Decide places CRA again as a substitute in company tax case involving boat

Article content material

If you happen to’re a enterprise proprietor who has integrated your online business or an integrated skilled who operates their observe via an expert company, it may be fairly tempting to have your company pay for every kind of non-public bills.

Article content material

But when these bills aren’t legitimately incurred for the aim of incomes earnings, they could possibly be non-deductible to the company and you can get personally assessed a shareholder profit by the Canada Income Company (CRA) for appropriating company funds for private use, relatively than extracting them first on a taxable foundation as both a wage, bonus or dividend.

Article content material

Equally, you too can be assessed a taxable shareholder profit for the non-public use of a corporate-owned asset. That’s precisely what occurred in a current tax case involving a Vancouver Island couple, their company and the usage of a ship.

The only real concern within the case was the worth of the non-public shareholder profit, within the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, for his or her private use of a ship owned by their company. The boat was primarily utilized by the corporate to market its marina, gasoline and provisions to boaters within the area.

Article content material

Over the course of 5 many years, the couple, via their company, developed a “profitable, substantial” marina enterprise on the island that offered a diversified vary of products and companies to a big, however distant group of small communities, principally close to the water’s edge, on the islands north of Vancouver Island.

“It won’t be exhausting to image their area, group and business actions showing in a Canadian TV documentary on a documentary channel, offering the context for a Canadian actuality TV present on Historical past channel, or offering a locale for a sequel to Nook Gasoline or a remake of The Beachcombers,” the choose stated.

The couple operated their enterprise collectively. The husband did all of the steering of the boat, and his spouse acted as a bookkeeper, paying suppliers and balancing financial institution statements. Right now, the enterprise is generally run by the couple’s youngsters and their households.

Article content material

The tax authority has no enterprise telling a businessperson how you can run that particular person’s enterprise

Tax Court docket Decide

The boat on the centre of the tax dispute is a 36-foot pleasure craft. Its major enterprise use was to market the marina on to boaters visiting, residing or working within the area. This was finished by taking the boat out to fulfill boaters in any respect the opposite smaller marinas within the area, or within the bays the place they had been moored.

It was additionally used to have interaction with different native marinas, and their homeowners and operators, in addition to their shoppers. This was typical direct private advertising. Many of those different boaters had been already customers of their marina given its dimension and placement, and people who weren’t had been bona fide potential shoppers.

The boat was additionally used to journey to, attend and entertain at boat reveals in British Columbia and Washington, which the couple thought-about key to their enterprise and at which they rented cubicles for his or her marina.

Article content material

The couple didn’t personal a ship earlier than they purchased the marina, have by no means taken the boat on any excursions, “not even quick ones,” as they might not depart their day by day enterprise tasks throughout the boating season. Once they did their advertising travels within the boat to different marinas and moorings, they did so principally within the evenings, after their regular workday tasks.

Their advertising journeys proved very profitable because the marina’s mooring and gasoline revenues elevated every year. Their advertising was described as “creating alternatives to socialize with shoppers and potential shoppers, eating at different marinas with them, entertaining them on the … (boat), and usually chatting up boating within the area and their marina and amenities.”

Article content material

The boat was additionally utilized in different facets of the enterprise for incidental transportation, comparable to delivering elements to business entities within the area. Private use of the boat was “very occasional, lower than a half-dozen occasions.” For instance, they often took pals or household out for whale watching within the harbour instantly in entrance of the marina.

In every of the 2 tax years beneath evaluation, the couple recorded and paid $18,000 to their company for his or her private use of the boat. This was finished in session with their accountant, and the couple thought that this quantity was “a conservatively excessive quantity within the circumstances.”

The courtroom discovered that the non-public use of the boat was minimal and within the vary of 5 per cent. In different phrases, considerably all of its use as a ship was for bona fide enterprise functions. Despite the fact that a profit was loved by the couple’s restricted private use of the boat, it was accounted for and this quantity was inside vary of an inexpensive honest market worth.

Article content material

The CRA had questioned the “advertising” actions of the couple, suggesting there was a private aspect to the advertising that wanted to be taken into consideration when valuing the non-public shareholder profit.

The choose disagreed, saying the “CRA has not been allowed by the courts to easily second-guess a enterprise’s advertising technique or efforts.” Citing prior jurisprudence, “The tax authority has no enterprise telling a businessperson how you can run that particular person’s enterprise … A enterprise could choose to promote an exercise during which its proprietor … has a eager curiosity or a level of non-public satisfaction. There isn’t a purpose why the expense of a selected type of promoting must be disallowed by the (CRA) solely due to the proprietor’s curiosity, satisfaction.”

Article content material

The choose stated the couple’s advertising actions on the boat had been “bona fide and primarily undertaken for enterprise functions,” and that the bills had been cheap. The one factor left to determine was whether or not the couple’s private use was correctly accounted for. The choose concluded that given their private use of the boat was within the five-per-cent vary, the $18,000 they yearly paid to the company for private use was cheap and no shareholder profit should be assessed.

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

_____________________________________________________________

 If you happen to like this story, join the FP Investor E-newsletter.

_____________________________________________________________