如果你“雇佣”了配偶，就等着CRA找上门来吧

　　与配偶合法分割某些收入的方式有很多种。例如，当涉及到退休收入时，?ntrast=none>养老金收入分割或CPP/QPP共享ntrast=auto>可以有效。对于投资者来说,使用?ntrast=>规定的利率没有配偶loanntrast=汽车>?有超额收益高于规定的利息征税的低收入的伴侣时的方式去规定的利率仅为百分之一或百分之二,利率在百分之五,7月1日,2024年,找到一个有保证回报的投资超过这个速度是富有挑战性的,这就是为什么我们看到很少的新配偶的收入分割贷款建立在过去的一年。

　　但是，有一种方法经常被尝试，但并不总是通过加拿大税务局的审查，那就是“雇佣”你的配偶或伴侣在你的公司工作，或者，如果你是雇员，成为你的“助手”。当涉及到合法的工作和适当的报酬时，这可能是一种有效的税收策略，但CRA通常对配偶就业安排持怀疑态度，正如一位纳税人最近在上个月裁决的一起税务案件中发现的那样。

　　头条新闻

　　获取最新的头条新闻，突发新闻和专栏。

　　注册即表示您同意接收由Postmedia Network Inc.发送的上述通讯。

　　感谢您的报名!

　　一封欢迎邮件马上就到。如果您没有看到它，请检查您的垃圾文件夹。

　　下一期的“热门故事”将很快进入您的收件箱。

　　我们在登记你的时候遇到了点问题。请再试一次

　　根据?所得税法案，员工可以扣除支付给助理的任何“工资”，前提是他们的雇佣合同“要求”员工承担这笔费用，并由雇主在CRA表格T2200“雇佣条件声明”中证明这一点。如果雇佣合同中没有明确要求雇员承担的费用，如果发现这是一项默示要求，它仍然可以被扣除。在作出这一决定时，法院审查了未能满足这一要求是否会导致雇员被解雇、业绩评估不佳或雇主采取其他纪律处分。

　　最近一起与配偶雇佣有关的税务案件涉及一名受委托的雇员，他冲销了各种雇佣费用，包括机动车辆费用(允许)和支付给配偶的金额(不允许)。

　　纳税人从事销售空调、炉子、热泵和其他类似电器的业务。他与好市多公司有合同约定，拥有独家代理权。在好市多(Costco)的入口处，有一个售货亭，上面有预先打印好的空白表格，潜在客户可以填写表格，表达他们对这些产品的兴趣。这些表格被收集起来，并打电话来确定潜在购买者的资格。如果合格，就会安排预约。然后，纳税人将与潜在客户会面并准备一份提案。如果被接受，客户签订合同，纳税人有权获得佣金。

　　During the years under review, 2016 and 2017, the taxpayer reported employment income of approximately $80,000 and $90,000 respectively, of which about $33,000 each year was commission income. Among the employment expenses the taxpayer claimed were $20,000 “alleged to have been paid” to his spouse for each of the 2016 and 2017 taxation years.

　　The taxpayer claimed that it was his wife who made the calls and scheduled the various appointments, and accordingly was paid for her services as a self-employed contractor. While the taxpayer admitted that she was not paid directly, he stated that approximately $35,000 in total was paid to her in 2016, and $31,000 in 2017. The payments were “paid” to her as her share of mortgage payments, cash withdrawals or other debit transactions from a joint bank account.

　　In denying these expenses, the CRA maintained that the taxpayer didn’t have a contract with his spouse, and failed to submit any other details or documents that demonstrated that he paid commissions (or salaries) to her, or that a working relationship existed between them. These could have included proof of payments, tasks description, timesheets, employee log book, T4 slips, etc. The taxpayer did produce some documentation, including a Form T2200, as well as joint bank account statements.

　　During cross-examinations, the taxpayer admitted that he had not kept any records of the payments made to his spouse and that, although the amount claimed on his returns for the two years in question was less than the amount alleged to have been paid to her, he had no understanding as to how it had been quantified as he relied solely on his accountant to determine the appropriate amount to be claimed. He also admitted that the cash withdrawals and debit transactions were for “ordinary household expenses” and were not necessarily specific to his spouse. No deposits were made to her personal bank account.

　　The CRA’s position was that any amounts that were alleged to have been paid to his wife were, in fact, “joint family expenses not directly related to her.” In addition, there was no evidence of any services performed by her, and the taxpayer could not produce a log or note book or list of customers allegedly contacted by her at any time in 2016 or 2017.

　　The taxpayer argued that there was no need to produce an actual contract and that his testimony alone ought to be sufficient to establish the status of his wife as an independent contractor, as well as the amounts paid to her.

　　The Tax Court judge rejected these arguments, and agreed with the CRA as there were no books and records and no supporting documentation to back up the taxpayer’s assertion that the amounts claimed on his return were incurred or actually paid to his wife. On that basis, the judge ruled that the CRA correctly denied these employment expenses.