With CRA and TFSA guidelines, ignorance not an excuse for overcontributions

Article content material

As we wade by way of tax season anxiously awaiting these last few T5 and T3 slips for 2023 to reach, we must always guarantee we’ve taken full benefit of the contribution room out there to us in all of the varied registered plans in an effort to decrease the quantity of taxable funding revenue we’ll have to report in future years.

With the cumulative tax-free financial savings account (TFSA) contribution room probably as excessive as $95,000 in 2024 (assuming you had been 18 and a resident of Canada since 2009), and this 12 months’s annual greenback restrict set at $7,000, there’s actually no excuse for anybody to have any non-registered taxable investments if you happen to haven’t absolutely maximized your cumulative TFSA contributions.

Article content material

Article content material

You possibly can examine your TFSA contribution restrict on-line by logging on to the Canada Income Company’s on-line portal for people referred to as My Account. However remember your TFSA contribution and withdrawal data will not be up to date in actual time and could also be old-fashioned. Verify the “as of” date posted on-line alongside your TFSA room.

The rationale for vigilance is to keep away from the overcontribution penalty tax, which is the same as one per cent monthly for every month you’re over your restrict. A one per cent tax doesn’t look like so much, however the tax is one per cent monthly for every month you’re over the restrict till the overcontribution is withdrawn — that’s 12 per cent per 12 months.

Should you do get hit with a TFSA penalty tax, you’ll be able to request the CRA to waive or cancel it, which the company has the ability to do if it may be established the tax arose “as a consequence of an affordable error,” and the overcontribution is withdrawn from the TFSA “immediately.” If the CRA refuses to cancel the tax, you’ll be able to take the matter to Federal Courtroom, the place a choose will decide whether or not the CRA’s choice to not waive the tax was “affordable.”

Article content material

Article content material

The newest choice involving a TFSA overcontribution involved a taxpayer who was assessed almost $11,000 in penalty taxes, plus a late-filing penalty and arrears curiosity.

The taxpayer first opened a TFSA account in 2010, however solely actually began to “use it” in 2020. She testified that because of the onset of COVID-19, she needed to take break day work to look after her daughter. Round that point, she determined to do some investing inside her TFSA and used her financial savings and a few cash lent to her from relations.

As of Jan. 1, 2020, the taxpayer’s TFSA contribution restrict was $68,113. Throughout 2020, she contributed $396,400 and made withdrawals totalling $299,296. In consequence, given her restrict of $68,113 firstly of 2020, she had overcontributed by $28,990 by the tip of the 12 months.

The CRA in July 2021 issued the taxpayer a TFSA Discover of Evaluation (NOA) for the 2020 taxation 12 months indicating she owed $10,815 in penalty tax based mostly on her extra contributions to her TFSA for 2020, plus a late-filing penalty cost and arrears curiosity.

The taxpayer in January 2022 formally requested the CRA cancel the tax assessed on her extra TFSA contributions, noting that she “didn’t have enough data relating to the principles governing the usage of TFSAs, and that she thought {that a} TFSA operated in the identical method as a daily financial savings account.” She added that she referred to as the CRA to acquire additional data as soon as she grew to become conscious of her extra contribution.

Article content material

The CRA denied the taxpayer’s preliminary request for reduction, noting {that a} “lack of awareness of taxation guidelines can’t be thought-about past a taxpayer’s management as data is available on (the CRA’s) web site and thru (its) normal inquiries phone line.”

The CRA officer additional famous “it’s the accountability of the taxpayer to concentrate on the principles governing the administration of their TFSA,” and identified the taxpayer had held the TFSA for greater than a decade earlier than the overcontribution in 2020 occurred.

The CRA in July 2022 despatched the taxpayer a second TFSA NOA, this time for the 2021 taxation 12 months, notifying her she now owed $14,748 in connection along with her remaining extra TFSA contributions from 2020, a few of which remained unwithdrawn in 2021, plus further curiosity and penalties.

The next month, the taxpayer wrote to the CRA requesting it to evaluation its preliminary choice to disclaim her reduction, reiterating she was “unaware of the principles, however had sought to appropriate her error.” She mentioned she had contacted the CRA in reference to the NOA, however was suggested to withdraw solely the surplus quantity by the tip of the 12 months.

Article content material

In the meantime, curiosity on the unique quantity owed was persevering with to accrue. She added that she had misplaced the cash invested by way of her TFSA, was on maternity go away, had not returned to the office for child-care and pandemic-related causes, and didn’t have the flexibility to pay.

Quick ahead to February 2023 when her case was reviewed by a second CRA officer, who once more denied the taxpayer’s request to cancel the penalty tax, citing a number of causes. The primary was that the taxpayer had held her TFSA since 2010 and may have been familiarized with the principles.

As well as, her lack of awareness of the principles can’t be thought-about as one thing “past her management” as a result of such data and assets are extensively out there. The officer additionally famous the taxpayer was suggested of the overcontribution in July of 2021, however solely took steps to withdraw the surplus quantities in 2022. This was not, within the view of the CRA, “inside an affordable time-frame.”

Article content material

After being denied reduction for the second time, the taxpayer appealed to the Federal Courtroom searching for a judicial evaluation of the CRA’s choice to not forgive the penalty tax. In these instances, the courtroom’s position is to find out whether or not the CRA officer’s choice was affordable.

On this case, the choose concluded it was. “A taxpayer’s lack of awareness or misunderstanding doesn’t render a CRA’s discretionary choice to not grant tax reduction … (to be) unreasonable,” she mentioned.

Jamie Golombek, FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Personal Wealth in Toronto. Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com.

Should you preferred this story, join extra within the FP Investor publication.

Article content material