CRA denies taxpayer’s headhunter charges, however choose disagrees

Article content material

A lot of the dialogue regarding the tax deductibility of employment bills over the previous three years has centered on what staff who’ve been working from house on account of COVID-19 can write off on their tax returns. However it’s additionally essential to keep in mind that different non-reimbursed employment bills, past these associated to your house workplace, can also be tax deductible.

Article content material

To be entitled to deduct employment bills, you’ll must get a duplicate of a correctly accomplished and signed Canada Income Company Type T2200, Declaration of Situations of Employment, on which your employer has licensed you had been required to pay varied kinds of bills for which you’ll not be reimbursed.

Article content material

You’ll additionally want to finish and file a duplicate of Type T777, Assertion of Employment Bills, along with your tax return. This type lists examples of probably deductible employment bills, which may embrace: accounting, authorized, promoting and promotion charges; allowable motorcar bills; sure meals, beverage and leisure bills; out-of-town lodging bills; parking; and postage, stationery and different workplace provides. However this checklist will not be exhaustive, and, often, the CRA could problem your declare if a specific expense is uncommon, giant or not on its checklist of conventional employment bills.

Article content material

That’s precisely what occurred in a latest tax case involving a Quebec wealth-management adviser who was employed at a significant bank-owned brokerage agency from 1997 till her retirement in 2019. The taxpayer throughout her testimony described the character of her work, which included assessing shoppers’ wants, investing their cash and property planning. Though the taxpayer resided in a small city about an hour’s drive exterior Montreal, she had shoppers all through Quebec, in addition to in Ontario and Nova Scotia. Because of this, she incurred journey bills that weren’t paid for by her employer, and which the CRA totally allowed.

In 2015 and 2016, the adviser reported fee earnings on her tax returns of $538,388 and $527,077, respectively, and deducted employment bills of $31,051 in 2015, and $39,435 in 2016.

Article content material

The CRA allowed the vast majority of her employment bills, together with promotional, motorcar and journey bills, nevertheless it denied prices she paid to a headhunter to assist discover an acceptable affiliate adviser to affix her follow. Particularly, the CRA denied $11,112 in 2015 and $10,606 in 2016.

By means of background to justify the headhunting charges, the adviser defined her efficiency analysis was based mostly on a number of issues, a very powerful of which is the quantity of commissions she earned, which was based totally on bringing in “internet new belongings.” She acknowledged her internet new belongings throughout 2014 and 2015 had been “clearly inadequate.”

At the moment, she concluded that if she wished to attain the efficiency anticipated by her agency, she wanted to rent an affiliate adviser who may share her duties and canvass for brand spanking new shoppers. This was confirmed by her brokerage department supervisor, who testified that when an adviser’s clientele turns into bigger, it may be troublesome to make sure the standard of providers, and that in these instances the agency suggests senior advisers rent associates.

Article content material

To this finish, the brokerage agency posted the affiliate adviser place internally, however the posting produced few candidates, so the taxpayer was requested to look on her personal. It was at this juncture that she determined to rent a search agency to discover a appropriate affiliate to affix her workforce. That new affiliate adviser joined in October 2017. Paperwork produced in courtroom confirmed that the hiring allowed the adviser’s commissions to develop by rising internet new belongings to the agency.

The CRA denied the adviser’s price to rent the search agency, arguing the taxpayer wasn’t explicitly required below her employment contract to pay the headhunter expense. The CRA stated the taxpayer ought to have gone by way of the inner recruitment course of and chosen somebody from that checklist fairly than utilizing her personal headhunter.

Article content material

The choose discovered this to be nonsensical: “This appears illogical to me since (the brokerage supervisor) confirmed that the inner course of … had not been productive.”

The choose additionally stated the CRA was considerably contradictory in its method towards the taxpayer’s employment bills. The CRA clearly acknowledged the taxpayer “needed to incur a lot of the bills,” and allowed all of them aside from the manager search agency charges on the idea that the taxpayer was not required to incur “this” expense. Moreover, the CRA admitted throughout questioning that its argument was basically that the employer’s requirement to pay “different bills” was not particular sufficient to incorporate headhunter bills.

Article content material

The choose disagreed. She turned to Query 1 of Type T2200, which indicated the adviser was required to pay the bills incurred to carry out the duties associated to her work. “For my part, that is enough to conclude that the (taxpayer) meets the situation set out in (the Revenue Tax Act)” to deduct employment bills, the choose wrote.

Lastly, the CRA tried to argue that the charges paid to the headhunter had been capital in nature and, due to this fact, not deductible. It argued this on the idea that it was a one-time expense. Once more, the choose disagreed and concluded the prices incurred find an affiliate adviser had been present bills and never capital bills.

Having met the situations within the Tax Act to deduct employment bills, the choose ordered the matter be despatched again to the CRA for reconsideration and reassessments on the idea that the adviser is entitled to deduct the quantities paid in 2015 for 2016 for headhunting charges since they clearly fell inside the bills described as “enterprise improvement,” and thus had been bills which the adviser needed to pay and for which her agency offered no reimbursement.

Jamie Golombek, CPA, CA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Personal Wealth in Toronto. [email protected].

_____________________________________________________________

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

_____________________________________________________________