Federal income trust

By Steven Lamb | January 12, 2006 | Last updated on January 12, 2006
4 min read

The federal government’s decision to increase dividend tax credits to level the playing field with income trusts has done very little toward attaining that goal, according to one of Canada’s leading taxation experts.

While the changes may have brought taxation neutrality between trust distributions and corporate dividends for taxable accounts, such investors make up the minority of the income trust market, says Jack Mintz, president and CEO of the C.D. Howe Institute and professor of taxation at the Rotman School of Management.

“While taxable accounts under the new tax credit will be roughly indifferent between income trusts and corporations, that won’t be true for a broad part of the market,” Mintz told the audience at Insight Information’s fourth annual Income Trust Conference in Toronto. “Sixty to sixty-five per cent of the market is still going to be very interested in holding income trusts.”

Under the new plan, the federal dividend credit would rise from 13.13% to 19% for 2006. Even in the case of taxable accounts, Mintz says the credit does not fully correct the disparity, as it is only applicable toward federal taxes. The average provincial dividend tax credit is about 7%, which he says would need to be raised to 13% to close the gap, creating a combined dividend tax credit of 32%.

Since the tax credits are delivered at the investor level, non-taxable entities such as pension funds and RRSP accounts receive no benefit. In fact, since dividends are drawn from result of post-tax income at the corporate level, income trusts continue to offer a superior stream of income, as they are not subject to corporate taxes.

Assuming the top marginal tax rate, Mintz says the combined corporate and personal income tax rate will drop from 56% to 48%. Breaking it down, for every $100 in corporate profits, the company would pay 35% in tax, leaving $65 to distribute. According to Mintz, that $65 would be subject to personal taxes, partially offset by the dividend credit, leaving $52 in the hands of the investor.

The same $100 profit realized by an income trust would face no corporate tax, but the full distributable sum would be subject to the investor’s marginal tax rate. Assuming the investor is in the top tax bracket of 46% that would leave $54, making the trust’s profits only slightly preferable to the corporate profits.

For a non-taxable entity, however, the income trust still represents a far more efficient delivery system for operating profits, as income is neither taxed in the hands of the investor, nor the operating company.

“Because they don’t pay personal income taxes in those accounts, they always have an interest to eliminate corporate income tax to be paid on the dividend,” Mintz said. “They will still have great interest in income trusts over corporate securities because they can bypass the corporate tax.”

In the case of non-resident investors, the 15% withholding tax is still applied, leaving foreign investors largely indifferent to the changes. As with pensions, foreign investors will likely continue to prefer income trusts over a corporate structure due to the avoidance of corporate taxation.

“Any time the foreign investor can avoid paying corporate taxes in Canada, it would love to do so,” Mintz says, pointing out that foreign investors make up 20% to 25% of the income market in Canada. “At worst, they’re still going to be subject to the same level of tax, either withholding tax levied in Canada or their personal tax.

“It certainly won’t level the playing field between income trusts and corporations because there are still going to be quite significant tax efficiency gains made from converting from a corporation to an income trust.”

With the new rules, Mintz calculates the conversion premium attached to trusts for taxable accounts drops from 35.7% to just 4.4% over dividend-paying corporate entities. But for non-taxable accounts and foreign investors, the conversion premium remains at 53.8% above corporations.

“The new announcement will take some of the wind out of the income trust market in terms of conversions, but there are still very large premiums for tax reasons, to convert from corporate to income trusts,” he says.

Mintz offers some suggestions of his own on how to level the playing field, including making the tax credits refundable, sending the corporate income tax back to the non-taxable investors.

One problem with the income trust structure, he says, is the tax penalty incurred if the trust does not distribute all of its income, which matches the highest marginal tax rate for individuals in that jurisdiction.

“Any distributions made out of prior years’ income are used to write down the cost basis of the units,” Mintz says. “Therefore the unit-holder, when selling the trust units, would have to pay capital gains tax on the distributions, because they are treated as a return of capital to the individual.”

This penalty forces trusts to distribute too much of their revenue, Mintz says. Allowing trusts to defer payment of their distributable cash will not only avoid this outcome for the investor, but will allow trusts to stabilize their distributions over time.

Filed by Steven Lamb, Advisor.ca, steven.lamb@advisor.rogers.com

(01/11/06)

Steven Lamb