Canadians Must Hold Governments Accountable For Their Spending of Tax Revenue

The average Canadian family’s largest expense is taxes.

Therefore it should not be unreasonable that Canadians expect all levels of government to not waste their tax dollars, money taken off their paychecks and paid into the system.

Whether tax dollars are wasted when a government pays a negotiation bonus to unions, or if they have to pay private companies a fine after breaking contracts with them, governments must do a better job at keeping the optics above-board and avoid $200,000 moving expenses or $1300 a person dinners altogether!

But they don’t, or they can’t, and we, as Canadians have come to expect that from our elected officials.

If governments want to spend fast and loose with money, let it be their own, or at the very least taxes off of non-Canadians – like withholding taxes, or something of the like.

But if we, as Canadians do not hold these governments accountable for their spending of our taxes, we allow them to continue to do this and they will continue to do so.

If we held our elected officials to a higher standard and used the opportunity to remove governments who wasted taxpayer dollars immediately, it would send a message to the next government that they have to spend wisely.

This information came out in the late summer months from the Fraser Institute, an economic think-tank.

To clarify, when referring to taxes, its not just income taxes, but all the taxes Canadian Taxpayers make to all levels of governments (federal, provincial, and local), including both visible and hidden taxes— everything from income taxes, which are less than a third of the total, to payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, health taxes, fuel taxes, vehicle taxes, import taxes, alcohol taxes, and much more.

In a recent report published by the Fraser Institute, they tracked the total tax bill of the average Canadian family from 1961 to 2014.

For 2014, they estimated that the average Canadian family (including unattached Canadians) earned $79,010 in income and paid $33,272 in total taxes—or 42.1% of income—while just 36.6% went to food, clothing, and shelter combined.

Indeed, Canadian families spend more on taxes than the basic necessities of life.

But it wasn’t always this way.

Back in 1961, the first year the Fraser Institute started tracking this data, the average Canadian family paid a much smaller portion of its household income in taxes (33.5%) while spending proportionately more on the basic necessities (56.5%).

Since 1961, Canadians’ total tax bills have increased by 1,886%, dwarfing increases in shelter costs (1,366%), clothing (819%), and food (561%). Even after accounting for inflation (the change in overall prices), the tax bill shot up 149.2% over the period.

And now taxes eat up more income than any other single family expense.

So why should Canadians care, aside from the fact that we work really hard to earn an income, and pay these taxes?

With more money going to the government, families have less to spend on things of their own choosing, whether it’s a new car, technological gadget, or family vacation. They also have less money available to save for retirement and their children’s education, or to pay down household debt.

While there’s no doubt that taxes help fund important government services, the issue is the amount of taxes that governments use compared to what we get in return.

To make an informed assessment, you must have a complete understanding of all the taxes you pay. Unfortunately, it’s not so straightforward because the different levels of government levy such a wide range of taxes—with many taxes buried in consumer prices and hard to discern.

Armed with this knowledge, we can hold our governments more accountable for the resources they extract and continue a public debate about the overall tax burden, the amount and scope of government spending, and whether we’re getting our money’s worth.

Otherwise, taxes will continue to increase.

So why is this important to us?

It is important because we understand that taxation is a necessity in order to have a healthy, wealthy, productive society for everyone, and in paying taxes there are circumstances which arise that make the system disadvantages to some Canadians.

Unlike our neighbours to the south who shoot elected officials for spending money, we are much more in control of our emotions (plus, no guns, eh?) so we need to hold them accountable in different ways, such as, not re-electing them. and going to public debates, and letting the officials that we elect know that they can no longer waste our money!

We can fix this.

The Truth and Myths Around the CRA’s Taxpayer Relief Program

There is quite a lot of information on the Internet around the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) Taxpayer Relief Program (formerly known as fairness).  Understandably, there is also a lot of misinformation around this program.  After having spent almost 11 years working in the CRA – beginning as an entry-level collector and working my way up through the division to a team leader before taking my MBA and heading into the private sector –  I have learned quite a lot about how the Taxpayer Relief program actually works.Myth vs Reality

This post will identify the key objectives of the program straight from the CRA, and then highlights some common myths about the program and the actual fact about why it makes sense to invest considerable time and effort into an application, or engage the services of someone who knows the program inside and out.

The Taxpayer Relief program was set up to allow for the Minister of National Revenue to grant relief from penalty and/or interest when the following types of situations prevent a taxpayer (individual or corporation) from meeting their tax obligations:

  • Extraordinary circumstances;
  • Actions of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA);
  • Inability to pay or financial hardship;
  • Other circumstances

The program distinguishes between “cancelling” and “waiving” of penalties and/or interest as the CRA understands that granting relief to a taxpayer only to see them smothering in penalties and interest again is an exercise in futility.

The term “cancel” refers to a penalty or interest amount that is assessed or charged for which relief is granted, in whole or in part, by the CRA.

The term “waive” refers to a penalty or interest amount that is not yet assessed or charged for which relief is granted, in whole or in part, by the CRA.

The term “Taxpayer” includes individual, employer or payer, corporation, partnership, organization, trust, estate, goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) registrant or claimant.

Now, you or your client, has been charged penalties and / or interest and you want to know if you qualify.  Look no further than the CRA website, and their section on Taxpayer Relief, here.

Circumstances that may warrant relief include;

Extraordinary circumstances

Penalties or interest may be cancelled or waived in whole or in part when they result from circumstances beyond a taxpayer’s control.  Extraordinary circumstances that may have prevented a taxpayer from making a payment when due, filing a return on time, or otherwise complying with a tax obligation include, but are not limited to, the following examples:

  • Natural or human-made disasters, such as a flood or fire;
  • Civil disturbances or disruptions in services, such as a postal strike;
  • Serious illness or accident; and
  • Serious emotional or mental distress, such as death in the immediate family.

Actions of the CRA

The CRA may also cancel or waive penalties or interest when they result primarily from CRA actions, including:

  • Processing delays that result in taxpayers not being informed, within a reasonable time, that an amount was owing;
  • Errors in CRA material which led a taxpayer to file a return or make a payment based on incorrect information;
  • Incorrect information provided to a taxpayer by the CRA (usually in writing);
  • Errors in processing;
  • Delays in providing information, resulting in taxpayers not being able to meet their tax obligations in a timely manner; and
  • Undue delays in resolving an objection or an appeal, or in completing an audit.

Inability to pay or financial hardship

The CRA may, in circumstances where there is a confirmed inability to pay amounts owing, consider waiving or cancelling interest in whole or in part to enable taxpayers to pay their account. For example, this could occur when:

  • A collection has been suspended because of an inability to pay caused by the loss of employment and the taxpayer is experiencing financial hardship;
  • A taxpayer is unable to conclude a payment arrangement because the interest charges represent a significant portion of the payments; or
  • Payment of the accumulated interest would cause a prolonged inability to provide basic necessities (financial hardship) such as food, medical help, transportation, or shelter; consideration may be given to cancelling all or part of the total accumulated interest.

Consideration would not generally be given to cancelling a penalty based on an inability to pay or financial hardship unless an extraordinary circumstance prevented compliance, or an exceptional situation existed. For example, when a business is experiencing extreme financial difficulty and enforcement of such penalties would jeopardize the continuity of its operations, the jobs of the employees, and the welfare of the community as a whole, consideration may be given to providing relief of the penalties.

Other circumstances

The CRA may also grant relief if a taxpayer’s circumstances do not fall within the situations described above.

The CRA expects these guidelines to be used when applying for relief and that the requests are made within the deadlines for requesting relief, which is limited to any period that ended within 10 years before the calendar year in which a request is submitted or an income tax return is filed.   The 10-year limitation period rolls forward every January 1st.

If filed using the correct form, with sufficient supporting documentation, a response from the Taxpayer Relief Program can take anywhere from 3 months to 2 years due to the amount of requests.  In order to ensure that you are making the best claim possible, you really should engage the services of a professional, as they would be able to assess whether or not your request is sufficient, and they would ensure that you meet all the other conditions which must be in place for the CRA to review and consider your application.

At the end of the day, if you have a reasonable chance of being successful under this program, the investment made to have it written, reviewed or monitored by an expert is a worthwhile expenditure.

Now let’s have a look at some common myths around this program which are floating around the Internet.

Myths

Myth: That the CRA’s Taxpayer Relief program is a one time program and that you had better take your best shot the time you decide to apply.

Reality: Not true,  This program is available to all Canadians who have been charged penalties and / or interest and as such, they have the right to ask for relief each and every time it is warranted.  The Taxpayer Relief Group do not maintain collection inventories and as such they review each case on the merit of its submission without any influence from the permanent collections diary or the collector assigned to the case.

Myth: That the CRA’s Taxpayer Relief Program is used in order for the CRA and a taxpayer to negotiate a deal which would resolve the taxpayer’s debt issue by settling the debt and accepting less than the actual amount owed to them.

Reality: Never, ever, ever!  The CRA does NOT settle debts outside of bankruptcy or a proposal, and they certainly do not use the taxpayer relief program for this purpose.  As a matter of fact, I can speak of a first hand experience where a collector used the word “settle” in the permanent collection diary of a corporation which had paid a principle tax debt of $650,000, because they wanted to fight the $775,000 in penalties and interest through Taxpayer Relief.  The CRA sent back the $650,000 and re-opened negotiation with the corporation because they did not want to set the precedent of settling tax debts through the Taxpayer Relief Program.

Myth: I cannot afford to pay my taxes, so I am not going to file my tax return, and then when I have a debt, I can ask for relief because I had no money?

Reality:  Failure to file a tax return is a criminal offence which can result in prosecution, so you should always file, and be clear to the CRA upfront that money is tight.  But before an application is made to the Taxpayer Relief Program, all outstanding returns must be filed up to date, and all installments must be accounted for.  Otherwise, the application is set aside until everything is current.

Myth: Having a disability or illness from birth qualifies me for Taxpayer Relief.

Reality: Probably not.  If you have managed to conduct your affairs for a period of time without any tax issues, but then something happens which cases the accumulation of penalties and interest, you cannot use your disability or illness when applying for relief, unless something happened during the period in which the penalties and / or interest were applied as a result of a worsening of your disability / illness.  In that case, you would need to substantiate this with supporting letters from your doctors and specialists.  

Myth:  I met with someone who is going to write a letter to the CRA asking for relief and they have sent me the letter to review.  If I sign it, and they send it off, am I now being considered for relief?

Reality:  Not any more.   Years ago, taxpayers were able to send in letters to the fairness department which contained their reasons for asking for relief and some would include supporting documentation, while others would not.  However, since the CRA revamped the Taxpayer Relief Program, they require that the form RC4288 be included in the package or the claim will be rejected.

Myth:  I need to be pre-qualified for the CRA Taxpayer Relief Program.

Reality: No.  You can determine if you may qualify, or you can seek a professional to help you determine if you have grounds for relief, but there is no pre-qualification of this program.

Myth: If my claim is rejected, then I have to pay the penalties and interest.

Reality:  You should make arrangements to pay the penalties and interest in any case in order to stop the interest clock from ticking should the claim be denied – wherever possible, however, the Taxpayer Relief Program allows for a second-level review to be performed (usually with additional information provided) and there is an option for judicial review should the second level review be unfavourable.

 

So take some time to look around when you are considering an application under the Taxpayer Relief Program and make sure that if you engage someone you do so for the right reasons.

2018 Federal Budget Highlights: 12 Changes Related to Taxation, the CRA, and you, the Canadian Taxpayer

The Federal Liberal government has just unveiled their 3rd budget, and in doing so will be increasing spending by roughly $20 billion dollars, bringing the federal deficit to roughly $670 billion dollars.

Looking at the tax issues, here are the main items which come from the budget this afternoon;

  1. 5-Week “Take-it-or-leave-it” Paternity Leave.

The government implemented a 5-week “take it or leave it” parental leave, pretty much like what Quebec has, in order to entice more dads to take paternity leave.  This would begin June 2019 (not sure why it takes this long to implement) and the Liberals expect it to cost taxpayers $1.2 billion dollars.

What this does not do is change the corporate culture which deters dads from taking time off, nor does it entice more moms to join the workforce.

What might have helped, would be more available daycare spaces, or fixing the Live-in Caregiver program which worked very well until it didn’t.

2.  Throwing bad money after bad money – Phoenix Pay system

If you have been following the Phoenix payroll fiasco that has been going on in the CRA, you would know that the CRA has already spent a lot of money on a payroll system which didn’t work, and then a ton of money to try and fix it.

Now, the Liberals have announced that it intends to eventually move away from Phoenix and explore the “next generation of the federal government’s pay system, but before doing so, the Liberals provided $16 million over the next 2 years to “research” a new pay system.

I’ll do that on my own, for half that amount.!

While “researching,” the CRA will now have $431.4 million over 6 years to try to fix the existing Phoenix system.

When you add the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Liberal government has already invested in fixing the Phoenix pay system, and the researching costs, and the budgeted costs, you will come to a figure of roughly $900 million on a system that this government will move away from.

This system was supposed to save the government roughly $70 million per year, starting in the 2016-17 fiscal year, and the Auditor General even said that scrapping the pay system would be the worst thing the government could do because if they start from scratch, they could have the same issues with another system!

3.  Help for the CRA to answer their phones!

The Liberal government is providing $206 million over 5-years to the CRA to help the Agency answer their phones.  This issue came up in November when the Auditor General noted that the CRA’s call centre only picked up the phone about one-third of the time.

The money will be used to improve the CRA’s telephone service, improve their online services and increase the number of community-based programs which help low-income people prepare their tax forms.  Ideally the call centre hours will also be expanded, and more training will be provided to ensure that more correct answers are provided.

4.  Private Company Passive Investment Income

Beginning taxation year 2019, there will be a phasing out of access to the small business deduction for Canadian Controlled Private Corporations (CCPC’s) which earn more than $50,000 of investment income.  The current rules for the refundable tax on dividends paid by CCPCs will also be amended.

CCPC’s are entitled to a preferential tax rate on up to $500,000 of qualifying active business income – the “small business deduction.”

Going forward, CCPC’s who earn income or net capital gains from property (not properties used in an active business) will be treated as follows; For each $1 of investment income earned over $50,000, the small business deduction limit will be reduced by $5, so once a CCPC has investment income greater than $150,000, they will lose their small business deduction entirely.

The government has decided that Canadians who earn income passively, ie/ rental income, deserve to pay more tax because either;

a. It’s not fair to Canadians who have to “work” to earn income

b. The Liberals got elected taxing the “rich” and by earning money this way – damn you – you are on their list, or,

c. The Liberals would tax a tax if they could because they need tax revenue to pay for all their promises.

5. New Tax Rules for Trusts to begin in 2021.

The government needs more taxes, hence the new tax reporting requirements for trusts which were unveiled in the budget.  The intention of these new rules is to provide the CRA with information related to beneficial owners, or potential beneficial owners of trusts.

Currently, trusts which do not earn income or make distributions in a taxation year are generally not currently required to file a T3 trust return.  (Trusts are required to file T3 returns if there is tax payable in the year or if the trust distributes income or capital to its beneficiaries.)

These new rules apply to express trusts which are resident in Canada as well as to non-resident trusts currently required to file T3 returns.  Each trust will have to provide the CRA with the identity of all of its trustees, beneficiaries and settlors, as well as each person who has the ability – through the trust terms or related agreements – to exercise control over trustee decisions regarding the appointment of income or capital of the trust, such as a protector.

The budget currently grants an exemption to mutual fund trusts, segregated funds, trusts governed by registered plans, graduated rate estates and qualified disability trusts, non-profit organizations and registered charities, and certain trusts that have been in existence for less than three months or that hold less than $50,000 in specified passive assets.

6. Tiered Partnerships Losses and At-Risk Rules

Essentially, partnerships wanted to use losses from one partner to lower the income of another partner, but the CRA disagreed.  The matter went to court and the CRA lost.  This budget reverses the CRA’s loss, making it a win, and worse than that, it is effective the date of the budget, which was February 27, 2018.  Losses are now lost.

7. Increased Assessment Period for CRA on Foreign Interests

Effective February 27, 2018, the CRA will have an extended reassessment period of taxpayers in respect of income arising in connection with foreign corporations in which they have at least a 10% interest in because it’s a long, often difficult process for the CRA to audit these foreign affiliates.

8. Reduced Filing Deadline to 6 Months for T1134.

Effective 2020, Taxpayers who currently had 15-months to file Form T1134, now have 6-months to do so.

9. Fighting Aggressive International Tax Avoidance

The Liberal government committed to fight international tax avoidance by strengthening rules related to controlled foreign corporations, addressing issues of treaty abuse, adopting the OECD revised Transfer Pricing Guidelines, and of greatest significance is the pledge to abide by tax reporting requirements of countries which Canada bilateral exchange agreements – and providing information to the tax authorities of these countries.

The acceptance of the OECD multilateral competent authority agreement now increases the countries which Canada can provide information to, and get information from.

Additionally, the CRA will be able to participate in what was called a “spontaneous exchange of information” on certain tax rulings with other tax administrations as part of a coordinated international effort to counter harmful tax practices.

The CRA also gets $38.7 million to expand its offshore compliance activities through the use of improved risk assessment systems and business intelligence, and to facilitate the hiring of additional auditors.

The anticipation is that the CRA will need these auditors to act on the new information they will be receiving as a part of the OECD/G20 Common Reporting Standard participation.

Another key tax issue relates to reassessment periods and non-residents of Canada to address a scenario where the CRA reassesses a taxpayer in order to reduce or eliminate a loss in a taxation year which results from a non-arm’s length transaction with a non-resident.  Currently, the CRA cannot reassess the taxation year to which that loss was carried back because the reassessment period has elapsed, but going forward, the CRA will have 6 years after the normal reassessment period to reassess the year to which the loss was carried back in such circumstances.

Another change impacts a scenario where a taxpayer contests a requirement for information (RFI) or an application for a compliance order – as this period will not be included when computing the time limit for the CRA to reassess.

This “stop-the-clock” rule is similar to the existing rule that applies for purposes of requirements for foreign-based information.

10. GST/HST

GST/HST is applicable on the fair market value of the management and administrative services provided by the general partner to an investment limited partnership where consideration becomes due or is paid before September 8, 2017.

GST/HST now applies to management and administrative services rendered by the general partner on or after September 8, 2017, unless GST/HST was charged by the general partner before that date.

The GST/HST is generally payable on the fair market value of management and administrative services in the tax year in which these services are rendered (however rules to calculate FMV, and what constitutes FMV were not provided at this time).

11. Excise – Cannabis Tax

A new excise duty framework for cannabis products under the Excise Act, 2001 applies to all products available for legal purchase, including fresh and dried cannabis, cannabis oils, and seeds and seedlings for home cultivation.

The cannabis taxation program will be administered by the federal government on behalf of most provincial and territorial governments on a coordinated basis. 75% of the taxation revenues from a combined $1 per gram / 10% of the price of the product, whichever is higher, excise duty rate will flow to participating provinces and territories, with the federal government receiving the remaining 25%.

12. Increased Funding to CRA and Tax Court of Canada

The budget provided money to the CRA and the Tax Court of Canada to:

  • $79 million over 5 years and then $15 million per year going forward in order to develop an electronic platform for processing trust returns;
  • $90.6 million over 5-years to help the CRA pursue domestic and international cases which have been identified as high-risk potential danger of loss through enhanced risk assessment systems;
  • $30 million over 5-years to enhance security measures aimed at better protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information; and
  • $41.9 million over 5-year, and $9.3 million annually going forward to provide support for new front-line registry and judicial staff, most of whom are expected to support the Tax Court of Canada.

And so much more…

 

What Do Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo and Floyd Mayweather Have in Common?

What Do Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo and Floyd Mayweather have in common aside from being top atheletes in their respective sports, and extreme wealth?

Tax Troubles!

Ronaldo and Messi with the Spanish Tax Authroity, and Mayweather with the IRS, which just goes to show you that no matter how much money you have, or don’t have, you still have to report income, file on time and pay your taxes!

In Ronaldo’s case, the Spanish Hacienda tax authority believes Ronaldo failed to pay €14.7 million in taxes pertaining to income earned on his “image rights” between 2011 and 2014.  The belief is that he used (and still uses) a shell company in the British Virgin Islands and Ireland, to hide at least €78m in image rights.

Ronaldo’s camp claim that he has fulfilled all his tax obligations, maintaining that the majority of his image-rights income is earned abroad and therefore not liable for Spanish tax.

How does Ronaldo’s situation differ from Lionel Messi’s tax case?
Barcelona star Lionel Messi and his father Jorge were found guilty of tax fraud in July 2016 after it was found they had hidden image-rights income from the Spanish authorities. Messi was fined €3.6m and sentenced to 21 months in prison (which was suspended) for defrauding €4.1m between 2007-09.

The Messi family had previously paid over at least €10m in back taxes and charges, long before their case made it to court.

In Messi’s case, the court determined there was a total failure to fill his tax obligations on image rights income.

A huge concern stemming from the The Supreme Court’s judgement in the Messi surrounded the role that Messi’s tax and financial advisors played and how both parties were not indicted as part of the prosecution since they there was evidence that they advised the player on how to evade taxes.

In Spain, a  guilty verdict for an aggravated tax crime means a mandatory jail time of two to six years, while conviction of the lesser offence brings a suspended sentence.  If Ronaldo admits to the details in front of the judge within two months after being accused, and pays over the amounts allegedly defrauded, his punishment could be reduced.

Messi’s 21-month prison sentence for tax fraud was reduced to a €252,000 fine, while his father’s 15-month prison sentence was reduced to a €180,000 fine.

These fines are in addition to the re-payment of the taxes originally owing plus any penalties and interest accrued to the balance.

Floyd Mayweather, and his estimated net worth of $340 million is in trouble with the IRS and has apparently filed a petition asking for a temporary reprieve from unpaid taxes from 2015 until after his fight with Conor McGregor in August.

Apparently, while he has substantial assets, those assets are restricted and primarily illiquid. The upcoming fight against McGregor, however, would provide Mayweather with enough liquid cash to pay the IRS debt from 2015 in full.

Mayweather, made $220 million alone from his 2015 fight against Manny Pacquiao. It is unclear how much he owes the IRS in taxes.  Given a 15-month lapse since the 2015 tax due date, Mayweather would owe 7.5% in penalties plus accruing interest on top of what he was already scheduled to pay.

Forbes estimated Mayweather’s net worth at $340 million in January.

 

So the moral of the story is this;

Not everyone wants to pay their taxes, and some will go to great lengths to reduce or avoid paying taxes. If that is something that you feel you must do, you have to be prepared for the consequences of your actions when and if the government comes back to you.

File on time.

Pay on time.

Don’t pay the government more than you should.

If you need help because you’re carrying a balance with the CRA and you want to discuss options, contact us today!

http://www.intaxicating.ca

@inTAXicating

info@intaxicating.ca

416.833.1581

 

Proposed Changes to CRA VDP Should Go Further – Union.

The changes proposed by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to the Voluntary Disclosures Program (VDP) have been described as an improvement, but no where close to what is needed to reduce tax evasion, according to The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) – one of Canada’s largest labour organizations.

VDP, as we all know, gives Canadian taxpayers who made mistakes or hid income on their taxes the opportunity to voluntarily come forward to the CRA and declare or correct the mistakes without fear of prosecution, and gross negligence penalties.

Some, however, feel the VDP has been overly generous in cases such as the deal offered to clients of the KPMG Isle of Man tax scheme.  The same people also believe that the CRA’s VDP has failed to differentiate between those who simply made errors in their tax return and “wealthy individuals” who wilfully evaded taxes using offshore tax havens.

While it can be very difficult to distinguish between someone who willfully evades taxes from someone who tried to but got caught, it is quite clear regarding the use of tax havens because either you report your offshore income (legal) or you don’t (illegal).

The union strongly believes that those caught “using a tax haven should be treated more severely than innocent mistakes.”

The Minister suggested that releasing the names of the participants and their advisors should be required although the CRA has always kept track of both scenarios once the disclosure has been approved.  Where a taxpayer received assistance from an advisor in respect of a VDP application, the name of that advisor should generally be included in the application.

The union expressed concern that the proposed changes fail to restrict access to voluntary disclosure in cases where leaks about tax havens are likely to provide the government with lists of Canadian account holders.  They feel that at that point, “it should be too late for wealthy individuals to take advantage of the VDP if they are already likely to be exposed.”

While I do agree the government should look at how they treat those who have not filed differently than those who store money offshore in hopes of evading the paying of taxes, I do not agree that in each and every case it is the “rich” or “wealthy” who are doing it.

In fact, I have encountered many Canadians of all races, religions and levels of income who have stuffed away money overseas and they range from being super-wealthy, to single parents on OAS or pension income who can barely make their rent.  It’s not just a “wealthy” issue.

Sure, it doesn’t read as well if its not an attack on the “rich” and yes, there are some who have complained that nowadays it is the unionized worker who is the “rich” in Canada, which is why I prefer to not paint everyone with the same brush, and group by filers and non-filers.

Under the program, any use of a tax haven scheme should mean less relief than for other forms of non-compliance, which makes a lot of sense.

For the union, they believe that; “the majority of Canadians feel that there are two tax systems, one for the rich and one for the rest of us.  It is very important for the government to get this right.”

NUPGE: Our mission is to improve the lives of working families and to build a stronger Canada by ensuring our common wealth is used for the common good.

Link to original article:

https://www.nupge.ca/content/proposed-changes-canada-revenue-agency%E2%80%99s-voluntary-disclosures-program-should-go-further

 

 

Tax Freedom Day, 2017. Working For Ourselves Now… Theoretically.

June 9, 2017 is Tax Freedom Day!

What is Tax Freedom Day?

Does it really exist?

What might it mean to me?

In their annual report, the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based think-tank added up all forms of taxation — from income and sales taxes, to more hidden costs such as gasoline taxes, carbon taxes, tobacco and alcohol taxes, municipal property taxes, payroll taxes and even CPP and EI premiums — to come up with a figure for the overall tax burden for Canadian families, and this year, they have determined that the average Canadian family with two or more people will earn $108,674 and pay 43.4% in taxes.

Based on the Fraser Institute math, 100% of income earned thus far in 2017 has been gobbled up by government in taxes, and only now are you working for yourself until the end of the year.

Last year, in 2016, it came a day earlier, on June 8th and because of variances in all types of taxes in different provinces, Tax Freedom Day differs across the country, ranging from May 21st in Alberta to June 25th in Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the reasons for the extra day is to account for the fact that Canadians’ tax bill has risen, on average, by $1,126 this year, according to the Fraser Institute. Of that increase, $542, came from higher income taxes, but sales taxes (up $311) and other energy-related taxes (up $204) also took a bigger bite while liquor, tobacco, amusement, and other excise taxes, payroll and health taxes, and import duties all decreased.

The Ottawa-based Broadbent Institute, however, disputes the math behind the annual Fraser Institute report, because the Fraser Institutes uses “average” tax rates instead of median tax rates.

To come up with its “average” tax rates, the Fraser Institute simply adds up the amount of cash income earned by a taxpayer, and then divides that by the number of people. It then takes “outliers” and excludes those extremes from the calculations.

The Broadbent Institute said that skews the numbers in a certain way, and a better way than the average would be to use the median — the exact mid-point between the top and bottom and the rationale behind this surrounds the fact that the average income of Canada will always be higher than the median because of the small number of very high-income earners in Canada, which skews the average income amount higher.

Adding up only federal and provincial income taxes, the “average” Canadian in prime working years (between 25 – 54 years of age) earned $62,600 last year, and paid $12,000 in taxes, or around 19%, according to tax filings. Using the Broadbent method of calculation, the median for that group earned $50,500 last year and paid $7,000, or 14%, in income taxes.

Another main difference is that the figures used by Fraser Institute report doesn’t just include income taxes. It tabulates all sorts of fees that taxpayers don’t directly pay, such as payroll taxes and resource royalties that companies pay when they extract things like oil, minerals and timber.

It also only considers what it calls “cash income” on the other side of the ledger. That excludes employee benefits, investment income from pension plans and other forms of cash income.

The Fraser report also takes into consideration indirect costs like payroll taxes and other taxes which businesses pay in their calculations because even though businesses pay these taxes directly, the cost of business taxation is passed on to Canadians.

So now that we’re working for ourselves, let’s push all levels of government to treat our tax dollars more wisely, and let’s earn as much as possible (while continuing to pay our taxes on time!)