Watch out for utilizing your company’s earnings to pay private bills

Article content material

If you happen to personal an included enterprise or skilled company, it may be fairly tempting to pay for varied private bills out of your company’s earnings, however doing so is problematic for a few causes.

Article content material

For one factor, these bills wouldn’t be tax deductible to the company until they have been incurred for official functions to earn enterprise or funding earnings. However much more regarding is that you possibly can be hit with a shareholder profit for appropriating company funds for private use, quite than taking them out the conventional means by way of taxable wage, bonus or dividends.

A current tax case, determined final week, handled non-deductible bills, unreported shareholder advantages and gross negligence penalties assessed by the Canada Income Company. The case concerned a Montreal dentist who leases the premises for his dental clinic from a non-public company, which is solely owned by his 93-year-old mom. He’s the company’s president and administrator and holds a normal energy of legal professional for his mom.

Article content material

The dentist’s tax troubles started again in 2009 when the company bought a trip property at Lake Archambault, a preferred trip vacation spot a few two-hour drive north of Montreal within the Laurentian mountains. The acquisition value was $550,000 and the company used $70,000 of its personal funds and borrowed the rest by way of a mortgage.

The CRA reassessed each the company and the dentist’s mom for the 2009 to 2013 taxation years. It imposed gross negligence penalties on the company for claiming non-deductible capital bills together with varied working bills, similar to house insurance coverage, property taxes, faculty taxes and mortgage curiosity, associated to the holiday property.

As well as, it imposed gross negligence penalties on the dentist’s mom for unreported shareholder advantages conferred on her son from the company for the usage of the property. The CRA additionally clawed again the mom’s Outdated Age Safety funds on account of her now-higher earnings, taking into consideration the assessed shareholder profit.

Article content material

The difficulty earlier than the Tax Courtroom was whether or not this trip property was acquired by the company for the aim of incomes earnings or for private use, thus giving rise to a shareholder profit.

The dentist testified that he was on the lookout for a home to renovate, lease out throughout the renovations after which resell for a revenue. The dentist described the efforts made to lease the home and claimed it was listed on at the least two web sites for short-term leases. As proof, he produced two screenshots taken in August 2019 of two rental web sites. One shot confirmed that he had been a member since November 2010, and the opposite since Might 2009.

At trial, the dentist produced a replica of the home’s first lease dated April 10, 2009, which was 12 months in length, from June 2009 to Might 2010. It was rented to his then-spouse. The dentist testified that his spouse “might have continued to lease the home till 2014, when she ceased to be his spouse.” The dentist was requested to call every other tenants of the home throughout the years in query, however was solely in a position to title himself and his former partner.

Article content material

The decide discovered that the 2 preliminary web site listings have been made after the 12-month lease had already been signed along with his partner. Thus the decide did “not take into account these listings to represent good religion makes an attempt to supply the home for lease … (Somewhat) they have been solely a sham and that they present that from the outset the intention was to deceive the CRA.”

The decide decided that there was merely not sufficient proof to conclude that the dentist’s now ex-spouse actually paid the company the lease acknowledged within the lease. The dentist solely produced a desk that he had just lately ready primarily based on financial institution statements, which included all of the rents obtained by the company, most of which associated to the lease paid to the company for his dental follow. He was unable to offer, in his testimony or by referring to the company’s monetary information, a dependable breakdown of the rental earnings of the holiday house for the years in query.

Article content material

The taxpayer then tried to argue that the insurance coverage coverage he took out in 2009 indicated that the home being insured was a “second house occupied by third events.” The annual premium for this coverage was $4,600. A 12 months later, nonetheless, the coverage was renewed and the home was described as a “second house occupied by the insured” and the coverage was categorized as an “proprietor occupant” one, with an annual value of solely $2,000. The dentist testified that he modified the outline for insurance coverage “as a result of it was cheaper,” and never as a result of there had been a change in the usage of the residence, however the decide didn’t purchase that argument.

The decide concluded that, primarily based on the proof, the holiday house was bought by the company and utilized by the company for the private use of its shareholder, her son, his then-wife and their daughters. Though there might need been a number of short-term leases of the home throughout the years in query, the proof didn’t set up, on a stability of possibilities, that this was really the case. Nor did the proof present that his then-spouse really paid any lease throughout the preliminary lease interval of the home.

Article content material

The decide acknowledged that the taxpayer’s intention “has at all times been to make the residence accessible to himself and his partner, for his or her private use. The deceptive listings of the residence on the net, when it was already rented to his partner, even earlier than the sale was closed, and the deceptive description of the usage of the residence within the insurance coverage coverage verify that (the dentist) meant from the outset to attempt to deceive the CRA as to its actual use.”

The decide concluded that the dentist’s earnings tax returns for every of the years in query contained an “incorrect presentation of the details and a false assertion or omission regarding the usage of the residence and the bills related to it.” He characterised it as a “willful omission knowingly made by (the dentist), who’s president and administrator of (the company) and agent of his mom.” Because of this, the CRA’s reassessments of tax owing have been confirmed, together with the gross negligence penalties.

Jamie Golombek, CPA, CA, CFP, CLU, TEP is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Personal Wealth in Toronto. [email protected]

_____________________________________________________________

 For extra tales like this one, join for the FP Investor publication.

______________________________________________________________