Tax Tip Management Fees and Salaries

Below is an excellent article written by Andrews & Co, Chartered Accountants, they are located in Ottawa, Canada:

Tax Tip Management Fees and Salaries

It is important to remember that management fees and salaries paid by taxpayers, usually corporations, must be reasonable to be deductible.

Companies will often “bonus down” profits to the limit of the Small Business Deduction, $500,000, to avoid paying higher rate tax on excess profits.

The Canada Revenue Agency can challenge such bonuses or management fees if in their opinion, the fees are not reasonable. It has been CRA’s assessing practice to allow bonuses or management fees where it is a corporations general practice to distribute profits in this manner AND the recipient of the income is active in the business and has special knowledge, skills etc that helped to earn the income.

In the Neilson Development Company case decision, the Court provided the criteria required to successfully bonus down and the fees to be considered reasonable. In this case, management fees of $300,000 per year were disallowed when paid to a corporation controlled by a spouse. The taxpayer successfully appealed but only because they could prove that the taxpayer met the criteria. The facts won the case, not legal arguments. The circumstances included:

- The management fees included services for budgeting, planning, marketing and being involved in the "hands on" operation
- Management was on site
- How the company operations compared to similar companies
- The effort to earn the fees
- The profitability of the company
- The presence or absence of a contract

It is important that when declaring material or substantial bonuses or management fees, that the facts be documented, there is a contract and the decision is recorded in the corporate Minutes.

What is tax avoidance?

What is tax avoidance? How does it differ from tax planning and aggressive tax planning?

Tax avoidance and tax planning both involve tax reduction arrangements that may meet the specific wording of the relevant legislation. Effective tax planning occurs when the results of these arrangements are consistent with the intent of the law. When tax planning reduces taxes in a way that is inconsistent with the overall spirit of the law, the arrangements are referred to as tax avoidance. The Canada Revenue Agency's interpretation of the term "tax avoidance" includes all unacceptable and abusive tax planning. Aggressive tax planning refers to arrangements that "push the limits" of acceptable tax planning.

Tax avoidance occurs when a person undertakes transactions that contravene specific anti-avoidance provisions. Tax avoidance also includes situations where a person reduces or eliminates tax through a transaction or a series of transactions that comply with the letter of the law but violate the spirit and intent of the law. It was to address these latter situations that the general anti-avoidance rule was enacted in 1988.

How does tax avoidance differ from tax evasion?

Under federal tax laws, taxes may have to be paid, but the laws also provide credits, benefits, refunds, and other entitlements. While in layman's terms tax avoidance and tax evasion would seem to be synonymous, there is a definite distinction under Canadian tax law.
Tax avoidance results when actions are taken to minimize tax, while within the letter of the law, those actions contravene the object and spirit of the law.

Tax evasion typically involves deliberately ignoring a specific part of the law. For example, those participating in tax evasion may under-report taxable receipts or claim expenses that are non-deductible or overstated. They might also attempt to evade taxes by wilfully refusing to comply with legislated reporting requirements. Tax evasion, unlike tax avoidance, has criminal consequences. Tax evaders face prosecution in criminal court.