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”)?

Automotive

New Analysis Shows Just How Bad Electric Trucks Are For Business

Published on May 8, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By WILL KESSLER

Converting America’s medium- and heavy-duty trucks to electric vehicles (EV) in accordance with goals from the Biden administration would add massive costs to commercial trucking, according to a new analysis released Wednesday.

The cost to switch over to light-duty EVs like a transit van would equate to a 5% increase in costs per year while switching over medium- and heavy-duty trucks would add up to 114% in costs per year to already struggling businesses, according to a report from transportation and logistics company Ryder Systems. The Biden administration, in an effort to facilitate a transition to EVs, finalized new emission standards in March that would require a huge number of heavy-duty vehicles to be electric or zero-emission by 2032 and has created a plan to roll out charging infrastructure across the country.

“There are specific applications where EV adoption makes sense today, but the use cases are still limited,” Karen Jones, executive vice president at Ryder, said in an accompanying press release. “Yet we’re facing regulations aimed at accelerating broader EV adoption when the technology and infrastructure are still developing. Until the gap in TCT for heavier-duty vehicles is narrowed or closed, we cannot expect many companies to make the transition, and, if required to convert in today’s market, we face more supply chain disruptions, transportation cost increases, and additional inflationary pressure.”

Due to the increase in costs for businesses, the potential inflationary impact on the entire economy per year is between 0.5% and 1%, according to the report. Inflation is already elevated, measuring 3.5% year-over-year in March, far from the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.

Increased expense projections differ by state, with class 8 heavy-duty trucks costing 94% more per year in California compared to traditional trucks, due largely to a 501% increase in equipment costs, while cost savings on fuel only amounted to 52%. In Georgia, costs would be 114% higher due to higher equipment costs, labor costs, a smaller payload capacity and more.

The EPA also recently finalized rules mandating that 67% of all light-duty vehicles sold after 2032 be electric or hybrid. Around $1 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act has already been designated to be used by subnational governments in the U.S. to replace some heavy-duty vehicles with EVs, like delivery trucks or school buses.

The Biden administration has also had trouble expanding EV charging infrastructure across the country, despite allotting $7.5 billion for chargers in 2021. Current charging infrastructure frequently has issues operating properly, adding to fears of “range anxiety,” where EV owners worry they will become stranded without a charger.

Business

When politicians gamble, taxpayers lose

Published on May 5, 2024

Todayville

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Jay Goldberg

Trudeau and Ford bragged about how a $5 billion giveaway to Honda is going to generate 1,000 jobs. In case you’re thinking of doing the math, that’s $5 million per job.

Politicians are rolling the dice on the electric vehicle industry with your money.

If they bet wrong, and there’s a good chance they have, hardworking Canadians will be left holding the bag.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier Doug Ford announced a $5-billion agreement with Honda, giving another Fortune 500 automaker a huge wad of taxpayer cash.

Then Trudeau released a video on social media bragging about “betting big” on the electric vehicle industry in Canada. The “betting” part of Trudeau’s statement tells you everything you need to know about why this is a big mistake.

Governments should never “bet” with taxpayer money. That’s the reality of corporate welfare: when governments give taxpayer money to corporations with few strings attached, everyday Canadians are left hoping and praying that politicians put the chips on the right numbers.

And these are huge bets.

When Trudeau and Ford announced this latest giveaway to Honda, the amount of taxpayer cash promised to the electric vehicle sector reached $57 billion. That’s more than the federal government plans to spend on health care this year.

Governments should never gamble with taxpayer money and there are at least three key reasons why this Honda deal is a mistake.

First, governments haven’t even proven themselves capable of tracking how many jobs are created through their corporate welfare schemes.

Trudeau and Ford bragged about how a $5 billion giveaway to Honda is going to generate 1,000 jobs. In case you’re thinking of doing the math, that’s $5 million per job.

Five million dollars per job is already outrageous. But some recent reporting from the Globe and Mail shows why corporate welfare in general is a terrible idea.

The feds don’t even have a proper mechanism for verifying if jobs are actually created after handing corporations buckets of taxpayer cash. So, while 1,000 jobs are promised through the Honda deal, the government isn’t capable of confirming whether those measly 1,000 jobs will materialize.

Second, betting on the electric vehicle industry comes with risk.

Trudeau and Ford gave the Ford Motor Company nearly $600 million to retool a plant in Oakville to build electric cars instead of gasoline powered ones back in 2020. But just weeks ago, Ford announced plans to delay the conversion for another three years, citing slumping electric vehicle sales.

Look into Ford’s quarterly reports and the danger of betting on electric vehicles becomes clear as day: Ford’s EV branch lost $1.3 billion in the first quarter of 2024. Reports also show Ford lost $130,000 on every electric vehicle sold.

The decline of electric vehicle demand isn’t limited to Ford. In the United States, electric vehicle sales fell by 7.3 per cent between the last quarter of 2023 and the first quarter of 2024.

Even Tesla’s sales were down 13 per cent in the first quarter of this year compared to the first quarter of 2023.

A Bloomberg headline from early April read “Tesla’s sales miss by the most ever in brutal blow for EVs.”

There’s certainly a risk in betting on electric vehicles right now.

Third, there’s the question of opportunity cost. Imagine what else our governments could be doing with $57 billion?

For about the same amount of money, the federal government could suspend the federal sales tax for an entire year. The feds could also use $57 billion to double health-care spending or build 57 new hospitals.

The solution for creating jobs isn’t to hand a select few companies buckets of cash just to lure them to Canada. Politicians should be focusing on creating the right environment for any company, large or small, to grow without a government handout.

To do that, Canada must be more competitive with lower business taxes, less red tape and more affordable energy. That’s a real recipe for success that doesn’t involve gambling with taxpayer cash.

It’s time for our politicians to kick their corporate welfare addiction. Until they do, Canadians will be left paying the price.