Two quarterly newsletters have been added—one about personal issues, and one about corporate issues.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

While interest rates remain low, an increase in those rates and, therefore, in the cost of carrying a mortgage is clearly on the horizon. In addition, changes made by the federal government to mortgage lending rules for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) insured mortgages which took effect earlier this year had the effect of making it more difficult for first-time buyers, especially, to get into the real estate market. One of those changes reduced the maximum allowable amortization period for mortgages from 35 years to 30 years, meaning an increase in the required monthly payment, even if interest rates are unchanged. That change, combined with the anticipated increase in mortgage interest rates, made for a busy late winter and early spring real estate season, as first time home buyers took advantage of the opportunity to get into the market in advance of the changes. Even without these changes, spring and summer are, in any year, typically the busiest season for real estate sales and, consequently, the time when most moves take place. For any number of reasons, therefore, a lot of people will be moving this summer.

While interest rates remain low, an increase in those rates and, therefore, in the cost of carrying a mortgage is clearly on the horizon. In addition, changes made by the federal government to mortgage lending rules for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) insured mortgages which took effect earlier this year had the effect of making it more difficult for first-time buyers, especially, to get into the real estate market. One of those changes reduced the maximum allowable amortization period for mortgages from 35 years to 30 years, meaning an increase in the required monthly payment, even if interest rates are unchanged. That change, combined with the anticipated increase in mortgage interest rates, made for a busy late winter and early spring real estate season, as first time home buyers took advantage of the opportunity to get into the market in advance of the changes. Even without these changes, spring and summer are, in any year, typically the busiest season for real estate sales and, consequently, the time when most moves take place. For any number of reasons, therefore, a lot of people will be moving this summer.

Whatever the time of year and motivation behind the purchase or sale and purchase, selling one’s home and moving qualifies as one of life’s more stressful experiences. Nonetheless, it’s an experience which most families will go through at least once. In addition to the upheaval of leaving behind a home, a school and a neighbourhood, the financial outlay associated with moving can be considerable.  While our tax system can’t do anything to help with the non-financial costs and general stress of moving, it does, in some circumstances, minimize the financial hit by providing a deduction from income for moving expenses incurred.

It’s important to know that not all moves will qualify for such tax relief. The tax rules provide that, where a taxpayer moves to be at least 40 kilometres closer to his or her place of work (for example, a taxpayer who moves from Toronto to take a job in Vancouver or Regina or Ottawa), most moving costs will be deductible from employment or business income earned at the new location. The 40-kilometre distance is measured using the shortest route normally available to the travelling public, which in most cases would mean the distance by road. And, moving to be closer to work doesn’t have to mean moving to a new company: a job transfer to another city while continuing to work for the same employer will qualify, assuming the 40-kilometre criterion is met. A deduction is also available where someone who is unemployed moves to start a new job, again assuming that all other required criteria are met.

The list of expenses which may be deducted is fairly comprehensive, but not all moving related costs are deductible. Under the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) administrative policies, as outlined in their Form T1-M, Moving Expenses Deduction, the following are considered eligible moving expenses:

• traveling expenses, including vehicle expenses, meals and accommodation, to move the taxpayer and members of his or her family to their new residence (note that not all members of the household have to travel together or at the same time);
• transportation and storage costs (such as packing, hauling, in-transit storage, and insurance) for household effects, including items such as boats and trailers;
• costs for up to 15 days for meals and temporary accommodation near either the old or the new residence for the members of the household;
• lease cancellation charges (but not rent) on the old residence;
• legal fees incurred for the purchase of the new residence, together with any taxes paid for the transfer or registration of title to the new residence (but excluding GST or HST and property taxes); 
• the cost of selling the old residence, including advertising, notarial, or legal fees, real estate commissions, and any mortgage penalties paid when a mortgage is paid off before maturity; and
• the cost of changing an address on legal documents, replacing driving licences and non-commercial vehicle permits (except insurance), and utility hook-ups and disconnections.

It sometimes happens that a move to the new home has to take place before the old residence is sold. In such circumstances, the taxpayer is entitled to deduct up to $5,000 in costs incurred for the maintenance of that residence while it is vacant and efforts are being made to sell it. Specifically, costs including interest, property taxes, insurance premiums, and heat and utilities expenses paid to maintain the old residence while efforts were being made to sell it may be deducted. If any family members are still living at the old residence, or it is being rented, no deduction is available.

It may seem from the foregoing that virtually all moving-related costs will be deductible—however, there are some costs for which the CRA will not permit a deduction to be claimed, as follows:

• expenses for work done to make the old residence more saleable;
• any loss incurred on the sale of the old residence;
• expenses for job-hunting or house-hunting trips to another city (for example, costs to travel to job interviews or meet with real estate agents);
• expenses incurred to clean or repair a rental residence to meet the landlord’s standards;
• costs to replace such personal-use items as drapery and carpets; and
• mail-forwarding costs.

 To claim a deduction for any eligible costs incurred, supporting receipts must be obtained. While the receipts do not have to be filed with the return on which the related deduction is claimed, they must be kept in case the CRA wants to review them.

Anyone who has ever moved knows that there are an endless number of details to be dealt with. In some cases, the administrative burden of claiming moving-related expenses can be minimized by choosing to claim a standardized amount for certain types of expenses. Specifically, the CRA allows taxpayers to claim a fixed amount, without the need for detailed receipts, for travel and meal expenses related to a move. Using that standardized, or flat rate method, taxpayers may claim up to $17 per meal, to a maximum of $51 per day, for each person in the household. Those amounts were unchanged from 2009 to 2010, the latest year for which figures are available.

Similarly, the taxpayer can claim a set per-kilometre amount for kilometres driven in connection with the move. The per kilometre amount ranges from 46.0 cents forSaskatchewanto 60.5 cents for theYukon Territory. These rates were in effect for the 2010 taxation year—the CRA will be posting the rates for 2011 on its Web site early in 2012, in time for the tax-filing season. The per-kilometre rates allowed by the CRA for travel during 2010 are actually, in some cases, lower than those allowed for 2009.  It is in all cases the province or territory in which the travel begins which determines the applicable rate.

Any moving-related expenses can be deducted from employment or self-employment income (but not investment income or employment insurance benefits) earned at the new location. Where a move takes place late in the year, it is possible, especially where the move is a long distance one, that such expenses will exceed income earned at the new location during the calendar year. In such cases, it’s possible to carry forward the excess expenses, and deduct them from income earned in subsequent years.

Generally, these rules apply to moves made from one location to another withinCanada. While it’s possible to deduct expenses arising from moves fromCanadato another country, from another country toCanada, or between two locations outside ofCanada, the rules governing deductions in such situations are far more restrictive.

The rules governing the deduction of moving expenses are outlined in some detail on the CRA’s T1-M form. That form was updated and reissued by the CRA late in 2010, and the current version of the form can be found on the CRA Web site at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t1-m/t1-m-10e.pdf.  Additional information on the tax treatment of moving costs is available on the same Web site at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/ddctns/lns206-236/219/menu-eng.html.

Any questions not answered by the form or on the Web site can be directed to the CRA’s individual enquiries line at 1-800-959-8281.

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.

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.

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.