What is a Retirement Compensation Arrangement (“RCA”)?

An RCA is a plan that is funded by contributions from employers and employees to a custodian who manages the funds. RCAs are used to fund the retirement of an employee, their loss of employment or a substantial change in the services that they provide.

How it works?

Employers make annual tax deductible contributions to an RCA that are subject to a refundable 50% withholding tax. Since the payments are not made to the employee, they are not subject to any tax implications in the year the contributions are made. When payments are made from the plan to the employee, the refundable taxes paid are recovered at the same rate (e.g. $1 of every $2 paid). All income earned within the plan is subject to the refundable 50% tax and is recoverable at the same rate as above. The employee pays personal tax on distributions from the RCA in the year they are received.

Employees can also make tax deductible contributions to an RCA. The contributions are similarly considered deductible and subject to the 50% refundable withholding tax.

Types of plans

An RCA can be set up as either a Defined Benefit Plan (“DBP”) or a Defined Contribution Plan (“DCP”). As the title suggests, a DBP provides employees with a defined pension amount annually, upon retirement. Whereas employees on a DCP will receive only what was contributed to the plan, plus any income earned or less any losses incurred, a DBP will require the periodic involvement of an actuary to determine whether the plan is properly funded.

A DBP puts the risk of losses on investments in the hands of the employer and a DCP passes that risk to the employees as they will receive what is remaining in the plan.

Who will benefit from RCAs?

Employees

Employees who participate in an RCA will enjoy future pension benefits and peace of mind knowing that, if the employer were to close down and they lost their employment, the assets of the RCA would be protected against the creditors of the employer.

The 50% refundable withholding rate is currently less than the top tax bracket in a number of provinces. As such, the after-tax investment for the pension is no longer considered a disadvantage to RCAs for high-income earning employees as the plan will invest 50% of the amount they are paid as opposed to less than 50%, had they been paid as a salary.

Contributions to the RCA by an employer will not reduce the RRSP contribution room for the employee, which is not the case for contributions made to a Retirement Pension Plan (“RPP”).

Further tax savings can be obtained by paying the employees out of the RCA in future years when their income levels are lower and subject to lower marginal tax rates. When you consider the ability to include income in lower income earning years, employees living in provinces and territories not subject to >50% tax at the top rate can still benefit from an RCA.

Employers

Employers may wish to provide a retirement package for their employees but not pay the high costs of operating an RPP or an Individual Pension Plan (“IPP”). If the owner-manager of the company or someone already within the company completes the required remittance forms and bookkeeping for the plan, the costs associated with an RCA would include the preparation of the trust return, identified above, and investment advisor fees, if an advisor is used. Additional costs may be applicable for DPBs since possible periodic actuarial valuations may be needed to ensure the plan is properly funded.

Employers can also utilize RCAs for what’s referred to as “Golden Handcuffs,” meaning they can require an employee to meet certain length-of-employment requirements before the pension contributions vest. This will help employers retain key employees that are vital to their operations.

Tax benefits for employer

One group that may benefit most from these plans are companies involved in Scientific Research and Experimental Development (“SRED”) that must maintain low taxable income and taxable capital figures to retain their benefits from the enhanced investment tax credits. Since the taxable income and taxable capital figures exceed $500,000 and $10,000,000, respectively, the amount eligible for the enhanced tax credit decreases.

Federally, expenditures eligible for the enhanced tax credit are eligible for a 35% tax credit, whereas expenditures not eligible only provide for a 15% tax credit. When you also consider the provincial tax credit implications, it’s critical for these companies to maintain sufficient expenditure pool levels.

One common method for ensuring low income and taxable capital figures is to declare bonuses for the owner-managers and to pay those bonuses out of the company to reduce taxable capital. This is a good opportunity to use RCAs. The top tax rate in seven of Canada’s thirteen provinces or territories is over 50%. Given the RCA withholding rates are currently 50%, this can provide a deferral of up to 4% depending on your province. When you add the additional payroll costs, this can result in significant savings.

How much should be contributed?

An employer must be careful not to contribute an unreasonable amount to the plan on behalf of an employee as it could result in the plan being re-characterized as an SDA. The starting point for a reasonable DCP amount would be the 18% that is used to create RRSP deduction room annually. A higher rate would likely require a very strong argument as to why it’s reasonable.

A DBP requires a certain level of assets to be held within the plan to support the future pension obligations that an actuary has calculated. Given that the plan will require a certain amount, a reasonable contribution will be the amount that brings the assets of that plan to a sufficient level to fund that obligation. The pension benefit, however, must be considered a reasonable amount. Again, a reasonable amount will vary based on the facts of each situation.

The CRA has indicated that it will permit a deduction for recognition of an employee’s years of services even if it occurred prior to the establishment of the RCA.¹ Since past years of service can be recognized, large contributions may be eligible when the RCA is initially established.

Careful planning is required to ensure that the plan meets the criteria of an RCA as adverse tax effects could result otherwise. You should seek professional advice if you are setting up an RCA.

Jesse Genereaux is a tax manager in the Durham office of Collins Barrow.

Want to get in touch with Jesse?
Connect with him by email at [email protected].

Collins Barrow Red Deer

Follow Author

Selling your farmland – GST / HST implications

Community / 7 years ago

‘Doing Business in the US? What You Need to Know’, A Free Seminar

Business / 7 years ago

What is a Retirement Compensation Arrangement (“RCA”)?

Business

Taxpayers criticize Trudeau and Ford for Honda deal

Published on April 25, 2024

Todayville

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Jay Goldberg

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is criticizing the Trudeau and Ford governments to for giving $5 billion to the Honda Motor Company.

“The Trudeau and Ford governments are giving billions to yet another multinational corporation and leaving middle-class Canadians to pay for it,” said Jay Goldberg, CTF Ontario Director. “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is sending small businesses bigger a bill with his capital gains tax hike and now he’s handing out billions more in corporate welfare to a huge multinational.

“This announcement is fundamentally unfair to taxpayers.”

The Trudeau government is giving Honda $2.5 billion. The Ford government announced an additional $2.5 billion subsidies for Honda.

The federal and provincial governments claim this new deal will create 1,000 new jobs, according to media reports. Even if that’s true, the handout will cost taxpayers $5 million per job. And according to Globe and Mail investigation, the government doesn’t even have a proper process in place to track whether promised jobs are actually created.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has also called into question the government’s claims when it made similar multi-billion-dollar handouts to other multinational corporations.

“The break-even timeline for the $28.2 billion in production subsidies announced for Stellantis-LGES and Volkswagen is estimated to be 20 years, significantly longer than the government’s estimate of a payback within five years for Volkswagen,” wrote the Parliamentary Budget Officer said.

“If politicians want to grow the economy, they should cut taxes and red tape and cancel the corporate welfare,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Just days ago, Trudeau said he wants the rich to pay more, so he should make rich multinational corporations pay for their own factories.”

Business

UN plastics plans are unscientific and unrealistic

Published on April 25, 2024

Todayville

News release from the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

“We must focus on practical solutions and upgrading our recycling infrastructure, not ridiculous restrictions that will harm our health care system, sanitary food supply, increase costs and endanger Canadians’ safety, among other downsides.”

This week Ottawa welcomes 4,000 delegates from the United Nations to discuss how they will oversee a reduction and even possible elimination of plastics from our lives. The key problem is no one has ever figured out how they will replace this essential component of our modern economy and society. The Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada (CCMBC) has launched an information campaign to discuss the realities of plastic, how it contributes massively to our society and the foolishness of those who think plastics can be eliminated or greatly reduced without creating serious problems for key industries such as health care, sanitary food provision, many essential consumer products and safety/protective equipment, among others. CCMBC President Catherine Swift said “The key goal should be to keep plastics in the economy and out of the environment, not eliminate many valuable and irreplaceable plastic items. The plastics and petrochemical industries represent about 300,000 jobs and tens of billions contribution to GDP in Canada, and are on a growth trend.”

The UN campaign to ban plastics to date has been thwarted by reality and facts. UN efforts to eliminate plastics began in 2017, motivated by such terrible images as rivers with massive amounts of floating plastic and animals suffering from negative effects of plastic materials. Although these images were dramatic and disturbing, they do not represent the big picture of what is really happening and do not take into account the many ways plastics are hugely positive elements of modern society. Swift added “Furthermore, Canada is not one of the problem countries with respect to plastics waste. Developing countries are the main culprits and any solution must involve helping the leading plastics polluters find workable solutions and better recycling technology and practices.”

The main goal of plastic is to preserve and protect. Can you imagine health care without sanitary, flexible, irreplaceable and recyclable plastic products? How would we keep our food fresh, clean and healthy without plastic wraps and packaging? Plastic replaces many heavier and less durable materials in so many consumer products too numerous to count. Plastics help the environment by reducing food waste, replacing heavier materials in automobiles and other products that make them more energy-efficient. Many plastics are infinitely recyclable and innovations are taking place to improve them constantly. What is also less known is that most of the replacements for plastics are more expensive and actually worse for the environment.

Swift stated “Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault has been convinced by the superficial arguments that plastics are always bad despite the facts. He has pursued a campaign against all plastics as a result, without factoring in the reality of the immense value of plastic products and that nothing can replace their many attributes. Fortunately, the Canadian Federal court overturned his absurd ban on a number of plastic products on the basis that it was unscientific, impractical and impinged upon provincial jurisdiction.” Sadly, Guilbeault and his Liberal cohorts plan to appeal this legal decision despite its common-sense conclusions. Opinion polls of Canadians show that a strong majority would prefer this government abandon its plastics crusade at this point, but history shows these Liberals prefer pursuing their unrealistic and costly ideologies instead of policies that Canadians support.

The bottom line is that plastics are an essential part of our modern society and opposition has been based on erroneous premises and ill-informed environmentalist claims. Swift concluded “Canada’s record on plastics is one of the best in the world. This doesn’t mean the status quo is sufficient, but we must focus on practical solutions and upgrading our recycling infrastructure, not ridiculous restrictions that will harm our health care system, sanitary food supply, increase costs and endanger Canadians’ safety, among other downsides.” The current Liberal government approach is one that has no basis in fact or science and emphasizes virtue-signaling over tangible and measurable results. Swift noted “The UN’s original founding purpose after World War II was to prevent another world war. Given our fractious international climate, they should stick to their original goal instead of promoting social justice warrior causes that are unhelpful and expensive.”

The CCMBC was formed in 2016 with a mandate to advocate for proactive and innovative policies that are conducive to manufacturing and business retention and safeguarding job growth in Canada.

SOURCE Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada