Poll: Complexity Adds to Trust, Capital Gains Tax Uncertainty

Canada’s tax system has been undergoing significant reforms.  The complexity and uncertainty caused by hurried tax law and a lack of readiness at CRA, have resulted in two last minute cancellations, most recently to  filing T3 returns for bare trusts - so far, only for the 2023 tax year.  Problem is, CRA, can still make a direct request for these filings.  KBR subscribers had mixed reviews about this, discussed below.  By April 16, taxpayers faced further complexity on their sound financial plans:  the proposed capital gains inclusion rate increase. Are these taxes on capital gains the wrong move at this time?  Consider the research and join us May 22 for a vibrant national discussion on what to do about it.

Yet more complexity:  the proposed capital gains inclusion rates.  The next poll question for the month of May is this: “Do you agree with the proposed increase on capital gains inclusion rates to 66 2/3% on capital gains over $250,000 for individuals and all capital gains on corporations and trusts on or after June 25, 2024?”. Weigh in here!

Your opinion is important and we hope to get a broad national view on the issue this month.  In contemplating your answer, consider the findings in a comprehensive research paper on capital gains taxation from Fraser Institute  (highly recommended supplemental reading).  The following points particularly stand out for us:

Capital Gains Taxes and Inflation.  “Some portion of capital gains represents inflation, not a real increase in value. The current tax law does not adjust the tax basis of a capital asset for inflation. A lower tax rate on long term gains may be viewed as a crude correction for the inflation element in the gain. The correction is not exact. Assets may be held for varying lengths of time, and be subject to more or less inflation. No single lower rate could correct for inflation in assets held for different time periods. Indexing the tax basis for inflation would be a more exact approach.”

Why Taxing Capital Gains as Ordinary Income is Double Taxation.  “The value of an asset will rise when there is an increase in its expected future earning power. Taxing capital gains as ordinary income is double taxation. If the higher expected future earnings that create the gain ever materialize, they will be subject to tax in that future period. To also tax the increase in the present value of those after-tax future earnings is to subject them to double taxation.”

High Cost, Low Revenue.  “Experience with capital gains taxes in other jurisdictions suggests that higher capital gains taxes are self-defeating as a means of raising more revenue, and that lowering tax rates on capital gains can be positive for the tax base. Moore and Kerpen (2001) studied changes in capital gains tax rates in the United States over a thirty-year period and found a consistent pattern of revenue increases associated with capital gains tax reductions, and revenue declines with tax increases. . . capital gain taxes carry considerable economic costs and produce relatively little revenue. Empirical research shows that capital gains taxes impose high costs on the economy by reducing the supply of capital. They also lower the levels of entrepreneurship and risk taking, and distort the efficient allocation of new investments.”

Your opinion on the trust debacle.  CRA postponed just hours before the April 2 deadline, “in recognition that the new reporting requirements for bare trusts have had an unintended impact on Canadians.” The KBR poll question: “Did you agree with the government’s last minute abort of the bare trust filing requirements on March 28, just one business day before the April 2 deadline?” had tax and financial advisors split with only 62% saying “yes”. Here’s why:

I found that there are a lot of people (especially those that do their own taxes), that were totally unaware of the bare trust regulations. Until I had informed them of such, they had never even heard of such. Only when it became a news item referring to the detriment of say, a parent, co-signing to allow a child to get a mortgage, etc., did many people even realize how exposed to CRA fines they were. Another example of horribly thought out (not thought out), government intentions.

By Ron Young on April 12, 2024

I discussed this with a CRA consultant in February and he sent me a bunch of information about bare trusts and trust in general.  I had a bunch of clients who were anxious about the bare trust and I made applications for trust numbers.  I should have realized that this would happen, seeing about their dragging their feet with respect to the UHA.

By Theodorus van Everdink on April 11, 2024

Certainly better than proceeding.

By Robert Holmes on April 11, 2024

This was a ridiculous effort in getting more info from taxpayers that was going to end in a tax grab.  Totally ill thought of and mismanaged.  Anyone who spent extra money to fill out the required forms that became obsolete should be reimbursed.

By Linda Hambling on April 09, 2024

It was a difficult week when this was rolled out, and to understand what documents were required to file a Bare trust, who was the tax payer required to file a bare trust, and how so many tax professional offer a different answer to the who and what! It was three calls in to the CRA until the Bare Trust puzzle was put together.This is not how taxes are filed!
I respect CRA’s stance to filter out the abuser and get a better handle on when and how funds are stored.But a “rip the bandaid off” approach and figure it out later is just feeding the tax lawyers pudding!Pull back, step back, and do it right!
CRA was respectful to admit, they were not ready!

By Ann Laurin on April 04, 2024

Firstly, it was legislated that these had to be filed; the message is that the federal government doesn’t have to comply with legislation.  That’s not a good look period.  Secondly, they rolled out a second program without having their ducks in a row.  The UHT was a similar situation.  When the senior people at CRA are incapable of providing the tax preparers with details to tell you who is exempt from filing you have a problem.  Thirdly, they are showing a complete lack of respect for taxpayers and tax preparers alike. This is beyond frustrating, and leaves a very bad taste in your mouth.

By Doris Woodman-McMillan on April 04, 2024

I voted no to this because this should not have been cancelled at the last minute, after we’ve already invested thousands of dollars in training staff, educating clients, and filing all of these returns. This ridiculous filing requirement never should have happened in the first place. If the goal is to document beneficial ownership of properties, the government should just create a beneficial ownership registry and not require annual filings of a T3 return. The government should be held accountable for all the wasted accountants time and all the client’s wasted accounting and legal fees.

By marnie on April 04, 2024

I agree with above comments

By Virginia Hoover on April 04, 2024

I agree with aborting the whole process.  It was a boondoggle from the beginning.  I believe it is just another example of the federal government trying to get deeper into the taxpayers’ pockets.  Also, it very much should have been cancelled a lot earlier than it was, and better yet, not initiated in the first place.

By Robert A Litschel on April 04, 2024

It is hard to believe that a long-planned change in trust reporting can be so poorly executed.
All government levels involved expect accountants and other stakeholders to spend countless hours educating themselves and training their staff and then go out and educate the clients to prepare for these returns to be filed. At a time when we are all busy with regular T1s, just to pull the plug at the last minute is almost criminal. The government officials accountable for such a screw-up should at least apologize and try to restore trust.
After the UHT mess from last year, we would have expected better. What’s next???

By Frank Arnold on April 04, 2024

I agree that it should have been more thought out prior to being enacted and agree with the theory behind it.  Not that I believe “Mr. Tax Evader” would be filing their Bare Trust return but I can foresee the advantage to the Taxpayer in the future.  This year. as structured. should have remained for educational purposes.

Now documented will be that an asset is beneficially owned by an individual.  Think Principal Residence Exemption, Estates, Family Squabbles, Marital Break-downs, etc.

It will solve many down the road issues that have nothing to do with CRA and Taxation.

p.s. - it will NEVER be an advantage to CRA.

By ALAN ROWELL on April 04, 2024

The whole Bare Trust issue was an absolute disaster…..the government should have made the decision to exempt these types of returns from the required filing well in advance of the filing deadline!  Too many hours, monetary costs to clients and accounting firms, and stress at an already stress-filled tax filing season were just completely ignored by the government, despite numerous calls for action much earlier.  They finally did the right thing, but way too late.  Complete disrespect for our profession and our clients.

By SHERIF HENEIN on April 04, 2024

I agree with aborting the bare trust filing requirements.  They were intrusive and unnecessary and didn’t provide any relevant information.  However it should have been done long before March 28th.  How many accountants having been working long hours in a particularly busy time of year preparing filings and how many clients have paid to have these returns to be prepared then oops!  Sorry!  not needed.  What a waste of time, effort and money!

By Susan Hopcroft on April 04, 2024