Tag Archives: tax

Retired Money: Can an RRSP or a RRIF ever be “too large?”

Posted By |
MoneySense.ca

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column looks at a problem some think is a nice one for retirees to have: can an RRSP — and ultimately a RRIF — ever become too large? You can find the full column by clicking on the adjacent highlighted headline: How large an RRSP is too large for Retirement?

This is a surprisingly controversial topic. Some financial advisors advocate “melting down” RRSPs in the interim period between full employment and the end of one’s 71st year, when RRIFs are typically slated to begin their annual (and taxable) minimum withdrawals. Usually, RRSP meltdowns occur in your 60s: I began to do so personally a few years ago, albeit within the confines of a very conservative approach to the 4% Rule.

As the piece points out, tax does start to become problematic upon the death of the first member of a senior couple. At that point, a couple no longer has the advantage of having two sets of income streams taxed in two sets of hands: ideally in lower tax brackets.

True, the death of the first spouse may not be a huge tax problem, since the proceeds of RRSPs and RRIFs pass tax-free to the survivor, assuming proper beneficiary designations. But that does result in a far larger RRIF in the hands of the survivor, which means much of the rising annual taxable RRIF withdrawals may start to occur in the higher tax brackets. And of course if both members of a couple die with a huge combined RRIF, their heirs may share half the estate with the Canada Revenue Agency.

For many seniors, the main reason to start drawing down early on an RRSP is to avoid or minimize clawbacks of Old Age Security (OAS) benefits, which begin for most at age 65. One guideline is any RRSP or RRIF that exceeds the $77,580 (in 2019) threshold where OAS benefits begin to get clawed back. Of course you also need to consider your other income sources, including employer pensions, CPP and non-registered income.

Adrian Mastracci

“A nice problem to have.”

But the MoneySense column also introduces the counterargument nicely articulated by Adrian Mastracci, fiduciary portfolio manager with Vancouver-based Lycos Asset Management. Mastracci, who is also a blogger and occasional contributor to the Hub, is fond of saying to clients “A too-large RRSP is a nice problem to have!”

Retirement can last a long time: from 65 to the mid 90s can be three decades: a long time for portfolios to keep delivering. A larger RRIF down the road gives retirees more financial options, given the ravages of inflation, rising life expectancies, possible losses in bear markets, low-return environments and rising healthcare costs in one’s twilight years. These factors are beyond investors’ control, in which case Mastracci quips, “So much for the too-big RRSP.”

 

Will the CRA eventually tax TFSAs?

Posted By |

 

 

By Dale Roberts, Cutthecrapinvesting

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

As it stands today the Tax Free Savings Account or TFSA is true to its name. It is tax free on all counts. The interest or income or capital gains created in the account are not taxed. When you take money out of your TFSA you pay no tax. Net, net, your money grows tax free and you can spend it tax free.

But will this change in the future when Canadians have amassed considerable sums and are able to generate significant tax free income in retirement? Will the CRA eventually tax your Tax Free Savings Account? The TFSA program was launched in 2009 with a maximum of $5000 of contribution space. The contribution allowance has been increased to reflect inflation and now sits at $6000 annual.

In 2019 it’s not uncommon to see a Canadian who has maximized their TFSA contributions and who has invested their monies sitting with a six figure balance. In fact they might even approach a balance of $110,000 or more in a TFSA. For a Canadian couple that is $200,000 or more in potential tax free income.

In another 10 years that couple could easily have a combined $500,000 in TFSA monies. Of course they’ll need the cooperation of the stock markets that have been more than generous over the last 10 years, especially if you throw that roaring US stock market into the mix.

A massive TFSA gives Canadian retirees options

When Canadian retirees begin to accumulate sizable TFSA accounts they can start to execute some very opportunistic retirement strategies. And that might include accessing the government program known as the GIS or Guaranteed Income Supplement. That’s designed to help lower income seniors.

In a guest post on Cut The Crap Investing Financial Planner Graeme Hughes outlined how spending our own RRSP monies can negate potential GIS payments and that is one of the most common mistakes made by Canadian retirees. From that post …

What’s less well-known is the impact RRSPs can have on lower-income seniors, particularly those retiring with only the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS) amounts for pensions. In many cases these seniors would also get the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), which is an add-on benefit to the OAS. However, the GIS is an income-tested benefit and RRSP withdrawals absolutely count as income for this purpose.

So often I have seen seniors withdrawing from their modest RRSPs in retirement while not realizing that, had they not been making those withdrawals, they would have been receiving valuable GIS benefits rather than drawing down retirement savings. By better allocating their resources prior to retirement they could have greatly improved their overall retirement picture.

And that seems like fair and needed financial planning for those with modest RRSPs. That’s all within the spirit of the OAS and the GIS program that is designed for retirees with lower incomes. But Graeme goes on to outline that some retirees with greater assets can also take advantage of the GIS program by using their TFSA accounts.

Even for wealthier retirees with substantial savings but no employer pensions, it is possible to obtain 7 years of GIS benefits by drawing down TFSAs or savings between age 65 and 71 and letting the RRSPs grow until mandatory withdrawals start at age 72. Those benefits can be worth tens of thousands of dollars and should absolutely be taken into consideration when planning for retirement.

TFSA withdrawals do not show up on your tax filing as income. The CRA only keeps track of your TFSA contributions and withdrawals. And certainly make sure you understand how the program works so that you can avoid any over contribution penalties. Here’s a link to the TFSA essentials on the CRA site.

Given that, a retiree could take out $20,000 for spending from TFSA ($40,000 for a couple) and those monies do not count as income. Those retirees only source of reportable income might be CPP and OAS payments – they might qualify for GIS or reduced GIS. But these retirees are certainly lower income seniors. They may have an owned-home worth $1 million or more, each with RRSPs in the $500,000 range (or more), those six figure TFSAs and perhaps some taxable investment accounts throwing off tax efficient dividend income that qualifies for the Canadian dividend tax credit. They might have a modest amount in a savings account that is earning very little and not greatly affecting their income statement.

These retirees might have a net worth of $2,000,000 or more and yet they still qualify for that Guaranteed Income Supplement. When that occurs, it’s totally legal and within the current rules, but it’s certainly not within the spirit of the GIS program designed to help lower income seniors.

Will most Canadians be outraged?

I’m guessing that most Canadians will be up in arms when they hear or read of this opportunistic financial planning. Jonathan Chevreau asked the question on Twitter and it generated a vigorous debate. Well that is, readers were already taking issue with the potential use of GIS for those with considerable assets. Continue Reading…

Paying taxes on capital gains could be the best decision you make this year

Posted By |
When it comes to capital gains taxes, sometimes it pays investors to give Ottawa its due (Shutterstock)

Marc Bellefeuille, Manulife Wealth

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

In times of market volatility, anything can happen from one quarter to the next. Market participants witnessed a wipeout in the financial markets in Q4 of 2018. The S&P 500 saw its fortunes accumulated throughout the year evaporate from September to November and American stocks suffered the worst declines ever recorded on a December 24thtrading day. Other markets around the world followed suit.

Fast forwarding to Q1 of 2019, the bounce-back for equity markets has been nothing short of impressive. So what can investors take away from the last six months? Certainly, many investors may have questioned those who advise them at the end of 2018, only to be rewarded for having stayed the course in recent months. But what lessons can we learn from recent events, and how should we adjust to protect our precious nest eggs in the years to come?

In the famous paper by Brison, Hood and Beebower, “Determinants of Portfolio Performance,” the authors suggest that a whopping 93.6% of portfolio return volatility is explained by the asset allocation of the investment portfolio1. Nobel prize-winning economist Harry Markowitz called diversification “the only free lunch in finance.”

Yet, more often than not, I see portfolios of bright and capable people concentrated in a few specific positions. The culprit? Capital gains tax. Investors feel at ease by the value they see on their quarterly statements and often feel like they are playing with house money so they can justify letting their portfolios drift into a state of concentration of their winners. The idea of paying the taxman keeps them from rationally re-balancing their portfolios which, ironically, can expose them to large shocks during market corrections.

The average market drop in a recessionary bear market is 30.4%.2These kinds of drops often take place without warning – and certainly without mercy – and can drag every sector down with them. These declines can often be more severe to high net-worth investors due to under-diversification of their investments.3

Most high net-worth investors know they should follow a diversified portfolio strategy. However, knowing is only half the battle. Many, when asked, could not explain their strategy for selling positions within their investment portfolios. When pressed, many investors believe that, for any position that declined by more than 10%, they would advocate to hit the sell button and stop the loss. But when a position was up 10% or more the button was harder to push: the greater the gain the harder it gets to take the profits. Investors tend to be loss averse but when they are, in their minds, playing with house money the rules go out the window and many sit on large gains without re-balancing back to their strategic asset allocation.4

Better off taking profits and rebalancing

One of the impediments to profit taking is the tax bill. Let’s do the math. Assume a successful investor put half a million into the shares of one of the big five Canadian banks in the fall of 2008 and the stock doubled. Were they to sell those shares, as a resident of Ontario, the tax bill would be approximately $133,800: assuming the top marginal tax bracket. Continue Reading…

The new cost of Divorce

Posted By |

By Elena Hanson

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

On December 22, 2017, the largest U.S. tax reform in over 30 years was signed into law by U.S. President  Donald Trump. The new law brought with it several important changes that affect individual taxpayers who are going through, or have gone through, a divorce. As if divorce isn’t already costly enough!

Prior to the 2017 Tax Reform Act, Section 215 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code  allowed individual taxpayers to claim alimony payments as a legitimate deduction. The deduction was permitted because section 71(a) of the IRC required the recipient spouse to include the alimony received in his/her adjusted gross income.

For tax purposes, a payment is considered alimony if all of the following criteria are met:

  • Each spouse files a separate return
  • Payment is made in cash (including check or money order)
  • Payment is made to a spouse/former spouse pursuant to a divorce or separation agreement
  • The divorce or separation agreement does not specify that the payment is “not alimony”
  • The spouses/former spouses are not living in the same household when payment is made
  • There is no requirement to continue making payments following the death of the recipient spouse
  • The payment is not treated as child support or a property settlement.

However, under the new Act alimony payments are no longer deductible on U.S. income tax returns if the separation or divorce agreement is executed after December 31, 2018. In addition, the person receiving alimony no longer has to claim these payments on their tax return as part of their gross income.

These changes are permanent, unlike other personal tax measures included in the Tax Reform Act. For those who have agreements in place prior to January 1, 2019, these changes do not apply because the original provisions are grandfathered into the agreement. But, as of January 1, if changes are made to the original agreement, the amended agreement must state that the new rules will not apply, or else they will. In other words, the parties must “opt-in” to the 2017 provisions if there is a modification of the separation or divorce instrument after 2018.

Prior to these changes, the recipient spouse had something of a bargaining chip when negotiating alimony payments. Why? The paying spouse could deduct the payments dollar-for-dollar, making the amount of the alimony payment almost a non-issue as it would come back to the party paying it in the end. Now, it is likely that negotiations will become a more drawn-out affair as divorcing couples struggle to come to an agreement as to what is fair to both parties under the new law.

With any major tax law overhaul, we can always speculate as to the rationale for certain changes. This is one of those situations where there doesn’t seem to be any real benefit to either party and, in fact, simple calculations show that these changes typically result in less after-tax income for both the payor and the payee. Perhaps, U.S. lawmakers were looking out for families by making divorce a less-attractive option in times of trouble?

Overall, these changes are quite a departure from laws that have been in place for decades, and they will bring upheaval and adjustment for divorce lawyers and divorcing taxpayers alike. That’s why it’s so important to consider all the factors, and geographies, involved when drafting up new settlement agreements.

What if recipient spouse resides in Canada?

Now let’s consider a twist to the post-marital arrangement. The spouse paying alimony is a U.S. resident, and the recipient spouse is a nonresident alien, residing in Canada. Domestic laws in Canada remain unchanged in that the Canadian resident receiving alimony from the U.S. must report the income on their Canadian tax return. The result is a situation where the alimony payment is now taxed twice – once in the U.S. where alimony is no longer deductible, and again in Canada where it is taxable income for the recipient. Fortunately, there is relief under the U.S.-Canada Income Tax Convention (1980) which we will call the Treaty. Continue Reading…

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…