First you have the Provincial Government with Bill 148 and then you add what our Federal Government wants to do regarding taxes and in reality it just adds up to a nightmare for small businesses. Greg explains in this weeks' 'The City'.
Federal Government considering major changes to corporate taxes
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Finance Canada Is Considering Major Changes to How Corporations Are Taxed
The Department of Finance Canada is considering major changes to how corporations are taxed. The proposed rules could have a significant impact on many Canadian businesses: potentially raising taxes, increasing the administrative burden on SMEs and heightening the impact on family-run businesses.
On July 18, Finance Canada launched a consultation on how “tax-planning strategies involving corporations are being used to gain unfair tax advantages.” The document contains proposed policies to close these “loopholes.” There are four key changes that will affect business:
Sprinkling income using private corporations: The government wants to tighten rules to prevent a business owner from unfairly transferring income to family members who are subject to lower personal tax rates. In certain circumstances, owners would have to demonstrate that wages and dividend payments are “reasonable.”
Multiplying the Capital Gains Exemption: When an individual sells a small business, the first $850,000 of capital gain is exempt from taxes. The government wants to prevent tax planning structures that enable multiple family members to use their exemptions.
Reducing the tax deferral advantage on portfolio investment inside a corporation: Currently, an owner can accumulate portfolio earnings inside a corporation and pay corporate income tax rates (which are generally much lower than personal rates). The owner defers paying personal income or dividend taxes until the money is taken out of the business. The government is considering alternatives that would reduce this tax advantage.
Converting a private corporation’s regular income into capital gains: Income is normally paid out of a private corporation in the form of salary or dividends that are taxed at the owner’s personal income tax rate. In contrast, when a business is sold, it is taxed as a capital gain, where only one-half of capital gains are included in income, resulting in a significantly lower tax rate on income that is converted from dividends to capital gains. The government wants to tighten the rules to prevent certain tax planning structures, but it is open to more favourable treatment for genuine family business transfers.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and its Taxation Committee are currently studying how the proposed changes will affect members in different industries, in family businesses and those with different ownership structures. They will be submitting recommendations to Finance Canada.
Should you wish to participate or provide input, please email the Cambridge Chamber at firstname.lastname@example.org. In particular, we are looking for detailed examples and cases of how a specific small business will be affected by the changes. We feel concrete examples will be most effective in making our case for easing the changes. We would ask that you send them to us by August 18.
Click here to view the consultation documents released by Finance Canada.
5 Minutes for Business: Business Costs and Canadian Competitiveness—We’re Not Crying Wolf
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Every so often, one of our government contacts will ask a question that goes like this, “Why is the Canadian Chamber complaining about (pick one): the new carbon tax/the CPP premium increase/the deferral of small business tax reductions/the proposal to tax passive income/this new regulation/that increase in fees? It’s not a huge cost to business. Why are you making a big deal?”
We politely explain that all of these tax increases come out of the same pocket. If you take one of these tax hikes individually, it may be small, but when you add them all up, we’re accumulating a rather large pile of straws on the camel’s back. And that’s the problem. Canada is an expensive place to do business.
Last week, the President and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and his provincial and territorial colleagues wrote to the Prime Minister to point this out. The letter was also sent to all of the provincial premiers because, right across the country, we are worried that “the cost of doing business in Canada is rising. This concern is not limited to the costs generated by the fight against climate change, but reflects the serious cumulative impact of the growing burden posed by fees, taxes and regulations the private sector is being asked to bear. Our members are deeply worried about their ability to both grow their businesses within Canada or compete for investment and customers from abroad. This concern becomes even more substantial when we see the determination of the U.S. administration to dramatically cut both regulation and business taxes in that country.”
As luck would have it, our letter was published on the same day that Petronas cancelled a $36-billion LNG investment in British Columbia. It’s impossible to pin the blame for the decision on any one factor (Petronas vaguely cited “market conditions”), but the uncertainty around project approval, along with regulatory, tax and cost burdens all contributed. The effect is a loss of jobs for Canadian families, truly a missed opportunity for Canada.
It’s not just Petronas, Canada has seen a mass exodus of investment, a staggering $60 billion has left over the past two years (in 2017, Shell divested $7.5B, Marathon sold $2.5B and ConocoPhillips $17.7B. Most has gone to other jurisdictions). And we’ve seen some of the players shedding Canadian energy assets while investing more in the U.S. It’s true that U.S. shale enjoys a modest cost advantage over oilsands production, but we worry that Canada’s high costs and dithering over pipelines is having a big impact. As the Globe and Mail pointed out last week, “It’s beginning to feel it is becoming impossible for any new interprovincial pipelines to ever get built […] because of obstructionist games played by premiers and mayors. […] Environmental benefit: Nil. Economic cost: High.”
And it’s not just oil and gas. Last week, we sat down with a major multinational agri-food producer who told us that, for his company, regulations are a bigger cost than taxes. The company was struggling with Canada’s new food labelling rules and asked if the current government is “sensitive” to the cost burden of regulation. I said the word “sensitive” is too strong. “Blissfully unaware” might be a better descriptor. The government wants to attract more foreign investment, but in a tough globalized environment. What really attracts investors is the rate of return. That’s why costs, rules and regulations are so important.
And they have real world impacts on Canadian families and their prosperity. Last week, we wrote to the Prime Minister, “As we increase business costs to address climate change, we urgently need to find ways to lower costs elsewhere. […] to strengthen Canada’s economic competitiveness.” Global capital can go anywhere. The wolf is at the door.
5 Minutes for Business: The Explosive Debate around Minimum Wage
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Big increases to minimum wage are becoming fashionable in Canada: first Alberta (from $12.20 currently to $15 in October 2018), then B.C. (from $10.35 to $11.35 in September 2017) and now Ontario (from $11.40 to $15.00 in January 2019, a 30% hike in 18 months). Are workers better off or does it mean fewer jobs?
The debate has been ferocious because economists don’t agree, but let’s look at the fundamentals. The government accepts that carbon taxes are effective at reducing emissions because if you make something more expensive, people will use less of it. We agree, but the same logic must apply to wages. And, actually, a business owner faced with the rising cost of an input (labour) has three options:
Absorb the added cost out of her profit margin
Reduce use of labour by substituting in morecapital or simply making do with less work
Let’s take these in order. Some businesses are so spectacularly profitable that owners can just absorb rising labour costs. But Apple and Microsoft don’t use minimum wage labour. If we look at profit margin by industry, the biggest users of minimum wage labour are in retail and food service, with razor thin (below 3%) margins. There is very little room to absorb these costs, and if a business is not profitable, there is not much point in keeping it going.
What about raising prices? The critical ingredient in business success is getting the right price point for your market. One restauranteur told us that the lunch menu in her neighborhood has to be $5-$8, any higher means flirting with disaster. In retail, the competition is with online giants, like Amazon. Often, there is no room to raise prices without driving away customers.
The third option to cope with rising wages is making do with less staff. This is controversial because many studies show that minimum wage can be increased without a corresponding rise in unemployment.
That’s why the recent Seattle study produced such a bombshell. Washington state collects detailed data on hours worked and it showed how part time workers with irregular schedules are cut back. Seattle’s minimum wage hike reduced the total hours worked by the low-wage workforce by about 9% while raising their wages by only about 3%. The net loss to workers was an average of $125 a month. This is a big, immediate hit to the most vulnerable workers.
There is some evidence that modest increases in minimum wage can be done without disrupting labour markets, but governments have to be cautious about hurting competiveness. Previously, I had said there are three options to deal with rising costs, but there is actually a fourth and a fifth option: shut down or move to a different jurisdiction. Let’s provide input to the Government of Ontario to prevent this from happening. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce has
done some great work on this issue and has a report that can be viewed here.
The Liberal government wants to introduce a minimum wage increase to $15 dollars an hour by 2019. This isn't a move that best helps the people of Ontario nor is it the right move. Funny enough... These newly reformed labour laws won't fully come into effect until AFTER the provincial election is over with. Is it about helping the people of this province? Or is it a move for someone to keep their Premier job?
Canadian Businesses Lose Billions of Dollars to Cyber Crime Each Year
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
The increasing frequency of cyber attacks is costing Canada billions of dollars a year and hindering our ability to compete in the global economy, says a new report from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Cyber Security in Canada: Practical Solutions to a Growing Problem finds that cybercrime is an increasing concern for businesses and proposes cooperation between government and the business community to improve security.
“A study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that Canadian businesses are losing over $3 billion a year to cybercrime,” said the Hon. Perrin Beatty, President and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. “It’s not technology-savvy security experts committing these attacks. Anyone with a computer and an internet connection can now disrupt services or hold data for ransom. What costs a criminal $100 may end up costing a business millions in lost money, time and reputation.”
Small businesses are particularly susceptible to cyber attacks because they often lack the financial resources and technical expertise needed to protect themselves. “SMEs comprise 98% of the Canadian economy. Nearly half have been the victim of a cyber attack,” said Mr. Beatty. “Their focus is on recovery instead of prevention. Unfortunately, recovery is often not possible. The average cost of a data breach in Canada is $6 million. Most small businesses would not be able to survive losing a tiny percentage of that figure.”
The report’s release comes after the federal government’s 2017 budget included $1.37 million for the fiscal year to continue programs already in place for risk assessment of critical infrastructure but made no direct mention of cyber security. “Government can’t do everything but they need to play a leadership role in securing Canada’s digital landscape for everyone,” said Mr. Beatty. “We need a public-private approach to address this urgent challenge.”
The report, released at the Lockheed Martin Canada IMPACT Centre in Ottawa, lays out a path for closer collaboration between government and business on cyber security, including providing incentives for security innovations and developing programs to increase workforce digital literacy. “By creating a stronger, more resilient cyber security framework we can better protect both our businesses and our citizens,” concluded Mr. Beatty.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is the vital connection between business and the federal government. It helps shape public policy and decision-making to the benefit of businesses, communities and families across Canada with a network of over 450 chambers of commerce and boards of trade, representing 200,000 businesses of all sizes in all sectors of the economy and in all regions. Follow us on Twitter @CdnChamberofCom.
Guillaum W. Dubreuil
Director, Public Affairs and Media Relations
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce
In this edition ofthis weeks V-Blog Greg discusses why it will not only keep the heritage aspect intact but also put a new spin on the area for our futures. Not only our futures though. It will benefit our grandchildren's future as well. This will be a district unlike any in Ontario. So check out this video and support the Gaslight District.
5 Minutes for Business: Are We Ready for the Next Generation of Small Business Owners?
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Canadian business is about to go through an era of unprecedented upheaval. Is it an economic crisis? A climate calamity? A Trump presidency? It’s much worse: a mass-retirement of business owners!
A staggering 75% of small business owners will retire over the next decade, and $1 trillion in business assets will change hands. Are we ready?
The answer is a resounding no. Less than half of small business owners have succession plans and only 9% have a formal written plan. We often hear that owners don’t like talking about retirement. They’ve been leading their business for decades and it’s part of their identity. Many just assume that they will be able to sell the business or pass it along to kids when the time comes. And because it’s years away, the awkward discussion can always be put off to another day.
There are huge implications. For starters, inadequate planning will lead to a big tax hit. Many family businesses have concerns that they are treated unfairly. If an individual sells a business to an unrelated person, it’s considered a capital gain and subject to a significant exemption. However, when an individual sells a business to a family member, the disposal is taxed as a dividend at the top marginal rate. That’s because the Crown sees the cash remaining within the family unit and wants to avoid creating a costly loophole. It’s a tough issue—there is an issue of discrimination against family business. In fact, NDP Deputy Finance Critic Guy Caron has prepared the private member’s bill C-274 to address the “unfair treatment” of family transfers.
The second big challenge is financing the succession. It can take years to find the right buyer with deep pockets to buy-out the retiring owner. Again, a lack of planning can force owners into a fire sale situation, and potential buyers need time to raise funds.
The Canadian Chamber recently passed a resolution asking that government small business financing programs be expanded so that potential buyers can access the funds to buy-out a retiring owner. It’s a great idea.
We sometimes focus exclusively on supporting startups, but it’s just as important to ensure the continued success of existing businesses. Consider the perspective of an entrepreneur: you could create a new idea from scratch, seek out customers who have never heard of you and hope against the odds to turn a profit. Or, you could take over a company that has been in business for decades, with a loyal customer base and a track record of profitability.
The point is that it takes years to plan, finance and implement a successful exit strategy—on top of the training and mentoring to prepare the business itself for transition.
That is why chambers and business associations must do more to encourage members to start early and create robust succession plans. Financial institutions and government agencies also must help fund the next generation of managers and owners. But it’s a big challenge for business and for the Canadian Chamber. If you have views on succession planning and/or on bill C-274, please email or give me a call.