CRA disputes show Canadians still don’t know TFSA rules

Article content material

Two new Federal Courtroom selections determined earlier this month display that some taxpayers proceed to mess up in terms of tax-free savings account contributions.

Every case had its personal set of information and circumstances, however the taxpayers in each circumstances failed to know their contribution limits and the necessity to expeditiously withdraw any overcontributions in a well timed method in the event that they have been to have any hope for reduction from the Canada Revenue Agency.

Article content material

Let’s overview the essential guidelines. The penalty for overcontributing to your TFSA is one per cent per 30 days for every month you’re over your restrict. For those who get assessed with a TFSA overcontribution tax, you’ll be able to ask 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to do if it may be established the tax arose “as a consequence of an affordable error” and the overcontribution is withdrawn out of your TFSA “at once.” If the CRA refuses to cancel the tax, you’ll be able to take the matter to federal courtroom, the place a decide will decide whether or not the company’s determination to not waive the tax was affordable.

Article content material

Within the first case, the taxpayer, who was self-represented, began off on the flawed foot by interesting the overcontribution tax to the Tax Courtroom, which was the flawed courtroom because it has no jurisdiction to cancel the TFSA overcontribution tax. The Tax Courtroom, accordingly, dismissed the case, and the taxpayer then introduced her case to the correct courtroom, the Federal Courtroom.

The taxpayer’s troubles will be traced again to 2019, when she made a $34,600 contribution to her TFSA. Her TFSA contribution room that 12 months was $34,620. On Jan. 1, 2020, one other $6,000 of recent contribution room opened up, and mixed with the $20 carried ahead from 2019, that meant her restrict for 2020 was $6,020. The taxpayer proceeded to contribute $40,620 to her TFSA in January 2020 and one other $6,020 in April 2020.

Article content material

Article content material

In July 2021, the CRA issued a TFSA discover of evaluation (NOA) for the 2020 tax 12 months, informing the taxpayer that she was required to pay $7,308 in penalty tax and curiosity. This NOA was issued electronically, posted to her CRA My Account, with a notification despatched by way of e-mail.

The taxpayer claimed to not have acquired or to ever have seen the e-mail, explaining that since she usually was in a “refund place” every year, “her inattention to CRA (e)mails is just not the identical as those that all the time must pay taxes.”

Quick ahead to February 2022, when, in the middle of submitting her 2021 return, the taxpayer logged on to her on-line CRA account to solely then uncover her TFSA overcontribution. She instantly withdrew a lot of the overcontribution and submitted a request to waive the penalty tax and curiosity.

She said that she had unintentionally contributed the $40,620 in January 2020, mistakenly believing she had not used her contribution room from 2019 and 2020. She then unintentionally contributed an extra $6,020 in April 2020 after forgetting she already made her new 2020 TFSA room contribution again in January.

Article content material

She additionally mentioned “she was experiencing troublesome private circumstances in 2019 and 2020 resulting from her father’s demise in 2019, caring for her growing older mom, elevated work tasks and the pandemic.” She additionally famous that she didn’t see the 2020 NOA when it was issued.

The taxpayer’s first request for reduction was denied because the CRA famous that the surplus TFSA contributions weren’t totally eliminated in a well timed method. The CRA then adopted up with a second TFSA NOA, this time for the 2021 tax 12 months, assessing her an extra $9,718 in overcontribution penalty tax and curiosity.

The taxpayer submitted a second request to waive the tax and curiosity, explaining that the overcontributions weren’t intentional and that she withdrew the overcontribution on the identical day she turned conscious of it, that being when she checked her My Account on-line in February 2022.

The CRA denied her second request for reduction because it didn’t really feel the overcontributions have been withdrawn “at once.” The CRA interprets “at once” as inside 30 days of notification. Because the taxpayer withdrew the surplus contributions 221 days after the 2020 NOA was despatched, it was not achieved quick sufficient. The truth that she didn’t see her 2020 NOA, which was posted to her on-line account and for which she was despatched an e-mail notification about it, was not an excuse.

Article content material

“It’s (the taxpayer’s) accountability to make sure that the e-mail deal with offered to CRA is right always,” the company mentioned.

The decide discovered that the CRA’s determination to not waive the tax and curiosity was affordable since there may be “an expectation that people will instantly right and handle their TFSA accounts inside their contribution room restrict after being knowledgeable by a discover of evaluation.”

The second TFSA overcontribution case concerned a taxpayer who had a contribution room restrict of $75,521 in 2021, however directed her monetary establishment to switch $293,251 of shares from an funding account into her TFSA, leading to an overcontribution of $217,730. In July 2022, the CRA assessed her $10,960 in overcontribution tax, penalties and curiosity for the surplus contributions to her TFSA in 2021.

In September 2022, the taxpayer wrote to the CRA to request a waiver of the tax, penalty and curiosity, explaining she was “unaware” of her contribution room restrict when she forwarded all her shares to her TFSA in 2021. She withdrew the TFSA extra in October 2022.

Article content material

The CRA concluded that the three-month delay from the date of the NOA to the time she withdrew the overcontribution was “outdoors an affordable timeframe.”

The decide discovered the CRA’s determination to be affordable, so it had no cause to ship the case again to the CRA for redetermination.

The tax, penalty and curiosity have been due to this fact upheld.

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

For those who preferred this story, join extra within the FP Investor e-newsletter.

Bookmark our web site and help our journalism: Don’t miss the enterprise information you might want to know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and join our newsletters here.

Article content material