Alberta

The Child Benefit You Got was Not an Error

Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr

Published

4 years ago

4 minute read

The Child Benefit You Got was Not an Error

So a lot of people are wondering why money showed up for the Canada Child Benefit (CCB) yesterday (May 20) when they normally don’t qualify.

The CCB “one-time payment” for COVID-19 relief is actually formula driven but it is created by adding $3,600 for each additional child (not $300)… you’ll see in a minute why this is.

Step 1 – Add up the number of children that were under 6 years old in 2018 and multiply by $6,639.00

Step 2 – Add up the number of children that were between 6 and 17 years of age in 2018 and multiply by $5,602.00

This is your normal ANNUAL Canada Child Benefit entitlement before reductions.

However, for your May 2020 payment only, the formula adds $3,600 per child to bring the numbers to $10,239 and $9,202 per child based on age respectively.

If you have less than $31,120 of adjusted household income, you will get the full $300 extra, congrats, no more math for you.

For the rest of you it gets interesting or complicated, depending how you view math.

Any amount of adjusted household income between $31,120 and $67,426 causes your ANNUAL entitled CCB to be reduced by the following:

7% of the amount of household income if you have 1 child
13.5% of the amount of household income if you have 2 children
19% of the amount of household income if you have 3 children
23% of the amount of household income if you have 4 children or more

This is called the “first reduction”. The maximum amount of household income subject to the first reduction formula is $36,306 more than the base $31,120 (meaning an income of $65,976)

Those of you over this number, you are not done yet.

Any amount of adjusted household income over $67,426 causes your ANNUAL entitled CCB to be reduced by the following:

3.2% of the amount of household income if you have 1 child
5.7% of the amount of household income if you have 2 children
8% of the amount of household income if you have 3 children
9.5% of the amount of household income if you have 4 children or more

This is called the “second reduction”. There is no maximum amount of household income subject to the second reduction formula. You keep calculating until you hit zero.

For example. If you have one school-aged child in 2018, and your adjusted household income is $100,000 the formula would be this:

NORMAL MONTHLY BENEFIT:

First reduction: 67,426-31,120 = $36,306 x 7% = $2,541.42
Second reduction: 100,000-67,426 = $32,574 x 3.2% = $1,042.37
1 child: $5,602
$5,602.00 minus $2,541.42 = $3,060.58 minus $1,042.37 = $2,018.21
$2,978.21 divided by 12 = $168.18/month CCB as a Normal Benefit

COVID19 MAY 2020 BENEFIT:

The first two reduction steps are the same but that 1 child is $3,600 more
1 child: $9,202
$9,202.00 minus $2,541.42 = $6,660.58 minus $1,042.37 = $5,618.21
$5,618.21 divided by 12 = $468.18/month CCB as a one-time Benefit (an extra $300 like promised)

So yes… an extra $300 per child for those already getting the benefit already… but for those that were not getting it before, but filed in 2018… and had an eligible child… the formula is recalculated with the $3,600 ($300 per month) change, and so many more households in Canada will be seeing some sort of amount.

For example, the lowest amount possible to collect would be with one school-aged child ($9,202 formula).

Households that make up to $163,069 will receive the full $300 for this child.
Households between $163,069 and $275,569 will receive less than $300 on a sliding scale from the Second reduction.
Households over $275,569 in this scenario would receive zero.

So almost every household with eligible children in Canada will see something coming their way for the May benefit to help with the extra costs with no schools or dayhomes open.

Sincerely,
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Tax Nerds

CGL Strategic Business & Tax Advisors

CV of Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr can be found here.

Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr

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

Escape Room 2 – The NEW Real Estate Owner Tax Game – High Stakes Edition

Community / 4 years ago

Black Entrepreneur Support Announcement: Well Intentioned but not Black and White

Business / 4 years ago

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

Alberta

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Published on July 26, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

To understand Ottawa’s negative impact on Alberta’s economy and living standards, juxtapose two recent pieces of data.

First, in July the Trudeau government made three separate “economic development” spending announcements in Alberta, totalling more than $80 million and affecting 37 different projects related to the “green economy,” clean technology and agriculture. And second, as noted in a new essay by Fraser Institute senior fellow Kenneth Green, inflation-adjusted business investment (excluding residential structures) in Canada’s extraction sector (mining, quarrying, oil and gas) fell 51.2 per cent from 2014 to 2022.

The productivity gains that raise living standards and improve economic conditions rely on business investment. But business investment in Canada has declined over the past decade and total economic growth per person (inflation-adjusted) from Q3-2015 through to Q1-2024 has been less than 1 per cent versus robust growth of nearly 16 per cent in the United States over the same period.

For Canada’s extraction sector, as Green documents, federal policies—new fuel regulations, extended review processes on major infrastructure projects, an effective ban on oil shipments on British Columbia’s northern coast, a hard greenhouse gas emissions cap targeting oil and gas, and other regulatory initiatives—are largely to blame for the massive decline in investment.

Meanwhile, as Ottawa impedes private investment, its latest bundle of economic development announcements underscores its strategy to have government take the lead in allocating economic resources, whether for infrastructure and public institutions or for corporate welfare to private companies.

Consider these federally-subsidized projects.

A gas cloud imaging company received $4.1 million from taxpayers to expand marketing, operations and product development. The Battery Metals Association of Canada received $850,000 to “support growth of the battery metals sector in Western Canada by enhancing collaboration and education stakeholders.” A food manufacturer in Lethbridge received $5.2 million to increase production of plant-based protein products. Ermineskin Cree Nation received nearly $400,000 for a feasibility study for a new solar farm. The Town of Coronation received almost $900,000 to renovate and retrofit two buildings into a business incubator. The Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada received $400,000 for marketing and other support to help boost clean technology product exports. And so on.

When the Trudeau government announced all this corporate welfare and spending, it naturally claimed it create economic growth and good jobs. But corporate welfare doesn’t create growth and good jobs, it only directs resources (including labour) to subsidized sectors and businesses and away from sectors and businesses that must be more heavily taxed to support the subsidies. The effect of government initiatives that reduce private investment and replace it with government spending is a net economic loss.

As 20th-century business and economics journalist Henry Hazlitt put it, the case for government directing investment (instead of the private sector) relies on politicians and bureaucrats—who did not earn the money and to whom the money does not belong—investing that money wisely and with almost perfect foresight. Of course, that’s preposterous.

Alas, this replacement of private-sector investment with public spending is happening not only in Alberta but across Canada today due to the Trudeau government’s fiscal policies. Lower productivity and lower living standards, the data show, are the unhappy results.

Author:

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Alberta

‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial

Published on July 25, 2024

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ray McGinnis

Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert are on trial for conspiracy to commit murder and firearms charges in relation to the Coutts Blockade into mid-February 2022. In opening her case before a Lethbridge, AB, jury on July 11, Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns stated “This is a political, criminal trial that is un Canadian.” She told the jury, “You will be shocked, and at the very least, disappointed with how Canada’s own RCMP conducted themselves during and after the Coutts protest,” as she summarized officers’ testimony during presentation of the Crown’s case. Burns also contended that “the conduct of Alberta’s provincial government and Canada’s federal government are entwined with the RCMP.” The arrests of the Coutts Four on the night of February 13 and noon hour of February 14, were key events in a decision by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, and the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Jody Thomas, to advise Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to invoke the Emergencies Act. Chief Justice Paul Rouleau, in submitting his Public Order Emergency Commission Report to Parliament on February 17, 2023, also cited events at the Coutts Blockade as key to his conclusion that the government was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act.

Justice David Labrenz cautioned attorney Burns regarding her language, after Crown prosecutor Stephen Johnson objected to some of the language in the opening statement of Olienick’s counsel. Futher discussion about the appropriateness of attorney Burns’ statement to the jury is behind a publication ban, as discussions occurred without the jury present.

Justice Labrenz told the jury on July 12, “I would remind you that the presumption of innocence means that both the accused are cloaked with that presumption, unless the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the charge(s).” He further clarified what should result if the jurors were uncertain about which narrative to believe: the account by the Crown, or the account from the accused lawyers. Labrenz stated that such ambivalence must lead to an acquittal; As such a degree of uncertainty regarding which case to trust in does not meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold for a conviction.”

On July 15, 2024, a Lethbridge jury heard evidence from a former employer of Olienicks’ named Brian Lambert. He stated that he had tasked Olienick run his sandstone quarry and mining business. He was a business partner with Olienick. In that capacity, Olienick made use of what Lambert referred to as “little firecrackers,” to quarry the sandstone and reduce it in size. Reducing the size of the stone renders it manageable to get refined and repurposed so it could be sold to buyers of stone for other uses (building construction, patio stones, etc.) Lambert explained that the “firecrackers” were “explosive devices” packaged within tubing and pipes that could also be used for plumbing. He detailed how “You make them out of ordinary plumbing pipe and use some kind of propellant like shotgun powder…” Lambert explained that the length of the pipe “…depended on how big a hole or how large a piece of stone you were going to crack. The one I saw was about six inches long … maybe an inch in diameter.”

One of Olienick’s charges is “unlawful possession of an explosive device for a dangerous purpose.” The principal evidence offered up by RCMP to the Crown is what the officers depicted as “pipe bombs” which they obtained at the residence of Anthony Olienick in Claresholm, Alberta, about a two-hour drive from Coutts. Officers entered his home after he was arrested the night of February 13, 2022. Lambert’s testimony offers a plausible common use for the “firecrackers” the RCMP referred to as “pipe bombs.” Lambert added, these “firecrackers” have a firecracker fuse, and in the world of “explosive” they are “no big deal.”

Fellow accused, Chris Carbert, is does not face the additional charge of unlawful possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose. This is the first full week of the case for the defence. The trial began on June 6 when the Crown began presenting its case.

Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy who recently attended several days of testimony at the Coutts Two trial.