Running a money-losing business doesn’t always mean tax loss claim

Article content material

It’s not simple operating a small enterprise, particularly within the early years. Whether or not a enterprise will in the end grow to be worthwhile, producing revenue that may in the future be taxable, relies on many elements. However within the meantime, in the event you expertise enterprise losses, they may typically be tax deductible in opposition to some other revenue you’ve got, supplied you’ve got a reputable enterprise, run in a industrial method with a view to a revenue.

Article content material

This was the problem on the coronary heart of a Tax Courtroom resolution in August involving a Brampton, Ont., taxpayer who was reassessed by the Canada Revenue Agency for claiming enterprise losses of $55,728 for 2008, $37,975 for 2009, $41,229 for 2010 and $17,779 for 2011. The CRA disallowed these losses on the idea that the taxpayer had no supply of revenue and, subsequently, no true enterprise.

Article content material

Within the years in query, the taxpayer engaged in two so-called companies that gave rise to his claimed enterprise losses: an internet site enterprise, and a portray and cleansing enterprise. These companies had been along with his day job as an authorized high quality engineer for numerous auto business suppliers. Every weekday, he commuted to and from his job in Oakville, Ont., leaving for work round 7 a.m. and returning residence at 6 p.m. He ran his two companies after hours and on weekends.

The aim of the taxpayer’s web site enterprise was to create a platform for people to market their houses and promote their private gadgets. His kids had been deeply concerned in constructing the web site, getting into information, distributing flyers and placing up promotional posters. One of many kids testified about each his personal and his siblings’ involvement in a wide range of web-related actions.

Article content material

Article content material

The taxpayer, when requested what he did to assist make the web site worthwhile, stated he deliberate to switch the web site to permit it to be seen on social media and cellular gadgets, and that he “elevated his promoting.” As well as, he launched some vitamin merchandise in 2011 to the web site in a multi-level advertising scheme that generated a fee lack of $2,186 that 12 months.

Regardless of the taxpayer’s “unbroken string of losses,” he was assured “there might be a time … to grow to be (a) worthwhile enterprise.” The choose was skeptical: “The premise for the (taxpayer’s) optimism stays unexplained, notably since he had claimed a steady sequence of losses on his tax returns way back to 1993.” The taxpayer ultimately closed his web site in 2017 with out experiencing a single worthwhile 12 months.

The taxpayer additionally ran a portray and cleansing actions enterprise. Requested by the CRA why he began that enterprise, he responded he had “some free time” on the weekends. The taxpayer conceded his portray and cleansing actions weren’t very energetic, they usually resulted in 2010.

The choose reviewed the case regulation, notably a landmark 2002 Supreme Court of Canada decision that established the take a look at to find out whether or not or not a taxpayer has a “supply of revenue.” That is important as a result of to deduct a enterprise loss, you have to have a supply of revenue. The best court docket stated the place to begin was to determine whether or not a taxpayer’s exercise was undertaken in “pursuit of revenue” or was private. The place there’s a private ingredient, the exercise should have a enough diploma of “commerciality” to be thought of a supply of revenue.

Article content material

The choose additionally cited a pair of 2022 Federal Courtroom of Enchantment selections concluding that an exercise with none private ingredient have to be performed with a view to creating a revenue to represent a supply of revenue.

On this case, the choose stated each taxpayer actions had private components. As a result of his kids had been deeply concerned in serving to the web site enterprise, their actions supplied the taxpayer’s household a chance to spend time collectively. And since his portray and cleansing actions had been meant to occupy the taxpayer’s free time, they had been private as effectively. Ultimately, there was no proof that both exercise was performed with enough commerciality to represent a supply of revenue.

The choose added that even when he had decided that neither exercise had a private ingredient, he would have concluded that neither was performed in pursuit of a revenue because the taxpayer was unable to supply any proof to reveal that both exercise might be profitably performed. Accordingly, the losses the taxpayer tried to say had been denied.

The taxpayer additionally tried to argue that the CRA wasn’t entitled to reassess his 2008 taxation 12 months as a result of it was past the conventional three-year reassessment interval. To take action, the CRA should reveal, on a stability of chances, {that a} taxpayer made a misrepresentation attributable to “neglect, carelessness or wilful default or dedicated fraud” in submitting his tax return.

Article content material

The CRA famous the taxpayer claimed in his 2008 tax return that he drove 49,000 kilometres that 12 months for his web site enterprise, and 31,000 kilometres for his portray and cleansing actions.

The choose famous that given the taxpayer had full-time employment in 2008, any declare {that a} complete of 80,000 kilometres had been pushed for his web site and portray and cleansing actions that 12 months was “absurd,” because the taxpayer left for work at 7 a.m. and returned at 6 p.m. every weekday. Claiming what had been primarily private vehicle bills as enterprise bills is clearly a misrepresentation. However was this attributable to neglect or carelessness?

The choose felt it was as a result of the taxpayer did not “thoughtfully, intentionally, and thoroughly” decide what number of kilometres he drove in 2008 for every of his alleged companies. The taxpayer claimed he maintained an vehicle logbook, however did not deliver it to court docket on the primary day of trial, nor did he deliver it on the second day. “This strongly means that no logbook exists,” the choose stated.

Article content material

Because of this, the choose stated the CRA was “totally justified” in reassessing the taxpayer’s 2008 taxation 12 months past the conventional reassessment interval because the taxpayer made a misrepresentation that was clearly attributable to neglect or carelessness.

Jamie Golombek, CPA, CA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Personal Wealth in Toronto. Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com.

_____________________________________________________________

Should you favored this story, sign up for more within the FP Investor publication.

_____________________________________________________________

Article content material