True” Offers. That alert is available on the Agency’s Web site at http://www.fcac-acfc.gc.ca/eng/resources/consumerAlerts/alerts_posting-eng.asp?postingId=393.

The alert issued by the FCAC examines some of the claims made by many debt reduction companies, and compares these claims to the reality of the situation. The first unrealistic claim is often the one made about the percentage by which an individual’s debt can be reduced. The FCAC notes that no creditor is required to negotiate with or speak to a debt reduction company, even if the debtor has paid a fee to have such a company negotiate on its behalf. And, even if the creditor is willing to deal with the debt reduction company, it is in no way obliged to reduce debt by any amount. In other words, it’s perfectly possible for the debtor to pay a fee but get nothing for it.

Another claim sometimes made by debt reduction companies is that they will protect the debtor’s credit rating or even “clean up” that rating by having information on past defaults or late payments eliminated. The reality is that, unless the information contained in a person’s credit rating is demonstrably inaccurate, there is no way to have it removed from the credit report. Listings of past transactions, like late payments or defaults, do eventually disappear from a credit report, but that happens after a specific period of time has elapsed, not because the removal of such information is requested or demanded by a third party. The FCAC alert also reviews claims made that working with a debt reduction agency won’t have any negative effect on the individual’s credit rating or score. It warns that some such companies delay making payments to creditors for a few months in the hope of getting better results from negotiations to reduce the debt amount and that, where that happens, those late payments are likely to be reported to the credit reporting agencies, further damaging the individual’s credit rating. In some cases, debt reduction companies encourage debtors to stop all direct contact with creditors, or even to sign a power of attorney, giving the company authority to make agreements by which the debtor will be bound, even if he or she had no knowledge of them at the time.

Perhaps the most egregious claim made by debt reduction companies is the strong impression given that they are approved by the Canadian government or even that they are operating as part of a federal government program. Neither is true. Neither the federal nor the provincial or territorial governments operate debt reduction companies, and there are no government sponsored programs offering this type of debt reduction. While it is the case a debt reduction company will usually need to be registered and/or licensed by its provincial or territorial government in order to operate as a business, that is simply an administrative requirement which applies to all companies operating in a particular province or territory. Licensing or registration does not in any way mean that the provincial or federal government has approved of or endorsed the company or its way of doing business, and any claims to the contrary are simply false.

Sometimes, debtors avail themselves of the services of debt reduction companies because they are under the incorrect impression that there is no other choice open to them to deal with their debts. There are, in fact, several options. Where a debtor intends to and is able to discharge existing debts, he or she could obtain a debt consolidation loan from a financial institution. The rate of interest charged on such a loan will almost certainly be lower than that being levied on outstanding credit card or payday loan company debts, and the debtor will be able to make a single payment instead of juggling the demands of multiple creditors. Where it’s not possible to obtain such a loan, or the debtor doesn’t feel able to manage the debt repayment process alone, the best course of action is to obtain the services of a reputable credit counseling agency, which can set up a debt management program for the debtor. As part of that program, the agency will contact the individual’s creditors to arrange a manageable payment plan which might include a reduction in interest rates charged. Once a program is in place, the individual makes payments to the credit counseling agency which, in turn, forwards payments to the individual’s creditors as agreed. As well, credit counseling agencies work with clients to help with budgeting and financial management skills, with the goal of avoiding a recurrence of the individual’s financial problems. Reputable credit counseling agencies exist in both the private and the not-for-profit sectors, and information on the latter can be found on the Credit Counselling Canada Web site at http://www.creditcounsellingcanada.ca/Home.aspx.

In many ways, getting out of debt has a lot in common with that perennial New Year’s resolution of many Canadians—losing some weight and getting in shape. With both, it’s human nature to want to believe that there is an easy, painless way of accomplishing the goal without a need to change existing habits, and so it’s easy to fall for persuasive sales pitches that claim to have a quick fix for the problem. In both cases, however, the reality is the opposite—results can only be obtained through some effort, but where that effort is made and existing habits altered, successful long-term results are possible.

Two quarterly newsletters have been added—one about individual issues and one about corporate issues. They can be accessed below.

Corporate:

Issue #16 Corporate

Individual:

Issue #16 Personal

As gas prices across Canada look to set new records, the cost of getting to work (or getting just about anywhere) is likely a topic of conversation in nearly every home and workplace in Canada. Consumers are looking for just about any way to reduce their cost of getting around.

Does the tax system offer any relief? Yes … and no. The bad news for most employed taxpayers is that the cost of driving to work and back home, and the cost of any non-work driving is considered a personal expense, for which no deduction or credit is allowed, no matter how high the cost gets. The news for employees is not, however, all bad. Those who have a commuting alternative in the form of public transit (which includes everything from subways to suburban commuter trains to ferries) can both minimize their expenditures at the gas pump and claim the cost of travel on those transit systems on their tax returns for the year.

A tax credit for the cost of using public transit is offered by the federal government and by several of the provinces, and there is no limit on the amount which may be claimed. The federal credit is calculated as 15% of the cost of public transit, and while provincial credit amounts vary, an average would be around 7%. A taxpayer would therefore be able to claim a credit (and reduce taxes which would otherwise be payable for the year) by 22% of eligible public transit costs incurred during that year.

The public transit tax credit isn’t limited to costs incurred for transit use to and from work. Costs incurred by either spouse and by any dependent children under the age of 19 who regularly purchase a weekly or monthly transit pass—for example high school or university students who use transit to get back and forth from school—can be aggregated and claimed on the return of either parent for the year. So, a family of four which incurs $600 a month in transit costs (not difficult to do where an inter-city commuter pass can cost up to $300 a month and city transit passes, even for students, can cost up to $100) can claim $7,200 in eligible transit costs per year, for which they would be able to reduce their tax bill for the year by just under $1,600.

Where public transit isn’t a viable option and employees are required, as part of their terms of employment, to use their own vehicle for work-related travel—for example, someone who is required to visit clients at their own premises for the purpose of meetings or other work-related activities—tax relief is available for the related costs. If the employer is prepared to certify on a Form T2200 that the employee was ordinarily required to work away from his employer’s place of business or in different places, that he or she is required to pay his or her own travelling expenses, and that no tax-free allowance is provided by the employer for such expenses, the employee can deduct actual expenses incurred (including the cost of gas) for such work-related travel. It goes without saying that the employee must, in order to claim that deduction, keep a record of work-related travel done as well as records of travel-related expenses incurred.

The rules governing the taxation of employee automobile allowances and available deductions for employment-related automobile use can be complicated. But, given the recent run-up in the cost of gasoline, it’s likely worth ensuring that every possible dollar of eligible expenses incurred as a result of employment-related car use is claimed.

It’s no secret that Canadians have, over the past decade or so, taken on an unprecedented level of personal and family debt. An extraordinarily low interest rate environment, the increased availability of credit through a variety of sources and credit vehicles and a generally more “relaxed” attitude toward debt have all combined to make personal debt—sometimes substantial personal debt—more the rule than the exception.

It’s no secret that Canadians have, over the past decade or so, taken on an unprecedented level of personal and family debt. An extraordinarily low interest rate environment, the increased availability of credit through a variety of sources and credit vehicles and a generally more “relaxed” attitude toward debt have all combined to make personal debt—sometimes substantial personal debt—more the rule than the exception.

The first cautions about the level of debt of Canadian families started being heard about five and a half years ago when Statistics Canada reported (at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050916/dq050916a-eng.htm) that, in the second quarter of 2005, the average debt of Canadian households was greater than their annual disposable income. Specifically, Canadian households owed $1.08 for every dollar of disposable income.

Since that time, and particularly in the past year, a number of financial authorities, including the Bank of Canada and the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy have issued statements warning of the dangers of excessive household debt. Specifically, the concern is that Canadians have, in a low interest rate environment, taken on substantial amounts of debt which cannot be sustained over the long term. Or, as put by the Bank of Canada: “Ordinary times will eventually return and, with them, more normal interest rates and costs of borrowing. It is the responsibility of households to ensure that in the future, they can service the debts they take on today”.

In February 2011, the Vanier Institute of the Family issued its annual report on The Current State of Canadian Family Finances (available on the Institute’s Web site at http://www.vifamily.ca/node/783), and that report contained figures which indicate that the level of Canadian household debt has reached two new unwelcome benchmarks. Specifically, the Institute’s report indicated that, for 2010, the average debt of Canadian families as a percentage of disposable income, had reached 150%. In other words, the average debt load of Canadian households as a percentage of disposable income has increased by nearly 50% (from 108% to 150%) over the course of the last five years. Notably, it had taken 15 years for that percentage to increase from 93% (in 1990) to 108% (in 2005). And, according to the Vanier Institute, under current trends, that “ratio could easily reach 160% within the next two years”.

In addition to the increase in debt as a percentage of disposable income, the Institute reported that, for the first time, the average debt load of Canadian families surpassed the $100,000 figure. While that number is significant in and of itself, what will likely prove to be of greater significance over the next few years is the composition of that debt.

While debt comes in an increasingly varied number of forms, there are, essentially, only two basic types of personal debt—secured and unsecured. In the former, the lender “secures” the debt against an asset owned by the borrower, meaning that if the debt is not repaid on time, the lender has the right to seize and sell the underlying asset in order to be repaid. The kind of secured debt most familiar to Canadians is, of course, a mortgage. The mortgage lender loans money to a borrower for the purchase of a house, but retains the right to seize and sell that house if the mortgage is not repaid as required. Unsecured debt, by contrast, is money provided to a borrower on no more than the strength of the borrower’s promise to repay—and the best example of that type of debt familiar to most Canadians is a credit card.

From a borrower’s perspective, the biggest difference between the two types of debts is how “exposed” the borrower is. With secured debt, the borrower has an asset whose value nearly always exceeds the amount of the debt. And, in the event that a borrower can no longer meet his or her loan obligations, the option of selling the underlying asset and repaying the debt from the proceeds of sale is always there. However, with unsecured debt, the borrower is in a much more tenuous position. Borrowers who encounter difficulty in repaying unsecured debt have no ready underlying asset which they can sell in order to rid themselves of the debt. Absent a windfall in the form of an (unlikely) lottery win, or an inheritance, unsecured debt must be repaid from current cash flow, meaning that there must either be an increase in income, or funds must be reallocated from other household expenditures. It is just this circumstance which underlies the current concern among financial authorities. And, as the Vanier Institute figures show, there is reason for that concern.

While most reports on the debt owed by Canadian families focus on the overall total debt figure, the Vanier Institute report goes one step further and breaks down the total debt load of Canadian households into its component parts. As noted, the total average outstanding debt of Canadian households (for the third quarter of 2010) now stands at just over $100,000. According to the Vanier Institute report, about $63,000 of that debt is composed of mortgage debt, meaning that, on average, the amount of debt held by Canadian households in what the Vanier Institute describes as “consumer credit/loans” (which would presumable include credit card debt, unsecured lines of credit and personal loans generally) is just over $36,000. At the current prime rate of 3%, the monthly interest cost alone (without any repayment of principal) of servicing such a debt is $90. And of course, almost no unsecured debt is provided at an interest rate as low as prime. More typically, the interest rate charged on credit card debt can range anywhere from 12% (meaning a monthly interest cost of $360.) to above 25%. The concern expressed by the Bank of Canada and the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy is for what will happen should that interest cost of household indebtedness double in amount—or more.

While no one knows how quickly rates will increase or to what extent, an increase in rates in the near term is very likely. And, while most Canadians are aware that current interest rates are low, very few are likely aware of just how seldom rates have been at such low levels. The Bank of Canada maintains a record of interest rates levied on various types of debt instruments over the past 75 years—since 1935. Those figures show that, since 1935, the prime rate has been less than the current rate of 3.0% during only one time period—from March 2009 to August 2010.

As well, it’s not likely that many Canadians under the age of 45 can actually remember what it’s like to carry a significant debt load in a high interest rate environment—and what can happen when carrying that debt load becomes unsustainable. In mid-1990, the prime rate reached 14.75%, which seems very high until it is compared to the almost unimaginable 22.75% rate in effect a decade earlier in August 1981. If similar interest rates were charged on the $36,000 of consumer debt which represents the Canadian household average, the monthly interest cost alone would reach $443 (at 14.75%) or $683 (at 22.75%)—an amount that simply couldn’t be accommodated by most family budgets, which are already being squeezed by higher food and energy costs. Significant increases in the cost of non-discretionary expenditures like food and energy, when combined with higher carrying costs on existing indebtedness could create a “perfect storm” of financial pressures sufficient to push many families into bankruptcy.

It’s a gloomy scenario, to be sure—but not an unavoidable one. For families carrying significant debt, especially unsecured debt, the best option is to pay off that debt while interest rates remain low, starting with the debt carrying the highest interest rate. However, while that may be the best option, it’s not a terribly realistic one. For many Canadian families, paying off personal debt within a short time frame is just not possible, especially in the face of inflationary pressure on other household expenditures. Where paying off personal debt off in the near term isn’t possible, the next best option is to fix the interest rate levied on that debt while rates are still relatively low. A consolidation loan (at a lower, fixed rate of interest) may be possible or, where there is significant equity in the family home, it may be possible to roll the debt into the existing mortgage at a much lower rate of interest—and to fix that rate of interest at current rates for the next few years.

While the combination of inflation and rising interest rates is an unnerving one for families carrying significant personal debt, it is possible to take steps to mitigate, to some degree, the impact of those changes. The time for doing so, however, is growing shorter.

Homeowners looking for mortgage financing or re-financing may face more stringent requirements from their lending institutions following implementation of the latest federal government changes on April 18, 2011.

In the fall of 2008, the spring of 2010, and again in January of 2011, the federal government announced changes to the rules which govern mortgage financing and refinancing in Canada. In March of this year, the changes which shortened the maximum amortization period from 35 to 30 years and limited re-financing to 85% of a home’s value (down from 90%) took effect.

Implementation of a further change was deferred until April 18, 2011. As of that date, the federal government no longer provides government-backed insurance for most home equity lines of credit (HELOCs). Typically, a HELOC is a lending arrangement under which funds are made available to a homeowner, to a maximum of 80% of the value of the home. Unlike conventional mortgages, HELOCs are non-amortizing; while monthly payments are required, those payments can usually be as little as the interest accrued during the previous month and the homeowner therefore is not required to make any payments against principal.

It is that interest-only payment feature of HELOCs which has resulted in the decision to withdraw government-backed insurance. The federal government announcement (available on the Department of Finance Web site at http://www.fin.gc.ca/n11/data/11-003_1-eng.asp) summarized the change as follows: “[I]f a loan or a segment of a multi-segment loan is in the form of a revolving line of credit that does not amortize over time, it will no longer be eligible for government-backed insurance. However, with established scheduled principal and interest payments, a loan will continue to be eligible for government-backed insurance, provided it meets the underwriting standards set by the mortgage insurer.”

In effect, the change removes the “safety net” for financial institutions which provide non-amortizing HELOC financing to homeowners, in that the financial institution will no longer be able to recover any losses incurred on such financing through government-backed insurance. Given that, the likely response by lenders will be to impose more stringent income and solvency requirements on would-be borrowers.

By now, most Canadian taxpayers (with the exception of the self-employed and their spouses, who have until June 15) will have filed their 2010 income tax returns. Once the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has processed those millions of returns, over the next few weeks and months taxpayers across Canada will begin to receive Notices of Assessment for 2010. In most cases, the Notice of Assessment issued will simply confirm the information which the taxpayer provided on the return, perhaps with some minor arithmetical corrections. However, not infrequently, the Notice of Assessment will indicate that the CRA has disallowed or changed the amount of certain deductions or credits, or has included in income amounts not declared by the taxpayer on his or her return. When that happens, it’s time for the taxpayer to decide whether to dispute the CRA’s assessment of their tax situation.

Sometimes, the CRA will contact the taxpayer even before the return is assessed, to request further information or documentation of deductions or credits claimed (for example, information on the custody of a child where one parent has claimed an equivalent to spouse deduction, or receipts documenting child care expenses claimed). In all cases, the best thing to do is respond to such requests promptly, and to provide the requested documents or information. The CRA can assess only on the basis of information with which it is provided, and where a request for information or supporting documents for a deduction or credit claimed is ignored by the taxpayer, the assessment will proceed on the basis that that such support does not exist. Providing the requested information or supporting documents can often resolve the question to the CRA’s satisfaction, and the assessment of the taxpayer’s return can then proceed.

In other cases, it is the taxpayer who discovers, after the return is filed, that information has been inadvertently misstated, or perhaps amounts have been omitted where an information slip was received after the return was filed. In such situations, the taxpayer is often at a loss to know how to proceed, but the process for amending a return is actually quite straightforward. The first reaction in such circumstances is sometimes simply to file another, corrected return, but that’s not the right solution. Instead, the taxpayer should wait until a Notice of Assessment is received in respect of the return already filed, and then file a Notice of Adjustment with the CRA, making the necessary corrections. A Notice of Adjustment can be filed in a number of ways. The easiest and quickest way of doing of so is through the CRA Web site’s “My Account” feature, but that option is available only to taxpayers who have registered to obtain a CRA ID and password. While doing so isn’t difficult (the steps to be taken to do so are outlined on the Web site at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/esrvc-srvce/tx/ndvdls/myccnt/menu-eng.html), it does take a few weeks to complete the process. Taxpayers who don’t want to deal with the CRA through the Web site, or who don’t think it’s worth registering just to deal with the Agency on a single issue can obtain a hard copy of the T1 Adjustment form from the CRA Web site at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t1-adj/t1-adj-11e.pdf, or by calling the CRA Forms request line at 1-800-959-2221. The use of the actual form isn’t mandatory—a letter to the CRA signed by the taxpayers is an acceptable alternative—but using a standardized form has two benefits. First, it makes it clear to the CRA that an adjustment is being requested, and second, filling out the form will ensure that the CRA is provided with all the information needed to process the requested adjustment. Once the form or letter is completed, it should be mailed or faxed to the Tax Centre to which the original return was sent. A taxpayer who doesn’t remember where the original return was sent can go on the CRA Web site at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/cntct/tso-bsf-eng.html and, by selecting his or her location from a drop-down menu of provinces and cities, can obtain the address of the Tax Centre to which the adjustment request should be sent.

Once the CRA has issued an actual Notice of Assessment, and it indicates that the Agency’s assessment differs from the information provided by the taxpayer on the return, the first thing to consider is why the CRA does not agree with the return as filed. In some cases, it’s very simple—for instance, the CRA has included in income an amount received by the taxpayer but not reported, perhaps because the related information slip was mislaid or never received. In such cases, disputing the Notice of Assessment really doesn’t make sense. Although it’s common for taxpayers to think that if they didn’t receive an information slip, they don’t have to report the income, that’s not the case. Each taxpayer is responsible for keeping track of and reporting his or her own income, regardless of any administrative or other errors which may result in the taxpayer not receiving an information slip.

If the source of the disagreement is not as straightforward, the next step is for the taxpayer to contact the CRA to indicate that they disagree with the assessment and to provide the reasons for their disagreement. Taxpayers can visit their local Tax Services Office (TSO) (a listing of such offices is available on the CRA Web site at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/cntct/tso-bsf-eng.html) to meet with a CRA representative. The CRA does not provide “walk-in” service at their TSOs, and so it’s necessary to call ahead to make an appointment and to bring a copy of the return filed and the Notice of Assessment to the meeting. In many cases, a face-to-face meeting with a CRA representative, with all the relevant documents in front of you, is the quickest way to resolve a dispute.

If the situation still isn’t resolved by a meeting, it’s time for the taxpayer to consider filing an Objection. Filing such an Objection formally advises the CRA that the taxpayer is disputing his or her tax liability for the taxation year in question. Not incidentally, the filing of an Objection also brings to a halt any efforts undertaken by the CRA to collect taxes which it considers owing for the taxation year under dispute (although, if the taxpayer is eventually found to owe the amount in dispute, interest will have accumulated in the interim). The Objection must be in writing and must outline the taxpayer’s reasons for objecting to the CRA’s assessment. The CRA will also need the taxpayer’s social insurance number and the taxation year for which the assessment is being disputed must be identified. The CRA provides a standardized form—the T400A Objection (available on the Agency’s Web site at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t400a/README.html)—and, while the use of the CRA’s form is not obligatory, it’s a good idea. Using the standardized form will make it clear to the CRA that a formal objection is being filed, will present the necessary information in a format with which the Agency is familiar and will also mean that no required information is inadvertently omitted. It’s also helpful to include a copy of the Notice of Assessment which is being disputed. Since the CRA does not always acknowledge receipt of an Objection, ensuring delivery by sending it by registered mail should be considered. The Objection should be sent to the Chief of Appeals at the taxpayer’s TSO or the Tax Center at which the return was originally filed.

There is a time limit by which any Objection must be filed, albeit a reasonably generous one. Individual taxpayers must file an Objection by the later of 90 days from the mailing date of the Notice of Assessment (the date found at the top of page 1) or one year from the due date of the return which is being disputed. So, for 2010 tax year returns, the one-year deadline (which is usually, but not always, the later of the two dates) would be April 30, 2012 (or June 15, 2012 for self-employed taxpayers and their spouses). As with most things related to taxes, it’s best not to put it off. At the very least, if the taxpayer is ultimately found to owe some or all of the taxes assessed by the CRA, interest will have accrued on those taxes for the entire period since the filing due date and, if the filing of the Objection is delayed, the CRA may well have already commenced its collection efforts.

Eventually (at least several weeks being the usual time frame) the CRA will respond to the Objection. In the course of making its decision, the Agency may or may not contact the taxpayer for further discussions of the issues in dispute. Should the taxpayer be contacted, he or she may be asked to provide representations outlining his or her position, in writing or at a meeting. Through such representations and meetings, it may be possible for the taxpayer and the CRA to come to an agreement on the taxpayer’s tax liability. In either case, the CRA will either confirm its original assessment or change it. If the original assessment is changed, the CRA will issue a Notice of Reassessment outlining the changes. If the taxpayer continues to disagree with the CRA’s position, the next step is an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada. While in many instances taxpayers are allowed by law to represent themselves before the Tax Court, it’s generally a good idea, once things reach his point, to consult a tax lawyer before taking that next step.

The CRA also publishes a useful pamphlet entitled Resolving Your Dispute: Objection and Appeal Rights under the Income Tax Act, and that publication can be found on the CRA Web site at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/p148/README.html.

A final note: many taxpayers, when they receive a Notice of Assessment and determine that the CRA agrees with their return as filed, consign the Notice to the nearest garbage can or recycling container. Neither is a good idea. A Notice of Assessment, in addition to outlining the CRA’s assessment of the taxpayer’s income and tax position for the year, contains useful and necessary information on the taxpayer’s RRSP current year and carryforward contribution amounts as well as information on the taxpayer’s allowable cumulative contribution limit for TFSAs. The Notice of Assessment should be treated as part of a taxpayer’s tax records, and filed away accordingly.

The 2011-12 federal budget brought down by Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty on March 22, 2011 includes projections that call for the elimination of the federal deficit, and a return to a surplus position, by the 2015-16 fiscal year. The deficit for the 2010-11 fiscal year which ends on March 31, 2011 is expected to be just over $40 billion, and to decline by about $10 billion per year until a surplus of just over $4 billion is realized in 2015-16.

When the Minister rose to deliver the budget, the possibility of a spring election was on the minds of many those listening, and the budget does indeed include many pre-election “goodies” for taxpayers in a variety of situations. Most of the budget provisions were directed at individual taxpayers, and most of those measures were of a relieving nature. The current non-refundable tax credit provided for the cost of enrolling children in fitness-related activities will be joined by a similar credit of up to $75 per year for the cost of “artistic, cultural, recreational or developmental” activities in which a child under 16 is enrolled. A new family caregiver tax credit of up to $300 per year will be provided, beginning in 2012, to those who provide care to spouses and minor children who have a mental or physical infirmity. Students will benefit from a broadening of the rules governing eligibility for the tuition, education, and textbook tax credits, particularly with respect to courses of study taken abroad. Changes to the rules governing registered education savings plans (RESPs) will permit amounts to be transferred between individual RESPs of siblings without incurring a tax penalty. Finally, the mineral exploration tax credit, which was to have applied only to flow-through share agreements entered into on or before March 31, 2011, has been extended to March 31, 2012.

Some of the individual tax measures put forward in the budget do, however, restrict or eliminate tax benefits currently available to individual taxpayers. Beneficiaries of individual pension plans (IPPs) will, for the 2012 and subsequent taxation years, be subject to minimum withdrawal rules similar to those which govern beneficiaries of registered retirement income funds (RRIFs). Current anti-avoidance rules in respect of registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs) will be broadened to address concerns on the part of the Department of Finance with planning schemes which allow RRSP annuitants to access their RRSP funds without including those funds in income. Finally, the ambit of the tax on split income (“kiddie tax”) which limits income splitting within a family unit, will be broadened to include capital gains realized on non-arm’s length dispositions of shares, where taxable dividends on those shares would currently be subject to the tax.

While most of the budget’s provisions were directed toward individual taxpayers, there were some measures affecting business. The measure of greatest benefit to small business is likely the proposal to provide a one-time credit of up to $1,000 to offset any increase in the amount of employment insurance (EI) premiums paid by a business in 2011 over that paid in 2010. The credit is available only to employers whose 2010 EI premiums were less than $10,000. Other measures relate to the capital cost allowance (CCA) system under which depreciation is claimed on assets for tax purposes. The current accelerated CCA for manufacturing and processing assets, which allows for a 50% deduction on a straight line basis, was scheduled to expire at the end of 2011. Instead, the enhanced deduction will be available for qualifying assets purchased before 2014. As well, the list of assets to be included in CCA Class 43.2 (clean energy generation) and therefore eligible for accelerated CCA is to be expanded to include equipment used to generate electrical energy from waste heat. Finally, the energy sector will also benefit from proposed changes to the rules governing qualifying environmental trusts and the tax treatment of intangible capital expenses in oil sands projects.

By the time most Canadians sit down to gather together information slips and receipts to prepare their 2010 tax return, any opportunities to minimize tax payable for the year are, for the most part, gone. Most tax-planning or tax-saving strategies, in order to be effective for 2010, would have to have been put in place by the end of that calendar year. The major exception to that rule is, of course, registered retirement savings plan (RRSP) contributions, but even those had to have been made by March 1, 2011 in order to be claimed on the 2010 return.

Notwithstanding, all is not lost by tax return filing time, as there are some tax-planning strategies (more properly described as tax-filing strategies) which can still minimize the tax bite for the current year or future ones. What follows is an outline of some of the tax-filing strategies which are available to many, if not most, Canadian taxpayers.

Figuring out what to claim

It would seem to make intuitive sense to claim whatever eligible costs you have incurred during the year in order to minimize your tax bill or increase your refund. But, in some areas, “giving away” your deductions to other family members or deferring the claim until a future year can actually give you a much better tax result than just automatically claiming whatever amounts are available as those costs are incurred.

Taxpayers who are married enjoy some advantages in this area. By law, medical expenses incurred within a family (that is, by each spouse or by their children) can be claimed by either spouse. As well, charitable donations made by married individuals can be claimed by the person who made the donation or by his or her spouse. The ability to transfer or combine the amounts matters because, in the case of medical expenses, amounts claimable must pass certain income thresholds and, in the case of charitable donations, the credit percentage rises as donation amounts increase. Finally, costs incurred by members of a family for public transit use can be combined to ensure that they are claimed by the family member or members who can make the best use of them for tax purposes.

Medical expense claims

Under Canadian tax law, a 15% federal tax credit (as well as a provincial credit, the amount of which varies, depending on the taxpayer’s province of residence) may be claimed for qualifying medical expenses over a specified income threshold. Federally, for 2010, that threshold is equal to the lesser of $2,024 or 3% of net income. Consequently, it makes sense to maximize the amount of claimable expenses by having one member of the family make the claim for qualifying expenses incurred by all family members, and for the person claiming to be the lower-income spouse.

 It is also possible to plan around the timing of medical expenses. Medical expenses claimed on a tax return can be any qualifying expenses incurred in any 12-month period which ended during the tax year. So, it makes sense to pick the 12-month period which maximizes the amount of expenses. Take, for instance, a family whose medical expenses were not out of the ordinary during 2010 but who incurred significant medical expenses (perhaps for unexpected dental care costs or prescription drug expenses) in the first two months of 2011. When filing the return for 2010, it might make sense to defer the claim for medical expenses paid during 2010, where that claim might only produce a small credit or no credit at all, and the medical expenses incurred during calendar 2010 would be “wasted” from a tax point of view. When the 2011 return is filed at this time next year, claiming all medical expenses incurred between March 1, 2010 and February 28, 2011 might produce a better tax result. Because each case is different, in terms of when medical expenses are incurred, and the income of the taxpayer or taxpayers for different tax years, there are no real rules of thumb which can determine when it makes sense to defer a medical claim. In all cases, it’s a matter of doing the calculations to determine which claim period produces the best tax result.

Claiming charitable donations

Our tax system provides a credit, at both the federal and provincial levels, for all charitable donations made. Unlike the medical expense claim, the income of the taxpayer plays no part in determining the availability or amount of such a claim. However, our tax system does reward more generous donors, in that the percentage amount of the credit increases as donation levels rise. Specifically, the first $200 in donations is eligible for a non-refundable tax credit equal to 15% of the donation amount, while donations over $200 qualify for the same non-refundable tax credit at the rate of 29%.

As noted above, charitable donations made by an individual can be claimed by that individual or by his or her spouse. Since the credit percentage increases as donation levels rise, it only makes sense to combine the donations made by both spouses and claim them on one return. Since the available credit is unaffected by income level, it doesn’t matter which spouse makes the claim, with one caveat. Since the credit is non-refundable, it should only be claimed by a taxpayer who has an actual tax liability for the year.

Taxpayers also have some flexibility in timing the claiming of their charitable deduction contributions. Contributions made can be claimed in the year they are made or in any of the five successive taxation years. So, it will usually make sense, where donation amounts for a single year do not exceed the $200 threshold, to wait and aggregate donations made in two or more years, in order to maximize the credit claimable.

Public transit tax credit

Millions of Canadians use public transit every day to get to and from work or school, and the cost of such public transit use can run to hundreds of dollars each month. In order to encourage the use of public transit, the federal government provides a non-refundable tax credit to taxpayers who purchase monthly (or longer) transit passes throughout the year. The cost of shorter duration passes may also qualify for the credit if they are for a minimum 5-day period and enough of them are purchased to provide the purchaser with 20 days of unlimited travel each month.

The credit itself is equal to 15% of the amount of eligible public transit costs incurred, with no limit on that amount. So, a taxpayer who purchased a $250 monthly commuter train pass each month for the entire year could claim a credit of $450. ($250 ×12 ×15%) and reduce his or her federal taxes by that amount.

The full potential of the public transit tax credit, however, is realized when eligible public transit costs incurred by members of a family are combined. Many users of public transit are high school or university students, who use transit for reasons of economy. However, for most such students, their income for the year is unlikely to be high enough (over about $10,000 for 2010) to result in a federal tax liability. Since the public transit credit is a non-refundable one, meaning that it can only reduce federal tax otherwise payable and can’t create or increase a refund, it’s of no use to someone who doesn’t pay federal tax. And, since the credit can’t be carried over, but must be claimed in the year the qualifying expense is incurred, any potential credit in the hands of someone who isn’t taxable for federal purposes would simply be lost.

Recognizing this reality, the federal tax rules governing the public transit tax credit permit all eligible costs incurred by a taxpayer, his or her spouse, and any of their children who are under the age of 19 (which would in many cases include children at university) to be combined and claimed on either spouse’s return, as follows. If the taxpayer in the example above spent $3,000 ($250 per month) for eligible public transit costs, his or her spouse spent a like amount, and each of their two teenage children incurred $100 per month in eligible public transit costs, then the total claim would be as follows:

Taxpayer - $3,000

Spouse - $3,000

Teenage child - $1,200

Teenage child - $1,200

TOTAL - $8,400 ×15% = $1,260

It doesn’t matter which spouse claims the total eligible public transit costs of $8,400, as the total credit will remain $1,260, no matter who makes the claim. What matters is that the person making the claim has at least $1,260 in federal tax payable after all other non-refundable credits (e.g., personal credit) are claimed, so that that credit can be fully utilized.

As the tax filing deadline gets closer and closer, it’s true that the chances to make any really significant changes to one’s tax liability for the year diminish. But, nonetheless, paying close attention to the details when filing can produce a better bottom line result—and an incentive to start planning earlier next year!

Unlike contributing to an RRSP or a tax-free savings account (TFSA), the idea of splitting pension income as a tax-planning strategy doesn’t get a lot of attention in the media. That’s unfortunate for a couple of reasons. First, the splitting of pension income can provide significant tax savings to those able to utilize it—generally older taxpayers who in many cases are living on a fixed income and can really benefit from the tax savings received—especially in the current low interest rate environment. Second, unless you’re getting good tax-planning advice, it’s very easy to overlook pension income splitting as a way of reducing your tax burden. The only references to pension income splitting on the annual return are two entries, one on line 116 and the other on line 210 and, unless you are already aware of the significance of those entries, there’s really nothing to alert you to it. The Income Tax and Benefit Guide provides very little in the way of explanation and no indication at all of the benefits which may be obtained. In addition, the form which must be filed to effect a pension income splitting strategy isn’t part of the standard tax return package provided to taxpayers by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)—taxpayers must ask for it and obtain it separately.

The general rule is that taxpayers receiving private pension income (including a pension received from former employer and, where the recipient taxpayer is over the age of 65, payments from a registered retirement savings plan or a registered retirement income fund) are entitled to split up to half that income with a spouse for tax purposes. (Government source pension income, like payments from the Canada Pension Plan or Old Age Security payments do not qualify for pension income splitting.) A number of the provinces have also indicated that they will adopt the federal rules for provincial tax purposes.

While the concept and general rules governing pension income splitting aren’t particularly complex, the splitting of pension income has some fairly wide-ranging, beneficial tax consequences for the taxpayer and his or her spouse.

The mechanics of pension income splitting are relatively simple. There is no need to make any change in the actual payment or receipt of qualifying pension amounts, and no need to notify the pension plan administrator. In addition, the decision of whether and to what extent to split pension income for tax purposes does not have to be made until the return for the year is being completed. Taxpayers who wish to split eligible pension income received by either of them must each file Form T1032, Joint Election to Split Pension Income, with their annual tax return, and the form is available on the CRA Web site at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t1032/t1032-10e.pdf.

On the T1032, the taxpayer receiving the private pension income and the spouse with whom that income is to be split must make a joint election to be filed with their respective tax returns for the particular tax year. Since the splitting of pension income affects both the income and the tax liability of both spouses, the election must be made and the form filed by both spouses—an election filed by only one spouse or the other won’t do.

In addition to filing the T1032, the spouse who actually receives the pension income must deduct from income the pension income amount allocated to his or her spouse, on line 210 of his or her return for the year. And, conversely, the spouse to whom the pension income is being allocated is required to add that amount to his or her income on the return, this time on line 116.

As well as reporting the pension income “received” and claiming the corresponding deduction on lines 116 and 210, there’s a requirement that, where tax has been withheld from the income to be split, that tax must be allocated on the return for the year in the same proportion as the pension income is allocated. The formula for doing so is outlined in Part 5 of Form 1213.

Finally, taxpayers receiving private pension income can claim a non-refundable federal tax credit of up to $2,000 on their returns for the year. The actual credit claimable is equal to the amount of qualifying pension income earned or $2,000, whichever is less. The CRA has confirmed that where pension income is split, the amount of such income reported for tax purposes by each spouse will be used to determine eligibility for and the amount of any pension income credit. For example, where a taxpayer who receives $10,000 in eligible pension income for the year allocates 50% of that amount, or $5,000, to a spouse, each spouse will be able to claim the full $2,000 pension tax credit on his or her return for the year the income is reported, thereby saving an additional $300 in federal income taxes. 

The ability to split pension income between spouses has the potential to achieve real and permanent tax savings and to enhance eligibility for certain federal tax credits and benefits. And, as long as the administrative requirements outlined above are followed, pension income splitting is a win-win strategy for eligible taxpayers.

It may seem like an obvious mistake to avoid, but every year some taxpayers pay unnecessary (and non-deductible) penalties and interest for no reason other than that they simply didn’t get their returns in on time. For the record, a 2010 personal tax return is late-filed if it isn’t sent to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) on or before May 2, 2011 or, if you or your spouse are self-employed, on or before June 15. In all cases, tax amounts owing due must be paid on or before May 2, 2011.

For some taxpayers, late-filing is just a matter of not having gotten around to it—few people view preparing their tax returns as anything other than an unpleasant chore. For others, missing or mislaid information slips are to blame. In many cases, where there is tax owing and the cash just isn’t available to pay those taxes, taxpayers assume that it’s better just to put off filing until the money is available and the payment can be made. Whatever the reason, not filing on time is, in all cases, the wrong decision.

Where the reason for not filing is missing information slips (for example, T4s or T5s), the best strategy is to estimate the amount and enter that estimate on the appropriate line of the return. It’s also a good idea, in such circumstances, to attach a note for the tax authorities, explaining that the slip wasn’t received, providing them with the name and address of the person or company which should have issued it and the kind of income involved (i.e., employment income or interest income), and explaining what steps have been taken (i.e., contacting the company or the bank) to get the missing information slip. While it’s a surprisingly common misconception, it’s not the case that if an information slip wasn’t received, the income doesn’t have to be reported for tax purposes.

In any case, where taxes are owed, late-filing means an automatic penalty will be imposed equal to 5% of those outstanding taxes, plus an additional 1% for every full month following during which the return is not filed, to a maximum of 12 months (or a total of 17% of the unpaid amount). As well, interest starts being charged on those unpaid taxes the very first day they are overdue. Few taxpayers realize that the interest rate charged by the CRA is, by law, well in excess of commercial rates of interest. Specifically, the rate of interest charged by the CRA is equal to its “prescribed rate” plus 4%, and any interest charges levied are compounded daily. The rate charged by the CRA from April 1 to June 30, 2011 will be 5%.

For taxpayers who make a habit of filing late, the news is even worse. If a late-filing penalty has been charged by the CRA in any of the previous three years, and another return is late-filed, both the immediate penalty and the recurring monthly penalty are doubled to, respectively, 10% and 2% per month, to a maximum of 20 months. In the very worst-case scenario, where the taxpayer was assessed a late-filing penalty within the previous three years and the current return is more than 20 months late, the penalty assessed can reach 50% of the unpaid tax amount.

Even where a refund is expected, and there is consequently no risk of incurring late-filing penalties, it doesn’t make sense to put off filing. While the CRA pays compound daily interest (at a rate of 3% for the April to June 2011 period) on overpayments of taxes, the interest clock on such payments doesn’t start running until the latest of the following three dates: May 31, 2011, the 31^st day after the return is filed or the day after the taxes are overpaid.

So, no matter what your situation, getting your return in on time makes sense. In the worst case scenario, it can save you from paying substantial interest and penalties (now or in the future) or, where a refund is expected, can get your money into your hands more quickly, perhaps with interest added.

If the constant flow of television commercials reminding taxpayers of the upcoming RRSP contribution deadline wasn't enough, the arrival of the 2010 tax return form and the issuance of tax information slips must leave taxpayers in no doubt that it's that time of year again. By the end of February or early March, taxpayers will usually have received all of the information needed to prepare their 2010 income tax returns. Issuers of T4s (for employment income) and T5s (for investment income, including interest and dividends) must send such information slips to employees, shareholders, and account holders by the end of February. Self-employed taxpayers, who must calculate their own business income for the year, will certainly be in a position to do so by the end of February. Finally, retirees who receive pension income, either from a former employee or from the Canada Pension Plan or Old Age Security program, will have received T4A information slips from the pension plan administrator or the government of Canada documenting that income for 2010.

If the constant flow of television commercials reminding taxpayers of the upcoming RRSP contribution deadline wasn't enough, the arrival of the 2010 tax return form and the issuance of tax information slips must leave taxpayers in no doubt that it's that time of year again. By the end of February or early March, taxpayers will usually have received all of the information needed to prepare their 2010 income tax returns. Issuers of T4s (for employment income) and T5s (for investment income, including interest and dividends) must send such information slips to employees, shareholders, and account holders by the end of February. Self-employed taxpayers, who must calculate their own business income for the year, will certainly be in a position to do so by the end of February. Finally, retirees who receive pension income, either from a former employee or from the Canada Pension Plan or Old Age Security program, will have received T4A information slips from the pension plan administrator or the government of Canada documenting that income for 2010.

The filing deadline for individual taxpayers (other than the self-employed and their spouses, who must file by June 15, 2011) is April 30, 2011. This year, however, taxpayers have a little extra breathing room. Since the April 30, 2011 filing deadline falls on a Saturday, a return will be considered by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to be filed on time if it is received, or postmarked, on the next business day. For 2011, that day would be Monday, May 2. A similar extension applies to payments owed to the CRA.

Taxpayers who are expecting a refund are, however, well-advised to file as early as possible, as required processing times increase as the filing deadline looms. A return which might have been processed (and a refund issued) within three weeks if filed in early March will likely take twice that amount of time if filed in the last week of April. Taxpayers who will have a balance owing on filing and are disinclined to send that money to the CRA any earlier than absolutely necessary can still file well in advance of the deadline, and post-date the payment. As well, where there is a balance owed on filing, it's not necessarily a good idea to file as late as possible. Should the return be delayed in any way–for instance, through a computer or server crash or a postal delay, the return could end up arriving late, meaning that late-filing penalties and interest charges will be levied. In such circumstances, it's a better idea to file earlier and simply post-date the cheque to May 2, 2011.

For all taxpayers, including the self-employed, all taxes owed for the 2010 tax year are due and payable to the CRA on or before Monday May 2, 2011. No exceptions and, barring any extraordinary circumstances, no extensions are given. Taxpayers who are not in a position to pay taxes owing by the filing deadline sometimes put off filing, reasoning that there's no point to filing if the taxes owing from the return can't be paid. While that may seem logical, it's a mistake to file late, no matter what the reason. Where a tax return is late-filed, for any reason, the CRA levies a penalty calculated as a percentage of tax owing as of the filing deadline. The penalty varies, depending on whether the taxpayer has late-filed in the past, how often, and how recently that late-filing occurred, but the minimum penalty is 5% of taxes owed, plus interest on those taxes. A taxpayer who cannot come up with the money needed to pay taxes owed on filing should file anyway, and enclose a letter to the CRA explaining the reasons for the late payment. Generally, the CRA will be willing to set up a payment plan with the taxpayer through which the tax owing can be paid over time. While it's impossible to avoid the interest charges which will be levied where taxes are paid late, a taxpayer who nonetheless files the return on time will at least avoid the late filing penalty.

It's worth noting that while the CRA can and usually does notice and correct arithmetical and clerical errors which appear in returns, the CRA does not (and cannot) ensure that taxpayers claim all the deductions, credits, and benefits available to them. It's up to the taxpayer to ensure that the annual return is completed accurately and all available deductions and credits are claimed and received–or lost.

At one time, the deadline for filing a tax return and the options for filing it were straightforward–everyone had to file by April 30, and the paper-and-pencil return was the only option. While paper filing is still an option, it's one used by a diminishing number of taxpayers every year. With each successive filing season, more and more taxpayers turn to one of the three available forms of electronic tax filing (or e-filing)–E-FILE, NETFILE or TELEFILE. Since most Canadian taxpayers are eligible to use at least one of these electronic methods, the choice is often one of personal preference.

The simplest electronic filing method is probably TELEFILE. TELEFILE is useful for those who don't have or don't want to use a computer, or who aren't interested in purchasing the software needed to use other e-filing methods, but who still want to take advantage of the faster return processing time that e-filing offers. Taxpayers whose tax situation is relatively straightforward and who are therefore eligible to use TELEFILE will receive a four digit “access code” with their return package. Even if the return package didn't include an access code, it's possible to get one (assuming that your tax situation qualifies) by calling the CRA's e-service Help Desk toll-free at 1-800-714-7257. Actually, using TELEFILE is quite straightforward, as the user is guided by a series of voice prompts and has the opportunity, at each step, to verify information entered or, if necessary, to correct it. The CRA's Web site also contains information on how to use TELEFILE, as well as the dates and hours when the service is available. This can all be found at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/esrvc-srvce/tx/ndvdls/tlfl/bt-eng.html.

Taxpayers who are able and willing to prepare their returns using computer software can take advantage of the CRA's NETFILE option. Each year, the Agency certifies or approves specific commercial software packages or Web applications which may then be purchased by the taxpayer and used to file a return through the CRA's Web site. As might be expected, there are encryption requirements which must be met to ensure the security of the data. The CRA's Web site contains a listing of browsers which meet those requirements, as well as a link to a listing of approved software and Web applications for the filing of 2010 returns, at http://www.netfile.gc.ca/menu-eng.html.

Both TELEFILE and NETFILE became available for the filing of 2010 tax returns as of February 14, 2011, and will continue to be available until September 30, 2011.

Finally, taxpayers who prefer to simply let someone else handle the entire tax filing process usually turn to E-FILE. E-FILERS are businesses (usually accountants or accounting firms or companies or individuals whose business is comprised solely of tax return preparation and filing) who are authorized by the CRA to electronically file tax returns for clients. Information about e-filing, and a link to a listing of authorized e-file services providers (organized by postal code), can be found on the CRA's Web site at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/esrvc-srvce/tx/ndvdls/fl-nd/menu-eng.html.

No matter which filing method is chosen, it's important to make sure that any tax owed is paid by the May 2 deadline. If that deadline is missed, the interest clock starts running on May 3. And, although current interest rates are low by historical standards, taxpayers are often surprised to find that interest rates charged by the CRA are, by law, well in excess of current commercial rates. Currently (until March 31, 2011), the CRA charges interest on overdue or insufficient tax payments at a rate of 5%. And, by law, those interest charges are compounded daily, meaning that on each successive day after May 3, interest is charged on the interest levied the day before.

While no one likes paying taxes, or dealing with the administrative burden of filing a tax return, it's an annual chore that must be done eventually. Especially in light of the interest and penalty amounts which may be charged, putting it off just doesn't make sense.

General tax rules allow individuals to deduct most costs associated with a move to a new residence where that move is undertaken to start a new job or attend school full-time, provided that the location of the new residence is at least 40 kilometres closer than the old one to the new place of employment or the school. In order to qualify for the deduction, of course, the moving costs must be paid for by the individual claiming them. Normally, moving costs which are eligible for the deduction are claimed in the year the move is made, but can only be claimed against income earned at the new location. Where the deductible moving costs exceed the amount of such income, any excess costs may be carried forward and deducted from income earned in the following year at the new location.

General tax rules allow individuals to deduct most costs associated with a move to a new residence where that move is undertaken to start a new job or attend school full-time, provided that the location of the new residence is at least 40 kilometres closer than the old one to the new place of employment or the school. In order to qualify for the deduction, of course, the moving costs must be paid for by the individual claiming them. Normally, moving costs which are eligible for the deduction are claimed in the year the move is made, but can only be claimed against income earned at the new location. Where the deductible moving costs exceed the amount of such income, any excess costs may be carried forward and deducted from income earned in the following year at the new location.

In many cases, however, where a taxpayer is moving to take up a new position, his or her new employer will cover the costs of making that move as part of the employment offer. Whether the employer pays the costs up front or reimburses the new employee for costs already incurred and paid, the result is the same from a tax perspective–any employer-paid moving costs cannot be deducted by the employee.

The CRA was recently asked to consider a situation in which an individual employee moved to take a new position and his costs of moving were paid by his new employer. A provision of the employment agreement, however, provided that he would be required to repay a pro-rated portion of those amounts to the employer should he leave his employment within a five-year period following the move. The individual did in fact resign his position within that five-year period and, as required by the employment agreement, repaid his now former employer for a portion of those moving costs. The question put to the CRA was whether, in the circumstances, the employee could now claim a deduction for the moving costs which he was required to repay.

There is no provision in the Income Tax Act to allow moving expenses to be carried back and claimed in a previous year. In the circumstances, the CRA's view was that the taxpayer could claim a deduction for the moving expenses in the year that the payment was made, but that such deduction was limited to the amount of employment income earned at the new work location in that year. In other words, where an employee repays an employer for otherwise eligible moving expenses in respect of a move that occurred in a previous year, a deduction may be claimed on the employee's tax return for such expenses in the year of payment, but only to the extent of employment or self-employment income earned at the new work location in that year. The expenses cannot, however, be carried back and claimed in any previous year.

The CRA's technical interpretation indicated, finally, that where more than three years (i.e., the normal reassessment period) had passed since the payment was made, the taxpayer should request an adjustment to his return for the year of payment using the CRA's taxpayer relief provisions. However, such requests are limited to ten calendar years preceding the year in which the request is made.

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has devoted significant resources over the past couple of decades to ensuring that Canadians can deal with the Agency on personal tax matters through its Web site, while still protecting taxpayer confidentiality. Most Canadians are by now aware that they can file their returns electronically, and in 2010 more than 13 million tax returns were filed that way. What many taxpayers likely aren't aware of is that it's possible to do nearly all your business (not just filing of returns) with the CRA online through their Web site at www.cra-arc.gc.ca, and that recent changes have been made to how that online access is obtained.

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has devoted significant resources over the past couple of decades to ensuring that Canadians can deal with the Agency on personal tax matters through its Web site, while still protecting taxpayer confidentiality. Most Canadians are by now aware that they can file their returns electronically, and in 2010 more than 13 million tax returns were filed that way. What many taxpayers likely aren't aware of is that it's possible to do nearly all your business (not just filing of returns) with the CRA online through their Web site at www.cra-arc.gc.ca, and that recent changes have been made to how that online access is obtained.

The “gold standard” of personal tax information access on the CRA Web site is a feature called My Account, available at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/esrvc-srvce/tx/ndvdls/myccnt/menu-eng.html. Taxpayers who register for My Account can obtain and do just about anything online that could be done by phone or letter or at a CRA Tax Services Office.

With My Account you can see information about your:

• tax refund or balance owing;
• direct deposit;
• RRSP, Home Buyers' Plan, and Lifelong Learning Plan;
• Tax-Free Savings Account;
• NETFILE access code;
• tax returns and carryover amounts;
• tax information slips–T4A(P), T4A(OAS) and T4E
• disability tax credit;
• account balance and payments on filing;
• instalments;
• Canada Child Tax Benefit and related provincial and territorial programs payments, account balance, and statement of account;
• GST/HST credit and related provincial programs payments, account balance, and statement of account;
• Universal Child Care Benefit payments, account balance, and statement of account;
• children for which you are the primary care giver;
• Working Income Tax Benefit advanced payments;
• pre-authorized payment plan;
• authorized representative; and
• addresses and telephone numbers.

With My Account you can also manage your personal income tax and benefit account online by:

• changing your return(s);
• changing your address or telephone numbers;
• applying for child benefits;
• arranging your direct deposit;
• authorizing your representative;
• setting up a payment plan; and
• formally disputing your assessment or determination.

Not surprisingly, making such an enormous amount of personal tax information available online creates a need for security to protect that information. Until recently, in order to gain access to My Account, taxpayers were required to obtain a Government of Canada “E-pass”, which enabled the holder to deal with most government departments and agencies, including the CRA, through their various Web sites.

In the fall of 2010, the CRA replaced the Government of Canada E-pass with a new process which is specific to the Agency. While the process is not markedly different than that used to obtain an E-pass, registration with the CRA will allow access to only the CRA Web site, and not the Web sites of other government departments or agencies.

Registration under the new process starts on the CRA Web site at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/esrvc-srvce/tx/ndvdls/myccnt/menu-eng.html.The taxpayer registering must provide his or her social insurance number, date of birth, current postal code, and specific information from a previous tax return filed with the CRA. He or she must then create a CRA ID and password and select and answer a number of security questions.  The CRA will then send a security code to the taxpayer by regular mail. Once the security code is received, it is necessary to once again go onto the CRA Web site, where the user ID and password will be activiated by entering that security code. Once all that is done and registration is complete, the taxpayer will be able to access personal information or transact business with the CRA simply by logging in with the user ID and password.

Taxpayers who have previously obtained a Government of Canada E-pass can no longer use that E-pass to gain access to CRA login services. Instead, they will be able to create a CRA user ID and password online and login using that ID and password.

Many taxpayers, however, don't necessarily want to go through the entire process of getting access to My Account, especially if they are infrequent users of the Web site, or just need a particular piece of information in a hurry (e.g., finding out their RRSP deduction limit on the last day a contribution can be made). Recognizing that reality, the Agency created something called Quick Access. As its name implies, Quick Access is a streamlined process that doesn't require the taxpayer to register, or create an ID or password. And, while the kinds of information available through Quick Access are much more limited than those available through My Account, they tend to be the kinds of information that taxpayers look for most frequently.

Quick Access is available on the CRA Web site at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/esrvc-srvce/tx/ndvdls/qckccss/menu-eng.html. Using it, a taxpayer can find out the status of a tax return which has been filed (i.e., whether a return delivered or sent by mail has been received, whether the return has been assessed yet, and whether a Notice of Assessment and refund cheque are on their way), whether he or she is eligible for particular federal government benefits (e.g., Child Tax Benefit, Goods and Services Tax Credit, etc.), what the taxpayer's RRSP and TFSA contribution limits are for the year, and finally, the taxpayer's current NETFILE access code.

In order to satisfy the Agency's legitimate security requirements, taxpayers must provide specific information before they can gain access to the data available on Quick Access. Specifically, you must provide your social insurance number and your date of birth. You will also be asked for your total income (the number which appears on line 150 of your tax return) for a specified filing year. Note that it's the number which you reported on line 150 of the return that must be entered, not the line 150 amount which appears on the Notice of Assessment for the year, where those two figures are different. Once that information is entered and verified by the CRA's computers, all of the Quick Access data will be displayed on the screen.

The CRA has devoted substantial resources over a number of years to making personal tax information available to taxpayers online. For those who aren't comfortable with the online environment (or who would rather speak directly to a live CRA representative), the CRA continues to maintain its individual enquiries line at 1-800-959-8281.

Canada's current minority government has now held office for just over five years, and speculation that a federal election will take place in 2011, perhaps as early as the spring, continues to increase. To win such elections, politicians need votes. And to run the election campaigns needed to garner those votes, they need an organization, volunteers… and money. The task of raising that money is made somewhat easier by the fact that Canadian taxpayers who donate money to political parties or candidates can claim a federal tax credit for those donations.

Canada's current minority government has now held office for just over five years, and speculation that a federal election will take place in 2011, perhaps as early as the spring, continues to increase. To win such elections, politicians need votes. And to run the election campaigns needed to garner those votes, they need an organization, volunteers… and money. The task of raising that money is made somewhat easier by the fact that Canadian taxpayers who donate money to political parties or candidates can claim a federal tax credit for those donations.

The Income Tax Act provides for a credit to be claimed by taxpayers who contribute funds, either to registered political parties or to candidates running in a federal election. Contributions can be made at any time, not just during an election campaign, as long as the donation is received by an official candidate or registered party.

While the parties which currently hold seats in the House of Commons are, of course, the most well known, there are in fact (as of February 9, 2011) 19 political parties registered and in good standing with Elections Canada. They are as follows, in alphabetical order:

• Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada
• Bloc Québécois
• Canadian Action Party
• Christian Heritage Party of Canada
• Communist Party of Canada
• Conservative Party of Canada
• First Peoples National Party of Canada
• Green Party of Canada
• Liberal Party of Canada
• Libertarian Party of Canada
• Marijuana Party
• Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada
• New Democratic Party
• People's Political Power Party of Canada
• Pirate Party of Canada
• Progressive Canadian Party
• Rhinoceros Party
• United Party of Canada
• Western Block Party

Donations to any one of these registered parties, within prescribed limits, would qualify for the federal political contribution tax credit.

Official candidates can, of course, be running either as candidates for one of the registered parties or as independents. Once an election is called, Elections Canada will keep a running list (updated daily) of confirmed candidates running in the election on its Web site at http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=ele&document=index&dir=40ge/can&lang=e&textonly=false.

Limits are also placed on the amount of contributions which may be made by any one individual Canadian. The current limits imposed are:

• no more than $1,100 in any calendar year to each registered political party ;
• no more than $1,100 in total in any calendar year to the various entities of each registered political party (registered associations, nomination contestants, and candidates);
• no more than $1,100  to each independent candidate for a particular election; and
• no more than $1,100  in total to the leadership contestants in a particular leadership contest.

Putting all of the above together, an individual could contribute, in a year in which there is both a party leadership contest and a general election, a total of $4,400 to a combination of a registered political party, a registered candidate (or riding association or nomination contestant), an independent candidate in a general election and a leadership contestant. However, only funds contributed to a registered political party or an official candidate are eligible for the tax credit, and dollar limits are placed on the amount of funds contributed which will be eligible for that credit.

The federal political tax credit is calculated as a percentage of donations given. However, the credit percentage decreases as contributions amounts increase, and no credit at all is given for donations in excess of $1,275. The credit percentages allowed at different contribution levels are as follows:

The maximum credit claimable in any taxation year by a single taxpayer is $650. Once the math is worked out, it becomes clear that the maximum credit obtainable is reached once contribution levels reach $1,275.

While taxpayers are free, of course, to donate up to the limits imposed by law, where donations exceed $1,275 in any one taxation year, no tax credit can be claimed on the “excess” donation. As well, there is no provision which allows the taxpayer to carry over any “excess” contributions to a subsequent taxation year, meaning that no credit will ever be obtainable with respect to those “excess” contributions.

Many Canadians who are committed to a particular political party or candidate volunteer their time during a nomination or election campaign–canvassing for the candidate, putting up election signs, or telephoning voters to encourage them to vote for the candidate. However, in most cases, the work must be its own reward, as no income tax receipts can be issued for most such non-monetary contributions, and consequentl,y no credit can be claimed for the value of any non-monetary contribution (including volunteer hours) donated.

The Canada Elections Act provides for two exceptions from the rule that no tax receipts can be issued for non-monetary contributions. As outlined on the Elections Canada Web site, the contribution of services by a self-employed person who normally charges for such services can qualify as political contribution for which a credit may be claimed. As well, if a political party or campaign pays for work done at less than commercial rates, the difference between the commercial value of the service and the amount that is paid constitutes a non-monetary contribution by the person who did the work. More details of how the contribution rules apply in such situations can be found on the Elections Canada Web site under FAQs on Political Financing, found at http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=fin&dir=faq&document=index&lang=e.

Where a qualifying contribution is made, an official receipt must be issued in order for the tax credit to be claimed. During an election campaign, the official agent of a candidate issues that receipt, and it must be issued between the time the candidate is officially nominated and Election Day. Outside an election period, any receipts are issued by the registered agent of a political party or association. A receipt must be issued for every contribution over $20.

The actual credit for qualifying donations made is claimed on the tax return for the year in which the contribution was made. The amount of the credit is calculated (according to the formula outlined above) on the Federal Worksheet, and the amount of the actual credit entered on line 410 of Schedule 1 of the federal tax return. By the time the return is filed, of course, the election is long since over, the newly elected government is in Ottawa, and the taxpayer is in a position to assess whether it was, in fact, money well spent.

For the third time in the past two and a half years, the federal Department of Finance has moved to tighten the rules which apply to mortgages backed by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).

To understand who will be affected by the new rules, some background is necessary. Under federal law, home purchasers whose down payment is less than 20% of the cost of the property must obtain mortgage insurance through the CMHC. That insurance, the premiums for which are paid by the homeowner, guarantees the lender that in the event of default by the homeowner the federal government will make good on any deficiency.

Over the past several years the federal government has become increasingly concerned about the amount of debt being carried by Canadian families, and much of the recent increase in that debt has been secured by borrowers' home equity. Of equal concern were the terms on which mortgages were being provided, as the amount of required down payment decreased and the time period over which the funds could be repaid (the amortization period) got steadily longer. Canadian mortgage lending practices never approached the degree of recklessness which came to characterize American mortgage lending in the past decade. Nonetheless, the federal government became concerned that Canadians were taking on more and more debt related to home purchases and were carrying that debt for unprecedented lengths of time.

In October 2008, the federal government moved to raise its minimum standards for CMHC-insured mortgages, and implemented the following changes.

• Fixing the maximum amortization period for new government-backed insured mortgages to 35 years.
• Requiring a minimum down payment of five per cent for new government-backed insured mortgages.
• Establishing a consistent minimum credit score requirement.
• Requiring the lender to make a reasonable effort to verify that the borrower could afford the loan payment.
• Introducing new loan documentation standards to ensure that there was evidence of reasonableness of property value and the borrower's sources and level of income.

In April 2010, the federal government took additional steps to impose more stringent creditworthiness requirements on borrowers, to limit the extent to which homeowners could borrow against their equity when refinancing their homes and, finally, to require that purchasers of non-owner occupied homes put down at least a 20% down payment on purchase.

The most recent in this series of changes was released on January 17, 2011, as the Minister of Finance announced that new measures would be taken to further limit both the amount of borrowing which could be undertaken by home owners on refinancing and the time period over which home borrowings could be amortized.

Prior to the October 2008 changes, some financial institutions had been offering 40 year amortizations to prospective homeowners. The maximum amortization period was reduced to 35 years by the 2008 announcement and has now been reduced again to 30 years. While the government recognizes that a shorter amortization period will, of course, mean larger monthly payments, it is concerned that amortization periods longer than 30 years increase the likelihood that Canadians will carry a mortgage into retirement—a poor financial strategy by anyone's measure.

The second change announced will further limit the extent to which homeowners can borrow against the value of their homes when refinancing a mortgage. The April 2010 changes reduced the maximum borrowing in such circumstances to 90% (down from 95%) of the home's current value. The maximum borrowing on a refinancing has now been reduced to 85% of the home's value. In announcing that change, the Department of Finance indicated that part of the purpose of the measure was to limit the “repackaging” of consumer debt into mortgages guaranteed by the federal government. Reducing the loan-to-value ratio in this way will also reduce the likelihood that homeowners who have re-financed to the maximum extent possible will be faced with a situation in which their homes will, as the result of a drop in real estate values,  be worth less than the amount they owe on them—an all-too-common situation in the United States over the past few years

Finally, the federal government will no longer provide CMHC insurance on lines of credit secured by homes, where such lines of credit do not have specific principal repayment requirements. Home equity lines of credit (HELOCs) have grown enormously in popularity over the past decade. While HELOCs are like conventional mortgages in that they are secured by the value of the property, they differ from such mortgages in two critical respects. First, homeowners are usually provided with a HELOC for a fixed maximum amount of up to 80% of the value of the home. However, the uses to which funds advanced through a HELOC can be put are not limited to home acquisition or housing-related costs. HELOCs can be (and have been) used for everything from paying off credit card balances to paying for vacations to buying big screen TVs. And, of course, every dollar borrowed through a HELOC reduces the homeowner's equity. The second major difference is that, in most cases, HELOC borrowers do not have fixed repayment obligations. While monthly payments are required, those payments can be as little as the interest amount accrued during the previous month. The homeowner can therefore continue to add to the debt represented by the HELOC while at the same time paying only the accrued interest and never reducing the principal amount owed.

It Is not hard to see how having access to large amounts of credit through a HELOC could easily lead to an unmanageable debt load for the undisciplined or unsophisticated borrower. It Is for that reason that financial institutions generally offer HELOCs only to borrowers who have a significant amount of equity in their homes and some history of being able to manage credit. Nonetheless, the fact that the federal government will no longer provide CMHC insurance for most HELOCs is a measure of its concern over the current extent (and purposes) of HELOC borrowing by Canadians.

Both the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada have commented recently on the amount of debt carried by Canadian households and the impact that an increase in interest rates would have on the ability of many of those households to handle that debt load. Given that concern, it is likely that this latest round of changes restricting the ability of Canadians to tap into their home equity or to extend the period over which mortgage debt can be repaid will not be the last.

It's that time of year again, when advertisements about the wisdom of contributing to your RRSP (and usually about the benefits of borrowing to do so) fills the airwaves and Web sites. And, since the introduction of tax-free savings accounts in 2009, February is now also the month in which Canadians wrestle with the question of whether to put any available funds into an RRSP before the contribution deadline of March 1, 2011, or whether to deposit those funds instead into a TFSA.

It is important to be clear, at the outset, that it is not an either/or choice. Taxpayers can (and probably should) utilize both the RRSP and TFSA options in planning their financial affairs. Realistically, however, for most taxpayers the limitation is one of resources and cash flow, and it is often not possible to fund contributions to both an RRSP and a TFSA in the same year, let alone in the same month. That said, what are the considerations that apply in determining which savings/investment vehicle is preferable for 2011?

There are some similarities between TFSAs and RRSPs. Both allow savings to grow and compound free of current tax and for both, contributions not made in a year can be carried forward and made in any subsequent year. As well, the types of investments which can be made with RRSP or TFSA contributions are, for all intents and purposes, the same, meaning that one's choice of investment (i.e., GICs, mutual funds, bonds, etc.) should be irrelevant to the choice of RRSP vs. TFSA. However, the differences between the two savings vehicles are at least as significant as their similarities.

Perhaps most important to taxpayers, contributions made to an RRSP are deductible from income, resulting in a lower tax bill for the year of contribution and, for many taxpayers, a tax refund. Contributions to a TFSA are, on the other hand, made with after-tax funds, meaning that tax will already have been paid on the income used to make that contribution. Many taxpayers, when presented with an option that will reduce current year taxes, find that to be the most attractive choice. However, over the long-term, the tax consequences of choosing an RRSP over a TFSA can erode that benefit. When funds contributed (along with investment income earned on those funds) are withdrawn from a TFSA or an RRSP, the tax consequences are very different. Funds withdrawn from an RRSP (or a RRIF into which the RRSP has been converted) are fully taxable, without exception, at whatever tax rate applies to the taxpayer at the time of withdrawal. TFSA funds (including accumulated investment income) are withdrawn from the plan free of tax, regardless of when the withdrawal is made or the purpose to which the funds are put.  And, for taxpayers who are receiving Old Age Security benefits (or any other means-tested benefits) from the federal government, it's important to note that RRSP or RRIF funds withdrawn will be included in income for the purpose of determining eligibility for such benefits, while TFSA funds will not. Finally, while RRSP contributions for 2010 must be made by March 1, 2011, there is no similar deadline for TFSA contributions—they can be made at any time during the calendar year. Finally, when funds are withdrawn from a TFSA, the planholder can “top-up” the TFSA in any subsequent year by the amount of that withdrawal. Funds withdrawn from an RRSP cannot be re-contributed, unless the withdrawal was made as part of government-sanctioned withdrawal plans like the Home Buyers' Plan or the Lifelong Learning Plan.

The minority of working taxpayers who are members of registered pension plans will likely find the TFSA option particularly attractive. The maximum amount which can be contributed to an RRSP for the 2010 tax year is calculated as 18% of earned income for 2009, to a maximum contribution of $22,000. However, that maximum contribution is reduced, for members of RPPs, by the amount of benefits accrued during the year under the pension plan. Where the RPP is a particularly generous one, RRSP contribution room may be minimal, making a TFSA contribution the logical alternative.

In a similar way, for taxpayers over the age of 71, the RRSP v. TFSA question is simply irrelevant. Taxpayers over that age are not eligible to make contributions to an RRSP, making TFSAs the only tax-free savings vehicle to which they can make contributions. The benefit is greatest for older taxpayers whose required RRIF withdrawals are greater than their current needs. While such RRIF withdrawals must be included in income and taxed in the year of withdrawal, transferring the funds to a TFSA will allow them to continue compounding free of tax, and no additional tax will be payable when and if the funds are withdrawn. And, unlike RRIF or RRSP withdrawals, monies withdrawn from a TFSA will not affect the planholder's eligibility for Old Age Security benefits or for the federal age credit.

For younger taxpayers, where the savings goal is short-term—for example, a down payment on a home or paying for next year's vacation, the TFSA is clearly the better choice. While choosing to save through an RRSP will provide a deduction on that year's return and probably a tax refund, tax will still have to be paid when the funds are withdrawn from the RRSP a year or two later. And, more significantly from a long-term point of view, using an RRSP in this way will eventually erode one's ability to save for retirement, as RRSP contributions which are withdrawn from the plan cannot be replaced. While the amounts involved may seem small, the loss of compounding on even a small amount over 25 or 30 years can make a significant dent in one's ability to save for retirement.

Taxpayers who are expecting their income to rise significantly within a few years—for example, students in post-secondary or professional education or training programs—can save some tax by contributing to a TFSA while they are in school and their income (and therefore their tax rate) is low, and then withdrawing the funds tax-free once they are working, when their tax rate will be higher. At that time, the withdrawn funds can be used to make an RRSP contribution, which will be deducted against income that would be taxed at the much higher rate, generating a tax savings. And, if a need for the funds should arise in the meantime, a tax-free TFSA withdrawal can always be made.

Financial planners and tax advisers are accustomed to being asked by clients at this time of year whether it makes more sense to pay down the mortgage (or other debt) or to contribute to an RRSP. That question has become more complicated now that the TFSA option has been added to the mix. There is, however, a solution which allows you to do both. Assuming a marginal tax rate of 45%, an RRSP contribution of $11,000 will generate a tax refund of $4,950. Contribute that $11,000 (or as much as you can) to your RRSP and, when the resulting tax refund lands in your bank account, move it to a TFSA or use it to pay down the mortgage or other debt, or split it between the two.

The Canada Revenue Agency has created a section of its Web site to deal with the need for information and taxpayers' questions about TFSAs, and that information can be found at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/tfsa-celi/menu-eng.html.

At this time of year, most taxpayers are focused on their tax obligations for the taxation year just ended on December 31, 2010—on the need to file a return for that year, on whether they will be able to come up with an RRSP contribution by March 1, the possibility that there will be taxes owed on filing (or perhaps a refund!), and if there are taxes owing, how to come up with the funds needed to pay that tax bill.

While all of those concerns are valid and pressing ones, the start of a new year is also a good time to start thinking about how to minimize the taxes that will be payable for the current year. While many tax planning strategies can be implemented at any time during the tax year, addressing tax issues at the start of the year can avoid the last minute scramble to verify expenses, locate receipts, and pull together funds for an RRSP contribution with the year-end or even the tax filing deadline for the year looming.

Many taxpayers sit down to prepare their tax returns with the hope that, at the end of the filing process, a tax refund will be forthcoming. The perception persists that a tax refund is a kind of “gift” from the federal government or that it represents “found money” which can only be obtained by filing a tax return. The reality is, in fact, the complete opposite. A tax refund is just that—the return by the federal government of taxes which have been overpaid by the taxpayer during the course of the year. And, in most cases, there is no interest paid by the federal government on that overpayment. Very few taxpayers would, if asked, willingly overpay their taxes and wait for a year, without receiving interest, to get that overpayment back. But every year, millions of taxpayers who collect a refund on filing have done just that.

Consequently, the first step in current year tax planning is to make sure that taxes aren't being overpaid. The majority of working Canadians earn income from employment and, as required by law, the employer deducts income tax from the employee's pay and remits it on the employee's behalf to the federal government. The amount deducted is based on an estimate of the employee's income tax liability for the year; the starting point for determining that liability is the TD1 form for the year. All employees, when they start a new job, must complete a TD1 (actually two TD1s, one for federal purposes and the other for the taxpayer's province or territory of residence). On that form the taxpayer specifies the personal tax credits for which he or she is eligible. Everyone gets the basic personal credit, but the taxpayer must specify which other credits (spousal or equivalent to spouse credit, tuition and education amounts, caregiver credit) he or she will be able to claim in order for the deductions made for income tax purposes to reflect those claims. Often, once an employee has completed the TD1 forms when starting employment, the assumption is made that his or her tax situation has not changed since then, and the deductions made from the employee's paycheque don't change either. However, change comes to everyone's life—a child is born or an older child goes off to university and tuition fees must be paid or an elderly parent can no longer live independently and moves in with an adult child. In some cases, the taxpayer or a spouse must cut back on work hours or even leave work to provide care for that parent. Each of these events, and many others, have tax consequences which will affect the amount of tax payable.  A taxpayer who hasn't filled out a TD1 for a few years, or whose personal circumstances have changed, should review the TD1 form (the federal form is available on the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) Web site at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/td1/td1-11e.pdf) to make sure that the form on file with the taxpayer's employer accurately reflects the taxpayer's current circumstances.

While the TD1 form captures most of the non-refundable tax credits for which an individual taxpayer might be eligible, it does not and cannot reflect the various deductible expenses that a taxpayer might incur over the course of the tax year. At this time of year the deduction which is most on everyone's mind is, of course, the RRSP contribution. Human nature being what it is, most Canadians don't think about RRSPs until the contribution deadline of March 1st is near, and most then have difficulty coming up with the funds to make a contribution on such short notice. Financial advisors continually remind Canadians that it is better, for several reasons, to contribute to one's RRSP throughout the year, rather than waiting until the last minute to do so. What most taxpayers don't realize is that it is possible to get an “assist” from our tax system to do so.

That “assist” comes from taking advantage of an administrative policy of the Canada Revenue Agency, using a form (the T1213) entitled Request to Reduce Tax Deductions at Source, available on the CRA Web site at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t1213/t1213-10e.pdf. Essentially, a taxpayer who will be incurring costs during the tax year that are deductible in the computation of taxable income for that year but which do not appear on the TD1 can apply, using Form T1213, to have the amount of income tax deducted from his or her paycheque reduced to take account of those costs. The biggest and most well-known of those deductions is an RRSP contribution, but it's not the only one. Taxpayers who incur child care expenses, make deductible support payments, make charitable donations, or have deductible employment expenses and can document the payment and amount of those costs can ask the CRA to authorize a reduction in the income tax deductions made from the taxpayer's gross income to reflect those costs.

The resulting increase in take-home pay can be significant. A middle-income taxpayer—one earning around $50,000 per year—will have source deductions reduced (and therefore take-home income increased) by about one-third of the amount of the deduction claimed. Where the taxpayer's income is over $80,000, that decrease in source deductions can rise to just under 40% of the amount of the expense claimed. And for a taxpayer in the highest income tax bracket (more than about $125,000), the percentage is about 45%.

Take, for example, the taxpayer in that highest income earning bracket who wants to make an RRSP contribution of $10,000. To do so, a monthly contribution of $833 throughout the year would be needed. If, however, income tax deductions at source were reduced to take account of that RRSP contribution, the taxpayer's “take-home” income would increase by $375 per month, or nearly half of the amount needed to make that monthly RRSP contribution.

Finally, many taxpayers incur expenses throughout the year for which a tax credit can be claimed on the return—public transit costs, for instance, interest payments on government student loans, or medical expenses. Whatever the expense, it is up to the taxpayer to prove that the expenditure was made and to document the amount that was paid. In many cases, the taxpayer must forgo making any claim because the receipts needed to prove that claim weren't kept or can't be found at tax filing time. It is not necessary to maintain a sophisticated filing system for such paperwork—just keeping all receipts in one place, to be sorted and organized at tax filing time, is all that is needed.

Tax planning is often thought of as a complex and time consuming process, available only to wealthy and sophisticated taxpayers. But the fact is also that a great deal of tax “planning” can be accomplished with only some straightforward paperwork and basic organization, strategies that are available to anyone who is willing to invest a little upfront time and effort.

February is the month in which millions of Canadian taxpayers receive an Instalment Reminder from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). For many of the taxpayers who have received such notices in the past, the reminder and the tax instalment process are familiar, although not necessarily welcome. For those who are receiving one for the first time, however, both the reminder itself and figuring out how to deal with it can be baffling.

Most Canadians, certainly those who are employed, have income tax deducted “at source”, meaning that their employer deducts an amount for income tax from their paycheques and remits it to the CRA on their behalf. However, for those who are self-employed or, frequently, those who are retired, no such deduction is automatically made from their income, and the issuance of an Instalment Reminder by the CRA may be the result.

The receipt of such a reminder may be particularly puzzling to the newly retired, who have been accustomed to having tax deducted at source from their paycheques throughout their entire working life. However, no matter what the source of one's income or the reason that tax has not been deducted at source, the options available to a taxpayer who receives such a reminder are the same.

Canadian tax rules provide that a taxpayer may be required to pay income tax by instalments where the amount of tax owing on filing is more than $3,000 in the current year (2011) and either of the two previous years (2009 or 2010). Essentially, the requirement to pay by instalments will be triggered where the amount of tax withheld from the taxpayer's income is at least $3,000 less than their total tax liability for the current and either of the two previous years. Such instalment payments of tax are due on March 15, June 15, September 15 and December 15 of each year.

An Instalment Reminder issued by the CRA in February 2011 will specify two amounts: one to be paid by March 15, and the other due by June 15. Those amounts represent the Agency's best estimate, based on the taxpayer's return filed for the 2009 taxation year, of the net tax which will be payable by the taxpayer for 2011. The taxpayer then has the following three options.

First, the taxpayer can pay the amounts specified on the Reminder by the respective due dates of March 15 and June 15. A taxpayer who does so can be certain that he or she will not face any interest or penalty charges, even if the amount paid turns out to be less than the taxes actually payable for the 2011 tax year. (If the instalments paid turn out to be more than the taxpayer's net tax liability for 2011, he or she will of course receive a refund on filing.)

Second, the taxpayer can make instalment payments based on the amount of tax that was owed for the 2010 tax year. Where a taxpayer's income has not changed between 2010 and 2011 and his or her available deductions and credits remain the same, the likelihood is that total tax liability for 2011 will be slightly less than it was in 2010, owing to the indexation of tax brackets and personal tax credit amounts.

Third, the taxpayer can estimate the amount of tax that he or she will owe for 2011 and can pay instalments based on that estimate. Where a taxpayer's income will decrease from 2010 to 2011 and there will consequently be a reduction in tax payable, this option may be worth considering.

A taxpayer who elects to follow the second or third options outlined above will not face any interest or penalty charges where there is no tax payable when the return for the 2011 tax year is filed in the spring of 2012. However, should instalments paid have been late or insufficient, the CRA can impose interest charges at rates which are higher than current commercial rates. (The rate charged for the first quarter of 2011—until March 31, 2011—is 5%.) As well, where interest charges are levied, such interest is compounded daily, meaning that on each successive day, interest is levied on the previous day's interest. It is also possible for the CRA to impose penalties, but this is typically done only where the amount of instalment interest charged for the year is more than $1,000.

Most Canadian taxpayers are understandably disinclined to pay their taxes any sooner than absolutely necessary. However, ignoring an Instalment Reminder is never in the taxpayer's best interests. Those who don't wish to involve themselves in the intricacies of tax calculations can simply pay the amounts specified in the Reminder. The more technical-minded (or those who want to ensure that they are paying no more than absolutely required, and are willing to take the risk of having to pay interest on any shortfall) can avail themselves of the second or third options outlined above.

Two quarterly newsletters have been added—one about individual issues and one about corporate issues. They can be accessed below.

Corporate:

Issue #15 Corporate

Individual:

Issue #15 Personal

The Employment Insurance premium rate for 2011 is 1.78%.

The Employment Insurance premium rate for 2011 is 1.78%.

Yearly maximum insurable earnings are set at $44,200, making the maximum employee premium $786.76.

As in previous years, employer premiums are 1.4 times the employee contribution. The maximum employer premium for 2011 is therefore $1101.46.

The Canada Pension Plan contribution rate for 2011 is unchanged at 4.95% of pensionable earnings for the year.

The Canada Pension Plan contribution rate for 2011 is unchanged at 4.95% of pensionable earnings for the year.

The maximum pensionable earnings for the year will be $ 48,300, and the basic exemption is unchanged at $3,500.

The maximum employer and employee contribution for 2011 will therefore be $2,217.60, and the maximum self-employed contribution will be $4,435.20.