CRA denies taxpayer’s headhunter charges, however decide disagrees

Article content material

A lot of the dialogue in regards to the tax deductibility of employment bills over the previous three years has targeted on what workers who’ve been working from house attributable to COVID-19 can write off on their tax returns. But it surely’s additionally vital to keep in mind that different non-reimbursed employment bills, past these associated to your property workplace, may additionally be tax deductible.

Article content material

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

Article content material

You’ll additionally want to finish and file a replica of Type T777, Assertion of Employment Bills, together with your tax return. This type lists examples of probably deductible employment bills, which might embody: 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, sometimes, the CRA could problem your declare if a specific expense is uncommon, massive 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 purchasers’ wants, investing their cash and property planning. Though the taxpayer resided in a small city about an hour’s drive outdoors Montreal, she had purchasers all through Quebec, in addition to in Ontario and Nova Scotia. Consequently, she incurred journey bills that weren’t paid for by her employer, and which the CRA absolutely allowed.

In 2015 and 2016, the adviser reported fee revenue 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 nearly all of her employment bills, together with promotional, motorcar and journey bills, but it surely denied prices she paid to a headhunter to assist discover an applicable 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, crucial of which is the quantity of commissions she earned, which was based totally on bringing in “web new belongings.” She said her web new belongings throughout 2014 and 2015 have been “clearly inadequate.”

At the moment, she concluded that if she needed to attain the efficiency anticipated by her agency, she wanted to rent an affiliate adviser who might share her duties and canvass for brand spanking new purchasers. This was confirmed by her brokerage department supervisor, who testified that when an adviser’s clientele turns into bigger, it may be tough to make sure the standard of companies, and that in these circumstances 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 crew. That new affiliate adviser joined in October 2017. Paperwork produced in courtroom confirmed that the hiring allowed the adviser’s commissions to develop by growing web new belongings to the agency.

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

Article content material

The decide 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 decide additionally mentioned the CRA was considerably contradictory in its strategy 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 apart from the manager search agency charges on the premise 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 decide 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. “In my opinion, that is ample to conclude that the (taxpayer) meets the situation set out in (the Revenue Tax Act)” to deduct employment bills, the decide wrote.

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

Having met the situations within the Tax Act to deduct employment bills, the decide ordered the matter be despatched again to the CRA for reconsideration and reassessments on the premise 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 growth,” and thus have 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].

_____________________________________________________________

If you happen to favored this story, join extra within the FP Investor publication.

_____________________________________________________________