To Bonus, Or Not To Bonus, That Is Still The Question

For many years, accountants for Canadian-controlled private corporations ("CCPCs") have followed the old adage of advising their clients to "bonus down" to the Small Business Limit (the amount of active business income earned in Canada that is subject to the lowest corporate tax rate), as it generally provided the owner-manager/shareholder with higher after-tax cash than the alternative of paying tax in the corporation, and then ultimately paying dividends to the owner-manager/shareholder.

This is because corporate income subject to the general tax rate was poorly integrated when such income was eventually paid as a dividend to the owner-manager/shareholder.

Table 1 roughly displays the lack of integration for a corporation earning $1,000,000 of taxable income in the late 1990's.

Table 1 - Approximate 1990's Example

 

With the introduction of the eligible dividend regime effective January 1, 2006, tax integration for high rate corporate income has greatly improved.  Table 2 provides an illustration of tax integration for an Alberta based CCPC with $1,000,000 of taxable income. 

The first option in each year displayed is to pay a bonus of $500,000 down to the Small Business Limit (which is now $500,000 effective January 1, 2009) and extract the remaining surplus out as a non-eligible dividend. 

The second option in each year displayed is not to pay a bonus, but rather subject the corporate income to the lower rate of tax on the first $500,000 of corporate profits and the high rate of corporate tax on the next $500,000. The after-tax corporate surplus would then be extracted using a combination of non-eligible dividends and eligible dividends.

As illustrated, the total after tax cash is only $3,600 to $4,100 higher between 2009 and 2012 for the Bonus option versus the No Bonus option.  Accordingly, one could say that for Alberta based CCPCs, the tax system is now essentially integrated. (Note that the general corporate tax rate for Alberta corporations is declining for every year from 2009 to settle at 25% in 2012. Similarly, the personal tax rate for Alberta resident individuals on eligible dividends is increasing every year from 2010 to settle at 19.29% in 2012).

Click here for Table 2.

What if the owner-manager/shareholder has no immediate need for funds? Some practitioners have suggested to us that bonusing down to the Small Business Limit still provides higher after-tax cash than retaining such cash in the corporation. We decided to test this strategy in the following example illustrated in Table 3. Again, suppose a CCPC has $1,000,000 of taxable income, and the owner-manager/shareholder has no immediate need for funds. In this case, the two options are as follows:

1.  Pay a bonus of $500,000 down to the Small Business Limit and retain the remaining after-tax corporate income within the corporation.  In this case, the owner-manager/shareholder will have some after-tax cash in their hands personally.

2.  The second option is to retain the income in the corporation, i.e. not to pay a bonus or a dividend.

In order to compare apples to apples, let's further assume that the corporate retained earnings in both options above are paid out in 2012 by way of a dividend (2012 was purposely selected as the year to withdraw the corporate surplus since this will be the year, as mentioned above, that the eligible dividend rate is settling at its highest rate of 19.29% - an increase of approximately 5% from the 2009 rate of 14.55%).

Click here for Table 3.

As Table 3 illustrates, the cumulative after-tax cash is approximately $50,000 higher in the bonus option, or about 2%.  In addition, under option 2, the lower eligible dividend rates from 2009 to 2011 are foregone in favor of retaining funds within the corporation.

However, under option 1, the bonus payment in 2009 to 2012 results in a "prepayment" of tax.  In other words, under option 1, the owner-manager/shareholder is prepaying taxes of about $50,000 to $70,000 in each of 2009 to 2012, in order to save $50,000 in taxes in 2012 when the accumulated surplus is paid out.

To elaborate, the first $500,000 of taxable income is subject to the small business tax rate under both option 1 and 2.  If the next $500,000 is paid out as a bonus in 2009, it would be subject to a 39% personal tax rate in Alberta.  However, if this $500,000 is retained (and therefore taxed) in the corporation, it would be subject to a 29% general corporate tax rate in 2009.  Therefore, there is a $50,000 "prepayment" of tax in the bonus option, or 10% of $500,000.

To put it another way, if the $500,000 is retained in the corporation, there is a tax deferral of 10% until such funds are eventually paid to the owner-manager/shareholder (by way of a dividend).  This tax deferral increases steadily to 14% by 2012 when the general corporate tax rate declines to 25%.  This deferral of tax is significant and our analysis, of course, ignores the time value of money and the rate of return that could be earned on the deferred tax.

The decision to bonus or not will ultimately depend on whether the owner-manager/shareholder needs funds personally.  If the answer is "no" then there is a very compelling argument to not bonus.  Of course, not bonusing will come with some cons (such as increased corporate income tax installments and increased cash in the company) but such cons can be easily dealt with by way of good cash management and additional planning.  CCPCs that also rely on refundable SR&ED tax credits should be careful about paying high rate corporate tax since this may reduce their refundable tax credits.  In addition, Alternative Minimum Tax ("AMT") should always be considered when paying out dividends. With regards to both Option 1 and 2 in Table 3, there is no AMT payable in 2012 when the accumulated earnings are paid out.

Bill 53 Receives Royal Assent! - Lunch Seminars on New Tax Planning Opportunities

Further to our Blog of October 27, 2009, Bill 53 - Professional Corporations Statutes Amendment Act - has received Royal Assent today and is expected to be proclaimed (pursuant to an Order-in-Council) soon.

As previously discussed, these long awaited changes allow for common law partners / spouses and children of a professional and/or a special purpose trust (of which minor children of the professional can be the only beneficiaries) to own non-voting shares of a professional corporation.

The tax advantages can be quite significant.  As an example, a professional corporation can now pay approximately $30,000 in dividends to the common law partner / spouse shareholder with nominal personal tax and little tax risk assuming that the common-law partner / spouse has no other income.  Previously, such income splitting was often restricted to salaries paid to a spouse/common-law partner, which was always subject to a reasonability test.  Note that dividends paid to a minor child will be subject to the so-called "kiddie tax" which essentially renders this type of income splitting ineffective.

However, if the professional has children who are of the age of majority (18), the professional will now have the ability to income split with them as well.  This will allow the professional to pay for expenditures such as university or provide other such assistance in a tax efficient manner.

In addition to the planning noted above, the tax team at Moodys has developed solutions that consider the following in light of the new Acts:

1. Income splitting;
2. Valuation issues;
3. Estate planning;
4. Retention of control; and
5. Asset protection.

Moodys will be holding two complimentary lunch seminars on December 11 and 16 from 12:00 to 1:15 pm where the new Acts and our thoughts on planning will be discussed.

Please contact our office at 403-693-5100 to reserve a spot.

Personal Use Assets Owned by a Corporation

As mentioned in our blog of September 29, 2009, one of the most common errors that we identify during our review of private corporations is the corporate ownership of personal use assets. The shareholders of the corporation will often believe that it is tax efficient to purchase assets inside the corporation that would otherwise involve the withdrawal of funds from the corporation to purchase such assets (which would be a taxable withdrawal). Unfortunately, the tax consequence of the acquisition of personal use property by a corporation is not pretty. We often see vacation homes, automobiles, boats, art collections, etc. owned by the corporation. Certainly the most common examples we see are vacation property and in some unusual cases the primary residence of the shareholder(s).

There has been no shortage of tax jurisprudence involving this type of issue. The biggest tax consequence is that the shareholder(s) will usually have been considered to have received a taxable benefit from the corporation. In other words, the corporation conferred a benefit on the shareholders. The obvious question becomes how to calculate the quantum of the benefit.

In Mullen v. The Minister of National Revenue 90 DTC 1551, certain individual shareholders of a holding company, which in turned owned shares of a subsidiary company, were reassessed by the Minister of National Revenue for a shareholder benefit for the use of a California condominium that the subsidiary company owned and the individuals rarely used. For the days that the individuals actually used the condo, they had included $100 each / day in their income. The Minister reassessed the individuals for the vacant days as well. However, upon appeal, the individuals were found to have not received a benefit during the vacant days. In practice, this was often found to be an acceptable way to compute the taxable benefit.....a reasonable rent or hotel rate that would be charged to arm’s length parties.

However, in cases since Mullen and in particular two significant cases – Youngman v. The Queen 90 DTC (FCA) and Fingold v. The Queen 97 DTC 5449 (FCA) - the Court found that fair market value rental was not the correct methods to determine the quantum of the shareholder benefit. Instead, the Court determined in both cases that an equity rate of return on the personal use assets was the correct standard to determine the benefit. In other words, what price would the shareholder have had to pay, in similar circumstances, to get the same benefit from a company of which he was not a shareholder. This, of course, will be always a question of fact, but following the legal principles as set out above, can lead to some staggering shareholder benefit inclusions which far exceed fair market value rentals. A recent case – Arpeg Holdings Ltd. v. The Queen (FCA) 2008 DTC 6087, recently challenged the appropriateness of the cost of capital approach to computing the shareholder benefit. However, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed such a challenge. The Canada Revenue Agency confirms that it calculates the quantum of the benefit using the rate of return method as stated in Interpretation Bulletin IT-432R2 (see paragraph 11).

In addition to the taxable benefits, when dealing with personal use real estate property, additional tax consequences can result given that the fact that the principal residence exemption will not be available upon an ultimate disposition of the property by the corporation. (As a gentle reminder, the principal residence exemption can be utilized by individual Canadian residents to the extent that they habitually use the property as their personal residence and the property is not a rental property). Any surplus removed from the corporation will likely result in certain taxation amounts as well.

Accordingly, personal use property owned by a corporation can be a tremendous headache with very little planning available to offset the negative consequences. Our usual recommendation is to always remove personal use property from a corporation so as to relieve oneself from the significant taxable benefits and headaches that surround this matter.

Caution!