CRA tax instalment funds can incur penalties in the event you make this error

Article content material

Roughly two million Canadians are required to pay their fourth and last 2022 tax instalment on Dec. 15, and whereas there are three totally different choices to select from in figuring out how a lot it’s essential pay every quarter, selecting the incorrect choice can result in arrears curiosity and even instalment penalties, as one couple came upon in a case not too long ago determined in Tax Court.

Article content material

However earlier than leaping into the main points of the case, let’s assessment the tax instalment system. Underneath the Earnings Tax Act, quarterly tax instalments are required for this tax yr in case your internet tax owing for 2022 will likely be greater than $3,000 ($1,800 for Quebec tax filers) and was additionally better than $3,000 ($1,800 for Quebec) in both 2021 or 2020.

Article content material

The three choices which may be used to find out how a lot it’s essential pay every quarter are: the no-calculation choice, the prior-year choice and the current-year choice. Taxpayers are free to decide on the tactic that ends in the bottom funds. However in the event you select to pay lower than the no-calculation choice, you may face instalment curiosity and a penalty in case your instalment quantities are too low or paid late.

Article content material

Underneath the no-calculation choice, the Canada Revenue Agency calculates your March 2022 and June 2022 instalments based mostly on 25 per cent of the online tax owing out of your 2020 assessed return. The Sept. 15 and Dec. 15, 2022 instalments are then calculated based mostly on the web tax owing out of your 2021 return, much less the March and June funds.

The prior-year choice bases the calculation solely on final yr’s earnings, so your 2022 instalments are based mostly in your paying one quarter of the 2021 tax owing on every instalment date. This selection is greatest in case your 2022 earnings, deductions and credit will likely be just like 2021, however considerably totally different than 2020.

Lastly, the current-year methodology permits you to base this yr’s instalments on the quantity of estimated tax you assume you’ll owe for the present yr, and also you pay one quarter of the estimated quantity on every instalment date.

Article content material

This selection is helpful in case your 2022 earnings will likely be considerably lower than 2021. However it’s additionally the riskiest methodology as a result of in the event you’re incorrect, you possibly can find yourself being charged instalment curiosity, compounded every day on the prescribed rate of interest (presently, seven per cent for overdue taxes), and even an instalment penalty if the instalment curiosity is greater than $1,000. That’s what occurred on this most up-to-date case involving an Alberta couple.

The husband and spouse have been every required to make instalments for the 2019 tax yr as a result of their internet tax owing exceeded $3,000 within the earlier three taxation years. They obtained written instalment reminders from the CRA, outlining the three instalment choices.

Somewhat than counting on the no-calculation choice, the couple used the current-year methodology based mostly on an estimate of their 2019 earnings and estimated tax owing. However in late November 2019, the couple’s holding firm declared a dividend within the quantity of $600,000, or $300,000 for every of them. They declared this dividend to themselves attributable to “finances chatter … in regards to the potential alteration of (the) tax therapy of Canadian dividend earnings.”

Article content material

Based on the couple, this pre-budget hypothesis “created an unexpected urgency, necessity and desirability to declare the dividend.” This, in flip, “materially elevated each (the couple’s) incomes and associated tax legal responsibility, and correspondingly their respective tax instalments.”

Though the taxpayers every paid massive Dec. 15 instalments to make up for the discrepancy between the no-calculation and current-year choices, the CRA assessed arrears curiosity and an instalment penalty for inadequate instalments within the first three quarters.

In court docket, the taxpayers argued that no arrears curiosity ought to be utilized to the quantities owing for the March, June and September instalments as a result of they didn’t count on to incur a sudden inflow of earnings later within the yr on the time these quarterly funds have been made. Consequently, it could have been unimaginable to make funds based mostly on unknown future data.

Article content material

The CRA argued that by not choosing the no-calculation choice, and never paying the final word tax payable in equal instalments over the course of the yr, the couple “authored a quarterly instalment deficiency divergent from the no-calculation choice. As such, curiosity and the penalty … (have been) appropriately calculated and assessed.”

The issue with the CRA’s place, in line with the choose, was that “the one safeguard towards factually unexpected or unanticipated will increase in earnings and (tax) legal responsibility within the latter a part of the yr, which skew instalments, is taxpayer selection within the early a part of the yr of the no-calculation choice.” In different phrases, the no-calculation choice basically turns into the one protected choice “until clairvoyant taxpayer certainty exists.”

Article content material

The choose stated there could also be conditions when a taxpayer might set up they’d a possible motive to imagine their whole earnings for the yr could be decrease than the no-calculation choice, and that the occasion which led to the ensuing inadequate quarterly instalments was “past foreseeability and unimaginable to discern till incidence.” This embraces the maxim “lex non cogit advert impossibilia,” or laws can’t be interpreted to require the unimaginable.

Article content material

Sadly for this couple, the above maxim didn’t apply as a result of they “weren’t requested to do the unimaginable.” Somewhat, they made a deliberate option to declare the dividend, which was fully inside their management. The sizable year-end dividend was “a textbook, end-of-year provisional tax plan. It was neither unavoidable nor extraneously circumstantial.” In actuality, the taxpayer “conceived, effected and accomplished it, all by his personal hand and energy.”

The choose, in dismissing the couple’s enchantment and upholding the arrears curiosity and instalment penalty, concluded, “Whereas the legislation might not interpret laws to require the unimaginable, it doesn’t accommodate a precautionary step of a tax plan, rendered moot by a legislative path not taken.”

Jamie Golombek, CPA, CA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Non-public Wealth in Toronto. Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com

_____________________________________________________________

If you happen to preferred this story, sign up for more within the FP Investor publication.

_____________________________________________________________