Archive for ‘Taxation’ category

Income trust conversions and RRSPs

26 July, 2010 | Sacha Peter | No Comment

On January 1, 2011 there will be a slew of Canadian income trusts that will be converting to corporations. In addition to these, all other income trusts that are not related to real estate will have their distributions taxed. Either way, the dividends or distributions will be considered eligible dividend income for a Canadian investor.

This means that for those investors that have these instruments in an RRSP that what was previously given off as income will now be heavily favoured with respect to taxation, and will be relinquishing the tax benefit by keeping these securities. The obvious action would be to swap these securities with equivalent cash at the beginning of 2011. You can then populate the RRSP by purchasing the relevant income-bearing securities when the market timing is convenient.

A middle-income bracket investor in BC (between $41k and $72k) that is able to shift $1,000 of dividend income from the RRSP to a non-registered account, and swapping into the RRSP $1,000 of straight income will be saving approximately $284.10 at tax time.

It is worth thinking about this procedure throughout the second half of 2010 and see if one can purchase income-bearing instruments if/when the market conditions are appropriate. It is also a good time to think about portfolio balancing.

What is making life difficult for most income investors is that income investing (such as going for dividends or securities with larger-than-GIC yields such as preferred shares) is coming back in vogue with the retail investing arm. Such securities are being purchased without consideration of underlying value in the company’s ability to pay such income. An example would be the equity of Rio-Can, which is the largest Canadian REIT; although I believe their income payouts (6.88% on a $20.05 unit price at present) is stable, in terms of valuation, investors are purchasing something that appears to be more than fully valued and will likely not provide material upside on income payouts.

If/when the debt market seize up again, such securities will look significantly more attractive than they are today. Chasing yield when the going is good involves much more risk than chasing yields in the middle of a crisis.

Posted in Canada, Taxation | No Comments »

CRA Prescribed rates for Q3-2010

29 June, 2010 | Sacha Peter | No Comment

Thanks to the comments from Jeff Usher, it appears my initial thoughts about the CRA prescribed rates were incorrect. I consider myself well-researched in these matters, but once in awhile, things slip and this was one of them. Thank you Jeff.

The CRA, on June 28, 2010, published the third quarter prescribed rates.

Apparently the reason for the delay is that Bill C-9 implemented a reduced rate of accrued interest for corporate overpayment of tax. Corporations were using the CRA as a savings account, where they were getting higher rates of interest than the banks. In the previous quarter, this amount was 3%, but going forward it will be 1%.

Posted in Canada, Taxation | No Comments »

CRA Prescribed Rates – Update

20 June, 2010 | Sacha Peter | 3 Comments

Earlier I wrote about CRA Prescribed Rates and how they are used.

Given that it is nearing the end of June, the CRA has not published updated prescribed rates for the third quarter yet. They traditionally publish the next quarter’s rates at the beginning of the month before the next quarter (i.e. for a second quarter announcement, they would announce the prescribed rates at the beginning of March).

I would suspect they are doing this because they are planning on increasing the prescribed rate for interest on loans to 2% from 1% currently. They would want to give as little notice as possible of this, to avoid a scurry of people making quick 1% loans to avoid interest attribution.

So for those of you that take advantage of this process, I would highly advise you to get your paperwork prepared for a quick transaction at the end of June in the event that my suspicions are correct.

Posted in Canada, Taxation | 3 Comments »

Pay attention to CRA prescribed rates

9 June, 2010 | Sacha Peter | 1 Comment

With the Bank of Canada raising interest rates, it is likely that the CRA, either starting for the July quarter, but at the latest the October quarter will be increasing the prescribed rate for taxable benefits for employees and shareholders from interest-free and low-interest loans.

A history of this rate is as follows:

Q1-2007: 5%
Q2-2007: 5%
Q3-2007: 5%
Q4-2007: 5%

Q1-2008: 4%
Q2-2008: 4%
Q3-2008: 3%
Q4-2008: 3%

Q1-2009: 2%
Q2-2009: 1%
Q3-2009: 1%
Q4-2009: 1%

Q1-2010: 1%
Q2-2010: 1%
Q3-2010: Should be announced within a week.

The reason why this rate is significant is because issuing a low-interest rate loan is the easiest way to avoid income attribution. Just as an example, if you get your company to loan you money (which you would presumably use for investment purposes), you have to pay the company a 1% interest charge. You would deduct that amount from your income, while the company would include it as interest income on its side of the income statement. Also, spousal loans can be used to avoid income attribution.

While no matter what the rate is there is symmetry (i.e. one party can deduct what the other includes as income, assuming the loaned amount is used for income-generation purposes), higher rates discourage typically discourage borrowing to invest as typically it is the asset-rich entity that loans money out to the asset-poor (and presumably income-poor) entity in order to transfer income to a lower-rate person. If the prescribed interest rate is too high, the loanee will have to take on a higher amount of income at their (presumably) higher marginal rate.

There are rules with respect to the payment of shareholder loans (i.e. you must pay back the principal amount by the end of the following fiscal year or have it be a deemed dividend) but for loans between individuals, there is no duration rule with respect to the amount of interest to be paid – you can make a loan that will expire in 30 years at the rate of 1% for the purposes of the prescribed interest rate rules. Just make sure to document the loan and if there is any question as to the dating of the document, get it notarized or otherwise documented in case if the CRA comes knocking.

Posted in Canada, Taxation | 1 Comment »

Investment returns must be calculated after-tax

8 April, 2010 | Sacha Peter | No Comment

One critical consideration of computing returns is that pre-tax is an easy calculation, but after-tax involves a bit more effort.

In Canada, interest income (and distributions of income from trusts) is taxed at your marginal rate. Foreign dividends are also taxed at your marginal rate. Dividend income from publicly traded Canadian companies are taxed at a very favorable rate. Capital gains are taxed at half your marginal rate.

As a result, portfolios should be structured such that income is maximized in sheltered vehicles (RRSPs, TFSAs) while Canadian dividends and capital gains are preferentially outside the RRSP and TFSA.

Your marginal rate depends on what province you live in and also what income bracket you are in.

So if you live in British Columbia, and make a taxable income of $50,000, your marginal rate rate on an extra dollar of interest income would be 29.7%. So to realize a 10% after-tax return on investment, you need to earn 14.2% on a pre-tax basis. Alternatively, you could also earn a 11.7% return via capital gains, or a 10.1% return via eligible dividends. It all amounts to the same: a 10% after-tax return.

The following tables are a simple illustration of the required pre-tax returns required to achieve a 10% after-tax return:

BC 2010 Tax Rates 10% after-tax equivalent
Marginal Cap. Eligible SB
Low Range High Range Rate Gains Dividends Dividends
$ - $ 35,859 12.5% 11.1% 8.9% 10.4%
$ 35,859 $ 40,970 12.9% 11.3% 9.2% 10.8%
$ 40,970 $ 71,719 14.2% 11.7% 10.1% 11.9%
$ 71,719 $ 81,941 14.8% 11.9% 10.6% 12.5%
$ 81,941 $ 82,342 15.7% 12.2% 11.2% 13.3%
$ 82,342 $ 99,987 16.2% 12.4% 11.6% 13.7%
$ 99,987 $ 127,021 16.9% 12.6% 12.1% 14.3%
$ 127,021 and above 17.8% 12.8% 12.7% 15.1%
BC 2010 Tax Rates 10% after-tax equivalent
Marginal Cap. Eligible SB
Low Range High Range Rate Gains Dividends Dividends
$ - $ 35,859 12.5% 11.1% 8.9% 10.4%
$ 35,859 $ 40,970 12.9% 11.3% 9.2% 10.8%
$ 40,970 $ 71,719 14.2% 11.7% 10.1% 11.9%
$ 71,719 $ 81,941 14.8% 11.9% 10.6% 12.5%
$ 81,941 $ 82,342 15.7% 12.2% 11.2% 13.3%
$ 82,342 $ 99,987 16.2% 12.4% 11.6% 13.7%
$ 99,987 $ 127,021 16.9% 12.6% 12.1% 14.3%
$ 127,021 and above 17.8% 12.8% 12.7% 15.1%

The following is for an 8% after-tax return:

BC 2010 Tax Rates 8% after-tax equivalent
Marginal Cap. Eligible SB
Low Range High Range Rate Gains Dividends Dividends
$ - $ 35,859 10.0% 8.9% 7.1% 8.3%
$ 35,859 $ 40,970 10.3% 9.0% 7.4% 8.6%
$ 40,970 $ 71,719 11.4% 9.4% 8.1% 9.5%
$ 71,719 $ 81,941 11.9% 9.6% 8.4% 10.0%
$ 81,941 $ 82,342 12.6% 9.8% 9.0% 10.6%
$ 82,342 $ 99,987 13.0% 9.9% 9.3% 11.0%
$ 99,987 $ 127,021 13.5% 10.0% 9.7% 11.4%
$ 127,021 and above 14.2% 10.2% 10.2% 12.1%

Posted in Finance, Taxation | No Comments »

Analysis of RESPs

29 March, 2010 | Sacha Peter | 1 Comment

The Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) is a tax sheltered vehicle that is designated for parents to save up for the education of somebody – usually this is the children of the people contributing to the RESP, but in theory you can define anybody as a beneficiary of the plan. Eventually when such people take higher education, you can designate proceeds to the beneficiary in question, and the beneficiary will take the income contributions as taxable income. Presumably because they are young and have less income, they will pay little to no tax on the proceeds.

For the rest of this post, I will define the beneficiary as just “children”.

Benefits and disadvantages

The benefits can be summed up in three points:
1. Transferring income while avoiding attribution;
2. Income tax deferral;
3. Canada Education Savings Grants.

The disadvantages can be summed up as follows:
1. Risk that your children will not seek higher education.
2. Requires financial skill to self-manage.
3. Fees.

The competing choice is funding money outside the confines of an RESP and giving it to the children when they go to school, or to give some portion of money to children and having them invest it in their own names.

Analysis

To put the conclusion first, my general analysis suggests that RESPs are only useful if you intend to fund part or all of your childrens’ educations and you are very convinced they will be going to an eligible higher education institution. In other words, I would not contribute to an RESP until they are, at the latest, 15 years of age when you can detect whether they have enough ‘scholarly’ potential to warrant it and you have sufficient after-tax funds that won’t put a hole into your own personal finances.

If you discover your child does not want to attend upper education, you can move the RESP proceeds into an RRSP, but there are non-trivial conditions attached with this transferability. Otherwise accumulated income taken out the RESP is taxed at your marginal rate plus 20%.

From a financial perspective, the RESP enables you to avoid attribution by indirectly “giving income” to your children, and also shelters growth of funds from taxes (which will eventually be taken as taxable income by the children). Contributions are not tax deductible and principal withdrawals are not taxed. The excess of principal payments is taxed.

The Government of Canada will chip in some money via the Canada Education Savings Grant, which will contribute 20% of the first $5,000/year contributed, to a lifetime maximum of $36,000 contributed. So in theory if you contributed $4,500/year ($36,000 total) for the first 8 years of your child’s life, the CESG would result in an extra $7,200 in the account. If your family income is less than $77,769/year, the CESG grant will be 30% of the contribution amount. If your family income is less than $38,832/year, the CESG grant will be 40% of the contribution amount.

The CESG is a material benefit when investing in an RESP, functionally acting as an instant 20% return on investment. Using the “contribute until the last moment” strategy, the CRA helpfully points out the criteria that must exist in order the RESP to receive the CESG:

However, since the CESG has been designed to encourage long term savings for post-secondary education, there are specific contributions requirements for beneficiaries who attain 16 or 17 years of age. RESPs for beneficiaries 16 and 17 years of age can only receive CESG if at least one of the following two conditions is met:

* a minimum of $2,000 of contributions has been made to, and not withdrawn from, RESPs in respect of the beneficiary before the year in which the beneficiary attains 16 years of age; or
* a minimum of $100 of annual contributions has been made to, and not withdrawn from, RESPs in respect of the beneficiary in at least any four years before the year in which the beneficiary attains 16 years of age.

This means that you must start to save in RESPs for your child before the end of the calendar year in which the beneficiary attains 15 years of age in order to be eligible for the CESG. The CESG and accumulated earnings will be part of the educational assistance payment paid out of the RESP to the beneficiary.

Assuming your child enters into upper education when they turn 17, the safest strategy appears to be determining how much money you intent on contributing and dividing them into $5,000 amounts. If you have $5,000 to contribute, then put that into the RESP the year your child turns 15, and put it in a 2-year GIC which matures when they are ready to enter higher education. If you have $10,000 to contribute, put $5,000 into the RESP when they turn 15 (into a 2-year GIC), and another $5,000 the following year into a 1-year GIC. This way, you will realize a 20% gain plus whatever the return on the GIC is.

This strategy requires no financial sophistication other than the effort to find a fee-free RESP provider that gives good fixed income rates and taking out the appropriate GIC with the specified maturity date.

The RESP gives the contributor full liquidity capability – they can withdraw principal at any time, but they would have to refund the CESG in the process. Still, the availability of liquidity is a crucial factor in an investment decision, and having the ability to get back your principal (e.g. let’s say you lost your job when your child was 6 years old and the RESP is hardly going to be a high priority at this time compared to an education that may or may not happen in 11+ years) is very important.

I cannot find good justification for employing other investment strategies concerning RESPs – for example, if immediately after the birth of a child the parents open up an RESP for the child. In this scenario, the primary risk is that the parents will need the money at a future date and a more pressing reason than the far-off goal of purchasing educational credits for children. The other risk, of course, is not knowing whether the newborn will be attending such an institution. Also, because of the long timeline, such investments are likely to be more risky in nature, requiring a level of financial sophistication to invest in the proper stocks and bonds. Finally, the benefit of avoiding income attribution could be entirely avoided by transferring the funds to the child’s name and investing the proceeds in securities that will yield capital gains (as capital gains will be attributed to the child, while income will be attributed to the parent).

Thus, the “get the CESG as late as possible” strategy is likely the only real viable strategy for the RESP.

A final note on scholarship trusts

It is my opinion that most education scholarship trusts are terrible, terrible, terrible investment vehicles compared to the strategy presented above. In addition to paying fees that are ridiculously expensive, you are surrendering liquidity, and also surrendering the flexibility to get your money whenever you want if your child goes to school. For example, if your child decides to enroll into a two-year trades program, you will receive significantly less money than if he/she enrolled in a four year program. In particular, I will single out the largest of the scholarship trust companies, Canadian Scholarship Trust, as being financially counter-productive to any parents’ wish to actually pay for their children’s educations via an RESP. It is my opinion that companies like those are what give other educational scholarship companies an incredibly bad name.

It is true if you jump the hoops just perfectly (i.e. making your monthly payments from an early date, never missing payments and having your child continue with a 4-year education) that enrolling in such a plan would be a net plus, but the risk taken is phenomenally higher than the simple strategy presented above. The performance of the Canadian Scholarship Trust has also not been that much higher than a GIC – the 5-year performance from October 2003 to 2008 has been 4.5%. You can read this and the rest of the gory details on their prospectus document – a document that I suspect most of their subscribers don’t read, mainly because if they did so they would quickly realize what a bad deal they are receiving.

Tags:
Posted in Canada, Taxation | 1 Comment »

Canadian Taxes – Waiting for the T3

24 March, 2010 | Sacha Peter | 2 Comments

Anybody invested in income trusts should know that the T3 slip, a statement of income from trusts, is required for applicable trust holders by March 31 of every year. This is usually the last tax form to come in, and it will explain how much income (and what type of income) you received over the year.

The reason why the T3 slip comes so late is to give trusts sufficient time to finalize (and audit) their financial statements for the fiscal year.

Impatient investors that want to get cracking at their personal income taxes, however, can go to CDS Innovations’ website and get a sneak preview of most publicly traded entities’ allocation of income. T3 statements for the 2009 tax year can be found here. Just note, in theory, a trust can change the reported allocation on March 30, 2010 and one should never submit their income tax return using the preliminary data.

Posted in Canada, Taxation | 2 Comments »

RRSP Loans never made sense

7 February, 2010 | Sacha Peter | 6 Comments

I have now received three unsolicited solicitations (two through postal mail, one through email) for pre-approving me for an RRSP loan. The rates both institutions were offering were 3%, up to a low 5-digit dollar amount. The terms of such loans are such that you have to pay it off in a year.

The advertising always tries to grab your attention by stating that by loaning money you can get a good fraction of it back from the government when you file your income taxes and some people probably use this to rationalize making a loan. Unfortunately, the true financial value of the tax credit is worthless. I won’t get into why in this post, but some fellow wrote about it here and it is a much better way of thinking about one’s RSP than what is otherwise intuitive – his reasoning is not intuitive, but it is correct.

I have always wondered why anybody would ever bother doing an RSP loan from a rational perspective and the scenario that comes into mind deals with a high-income individual that has their cash flows so lumpy that they will only receive it after the March 1, 2010 contribution deadline and where this person’s balance sheet is in such crummy (or illiquid) shape that they cannot pull out non-taxable reserves into the RRSP umbrella. It would also imply their cash management in prior years is equally crummy since they failed to save enough money to pay for the RRSP.

Such people are likely to have high levels of debt, which highly suggests they should be putting their cash into their debt. However, in the event that their debt has a low interest rate, then the RRSP loan would make sense.

In other words, the number of people that truly need RRSP loans are next to none. I can’t fabricate a real life scenario where somebody working a full-time job would want to loan money for an RRSP.

Ever since the advent of the TFSA, the retirement savings game has changed considerably – although there are exceptions to every rule, if I had to make a “one rule fits all” criteria for RRSP vs. TFSA contributions, the math highly suggests the only people that should ever be considering to make a contribution in an RRSP are those making more than (note: 2010 year) $81,941 a year, which is where the 26% federal tax bracket kicks in. Otherwise you should contribute money to your TFSA first, and then your RRSP with any leftover amounts you have left to save.

If you make less than $81,941 a year, your first dollars should go to your TFSA and then if you have money left to save, into your RRSP. In no way should your net taxable income go below $40,970 – you can still contribute to your RRSP, but you should wait until a future year where you make more than the lowest bracket to actually deduct the income.

Taking out an RRSP loan to defer the income tax is financially foolish, especially since the interest on the loan is not tax-deductible. The only exception I would make is if you are supremely confident you will be able to make more than the loan interest on an after-tax basis (so let’s say you are in the 40% tax bracket and your RRSP loan is at 3% interest; you would need to make 3%/(1-0.4) = 5%) but I do not think this is appropriate for most and that taking an RRSP loan is functionally equivalent to borrowing money in a brokerage account to invest. The only difference between an RRSP loan and borrowing to invest on margin is that at least when you borrow to invest on margin, you can deduct interest expenses from your income tax.

Tags: ,
Posted in Canada, Taxation | 6 Comments »

Next TFSA investment – First Uranium

19 January, 2010 | Sacha Peter | 1 Comment

Following the success of getting out of Harvest Energy debentures, I had a lot of cash in my TFSA, especially after the January 2010 contribution of $5,000. There was only one debenture candidate left on my radar that appeared to have a good risk/reward characteristic. Although it wasn’t great, it was good enough and I executed a trade on it.

Continuing with my less than diversified strategy, I have placed the sum of the TFSA into the debentures of First Uranium (FIU.DB). The debentures give a 4.25% coupon, maturing in June 2012. They are convertible into equity at $16.42/share, but this is unlikely to be a factor in the valuation. The total issue was for CAD$150M. They went as low as 41 cents in the debenture crash of early 2009.

The price I received was 74.5 cents on January 11, which is a 5.7% current yield and an implied annualized capital gain of 13.0%. Assuming a 1.2% (short term interest rate) reinvestment of coupon, this is a realized return of about 16.8%, which is (barely) above my investment threshold. The previous Harvest Energy investment was above 30% at the time and price I made it, but the spring of 2009 was a very special investment climate where buying anything would give you massive returns. Today, things are much different and you really have to pull out a high powered microscope since anything with a high return has a lot of baggage you have to sift through. First Uranium is no exception.

First Uranium is a Toronto corporation, but with operations primarily in a South African mine with uranium and gold reserves. The name is misleading in that the bulk (~85%) of the company’s revenues are expected to be from gold sales. The foreign nature of their operations introduces a risk, but South African mining operations have been able to operate sustainably in other circumstances. Although I have my geopolitical concerns about South Africa in the medium term (10 years out), I have discounted such concerns in the 2.4 year timeframe of this present investment. It is also likely that coming closer to maturity that the investment may be liquidated sooner than later, or when the yield shrinks to my sell target (around 95 cents presently).

Most of the operations have been financed by equity – the last financing was done in June 1, 2009 at CAD$7/share. Today the common shares are at $2.66/share with 167M shares outstanding – a market capitalization of about $444M. Some portion of the gold reserves have been hedged off at below-market rates for up-front financing. In addition, the mining operations are still at the end of the initial capital injection phase before they can start producing sustainable positive cash flow, which is expected in the March 2010 to March 2011 fiscal year.

In terms of management and ownership risk, this is an interesting story. Simmer and Jack, another (larger than junior) South African mining company, owns 37% of the company as of September 2009. There has been a recent management and board struggle dealing with the Simmer and Jack management, who have moved over to First Uranium after they were kicked out of the Simmer and Jack board. The kicked-out CEO and Chairman, Gordon Miller, owns 1.66% of Simmer and Jack and roughly 0.1% of First Uranium. Although this struggle has an indirect impact on the value of the debentures (mainly that I am concerned about being paid off rather than owning the company), it is worthy to note that some deal must have been cut with the existing Simmer and Jack board such that he be allowed to run First Uranium since the 37% minority ownership of Simmer and Jack would likely be able to prevent him from doing so if they did so voluntarily.

There is a complex relationship here with respect to the debentures – Simmer and Jack is highly incentivized to make sure the debenture holders don’t take over the company so they can realize value of their equity stake. Gordon Miller likely wants to make a ton of money out of the deal and try to get some sort of revenge against Simmer and Jack and try to wrestle control away from the company. Either way, the debentures will have to be paid and it seems likely at this point it will be done by a simple equity swap – the current market capitalization is sufficient to pay off the debentures with about 25% dilution to existing shareholders.

On the balance sheet, First Uranium has US$60M in cash at the end of September and they have poured in about US$563M into their mining operations. Their only significant liabilities are a $22M loan from Simmer and Jack, and the CAD$150 of debentures. The income side is ugly when one looks back, but the corporation should start to generate cash through mining operations in the upcoming year and slow down capital expenditures – and perhaps even pay some common share dividends sometime in the second half of 2011 if things really go well and the refinancing of the debentures are in the bag.

The risks otherwise are typical of a mining firm – commodity pricing (gold and uranium) and realization of “proven” reserves into actual output. There is also some currency risk – they report in US dollars and their equity and debentures are denominated in Canadian dollars. Reading the technical report on the main mine and getting a feel for the operation is also essential (and rather dry) reading.

Although this investment is not the most ideal, I do believe that the company will be able to pay off the debentures, whether by refinancing, equitizing the debt or generating cash flow before the June 2012 maturity. There is enough of a margin of error to feel comfortable, but not “home free”, which is why the market value is trading significantly below at present. Assuming their story turns out, the equity side is also a compelling story, but it contains a high degree of risk that I am not willing to take – especially concerning the future of gold prices. That said, I expect these debentures will be made whole and will be a positive decision in terms of my risk-reward profile and being able to avoid income tax and capital gains tax by virtue of it being in the TFSA.

I also prefer short duration plays simply because when interest rates rise again, cash might be a more attractive option.

(Subsequent note: Operational risks include adverse news releases after hitting the “publish” button, although I do not think this one is too severe to my underlying investment thesis.)

Tags:
Posted in Canada, Debt, Taxation | 1 Comment »

Fact checking on charities

29 December, 2009 | Sacha Peter | No Comment

In Canada, charities that are registered with the federal government enjoy certain benefits that other non-profit organizations do not. In exchange for being compliant with multiple government regulations, they have the ability of issuing tax receipts which equates to a refund of income taxes of 20.06% for the first $200 donated, and 43.7% for anything above that, using BC rates.

One of the items that a registered charity has to comply with is reporting to the Canada Revenue Agency so there is a degree of transparency where people can see where money is raised and spent within a charity. You can access this on the CRA Charities Listings site.

It is very important to know when an executive of a registered charity says that “We do not receive any government funding” that you check lines 4540 to 4560 on the return; if you see revenues there, the management is lying to the public. In addition, they are implicitly receiving government funding due to the value of the tax refund from charitable contributions. For example, if you were to donate $1,000 to a charity, your after-tax cost is actually $610.28. The federal and provincial government are essentially donating the other $389.72 in the form of an income tax refund.

Also there is the well-known issue of having a high percentage of money wasted on administration expenses. If line 5010 (Management and Administration component of total expenditures) and 5020 (Money spent to raise more money) are high compared to total expenditures in a charity, I would look at it as probable that they are not being efficiently run.

My advice would be to donate only to registered charities that you know at least one of the directors of, and your opinion of the director is positive. At least if they incompetently squander your money, you’ll be able to grill them in person and keep them accountable.

Posted in Canada, Taxation | No Comments »

Older Entries »