![]() CLARK POLLARD GAGLIARDI
FOR FIRST QUARTER
2003
To receive a copy of this newsletter, please click here.
To go to checklist please click here
In
a September 12, 2002 Tax Court case, the taxpayer suffered neck injuries in
a motor vehicle accident and was prescribed by a physician to acquire a hot
tub to assist with the movement of her upper body, primarily her neck. CCRA
permitted the costs to renovate the house to install the hot tub but did not
permit the cost of the hot tub ($7,500) as a medical expense. The
Court agreed with CCRA and noted that to qualify the hot tub must be to
assist in walking where the individual has a mobility impairment.
In this case, the primary benefit of the hot tub was improved
upper body movement. Therefore,
even though CCRA permitted the renovation costs, the cost of the hot tub
itself was not permitted. MEDICAL
EXPENSE - SENIOR CITIZEN In
an October 7, 2002 Tax Court case, the Court noted that a taxpayer may be
eligible for a medical expense for the full-time care in a nursing home. The
Court was impressed that the doctor did provide a letter that specified the
taxpayer’s ailments. However,
the letter was lacking in the particulars of the “equipment, facilities or
personnel” required for the taxpayer’s care or training.
Therefore, the letter did not satisfy the requirements of the Income
Tax Act. Editor’s
Comment If
the doctor’s letter had been specific with respect to the “equipment,
facilities or personnel” required, which the institution provided, the
$2,480 per month cost may have been an eligible medical expense. MEDICAL
EXPENSES OUTSIDE CANADA - REIMBURSED Medical
expenses incurred outside Canada, as well as the related travel expenses,
may be creditable medical expenses. Alternatively,
these costs may be eligible for reimbursement.
It was noted in the March 20, 2002 issue of the National Post that
the Ontario Hospital Insurance Program (OHIP) must pay Mr. Smith’s $17,000
medical bill incurred when he went to England for prostate cancer surgery.
Mr. Smith had waited nine months for treatment and surgery in Ottawa.
In a written decision, the Ontario Health Services Review Board
ordered OHIP to pay the bills as Mr. Smith risked irreversible tissue damage
or death had he waited any longer for surgery in Ontario.
DAMAGES In a September 11, 2002 Tax Court case, the taxpayer
received from Ontario Hydro $488,000 for general damages and $388,000 for pre-judgement
interest, both of which were found to be non-taxable. The Court noted that the general damages (tort damages) were
in respect of the wrong done to Dr. A - not in the ultimate loss of his job -
but in the stripping of his responsibilities as a nuclear researcher.
The breach was in the shift from a responsible researcher to an employee
without responsibilities. To be taxable, there must be some closer tie between the
damages and the loss of employment. Also,
the pre-judgement interest has the character of damages, and not a separate
“interest” income item. Taxpayers that are in legal disputes with employers
should consider this judgement to determine the fine line between taxable
receipts for damages “in respect of loss of employment” and non-taxable
receipts for general damages. INVALID
T4 In a May 1, 2002 Tax Court case, the Court found that
the T4 Slip given to Mrs. F by her husband’s business for $18,000 should be
taken off her return because she had never received any employment income. TRUCKING A class-action lawsuit is proceeding on behalf of
truckers, bus drivers and other people who have been using CCRA’s simplified
method of claiming meal allowances of $11 per meal to a maximum of $33 at
one-half or $16.50 per day. This is
being compared to government workers who received non-taxable allowances of
$62.00 per day for their “meal allowance”. Over 1,500 people have sent in their application fee
of $100 by the deadline of November 30, 2002. SHARE
SALE BY EMPLOYEES SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTAL DEVELOPMENT (SR&ED) On October 10, 2002, CCRA introduced Interpretation
Bulletin IT-151R5 which explains SR&ED which, provides a 35% refundable
investment tax credit to Canadian-controlled private corporations, and a 20%
investment tax credit to others. It was noted in the March 30, 2002 issue of the
Financial Post that a study indicates that only 40% of eligible corporations
have claimed their SR&ED. This
may be because of the old prejudice that it is hard to obtain a credit. However, the study notes that the process is now streamlined
and easier than in the past. Often,
CCRA’s SR&ED employees will actually help with the application. It was also noted that 12% of eligible companies did
not even know that SR&ED credits existed. Editor’s
Comment Remember, this is a valuable credit and provinces -
with the possible exception of Alberta and P.E.I. - also provide SR&ED
credits.
In an October 9, 2002 Technical Interpretation, CCRA
reviewed a situation where an individual owns an investment portfolio with a
market value of $200,000 and has a mortgage of $100,000 on his personal
residence. The individual will sell
$100,000 of his investments and use the proceeds to pay off the mortgage.
The individual would then re-borrow the $100,000 and acquire the same or
other interests thereby converting non-deductible interest to deductible
interest.
PERSONAL
SERVICE BUSINESS (PSB) In
a September 13, 2002 Tax Court case, the taxpayer was employed as the accountant
and chief financial officer of Clearly Canadian Beverage Corporation (CCBC).
However, he also provided other services to CCBC through his corporation
(S&C). CCRA took the position that the income received by S&C
was PSB income and, therefore, taxed at top rates, rather than the very
beneficial small business deduction rate. G The Court found that the income was not PSB income
and noted that: 1. The consulting fees
paid to S&C were for out-of-the-ordinary duties that normally consultants
would be hired to perform. 2. The employment
activities of Mr. Ross did not involve these activities. 3. S&C rented the
necessary business tools from CCBC. 4. S&C incurred
operating costs which created a risk of loss. Editor’s
Comments
DETAXERS
- NAILED AGAIN The author of the book “The 10
Secrets Revenue Canada Doesn’t Want You to Know” pleaded guilty in Saskatoon
Provincial Court to charges pertaining to unfiled 1997, 1998 and 1999 tax years.
The Court ordered him to file the returns as well as fining him $12,000.
The Court noted that, “Responsible
citizenship requires that each of us contribute to the government programs
instituted by Parliament”.
SELF-DIRECTED
RRSPs AND MORTGAGES In
an October 8, 2002 Technical Interpretation, CCRA notes that an RRSP may hold a
mortgage on real property owned by the annuitant, or by a non-arm’s length
person. Conditions under which a
mortgage may be a qualified investment for an RRSP include following commercial
practices regarding mortgage terms, interest rates and insurance. Also, in an October 16, 2002 Technical
Interpretation, CCRA notes that where a minority shareholder’s RRSP lends
funds to the employer corporation as a mortgage in respect of real property
administered by an approved lender under the National Housing Act (NHA), and
insured under the NHA or by a corporation offering its services to the public in
Canada, it may qualify as an eligible investment assuming that the individual is
dealing at arm’s length with the corporation. GUARANTEED
INCOME SUPPLEMENTS It was noted in the November 13, 2002 issue of the National Post that a class-action suit has been filed in Quebec Superior Court to force the Federal government to pay possibly several billion dollars in retroactive Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits to more than 300,000 seniors on the basis that the government was negligent in failing to contact seniors who might qualify for this assistance. The Old Age Security Guaranteed Income Supplement is available to low income pensioners. Even though the Human Resources Development Corporation (HRDC) acknowledged gaps in its notification process, it has generally refused to provide retroactive benefits beyond the current practice of one year.
FARM
LOSSES In a September 17, 2002 Tax Court case, the Court
awarded costs of $25,000 against CCRA, in favour of the taxpayer. The issue in the Federal Court was whether this was a
proper awarding of costs. The Court
agreed that it was and noted that the restriction to the farm losses against Mr.
F should never have occurred. Mr. F
was clearly a full-time farmer who had to rely on other sources of income to
finance the farm - as opposed to the “gentleman” farmer that Section 31 is
designed to restrict. The $25,000
is a reasonable amount as this was likely lower than the legal costs incurred. The Court noted that the farm depression, which is
general public knowledge and surely known to the Government of Canada, should
have been considered before this assessment was issued. MORE
GOOD NEWS In an October 17, 2002 Federal Court of Appeal case,
the Federal Court overturned the Tax Court and permitted Mrs. K a full farm loss
from her interest in the farming partnership with her husband, rather than the
“restricted farm loss”.
ELECTRONIC
COMMERCE In July, 2002, CCRA released a Technical Information
Bulletin on the topic of GST/HST and Electronic Commerce (B-090).
The Bulletin includes many examples of the application of GST to Internet
sales. This is important because it
determines whether the sale is subject to the 7% GST.
Corporations registered for GST must collect GST on
the value of passenger vehicles or motor vehicles traded in where the commercial
use is greater than 50%. When the customer is not required to charge GST, the dealer charges GST on the net amount of the sale or lease. For example, an individual goes to a registered car dealer to trade in his car for a new one. The selling price of the new car is $25,000, and the dealer allows $10,000 for the individual’s used car. The dealer will charge GST on $15,000. MARRIAGE
BREAKDOWN -LEGAL FEES CCRA notes that
they will now consider legal costs incurred to obtain spousal support under the
Divorce Act or under the applicable provincial legislation in a separation
agreement to be deductible because it is incurred to enforce a pre-existing
right to support. CCRA also accepts
that legal costs of seeking to obtain child support, an increase in child
support or make child support non-taxable under the Guidelines are also
deductible. T4 SLIPS - GUIDE RC4120filing of the T4 Slip and the Summary Form and notes
that: 1.
In February, 2003 CCRA will start accepting cancellations and amendments
in electronic format for information slips. 2.
T4 Electronic Filing is an option which allows you to create, save,
print, and transmit your electronic T4 information. 3.
Construction businesses have to report amounts paid or credited to
construction subcontractors on a T5018, Summary of Contract Payments,
Information Return. The amounts can
be filed on either a calendar or fiscal-year basis within six months from the
end of the reporting period.
The withholding provisions of the Income Tax Act enable CCRA to collect the tax from the Canadian payor, who is considered to be CCRA’s agent and is liable for tax, interest and penalties if he/she fails to withhold and remit. In a recent
case, the taxpayers were required to withhold on payments for services rendered
in Canada even though the recipient had no Canadian permanent establishment.
Penalties were also successfully applied against the Canadian payor. NATIVE
TAX EXE In a 172-page
March 7, 2002 Federal Court - Trial Division case, Justice Campbell found that
the Federal taxation provisions had no effect with respect to beneficiaries of
Treaty 8 which was entered into between aboriginals of Northern British
Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Southern Northwest Territories.
2002 PERSONAL INCOME TAX RETURN CHECKLIST 2 PERSONAL INCOME TAX QUESTIONNAIREThis is a comprehensive list of possible information require in order to complete your 200 2 Personal Income Tax returnINCOME
DEDUCTIONS
WHOLLY DEPENDENT CHILDREN
ADDITIONAL PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
|
||