Tag Archives: income splitting

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…

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…

Lending to Spouse at Prescribed 1% rate ‘Best Before’ April 1

Posted By |

“Never spend your money before you have it.”
—Thomas Jefferson

I can’t emphasize enough that time is truly of the essence if you benefit from implementing this simple family lending practice. Interest rates are expected to inch up again and will alter the value of this tactic. Hence, I revisit the benefits of one of the few remaining family income splitting strategies.

It is commonly known as the “prescribed rate” loan. The procedure needs these components:

  • One spouse is in a lower tax bracket than the other, or earns little income.
  • The higher tax bracket spouse has cash to lend to the other spouse.

“The benefit of the prescribed loan strategy is a bigger family nest egg.”

Examine your family benefits from this income splitting opportunity. All loan arrangements and documentation must be in place by March 31, 2018 to derive maximum benefit. The key is to charge interest at least at the prescribed rate on cash loaned to a spouse/partner. That prescribed rate is now set at 1% for loan arrangements made by March 31, 2018.

The lower income spouse aims to accumulate a larger nest egg while the family pays less tax. The good news is that loans don’t have to be repaid for a long time, say 10 to 20 years or more.

My sample case highlights the income splitting strategy (figures annualized):

  • The higher tax bracket spouse lends $200,000 to the other at the 1% prescribed rate.
  • The recipient spouse invests the cash, say at 4% ($8,000) and reports the investment income.
  • The recipient must pay 1% annual interest ($2,000) to the lender spouse.
  • The lender spouse is taxed on the 1% interest, while the recipient deducts it.
  • The recipient is taxed on the net income generated ($8,000-$2,000).
  • This results in annual income of $6,000 shifted to the lower income spouse.
  • A promissory note is evidence for the loan.
  • A separate investment account is preferred for the recipient.
  • These loans are best made for investment reasons, such as buying dividend stocks.
  • A new 1% loan can also deal with an existing higher rate prescribed loan.
  • Multiple prescribed loans can be made at 1% while the rate does not change.
  • Business owners can investigate the viability of prescribed loans to shareholders.

Prescribed Rate Loan – Sampler

Here is a simplified method to think of such loans:

Cash Borrowed at 1% rate:  $200,000
Assumed Investment Income (4%): $8,000
Less: Prescribed Loan Interest (1%): $2,000
Taxable Income for Borrower Spouse: $6,000
Taxable Interest for Lender Spouse: $2,000

The benefit of the prescribed loan strategy is a bigger family nest egg. Your mission is to shift investment income into the hands of the lowest taxed spouse.

Need for speed

Today’s prescribed rate, which is set quarterly, is as low as it can be. However, it is most likely to rise at the next setting later this month. The prevailing expectation is a jump to 2% from the current 1% rate on April 01, 2018. Such an increase reduces the net value of the loan arrangement. Further, we may not enjoy a 1% rate for a long time, perhaps never again. Continue Reading…

An Update on the 2017 Corporate Tax Proposals

Posted By |

By Robert G. Kepes

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

You have probably seen that ad on CNN with an apple and chattering teeth sliding in front of it. The voiceover says one is an apple and the other is a distraction. The ad concludes: “But it will never change the fact that this is an apple.”

The ad is a not-too-discreet dig at shenanigans currently taking place in Washington, D.C., and may also have some traction on this side of the border, especially where it concerns the federal government’s tax proposals.

Back on July 18, 2017, the federal government released its first take on tax proposals involving tax-planning strategies of private corporations, including many professional corporations. The feds announced a period of consultations to discuss proposed policy changes involving the taxation of corporate passive investment income, such as interest or dividends.

Income sprinkling a key focus

The government’s wish, which actually went back to the federal Budget released in March, 2017, was to close alleged tax loopholes, bring fairness back to the tax system, and end tax-planning strategies in which the rich may take unfair advantage. The strategy also looked at income sprinkling among family members using private corporations. Income sprinkling  allows the corporation to pay dividend income to the founder’s spouse and children, in lieu of the founder paying tax at the highest rate on all his/her income earned. Overall tax savings for the family is achieved through a combination of the founder’s top tax-rate salary, and low-tax dividends to the spouse and children. Continue Reading…

Unfair or not, get ready for these 3 big corporate tax changes

Posted By |

“We see these approaches to managing people’s affairs through a private corporation as creating an unfair playing field … We’re trying to tighten these loopholes to make sure that it’s fair.”

Doesn’t sound like taxes for small business owners are going down, does it?  The above is from federal finance minister Bill Morneau’s July 18 announcement outlining some of the measures the government is proposing to help level what they perceive to be an unfair playing field.

Since the announcement we’ve been thinking about the potential implications of these changes and digesting comments from a variety of different tax experts.  We agree with one expert who opined that “fairness is subject to personal interpretation.”

Unfortunately adhering to these proposed changes won’t be subject to personal interpretation so the bottom line is that we encourage all small business owners, especially those using private corporations in conjunction with saving for retirement or for the benefit of their families as a whole, to seek expert tax advice ahead of these changes coming into effect.

How did this come about?

Taking a step back, the reason that small businesses were given preferential tax treatment in the first place was to encourage them to reinvest in growth opportunities, employ more people, contribute to the Canadian economy in a more meaningful way and that would be good for Canada – hard to argue with that.

Of course all rules, especially tax rules, end up with unintended consequences.   The current government feels many small business owners and their families have been taking advantage of opportunities (loopholes) in the legislation that allow for further savings when it comes to their personal taxes. Furthermore, they seem to be particularly concerned about the increased “corporatization” of certain professions that has taken place over the last 10 to 15 years in order to reduce tax bills. As not everyone is a small business owner, the tax advantages are deemed to be unfair to those who aren’t.

What are the specific areas that are deemed to be unfair?

1.) Income sprinkling

Income sprinkling is a strategy where a business owner looks to save tax by distributing income, dividends and capital gains to other members of his or her family in order to take advantage of multiple sets of graduated tax rates (i.e. pay other family members who are in a lower tax bracket) or exemptions, in order to lower the overall family tax bill.   Continue Reading…