CRA dings taxpayer for RRSP overcontribution tax on account of financial institution error

Article content material

As first-time homebuyers put together for the launch of the tax-free first dwelling financial savings account (FHSA) later this yr, let’s not neglect it might be used along with the present Dwelling Consumers’ Plan (HBP) to help with the acquisition of a primary dwelling.

Article content material

Certainly, for a lot of first-time homebuyers, particularly those that plan to purchase their first dwelling inside the subsequent few years, being able to faucet into current registered retirement financial savings plans (RRSPs) through the HBP will be the solely strategy to provide you with a ample down fee.

Article content material

However the HBP comes with its personal algorithm that might doubtlessly land you in bother with the taxman if not adopted, which is what occurred in a current case. Earlier than delving into the main points, let’s evaluation some HBP fundamentals.

The HBP permits a first-time homebuyer to withdraw as much as $35,000 from an RRSP to buy or construct a primary dwelling with out having to pay tax on the withdrawal. Quantities withdrawn underneath the HBP have to be repaid to an RRSP over a interval not exceeding 15 years, beginning the second yr following the yr of the withdrawal. Quantities not repaid in a specific yr, as required, have to be included in revenue.

Article content material

Within the current tax case, a taxpayer and his partner bought their first dwelling collectively in 2006, every of them making withdrawals from their respective RRSPs as a part of the HBP. In 2012, the taxpayer’s partner had an excellent HBP steadiness of $13,142. In 2013, she went into her native financial institution department to make a fee into her RRSP to repay this HBP steadiness.

Sadly, it appears her financial institution mistakenly positioned this fee into her spousal RRSP account for which the taxpayer (the husband) was the contributor, quite than into her private RRSP account. She then claimed this $13,142 contribution as an HBP compensation on her 2013 tax return.

The taxpayer additionally made an RRSP contribution of $13,111 in compensation of his personal HBP steadiness, and claimed that compensation on his return. However due to the alleged financial institution error, the Canada Income Company took the place that the taxpayer was additionally the contributor of the $13,142 HBP fee made by his partner, which resulted within the taxpayer being in an overcontribution scenario in 2013.

Article content material

Article content material

Quick ahead to 2018, when the taxpayer mistakenly contributed an extra $19,000 to his RRSP following a pension buyout. It was this overcontribution that led the CRA to evaluate a penalty tax, which is the same as one per cent per thirty days for every month the overcontribution (in extra of an allowable $2,000) stays within the RRSP.

The taxpayer testified it was solely throughout a December 2020 telephone name with a CRA consultant that he realized of the CRA’s place that he had each made an unintentional overcontribution in 2018 regarding his pension buyback, and that he nonetheless had a $13,142 extra contribution from 2013.

Following this name, the taxpayer realized this case resulted from what he thought-about to be a financial institution error when it processed his partner’s HBP compensation.

Article content material

In July 2021, the taxpayer requested the CRA waive this tax. Below the Earnings Tax Act, the CRA has the discretion to cancel or waive the overcontribution tax when the surplus contributions had been made due to an affordable error and the taxpayer took, or was taking, affordable steps to take away the surplus.

The CRA denied the taxpayer’s first request as a result of he didn’t present an amended RRSP receipt or a letter from his financial institution acknowledging the alleged error, and “it was the (taxpayer’s) duty to be sure that all contributions had been made based on the principles and laws.”

However the taxpayer was unable to get an amended receipt or financial institution letter as a result of greater than seven years had handed for the reason that time of the HBP compensation, and he was advised his financial institution now not had information of the transaction.

Article content material

In Might 2022, the taxpayer submitted a second request to waive the tax. In response, the CRA acknowledged the taxpayer’s RRSP extra contributions weren’t intentional, however, nonetheless, “third-party errors don’t usually justify the cancellation of a tax.”

As well as, the CRA claimed the taxpayer was knowledgeable of his extra RRSP contributions on his 2017 and 2018 Notices of Evaluation (NOAs), and his financial institution would nonetheless have had the required information from 2013 had the taxpayer acted upon this info at the moment.

In consequence, the CRA once more denied the taxpayer’s request for reduction, concluding “there have been no circumstances past the (taxpayer’s) management, reminiscent of a pure or human-made catastrophe, that might allow the cancellation of the penalty,” and it expressed “remorse” that its choice “can’t be extra beneficial.”

Article content material

The taxpayer appealed the CRA’s second choice to the Federal Court docket, which heard the case in Toronto on March 6. He argued there was no info within the 2017 and 2018 NOAs that might have alerted him to the CRA’s place that he had made an RRSP overcontribution of $13,142 again in 2013 regarding the HBP compensation.

The choose agreed, saying it was “unclear to me how the (CRA) might have concluded that, just by alerting the (taxpayer) to the truth that he was in an overcontribution scenario, the 2017 and 2018 NOAs had been ample to place him on discover that CRA thought-about him to have made (an) overcontribution in 2013 such that he might pursue that topic with (his financial institution). I contemplate this reasoning to be missing in logic and transparency.”

Article content material

The taxpayer had hoped for a court docket order instantly cancelling the overcontribution tax, however the choose referred the matter again to the CRA to be reconsidered by a distinct decision-maker. The choose additionally rejected the taxpayer’s damages declare of $1 for “inflicting psychological sickness and stress in the course of the time of the COVID-19 pandemic,” however did award him his out-of-pocket court docket disbursement prices.

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

_____________________________________________________________

For those who favored this story, join extra within the FP Investor e-newsletter.

_____________________________________________________________