General

Retirement shouldn’t be a Taxing transition for couples

Posted By |

By Matthew Ardrey, Tridelta Financial

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

When people think of retirement, they make think of relaxing at the cottage, travelling the world, or maybe with the recent blasts of winter we have been receiving, spending some time in warmer climates. What most people don’t think about is how their taxes are going to change. Yes, with April just around the corner, it’s time to think about taxes and how they will impact you in retirement could be the difference between lying on a beach in February and shovelling your driveway for the fifth time this week.

Pension Splitting

If like many Canadians, you are a couple where both spouses work, the opportunities to split income are few and far between. In retirement that changes for the better. A number of years ago the government introduced legislation that allows pension income to be split between spouses. If you are already the lucky recipient of income from a defined benefit (DB) pension plan, you can further benefit by splitting up to 50% of this income with your spouse. The obvious benefit to this is the lower income spouse would pay less tax on the pension income than the higher income spouse.  Also, he/she would now receive the pension credit, which is a non-refundable federal tax credit that maxes out at $2,000. So depending on the disparity of the tax rates between spouses and size of the pension, this could be a material benefit to their tax returns saving thousands of dollars a year in taxes.

Ok, that is great for those Canadians who have a pension, but what about the rest of us?

What if you don’t have a splittable pension?

Once a taxpayer is over the age of 65, they can split life annuity, RRIF and LIF income in the same manner as DB pension income. This can lead to some interesting tax planning for someone who is doing a RRSP meltdown strategy. If one spouse has a much larger RRSP/RRIF than the other, they can double the meltdown amount by taking it from a RRIF instead of a RRSP after the age of 65. In doing this, the RRSP (or RRIF in this case) meltdown strategy could be extended to age 70, with CPP and OAS deferrals.

Other benefits to income splitting include being able to claim the age amount tax credit and possibly reducing or eliminating OAS clawback.

The mechanism for doing this in your taxes is relatively straightforward and does not have to be implemented until you file your taxes the following April. There is a form T1032 in your tax return where you make the pension election. Most tax software these days will do the calculation for you. Once all of your other information is entered for you and your spouse, the software will optimize the pension splitting between spouses. Even if you both have a pension, it can do this for you.

The topic of income splitting continues with your government pensions. Though OAS is not eligible to be shared, the CPP is. You and your spouse can apply to share your CPPs. You both have to be contributors at some point in your lives and both be receiving the pension. The amount eligible to share is based on your joint contributory period, which is just a fancy way of saying the time you were married or cohabitating. The benefit increases with the difference between CPP payment amounts.

While we are on the topic of CPP, I thought it was important to mention the child-rearing drop out provision. Unlike the general drop out provision, which is calculated automatically, the child rearing must be applied for.

How does the CPP drop-out provision work?

Let’s take you back to grade school where we learned about fractions. The CPP you receive is a fraction of the maximum payable, ignoring any early penalties or deferring benefits. The total number of years is 47 (age 18-65). The general drop out provision eliminates the lowest eight, making the denominator 39. Any year you make the maximum contribution you get a 1 in the numerator and if not, then a number between 0 to less than 1.

The child rearing drop out provision allows a spouse who may have stopped or reduced their work due to child care, to eliminate up to seven years per child (no double counting years if you have children close in age). The benefit is any year that has less than a 1 in the numerator that is eliminated, will increase the overall CPP payable to you.

Another tax surprise for many retirees is tax installments. If you were self-employed, you will be familiar with these, but many salaried employees are not. Tax installments are requested by CRA once your taxes payable less your taxes deducted at source exceed $3,000. While working, your employer took taxes at source. In addition, you probably had RRSP deductions and other things that reduced your taxes or generated you a refund. Now with RRIF payments, CPP, OAS and other incomes, you may end up owing taxes. Continue Reading…

Franklin Templeton unveils multi-asset ETF portfolios for mutual fund advisors

Posted By |
Franklin Templeton Canada president and CEO Duane Green

Since Vanguard Canada introduced three (now five) asset allocation ETFs a year ago, rivals have been scrambling to catch up. Little wonder, as those first three products — bearing TSX tickers VBAL, VGRO and VCNS — quickly scooped up a billion dollars in assets. Next out the gate was BlackRock Canada’s iShares, which launched two All-in-One ETF portfolios in December 2018 with similar-sounding tickers: XBAL and XGRO. Then a few weeks ago, as Dale Roberts nicely summarized here at the Hub, BMO ETFs jumped aboard with a similar suite as Vanguard’s original suite: ZBAL, ZGRO and ZCON, driving costs down as they did. See BMO keeps it simple.

Up until now, mutual fund salespeople operating in the MFDA channel (Mutual Fund Dealers Association) have been clamouring for ETF portfolios because if they aren’t also securities licensed, they couldn’t buy ETFs for their clients directly. That’s why Thursday’s announcement by Franklin Templeton is of interest: it announced the launch of three multi-asset ETF portfolios to provide advisors and investors with a simple solution for investing in ETFs. Managed by Franklin Templeton Multi-Asset Solutions, each portfolio is a mutual fund that provides access to active asset allocation utilizing a combination of active, smart beta and passive ETFs across multiple asset classes and geographies.

These portfolios let mutual fund investors access Franklin Templeton’s new passive ETFs (see this Hub post a few weeks ago), in addition to its active and smart beta ETFs while not having to worry about asset allocation, rebalancing and currency management.

Franklin Templeton Investments Canada president and CEO Duane Green said in a press release that “Many investors are overwhelmed by the choice of ETFs available in the Canadian market.” That’s  a fair statement, which is why I am working with Dale Roberts and eight other ETF experts to select the 2019 edition of the MoneySense ETF All-Stars, which will be published later this month. A year ago we were quick to spot the trend and made all three of the Vanguard portfolios All-Stars, albeit in a new category. The question for us this year is which of the newer offerings should be added? Stay tuned!

How these differ from Balanced Mutual Funds

We’ll outline the names of the new Templeton funds shortly but I did want to add the fact that mutual fund companies have long offered balanced mutual funds and asset allocation funds, both Canadian and global. These are usually actively managed and of course generally bear the high MERs that have caused Canada’s fund industry to be so criticized. Once upon a time, I often wrote about the Rip Van Winkle two-fund portfolios, which was simply a Trimark Balanced Fund and Templeton Growth Fund. And I have written in the past that “in theory, the only fund an investor needs is a global balanced fund.” That’s because they would cover all asset classes and geographies, with rebalancing and asset allocation all taken care of by active managers. That’s pretty much what’s going on with these ETF portfolios, with the difference being that the fees are much much lower: 20 basis points plus or minus 2, or a tenth the price of a typical balanced mutual fund.

So back to Franklin’s new entry. Continue Reading…

Prairies and Eastern Canada most affordable for single home buyers, study says

Posted By |

By Penelope Graham, Zoocasa

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Despite recent reports that home prices in Canada’s tightest markets are starting to cool, skyrocketing values over the last five years mean purchasing real estate is still financially unfeasible for many prospective buyers – especially those trying to do so on their own.

However, while this certainly is the case in the Vancouver and Toronto markets – where average home prices rose 35 and 58% between 2014 – 2019, respectively – a new study from Zoocasa reveals homeownership isn’t out of the cards for buyers willing to expand their search.

Where can single purchasers afford a home?

To find which markets can be considered affordable on a solo budget, the study sourced average home prices for 20 cities across the nation. It then calculated, assuming a 20% down payment, mortgage rate of 3.29%, and a 30-year amortization, the minimum income required to purchase the average home in each market. That amount was then compared to actual median income data of “persons living alone who earned employment income” as reported by Statistics Canada.

The numbers reveal that for single purchasers earning the median income, 10 markets can still be considered affordable: and all are located within the Prairie and Eastern Canadian provinces.

Regina takes the top spot for single buyer affordability; there, an earner bringing in$58,823 would qualify to purchase a home at the average price of $284,424, and have an “income surplus” of $20,025. This surplus indicates the buyer is not purchasing at the top of their affordability, an important consideration when interest rates are on the rise.

The other most affordable cities include Saint John, where the average home priced at $181,576 could be purchased on an income of $42,888 with $18,038 left over, and homes on the Edmonton MLS, where earning $64,036 would net a $17,826 surplus on the average home price of $338,760. Calgary, Lethbridge, Winnipeg, and Halifax can also be considered to be affordable markets based on the study’s criteria.

Vancouver, Toronto, still well out of financial range for solo buyers

On the least affordable end of the scale is Vancouver, where the average home costs $1,109,600: out of the range of the local median single income of $50,721 to the tune of $88,361.

Affordability also remains steep for single buyers in the Toronto market, despite overall higher earnings and lower average home price: there, an income of $55,221 would fall $46,858 on the average home price of $748,328. Victoria rounds out the top three with an average home price of $633,386, $39,359 below what the median income of $86,400 can afford. Continue Reading…

FP: How retired seniors can use their spouse as a tax asset

Posted By |

My latest Financial Post column has just been published in the print edition of the Wednesday paper (Feb. 27, page FP8), under the headline Top tax asset in Retirement? Think Spouse. Click on the highlighted text to access the full story  via the National Post e-paper. Or for the website edition, click on this clever headline: Your biggest tax asset in Retirement may be sleeping right beside you.

The column looks at how senior couples approaching Retirement or semi-retirement face a slightly different tax situation than when both were working in full-time jobs. There’s limited scope for income splitting when you’re working but Pension Income Splitting — introduced more than ten years ago — is a real boon for senior couples that enjoy one fat employer-provided pension and the other does not.

For tax purposes, up to half of the pension can be “transferred” to the lower-income spouse’s hands, thereby reducing some of the highly-taxed income for the pension recipient, and putting more of the pension into the low-taxed hands of the spouse receiving some of the transfer. Note this doesn’t actually mean they receive the pension: it all happens on the tax returns, and is easily handled by tax software when you choose to file your taxes jointly as a couple. Note that unlike in the United States, there is no formal joint tax return for couples in Canada: each spouse must file on their own but the tax software makes it relatively smooth by creating so-called “Coupled Returns,” which helps optimize who claims deductions like charitable or political contributions and the like.

Because the column has to fit in the paper and included several sources (some of whom blog here at the Hub), I’ve taken the liberty of adding some of the points made that did not appear in the column or had to be truncated.

Income splitting options limited under age 65

Under age 65, the options for income splitting are very limited, says Aaron Hector, vice president of Calgary-based Doherty Bryant Financial Strategies.  “Generally here you are only looking at payments out of defined benefit plans (of which  up to 50% can be split) or spousal loans from non-registered investments.”

Doherty Bryant’s Aaron Hector

More from Aaron Hector:  “If each spouse has their own registered plan (RRSP/RRIF/LIRA/LIF) then the withdrawal from their own personal plan can be taxed fully to them. So if one spouse is working, they may not need or want to draw any additional income from their registered plans, but the spouse who is not working can choose to draw down their registered plan. It is important to note that regular RRSP withdrawals will never qualify for income splitting, even after 65. The withdrawals need to come from a RRIF to be eligible for income splitting. Sometimes people are hesitant to convert their RRSPs into RRIFs because they don’t yet want to commit to the subsequent forced annual taxable RRIF withdrawals. What is less commonly known is that someone can convert only a portion of their RRSP into a RRIF, leaving the remaining RRSP balance untouched until it is forced into being converted into a RRIF by the end of the year in which they turn 71. Furthermore, if someone converts to a RRIF early (ie. before 71) then they will always have the option to convert their RRIF back into a RRSP anytime before 71. Doing so would allow them to ‘turn off the taps’ that is the RRIF income stream. Once you turn 65 (but not before) withdrawals from RRIFs and LIFs become eligible for income splitting. Only the spouse who’s RRIF/LIF is being drawn upon needs to be 65; the recipient of the income splitting can be younger than 65. However, in this case the recipient spouse will not get the “pension income tax credit” until they are also 65.

It’s also important to note that when it comes to these income splitting provisions, age 65 at any point of the year is sufficient. If you turn 65 on December 31, then the same 50% splitting provisions apply to you as if your birthday was on January 1. (ie. the splittable portion does not get pro-rated in the year you turn 65 depending on your specific birth date). Because of the age 65 significance, and also as a hedge against future governments changing the tax rules (ie. taking away pension income splitting rules, which have not always been allowable) I try to have my client couples have an even amount of money in their registered plans. Spouse 1 should add up their RRSP, LIRA, Spousal RRSP, etc.. and the total should be close to the same total of spouse 2. If there is a discrepancy, then Spousal RRSP contributions should be utilized to even things out. This allows flexibility in income planning and withdrawals in the years prior to age 65. I caution on Spousal RRSP contributions the closer someone is to needing the money because of the 3 year-rule. The 3-year rule is such that if a withdrawal is made in the year of a contribution, or either of the next two calendar years, then the income from that withdrawal will be attributed (ie. taxed) back to the contributing spouse instead of the Spousal RRSP account holder.”

Taxation of Non-registered income works differently

Income from non-registered accounts works a bit differently, Aaron notes: Continue Reading…

Are current beliefs about RRSPs costing Canadians money in the long term?

Posted By |

By Edward Kholodenko

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

A recent study we conducted with Leger (www.leger360.com) asking what Canadians wanted in relation to their RRSP investments unearthed some compelling findings demonstrating that many Canadians have misconceptions that could be costing them money, especially in the long term.

Our research confirmed 78 per cent would be willing to switch to a lower-fee RRSP investment, if the lower fees could ensure a superior rate of return.  When we asked if they were able to move their RRSP easily, which factors would be most important, 66 per cent once again said they would move accounts for lower fees and better returns.

In addition to lower fees and higher returns, 31 per cent of people we talked to identified the ability to easily manage their RRSPs and make contributions online as a factor to consider in a switch (highest in those between the ages of 25 – 44 years), speaking perhaps to the rising appeal of newer fintech companies who offer the ability to do everything online.

When asked for other reasons they might consider switching their RRSPs, respondents cited frustrations including feeling like they’re being upsold (28 per cent), having to book an appointment and visit their financial institution in person (27 per cent) and not knowing what their RRSP is invested in (26 per cent).

This strongly suggests Canadians are far from content with their current RRSP contribution process and provider and would be willing to switch; however, there are misconceptions that are holding people back.  Most interesting — only 50 per cent believe their RRSPs can easily be transferred between financial institutions.

Common misconceptions

Why? Common misconceptions included high transfer fees (32 per cent), incurring a tax penalty (24 per cent) and even the fear of an uncomfortable conversation with their current advisor or financial institution (16 per cent).  While only 50 per cent of Canadians told us that they believe their RRSP can be easily moved between financial institutions, the reality is that RRSPs are easy to transfer.  There are no tax penalties incurred when an account is transferred and furthermore, most institutions would cover the cost of any transfer fee that may be charged and by consolidating your RRSPs at an institution with lower fees, you may reach your retirement goals faster. Continue Reading…