Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

CEWS 2.0 – Why I see it as another attack on the small business owner

Published

12 minute read

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Before Post

CEO | Director CGL Tax Professional Corporation With the Income Tax Act always by his side on his smart-phone, Cory has taken tax-nerd to a whole other level. His background in strategic planning, tax-efficient corporate reorganizations, business management, and financial planning bring a well-rounded approach to assist private corporations and their owners increase their wealth through the strategies that work best for them. An entrepreneur himself, Cory started CGL with the idea that he wanted to help clients adapt to the ever-changing tax and economic environment and increase their wealth through optimizing the use of tax legislation coupled with strategic business planning and financial analysis. His relaxed blue-collar approach in a traditionally white-collar industry can raise a few eyebrows, but in his own words: “People don’t pay me for my looks. My modeling career ended at birth.” More info: https://CGLtax.ca/Litzenberger-Cory.html

Follow Author

Business

Budget 2025 continues to balloon spending and debt

Published on

By Franco Terrazzano 

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is criticizing Prime Minister Mark Carney for ballooning spending and debt in Budget 2025.

“Budget 2025 shows the debt continues to spiral out of control because spending continues to spiral out of control,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Carney needs to reverse course to get debt and spending under control because every dollar Canadians pay in federal sales tax is already going to pay interest charges on the debt.

“Carney isn’t close to balancing anything when he’s borrowing tens of billions of dollars every year.”

The federal deficit will increase significantly this year to $78.3 billion. There is no plan to balance the budget and stop borrowing money. The federal debt will reach $1.35 trillion by the end of this year.

Debt interest charges will cost taxpayers $55.6 billion this year, which is more than the federal government will send to the provinces in health transfers ($54.7 billion) or collect through the GST ($54.4 billion).

Budget 2025 increases spending by $38 billion this year to $581 billion. Despite promises to control spending in future years, Budget 2025 projects that overall spending will continue to rise by billions every year.

“Canadians don’t need another plan to create a plan to meet about cutting spending, Canadians need real spending cuts now,” Terrazzano said. “The government always tells Canadians that it will go on a diet Monday, but Monday never comes.

“And the government isn’t really finding savings if it’s planning to keep increasing spending every year.”

Budget 2025 commits to “strengthening” the industrial carbon tax and “setting a multi-decade industrial carbon price trajectory that targets net zero by 2050.”

“Carney’s hidden carbon tax will make it harder for Canadian businesses to compete and will push Canadian entrepreneurs to set up shop south of the border,” Terrazzano said. “Carney should scrap all carbon taxes, cut spending and stop taking so much money from taxpayers.”

Continue Reading

Business

Federal budget: Carney government posts largest deficit in Canadian history outside pandemic

Published on

  • Federal deficit projected to exceed $78 billion

  • This is Ottawa’s tenth consecutive unbalanced budget

  • Every newborn baby in Canada now enters the world with a debt of more than $33,000.

Repackaging record spending as “investments” while offering no credible path back to balance is the opposite of responsible fiscal stewardship, asserts the MEI in response to the tabling of the federal budget this afternoon.

“Canadians should find a deficit this large extremely troubling,” says Emmanuelle B. Faubert, economist at the MEI. “The attempt to disguise it under a new wave of so-called investments makes it even more concerning.

“It’s one thing to spend money you don’t have; it’s yet another to shirk responsibility for it.”

The Carney government is projecting a deficit of $78.3 billion for 2025-2026, up from $48.3 billion last year.

Interest payments are projected to rise to $55.6 billion this upcoming fiscal year, but servicing the debt will mount rapidly: to $76.1 billion by 2030, a 37 per cent spike.

Current debt charges cost taxpayers more than federal healthcare transfers to provinces, which amount to $54 billion annually.

This budget deficit would bring the national debt to $1.48 trillion, and mark the tenth consecutive year without a balanced federal budget. Every newborn baby in Canada now enters the world with a debt of more than $33,000.

Much of the new spending is categorized as capital as opposed to operational, which is a new reclassification scheme unveiled by the Carney government that does nothing to change the total debt. The government’s net debt is predicted to grow by another 21 per cent by 2030, to $1.79 trillion.

The Build Canada Homes program, for one, has an initial $13-billion price tag. The MEI studied a similar program launched in New Zealand, which accomplished just 3 per cent of its total objective.

The MEI warns that this marks a shift toward increased central planning, with Canada becoming an economy where politicians, instead of businesses and consumers, decide which industries succeed.

Overtures in the budget hint at a possible future walk-back of the emissions cap, which the think tank has strongly advocated for. In March, the PBO released a report estimating that the emissions cap would reduce our collective prosperity by $20.5 billion in 2032 and result in 40,300 fewer jobs than there would otherwise be.

A clearer path toward shrinking the federal bureaucracy has been laid out, with the government planning to eliminate 16,000 full-time positions, representing 4.5 per cent of the workforce as of March 2025.

Economist Emmanuelle B. Faubert would like the government to go further. While Ottawa plans to maintain the size of the federal bureaucracy at about 330,000 employees by 2028-29 through attrition, the MEI sees this as insufficient, and urged a more ambitious approach in its pre-budget submission.

The MEI recommended cutting the federal workforce by 17.4 per cent, mirroring the Chrétien-era reductions of the 1990s, which would eliminate roughly 64,000 positions and save taxpayers $10 billion annually.

The MEI welcomes the decision to expand capital cost allowances, letting businesses write off new machinery and equipment more quickly. This measure promotes investment and productivity by reducing the upfront cost of doing business.

“The government may try to rebrand its debt, but Canadians will still be the ones paying it off for decades,” says Ms. Faubert. “Carney calls it a generational budget, and he’s right, but only because future generations will be stuck footing the bill.”

* * *

The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.

Continue Reading

Trending

X