• Canada Pension Plan (CPP) - The Federal Government has been consulting on, and intends to continue examining possibilities to enhance the CPP.
• Principal Residence Exemption (PRE) - A vacation property, even if situated outside of Canada, may be eligible for the PRE.
• U.S. Real Estate - Sales of U.S. real estate by non-residents are now generally subject to a 15% U.S. Federal withholding tax (previously at 10%) if a waiver certificate is not obtained.
• Canada Child Benefit (CCB) - The new CCB will replace the Canada Child Tax Benefit and Universal Child Care Benefit commencing July 2016, providing a maximum annual benefit of $6,400/child under age 6, and $5,400/child aged 6-17. The benefit will be phased out dependent on adjusted family net income.
• Teachers and Early Childhood Educator School Supply Tax Credit - This new 15% refundable tax credit (maximum value of $150/year) proposed to commence in 2016 is based on up to $1,000 of eligible expenditures, such as amounts paid out-of-pocket for classroom supplies.

A December 16, 2015 Tax Court of Canada case examines whether tips paid to a restaurant's workers were subject to CPP and EI. The restaurant's annual revenues were approximately $6.5 million and the tips totalled $1 million.
 

The workers divided the tips under a formula which varied over time, with all workers, including the "front-of-the-house" employees (servers and the related support staff), and "back-of-the-house" employees (kitchen staff, managers, and the catering sales coordinator)participating. The employer had withheld and remitted CPP and EI on tips paid to the "back-of-the-house" employees, so only "front-of-the-house" employees were under Appeal.
 

The Employer testified that, although they deposited and paid out the tips, they considered these funds to be held in trust for the employees (likening it to GST/HST held for the Crown). The "back-of-the-house" staff were entitled to a portion of the tips, computed as a percentage of revenues, under their employment contracts. The "front-of-the-house" employees' contracts were silent on the matter of tips, and they shared actual tips from patrons, less the portion paid to the "back-of-the-house" staff. Their tips were paid out (in cash for some time, eventually transitioning to cheques) separate from their wages and outside the payroll system.
 

The Court found that CPP and EI applied to tips paid by the employer. The Court found that "mere distribution" of the gratuities by the employer, with neither control nor ownership, is sufficient to constitute payment by the employer. The Court also noted that CRA's published interpretations (for example, at www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/hm/xplnd/tps-eng.html) differentiate between controlled and direct tips, but that this may not be the correct test - the only determinant is whether the employer paid the tips to the employees.
 

As the employer had paid the tips to the employees, CRA was correct to assess CPP and EI.

•  email a link requesting that recipients fill in an online form with personal or financial details;
• set-up an in-person meeting in a public place to take a payment;
• demand immediate payment by prepaid credit card; or,
• threaten with immediate arrest or prison sentence.

• Eliminating multiplication of the SBD in "complex partnership structures" where payments are sent from a partnership to non-partner corporations owned by partners, or those related to partners. Broadly speaking, this planning structure enabled each partner to benefit from the lower small business tax rate on up to $500,000 in income earned through a personally owned corporation. The changes propose that essentially only one $500,000 SBD limit will be available to the partnership, and related corporations, as a whole (barring access to certain exceptions).
  
  A number of professional services firms (e.g. medical professionals, accountants, lawyers etc.) use a structure like this and will be affected by the change.
  
  
• Eliminating multiplication of the SBD where fees are paid between corporations where there is a common ownership. Basically, these new rules generally restrict access to the SBD on any active business income earned by one Canadian Controlled Private Corporation (CCPC) from providing services or property to another private corporation where the recipient CCPC, any of its shareholders, or anyone related to those shareholders, holds any ownership interest in the payor (with certain exceptions).
  
  This broadly-phrased provision will apply to many structures which, for example, pay intercorporate management fees.
  
  These measures will apply to taxation years that begin on or after Budget Day, March 22, 2016.  

CRA noted that the personal information from the shareholder and related parties is requested to ensure that business transactions are reported within the business and not in personal accounts. It was noted that internal controls and the segregation of duties are generally weak in some organizations. Therefore, indirect tests of income may be used to ensure the completeness of income reported. Indirect tests may include:

• bank deposit analysis;
• rough net worth calculations; and,
• analysis of sources and applications of funds.

In early 2016, CRA updated the "My Account" online service (intended for the individual taxpayer's exclusive use). This service allows individuals to:

• view CRA correspondence, assessments, and balances;
• view some income slips for the current and previous years (T4, T5, T3, etc.);
• view certain personal limits like RRSP and TFSA contribution room available;
• change CRA correspondence options to emails rather than paper letters;
• change or adjust returns;
• change address and phone number(s);
• change marital status;
• apply for child benefits;
• submit documents if requested by CRA;
• arrange to receive amounts by direct deposit;
• pay by pre-authorized debit;
• authorize a representative;
• print a proof of income statement (this looks much like the historical Notice of Assessment);
• request a remittance voucher; and,
• register a formal dispute.

To sign up, go to, www.cra-arc.gc.ca/myaccount/ and click on "CRA register". Individuals will need to enter personal information along with some details from their last Notice of Assessment. It is also important to note that if registered to received personal correspondence and notifications from CRA via email, the taxpayer must be signed up for My Account to view the full message.

Consider the situation where Persons A and B are a married couple and own 60% and 40% respectively of Corporation A (A Co.). They are also both employed by A Co. and, therefore, receive a salary. Will the salaries that they receive be considered insurable for Employment Insurance (EI) purposes? That is, would EI withholdings have to be remitted to CRA, and would the person would be entitled to receive EI benefits?

The EI legislation is complex, however, it can roughly be boiled down to the following:
 

For EI to apply, the first step is to ensure that the individual controls no more than 40% of the voting shares of the business. In this situation, since A owns 60%, she would not be earning insurable amounts. However, B may still be subject to EI.
 

The second step is to determine whether B is related to a person who either controls the employer corporation, or is a member of a related group that controls the employer corporation. Immediate family members and their spouses are generally considered related to each other. In essence, if A and B control more than 50% of a corporation, their earnings are not considered to be insurable.
 

There is, however, an exception to the second step. If an arm's length person would have been offered, and accepted the same circumstances, or terms and conditions of employment, as the related individual (Mr. A), then earnings once again become insurable. This exception is not applicable to individuals deemed not insurable by the first step (the individual controls more than 40% of the voting shares).
 

In a February 4, 2016 Tax Court of Canada case, a 40% owner (married to the 60% owner) intended to rely on this exception. Although there were many factors both for and against his position, he was not successful in showing that his employment was insurable. During testimony, the 60% owner (his spouse) indicated that she laid off her husband because he was a "big salary", which in the Court's view was suggestive of a non-arm's length arrangement. In other words, his contract was not similar to one that would be offered to an arm's length party. Whether or not a contract is similar to an arm's length one can be complicated and is frequently the subject of court cases.