Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CHAPTER 1
www.pearsoncanada.ca/byrdchen/ctp2017
We suggest you access the website before using the text to familiarize yourself with the useful
student resources available there. In particular, review the corrections and updates to the
textbook and Study Guide that are posted there to save yourself unnecessary frustration.
Abbreviations To Be Used
· Read paragraph 1-148.
She would have a non-capital loss carry over of $10,480 ($38,490 - $48,970).
She would have an allowable capital loss carry over of $5,880 ($27,400 - $33,280).
His system would also conflict with other objectives such as the goal of equity and after-tax
income stability and the need for redistribution of income. In other words, in meeting the
objective of simplicity, Mr. Right’s system would ignore other possible objectives of a taxation
system.
Simplicity This change gets high marks for simplicity. Amounts earned on the assets in
the account are not subject to tax, either while the assets are in the plan or when the earn-
ings are removed from the plan.
Note As indicated in the text, spousal support payments are a Subdivision e deduc-
tion.
In this Case, Christina has an unused allowable capital loss carry over of $9,140 ($14,320 -
$23,460). The roulette winnings would not be included in income and the related expenses
would not be deductible.
Case B
The Case B solution would be calculated as follows:
Income Under ITA 3(a):
Employment Income $64,000
Interest Income 2,600
Net Rental Income 4,560 $71,160
Income Under ITA 3(b):
Taxable Capital Gains $32,420
Allowable Capital Losses ( 29,375) 3,045
Balance From ITA 3(a) And (b) $74,205
Deductible RRSP Contribution ( 12,480)
Balance From ITA 3(c) $61,725
Deduction Under ITA 3(d):
Partnership Business Loss [(50%)($144,940)] ( 72,470)
Net Income For Tax Purposes (Division B Income) Nil
In this Case, Christina has an unused business loss carry over of $10,745 ($72,470 - $61,725).
In this Case, Mr. Marks has no loss carry overs at the end of the year.
Case B
The Case B solution would be calculated as follows:
Income Under ITA 3(a):
Employment Income $41,400
Rental Income 5,900 $ 47,300
Income Under ITA 3(b):
Taxable Capital Gains $ 7,800
Allowable Capital Losses ( 11,600) Nil
Balance From ITA 3(a) And (b) $47,300
Subdivision e Deductions ( 2,800)
Balance From ITA 3(c) $44,500
Deduction Under ITA 3(d):
Business Loss ( 4,700)
Net Income For Tax Purposes (Division B Income) $39,800
In this Case, Mr. Marks has an allowable capital loss carry over of $3,800 ($7,800 - $11,600).
Case C
The Case C solution would be calculated as follows:
Income Under ITA 3(a):
Employment Income $89,400
Rental Income 5,300 $94,700
Income Under ITA 3(b):
Taxable Capital Gains $23,700
Allowable Capital Losses ( 21,200) 2,500
Balance From ITA 3(a) and (b) $97,200
Subdivision e Deductions ( 22,400)
Balance From ITA 3(c) $74,800
Deduction Under ITA 3(d):
Business Loss ( 112,600)
Net Income For Tax Purposes (Division B Income) Nil
In this Case, Mr. Marks would have a business loss carry over in the amount of $37,800
($74,800 - $112,600).
Case D
The Case D solution would be calculated as follows:
Income Under ITA 3(a):
Employment Income $34,300
Income Under ITA 3(b):
Taxable Capital Gains $24,700
Allowable Capital Losses ( 26,300) Nil
Balance From ITA 3(a) And (b) $34,300
Subdivision e Deductions ( 6,400)
Balance From ITA 3(c) $27,900
Deduction Under ITA 3(d):
Business Loss ( 47,800)
Rental Loss ( 20,100)
Net Income For Tax Purposes (Division B Income) Nil
Mr. Marks would have a carry over of business and rental losses in the amount of $40,000
($27,900 - $47,800 - $20,100) and of allowable capital losses in the amount of $1,600
($24,700 - $26,300).
Case B
The Case B solution would be calculated as follows:
Mr. Haynes’ will have an unused business loss carry over from the current year of $5,000
($42,000 - $37,000).
Case C
The Case C solution would be calculated as follows:
Income Under ITA 3(a):
Employment Income $24,000
Income From Property 47,000 $71,000
Income Under ITA 3(b):
Taxable Capital Gains $22,000
Allowable Capital Losses ( 73,000) Nil
Balance From ITA 3(a) And (b) $71,000
Subdivision e Deductions ( 4,000)
Balance From ITA 3(c) $67,000
Deduction Under ITA 3(d):
Business Loss ( 48,000)
Net Income For Tax Purposes (Division B Income) $19,000
Mr. Haynes will have a carry over from the current period of unused allowable capital losses in
the amount of $51,000 ($73,000 - $22,000).
Case D
The Case D solution would be calculated as follows:
Income Under ITA 3(a):
Employment Income $18,000
Income From Property 7,000 $25,000
Income Under ITA 3(b):
Taxable Capital Gains $13,000
Allowable Capital Losses ( 18,000) Nil
Balance From ITA 3(a) And (b) $25,000
Subdivision e Deductions ( 12,000)
Balance From ITA 3(c) $13,000
Deduction Under ITA 3(d):
Business Loss ( 20,000)
Net Income For Tax Purposes (Division B Income) Nil
Mr. Haynes has a carry over from the current year of unused business losses in the amount of
$7,000 ($20,000 - $13,000) and of unused allowable capital losses in the amount of $5,000
($18,000 - $13,000).
6. Discuss the issue of who ultimately pays the cost of various types of taxes (P 1-35 and
1-36).
7. Explain the nature of tax expenditures (P 1-37 through 1-40).
8. Evaluate issues in tax policy on the basis of the qualitative characteristics of tax systems
(P 1-41 through 1-43).
9. Describe the reference materials that are available on income tax databases (P 1-44
through 1-48).
10. Describe the general structure of the Income Tax Act (P 1-49 through 1-60).
11. List and explain the nature of other sources of income tax legislation (P 1-61 through
1-70).
12. Describe other sources of income tax information (P 1-71 through 1-75).
13. Describe the charging provisions of the Income Tax Act for residents and non-residents
(P 1-76 through 1-89).
14. Describe, in general terms, the various views of income that are held by economists,
accountants, and tax authorities (P 1-90 through 1-98).
15. Calculate Net Income For Tax Purposes by applying the rules found in Section 3 of the
Income Tax Act (P 1-99 through 1-124).
16. Explain how Net Income For Tax Purposes is converted to Taxable Income (P 1-125 and
1-126).
17. Explain the principles of tax planning (P 1-127 through 1-130).
18. Explain and provide examples of tax avoidance or reduction, and tax deferral (P 1-131
through 1-138).
19. Explain and provide examples of income splitting (P 1-139 through 1-147).
CHAPTER 2
on the preceding taxation year’s net tax owing of $1,500, and would be $375 ($1,500 ÷ 4) per
quarter. They are due on March 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15.
Part B
Instalments will be due on March 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15 of 2016. The
three alternative payment schedules can be described as follows:
One The instalments can be based on the 2016 estimates. This would give four
equal instalments of $800 ($3,200 ÷ 4).
Two The instalments can be based on the 2015 figures. This would give four equal
instalments of $3,000 ($12,000 ÷ 4). The instalments would total $12,000 under this
alternative.
Three The first two instalments could be based on the second preceding year. This
amount would be $375 ($1,500 ÷ 4). The remaining two instalments would be based
on the preceding year, less the amount of the first two instalments. This amount would
be $5,625 {[$12,000 - (2)($375)] ÷ 2}. This is the calculation that would be used by
the CRA for her instalment reminders and the instalments would total $12,000.
Alternative one is the best alternative, as the instalments will total $3,200. Under both alter-
natives two and three, the instalments will equal the prior year’s net tax owing of $12,000
which results in a significant overpayment of taxes. No interest will be paid on this overpay-
ment.
Part C
The answer here will depend on Ms. Birch’s other debt obligations. If she fails to make the
instalment payments she will be charged non-deductible interest at the prescribed rate plus 4
percent. However, if she has other debt with non-deductible interest, unpaid credit card
balances for example, the rate on this debt may be higher than the rate charged on deficient
instalments. This would mean that there would be an advantage in paying off this alternative
debt, rather than making the instalment payments.
Part B
If we assume that Amalmor Inc. is a small CCPC, there would also be three alternative calcula-
tions:
Current Year Base The payments could be 1/4 of the estimated taxes payable for
the current year. This amount would be $23,750 ($95,000 ÷ 4).
Preceding Year Base The payments could be 1/4 of the taxes that were paid in the
immediately preceding year. This amount would be $20,000 ($80,000 ÷ 4).
Preceding And Second Preceding Years A final alternative would be to base the
first payment on 1/4 of the taxes paid in the second preceding year, with the remaining
three payments based on the preceding year total, less the amounts paid in the first
instalment. The first amount would be $15,625 ($62,500 ÷ 4). In the remaining 3
quarters of the year, the payments would be $21,458 [($80,000 - $15,625) ÷ 3].
The last alternative involves the same total as using the preceding year as a base. However,
this alternative is preferable as it requires a lower first payment which provides a small amount
of tax deferral.
These instalments would be due on the last days of March, June, September, and December,
2016.
Part C
If Amalcor is a public company, any remaining taxes payable must be paid within two months
of the Company ’s year end. This is extended to three months for CCPCs that claim the small
business deduction. Since in Part B, Amalcor is small CCPC, it would qualify for the extension.
Note that Amalcor would not have to qualify as a "small" CCPC to get the extension, it would
just have to be able to claim the small business deduction which is available only to CCPCs.
CCPCs and the small business deduction are covered in detail in Chapter 12.
Case Two
The net tax owing for each of the three years is as follows:
2014 $1,820 ($23,540 - $21,720)
2015 $5,216 ($11,466 - $6,250)
2016 $3,885 ($25,718 - $21,833)
As the net tax owing for the current year and one of the two preceding years exceeds $3,000,
instalment payments are required.
The best alternative would be to use the current year estimate. This would result in quarterly
instalment payments of $971.25 ($3,885 ÷ 4)
While the first two instalments could be based on 2014, the last two payments would result in
total instalments of $5,216. This is higher than the $3,885 that would be paid if the current
year is used as the instalment base. This means that using the current year as the instalment
base would be the best solution.
The payments would be due on March 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15, 2016.
Case Three
As the corporation’s tax payable for both the current and the preceding year exceeds $3,000,
instalments are required.
The best choice would be to use the previous year as the instalment base. As the corporation is
a small CCPC, the instalments would be quarterly. The amount would be $2,866.50
($11,466 ÷ 4).
The instalments would be due on the last days of March, June, September, and December,
2016.
Case Four
As the corporation’s tax payable for both the current and the preceding year exceeds $3,000,
instalments are required.
Given the assumption that the 2015 taxes payable were $32,560, the best choice is to use the
current year as the base. Because the corporation is not a small CCPC, the instalments will be
monthly. This would result in instalment payments of $2,143.17 ($25,718 ÷ 12).
While the first two instalments could be based on 2014 which had a lower taxes payable than
the current year, the last 10 payments would have to result in instalments totaling $32,560.
This is significantly higher than the $25,718 that would be paid if the current year is used as
the instalment base.
The instalments would due at the end of each month beginning January, 2016.
Case B
The individual’s net tax owing in each of the three years is as follows:
2014 = $11,000 ($18,000 - $7,000)
2015 = Nil (Withholdings exceed tax payable. Note this is nil, not a negative amount.)
2016 = $4,500 ($13,500 - $9,000) (Estimated)
As the individual’s net tax owing is expected to exceed $3,000 in 2016 and was more than
$3,000 in 2014, the payment of instalments is required.
Using the 2015 net tax owing would result in minimum instalment payments. Based on this
year, the required quarterly instalments would be nil.
The fact that the actual federal and provincial taxes payable for 2016 are higher than were
estimated is not relevant in this Case.
Case C
The corporation’s Tax Payable for the three years is as follows:
2014 = $18,000
2015 = $14,400
2016 = $13,500 (Estimated)
As the corporation’s tax payable for both the current and the preceding year exceeds $3,000,
instalments are required.