Site Search
423 results for see web PROBLEMGO.com Buying better housing in prison North Carolina
- [pdf] Equitable Investor Profile Questionnaire
- [pdf] Life Quick Reference Guide
- [pdf] Application for Fundserv Contract (segregated funds only) - Dealer and Advisor
- [pdf] Edelivery policy change FAQ
- COVID-19 Group Benefits FAQ
-
All about the changes to the capital gains inclusion rate
Disclaimer: The following content is provided by and is the opinion of Invesco Canada Ltd. Equitable does not guarantee the adequacy, accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of the information. Equitable shall not be liable for any errors or omissions in the information provided by Invesco.
What has changed?
One noteworthy measure to come from Budget 2024 is the proposed change to the capital gains inclusion rate, which was previously held steady at 50% since 2001.
For individuals, capital gains more than $250,000 annually will be subject to an increased 66.67% inclusion rate as of June 25, 2024, while the capital gains up to $250,000 will continue to be subject to the existing 50% inclusion rate. As a transitional measure for 2024, only the capital gains realized by individuals on or after the effective date of June 25 that are above the $250,000 threshold will be subject to the increased inclusion rate.
For trusts and corporations, the inclusion rate on all capital gains will increase from 50% to 66.67% starting on June 25, 2024.
Who is affected?
Impact to individuals
Budget 2024 proposed to add transitional rules which would specifically identify capital gains and losses realized before the effective date (Period 1) and those realized on or after the effective date (Period 2). The effective date is June 25, 2024. Capital gains realized on or after that date will have an inclusion rate of 50% on the amount up to $250,000, and an inclusion rate of 66.67% on the amount above $250,000. All capital gains realized prior to the effective date will have an inclusion rate of 50%.
Take Ontario as an example, the proposed higher inclusion rate on capital gains would effectively increase the average federal-provincial marginal tax rate for Ontario residents on capital gains above $250,000 at the top marginal tax rate from 26.76% to 35.69%. A more detailed analysis on the impact of these changes to an individual’s tax rate is discussed below.
For net capital gains realized in Period 2, the annual $250,000 threshold would be fully available in 2024 (i.e., it would not be prorated) and it would apply only in respect of net capital gains realized in Period 2.
The $250,000 threshold would effectively apply to capital gains realized by an individual, either directly or indirectly via a partnership or trust, net of any: current-year capital losses, capital losses of other years applied to reduce current-year capital gains, and capital gains in respect of which the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption, the proposed employee Ownership Trust Exemption or the proposed Canadian Entrepreneurs’ Incentive claimed.
Two common scenarios of reaching the $250,000 capital gain threshold are the deemed disposition of capital property at death, and the emigration from Canada (i.e., becoming a non-resident for income tax purposes). We have provided additional details on these topics below.
Deemed disposition upon death
When an individual passes away, they are deemed to have sold their capital property (e.g., units or shares of mutual funds, shares of corporations, and real property) at its fair market value (FMV) immediately before their death. If a capital gain arises because of this deemed disposition, that capital gain is reportable on the deceased’s final (terminal) tax return and the taxes owing as a result, if any, would be payable by the estate of the deceased. However, there are provisions that allow taxes to be deferred when the property is transferred to a spouse. For example, if a capital property is transferred to a surviving spouse or common-law partner, subsection 70(6) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) automatically deems the deceased to have disposed of that property and the spouse or common-law partner immediately acquires the same property at the deceased transferor’s adjusted cost base (ACB). This is commonly referred to as the “spousal rollover”. Another potential strategy to manage potential large capital gains taxes at death is life insurance, since the death benefit is typically paid out tax-free.
Without careful planning, the estate value could be substantially reduced by the changes to the capital gains inclusion rate. Furthermore, it would be prudent to ensure there are liquid assets or cash available in the estate to cover the associated tax liabilities.
Non-resident of Canada – Departure tax
Residency in Canada for income tax purposes is a question of fact, which primarily depends on the individual’s residential and social ties in Canada. When an individual becomes a non-resident of Canada, they are deemed to have disposed of and immediately reacquired certain types of property at FMV. The tax incurred because of this deemed disposition and reacquisition is also known as the departure tax. Some examples of properties subject to departure tax include securities inside a non-registered investment portfolio, shares of Canadian private corporations, and real estate situated outside of Canada. Note that there are some properties that are exempted from the departure tax, including: pensions and similar rights (including registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs), registered retirement income funds (RRIFs), and tax-free savings accounts (TFSAs)) and Canadian real property.
The departure tax rules coupled with the increased capital gain inclusion rate above the $250,000 threshold may incur additional tax payable for emigrants. However, there is an option to defer the payment of departure tax on income associated with the deemed disposition upon emigration. By making an election, the individual would pay the tax later, without interest, when the property is disposed of. This election can be done by completing CRA Form T1244, “Election Under Subsection 220(4.5) of the Income Tax Act, to Defer the Payment of Tax on Income Relating to the Deemed Disposition of Property," on or before April 30 of the year following their departure from Canada.
Impact to Entities
Corporations and trusts will also be impacted by the increased inclusion rate as of June 25, 2024. Unlike individuals, corporations and trusts will not have access to the old inclusion rate on the first $250,000 of capital gains: they will be subject to the new 66.67% inclusion rate from the very first dollar.
With the above in mind, there will be options available to shelter corporate and trust capital gains from the new inclusion rate.
For corporations:
The lifetime capital gains exemption (LCGE) can be used to eliminate capital gains taxes on the sale of qualified small business corporation shares (generally, these are shares of a Canadian-controlled private corporation that carries on an active business). The LCGE is also available on the sale of qualified farm or fishing property. The current lifetime limit for the LCGE is $1,016,836. Budget 2024 proposed to increase that limit to $1,250,000 starting on June 25, 2024, so certain business owners will be able to reduce or eliminate their exposure to the new inclusion rate if they are able to make use of the increased LCGE limit.
For trusts:
Budget 2024 suggests that capital gains allocated by a trust to its beneficiaries on or after June 25, 2024, will be included in the beneficiaries’ income at the old 50% rate up to the beneficiaries’ first $250,000 of capital gains for the year. While the specifics are not yet available, this opportunity will likely create further planning considerations surrounding the allocation of capital gains from a trust to its beneficiaries to reduce taxes. Capital gains can generally be allocated to a beneficiary for tax purposes when they are actually paid to the beneficiary, or when they are payable to a beneficiary (i.e., the beneficiary hasn’t received it, but has a right to demand payment of the capital gain). The option of making income paid (or payable) to its beneficiaries and allocating such income to be taxed in their hands will largely depend on the trust terms.
Historical reference: capital gains inclusion rate
Those of us around long enough, understand that this recent change was not the only time the capital gains inclusion rate has deviated from the 50% inclusion rate. Over the years, capital gains tax rate has ranged from nil to as high as 75% as indicated in the table below. In fact, the first instance of capital gain tax was introduced in 1972!
Excluding the 2024 tax year, we have given a rough estimate on the percentage of time spent at each of the various capital gains inclusion rates over the last 42 years. As we can see, for most of the time, the capital gains inclusion rate has remained at the 50 % inclusion rate. In fact, for the last 23 consecutive years, the inclusion rate has remained untouched with the last change being back in tax year 2000 with various changes introduced that year.
Tax impact by province/jurisdiction
With the increase in the capital gains inclusion rate, we want to demonstrate the potential tax impact of those changes across jurisdictions in Canada. The table below shows the 2024 marginal tax rate for the highest individual income earners in each jurisdiction at both the 50% and 66.67% capital gains inclusion rate, respectively. The average difference is an increase in taxes payable by 8.45%.
Next, we look at the additional taxes payable because of the inclusion increase, assuming varying capital gains income levels. Of course, this assumes that the capital gains do not otherwise benefit from a reduced inclusion rate or an outright exemption such as eligible in-kind donations of securities to registered charities, or shares that qualify for the lifetime capital gains exemption, to name a few.
Understanding the tax implications of investing is an essential part of financial planning and reinforces the importance of working with a knowledgeable financial advisor to understand the long-term impact of these changes as it applies to personal situations. No doubt, tax rates influence capital allocation decisions. Canadians who take more inherent risk with their capital have traditionally been afforded preferred taxation rates promoting innovation through capital investment, something the government can do with good tax policy to encourage business growth and spur economic expansion. This is evident in the breakdown of the tax rates depending on the characterization of the income as noted in the table below.
Clearly the tax rates reflect the added capital risk investors and business owners take. We can clearly see the preferred taxation rates afforded on small business income and at the general corporate tax rates on income over the small business limit, compared to the tax rate on interest income or that of employment income. That tax-preference also extends to investors of “riskier” allocations of capital in marketable securities such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and exchange traded funds, to name a few. The tax rates of less-risky investments (such as money market instruments) do not benefit from the capital gains tax-preferred inclusion rates. With the latest move, there is not much difference in earning eligible dividend income from Canadian resident corporations and from dispositions resulting in capital gains.
Some pundits have declared the move as a disincentive to capital and business investment and may encourage businesses to move into more tax-favoured jurisdictions outside Canada. The Federal government has promoted the change as impacting a very small overall percentage of investors, estimated at 0.13% of Canadian individuals and 12.6% of corporations. Further, the move has been argued by the Liberals as necessary to work towards “intergenerational fairness”.
How to prepare for the changes?
For now, advisors may want to start educating their clients about the basics of the changes, which starts with comparing the current inclusion rates with the new inclusion rates.
Individual investors with large unrealized capital gains will also likely ask if they should crystallize their capital gains before June 25th to save money on taxes in the long run. The assumption that selling now will result in overall savings will not be correct in all cases, however. There is an opportunity cost to paying taxes upfront, rather than deferring those taxes to a later year.
For example, let’s assume an Ontario client owns a $2.5 million non-registered equity portfolio with $2,000,000 in unrealized capital gains. They had no intention of selling those investments for another 5 yeas, but in light of the upcoming changes, they are considering selling immediately, paying the capital gains taxes now, then reinvesting the net amount after taxes back into those same investments for the 5-year investment period. They are currently in the top marginal tax bracket in Ontario (53.53%) and expect to continue to be in 5 years’ time. The assumed average rate of return on their investments is 6% annually over the next 5 years.
As can be seen in this example, at 6% annual compound growth rate, the option to realize much of the capital gains now resulted in a higher overall return in the amount of $61,992.66 over the 5-year period due to the lower inclusion rate. Alternatively stated, if the investor does not crystallize the gains today, the equivalent rate of return needed to have the exact net after tax amount at the end of the 5-year period (the “breakeven return”) would be a 6.60% compound annual return. While this certainly will not be true in all cases, this is the sort of analysis that will have to be conducted when assessing whether it makes sense to realize capital gains in 2024. The rate of return on investment and the investment horizon, among other things, are important determining factors.
Although we used securities investment in our example, a similar analysis can be done for other kinds of property held, such as a vacation property that is unlikely to benefit from the principal residence exemption. In addition, taxes often take a back seat to other planning considerations. These conversations should be had with the primary goals of the client in mind, which may supersede tax planning considerations.
For corporate investors, it will be important to emphasize the impact the capital gains inclusion increase will have on small business owners. As a refresher, a corporation is a separate legal entity from the shareholders who own it and is subject to tax on the income it generates. Income is first taxed within the corporation before it can be passed to the shareholders in the form of dividends out of its retained earnings. To avoid double tax on income that passes through a corporation to shareholders (and to prevent any unintended tax advantages), a dividend gross-up and tax credit model is applied at the individual level, along with a tax refund mechanism to the corporation on passive investment income. This is designed to integrate the tax system between the two entities: individual and corporation. Ideally, perfect integration is achieved when after-tax income is equal, whether it is earned individually or through a corporation. In reality, depending on the province and type of income earned, there could be a tax cost in earning passive investment income through a corporation, including earning passive investment capital gains income. Currently there is a tax cost of earning capital gains income through a corporation across all Canadian provinces/jurisdictions.
The latest change further increases the cost of earning passive investment income inside a corporation, though we do not yet know what changes will be made to the corporate tax refund mechanisms. As noted in the table below, the increase averages approximately 8.43% and closely equates the rate on eligible dividends. This rate reflects the initial tax rate on passive investment income earned within an active business.
For many small businesses, and perhaps to long-term individual investors, this increase in the tax rate will feel unfair as the accumulation of earning a pool of assets for retirement is often done within their small business corporation, and in many cases the sole source of retirement funds.
If an immediate crystallization of accumulated capital gains is not desired, what should investors consider in the longer run? Although many details of the new proposed rules are yet to be clarified, here are some general considerations.
For individuals, it may be helpful to plan the timing of future dispositions to stay below the annual $250,000 threshold. Also, it may seem obvious but maximizing investments within registered plans, including the new first home savings plan (FHSA) where eligible, can reduce exposure to future capital gains tax. Moreover, estate planning becomes even more important as the potential tax payable on the deemed disposition of capital property at death rises. On that front, strategies to reduce capital gains at death could be considered, such as inter-vivos gifting, charitable donation, spousal rollover, and acquiring life insurance to provide sufficient liquidity to the estate.
For business owners, some strategies to limit future capital gain exposure may include contributing to an individual pension plan (IPP), conducting an estate freeze to pass on future capital gains to succession owners, and ensuring the small business shares qualify for the LCGE. The suitable strategies are highly dependent on the business needs and personal situation of the business owner.
Acting too soon or not fast enough?
Finally, there is what many in the industry have been calling a “change of law” risk. That is, within the next year and a half, a federal election is scheduled, and this capital gains inclusion tax policy will surely be a primary election issue. As part of that election platform, parties may promise to repeal it outright or alter its scope and application. Consider also that any changes in the capital gains inclusion rate could be retroactive or simply not apply in all cases.
The information provided is general in nature and may not be relied upon nor considered to be the rendering of tax, legal, accounting or professional advice. Invesco Canada is not providing advice. Readers should consult with their own accountants, lawyers and/or other professionals for advice on their specific circumstances before taking any action. The information contained herein is from sources believed to be reliable, but accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees and expenses may all be associated with mutual fund investments. Mutual funds are not guaranteed, their values change frequently and past performance may not be repeated. Please read the simplified prospectus before investing. Copies are available from your advisor or from Invesco Canada Ltd
Date posted: May 23, 2024 - [pdf] Annuity Settlement Option
- [pdf] Beneficiary Change Request Form
- [pdf] WorldCare Medical Second Opinion Service
-
EAMG Market Commentary July 2023
Posted July 27, 2023
July 17, 2023
Rates & Credit - The rates market was volatile in Q2 as investors focused on inflation, central bank interest rate decisions, and recession probabilities. Persistent strength in U.S. consumer spending and labour markets have surprised investors and prompted further interest rate tightening from central banks. In Canada, corporate bonds outperformed government bonds and the broader FTSE Canada Universe Index during the quarter, with a total return of 0.2%, versus a loss of 1.0% for government bonds and 0.7% for the overall Index. The corporate bond outperformance was driven by a broad risk-on tone to the market, most notably in April as the market recovered from the banking sector liquidity crisis that developed during March. That said, the market tone remained cautious, with the improved risk premium on corporate bonds tempered by lingering concerns around sticky inflation, high interest rates, and the potential for slower economic growth into the latter half of the year.
Dominance of U.S. Equities – U.S. equity markets posted another strong quarter with the S&P 500 returning 8.7%, outperforming Canada and other major international equity markets. The S&P/TSX Composite, returned 1.2% in CAD. Major developed economies from Europe, Australasia, and Far East (EAFE) returned 3.2% in local currency terms. The highly anticipated re-opening of the Chinese economy has failed to materialize with economic data indicating less strength than previously forecasted. Amid sluggish Chinese growth, closely interconnected economic partners such as the European Union, as well as commodity-driven markets like Canada, have all underperformed the U.S. on a relative basis.
U.S. Fundamentals – Earnings continued to contract versus prior year, albeit at a slower pace than forecasted. Forward earnings guidance improved quarter-over-quarter with corporate sentiment returning to neutral levels. Based on our analysis, we observed that 31% of major companies expect deteriorating financial performance, while 33% expect improved performance, with the remaining expecting no material change. Overall, major U.S. companies remain well capitalized with strong operating margins. However, company guidance indicates a prioritization of cost controls amid increased consumer indebtedness and concerns about the health of the consumer.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Mania – Despite concerns that the U.S. economy is at a late stage in its economic cycle, that monetary tightening by central banks could go too far, and the fact that earnings contracted on a year-over-year basis, equity markets became more expensive during the quarter with price-to-earnings multiples expanding. This expansion was driven by investors crowding into AI focused technology companies, with the seven largest AI/technology themed companies averaging a 26% return while the other 493 members gained only 3%. Investors rewarded businesses with contributions to AI development (hardware and software components), as well as those with the ability to implement synergies from leveraging the technology. A crowded market surge is not uncommon at this point in the economic cycle, where positive economic surprises, in this instance, strong employment and consumer spending can lead to an upswelling in investor confidence.
U.S. Quant Factors – Using our investment framework, we currently favour exposures to large cash-rich companies with innovative product offerings, which we believe offer the strongest risk-adjusted returns in the current market environment. While the valuation of AI companies seems to defy traditional rationales, the momentum has continued to push the group higher. Consequently, the Quality factor (companies with higher return-on-equity, strong operating performance, and healthy leverage levels) participated in the AI trend and consistently outperformed throughout the quarter. The Low Volatility factor (stocks with lower sensitivity to broad market movement, and lower price volatility) underperformed through the quarter. While the Low Volatility factor typically performs well at this stage of the economic cycle, the fact that a small number of stocks were responsible for much of the market’s return hurt this factor. Lastly, the Momentum factor (stocks with a recent history of price appreciation) initially underperformed during the quarter before rebounding in June. This factor’s recent outperformance suggests that the market is becoming complacent and possibly signals that rotations within the market are slowing as current trends remain in favour.
Canadian Fundamentals – Top line revenue missed forecasts while bottom line earnings were consistent with expectations. Softer-than-expected results out of Canadian financials, as well as underwhelming results from the materials sector, dragged on the aggregate index performance. Earnings forecasts for the rest of the year have been revised downward with analyst expecting index aggregate earnings to detract 2% to 3%. Meanwhile, the Bank of Canada raised its overnight interest rate by 25 basis points, bringing it to 4.75% on the backdrop of robust economic data releases including Q1 GDP and April CPI.
Canadian Quant Factors – The most notable dislocation in Canada was the convergence of the dividend yield of High-Dividend ETFs and Equal-Weight Bank ETFs. We believe that the drag from Canadian banks following the U.S. regional banking concerns in March resulted in a discount of the Quality factor as the performance of the group is sensitive to the movements of banks. While banks did recover around 35% of their SVB-induced underperformance, the nature of banking has attracted investor scrutiny given the view that we are in the late-stage of the economic cycle. That said, this environment is an attractive environment to add variants of the Quality factor, which would gain exposure to a rebounding industry that offers a similar dividend yield to the high dividend stocks.
Views From the Frontline
Rates – On an outright basis, bond yields across the curve continue to look attractive. Economic data remains strong however we are beginning to see the first signs of weakness in spending, jobs and inflation. Slower growth, a more balanced labour market, declining inflation, and tighter credit conditions will likely drive interest rates lower throughout 2023. Market participants remain focused on the extent of interest rate hikes and the duration of a pause required to bring inflation back to the 2% target. With inflation remaining more persistent than previously expected forecasts around the timing, pace and extent of the removal of monetary policy have been pushed into 2024.
Credit – The uncertain economic outlook and risks around slower economic growth later this year merit caution about corporate bonds and a bias towards higher-quality, shorter-dated credit where we think the risk / reward dynamic are more favourable. That said, the “soft-landing” narrative, now more pervasive in the market, could continue to provide support to risk assets, which we view as an opportunity to further pare down higher beta exposure.
Equities – Given the direction of the current economic and company fundamental data, we continue to favour high quality growth segments of the market with strong operating margins. As such, the late cycle conditions in the market reinforce our preference for large cap stocks over smaller, more U.S. domestically focused businesses. The U.S. Low Volatility factor’s underperformance is unlikely to reverse in the short term given the resilience of the U.S. economy. Furthermore, after a steep decline last quarter, we expect that cyclical value will find support in the near term, echoing the increased chance of slowing inflation without stalling economic growth. In Canada, equities are typically more cyclical in nature, which coupled with the potential for an earnings contraction, makes us view the Low Volatility factor as more likely to outperform. Like the U.S., we prefer Canadian high-quality companies to navigate through the late cycle environment. On the heels of poor Chinese economic data and underwhelming stimulus, we are maintaining our overweight to the U.S. relative to Canada and EAFE.
Downloadable Copy
ADVISOR USE ONLY
Any statements contained herein that are not based on historical fact are forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statements represent the portfolio manager’s best judgment as of the present date as to what may occur in the future. However, forward-looking statements are subject to many risks, uncertainties and assumptions, and are based on the portfolio manager’s present opinions and views. For this reason, the actual outcome of the events or results predicted may differ materially from what is expressed. Furthermore, the portfolio manager’s views, opinions or assumptions may subsequently change based on previously unknown information, or for other reasons. Equitable Life of Canada® assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking information contained herein. The reader is cautioned to consider these and other factors carefully and not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Investments may increase or decrease in value and are invested at the risk of the investor. Investment values change frequently, and past performance does not guarantee future results. Professional advice should be sought before an investor embarks on any investment strategy.