Rectification in Tax and Estate Matters Part I – Tax

Confucius said “A man who has committed a mistake and doesn’t correct it is committing another mistake.”

When we are dealing with tax and estate matters, even a simple mistake may have disastrous consequences. One way such a mistake may be corrected is by way of a rectification order.  Indeed, rectification is an important remedy that allows for the correction of errors or mistakes in legal instruments that have resulted in an unintended result.  This newsletter will review the doctrine of rectification as it applies to tax matters.  Our next newsletter will focus on rectification in estate matters.

What is Rectification?

A rectification order is an equitable remedy to correct errors in legal instruments that do not reflect the true intention of the parties resulting in unintended and, likely, unfortunate results.  A rectification order allows the affected parties to rectify the terms of a transaction as was initially intended by the parties. The effect of the rectification is retroactive.

The remedy of rectification is available only under certain defined circumstances; essentially to correct a mistake. However, rectification is not permitted if the intention of the parties is simply to alter the terms of an instrument nor can it be invoked in an attempt to correct every mistake in order to alter unwanted results.

In order for a rectification order to be granted, one must file an Application to the Superior Court of Ontario; only a court may grant such remedy.  Interestingly, the Tax Court of Canada cannot grant equitable remedies, and, as a result, rectification of a tax matter can only be heard by the appropriate forum, the Superior Court of Ontario.  The duty of the Court is to examine the evidence and assess the facts in order to determine whether the application is truly one to correct a mistake which result in an unintended legal effect or an undesirable legal consequence.  The Court must ensure that the parties are not just changing their minds “in the middle of a transaction.” The evidence is the key to the determination.

To be successful in obtaining a rectification order, one must establish:

1. the existence and nature of the common intention of the parties prior to preparation of the instrument alleged to be deficient;
2. that the common intention remained unchanged at the time the document was made; and
3. that the instrument, by mistake, does not reflect that initial common intention.

If one can prove the above, the Court may grant a rectification order thus restoring the party(ies) to their initial common intention.  Applicants should be aware that rectification orders are a discretionary remedy granted at the discretion of the Court and one should not anticipate the granting of an order.

Rectification in Tax Matters

In tax matters where unintended tax consequences arise as a result of a mistake, rectification may be a valuable tool, if not a “life saver,” for taxpayers who find themselves in a situation where their tax planning went awry.

Although the equitable doctrine of rectification is not new, it only truly emerged as a valuable tool in tax matters in the last decade or so.  The leading case, Canada v. Juliar, has been a key decision in establishing such remedy to taxpayers. Indeed, in Juliar, the Court granted a rectification order in a tax matter which ultimately fixed a mistake in a document intended for tax planning purposes. The granting of the rectification order enabled the taxpayer to avoid having to face a tax liability from an unanticipated outcome. Interestingly, the Court had no issue with the fact that the taxpayers’ intention throughout the transaction was to avoid immediate tax consequences.

Since the Juliar decision, the law and the doctrine of rectification in tax matters has expanded considerably.  Taxpayers appear to show a willingness to consider an application for rectification to correct/rectify transactions that achieved unintended tax consequences. Notably, the jurisprudence has acknowledged that the avoidance of tax is a legitimate intention in rectification matters involving a tax issue.  As a result, rectification may be available where transactions that resulted in unintended tax consequences might be altered in order to achieve the initial tax intention; that is the avoidance or minimization of tax.

A more recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, McPeake v. Canada, is also instructive as to how and when granting a rectification order may be appropriate in tax matters.  The McPeake decision is consistent with prior cases where the taxpayers demonstrate an intention to avoid tax but the documents or transactions failed to reflect their true intentions.

The McPeake decision stands out also on the basis that in tax matters, the taxpayers must convince the Court that their initial intention was to avoid tax.  Another interesting point of that decision is the fact that the Court accepted that it ought to consider the unfairness or harm the taxpayer may suffer should the rectification order not be granted (thus allowing a tax liability to arise although the avoidance of such liability is what gave rise to the transaction in the first place).

Rectification Application and the Crown

The Crown also distinguishes between an error in implementation and an error in tax planning and the Agency will vigorously oppose rectification orders disguised as an attempt to implement a form of retroactive tax planning.

The Crown’s position is that a taxpayer requesting a rectification order should provide the Agency with notice of the application; especially in instances where the rectification application is being made on the basis that the taxpayer is alleging unintended tax consequences.

However, whether or not the Crown should be notified of any particular application for rectification is a dilemma for the taxpayer and his lawyer to resolve.  There is a valid argument to be made that since the Crown may not be a party to the original instrument and the original transaction, it has no interest in the application to rectify the written instrument and the transactions. There is jurisprudence where the Court has said that notice to the Crown was “appropriate” or a matter of courtesy; however, the Court has never said it is mandatory.

In reality, the decision of whether to serve notice to the Crown or not is essentially a matter of assessing the basis of the application and ultimately, it is a strategic decision. Further, should one serve notice to the Crown, they risk having the Crown oppose the application.  However, opting not to serve notice may result in the judge requesting notice be served prior to rendering his or her decision.  Having to serve the Crown after the initial application is likely to raise suspicion from the Crown.

It is important to know that the Department of Justice has a rectification committee which discusses and decides whether to oppose an application.  The CRA and the Department of Justice have established a procedure to be followed when applying to the Court for a rectification order; notably, that a letter be sent to the Director of the Tax Services Office advising rectification will be sough, that the CRA should be named as a party in the Motion and that the Department of Justice be served with the Notice of Motion.

Once served, the rectification committee will review and discuss the merit of the application and inform the party(ies) whether it intends to oppose the application.

Conclusion

In tax matters, an application for a rectification order remains a valuable tool for taxpayers and should be considered when adverse tax consequences are erroneously triggered by an error or errors in implementing a transaction.

An application for a rectification should be considered by tax advisors, including accountants, lawyers and any other tax advisors.  Indeed, rectification may be the key to correct an oversight in their tax planning memorandum or an error in the drafting of an instrument.  Rectification may translate into a lifeline for their mistake, thus avoiding a liability; something well worth considering.

Ultimately, the original intent is the key determining factor in the decision whether to grant a rectification order.

In our next newsletter, we will address rectification in estate matters.

Tierney Stauffer LLP would be glad to assist and advise you.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sébastien Desmarais
LL.B., LL.L., J.D.
Lawyer, Tierney Stauffer LLP
This article is provided  as an information resource and is not intended to replace advice from a quaified legal professional and should not be relied upon to make decisions. In all cases, contact your legal professional for advice on any matter  referenced in this document before making decisions. Any use of this document does not constitute a lawyer-client relationship.

Voluntary Disclosure Program – It’s worth considering under the right circumstances

The Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP) is an initiative from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)  designed to encourage  taxpayers to be more compliant with their income tax filings and to correct omissions or errors which may be considered “negligent” from previous income tax returns.  
The VDP offers taxpayers an opportunity to correct inaccurate or incomplete information or to correct previous erroneous information without penalties or prosecution.
One of the major incentives of proceeding by way of a voluntary disclosure is the assurance of knowing that IF his/her disclosure is accepted by the CRA, the taxpayer is assured of not facing tax evasion charges.

Criteria for a VD to be Valid

For a voluntary disclosure to be valid, it must meet certain specific criteria.  If the taxpayer fails to meet any of these criteria, the voluntary disclosure will be considered potentially invalid resulting in penalties and prosecution.
The CRA is unequivocal that a valid voluntary disclosure must be

(1) voluntary,
(2) complete,
(3) involve a monetary penalty, and
(4) involve information that is one year or more overdue.

Timing

Timing is crucial when filing a voluntary disclosure.  The CRA and the jurisprudence are clear: a disclosure may not qualify as a voluntary disclosure if it is found to have been made with the knowledge of an audit, investigation or other enforcement action that has been initiated by the CRA or other authorities or an administration with which the CRA has information exchange agreements.
It is crucial that the taxpayer be unaware of any audit, investigation or enforcement procedure when filing a voluntary disclosure. This means that if there is any direct contact by the CRA (such as a telephone call from a CRA agent or receiving a letter or a requirement to file from the Agency), the voluntary disclosure will be denied on the basis that it is not voluntary.
Furthermore, if a third party closely associated with the taxpayer receives a communication from the Agency or if any enforcement action against that third party is initiated and such action is sufficiently related to the taxpayer in the eyes of the CRA, the taxpayer’s voluntary disclosure may be denied on the basis it is not voluntary.

Completeness

The CRA is unequivocal that the taxpayer must provide full and accurate facts and documentation for all taxation years where there was previously inaccurate, incomplete or unreported information.  In most instances, the agent reviewing the voluntary disclosure will most likely request additional specific documents or information corroborating the initial application.
Should the taxpayer fail to provide the information requested, or should the facts in the initial application not withstand the scrutiny of the CRA, the voluntary disclosure will likely be denied.
As is always the case in tax matters, the onus of proof lies with the taxpayer. It is the responsibility of the taxpayer to prove that the information submitted provides a complete and accurate account of the facts involved.
However, it is worth noting that minor errors or omissions shall not disqualify the disclosure. Further, the CRA clearly states that each submission will be reviewed on its own merits.

Monetary Penalty

Another criterion is the obligation that the voluntary disclosure must involve the application, or potential application, of a monetary penalty.  There are different reasons as to why a penalty would be levied (such as a late filing penalty, a failure to remit penalty, an installment penalty or a discretionary penalty) but in order for a voluntary disclosure to be valid, it must involve a monetary penalty applying to one reporting period.

One Year Past Due

The last criterion for a valid disclosure is that it must include information that is (1) at least one year past due, or (2) the disclosure is to correct a previously filed return.

10 Year Limitation

CRA will only grant penalty relief for a period of 10 years.  (§220(3.1) of the Income Tax Act was amended in 2004 to only provide relief for a period of 10 years prior to the application for relief of interest and penalties).
This is quite unfortunate as a taxpayer that would like to rectify past filings must take into consideration this 10 year limit.  Indeed, should a taxpayer opt to file a disclosure concerning taxation years dating back more than 10 years from the application, they run the risk of being liable for penalties.
CRA does not advertise such a limitation period and this further emphasises the importance of seeking professional assistance prior to proceeding with a voluntary disclosure.

Conclusion

The VDP is worthy of consideration by any taxpayer that wishes to rectify a previous filing and avoid any penalties or prosecution.
However, the criteria of a valid voluntary disclosure are precise and one should always seek professional assistance given the significant risks that an invalid application may invoke.
Should you be interested in proceeding by way of a voluntary disclosure, Tierney Stauffer LLP would be glad to assist and advise you.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sébastien Desmarais
LL.B., LL.L., J.D.
Lawyer, Tierney Stauffer LLP
This article is provided  as an information resource and is not intended to replace advice from a quaified legal professional and should not be relied upon to make decisions. In all cases, contact your legal professional for advice on any matter  referenced in this document before making decisions. Any use of this document does not constitute a lawyer-client relationship.

Net Worth Assessment – Avoid it at all costs

A net worth audit is one of the most powerful techniques available to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to unilaterally deem a taxpayer to have a certain amount of unreported income. The net worth audit is a method which, on its premise, assumes the taxpayer has hidden or failed to disclose annual income, and as a result CRA is not able to rely on the accuracy of the amount of taxpayer income from tax returns filed. Subsequently, CRA will use the results of a net worth audit to deem a taxpayer to have unreported income, resulting in allegations of tax evasion or civil fraud against the taxpayer.

In recent years tax professionals have noticed an increase in CRA’s use of net worth audits against taxpayers. The CRA appears to be targeting their net worth audits to cash-based businesses, owner-manager businesses and illegal businesses (such as drug dealers).

The following will attempt to answer two primary questions, first, what is a net worth audit and second, what is the burden on a taxpayer faced with a net worth audit.

What is a Net Worth Audit?

A net worth audit is a two-step audit by the CRA. First, the Agency will look at the taxpayer’s assets and liabilities at the beginning and end of the tax year and determine the increase and/or decrease in the taxpayer’s net worth. Second, the CRA will review the taxpayer’s expenditures for that same tax year and compare them with standards of expenditures according to Statistics Canada.

The net worth method relies on the concept that when a taxpayer accumulates wealth during a tax year, he shall either invest it or spend it. For an auditor conducting a net worth audit, they will consider an increase in the taxpayer’s net worth throughout the year as taxable income. From that starting point, the auditor will add all non-deductible expenditures to the taxpayer’s net worth and then compare the taxpayer’s net worth at the beginning of the taxation year and the taxpayer’s net worth at the end of the taxation year. Any increase in the taxpayer’s net worth will be considered income for tax purposes.

Interestingly, at the audit stage, the CRA has essentially free reign in their assessment and interpretation of the taxpayer’s net worth. Indeed, CRA may assume facts or use general statistics from Statistic Canada in their assessment; in most instances, to the taxpayer’s detriment.

Burden is on the Taxpayer

It is important to understand that because the Canadian tax system is a self-assessing system, the onus is on the taxpayer to rebut all of the Minister’s assumptions and findings.

The Courts have consistently taken the view that once CRA issues a reassessment based on a net worth audit, the taxpayer must rebut all of CRA’s assumptions and findings by either:

Challenging whether the net worth assessment is needed or is the most appropriate method of computing the taxpayer’s income; or

Challenging every specific aspect of the net worth assessment calculations.

In the context of a net worth audit, the taxpayer’s onus of proof is a considerable one. Indeed, in most net worth audits, the auditor will have requested all available taxpayer records including, but not limited to, a list of all inventories, physical assets, debts to creditors, bank records, securities, and any other statements of assets.

From the documentation provided, the auditor may have interpreted some book entries and assume facts that may not be accurate, however, the onus is on the taxpayer to provide proof to clarify, explain and rebut all of the auditor’s assumptions and interpretation of facts.

When combating a net worth audit, the devil is in the details. Every item, interpretation and assumption of the auditor must be analyzed in great detail and dissected for correctness.

Indeed, with every error found, the trustworthiness of this inherently untrustworthy method is called further into question.

If the matter is to proceed before the Tax Court of Canada, pointing out the auditor’s errors in their interpretation shall contribute to discrediting the auditor’s findings and tilt the judge’s opinion in favor of the taxpayer. However, the taxpayer will also need to provide evidence explaining and clarifying the increase in his net worth over the year.

A valid explanation, such as the receipt of an inheritance, will undoubtly favor the taxpayer in his pursuit of rebutting the auditor’s finding. However, if the taxpayer lacks any evidentiary documentation attesting his point then the matter becomes one of credibility; something a taxpayer should always avoid.

Conclusion

Maintaining well-organized documents and financial records is truly the sole solution for succeeding over a net worth audit. Indeed, documenting all receipts of significant funds received during the taxation year, especially any foreign funds, is the very best way to beat a net worth audit.

My former colleague Arthur Drache once wrote: “good paper almost always will prevail, but in a contest of your unsupported word against CRA, you’ll almost always lose.” This remains the gold standard in a net worth audit.

 If you are the subject of a net worth audit, we highly recommend you consult with your accountant and lawyer. Tierney Stauffer LLP would be glad to assist and advise you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sébastien Desmarais
LL.B., LL.L., J.D.
Lawyer, Tierney Stauffer LLP
This article is provided  as an information resource and is not intended to replace advice from a quaified legal professional and should not be relied upon to make decisions. In all cases, contact your legal professional for advice on any matter  referenced in this document before making decisions. Any use of this document does not constitute a lawyer-client relationship. 

Why You Need a Will

Upon the breakdown of a marriage or a long-term relationship, there are a number of issues which normally need to be resolved depending upon the circumstances of the parties. These issues may include: the custody of children, child support, spousal support and the division of property.

If you presently have no valid Will, or if you have not reviewed your Will lately, you should consider meeting with a member of our Wills, Estates and Trust Practice Group to obtain advice on how best to protect your family or loved ones in the event of your death.

The following true-to-life scenarios may help to illustrate some of the dangers of failing to plan for your demise, or proceeding on faulty assumptions as to your present estate plan.

1. You are a 65 year old woman, recently married for the second time to a wealthy man.

You signed a will shortly after the death of your first husband which leaves your entire estate to your three children, and you see no reason to make any changes to that will, in view of the fact that your new husband has no need of your assets. Did you know that your recent marriage revoked your previous Will, and if you die without making a new will, your husband will inherit a significant portion of your estate?

2. You are a 50 year old man, divorced from your wife of 35 years.

You remain “best friends” and are very much in each other’s lives. You have no children and both of your parents and your only brother have died. You have two nieces which you barely know. You made a Will 20 years before your divorce which leaves your entire estate to your former wife. In view of your continuing relationship, you see no reason to change the disposition of your estate. Did you know that upon your death, any benefits accruing to your former wife are revoked, absent a contrary intention contained in your Will, and that your estate will devolve upon your nieces?

3. You are a 35 year old male, married with three children ages 1 month to 5 years.

Your wife is a stay-at-home Mom with no job skills and no assets of her own. You have no Will. Did you know that if you die without a Will, your wife will have to share a substantial part of your estate with your children, and may not have enough to live on without being forced into employment to make ends meet? Did you also know that any share to which your children are entitled must be paid into Court and supervised by an official of the Ontario Government until they attain the age of eighteen years?

4. You are married and all of your assets are owned jointly with your spouse.

You have no children, and you see no need to prepare a Will at this time, since on the death of either one of you, the survivor will inherit everything. The survivor would of course prepare a Will at that time. Did you know that if you and your wife die in a common disaster, one-half of your joint estate would be divided among members of your family, which could include parents, siblings, and nieces and nephews, while the other half of your joint estate would be divided in the same fashion among members of your spouse’s family? Is this what you would want?

5. Consider the same scenario as above.

Instead imagine that you die immediately in the same disaster, while your spouse survives, but dies from his or her injuries, one day later. Did you know that your entire joint estate would go to your spouse’s family?

Make an appointment with one of our skilled professionals today, to ensure that your wishes will be implemented on your death, and further to determine the most cost efficient and practical methods of accomplishing that objective. At the same time, consider planning for potential incapacity by putting Powers of Attorney in place.

If you have questions about your will or would like to draft a will, please contact one of our family law lawyers at (613) 728-8057. You can also contact Gail Nicholls directly at (613) 288-3234 or by e-mail at gailnicholls@tslawyers.ca.

Gail Nicholls,
Counsel Group,
Tierney Stauffer LLP

This article is provided  as an information resource and is not intended to replace advice from a quaified legal professional and should not be relied upon to make decisions. In all cases, contact your legal professional for advice on any matter  referenced in this document before making decisions. Any use of this document does not constitute a lawyer-client relationship.

U.S. Estate Tax – Should You be Concerned?

We have all heard the saying that there are two things in life that are certain: death and taxes. For tax and estate  professionals, both are always concerns but especially so for clients owning U.S. properties or assets. This is due to the U.S. estate tax.

Canada does not impose an estate tax upon the death of an individual. In fact, when Canadians die they are deemed to dispose of all their capital property at fair market value.

The U.S. system works differently: upon the death of a U.S. citizen, a tax is levied on the fair market value of the  deceased’s world-wide property. Furthermore, the U.S. estate tax applies to all property situated in the U.S. including  property owned by non-residents of the U.S. (oft en referred to as “Canadian Snowbirds”).

Consequently, upon death, a Canadian resident who owns U.S. real property or U.S. stocks may be regarded to have a large “deemed” capital gain with respect to such property in addition to a possible U.S. estate tax liability depending on the value of their U.S. properties or assets.

The first $3.5 million USD of a U.S. citizens’ estate is exempt from tax.  However, non-residents, including Canadians, are only entitled to a pro-rated exemption under the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty. This exemption is equal to $3.5 million USD multiplied by the ratio of U.S. property to your worldwide estate. Essentially, if your worldwide estate is worth less than $3.5 million, you need not worry about paying  U.S. estate tax … at least for now.

In June 2001, the U.S. passed a law that commenced the phasing-out  of the estate tax over the following decade.  Essentially, the estate tax rate has been gradually reduced and the exemption amount increased and, based on the legislation, the estate tax will be repealed  for the 2010 tax year. However, this may not be permanent as the legislation contains a “sunset clause” whereby, unless further steps are taken by Congress, the repeal of the estate tax will only last for one year, being 2010.

In 2011, the estate tax rules will revert back to the rules applied before 2001 resulting in the effective exemption of only $1 million USD (compared to $3.5 USD in 2009) and a maximum estate tax rate of 55% (compared to 45% in 2009). Many U.S. tax experts expect this issue to be addressed by Congress already proposed legislation that would cap the top estate tax rate at 35% and maintain the personal exemption at $3.5 million USD.

Nonetheless, Canadians who own U.S. property or assets should consult their tax professionals until Congress legislates on this issue. Until Congress acts on this issue, Canadian Snowbirds should review the U.S. estate tax with their estate planning advisor.

Canadians who have an estate worth more than $1 million USD may be at risk of having to pay U.S. estate tax.

If you have questions regarding this issue or any other issue pertaining to your estate, please contact Sebastien Desmarais, Associate, Tierney Stauff er LLP at (613) 288-3220 or sdesmarais@tslawyers.ca.

Sébastien Desmarais
LL.B., LL.L., J.D.
Associate, Tierney Stauffer LLP
This article is provided  as an information resource and is not intended to replace advice from a quaified legal professional and should not be relied upon to make decisions. In all cases, contact your legal professional for advice on any matter  referenced in this document before making decisions. Any use of this document does not constitute a lawyer-client relationship. 

The Role of Life Insurance in Estate and Tax Planning

The best way to increase the value of your estate is to minimize the tax implications arising on your death. On that basis, because of the potential tax savings, life insurance policies are useful estate planning tools that ought to be considered when planning your estate.

TAX BENEFITS
One of the greatest benefi ts of life insurance is that, upon the death of the insured individual, it provides a tax-free lump sum payment directly to the designated beneficiary(ies), tax free. Consequently, the insured individual knows that he or she provided protection and financial security to his or her surviving spouse or his or her surviving dependents.

Another reason to consider life insurance in the context of estate planning is estate preservation. The Income Tax Act provides that a deceased taxpayer is deemed to have disposed of each capital property owned by him or her  immediately before death for proceeds equal to the fair market value at that time. For tax purposes, that signifies a deemed a capital gain will be realized upon death.

In this context, life insurance may be purchased to provide the necessary funds to pay the capital gain, thereby  preventing the beneficiary(ies) of the estate from having to sell some of the assets to pay for the taxes.

Since the proceeds of the life insurance are paid directly to the designated beneficiary(ies), they do not form part of the estate and, as a result, probate tax is saved on that amount. It may be advantageous to transfer cash into life insurance and designate a beneficiary(ies) to avoid probate tax being levied on the value of these assets in the estate.

Life insurance should be considered a valuable estate planning tool as it can be cost efficient and will allow the insurance proceeds to be received tax-free by the designated beneficiary(ies).

TRUSTS
Th ere has been much debate as to whether one’s life insurance proceeds should be paid to their estate or to designated individual beneficiaries. Fundamentally, the issue is whether the proceeds are to be paid to a designated beneficiary,  thus avoiding probate tax, or paid to the estate in order to take full advantage of the graduated tax rates available to testamentary trusts on the income generated after death by the insurance proceeds.

The testamentary insurance trust may ultimately be the solution to that debate as it allows for funding of a trust using insurance proceeds such that the trust will also qualify as a testamentary trust for tax purposes. It is important to ensure
that the parameters of the testamentary insurance trust have been established prior to death in the deceased’s will in a manner intended to avoid probate tax. Also, care must be taken to ensure such trust meets the defi nition of a  testamentary trust and that it comes into eff ect in such a way so as to avoid probate tax.

If structured properly, the estate will avoid paying probate tax on the proceeds of the life insurance while the beneficiaries will benefit from the graduated tax rates of the testamentary trust on the income generated by the insurance proceeds. Th is arrangement may translate into considerable taxsavings for the beneficiaries.
THE ROLE OF LIFE INSURANCE IN A BUSINESS SUCCESSION PLAN
When developing a business succession plan, consider the use of life insurance as a source of funding to provide for the needs of the business upon the death of the business owner, a key executive, or shareholder. There are several key
tax advantages in using life insurance proceeds.

One of the main tax advantages is arranging for the life insurance proceeds to be payable to the corporation on a tax-free basis. As a result, the proceeds of the life insurance (over the adjusted cost base of the policy) will increase the capital dividend account of the corporation thereby allowing for the payment of tax-free capital dividends to the shareholders of the corporation or to the estate of the deceased shareholder. Depending on the Will of the deceased shareholder, the surviving spouse may receive tax-free capital dividends in a spousal testamentary trust allowing for income splitting.

Life insurance can also be an efficient means of funding the obligations under a buy/sell agreement found in a  shareholder agreement. The life insurance proceeds would be paid to the corporation thereby increasing the capital dividend account allowing for tax-free capital dividends to be available for purchase by the surviving shareholders from the deceased shareholder. If the shareholder  agreement provides for such a buy/sell agreement, the estate may also be entitled to claim the capital gain exemption on the sale of the shares to the surviving shareholders.

In order for this to occur, the shares must meet the definition of “qualified small business corporation shares” as defined in the Income Tax Act. If so, the estate would be eligible to receive up to $750,000 in tax-free shares. The business succession options set out above must be carefully implemented otherwise the business owner or the corporation might be assessed a taxable shareholder benefit by the Canada Revenue Agency.

It is not uncommon for a business owner to own the shares of a holding company which in turn own shares of the operating company. In those situations, there are a number of factual and tax considerations that must be considered in determining who will be the owner and beneficiary of the insurance policy; and which entity must pay the insurance premiums.

Life insurance may be used for reasons other than estate and business succession. Indeed, it may be possible to use some life insurance to fund the business owner’s retirement or for the company to offer some form of “supplementary executive retirement plan” to an executive person.

The success of your estate planning relies on a clear understanding of the rules of taxation upon death and the rules of taxation of life insurance. Seek professional advice when planning your estate, especially if you are considering implementing a business or succession plan with the use of life insurance, because an error could result in adverse tax consequences.

If you have any questions concerning estate or tax planning, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Sébastien Desmarais
LL.B., LL.L., J.D.
Associate, Tierney Stauffer LLP

This article is provided  as an information resource and is not intended to replace advice from a quaified legal professional and should not be relied upon to make decisions. In all cases, contact your legal professional for advice on any matter  referenced in this document before making decisions. Any use of this document does not constitute a lawyer-client relationship. 

Estate Planning and Probate Tax

Probate is a legal process that confirms and validates the last Will and Testament of a deceased person.

There is no specific law in Ontario that requires the Will of a deceased person to be probated. As a general rule, the larger and more complex the assets held by the deceased, the more likely the probating of the Will shall be required. Probate tax is calculated at an approximate rate of $5.00 per thousand dollars for the first $50,000 in the Estate and $15.00 per thousand for every thousand dollars over and above $50,000 in the Estate.

Depending on how the assets of the Estate are held, probate tax can be reduced or even avoided altogether.

With the proper estate planning, a business owner can eliminate some of the probate fees that are triggered by his or her death and the ensuing transfer of property. One way to do this is through the use of “double Wills” where one Will deals with assets requiring probate (such as cash and real estate) and the other deals with assets that do not require probate such as shares of a corporation.

If ou have any questions concerning the termination of an employee or employment law in general, please do not hesitate to contact David Sinclair directly 613.288.3226 or by email at dsinclair@tslawyers.ca.

David Sinclair
B.Com., B.A., LL.B.
Associate, Tierney Stauffer LLP

 

This article is provided  as an information resource and is not intended to replace advice from a quaified legal professional and should not be relied upon to make decisions. In all cases, contact your legal professional for advice on any matter  referenced in this document before making decisions. Any use of this document does not constitute a lawyer-client relationship. 

Planning Your Business Succession

Every successful business owner will one day be faced with the dilemma of having to choose a successor. Letting go of the reins of his or her business that has been built through years of labor will not be easy and a smooth succession can only be achieved if the business owner is ready to sell or pass the reins to his or her heir(s).

There is no single boilerplate for a succession plan for all businesses as every business succession is unique. However, all successful successions have similarities and I will highlight some of those similarities in this article.

BEAT THE ODDS
The statistics on small business succession are discouraging as approximately 50% of small businesses that pass to the next generation of owners remain in business five years later. The statistics concerning family owned-business are less encouraging as only 30% will survive a next generation and probably only half of those will survive to the following generation.

Although the reasons why some business successions fail while others succeed are vast and open to interpretation, lack of preparation and poor communication are common traits in many failed plans.

SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENT
Most successful entrepreneurs and professionals will agree that a shareholder agreement is important as it establishes a solid business foundation for the shareholders. The shareholder agreement can also provide the initial steps for planning the business succession as it usually maps out the structural transitions of the business in situations such as the death or disability of an owner, a marriage breakdown of a shareholder or the outcome of a feud between co-owners. Essentially, the shareholder agreement is a negotiated document between the shareholders of the business defining the relationship of the shareholders and the future succession of the business.

A well-drafted shareholder agreement provides solutions to those unfortunate situations by inserting specific clauses that pre-determine the outcome. A shareholder agreement should include clauses such as:

• Disability – addressing how and when the shares of a co-owner who becomes permanently disabled can be bought out.
• Death – determining how to deal with the deceased owner’s shares.
• Retirement – determining the retirement income for the owners who cease to work actively in the business.

In our opinion, a shareholder agreement should always be part of the business succession discussion.

HAVE A PLAN
Business succession planning is a process that should be considered sooner rather than later. To achieve a smooth succession of the business it is best to develop a comprehensive plan that both achieves the retiring owner’s objectives and serves the successor’s needs.

In an ideal scenario, the business owner(s) and the “next generation” would meet with a group of professionals (accountant, lawyer and advisors) to discuss their individual goals and the various options to attain these specific goals. The design of the plan should be viewed with an open mind as compromises are inevitable and without the input of all the succession would be vulnerable.

The succession plan should address three main areas:

• The transfer of labour
• The transfer of management and decision-making (control)
• The transfer of ownership.

However, the main issue to address in any succession plan is: who is/are the successor(s) and how it will be accomplished. The answers to those questions will provide the basis for the structure of the business succession plan.

IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
Establishing a succession plan is only the first step of the business succession; that plan must then be implemented. It is often at this stage that plans derail because of a lack of willpower on behalf of the parties or because the plans are put on the backburner.

Once a succession plan has been agreed upon, someone must take the leadership role and establish the timetable for the stages of the succession. The leader must make sure that all parties involved (owners, accountant, lawyer and advisor) are made aware of the deadlines and, more importantly, he or she must ensure those deadlines are met.

It is possible that the succession plan may change in light of unforeseeable events so the parties involved must remain flexible and open-minded. However, unless those unanticipated events jeopardize the entire succession plan (such as the death of the owner), the succession plan should only be postponed and not dismissed in its entirety.

TAX CONSEQUENCES
You must take into consideration tax consequences when implementing an estate and business succession plan.

If one voluntarily avoids preparing a business succession plan, at his or her death he or she will be deemed to have disposed of all his or her assets at fair market value potentially resulting in a significant tax debt payable by the estate and the business being left in complete disarray.

Deemed Disposition at Fair Market Value
One of the greatest concerns business owners face when planning for their estate and the business succession is how he or she can minimize the capital gains tax that will arise on the sale or other type of transfer of ownership.

As mentioned above, although avoiding the issue and letting his or her Will dictate the business succession is probably the worst choice one can make, unfortunately many owners prefer opting for this option in hopes of avoiding conflict because of the succession. If the business owner decides to leave their shares of their company to their children under their Will, they will be deemed to have disposed of these shares at fair market value triggering a capital gain which may potentially deplete the value of their Estate.

Capital Gains Exemption
Every individual resident in Canada is entitled to a lifetime capital gains exemption of up to $750,000 upon disposition of shares of a qualifying small business corporation. To qualify for the exemptions the following criteria have to be met:

1.  The shares must have been owned throughout the 24 month period preceding the date the shares were disposed of;
2. At least 50% of the fair market value of the business’s assets must be used in the course of carrying on an active business in Canada;
3. At the date the shares are disposed, approximately 90% of the fair market value of the business’s assets must be used in the course of carrying on an active business in Canada.

The capital gains exemption allows the business owner to contemplate several succession strategies such as an estate freeze

Estate Freeze
One strategy that is often mentioned is the estate freeze; a technique that limits the growth of your capital property and the resulting tax on death during your lifetime by transferring the future growth in the capital property to your heirs.
In order to protect their Estate by preventing its value to grow to a size that might incur considerable taxes and probate fees, the business owner will:

1. exchange their common shares for preferred shares of equal value where the new preferred shares would not grow; and
2.  family members (wife, children and grandchildren) would be given common shares and all future growth would attach to those common shares.

An estate freeze allows for a tax deferral for a period commencing when the family members acquire the new preferred shares until the sale of those shares. The estate freeze allows the business owner to minimize the taxes arising at his death.

However, it is important to understand that an estate freeze involves major changes on the part of the business owner and the family. Several issues will also need to be addressed as a result of the freeze and we recommend that anyone who is contemplating an estate freeze consult their accountant and their lawyer in order to fully understand the implications of a freeze for the business and for the family members.

The estate freeze is the most common technique used when a business succession is contemplated but it is not the only technique. Depending on the situation, there are other techniques that are more complex and beyond the scope of this Newsletter. For more information, we recommend you consult your accountant and lawyer.

SUCCESSION OF THE FAMILY BUSINESS – A WEB OF COMPLEXITIES?
Succession of the family business is more delicate as it often involves the varying interests of the children and the parents’ concerns of being fair toward them; it is a balancing act between the realities of the business and the family.
First, one must ask whether there is a viable family successor(s). It is also important to identify the goals of that successor(s) and to develop the right succession plan in light of those goals.

Second, involving family members in the business at an early stage provides an opportunity for the next generation to familiarize themselves with the requirements of managing the business to be involved in the decision-making process. Family involvement should be a key component of the family business succession plan.

Third, it will be necessary for the family to address important and difficult issues such as management authority and family participation. The emergence of a strong corporate governance plan will only be possible if all related parties participate in the generation of the plan and all recognize their responsibility in this plan. The ultimate goal is to have the parent recognize will be in the need to pass the reins to the next generation and having confidence that business is in good hands and will continue to thrive in the future.

CONSULT WITH PROFESSIONALS
Business succession planning can strain the personal relationship of co-owners or your family members. However, maintaining the status quo and doing nothing is the worst option as it only postpones the issues and your legacy could be jeopardized.

Letting go is seldom easy but making well-informed decisions will make the transition less stressful and ensure your business transition results in a lasting and profitable gift. In contemplating retirement and handing the reins of your business to your successor(s), we recommend consulting with your accountant, lawyer, and any other professional advisor that may be necessary for your particular business, in order to be thoroughly advised.

REVIEW YOUR WILL
After all this planning, don’t forget to review your Will. At Tierney Stauffer LLP, we will gladly review your Will with you and discuss more advanced estate planning aimed at maximizing the value of your estate while minimizing the taxes and probate fees.

Planning the succession of your business is not easy so reduce the stress and complexities by seeking proper advice. Don’t forget that this is in your own best interests as well as the best interests of your loved ones.

If you have questions regarding this issue or any other issue pertaining to Wills and Estates Planning, please contact Sebastien Desmarais at (613) 288-3220 or sdesmarais@tslawyers.ca.

Sébastien Desmarais
LL.B., LL.L., J.D.
Associate, Tierney Stauffer LLP

 

This article is provided  as an information resource and is not intended to replace advice from a quaified legal professional and should not be relied upon to make decisions. In all cases, contact your legal professional for advice on any matter  referenced in this document before making decisions. Any use of this document does not constitute a lawyer-client relationship. 

 

Shareholders’ Agreement & Tax Implications: Are You Informed?

When two people decide to begin a business venture, the implementation of a shareholders’ agreement is a key to preventing unfortunate consequences at a later time. The primary purpose of a shareholders’ agreement is to define the relationship amongst the parties and should include the procedure and actions to be taken in the event the relationship
sours over time or in the event that the parties change due to disability or death. Ultimately, a shareholders’ agreement aims at establishing provisions for future key decisions to deal eff ectively with any possible event and circumstance
that may arise.

However, as each situation is unique and requires an agreement that meets the intention of the parties it is preferable to avoid a “boilerplate agreement”, which are oft en ill-suited to the specifics of the shareholders’ goals and may fail to result in the most tax efficient outcome.

The following sets out a few provisions that should always be carefully considered and fully understood.

Survivorship Arrangements
One of the primary functions of a shareholders’ agreement is to provide for a buy-sell arrangement upon the death of a shareholder. Provisions are made for how a deceased shareholder’s shares will be dealt with and how the obligations of the surviving shareholders will be funded. These provisions should be structured so as to provide the most tax efficient result for all parties involved.

Certainly, one of the most tax effective strategies to fund such a buy-sell arrangement is to purchase life insurance on the
lives of each shareholder and designate the corporation as the beneficiary. The life insurance proceeds are received on a taxfree basis by the corporation and will thereby increase the capital dividend account. Depending on the shareholders’ agreement, the corporation may then issue a tax-free capital dividend to the surviving shareholders in order for them to purchase the shares from the estate. Such a clause is best implemented when the deceased shareholder has not claimed his or her capital gain exemption prior to death.

If the deceased shareholder has already claimed his or her capital gain exemption, then it may be  the shareholders’ agreement that the corporation will redeem the deceased shareholders’ shares. Again, the goal is to have the corporation receive the life insurance proceeds in order to increase the capital dividend account. The corporation would then repurchase the deceased’s shares by issuing a tax-free capital dividend to the estate.

All survivorship arrangements in a shareholders’ agreement have tax implications that must be considered. There is no “magical template” as all shareholders’ agreements should be tailored specifically to the shareholders’ goal and  intentions.

Control and the Association Rules
Another provision that requires careful consideration in a shareholders’ agreement is the avoidance of the association rules. Where a shareholder, or a related group of shareholders, owns or controls more than 50% of the voting shares of a corporation, that shareholder or group will control the corporation. Consequently, any other corporation controlled by the controlling shareholder or group may be found to be associated with the first corporation.

If two or more corporations are found to be associated, it will trigger a number of income tax consequences including, inter alia, a requirement to share the small business deduction as well as other deductions in computing income. Sections 256 of the Income Tax Act defines the association rules and these rules should be fully understood by the drafter of the shareholder’s agreement as well as all parties involved in order to avoid regrettable tax consequences.

Other Provisions to Consider
Th ere are several other provisions commonly included in a shareholders’ agreement that, unless carefully considered, may have adverse income tax consequences. One example is where a shareholders’ agreement provides for a “call option” allowing the majority shareholder to require that a minority shareholder sell his or her shares at a fixed price or at a price determined by a formula which could potentially exceed the fair market value of the shares at the time the call option is exercised.

In that case, the shares held by the minority shareholder will be considered to be short term preferred shares from the moment of their issuance. Th is may result in the acquisition price being based on the fair market value of the shares at the time the agreement was entered into rather than at the time of acquisition.

Another example of a potential planning pitfall is in the drafting of provisions for arrangements to be made in the event a shareholder becomes disabled who can no longer return to full-time activity. Another buy-sell provision may be considered as it would avoid such a situation becoming a burden for the other shareholders who would otherwise have to provide continuing support for the disabled shareholder for a lengthy period of time.

How can one fund such a buy-sell arrangement? Although income replacement insurance may be an option, it is  important to note that proceeds of income replacement insurance do not increase the capital dividend account of the corporation and, therefore, cannot be transferred to the shareholder on a tax-free basis. If the shareholders opt for a corporate repurchase of the shares, consideration should be given to reorganizing the share capital of the corporation allowing for the creation of frozen, redeemable preferred shares which can be redeemed or purchased over time; for the disabled shareholder this would only trigger a tax liability as the proceeds are received and it also completely avoids depletion of the reserves of the corporations.

Where a shareholder of a corporation is another corporation and the holding corporation is used to hold the shares of the operating corporation, the buy-sell arrangements may be amended to provide for the most tax efficient result  possible. In such a case who shall hold the life insurance policy?  Who shall pay the premiums? Can we avoid a shareholder benefit? Should be we consider use intercorporate tax-free dividends to repay the payment of premiums  thus avoiding a shareholder benefit? These are all questions that should be answered prior to the drafting of the shareholders’ agreement.

Conclusion
Th e foregoing are just a few examples of issues that should be discussed prior to the drafting of the shareholders’  agreement.

As previously mentioned, using a “boilerplate agreement” may result in undesirable tax outcomes that could have been completely avoided had the drafter foreseen the potential pitfalls and fully understood the fiscal repercussions of the various provisions.

We always recommend shareholders implement a shareholders’ agreement at the commencement of business while all the parties are on good terms. We also recommend shareholders’ seek professional advice from the outset as any attempts to resolve issues “after the fact” may turn out to be catastrophic for the shareholders and for the business and the costs will most surely exceed the initial expense of a well draft ed shareholders’ agreement prepared by a fully informed professional advisor.

Sébastien Desmarais
LL.B., LL.L., J.D.
Associate, Tierney Stauffer LLP

This article is provided  as an information resource and is not intended to replace advice from a quaified legal professional and should not be relied upon to make decisions. In all cases, contact your legal professional for advice on any matter  referenced in this document before making decisions. Any use of this document does not constitute a lawyer-client relationship. 

Dealing with the Canada Revenue Agency

It is not uncommon for people, often in a dire state, to seek advice after receiving a notice of assessment or reassessment from the Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”). When it comes to effectively addressing tax issues and notices of assessment or reassessment, there are several rules and deadlines that we should be aware of in order to avoid the pitfalls The following sets out and discusses some of the key relevant deadlines and rules governing dealings with the CRA.

Role of the CRA

The Canadian tax system is a self-assessing system. As a result, the CRA has broad powers and authority to audit and investigate information provided by taxpayers to ensure compliance with the Income Tax Act (the “ITA”). These powers and authority range from requisitioning documents or other information for their review, conducting audits and inspections, formal searches and seizure of documents under a search warrant and formal inquiries and investigation authorized by the CRA.

The CRA is required to examine the return and make an assessment “with all due dispatch” following receipt of the taxpayer’s return. Although “all due dispatch” is not defined in the ITA and does not refer to a specific period of time, the jurisprudence establishes a criterion of reasonableness depending on the facts of the matter.

Upon reviewing the taxpayer’s income tax return and all other documentation requested, the auditor will issue his final report and, if he believes amendments to the return are required, the CRA will issue a notice of assessment or reassessment setting out the amendments to the taxation year at issue.

Notice of Assessment/Reassessment

The CRA has three years from the date of mailing the notice of assessment to issue a notice of reassessment or a further notice of assessment and this interval is referred to as the “normal reassessment period.”
If the taxpayer disagrees with the Minister’s notice of assessment or reassessment, he is entitled to file a notice of objection within 90 days from the date the notice of assessment or reassessment is mailed.

The notice of objection must be in writing and must set out all relevant material facts, reasons and grounds on which the taxpayer is relying. It is important to understand that the onus is on the taxpayer to rebut all of the Minister’s assumptions and findings within the notice of objection.

Failure to object to all of the Minister’s findings will result in the taxpayer’s objection being “incomplete” and the Minister’s obligation is only to review the arguments raised in the notice of objection. This potentially leaves the taxpayer with the unfortunate result of having to pay taxes because some grounds were not raised in the notice of objection.

The Minister will only review those points of objection that are raised in the notice of objection. Consequently, it is advisable that the person drafting the notice of objection consult with the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s accountant and the taxpayer’s lawyer to ensure all points are covered.

Appealing to the Tax Court of Canada

Once the Minister has issued its final ruling on the taxpayer’s objection, he will issue a confirmation or a reassessment. From the date of the issuance of the confirmation or reassessment, the taxpayer has 90 days to appeal to the Tax Court of Canada (the “TCC”).

There are two sets of Rules governing an appeal before the TCC and, depending on the amount of money at issue, the taxpayer may have to choose whether to appeal under the Informal Procedure or the General Procedure.

If the aggregate amount at issue is equal to or less than $12,000.00 or the amount of the loss is equal to or less than $24,000.00, the taxpayer may elect to file his notice of appeal under the Informal Procedure. If the amount at issue exceeds the two thresholds, the taxpayer must then appeal under the General Procedure.

If the taxpayer appeals under the General Procedure Rules, the notice of appeal must state all material facts, all grounds of appeal, alternative arguments and any specific relief sought. The notice of appeal must also refer to the statutory provisions relied upon.

Final Thoughts

For many, dealings with the CRA represent a period of severe stress and frustration. Seeking proper advice and guidance from experienced professionals (lawyer, accountant and others) is essential to insure that your interests are well protected. If you have any questions concerning tax reassessment, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Sébastien Desmarais,
Associate, Tierney Stauffer LLP

 

This article is provided  as an information resource and is not intended to replace advice from a quaified legal professional and should not be relied upon to make decisions. In all cases, contact your legal professional for advice on any matter  referenced in this document before making decisions. Any use of this document does not constitute a lawyer-client relationship.