Business
CEWS 2.0 – Why I see it as another attack on the small business owner
July 18, 2017 – The Minister of Finance announces draft legislation of the Tax on Split Income (TOSI) rule changes that would have far reaching impact into the small business community and although some changes were made, the rules have negatively impacted small businesses ever since and will continue for years to come.
Three years later, July 17, 2020 – The same Minister of Finance tables legislation of the changes to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS), what I like to call CEWS 2.0 which will also continue for years to come.
Before you try to correct me and say that the subsidy is only for 2020, please read on.
While many media and politician soundbites like to give the impression of how CEWS 2.0 will help small business, I cannot help but see this as an opposite approach.
Do not get me wrong, money is money, and businesses will take all the help they can get, and if my business qualifies, I will take full advantage of it, but I personally don’t have to pay a tax specialist to figure it out.
There are two new calculations to CEWS 2.0.
- a baseline amount based on the percentage of revenue decline in the month compared to either the same month in 2019, or the January-February 2020 average revenue amount.
- a top-up amount based on the three-previous month revenue decline where it exceeds 50%.
Instead of an all or nothing at a 30% decline, even a 1% decline will get you a pro-rated payout, although the costs of figuring out your eligible amount might outweigh the benefit.
In fact, you could have an increase in revenue compared to this time last year and still get a payout. Make sense?
If the previous three months were greater than a 50% decline you qualify for the top-up amount regardless of the result for the current month.
The complexity of the CEWS design will reward those that have experts in their corner compared to those that do not.
Consider the following scenario:
A large public corporation that has employees making more than $1,129 a week will be able to not only have a simple calculation, they will not have anyone “related” to the corporation that they have to do extra baseline remuneration calculations for. Just like CEWS 1.0, in CEWS 2.0 every employee including the CEO will be subsidized in a public corporation, with no clawback mechanism (as recommended in my earlier article, the Keep it Simple S…ubsidy).
In the large public corporation, the bookkeeping, payroll, and accounting function will be up to date and (I would hope) accurate because of internal controls. They also frequently have large accounting and I.T. departments to easily calculate the eligibility and amounts for such a subsidy.
But let us compare this to a small owner-managed business like a restaurant for example. The profit margins in restaurants are already sliced thinner than the meat on a charcuterie board. Add to this the extra costs of social distancing and safety precautions, as well as the inconsistency of regulations for being closed, re-opened, and closed again as we navigate the pandemic and restaurants seem like a lost cause for a business owner.
Assuming they are able to still successfully navigate the minefield that COVID19 has placed on their livelihoods, many restaurants have dozens of part-time staff, including family members.
So right away we have a glaring difference: relatives.
The rules in CEWS 2.0 has not reduced any of the requirements for calculations to be made with respect to relatives working in the business. Relatives must have been being paid as a wage employee during one of a few optional calculation periods prior to March 15, 2020 to be eligible for any of the CEWS.
Do you remember TOSI?
TOSI basically was designed so you could only income split dividends with related persons under a complex set of strict rules. Even though restaurants are considered “food services”, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and Finance have in Example 4B of their TOSI explanatory notes an example of a restaurant which would not be considered a service. In doing so, they sent the message to continue to pay yourselves in dividends if you run a family owned restaurant.
As a result, family owned restaurants continued to do just that.
Fast forward to 2020 and you now have family members working in a low margin business, with no support for their dividend remuneration under CEWS 1.0 or CEWS 2.0.
Even if the small business owner was one of the lucky fortune tellers that decided to pay themselves wages, they still have to do a baseline calculation (two different ways – weekly or bi-weekly – for each claim period) just to figure out how much they might be able to get.
Keep in mind the bi-weekly periods are the periods that were set by finance, not the period you may already be using for your payroll cutoff.
Now we have the part-time restaurant staff in my example. The family business now must calculate the average weekly earnings of each individual staff member during the claim period to figure out what the maximum amount of benefit is.
To make it better, the bookkeeping records better be pristine and accurate on a month to month basis, rather than on an annual basis like many, if not most, small businesses do.
Enter in that sale on the 1st of this month instead of the 31st of last month, and you could be looked at as “gaming the system”.
If you are a late-night pub restaurant, make sure that you are closing out the tills at 11:59pm on the 31st of the month – or your numbers would be inaccurate and you could be called a “tax cheat.”
I can’t wait for the Halloween pub crawls this year, when the weekly earnings of those late-night pub staff will have to also be cut off at midnight Saturday, October 31st. At least there will be plenty of mask wearing that night.
So, we now have increased the compliance costs for the small restaurants for monthly reporting, weekly payroll calculations, overnight cutoffs on month-ends, and special treatment for relatives of the business.
It doesn’t take a tax specialist, a cost-accounting CPA, or a PhD in mathematics to figure out that this is going to cost more per employee in overhead costs to the small family business in comparison to the large public corporation.
While I am more than happy to receive money from my clients for doing the immense research and calculations that will be required, the fact remains for the small business owner, is all of this extra work and compliance cost worth it in the end?
Sadly, you will not know if it is worth it, until after you have put in the work to calculate it.
If you happen to be one of the lucky ones that qualifies, you will then have to track the amount of CEWS you received for each employee separately.
This is because the CRA in question 29 of their Frequently Asked Questions on CEWS said that there will be a new box at the bottom of the T4 required to be filled in for the amount of CEWS received for that employee.
But what about my earlier statement that CEWS will impact businesses for years to come? With your calculation and compliance is going on until the end of February 2021 with the addition of the T4 box, does it end there?
February 2021 will just be the beginning. This will begin the audits of the CEWS claims (if they have not already started).
Since the CEWS is required to be reported on the 2020 T4 slips filed by the business in February 2021, would it be fair to say that the three-year tax compliance clock only begins at that time?
This means from now until February of 2024 you can expect to have a call from (likely the payroll audit division of) the CRA to take a look at:
- your weekly employee wage calculations;
- the monthly revenue calculations;
- the monthly cut-offs;
- the timing of your invoices;
- the CEWS amounts allocated to individual staff members; and
- the scrutiny of amounts paid to relatives;
All while you have the joy of having an internal debate with yourself on whether to pay your tax specialist to deal with them, or to try and go at it alone and confused.
July 2017 – TOSI
July 2020 – CEWS 2.0
I wonder what July 2023 will bring.
This article was originally published on July 23, 2020.
—
Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr is the founder of CGL Strategic Business & Tax Advisors (CGLtax.ca). Cory is an advocate for small business in his role as Alberta Governor for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB); converts legislation into layman terms for fun; and provides Canadian tax advisory services to other CPA firms across Canada; opinions are his own.
Biography of Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr can be found here.
Business
UK lawmaker threatens to use Online Safety Act to censor social media platforms
From LifeSiteNews
Labour MP Lola McEvoy defended the Online Safety Act’s censorious measures, including bans and fines for social media platforms which ‘don’t comply’ with the strict age verification law.
Politicians from the U.K.’s ruling Labour party are starting to openly “out” the country’s Online Safety Act for the sweeping censorship law that its opponents have all along been warning it is.
The extreme case of using the law to completely ban social media platforms in the U.K. is now being promoted as a possibility by Labour MP Lola McEvoy.
“If these big platforms that have huge users don’t comply with the Online Safety Act, then they have no right to be accessed in this country,” the MP said while appearing on a podcast, adding, “So I think that’s what the law’s about.”
The masks are coming off, prompted by the latest clash between the government and Prime Minister Keir Starmer in particular and X owner Elon Musk – who criticized their role in a historical child sex exploitation scandal in the U.K.
In addition to saying that failure to comply with the law could result in the platforms getting banned, McEvoy suggested that “unelected citizens from other countries” should not be allowed to criticize U.K.’s government – she justified this by saying the criticism of Minister for Safeguarding Jess Phillips created “a very dangerous situation,” equating it to “bullying and harassment.”
McEvoy even made a point of public figures needing to be even more aggressively protected through censorship – effectively from whatever the government backing those figures decides to pack into the vague categories such as “bullying” and “harassment,” and in that way deal with critical, including legitimate, speech.
And where would any controversial call to step up online censorship be without getting served to the public as a way to above all – protect children?
So, in addition to blanket bans on accessing apps and platforms for essentially political reasons, China-style, McEvoy recalled that the Online Safety Act also contains the threat of massive fines in case the social media companies fail to comply with what she referred to as “very strict age verification” requirements.
McEvoy spoke about regulator Ofcom’s powers, which she described as “really significant” in enforcing the fines under the law that is being gradually implemented.
And as that is happening, this MP wants the Online Safety Act to be “strengthened” where it concerns the focus on things it treats as harmful to children, such as access to illegal content or pornography.
Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.
Business
Freeland and Carney owe Canadians clear answer on carbon taxes
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on Liberal leadership front-runners Chrystia Freeland and Mark Carney to clearly state whether they will scrap the carbon tax.
“Taxpayers have one simple question for anyone who wants to be prime minister: Will you scrap the carbon tax?” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Freeland is running on her experience as finance minister, but she gave a rambling response about listening to Canadians instead of giving a clear and credible answer. Carney is running on his economic expertise as a central banker, but his response didn’t provide any clarity beyond a vague suggestion that he’s working on a replacement scheme.
“How can Freeland or Carney hope to have a shred of credibility if they don’t have a clear answer to the question: Will you scrap the carbon tax?”
Freeland was asked about the carbon tax during her leadership campaign launch in Toronto on Sunday.
“We have heard very clearly from Canadians in provinces where there is a consumer-facing price on carbon that they don’t like it,” Freeland said. “That’s something that we have to listen to. Democracy means when people tell you something you have to listen. I will say our party hasn’t been good enough at that. That has to change, and I am going to change that.”
Carney was equally unclear on the carbon tax at his campaign launch in Edmonton on Thursday.
“If you are going to take out the carbon tax, we should replace it with something that is at least, if not more, effective,” Carney said. “Perception may be that it takes out more than the rebate provides but reality is different, and Canadians will miss that money, so you need a comprehensive approach.”
Liberal Government House Leader Karina Gould also announced her leadership campaign on Sunday. Gould said she would keep the carbon tax but would “immediately cancel the increase to the price on pollution ahead of April 1.”
The federal carbon tax is set to increase on April 1 to 21 cents per litre of gasoline, 25 cents per litre of diesel and 18 cents per cubic metre of natural gas.
Prior to the carbon tax hike last year, a Leger poll commissioned by the CTF showed 69 per cent of Canadians opposed the carbon tax increase.
“Gould figured out it would be bad if the carbon tax goes up right at the start of an election campaign,” said Kris Sims, CTF Alberta Director. “But Canadian’s don’t want half-measures as proven by the backlash against the temporary carbon-tax exemption for home heating oil.
“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been clear from the start he would keep the carbon tax and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been clear he would axe the tax. Anyone who wants to be a credible candidate for prime minister needs a crystal-clear answer for this question: Will you scrap the carbon tax?”
-
Addictions1 day ago
Nanaimo syringe stabbing reignites calls for involuntary care
-
Dan McTeague2 days ago
Mark Carney would be bad for Canada
-
Business2 days ago
ESG Is Collapsing And Net Zero Is Going With It
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Mark Zuckerberg Tells Joe Rogan That Biden Admin Would ‘Scream’ And ‘Curse’ At Meta Employees To Censor ‘True’ Content
-
Business1 day ago
FDA bans commonly used food dye
-
Alberta1 day ago
Electronic monitoring of repeat offenders begins
-
Carbon Tax1 day ago
Taxpayers Federation calling on BC Government to scrap failed Carbon Tax
-
Alberta1 day ago
Premier Danielle Smith In Washington for Trump Inauguration Promoting a New Era of Partnership with the U.S.