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

Article content material

As we wade by means of tax season anxiously awaiting these ultimate few T5 and T3 slips for 2023 to reach, we must always guarantee we’ve taken full benefit of the contribution room accessible to us in all of the various registered plans with the intention to reduce the quantity of taxable funding earnings we’ll must report in future years.

With the cumulative tax-free savings account (TFSA) contribution room probably as excessive as $95,000 in 2024 (assuming you have 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 in the event you haven’t absolutely maximized your cumulative TFSA contributions.

Article content material

Article content material

You may verify your TFSA contribution restrict on-line by logging on to the Canada Revenue Agency’s on-line portal for people referred to as My Account. However consider your TFSA contribution and withdrawal data is just not up to date in actual time and could also be outdated. Test 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 per thirty days for every month you’re over your restrict. A one per cent tax doesn’t look like loads, however the tax is one per cent per thirty days for every month you’re over the restrict till the overcontribution is withdrawn — that’s 12 per cent per 12 months.

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to do if it may be established the tax arose “as a consequence of an affordable error,” and the overcontribution is withdrawn from the TFSA “immediately.”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

Article content material

Article content material

The newest determination involving a TFSA overcontribution involved a taxpayer who was assessed practically $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 as a result of onset of COVID-19, she needed to take time without work 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 members of the family.

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. Consequently, given her restrict of $68,113 initially of 2020, she had overcontributed by $28,990 by the top 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 ample data concerning the principles governing using 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 aid, noting {that a} “lack of understanding 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 duty 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 overview its preliminary determination to disclaim her aid, reiterating she was “unaware of the principles, however had sought to right her error.” She stated she had contacted the CRA in reference to the NOA, however was suggested to withdraw solely the surplus quantity by the top 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 means of her TFSA, was on maternity depart, 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 will have been familiarized with the principles.

As well as, her lack of understanding of the principles can’t be thought-about as one thing “past her management” as a result of such data and sources are extensively accessible. 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 aid for the second time, the taxpayer appealed to the Federal Courtroom searching for a judicial overview of the CRA’s determination to not forgive the penalty tax. In these instances, the court docket’s position is to find out whether or not the CRA officer’s determination was affordable.

On this case, the decide concluded it was. “A taxpayer’s lack of understanding or misunderstanding doesn’t render a CRA’s discretionary determination to not grant tax aid … (to be) unreasonable,” she stated.

Jamie Golombek, FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Non-public Wealth in Toronto. [email protected].

In the event you preferred this story, join extra within the FP Investor e-newsletter.

Article content material