Below is a great article written by Rolland Vaive, CA, TEP, CPA www.taxadvice.ca - An excellent accountant based in Ottawa and specializing in complicated tax matters.
______________
Speak to any tax accountant for more than a minute and they'll surely be talking about
holding companies, or HoldCo's for short.
A holding company is not a term
which is defined in the Income Tax Act. It is a term which is used to define a
corporation which holds assets, most often income generating investment assets.
It does not typically carry on any active business operations.
A HoldCo
can arise for a variety of reasons. In the early 1990's, the personal marginal
tax rate in Ontario was slightly higher than 53%, while the corporate rate of
tax was considerably lower than that. High income individuals who had
significant investment assets could realize a tax deferral by transferring their
investment assets to a HoldCo, particularly in situations where they did not
need the income which was being generated by the investments. This breakdown
between the corporate rate of tax and the personal rate of tax lead to many
HoldCo's being formed.
HoldCo's may also come about as an effective means
of creditor proofing profitable operating companies, as a result of Canadian
estate planning, or as a means of avoiding U.S. estate tax and Ontario probate
fees.
Regardless of their origins, the investment income generating
HoldCo is taxed in an unusual manner, which I will attempt to
explain.
The underlying concept of HoldCo taxation is called
"integration". In general terms, integration means that an individual should pay
the same amount of tax on investment income if they earned it personally or if
they earned it through a corporation and withdrew the after-tax income in the
form of dividends. When we look at some real numbers, you will see that this in
fact generally holds true. However, it is possible to exploit some breakdowns in
integration, at which time it may become quite beneficial to earn your
investment income through a HoldCo.
Let's look at the theory. We often
hear about how corporations are taxed at low tax rates. In situations where a
private company is earning income from active business operations carried on in
Canada, that is quite true. In these situations, the rate of tax would be a flat
tax rate of 18.620% if the company was resident in Ontario. The other provinces
have similarly low rates of tax on "active business income". The low rate of tax
does not apply to investment income, which is what the HoldCo would be
generating.
For an Ontario resident private company generating investment
income, the combined Federal and Provincial rate of tax would be a flat 49.7867%
on all forms of investment income, other than dividends from other Canadian
corporations. Bear in mind that only 1/2 of capital gains are included in
income, so the effective corporate rate of tax on capital gains would be
24.8934%.
A portion of the tax that HoldCo pays each year on its'
investment income goes into a notional pool called the RDTOH pool. This is an
acronym for "refundable dividend tax on hand". Of the 49% rate of tax that is
paid by the corporation, 26.67% will go into the RDTOH pool each year and is
tracked on the corporation's Federal tax return. If HoldCo pays a taxable
dividend to its' shareholders in a particular year, it gets back part of its
RDTOH pool. More specifically, the company will get back $1 for every $3 of
dividends that it pays. This RDTOH recovery is called a dividend refund, and
would be a direct reduction of the corporation's tax liability for the year. If
the corporation pays a large dividend to a shareholder, the dividend refund
would also be large and may result in the company actually getting money back
from the Canada Revenue Agency. In short, the HoldCo will pay a large tax
liability on its investment income up front, but it can get a large portion of
it back at a later date if it pays out dividends. The dividend refund is an
attempt to compensate for the fact that the dividend will attract tax in the
hands of the shareholder. Without this mechanism, the 48% rate of tax on
investment income combined with the tax paid by the shareholder on the dividend
that they receive would result in an onerous rate of tax.
It is possible
that a second notional tax pool may arise in HoldCo if it is generating capital
gains on its' investment assets. You will recall that only 1/2 of capital gains
are included in income. The other 1/2 portion of the capital gain which is not
included in income will get added to the capital dividend account, or "CDA", of
HoldCo. The CDA balance is something which needs to get tracked by the company
on a regular basis, since it does not appear anywhere on the company's financial
statements or tax returns. The CDA is important because it is possible for
HoldCo to pay a dividend to a shareholder and elect to pay it out of the CDA
balance, making the dividend tax-free to the shareholder. If a company realizes
a capital gain of $10,000 , only $5,000 will be included in taxable income, with
the remaining $5,000 being added to the company's CDA balance. The company could
then pay a $5,000 dividend to the shareholder. By electing to do so out of the
CDA balance, the shareholder would not be taxed on the dividend.
Lets
look at this in conjunction with the RDTOH balance. If the company pas a
dividend to a shareholder out of the CDA balance, it is tax free to the
shareholder, but it is not going to generate a dividend refund to HoldCo. HoldCo
only gets a dividend refund if the dividend is a taxable dividend to the
shareholder.
Armed with this theory, we can look at a live example of how
this would work. Lets consider the example of an Ontario resident individual who
is holding shares that have an adjusted cost base (i.e. tax cost) of $1,000.
These shares have experienced a dramatic increase in value, and are now worth
$100,000. The individual is going to sell these shares and would like to know if
there is any advantage to doing so through a HoldCo. The individual is in the
highest marginal tax rate (currently 31.310 % on Canadian source dividends and
46.410 % on everything else). The individual wants the after tax money, so they
would withdraw everything from the HoldCo once the shares are sold. If they were
to go the HoldCo route, they would elect to transfer their shares to HoldCo at
their $1,000 tax cost prior to the sale (to transfer them at fair market value
would defeat the purpose), and would have the capital gain realized within
HoldCo. In the process of transferring the shares to HoldCo, they could arrange
to have HoldCo issue a note payable to them equal to their original $1,000 tax
cost.
Integration tells us that selling the shares through a HoldCo
should give us the same result as selling the shares personally. If the
individual wants to get the money out of the HoldCo following the sale of the
shares, they would elect to take part of the proceeds from the share sale out of
HoldCo as a non-taxable repayment of their $1,000 note and as a non-taxable
payment our of the CDA balance. The remaining cash would be withdrawn from the
company as a taxable dividend, leading to a dividend refund in HoldCo.
As
this example illustrates, there is no advantage to using the HoldCo to sell the
shares even without considering the professional fees associated with the
HoldCo. So why do it?
Well, there may be some good reasons for doing it.
Firstly, the example assumes that the individual withdraws all of the cash from
HoldCo in the year of the share sale, and at a time when they are in the highest
marginal tax rate. If the cash from the sale was left in the corporation and
withdrawn as a dividend a year or two later when the individual was not in the
highest marginal tax rate, then the results may be quite good. The HoldCo would
get the dividend refund at a rate of $1 for every $3 of dividends in that later
year when the dividend is paid, and the shareholder may not incur a significant
tax liability on the dividend that he or she receives.
Alternatively, it
may be possible to transfer the shares to HoldCo well before a sale is to
happen. In this way, future growth in the value of the shares could be shifted
to other family members. When the shares are sold, the growth in value since the
time of the transfer could be paid as a dividend to these other family members.
If these family members are in a low marginal tax rate, they would not incur
much tax on the dividend, and the results could be quite good when compared to
the alternative where the shares continue to be held by the individual and sold
by him or her personally.
There are a host of issues to be considered
before embarking on such an exercise, including the corporate attribution rules
and the tax on split income to name but a few.
As always, seek
professional advice before undertaking any steps and do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.
This blog provides relevant information on Business Law, Incorporation, Sale of Businesses, Corporate Reorganization, Family Trusts, Holding Companies, Wills and Estate Planning (Estate Freeze) and related business matters. For more information, please contact our Founder & CEO + Business Lawyer, Hugues Boisvert at hboisvert@hazlolaw.com or at +1.613.747.2459 x 304
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
The 21-Year Rule is Taxing on Family Trusts
Family trusts are popular estate and succession planning vehicles for good reason: they can be versatile and effective tools to help manage family wealth and taxes.
But many Canadian family trusts are now well into their second decade and need attention to avoid significant—even devastating—tax bills triggered by the Income Tax Act’s “21-year rule.” “This rule,” says Angela Ross, associate partner, tax services, PwC, “states in general that any family trust, whether it is created during someone’s lifetime or on the death of a person, has to treat itself as having disposed of its property every 21 years.”
In Canada, when someone dies, they are seen as having disposed of their property (except property left to their spouse) at fair market value and their estate pays taxes on any gains realized on that property. Any property then acquired by their child will again be deemed disposed on the death of that child. Were it not for the “21-year rule,” a family trust could hold property for multiple generations without ever incurring tax on the death of a generation.
So every 21 years in a family trust’s “life,” the CRA looks at the property in a trust as if it were the property of someone who had just died. “When the 21 years are up, if the trust holds property on that date, it is deemed to have disposed of the property at its current market value and has to pay taxes on it. Say the trust owns property that had an original cost of $10 but its value on the 21-year anniversary is $100. That trust will be deemed to have realized a $90 capital gain.” As we enter 2011, many Canadian family trusts are approaching the 21st anniversary of their creation and families need to be aware that in most cases, with proper, advanced planning, steps can be taken to defer the tax.
“A trust can generally transfer its assets to Canadian resident beneficiaries on a tax-deferred basis prior to the 21-year anniversary, meaning it can transfer its assets to beneficiaries without triggering the tax on the gain,” says Ross. “So if the trust owns property with a cost of $10, and at 20 years, its fair market value is $100, the trust can transfer the entire asset to its Canadian resident beneficiaries at its $10 price. The trust disposition would reflect $10 of proceeds and not the $90 gain. The taxes on the $90 capital gain can be deferred until that beneficiary sells or dies.” Ross advises family trusts to begin planning for the transfer at least a year in advance of the 21-year anniversary—although in more complex cases two or more years will be needed.
Some important points to keep in mind include: With the exception of Canadian real estate held in a trust, the general rule is you can’t transfer the trust’s assets at cost to beneficiaries who are not Canadian residents. But even if you have non-Canadian resident beneficiaries, depending on the terms of the trust and situation, it may be possible to do some planning to get the assets out for the benefit of that non-resident. It can be very complicated, so start early.
If timed properly and you have the right tax scenario, you can transfer the trust’s assets to grandchildren rather than your children and thus defer the taxes for another generation. In the case of a family trust owning a business that is transferring shares to children or grandchildren, it’s prudent to have a shareholders’ agreement in place before the children or grandchildren receive the shares.
Even if your family trust is nowhere near 21 years old, having it reviewed carefully by an expert now can be a smart move. “There are a few provisions in the Tax Act that could prevent you from doing the rollout before 21 years,” says Ross.
“Most important is 75(2)—the revocable trust provision. It applies if the trust received property from any person who is a capital beneficiary of the trust or is a person who decides when the trust property is disposed of or to whom it eventually goes. It’s a brutal provision that may prevent the rollout of any assets to beneficiaries before 21 years and it’s one people need to be aware of.” Although there’s nothing that can be done to change it, with enough time, it’s possible to develop strategies to fund the eventual tax liability. “The sooner you know you have this issue, the better,” says Ross. “Alternative planning may be possible.
You could implement a reorganization at say 10 years to stop the growth in a bad trust and potentially start the growth in a good trust and minimize the tax hit that’s going to happen at 21 years.”
written and published by Ms. Angela M. Ross from PriceWaterHouseCooper(PWC)
But many Canadian family trusts are now well into their second decade and need attention to avoid significant—even devastating—tax bills triggered by the Income Tax Act’s “21-year rule.” “This rule,” says Angela Ross, associate partner, tax services, PwC, “states in general that any family trust, whether it is created during someone’s lifetime or on the death of a person, has to treat itself as having disposed of its property every 21 years.”
In Canada, when someone dies, they are seen as having disposed of their property (except property left to their spouse) at fair market value and their estate pays taxes on any gains realized on that property. Any property then acquired by their child will again be deemed disposed on the death of that child. Were it not for the “21-year rule,” a family trust could hold property for multiple generations without ever incurring tax on the death of a generation.
So every 21 years in a family trust’s “life,” the CRA looks at the property in a trust as if it were the property of someone who had just died. “When the 21 years are up, if the trust holds property on that date, it is deemed to have disposed of the property at its current market value and has to pay taxes on it. Say the trust owns property that had an original cost of $10 but its value on the 21-year anniversary is $100. That trust will be deemed to have realized a $90 capital gain.” As we enter 2011, many Canadian family trusts are approaching the 21st anniversary of their creation and families need to be aware that in most cases, with proper, advanced planning, steps can be taken to defer the tax.
“A trust can generally transfer its assets to Canadian resident beneficiaries on a tax-deferred basis prior to the 21-year anniversary, meaning it can transfer its assets to beneficiaries without triggering the tax on the gain,” says Ross. “So if the trust owns property with a cost of $10, and at 20 years, its fair market value is $100, the trust can transfer the entire asset to its Canadian resident beneficiaries at its $10 price. The trust disposition would reflect $10 of proceeds and not the $90 gain. The taxes on the $90 capital gain can be deferred until that beneficiary sells or dies.” Ross advises family trusts to begin planning for the transfer at least a year in advance of the 21-year anniversary—although in more complex cases two or more years will be needed.
Some important points to keep in mind include: With the exception of Canadian real estate held in a trust, the general rule is you can’t transfer the trust’s assets at cost to beneficiaries who are not Canadian residents. But even if you have non-Canadian resident beneficiaries, depending on the terms of the trust and situation, it may be possible to do some planning to get the assets out for the benefit of that non-resident. It can be very complicated, so start early.
If timed properly and you have the right tax scenario, you can transfer the trust’s assets to grandchildren rather than your children and thus defer the taxes for another generation. In the case of a family trust owning a business that is transferring shares to children or grandchildren, it’s prudent to have a shareholders’ agreement in place before the children or grandchildren receive the shares.
Even if your family trust is nowhere near 21 years old, having it reviewed carefully by an expert now can be a smart move. “There are a few provisions in the Tax Act that could prevent you from doing the rollout before 21 years,” says Ross.
“Most important is 75(2)—the revocable trust provision. It applies if the trust received property from any person who is a capital beneficiary of the trust or is a person who decides when the trust property is disposed of or to whom it eventually goes. It’s a brutal provision that may prevent the rollout of any assets to beneficiaries before 21 years and it’s one people need to be aware of.” Although there’s nothing that can be done to change it, with enough time, it’s possible to develop strategies to fund the eventual tax liability. “The sooner you know you have this issue, the better,” says Ross. “Alternative planning may be possible.
You could implement a reorganization at say 10 years to stop the growth in a bad trust and potentially start the growth in a good trust and minimize the tax hit that’s going to happen at 21 years.”
written and published by Ms. Angela M. Ross from PriceWaterHouseCooper(PWC)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)