Printer Friendly

Revenue Canada sets its sights on tax equalization payments for expatriates.

A recent Canadian Tax Court decision could make the cost of relocating to Canada more expensive. The decision will affect companies that make tax equalization payments to their foreign expatriate employees to compensate them for the higher tax liability they incur while working in Canada.

In the 1991 Splane case, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal held that mortgage interest differential payments to transferred employees are not taxable, because the payments do not improve the employees' economic position. Splane called into question the taxability of certain other move-related items, such as employer reimbursements for additional housing costs, cost-of-living allowances and perhaps even tax equalization payments received by foreign expatriates working in Canada.

The recent Tax Court of Canada case of Gernhart is the first to address the taxability of tax equalization payments. The court held that tax equalization payments paid to an expatriate employee working and residing in Canada left her better off than other Canadian-resident employees receiving the same income but no such payments. As a result, the court decided that such payments are benefits of employment and thus taxable as employment income.

Revenue Canada has already been using Gernhart as ammunition against employees and employers who treated such payments as nontaxable reimbursements of out-of-pocket costs. With this decision, Revenue Canada is likely to carry out an aggressive campaign to identify and reassess others who adopted the same treatment. Such reassessments will be expensive for Canadian employers, because they may need to make additional payments to employees under existing tax equalization agreements and they may be required to remit additional tax withholdings (plus interest and penalties) for failure to make and remit the appropriate source deductions.

At this point, it is unclear whether this decision will affect foreign employees working temporarily in Canada and receiving tax equalization payments, but who are not resident in Canada for tax purposes.

Given the high stakes involved, it is likely that this decision will be appealed to a higher court. In the meantime, companies and their expatriate employees who may be affected by the Gernhart decision should assess their potential exposure and determine a course of action.

From Jim Yager, KPMG Toronto, Toronto, Canada
COPYRIGHT 1997 American Institute of CPA's
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1997, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Yager, Jim
Publication:The Tax Adviser
Article Type:Brief Article
Date:Jun 1, 1997
Words:361
Previous Article:Notice 97-18 reporting relief creates complexities.
Next Article:Amendments to the sec. 1060 and 338(b) regulations conforming allocation of purchase price to the 1993 intangibles legislation.
Topics:


Related Articles
Relocating employees overseas.
Revenue Canada liaison meeting on income tax issues.
Principal residence sales by international executives after the TRA '97.
IRS modifies expatriation ruling practice.
Tax planning for expatriates.
A crumbling vision: there seems to be trouble in the Canadian family over the concept of sharing. Equalization is meant to help Canada's poorer...
Equalizing taxes for employees working abroad. (Finance).
U.S. reporting requirements for Canadian RRSPs/RRIFs.
New rules for expats: leaving America with dignity.
Balancing the riches: equalization is one of four major federal transfer programs. The others are the Canada Health Transfer, the Canada Social...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters