Are you an employee or independent contractor?

In Canada, there are no hard and fast rules in the Tax Act that help an individual determine whether they are an employee or an independent contractor. There are three tests, which have evolved through court decisions, that are used to assess the relationship between an individual and his/her employer. They are:

  1. Economic reality or entrepreneur test
  2. Specific result test
  3. Organization or integration test

Why is this important? Well, if you’re a contractor, or self-employed, you can deduct any reasonable expense incurred to earn income. There is a distinction in the Tax Act between the type of income earned depending on whether you’re self-employed or not. If you’re self-employed, you earn business income as a sole proprietor. If you’re employed, you (of course) earn employment income and are restricted in the types of expenses you can deduct for tax purposes.

An employer is also required to withhold income tax, Canada Pension Plan contributions and Employment Insurance premiums from their employees’ pay. If you’re a contractor you’re likely required by the CRA to make tax installments since no one is withholding for you your contribution to the treasury on a regular basis. (The issue of installments will be covered in a future blog post.)

But back to the tests.

Economic reality or entrepreneur test

There are three aspects to this test: control, tool ownership, chance of profit/risk of loss. If someone is not only telling you what to do but how to do it, they have control over the work and a strong case is made that they are your employer. If you own the tools you need to do the job and they are not provided to you, this points to the likelihood that you are independent. Finally, if you are profiting from the work and bearing the risk of loss due to cost overruns, it is even more likely you are a contractor.

Specific result test

If there is a defined piece of work you’ve hired to do and you’ve been given the freedom to accomplish it however you see fit, the employer-employee relationship likely does not exist. As an employee you’re typically hired to perform tasks with no specific result and on an ongoing basis. If there is a defined beginning and end to the work required, that’s a pretty good indicator you’re self-employed.

Organization or integration test

This test concerns itself with the dependence of the individual on the organization. If benefits ordinarily conferred on employees are available to the individual, then from the outside (i.e. the CRA) it appears the individual is an employee. In certain cases the proportion of an individual’s total income which comes from a single organization has been taken into consideration as well, although personally I don’t think this is particularly convincing metric.

To sum up: There is no specific section of the Act that lays out all the rules to help a taxpayer determine if he/she can deduct expenses from their income. The law has evolved through court decisions and they have been based on the above three tests, which should all be taken into consideration along with the specific facts of the situation.

As with any general tax discussion, your personal situation is unique and could require the expertise of a Chartered Accountant. If you need a CA, please contact me and I will be happy to help you find one in your area!

re: A new auditing and accounting blog

re: The Auditors is a relatively new blog that covers the auditing profession and is written by Francine McKenna, who has some impressive work history which she details on her LinkedIn profile. I’ve added her to my Links.

Some posts I’ve found particularly interesting:

I think I found her via JobsintheMoney’s CareerWire blog, which links to the both of us.

8 quick facts about the principal residence exemption

Continuing the series of “quick facts” posts (see prior ones about the capital gains exemption and the new financial instruments standards), today is all about the principal residence exemption in Canada.

  1. Any residence may be designated a principal residence as long as you “ordinarily inhabit” the home. Ordinary inhabitation includes seasonal living such as your cottage and mobile homes such as a trailer or even a boat, as long as you lived on it!
  2. The designation of principal residence occurs in the year you dispose of it, and of course only one residence can be designated as principal for each specific year of ownership.
  3. The capital gain, if it cannot be entirely exempted, is prorated for the number of years you owned it and have designated it your principal residence over the total number of years you owned it.
  4. Deciding which residence to designate as principal depends on the capital gains on all owned residences on a per year basis, and then allocating each year in the optimal way to minimize the recognized gain.
  5. Starting in 1982, married couples who own more than one residence can only designate one family principal residence, called the “family unit” in the Tax Act.
  6. You can even designate foreign-owned homes as principal, but could incur foreign taxes upon sale. Naturally, the exemption applies only to your Canadian tax liability!
  7. If you rent out a home and decide to begin living in it, this “change in use” results in a deemed disposition and could result in a gain. An election exists to defer recognizing this gain until you ultimately sell the home.
  8. Conversely, if you live in a home and then begin renting it, you can still designate it as your principal residence for a number of years beyond that point. The exact number of years will depend on your specific details.

So to sum up the key points: Only one principal residence each year for the family unit, optimal tax planning requires estimating or calculating the gain per year for each residence owned, and a change in use has special rules that could result in a gain.

This is a very basic look at a complex section of the Tax Act. As with any general tax discussion, your personal situation is unique and requires the expertise of a Chartered Accountant. If you need a CA, please contact me and I will be happy to help you find one in your area!

BDO Dunwoody merges with Goodman Rosen

Hot on the heels of their announcement that the merger discussions with Grant Thornton were called off, BDO Dunwoody’s insolvency practice BDO Dunwoody Ltd. has joined forces in Nova Scotia with Goodman Rosen Inc.

Expanding one of Canada’s most comprehensive financial recovery practices, BDO Dunwoody Limited, Trustee in Bankruptcy and Goodman Rosen Inc., Trustee in Bankruptcy have agreed to merge their professional practices effective July 1, 2007. In Halifax and Sydney, the merged firm will operate as BDO Dunwoody Goodman Rosen Inc.

HandshakeGoodman Rosen Inc. is a boutique firm specializing in financial recovery services in Halifax and Sydney. The merger heralds a bold move by BDO to grow their full-service practice organically throughout Atlantic Canada.

In an ironic twist, Goodman Rosen currently offer (according to their website) appointments in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia at Grant Thornton’s offices.

What do you think? Is this a better growth option for BDO in Canada versus the attention-grabbing Grant Thornton merger talks announced earlier?