Large TFSA recontribution mistake places taxpayer in CRA’s crosshairs

Article content material

I’ve already made my 2023 tax-free savings account (TFSA) contribution … have you ever?

Article content material

The brand new TFSA greenback restrict is $6,500 for 2023. And in case you’ve by no means opened a TFSA earlier than, the brand new cumulative restrict could possibly be as excessive as $88,000 in case you’ve been a resident of Canada and at the least 18 years of age since 2009.

Article content material

Making my contribution was as simple as electronically shifting funds from my checking account to my TFSA, which supplies a lifetime potential of tax-free funding earnings and limitless tax-free positive factors on the funds’ progress. My intention is to make use of these funds in retirement, however TFSA funds may be withdrawn, tax free, at any time, for any function, similar to shopping for a brand new automobile, a marriage reception or a down cost on a house.

It doesn’t matter what you select to do along with your TFSA funds, remember that one of many greatest advantages of the TFSA, past the tax-free earnings and progress, is the flexibleness to recontribute any withdrawn funds again to your TFSA, starting the next calendar 12 months. You’re additionally capable of switch funds from one TFSA to a different, but it surely have to be finished through a direct switch, reasonably than a withdrawal and recontribution.

Article content material

Taxpayers who don’t respect the nuances of the TFSA recontribution or switch guidelines, nonetheless, might discover themselves in bother with the taxman for overcontributing. That’s precisely what occurred in a case determined in late 2022.

The taxpayer’s troubles started in early 2020, when, needing to maneuver nearer to his younger daughter after separating from his spouse, the taxpayer withdrew $50,000 from his TFSA with the intention of constructing a suggestion on a brand new residence. He mentioned he did this earlier than truly discovering a house as a result of “in a sizzling housing market during which there have been typically bidding wars for a similar residence, a aggressive bid necessitated that funds be in hand for a suggestion to be accepted inside a really brief time period.”

The taxpayer shortly realized the housing market was merely “too sizzling for his monetary wherewithal,” so he did what he assumed was “the cheap factor to do” and deposited the identical funds again into his TFSA on Feb. 6, 2020. Sadly, the taxpayer’s TFSA contribution room for the 2020 taxation 12 months was solely $10,000, such that the redeposit of $50,000 triggered an overcontribution for the month of February of about $40,000.

Article content material

However issues grew to become much more sophisticated later that month when the taxpayer, in an try and consolidate two TFSAs into one account, transferred that very same $50,000 from the TFSA into his common financial savings account after which right into a second TFSA on the identical day.

From the taxpayer’s perspective, he was merely transferring funds from one TFSA to a different. However from the Canada Revenue Agency’s perspective, the switch through the financial savings account on Feb. 20, 2020, triggered a second TFSA contribution of $50,000 for the month of February 2020.

In the long run, what was “merely an sincere mistake” precipitated a large 2020 overcontribution within the eyes of the CRA to the tune of $112,000. (The taxpayer made $22,000 of further TFSA contributions throughout the remainder of 2020).

Article content material

Underneath the Earnings Tax Act, there’s a penalty of 1 per cent monthly for every month there’s a TFSA overcontribution. Consequently, the taxpayer in July 2021 obtained a discover of evaluation from the CRA, charging him a penalty tax of $6,270, together with $332 in penalties and curiosity.

The act, nonetheless, permits the CRA discretion to grant reduction, and states {that a} CRA officer could waive or cancel the penalty tax if the surplus arose by “cheap error” and is corrected by the person “directly.”

The taxpayer wrote to the CRA to request it cancel the evaluation, arguing that “he was not conscious that redepositing the identical funds that had been withdrawn throughout the identical taxation 12 months would represent further contributions.”

Article content material

The taxpayer’s request was denied by the CRA in September 2021 on the premise that regardless that his TFSA overcontribution was unintentional, it didn’t take into account the taxpayer’s misinterpretation of the contribution guidelines to be a “cheap error,” for the reason that taxpayer had, again in 2013, already been granted reduction on a TFSA overcontribution.

In October 2021, the taxpayer submitted a second request for the CRA to cancel the evaluation, which was once more denied. The taxpayer then took the matter to Federal Courtroom, the place the choose’s function is to find out whether or not the CRA officer’s refusal to train their discretion to disclaim the taxpayer reduction was “cheap.”

As in prior circumstances, an inexpensive choice is one that’s “based mostly on an internally coherent and rational chain of research and that’s justified in relation to the details and legislation that constrain the choice maker.” Typically, a CRA choice will not be put aside except it accommodates “sufficiently critical shortcomings … such that it can’t be mentioned to exhibit the requisite diploma of justification, intelligibility and transparency.”

Article content material

Arguing one’s basic ignorance of the legislation will not be, by itself, adequate to reveal an error was cheap. Relatively, “cheap error” is proscribed to conditions the place the overcontributions occurred for causes outdoors the taxpayer’s management, which might embrace financial institution errors, bodily disasters, civil disruptions, a critical sickness or accident, or misery.

The choose was sympathetic in the direction of the taxpayer, however nonetheless concluded he was a “repeat overcontributor” and didn’t make an inexpensive error in overcontributing in 2020, thus the CRA officer’s choice to disclaim him reduction was rational.

Article content material

“The brink for the willpower of an inexpensive error is excessive as our tax guidelines are based mostly on a self-reporting system that depends on taxpayers to know or be told of the legislation and to take cheap steps to adjust to (it),” the choose mentioned. “For TFSA functions, taxpayers are accountable for being conscious of their contribution limits and for making certain that their contributions adjust to relevant guidelines.”

In the long run, the choose merely felt the surplus TFSA contributions had been made by the taxpayer due to his misunderstanding of the foundations, and never, due to this fact, the consequence of an inexpensive error, which can have warranted reduction.

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

_____________________________________________________________

Should you appreciated this story, sign up for more within the FP Investor publication.

_____________________________________________________________