Technology: Deducting personal expenses as business ones lands taxpayer in hot water years later - PressFrom - Canada

TechnologyDeducting personal expenses as business ones lands taxpayer in hot water years later

21:50  23 august  2019
21:50  23 august  2019 Source:

Have foreign property? The CRA issues harsh penalties if you don't file this form

Have foreign property? The CRA issues harsh penalties if you don't file this form If you own foreign property worth more than $100,000 at any point in the year, you must complete Form T1135, Foreign Income Verification Statement , and file it along with your annual income tax return. When we think of foreign property, our minds may turn to that offshore Swiss bank account or, perhaps, a Florida rental property. But, believe it or not, a T1135 must be filed if you own foreign stocks, such as Apple Corp., Ford Motor Co. or Bank of America, in your Canadian, non-registered brokerage account.

Deducting personal expenses as business ones lands taxpayer in hot water years later© Getty Images/iStockphoto The taxpayer claimed restaurant meals with his wife as business expenses because they had discussed the business during the meal.

It may be tempting for some taxpayers to write off personal expenses as tax-deductible ones, especially under the guise of a business, but doing so could get your expenses denied by the Canada Revenue Agency and could even expose your prior years’ tax filings to reassessment beyond the “normal reassessment period.”

Indeed, this is exactly what happened in a recent Tax Court of Canada decision released last week in a case involving a taxpayer who was reassessed by the CRA in November 2018 for his 2013, 2014 and 2015 taxation years. The 2013 taxation year was reassessed after the expiry of the applicable normal reassessment period and thus would generally be considered to be “statute-barred.”

Running afoul of the CRA on RRSP withdrawals can be a costly mistake

Running afoul of the CRA on RRSP withdrawals can be a costly mistake In my experience, most taxpayers seem to have a pretty good understanding of the tax consequences of making an RRSP contribution, namely that you get a tax deduction from your income for the amount you contribute. But it seems that fewer taxpayers have a comprehensive grasp of what happens to that RRSP on the flip side, when funds are withdrawn. The truth is, it’s actually quite simple: any funds withdrawn from your RRSP (or its successor, a RRIF) are included in your income. The amount of tax you pay on that withdrawal, however, will depend on your total income for the year. In other words, you will end up paying tax on the RRSP withdrawal at your marginal tax rate.

Under the Income Tax Act, once the CRA has initially assessed your tax return, it has the ability to reassess your return provided it’s done within what’s technically defined as the normal reassessment period. For an individual taxpayer (or private corporation), that period is typically three years from the date of the original notice of assessment. After that period, your tax return would be considered statute-barred.

There is, however, an exception to this rule if the CRA can demonstrate that the taxpayer “has made any misrepresentation that is attributable to neglect, carelessness or wilful default or has committed any fraud in filing the return or in supplying any information.”

Diplo's Plane Safely Lands After Window Cracks During Flight

Diplo's Plane Safely Lands After Window Cracks During Flight The DJ took to Instagram to update fans on the situation.

In this case, the Tax Court was tasked with deciding two issues: was the CRA justified in disallowing expenses for the three years in question and was the 2013 reassessment valid, since it was issued after the expiry of the applicable three-year normal reassessment period.

In 2010, the taxpayer, otherwise employed on a full-time basis, and his wife began a business, participating in a “multi-level marketing scheme,” called MonaVie, selling juice products. The controversial company, referred to in some media reports at the time as akin to a pyramid scheme, went into foreclosure in 2015 after defaulting on a US$182-million loan.

Like other multi-level marketing schemes, the individual, in order to make money, needed to recruit people to sell the product, with the recruiter making money based on team member sales. Throughout the six-year period from 2010 to 2015, the taxpayer and his wife only managed to sign up one person for their business and that person quit after a short time. Indeed, the taxpayer never had a profitable year for this business — not in any of the three years at issue, or in the earlier three initial years of 2010, 2011 and 2012. The taxpayer testified that he “consistently tried to make a go of it,” but did not expect “it would be so hard to recruit people for this business, and keep them involved.”

Plane carrying Pink's crew crash lands in Denmark: reports

Plane carrying Pink's crew crash lands in Denmark: reports A small aircraft carrying the management team for singer Pink crash landed and burst into flames in Denmark, according to multiple reports in Danish media. No one was hurt. Danish police on Tuesday confirmed the incident occurred on Monday night, but they did not mention Pink by name. Danish media reported Pink, who performed in Oslo Monday evening, was not on the flight. Police also said that a private Cessna plane with 10 people on board caught fire on landing at the Aarhus airport. It said the plane had flown from Oslo and that those on board included seven passengers: four U.S.

During the three years under review, the CRA denied the taxpayer a deduction for a variety of business expenses. The only business income reported during this period was $50 in 2014. Most of the expenses claimed were for meals and entertainment ($4,300), telephone and utilities ($6,450) and motor vehicle expenses ($8,600), along with some travel expenses.

The expenses the taxpayer claimed were apparently only 50 per cent of the total expenses said to have been incurred for business purposes, with the remaining 50 per cent presumably being claimed by his wife, who was involved in the same business. “These amounts, particularly being only the (taxpayer’s) 50-per-cent share, are surprisingly large given the virtually complete lack of revenue and deficiency of business records,” the judge remarked.

The taxpayer testified that he and his wife would meet prospective “clients” over coffee or a meal to discuss their potential participation. On a monthly basis, he recorded his kilometres driven, but did not keep a mileage log detailing the names of persons he said he had tried to recruit, nor did he volunteer any names at the trial. Similarly, he had no record of clients with whom he had meals. In addition, he testified that “whenever I had a meal that didn’t involve a potential prospect, my wife and I talked about the business so that it could be included for tax purposes.”

Ford’s fake news machine should be closed

Ford’s fake news machine should be closed Premier Doug Ford’s office is reportedly considering overhauling its taxpayer-funded propaganda arm, Ontario News Now . That would be worthy of applause if “overhauling” meant shutting it down — and if it was being done for the right reasons. But there’s the rub. Instead of recognizing that distributing fake news reports on social media in an attempt to fool the public is an affront to democracy, the Progressive Conservative government is apparently reconsidering ONN’s usefulness because it is, ahem, a failure.

Related gallery: Salary benchmarking: This is how much you should be earning in these 10 jobs in Canada [Provided by Slice TV]

Deducting personal expenses as business ones lands taxpayer in hot water years later

In 2014, the taxpayer and his wife travelled to Newfoundland to visit relatives, and “to discuss with them participation in this business,” although none accepted his invitation to join. He claimed the cost of travel as a business expense.

During cross-examination, the taxpayer acknowledged that, despite having claimed “advertising and promotion” as an expense in each of the three taxation years under review, he did not actually advertise the business other than by “word of mouth” and making “cold calls.”

Perhaps not surprisingly, the judge denied all the expenses. He found the motor vehicle expenses were not deductible “due to lack of evidence … as to what these trips were for and with whom did he … meet.” Similarly, he denied the meals and entertainment expenses due to the lack of any records showing whom the taxpayer actually met. As for the meals with his wife, “ensuring that they talked about the business during some portion of the meal so as to render the expense deductible” was not good enough to claim a tax deduction since the meals have to be incurred for the purpose of earning income.

As for the trip to Newfoundland to visit family, the judge found “the nature of this expense compellingly personal, and the evidence is completely inadequate to indicate any such discussions as may have occurred, were anything more than perfunctorily raising the matter for the purpose of trying to expense the (not inexpensive) trip to visit family.”

The court also addressed the issue as to whether, legally, the CRA could reassess the 2013 tax year in 2018, which was beyond the normal reassessment period. For the CRA to do so, there had to be a misrepresentation on the taxpayer’s 2013 return.

The judge found there were actually two misrepresentations. The first was that the taxpayer claimed advertising expenses although he had not engaged in advertising. And the second, perhaps more egregious one, was that the taxpayer claimed meal expenses for meals he had with just his wife. “That readily appears to be a situation of claimed business expenses that actually are personal expenses,” the judge wrote.

The judge, therefore, upheld the CRA’s reassessments, denying the taxpayer’s expenses in all three taxation years, including the otherwise statute-barred 2013 taxation year.

[email protected]

Jamie Golombek, CPA, CA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Estate Planning with CIBC Financial Planning & Advice Group in Toronto.

Taxpayers footed bill for $4.5M in trips by MP spouses, partners over last four years.
Four of the five top claimants for spousal travel were Conservatives — except for Jody Wilson-Raybould.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 3
This is interesting!