Tag: unremitted source deductions

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

CANADIAN INCOME TAX ACT S. 160: BAD MOVES LEAD TO HUGE TAX DEBT

canadian income tax act
canadian income tax act

Canadian Income Tax Act: Section 160 transfer of property

The Canadian Income Tax Act allows Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to have a variety of methods for collecting debts from businesses. One option is to assess anyone who received money from the tax debtor business without proper consideration. This applies both if the business was a tax debtor when the money was paid out and if the business becomes a tax debtor after the payment is made.

Section 160 of the Canadian Income Tax Act is designed to let the CRA pursue people or companies who receive transfers of property when the person or company transferring the property owed, or could owe, amounts payable to the CRA and hasn’t paid them. The rule creates an income-tax debt for the person who got the transfer of property, without them having given adequate consideration for it.

For example, if an entrepreneur who is the major or sole shareholder of a company conducting business gave themselves a generous bonus in 2022, they may see that bonus clawed away by the CRA if the business is assessed as owing taxes for the 2022 taxation year or for a prior tax year. The potential tax liability could be sizable, so it’s important to be aware of this possibility.

This is what this Brandon’s Blog is about. We explain how section 160 of the Canadian Income Tax Act works and then describe a recent decision from the Federal Court in Murphy v. The King, 2022 TCC 111 (CanLII).

What’s section 160 of the income tax act?

The goal of the current legislation of Section 160 of the Canadian Income Tax Act is to stop taxpayers from avoiding paying taxes by transferring property to someone who is a non-arm’s length transferee. CRA is of the view that rather than transferring the asset, the taxpayer should sell the asset to pay off their income tax debt. A transfer deprives the CRA of the ability to collect taxes by seizing the asset.

Section 160 becomes effective when:

  • a person (or company) has transferred property, directly or indirectly, through a trust or any other means, to their spouse or common-law partner, or to a party they are not dealing with at arm’s length; and
  • the party making the transfer owes income tax or is assessed at a later date to owe income tax for the taxation year or prior to the transfer taking place.

Section 160 of the Canadian Income Tax Actis designed to cover a wide range of transactions involving a party related to the tax debtor. This includes many types of transactions, such as:

  • A direct transfer to a related party, such as an outright gift to a spouse or child, or a dividend from a corporation to a shareholder.
  • An indirect transfer of property to a related party may occur when the property is first transferred to an arm’s-length party and then the same property is transferred to a non-arm’s length party.
  • A transfer of property to a trust where the beneficiaries of the trust are non-arm’s length parties.
  • A transfer to a related party by any other means whatever, just in case the above wording missed a specific transfer.

    canadian income tax act
    canadian income tax act

What is the third-party tax liability under Section 160 for the transferee?

If section 160 of the Canadian Income Tax Act applies, both the person making the transfer and the person receiving the property become jointly and severally liable for the original tax debtor transferor’s income tax debt. So, the original tax debtor remains liable for the tax debt, but the recipient now becomes independently liable as well. The CRA can now go after both the original tax debtor and the recipient for the same income-tax debt. The claim by CRA against transferees are known as derivative assessments.

The recipient’s tax liability under section 160 cannot be greater than the fair market value of the transferred property. If any amount was paid or another consideration given in return for the property reduces the amount the recipient owes CRA on account of the original tax debtor transferor’s tax liability.

As stated in section 160 of the Canadian Income Tax Act, when the original taxpayer who transferred the property makes a payment to CRA, it will discharge the liability to the extent of the payment.

It also states that when the taxpayer who received the property makes a payment, their liability is reduced by that amount. This also lowers the amount the taxpayer owes. To get rid of the recipient’s liability completely, the taxpayer receiving the property needs to pay an amount that equals or is greater than the fair market value of the property they received.

Is it possible to dispute a Canadian Income Tax Act Section 160 CRA Assessment?

You could fight CRA’s notice of assessment and collection action first by filing a notice of objection. If that proves unsuccessful, you could take it to court, but you’re not likely to win. In the next section, I describe a recent Tax Court decision where the taxpayer fought it in court – and lost. The taxpayer then appealed the lower court decision and the appellate court refused to hear the appeal. So I’m a licensed insolvency trustee, not a tax accountant or tax legal professional, but here’s my understanding of section 160.

Section 160 of the Canadian Income Tax Act is pretty harsh. There’s no due-diligence defence, it applies even if the transfer wasn’t motivated by tax avoidance transactions, and it catches transferees who don’t even realize that they’re receiving property from a tax debtor with an outstanding tax debt.

Section 160 of the Canadian Income Tax Act doesn’t have a time limit or limitation period, so the CRA could come after you years after the supposed transfer. And even if the original tax debtor is later discharged from bankruptcy and doesn’t owe the tax debt anymore, the person who got the property would still be on the hook.

As an aside, I wonder if the transferee could get out of their liability if the taxpayer fully completed a successful proposal – like a consumer proposal or Division I. But this is just a thought, not related to this Brandon’s Blog post.

Further, the unpaid tax debt liability under section 160 can be passed on – just like the common cold or COVID! After being assessed for a tax obligation under s.160, you can spread out the suffering if you then transfer property to yet one more taxpayers who are non-arm’s length persons to you. The CRA may come after you for the tax bill, and now someone else!

The only defences I am aware of available to the transferee against this are to prove that:

  • the transferor didn’t owe anything to CRA at the time of transfer;
  • that the recipient gave fair market value for the property in return; or
  • the property’s fair market value is zero (this will presumably be impossible because if it was really worthless, the transfer was unnecessary).

    canadian income tax act
    canadian income tax act

Murphy v. The King, 2022: The court upheld the third-party income tax liability under section 160 of the Canadian Income Tax Act

This case is all about an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal of a 2018 decision of the lower court, upholding the notice of assessment issued by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) dated June 7, 2017, pursuant to section 160 of the Canadian Income Tax Act in respect of dividends paid by 591985 British Columbia Ltd. (the “Corporation”), in December 2015 to Mr. Murphy, the Appellant. Coincidentally, Mr. Murphy is a licensed insolvency trustee.

At that time, the Appellant was the only director and the controlling shareholder of the Corporation. The Corporation had a tax liability which, on June 7, 2017, was $109,460.96. This amount represented the total federal and provincial taxes owing, plus penalties and interest.

The question that needed to be answered is whether the Appellant is jointly and severally liable for the $109,460.96 the Corporation owes under section 160 of the Canadian Income Tax Act.

Although the lower court went through a purposive analysis and is detailed, the lower court’s decision was ultimately based on one key issue. This issue is important not only for cases involving the transfer of property or for taxpayers experiencing financial difficulty and having an unpaid tax debt, but also for all entrepreneurs.

It’s not uncommon for entrepreneurs to bonus themselves through dividends instead of salaries. In this case, Mr. Murphy argued that the fair market value of the services he provided to the Corporation was equal to or greater than the amount transferred. He argued that, since he gave market value consideration for the property in question, he should not have any liability under subsection 160(3) of the Canadian Income Tax Act.

The Tax Court and the Federal Court of Appeal was not buying this argument. The Judge referred to the fact that Canadian courts follow a Supreme Court of Canada decision in support of the fact that market value consideration has nothing to do with it when considering this liability provision in the context of the transferred property being dividends.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision held that a dividend is related to shareholding and not to any other consideration the shareholder might have provided. The fact that the Appellant declared the dividends on his personal income tax return and paid taxes on them does not impact the fact that dividends are not paying for services. Therefore, the lower court decision finding joint liability was upheld.

This is an important point for all entrepreneurs, whether facing a liability assessment under section 160 or not. Dividends are related to shareholding and not to any other consideration the shareholder might have provided, according to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision. This means that shareholders are only entitled to the dividend if they continue to hold their shares. If they sell their shares, they are not entitled to the dividend.

Perhaps if Mr. Murphy had received a salary from the Corporation in return for the services provided, then all he would have to prove is that the services provided had a value equal to or greater than the underlying tax debt of the Corporation. Perhaps the lower court or the Federal Court of Appeal would have ruled differently. But that is not what he did, so, no sense speculating further on such legal questions.

The Canadian Income Tax Act and your income-tax debt to CRA

I hope you found this Canadian Income Tax Act Brandon’s Blog informative. Is CRA taking collection action against your or your company, including seizing bank accounts?

If you’re an entrepreneur, it’s not uncommon to use unremitted employee source deductions and unremitted HST to finance the businesses of corporate taxpayers during tough economic times. However, falling behind on your CRA payments can create large tax debt that can be difficult to recover from. Although unpaid income tax is not a Director’s liability, unremitted source deductions and GST/HST become a personal liability for tax of the Directors of the company. It is generally too late to protect yourself or try to restructure your financial affairs, once CRA is hounding you with the collection remedies available to them.

As people’s take-home pay fails to keep pace with inflation and mounting financial debt, many people are having a hard time keeping their heads above water. This is also a crucial concern dealing with entrepreneurs and their businesses, as profits, as well as cash flow, are challenged and perhaps even evaporating. In these troubled economic times, it is necessary to be knowledgeable about these concerns as well as take action to shield yourself and your company.

Are you now worried about just how you or your business are going to survive? Are your creditors taking collection efforts and you cannot afford to pay your or your company’s debts? Those concerns are obviously on your mind. Coming out of the pandemic, we are now worried about its economic effects of inflation and a potential recession.

The Ira Smith Team understands these concerns. More significantly, we know the requirements of the business owner or the individual that has way too much financial debt. You are trying to manage these difficult financial problems and you are understandably anxious.

It is not your fault you can’t fix this problem on your own. The pandemic has thrown everyone a curveball. We have not been trained to deal with this. You have only been taught the old ways. The old ways do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team makes use of new contemporary ways to get you out of your debt problems while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief now while explaining our recommendations.

We look at your whole circumstance and design a strategy that is as distinct as you are. We take the load off of your shoulders as part of the debt settlement strategy we will draft just for you. Whatever process we recommend for you, we will do so in order to minimize any cons you may experience.

We understand that people facing money problems require a lifeline. That is why we can establish a restructuring procedure for you and end the discomfort you feel.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation. We will listen to the unique issues facing you and provide you with practical and actionable ideas you can implement right away to end the pain points in your financial life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

canadian income tax act
canadian income tax act
Categories
Brandon Blog Post

HST REMITTANCE REVIEW: UNPAID HST & THE DIRECTOR’S JOINT BANK ACCOUNT

Introduction

I have previously written about joint bank accounts and joint credit cards. I recently read a decision of the Tax Court of Canada that will be of interest to every entrepreneur whose company may be behind in their HST remittance and who has a joint bank account with their spouse.

Joint bank account considerations

Opening a joint bank account is a relatively easy procedure. People who share a joint savings or chequing account can each make deposits and withdrawals from the account without the signature of the person they share the account with. As a matter of fact, any person listed on the joint account can close it using proper identification. Data held by a bank on the owners of the joint account, similar to any other account, consists of personal identifiers of the holders of the account, which enables anyone legally authorized to get that information.

I have written before on the dangers of a joint bank account. The dangers have nothing to do with the bank per se. They are more non-bank related. Examples of problems include:

  • Sometimes moms and dads will share an account with a small child. The reason is to begin providing the youngster with financial literacy education. However, if you share a bank account with your minor child and your spouse, you are taking a chance that your partner can access that joint bank account that you share with your child without your authorization.
  • There is a threat with a joint account between partners when you have a saver as well as a spender who each has access to the account without the other’s signature. It can trigger family, relationships or business problems.

I wanted to give this brief background information, but it is not what is of most interest to entrepreneurs. The following Tax Court of Canada decision which I will now describe is.

Tammy White and Her Majesty The Queen facts

This judgement was rendered on February 4, 2020, in the Tax Court of Canada in Vancouver, BC. Ms. White appealed an assessment by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) against her under subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.)) (Income Tax Act) and subsection 325(1) of the Excise Tax Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. E-15) (Excise Tax Act). You will recall that last week, I spoke about the danger of receiving transfers of property from someone who owes money to CRA in my blog, DO YOU INHERIT DEBT IN CANADA: CRA SAYS YES TO PROPERTY TRANSFERS. That blog dealt with debt in death and the deceased Estate. This week, nobody died. You are probably wondering what this has to do with entrepreneurs and joint bank accounts. I will now tie it all together. I promise!

The appeal deals with the concern of whether the deposit of funds by a person into a joint account held with the entrepreneur’s partner comprises a transfer of property under subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act and subsection 325(1) of the Excise Tax Act.

The facts of the case are as follows:

  • On March 1, 2016, Mrs. White was assessed $49,962.45 under section 160 of the Income Tax Act and $90,886.35 under section 325 of the Excise Tax Act. She appealed both assessments to the Court. The assessments are a result of amounts that her husband, former business owner Andy White, apparently moved to his wife between March 15, 2013, and October 30, 2015.
  • On March 26, 2014, Andy filed a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA).
  • Department of Justice counsel on behalf of CRA at the hearing backed off part of the claim by agreeing that any kind of purported transfers made after the date of the consumer proposal is beyond the range of the assessments in concern in this appeal.
  • Tammy and Andy were married in 1984 and always held the same joint bank account.
  • For the last 35 years, Andy and Tammy have made use of the joint bank account to pay their personal expenditures and the costs of running their family household.
  • Andy was a part-owner of White & Davidson Logging Limited, a company he started working for from a very young age.
  • The company began to experience financial troubles in 2004 as a result of weak demand in the British Columbia forestry industry and also a government-mandated decrease in cutting rights. These troubles resulted in the business selling its assets in 2006 and discontinuing business. At the time the business stopped operating, it had not remitted all amounts it had held back as payroll source deductions. It also did not make the required payment of the amounts it owed as HST tax obligations. Accordingly, it was not current in its tax obligations and did not make its final payroll or HST remittance.
  • Andy was a Director of the defunct company and therefore was assessed by CRA personally for the company’s unremitted payroll source deductions and unpaid HST.
  • After a while, and after being assessed by CRA, Andy eventually found full-time employment and deposited his pay into the joint bank account he shared with Tammy.
  • Andy owed CRA almost $91,000 for the company’s unremitted HST.
  • Tammy was also employed in a retail store. In the late 1990s, she opened up a bank account only in her name. Her pay was deposited into that new account.
  • Tammy was the sole owner of the family’s home. She admitted under oath that she made payments out of the joint account to pay the mortgage, utilities, property taxes and any other costs of running the home.
  • Certain amounts were also transferred from the joint account into Tammy’s personal account.

The issues

The issues are fairly narrow. In last week’s blog, I went through the criteria a court must look at to determine if there was a transfer of property at a time when the transferor owed an amount to CRA. You can refresh yourself on the criteria by clicking here.

CRA’s position was that a transfer of property from Andy to Tammy took place the moment his pay was deposited into the joint bank account. They also stated that Tammy gave no consideration for this.

Tammy’s position was that no transfer could have taken place by merely depositing the funds into the joint bank account. Andy maintained full control of the money. CRA, or the Sheriff, acting on a valid judgement, could garnishee Andy’s share of the funds in the joint bank account.

At the time in question, Andy’s pay that was deposited into the joint bank account totalled $89,806.72.

The Court’s decision

The court did not agree with CRA. The Judge found that:

  • Just depositing the funds in a joint account does not comprise a transfer. Mr. White did not unload himself of the funds when they were deposited into the joint account. He continued to have complete access to the funds in the account. As a matter of fact, the evidence was that Andy, as he had done since 1984, used some of the funds to pay his personal expenses and specific costs of his household.
  • Andy did not defeat or whatsoever prevent the Minister of Revenue from collecting any tax he owed by placing his compensation in the joint account. CRA could have taken collection activity relative to funds in the joint account. In fact, part of the evidence before the court was that the joint bank account was garnished by a third party to repay one of Andy’s debts.
  • As soon as the funds were put in the joint bank account, Tammy had the ability to impact a transfer. Nonetheless, such transfer did not happen until the funds were removed from the joint account and placed into the account only in Tammy’s name.
  • The Judge was very critical of CRA. They did not properly identify funds taken out of the joint account and put into Tammy’s account. There was limited evidence before the court. So, the Judge had to “guesstimate” as best as possible from the scant evidence how much was transferred from the time Tammy opened up her sole account and the date of Andy filing a consumer proposal.
  • The Judge determined that the amount of property Andy transferred to Tammy during the relevant period for no consideration was the amount of $34,052.
  • Accordingly, the Judge allowed the appeal and vacated the assessment. He referred it back to the Minister of Revenue to reconsider a reassessment of Tammy in the amount of $34,052.

HST remittance and the entrepreneur

So what does this mean for the entrepreneur? It tells me that if you are:

  1. Director of an insolvent company that owes unremitted source deductions or unpaid HST;
  2. the company goes either into receivership or bankruptcy or otherwise has to shutdown;
  3. you are assessed personally by CRA because you were the Director; and
  4. you get another job and deposit your pay into a joint bank account you hold with a spouse or child.

Your spouse or child will not be liable under the property transfer laws of the Income Tax Act and/or the Excise Tax Act by the mere depositing of your money into the joint bank account. What it also tells me is, if you are in this situation and do not have a joint bank account, maybe you should! If so, go back to the “Joint bank account considerations” section of this blog to see if it is the right thing for you to do in your situation.

Summary

I hope you enjoyed this blog on HST remittance and joint bank accounts. The Ira Smith Team is available to help you at any time. We offer sound advice and a solid plan for Starting Over Starting Now so that you’ll be well on your way to a debt-free life in no time.

Do you or your company have too much debt? If yes, then you need immediate help. The Ira Smith Team comprehends just how to do a debt restructuring. Much more notably, we know the demands of the business owner or the person who has too much debt. Due to the fact that you are managing these stressful financial problems, you are anxious.

It is not your fault you cannot fix this issue on your own. You have just been shown the old ways. The old ways do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team makes use of new contemporary ways to get you out of your debt troubles while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief now.

At Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc., we take a look at your whole condition and layout a strategy that is as unique as you are. We take the load off of your shoulders as a part of the debt negotiation approach we will create just for you.

We understand that individuals facing financial troubles require a lifeline. That is why we can establish a restructuring procedure for you as well as end the pain you feel.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation. We will certainly get you or your business back on the road to a well balanced and healthy life and end the pain factors in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

hst remittance

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

WILL CRA CONTACT ME IF I DO NOT PAY?

cra contact

If you would prefer to listen to the Brandon’s Blog CRA contact audio version, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the podcast

Introduction

It seems that more often than not, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is a creditor in the personal or corporate insolvency matters that I get involved with. Many times the person, be they just an individual, an unincorporated business owner or the President of the company, will ask, “will CRA contact me if I do not pay?”.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I discuss the various ways CRA will contact the responsible individual, be they the taxpayer or the authorized representative of the taxpayer company.

Types of CRA debt

The following types of tax debt are the usual ones that a person in Ontario might owe:

The following types of tax debt are the usual ones that an Ontario corporation might owe:

Most likely CRA has already contacted the insolvent person or company before they come to see me for a free consultation. The reality is that when someone owes money to Revenue Canada and gets one of those unique brown envelopes in the mail, they tend to feel sick in the stomach. So, although they may keep the envelope and its contents, they certainly don’t wish to look inside it.

Let’s look at the various ways CRA has to contact a taxpayer and for CRA payment arrangements to be made.

Ways you and the taxman can communicate

Notice of Assessment or Reassessment

The first way CRA will contact you is by sending a notice of assessment or reassessment to the individual or corporate taxpayer. This is a notice that explains the reason for the (re)assessment, the calculation and the amount owing. There is no need to talk about the situation where the taxpayer pays the balance in full on time. I am talking about the situation when the taxpayer cannot afford to pay the amount owing.

Be proactive

If you cannot pay the total you owe, be proactive by getting in touch with the CRA as soon as possible. Overlooking your debt does not make it vanish. As a matter of fact, ignoring it might make things worse. This is the same whether it is a personal debt or a corporate debt.

The CRA tacks on interest at the prescribed rate compounded daily. You can’t avoid this because whether you realize it or not, CRA has become your lender for any unpaid amounts. By taking action first, you can at least ward off a much worse result. So you contacting CRA is the first and best way to make the connection.

I will discuss below what your options are concerning amounts you cannot pay off immediately, but first, I want to discuss other ways that the CRA will contact you if you first don’t contact them.

Telephone or letter

If the taxpayer does not contact CRA to work out a payment arrangement (discussed below), CRA will then communicate with the taxpayer. The amount owing is assigned to a collections officer who will contact the taxpayer by telephone, letter or both.

If the taxpayer responds to that outreach, the collections officer will attempt to obtain payment. The collections officer will also ask many more questions. If the taxpayer is a company, the collections officer may also make an appointment to go visit the company to review its financial records.

The purpose of asking the questions and reviewing corporate financial records is to attempt to determine if any money is owed to the taxpayer by third parties and where does the taxpayer maintain bank accounts.

Garnishment by a Requirement To Pay

Armed with the information obtained from the taxpayer’s tax filings and any additional information collected through discussions or reviews, the next level of CRA contact to get the taxpayer’s attention is not with the taxpayer, but rather with third parties. A Requirement To Pay (RTP) is a lawful notification that the CRA sends out to a 3rd party when:

  • the CRA thinks that the 3rd party owes or will owe money in the future to the taxpayer that has not paid their tax obligation; and
  • the CRA has not been able to collect the taxpayer’s debt or make an appropriate settlement plan with the taxpayer.

The RTP advises the 3rd party to send the money the third party owes to the taxpayer to the CRA, rather than the taxpayer. The RTP reveals the taxpayer’s name, address, and the CRA account number.

The RTP is the way the CRA uses to garnishee bank accounts, wages or any other amount owing by a third party to the taxpayer. An RTP can garnishee all sorts of repayments a 3rd party might make to a taxpayer. The more common ones are:

  • income, earnings, payments, bonus offers, or various other amounts owing by an employer to an employee;
  • repayment of expenses owed to an employee;
  • amounts due to a professional or contractor for work performed, products, or services;
  • lease or rent payments;
  • loan payments;
  • interest or dividend payments;
  • insurance claim settlements
  • amounts on deposit at a financial institution

Seizing your assets

A garnishee through an RTP is to intercept and seize payments from a third party to the taxpayer. But what if there is no such third party that exists or can be found but the taxpayer has assets?

In that situation, the CRA has the power to seize assets found registered in the name of the taxpayer. This is how CRA goes about doing it. The CRA can lawfully register your debt with the Federal Court of Canada. By doing so they get a certificate validating the amount you owe to the Crown. As soon as it is issued, this certification, called a memorial, has the same or even greater impact as a judgment if someone sued you.

Now that the CRA has the memorial, they can register it against any assets in your name. This includes your home and its possessions owned by the taxpayer. The CRA rarely actually takes physical possession of the assets, but in most cases, they don’t need to. It will be impossible to sell or refinance your assets with the CRA memorial registered against it under provincial law. So when that time comes, the taxpayer will have no choice but to deal with the CRA on the outstanding debt, one way or the other.

Here are different ways that you can deal with the CRA on your tax debt if you cannot pay it now in full.

Payment arrangement

This is the first and most hassle-free way of paying off your tax debt. A payment arrangement is a settlement plan you make with the CRA. It enables you to make smaller regular payments over time until you have paid your whole tax debt plus interest.

Prior to agreeing to the settlement plan, the CRA collections officer will want to know that you are paying the maximum amount you can afford. Hopefully, the amount you can pay is at least the same as the minimum monthly amount the collections officer is willing to accept.

So, the collections officer will ask you all sorts of questions and may even want you to complete a questionnaire, so that they understand your monthly budget as part of any debt settlement plan.

As part of making a payment arrangement, you should also be working with your accountant to see if any of the taxpayer relief provisions are available to you. This blog isn’t meant to be a discussion of the income tax act or taxpayer relief, so, I won’t go into any more detail than that.

Any payment arrangement has to deal with 100% of the principal amount of tax owing plus interest. Unfortunately, the collections officer does not have the authority to make a deal to accept less than full payment, absent an insolvency proceeding (further discussed below).

Insolvency proceeding

If you cannot reach a satisfactory payment arrangement with the CRA, or you have one but can no longer keep up with the payments, then, the taxpayer can consider an insolvency filing. In the case of an individual, it would be either bankruptcy or a consumer proposal. For a corporation, it would be either a Division I Proposal or bankruptcy.

Either bankruptcy or a proposal will stop CRA’s ability to issue a requirement to pay or obtain a memorial. However, if CRA has obtained and registered a memorial before the taxpayer files for either a restructuring proposal or bankruptcy, the memorial cannot be eliminated.

Similarly, for a corporation, unremitted source deductions form a deemed trust claim against the company’s assets. So in either a bankruptcy or financial restructuring proposal, this trust claim cannot be eliminated or reduced. However, for both individuals and companies, the income tax debt can be eliminated. For companies, the HST arrears will not be a trust claim in bankruptcy. Unlike a bankruptcy, HST arrears are not automatically made unsecured by the wording of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). However, current CRA policy in financial restructuring proposals results in the HST arrears being treated as an unsecured claim.

Personal or corporate income tax is an unsecured debt. As soon as you’ve declared bankruptcy or filed the financial restructuring proposal, the CRA cannot begin or continue any action against you, including wage garnishment or freezing your assets, including your bank account. Your licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) will alert CRA as soon as you submit your filing and advise it to quit any type of enforcement activity through any RTP. As I stated above, unfortunately, any memorial already registered will remain against your assets.

Do you have too much debt?

I hope you have found this CRA contact Brandon’s Blog to have useful information for you. Do you have too much debt? Are you in financial distress? Do you not have adequate funds to pay your financial obligations as they come due?

If so, call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience assisting people looking for financial restructuring, a debt settlement plan and to AVOID bankruptcy.

As a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee), we are the only professionals accredited, acknowledged and supervised by the federal government to provide insolvency advice and to implement approaches to help you remain out of personal bankruptcy while eliminating your debts. A consumer proposal is a government approved debt settlement plan to do that. We will help you decide on what is best for you between a consumer proposal vs bankruptcy.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so you can eliminate the stress, anxiety, and pain from your life that your financial problems have caused. With the one-of-a-kind roadmap, we develop just for you, we will immediately return you right into a healthy and balanced problem-free life.

You can have a no-cost analysis so we can help you fix your troubles. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will allow you to go back to a new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over Starting Now.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

MORTGAGE LENDING CRITERIA SELF EMPLOYED: BIGGEST MYTH MAY BE RIGHT

320efcd005100f3ee3522fefba70f917

Mortgage lending criteria self employed: Introduction

Mortgagees rely upon the provincial land registry system to decide what obligations are secured against real property and in what order of priority. When it comes to mortgage lending criteria self employed, a recent Court decision has proven that when it comes to a self employed person’s mortgage, if there is a deemed trust claim by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), you cannot solely rely upon the registry system.

Mortgage lending criteria self employed: The Court case

The Court case I am referring to is Canada v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2018 FC 538 (CanLII) which was heard in Federal Court. In this matter, the Crown on behalf of Her Majesty looked to recover funds Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) obtained from one of its clients who repaid a loan secured by a home mortgage upon the sale of his house. The client was a self employed person.

The Crown claimed that there was an outstanding deemed trust claim for collected but unremitted GST. The Crown further claimed that the proceeds from the sale of the home collected by TD was subject to the CRA deemed trust claim, was property of Her Majesty and that TD had to pay it over. TD did not take the position that it had a registered first charge and can keep the funds. It argued that as a “bona fide purchaser for value” it is not subject to the deemed trust claim and does not have to pay over the money.

Mortgage lending criteria self employed: The undisputed facts

The borrower carried on a landscaping business as a sole proprietor. In 2007 and 2008, he collected and did not remit GST totaling $67,854. TD held both a registered mortgage and a home equity line of credit (HELOC) against the borrower’s home. The home was sold in 2011. The borrower repaid the mortgage and HELOC in full from the sale of the home.

Almost two years later in April 2013, CRA made demand on TD for repayment of $97,327, revised in 2015 by amended demand for $67,854. TD refused to pay.

Mortgage lending criteria self employed: What the Court said

The Federal Court reviewed the legislation. The Court decided that the funds paid to TD were proceeds of sale of his property. Therefore, it is covered by the deemed trust CRA claim. So the Court found that the requirements of Section 222 of the Excise Tax Act were met.

The Court agreed with the Crown’s position that the deemed trust Canada claim covered the debtor’s house. This is in spite of there was no registration on title and that the Bank had proper valid registrations. The Court further agreed that according to Section 222(3) of the Income Tax Act, the Bank has an obligation to pay over the proceeds it received which were impressed with the deemed trust.

The Judge disagreed with TD’s position. TD stated that the payment of proceeds only applied if a secured creditor enforces its security. This was not the case in this situation. The Court further disagreed with TD’s position that it was a bona fide purchaser for value. The Court agreed that money could be considered property available in such a defence. However, it stated that a secured creditor facing a deemed trust claim could not use that defence. TD also offered certain public policy issues in its defence, but the Court was not swayed.

TD is liable to pay over the amount of $67,854, interest and costs.

Mortgage lending criteria self employed: So what is the biggest myth?

The biggest myth is as follows. To find out what claims against the real property, you only have to perform a title search.

This is an important decision for mortgage lending criteria self employed people. Now TD is in the position of having to make demand on and possibly sue in 2018 its borrower who ostensibly repaid the loan in full in 2011! It would be suing as an unsecured creditor.

What this means for mortgagees is that they can no longer just accept funds from a self employed person who wishes to pay off a loan, be it a mortgage or other type of loan, from the sale of property. It also cannot merely accept funds to pay off a loan from a self employed individual’s business bank account.

Mortgage lending criteria self employed: So what is the fix?

Rather, the lender also must now get a true copy of a statement from CRA showing that there are no amounts owing by the self employed person on account of either HST or source deductions as the employer of others.

Lenders would also be well advised to add language to their loan term sheet, loan documents and any other documents issued when a loan is repaid. The new language would be an attestation by the self employed borrower that there are no amounts owing to any government authority that would be considered or deemed to be a trust claim.

Further, the language would have to make it clear that in the event there were any such amounts owing, even if the loan was fully repaid, the lender had the right to demand and sue the borrower for any amounts proven to be a deemed trust claim that the lender was required to pay over to the government at some later date.

No doubt this case will be relied upon by Her Majesty when the Callidus Capital Corporation v. Her Majesty the Queen case is heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in November 2018

Mortgage lending criteria self employed: Does your business need HST and source deductions you collected to stay afloat?

Does your business need HST and source deductions you collected to stay afloat? Can your business not afford to pay over to the government deemed trust claim amounts collected? If so, then your business is in trouble and requires restructuring immediately. You need the advice of a professional trustee now!

The Ira Smith Team have decades of experience in complex corporate and other business financial restructurings. We first look at how we can reorganize and restructure your business to rescue it. You are worried because your business is facing significant financial challenges. The stress placed upon you because of your business’s financial challenges are enormous. We understand your pain points, and we know how to relieve them for you.

If you or your company cannot survive without a restructuring, contact Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. NOW for a free consultation. You are just one phone call away from getting back on the road to financial health and reducing your stress levels, Starting Over, Starting Now.mortgage lending criteria self employed

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

BUSINESS DEBT ADVICE CANADA: TROUBLE SHOOTING DEBT STRAPPED COMPANIES

business debt advice canada

2

 

Business debt advice Canada: Introduction

When it involves money, timing is everything. Your business is getting closer to the top of its banking line and your banker is asking for more information than usual. This is where your heart starts pounding faster and your stress level increases. This is the moment you can seize to right size your business or else it very well may fail. The purpose of my blog is to give you business debt advice Canada.

Business debt advice Canada: Relationships can become strained

Relationships can become strained with your lender and suppliers when business debts are mounting and your company is facing a cash crisis. However, there are actions a borrower can take to prevent calamity. Reassuringly, most of the time, lenders would rather support you if you have a viable business plan to correct the situation going forward, and not putting you out of business.

I hope the suggestions below shows you that you should look at this as an opportunity to fix your business. I have found that in trying times when a company has mounting debts and insufficient cash, there is no replacement for good management.

A solid business plan showing how the company will turn itself around is what your lender wants to see. Communication with your lender and your suppliers is key. Do not hide from the problem. Face it head on. If your business plan shows you can turn things around, you will feel like you are dealing from a sound platform and not just running scared.

Business debt advice Canada: Take emotion out of the equation

These situations generally become more tense before they become better. You, your lender and your unpaid suppliers all want the same thing. You all want the company to be successful and profitable, and to be able to pay all of its bills in full when due. Your lender and suppliers are not out to get you. However, if they do not: (i) know that you have solid business turnaround plan; and (ii) receive ongoing information to show what steps you are taking to fix the problems, they will have no choice but to turn off the tap.

I have unfortunately seen too many companies fail in their business restructuring efforts due to lack of communication. The turnaround plan may have been sound, but nobody knew. This only creates ill will among the stakeholders and a result that nobody wants.

Business debt advice Canada: Informal and formal turnaround options

I must preface this section by saying do not be afraid to consult with a licensed insolvency trustee (LIT) for business debt advisory services. Trustees’ training makes them expert in assessing troubled business situations and implementing turnaround steps. A LIT does a lot more than just bankruptcy.

You will find it helpful to have a professional trustee assist you in developing your turnaround business plan, implementing it and keeping management focussed and accountable. You will also find it very helpful to have a LIT go with you for meetings with your banker; there will be many of those!

Business debt advice Canada: Troubleshooting

Fully understanding the full current status of the company showing signs of financial trouble is key. Things that I focus on early on when looking at troubled companies are:

  • What are all the different assets of the company and where are they located?
  • Are all the assets properly insured?
  • What is the going-concern value and the estimated liquidation value of the assets?
  • What is the full extent of all liabilities and business debt levels? This includes amounts owing to the government for:
  • What is the status of premises lease(s) for both remaining term and cost?
  • Is the cost of the leased premises above or below current market value?
  • Has anyone personally guaranteed bank debt, the landlord or any other creditor that would affect turnaround decisions to be taken?
  • Has a current crisis cash-flow statement and turnaround business plan been developed and tested for reasonableness?
  • What are the causes of the company’s current financial problems and how likely are those causes to recur?

This list is not meant to be exhaustive. No doubt other questions will arise as answers are found for these first questions. However, this is the information I first want to get before embarking on developing a restructuring plan.

Business debt advice Canada: Informal restructuring and turnaround

If the business problems have been identified early and have not been allowed to fester, then an informal restructuring may very well work. Perhaps all that will be needed is some accommodation from the lender both in time and money. Banks are quite willing to enter into a forbearance agreement with their corporate client allowing the time (and sometimes more money) to see if the turnaround plan will work.

The bank would rather have a successful turnaround than shut you down. The bank needs to know that management has the bench strength to pull off the restructuring. If not, they will expect you to have a lawyer experienced in turnarounds and a LIT active on your team.

Companies that have relatively few trade suppliers may also be able to work out a restructuring of their unsecured debt. The fewer people you have to talk to and get onside, the higher the likelihood of success. Of course, the trust developed from earlier dealings is very important. If there is no trust, or if there are just too many suppliers, an informal restructuring will not work with them.

Business debt advice Canada: Formal restructuring

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-36) (CCAA) are the two primary Federal statutes that govern corporate restructuring in Canada. The requirements of each statute and the exact processes themselves are weighty enough to deserve their own blog. However, the takeaways from this blog on formal restructuring are:

  • In a formal restructuring, I still go through the checklist I have identified above of issues to look into.
  • Under the BIA, the restructuring section is Part I Division III of the BIA
  • If a restructuring under the BIA does not receive the necessary creditor AND court approval, the company will automatically be bankrupt
  • In a formal restructuring, the company stays in control of its assets and business operations
  • A formal restructuring invokes a stay of proceedings so no party can begin or continue litigation or enforcement action against the company
  • A company needs to have at least $5 million in debt to restructure under the CCAA
  • A BIA restructuring will be less costly than a CCAA restructuring because the company does not have to go to Court for approval every time it wishes to do something
  • The term “bankruptcy protection” in Canada, refers to a formal restructuring under either the BIA or CCAA.

Business debt advice Canada: What to do if your company has too much debt

Is your business facing financial problems? Perhaps your company is in need of a restructuring. The Ira Smith Team can develop a restructuring plan which may or may not include the need to file for bankruptcy protection.

The Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. Team understands the pain you are going through trying to keep your company alive while trying to negotiate with potential purchasers. We understand that you are playing beat the clock, and the pain and stress you are feeling thinking that you may just run out of time. The bankruptcy protection process can ease this stress and provide a level playing field so that no potential purchaser takes advantage of you.

The Ira Smith Team has a great deal of experience in running a stalking horse stalking horse asset purchase agreement. The stress placed upon you due to your company’s financial challenges is enormous. We understand your pain points. Call the Ira Smith Team today for your free consultation. We can end your pain and put your company back on a healthy profitable path, Starting Over, Starting Now.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

COMPANY RESTRUCTURING PROCESS CASE STUDY: HOW WE USED BUSINESS RESTRUCTURING IN CANADA TO SAVE THE BUSINESS AND JOBS

2

Company restructuring process: Introduction

Over the last two weeks, we have provided you with real case studies from our files. This week’s case study is about our involvement with a company restructuring process so its business could continue to serve its clients and maintain most of the jobs.

Two weeks ago we described a personal insolvency case study, CLAIM BANKRUPTCY IN ONTARIO CASE STUDY: SHE REALLY WANTED TO BUT WE STOPPED HER AND SOLVED HER PROBLEMS, was about the surgeon who became insolvent because of a failed business venture and a divorce. The events leading up to the doctor’s insolvency convinced her that she had to go bankrupt. We then described the steps we took to restructure her affairs so she could avoid bankruptcy. She completed a successful Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). More importantly, she regained her confidence, we eliminated her pain points and she is once again thriving emotionally, physically and financially.

Last week, we described a situation where we used our skill set in a different way. In our case study, COURT APPOINTED ESTATE TRUSTEE CASE STUDY: IF IT WAS EASY YOU WOULDN’T NEED US, we described how we ended a war between the two beneficiaries under a Will and monetized the assets for their benefit. In that situation, the Court appointed us as the court appointed estate trustee.

Company restructuring process: The social media agency

The company was a social media agency. Their clients were some of the largest household names in North America. The company made sure that their clients’ websites were eye-catching, technologically advanced using leading search engine optimization (SEO) and search engine marketing (SEM) techniques. In short, their clients had to show up on page 1 of an online search and that their websites were eye-popping and functional. The company was a Canadian and North American leader.

Company restructuring process: Life got in the way

The sole shareholder and Director experienced some health issues with a family member; that required her attention. She was tending to that emergency and it took her away from the business for lengthy periods of time. Experienced senior staff ran the business in her absence. The entrepreneur felt she could deal with business matters by telephone. They established a process where she signed documents and cheques prepared by staff members using couriers.

Company restructuring process: Senior staff were not trustworthy

WRONG!! Although she trusted the senior staff, they turned out not to be trustworthy. They made mistakes and assured the owner that the documents and cheques they prepared were correct.

They also provided her status reports assuring her that all client activities and projects were all on schedule. The reality was that certain senior staff were plotting to establish their own agency, to steal clients. The sole Director felt something was not right, but she could not pinpoint from afar what the issues were. She returned to the office and discovered that her worst fears were her new reality.

Company restructuring process: How bad was it?

Things were very bad. Billings were way behind. Cash flow had dried up. As a result of the lack of cash flow, the company was now behind in rent and had collected but did not remit source deductions totalling over $300,000. The unremitted source deductions formed a trust claim over all the company’s assets, ahead of the company’s bank. Learning all this information made the bank very uneasy and unwilling to lend any more money.

Company restructuring process: The short-term steps in financial restructuring

The sole Director and shareholder of the company contacted us. She was operating in panic mode. We assessed the situation. Our preliminary assessment was that catching up on the billings and the clients paying them in the normal course, good cash flow would return. There was also a good book of projects to start on; just not as many as normal. Thankfully, no clients had left yet.

The short-term plan we developed had 7 steps:

  1. Fire the staff involved in the attempt to start-up their own firm and steal clients. Pay their normal wages and vacation pay, but not pay in lieu of notice.
  2. File immediately a Notice of Intention To Make a Proposal (NOI) to invoke the stay of proceedings (Stay Period) so that no creditor could take action against the company.
  3. Immediately bill all unbilled projects and begin collection efforts on any outstanding invoices.
  4. Reach out to all major clients to reassure them that the entrepreneur was in control after returning from the family emergency and that she would personally be supervising all work performed.
  5. Prepare a crisis cash flow model that thankfully showed that the company could cash flow itself since the amounts owing to the unsecured creditors was not caught in the restructuring.
  6. The company required fresh capital. Luckily, the entrepreneur had enough funds to inject.
  7. Meet with the company’s banker to explain the situation and share the emergency cash flow to show that the company did not need any new funds from the bank and that the principal was going to inject the temporary funds necessary. This gave the banker the assurance that the bank line would not be pressed any further, and that the entrepreneur was willing to put her money where her mouth was.

    ISI 4
    company restructuring process

Company restructuring process: The long-term plan

Now that the situation was stabilized, we worked with the company to look at longer term restructuring needs. It needed a business debt restructuring process. We determined that the company had too much space. As it did not need to immediately replace the terminated staff, it now did not need as much space. Certain space could be given up without affecting the main space and the business.

The landlord of course was not happy about this, but was willing to work with the company. If the landlord was not cooperative, the backup plan was to repudiate the unnecessary space through the formal restructuring plan.

The terminated employees retained legal counsel, who made himself known. Various issues arose from this. Were they going to seek leave of the bankruptcy court to launch litigation for damages against the company? What counterclaim could the company prove? Should we agree to attempt to value what claims they may have without litigation and include them in the restructuring plan?

Company restructuring process: The need for more time

Upon the filing of the NOI, the company obtained a first 30 day stay where its creditors could not pursue it and to file the real restructuring proposal. The company had to run for at least a few weeks to assess if the real performance was similar to the cash flow forecast developed on day 1.

Therefore, the company’s lawyers went to bankruptcy court to seek a 45 day extension for the company to file its bankruptcy protection restructuring plan. As Trustee, we had to prepare and file our report with the court to attest to the fact that:

  1. an extension of the Stay Period is required to enable the company to continue to run in the ordinary course and complete its restructuring proposal;
  2. the company continues to act in good faith and with due diligence; and
  3. no creditor would be materially prejudiced by the extension of the Stay Period.

The Court granted the extension for this company restructuring process.

Company restructuring process: The corporate debt restructuring process

We could now finish the real corporate restructuring proposal through this bankruptcy protection process. Given the unknown of the final valuation of the terminated employees’ claims, if any, we had to build in further protection for the company. We decided that the company’s bankruptcy protection plan would be what is known as a “basket proposal”. The amount of funds available for the unsecured creditors would be a fixed amount. So, whatever the claims ended up being, the size of the pot never changed.

Under the bankruptcy laws in Canada for a corporation undergoing a corporate restructuring, we had to ensure that there were sufficient funds for the unsecured creditors to share in “the pot”. The amount had to be realistic, to get the required majority of unsecured creditors voting in favour of the corporate restructuring plan. We also had to ensure that the bank was not being compromised in the proposal and that we communicated that clearly to the bank.

Company restructuring process: The government trust claim

As stated above, the unremitted source deductions were a trust claim. The restructuring bankruptcy laws in Canada state that such a claim has to be repaid in full within 6 months of Court approval of the restructuring proposal. We revisited the company’s cash flow. Although the company was on track, over the next year, money was needed to reinvest in the business.

The entrepreneur had no more money from her own resources. Therefore, after allowing for operations and the payment of the past unremitted source deduction amount of about $300,000, we could only offer the unsecured creditors roughly 5 cents on the dollar of the proven claims from future operations. The company promised to pay that amount within 6 months of retiring the government trust claim amount. So, within 1 year of Court approval, the unsecured creditors would get their money from the corporate restructuring plan.

Company restructuring process: Solving the terminated employee claims

Seeing this, the terminated employee group did not wish to spend funds on litigation, only to receive 5% of whatever claim they may have from the restructuring plan. We ended up agreeing to a very modest amount to represent their claims in the proposal.

The meeting of creditors was held and we obtained the required majority of creditors voting in favour of the business restructuring proposal. The creditors realized it was a better outcome than if they voted the company into bankruptcy. They voted in favour of the company restructuring process. We then obtained the necessary Court approval.

Company restructuring process: The result

The company turned its operations around. It survived the coup by the terminated employees. The company produced enough cash profits to retire the government trust claim debt within 6 months of court approval. It also paid the proposal fund amount to us as Trustee on time, to be distributed to the unsecured creditors.

The company successfully restructured and operated profitably afterwards. The entrepreneur was able to sell her company several years later and retire.

Company restructuring process: The financial restructuring process

The financial restructuring process is complex. The Ira Smith Team understands how to do a complex corporate restructuring. However, more importantly, we understand the needs of the entrepreneur. You are worried because your company is facing significant financial challenges. Your business provides income not only for your family. Many other families rely on you and your company for their well-being.

The stress placed upon you due to your company’s financial challenges is enormous. We understand your pain points. We look at your entire situation and devise a strategy that is as unique as you and your company’s problems; financial and emotional. The way we dealt with this problem and devised a corporate restructuring plan, we know that we can help you and your company too.

We know that companies facing financial problems need a realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” approach with the Ira Smith Team. That is why we can develop a company restructuring process as unique as the financial problems and pain it is facing. If any of this sounds familiar to you and you are serious in finding a solution, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. team today.

Call us now for a free consultation. We will get your company back on the road to healthy stress free operations and recover from the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

COMPANY RESTRUCTURING PROCESS 11
company restructuring process
Call a Trustee Now!