CRA taken to courtroom after denying help funds as tax deductible

Article content material

Among the many challenges of separation and divorce is figuring out whether or not spousal and youngster help shall be payable, and, in that case, how a lot and for a way lengthy. For anybody going by way of this course of, it’s essential to take the tax penalties under consideration when structuring a separation settlement.

Article content material

The Revenue Tax Act distinguishes between spousal help and youngster help, with completely different tax guidelines for every. Spousal help contains any quantities paid on a periodic foundation, below a courtroom order or settlement, for the help of a former partner or common-law accomplice. Baby help, alternatively, contains any help funds that aren’t particularly recognized in that order or settlement as being just for the previous partner’s or accomplice’s use. In each circumstances, the previous spouses or companions have to be dwelling aside after the breakdown of their marriage or relationship.

Article content material

If the courtroom order or separation settlement solely supplies help for a partner or accomplice, then the funds are absolutely taxable to the recipient and tax deductible to the payor. To make sure tax deductibility, the order or settlement have to be registered with the Canada Income Company. To take action, the previous spouses or companions ought to full CRA Kind T1158 Registration of Household Help Funds and embrace a replica of the order or settlement.

Article content material

If, alternatively, the order or settlement is solely for the help of youngsters, the funds are neither taxable to the recipient nor tax deductible to the payor, so there isn’t a have to register the settlement with the CRA.

If the settlement accommodates each spousal and youngster help, and it clearly signifies a separate quantity for a partner or accomplice, then this portion of the funds shall be deductible and taxable. However how formal does the settlement must be for the help funds to be tax deductible? A current tax case handled this particular situation.

The case concerned a taxpayer who acquired married in 2006, and legally separated on Dec. 8, 2010. In March 2011, the couple entered a separation settlement, signed by each events. The couple selected to arrange the separation settlement on their very own with out utilizing attorneys. Within the part coping with spousal help, the settlement acknowledged: “Get together 1 shall pay spousal help to get together 2 within the quantity of $3,500 month-to-month commencing Dec 8/10 and ending Dec 8/14.”

Article content material

The dispute with the CRA, nonetheless, concerned the 2018 taxation 12 months as a result of the taxpayer continued to make spousal help funds past the 2014 finish date of their settlement. On his 2018 tax return, he deducted spousal help funds of $42,000 (12 instances $3,500), whereas his ex-spouse included the $42,000 on her return as earnings.

The CRA reassessed the taxpayer and denied his deduction for spousal help on the idea that the funds didn’t fall throughout the definition of “help quantity,” as a result of, within the CRA’s view, the spousal help funds weren’t made by the taxpayer pursuant to a written settlement.

The decide reviewed the 2011 separation settlement and referred to as it “flawed from the outset.” He famous the signatures of the spouses weren’t witnessed, and there was a handwritten clause on the backside of the contract stating the settlement was “topic to approval by authorized counsel.” There was no indication such approval was ever obtained.

Article content material

Nonetheless, the fact is that the 2 separated spouses honoured the phrases of the written settlement, with the taxpayer paying $3,500 per thirty days in spousal help all through the time period of the settlement and for a number of years thereafter.

The taxpayer took the place that the March 2011 separation settlement, regardless of not being correctly up to date after 2014, constituted an settlement in writing below which he made help funds in 2018.

The CRA argued the help funds in query weren’t made pursuant to a written settlement. The beforehand current separation settlement had expired in 2014, and, due to this fact, no settlement obliging the taxpayer to pay spousal help existed in 2018.

The decide famous in his evaluation that there was a number of litigation regarding the situation of whether or not help funds have been made pursuant to a written settlement. As to why a written settlement is critical, he quoted a previous resolution of the Federal Courtroom of Attraction that concluded: “The rationale for not together with separated spouses concerned in funds made and obtained pursuant to a verbal understanding is instantly obvious. Such a unfastened and indefinite construction would possibly properly open the door to colourable and fraudulent preparations and schemes for tax avoidance.”

Article content material

The decide then turned to the details of this case, which he famous “is clearly not a fraudulent scheme.” The events agreed in 2011 in writing to an quantity to be paid as spousal help. They “incorrectly missed” the necessity to replace the contract in 2014 as a way to correctly replicate the taxpayer’s continued help obligations.

However for the reason that two events continued to think about themselves certain by their 2011 separation settlement by way of the 2018 taxation 12 months, such conduct helps the conclusion {that a} “assembly of the minds continued to exist regarding spousal help obligations.” In different phrases, the help established within the 2011 separation settlement was handled by the events as persevering with to be in pressure as much as, and together with, 2018.

Article content material

The decide, “guided by the plain which means of the phrases of the act,” concluded the funds have been, certainly, made pursuant to the phrases of a written settlement. The funds glad the necessities below the Revenue Tax Act that the help was “an quantity payable … on a periodic foundation for upkeep … below a written settlement,” and thus must be tax deductible to the taxpayer on his 2018 return.

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.

_____________________________________________________________

In case you appreciated this story, join extra within the FP Investor e-newsletter.

_____________________________________________________________