Income trust tax loophole gaining popularity

Income trusts have dominated business headlines in Canada for the past couple days, ever since one of the oldest corporations in the country announced they were converting to save hundreds of millions in corporate taxes.

Income trusts eliminate the double taxation in Canada on business income above the small business limit ($300,000 in 2006). Up to the limit, there is near-perfect integration, meaning there is no difference between earning income in a corporation or personally. (Trust income is like personally-earned for all intents and purposes.)

Integration in Canada is achieved below the noted threshold via two mechanisms. One on the corporate side and one on the shareholder side. Corporations are taxed on their income, and income up to the limit is eligible for the “small business deduction”, basically a reduced rate. Shareholders receive corporate income via dividends, which are grossed up by 25%, taxed at the marginal rate, and then the dividend tax credit eliminates the gross-up.

It’s been a couple years nearly since my last tax course in school, so I don’t remember the specifics, but somehow, it works. But income above the limit is not eligible for the reduced rate, and the difference is double tax. So as business journalists are shrill with rage that BCE (Bell Canada Enterprises) and other companies are robbing the state of needed tax dollars, those in the know realize that it was unfair tax to begin with.

As well, one of the fundamental aims of any tax system is to avoid creating situations where tax influences decisions. Clearly, that is happening here.

The government still needs money for programs, however, and ordinary Canadians have good reason to be concerned about the slimming of the corporate tax base. But I would argue that instead of drastic measures that would seek to restore the double tax in some form, we should consider other options, such as increasing rates on personal tax.

If you’re frequent reader of my ramblings, you know my favourite option is jacking up the value-added GST to about 25% and eliminating all other taxes. But this isn’t tax utopia, and that isn’t happening any time soon.

The problem is misinformation, however, and a lack of understanding about the nature of the tax being “lost”. Here’s a blog that seeks to quantify the lost revenue the conversion of BCE will cause. It’s a useful endeavour, and is generally done correctly, but completely ignores the most important part about the revenue: it was inefficient, unfair, and decision-influencing (which is bad) to begin with.

Mining Wikipedia for accounting topics

Wikipedia logoWikipedia is a good source of information about a variety of topics. I’m pleased to find that it’s generally pretty good about accounting too.

The article on the Balance Sheet contains “case studies” showing the effect of some transactions on a very basic balance sheet.

As well, I’d never seen non-current liabilities referred to as “fixed” liabilities before, although I’m familiar with “fixed assets.” Guess I’d just never considered the contra terminology!

It makes sense though, given that they result in fixed costs to the business, in general.

The article on the Income Statement shows some examples from Colgate-Palmolive and Viacom and gives instructions on calculating earnings-per-share.

Pensions have been in the news lately, with FASB announcing revised standards regarding the funded status of defined benefit plans.

Wikipedia’s pension entry provides a solid description of the two types of pensions, defined benefit and defined contribution.

I learned something new on the pension page as well:

In an unfunded defined benefit pension, no assets are set aside and the benefits are paid for by the employer or other pension sponsor as and when they are paid. Pension arrangements provided by the state in most countries in the world are unfunded, with benefits paid directly from current workers’ contributions and taxes.

It’s not surprising to find out we don’t learn how to account for these types of pensions in school. It’s basically pensions on a cash basis. Pay the cash, recognize the expense.

Poor matching of expenses to the revenue they helped generate – which is no doubt why governments are the only organizations that get to use this type!

Have you ever contributed to Wikipedia?

Simpler corporate income tax filing requirements

An agreement reached between the Canadian Federal government and the provincial Ontario government will simplify corporate taxes by 2009. The Ontario tax return, known as the CT23, will be amalgamated with the Federal return.

Ontario Finance Minister Greg Sorbara had this on the much-lauded move:

“Businesses have been asking us to reduce administrative overlap and duplication,” the Ontario treasurer said. “When governments work together, we can improve efficiency and help businesses free up resources that they can then invest in creating jobs.”

There’s no doubt this is a great move to simplify taxes in Canada – it leaves Alberta and Quebec as the only remaining provinces that require separate returns.

I’m not sure how much this is going to save businesses, however, since the only major difference between the information on an Ontario return compared to a federal one is with capital tax. I suppose that’s why the savings is only $100-million for all business in Ontario.

I hope this means only one Notice of Assessment to deal with, and a single toll-free number to call and get instalment amounts and other details.

But it will certainly allow the government(s), if they can manage it, to slim down and make operations more efficient on that side. I like to think we’re all winners when government improves.

List of links to pages with lists of links to accounting blogs

Recently it feels like there has been a sudden discovery of accounting blogs:

There are links to more blogs than those four – these are the ones who have dedicated a blog post to listing the new links or announcing that their blogrolls have been updated.

New Jersey legislates tax on iTunes downloads

iTunes logoNew Jersey residents have been hit by their government with a 7% tax on iTunes downloads (as well as other music download services such as Napster) this past week.

The sales tax overall was raised from 6 to 7% in order to help the state fight their $4.5-billion deficit.

Many are speculating that other states will follow New Jersey’s lead and introduce their own sales tax on music and movies downloads.

I guess I don’t really see anything really wrong with this. I have never bought music from iTunes. And there’s really no good reason not to tax it like anything else, other than just not liking taxes in general.

At least the people the Governor is pissing off with this move is bound to be primarily from a demographic that is known for not voting.

[Via taxalicious, via CNET News.blog]