John_molson2003

最近，一朋友给我出了个难题。他有一杂货店，在他的公司名下，那杂货店所在的楼房在他个人名下。楼房租给公司，每月收租金。去年已经交了半年租了，后来他看自己个人收入太高，就不想收后半年的租金。这样个人的收入就不会达到要交税的水平。公司本身不盈利，所以也不指望租金开支去增加亏损。现在他跑过来问我这样做行不行。我的直觉告诉我是不行的，因为是 Related party transaction. 税务局不会同意的。但是查了一下税法和CRA的网站。 ITA69和ITA74关于Related party transaction都只适用于Transfer property，没提到我朋友的情况.后来没法，打电话去税务局。接电话的technicien不清楚，把我转到一个高级officer.他也只跟我说不行，问他依据税法哪一条，他也答不上。实在被我问烦了，refer我去税务预裁部门。要一小时$100来研究你的Tax planing, 还要提供真实姓名，公司注册号等。看来这样是行不通第。

现在请教哪位同行能找出相关依据，税法也好，任何官方信息也好。只是不要告诉我说我认为如何如何。我好告诉我朋友这样做是不行的。看来是做多了审计，人都做傻了。:mad:

John_molson2003

Post by mmttll;3038320
会计及税法上还有With Arm's Length的原则.这个情况就是属于这个原则.RPT交易必须要用With Arm's Length 的公允价进行调整.

你说的很有道理，一般情况下，RPT交易必须要用With Arm's Length 的公允价进行调整。但是我老认为这个原则多适用于“transfer of property“。尽管ITA69 (1)(a)提到“where a taxpayer has acquired anything from a person with whom the taxpayer was not dealing at arm’s length at an amount in excess of the fair market value thereof at the time the taxpayer so acquired it, the taxpayer shall be deemed to have acquired it at that fair market value", 在这里，anything 应该也包含服务。比喻出租房屋给别人或公司。ITA69 见如下链接：

http://www.taxwiki.ca/ITA+Section+69

但是，我能轻易给出反例来。最典型的就是"owner's remuneration"。比喻我朋友给他自己的公司打工，他提供了服务给公司吧，公司是他的，所以他跟公司不是“With Arm‘s Lengh"吧。按道理，公司应该付给他工资，最少也要超过最低工资吧。就算公司不给他开工资，按RTP交易的原则，他也应该把这没收到的工资报到他的收入里去吧。但是现实中，他可以不给自己开工资，也不分红。他的个人收入可以是零。而且这是税务局允许的。为什么工资可以不开，而租金却不能不收了。同样是提供服务，一个是人力，一个是资本。为什么就要区别对待了。当然这里有个细微的差别，工资收入一般是Cash basis.没收到就不用报。而租金是accrual basis，应收款也当是收入。

Anyway, 因为是朋友，所以要慎重点，不想随便几句话打发他。看来还是劝他不要打这个主意了。租金还是照收照报吧。

John_molson2003

To mmttll:

你说的有一定的道理。那也是为什么我在前面的回帖中说最低工资应该有的缘故。但是你第二个理由是不成立的。加拿大税法最重要的一个原则是“Integrationrule": 就是说,个人的税负应该是一样的不管他成不成立公司。比喻说，你不成立公司做生意赚$100,你交个人所得税$20.那么你成立公司做生意赚$100,公司交$10公司税，再把剩下的$90,作为红利发给你，你就只应该再交$10个人所得税, 总共的税负都是$20。怎么样实现呢？就是通过DividendCredit来实现的。但是因为这个原则是由联邦政府制定的，而各个省的税率不一样，所以还是有一些差别，但是不会大到影响你做成不成立公司的决定。

我做了个测试，拿我们魁省做例子：你不成立公司做生意赚$10,000。（假设你在最低的税负一档：联邦15%，魁省16%,不考虑其他乱七八糟的Credit,, 因为后一种情况我也不考虑那些Credit),你交$3,100。最后到你口袋里是$6,900。你成立公司赚$10,000。公司联邦税$1,100（11%），魁省税$800(8%), 总共交了$1,900公司税。剩下$8,100作为红利发给你。$8,100先Grossup by 25%变成Taxabledividend: $8,100*1.25=$10,125。联邦税15%：$10,125*15%=$1,518.75。魁省税16%10,125*16%=$1,620。但是政府给你Dividendtax credit: $8,100*.25=$2,025。所以你的个人所得税是$1,518.75+$1,620-$2,025=$1,113.75。最后到你口袋里的是$6,986.25（$8,100-$1,113.75）。差别仅是$86.25,基本上达到了Integration的目的。而且，通过公司，看起来好像是抽了两次税，实际上税负还要低$86.25.

To genew:

I am glad that you have the same feeling as me regarding toITA69(1). Can you tell me besides ITA69(1) is there any other section in IncomeTax Act talking about RPT or Non-arm’s length transaction, which can be appliedto my friend’s case? Or if there is no related section in the Income Tax Act,can you show me some case law could be applied to my friend’s case?

John_molson2003

我很高兴有更多的人加入这个讨论。

To 协作会计

可能我之前表述的不太清楚。税务局说不同意，不是说他不同意我朋友这样做。而是，他会从新按"Arm's length transaction"来评估这个交易。我朋友个人要把这没收到的租金加到他的收入里，公司还不能抵扣这部分租金开支。导致“Double Taxation Penlaties".

正常的商业行为，政府不会干涉。但是涉及到关联人员的交易时（RTP or non-arm’s length transaction）.政府就要复核这个交易的细节和目的。ITA69(1)就是针对关联交易设置的法规。比如说某人卖商业楼宇或股票给他儿子，市场价是$500,000。他十年前买时的价格是$200,000。他说我不想交税在这$300,000的增值上。他跟他儿子约定价格就只是$200,000。他说这是他和他儿子的商业行为，不用政府操心，我也不交增值税。但是如果政府核实这笔交易，他必须交税在这$300,000的增值上。而且他儿子的成本只给认定是$200,000.如果第二天，他儿子再把这房子卖出去卖$500,000。他儿子又必须交税在这$300,000的增值上。因此导致了DoubleTaxation penalty。另外还有”Income Attribution”etc,那就扯远了。所以涉及关联人员交易时一定要很慎重。

目前我纠结的就是不知道这条法规适用不适用于关联人员之间提供服务。如果不适用，那税法里哪一条适用。政府已经明确答复我我朋友那样做是不行的。Gennew在他的回帖里一口咬定ITA69(1)不适用，但哪一条适用呢？你说的两种情况，第一种要看是什么亲戚，如果是关联人员，我估计政府会按市场价向我邻居收税。而且如果那个房子在公司名下，实际房租和市场价的差价还要算我邻居的个人收入，导致"Double taxation penalty"。第二种情况与这讨论没有关系，因为不是关联人员交易。

我前面的算法是针对中小企业，也就是年税前收入在$500,000以下的。我想我们中国人也包括绝大多数Quebocois的中小企业，都在这个范围以内吧。至于年税前收入在$500,000以上的。你可以算一下呀。把你的计算结果也贴在这里。我就不动脑筋了，还能增长知识。N年前上税法课是，老师在黑板上算过$500,000以上的，但是他是假定一个平均的省的税率。结果还是一样。我自己猜想，是猜想喔没有自己算过喔。收入在$500,000以上时。 “Integration rule”在魁省也还是成立的。要不然那些大的家族企业或上市公司还不闹着修改法律。

我朋友的店就是公司，店不赚钱，就是公司不赚钱。他自己的会计做的帐，跟我一毛钱关系都没有。他没有其他房间出租。很高兴听到你有何其他建议。

John_molson2003

Hi Genew:

Thank you for your comments!. In the previsous post, you said ITA69(1) only applies to transafer of property and doesn't apply to supplying service between related parties. Is this your personal opinion, previous experience in similar cases dealing with CRA or Revenue Quebec, or you have other backup to support your point? For me, I am just worried about the word "Everything" in ITA69(1), as "Everying" can be explained as intangible things like services.

Ciao

Post by genew;3039528
I didn`t see any case can apply to your situation.  What I suggest is to quantify the risk and calculate the cost-benefit associate with each way.  I think you have a very good point...ìntegration`.  

[/QUOTE]

John_molson2003

Hi Genew,

Sorry for not responding your post last night, as I left my laptop in the company, and I coldd not access Canadian Income Tax Act in my laptop. However, after I checked the Income Tax Act this morning in Section 69(1), I couldn't find the notes your mentioned in the previous post. I use the electronic file: folio view Canadian Income Tax Act downloaded from the Order des compatables agrees du Quebec. I compared it with the content in the link I posted in previous post, they are almost the same. Sorry for my blind, could you indicate more precisely which note you were talking about or can you copy and post the notes you found in the Section 69(1) to the forum?

Sorry for my stubborn, the goal for me is to clear any doubtness and uncertainty about an taxation issue, not necessary aim to the individual case. Thank you again for your suggestion! If both sides have to contract in good faith, there is no way for my friend to avoid to adding the six month rental revenue to his personal income. He has his own G&Q number, and for the first six months, the G&Q applied to the rent have already been remitted to Revenue Quebec. Thus technically, Revenue Quebec knows how much rent for a half year period. If he didn't remit the G&Q for the second six months period, I am afraid Revenue Quebec will conduct an audit to my friend, unless he is free to decide whether he can charge or forgive the rental under Income Tax Act.

Hope to receive your post soon!

Ciao.

To mmttll:

当做生意时，要不要成立公司是一个很有趣的问题，也是注会考试常考的问题。你已经有自己的一些心得，我就不详细阐述了。

Post by genew;3039547
my experience, and look at the notes in this section.   

[/QUOTE]

John_molson2003

I guess that I found a real taxation gurus in the forum. I can only say that you are really a genius. Now I know the ITA69(1) won't apply to the situation when a shareholder lease his or her property to his or her company. Thank you so much! Now we can close the discussion, as you give a perfect touchdown. Thank all the participants. This my favorite song, and I present it to all of your guys. Hope you enjoy it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri7-vnrJD3k

Post by genew;3040139
This is not "stubborn" at all, but the way to deal with the laws :wink:.
The notes is on page 361. However, it is just a note. I agree with you - "anything" can be anything and is not defined in the act.
The fact is that your friend hada historical records with the tax authorities, had the GST/PST accounts registered, and this is indead a "commercial property" at the fist place. You are right, you will have to take all these into consideration before taking any actions.
Hope I find a attached CRA ruling may help you.

[/QUOTE]