Selling an advisor’s book [8/8] – Ways to get paid

[Eight-part series, current to publication date only]
1 – Why and how do we prepare
2 – Finding the right buyer
3 – Getting the best price
4 – Tax issues overview
5 – Incorporation issues overview
6 – Caveats and limitations
7 – Selling when incorporated vs. unincorporated?
8 – Ways to get paid

8 – Ways to get paid

We’ve reached the end of our eight-part series on how to sell your book. This article discusses options for getting paid.

Lump sum

If a buyer has the funds available and the parties reach an agreement, the transaction may be carried out with a lump sum payment on closing.

If the buyer is not an employee and has obtained purchase financing to carry out the transaction, the annual cost of interest should be a deductible expense. On the receiving end, any payments attributable to interest are fully taxable to the seller. This occurs even though the transaction is capital in nature, and regardless of whether it’s an asset or share sale.

Instalments and earnouts

If the parties decide to spread payments across several years, it should not affect the tax treatment for either party—so long as future payment is not based on production. This may occur so the buyer doesn’t have to come up with a large sum all at once.

If it’s an asset sale, the seller may be able to take a capital gains reserve, allowing for a portion of those gains to be recognized and taxed in future years.

If the sale is of goodwill/a client list, the terminal allowance on the eligible capital property must still be recognized at closing; this would mean the seller would pay all taxes in the year of closing, despite some proceeds being not yet received.  [New regime: The 2016 Federal Budget will replace the eligible capital property (ECP) tax regime with a capital cost allowance class (for details, see advisor.ca/ECP). There is a transitional period, so we’ll still discuss the legacy ECP regime, but be aware that new rules are coming in 2017.]

Where future payments are calculated with reference to the actual income earned from the book or practice, the tax treatment can vary, especially for the seller. This kind of arrangement is known as an “earnout,” with the intention being to assure (for the buyer, especially) the value of the practice/book is properly reflected in the final agreement.

The drawback of this arrangement to the seller is that those directly tracked payments will be taxed as income, though recognition would be deferred for payments received in future years.

The relevant section of the ITA is s. 12(1)(g) (see below), with CRA’s principal interpretation of this provision being in Interpretation Bulletin IT-462 (see below).

Income inclusion under ITA s.12(1)(g)

“Payments based on production or use—any amount received by the taxpayer in the year that was dependent on the use of or production from property whether or not that amount was an instalment of the sale price of the property, except that an instalment of the sale price of agricultural land is not included by virtue of this paragraph.”

CRA IT-462: Payments based on production or use

For the vendor/seller, income treatment will apply if the payments are entirely based on production/use, per s. 12(1)(g).  If the payment is structured as fixed sum plus some amount based on production/use, the former is proceeds of disposition (i.e., capital treatment), and the latter is income. Where there is a minimum payment dependent on production/use, that is income; however, any top-up to the minimum will be proceeds of disposition. A payment structured as a maximum at closing with potential future reduction/adjustment would be treated as proceeds of disposition, but income treatment would apply if the arrangement is not reasonable.

For the purchaser/buyer, payments normally constitute cost of capital property, even if the vendor/seller has included some or all as income.

There is an element of unfairness where the parties genuinely cannot determine the final value at the time of closing. The reasonable use of an earnout for business purposes can result in an unsatisfactory result for the buyer in requiring an income inclusion of earnout amounts received pursuant to ITA s.12(1)(g).  CRA recognizes this problem, and provides some administrative relief in Interpretation Bulletin IT-426R (see below). The relief only applies to share sales, not asset sales.

IT-426R ARCHIVED—Shares Sold Subject to an Earnout Agreement

A vendor/seller may use the “cost recovery method” to record the receipt of future payments effectively as capital gains. This applies to share transactions where the parties are at arm’s length, the earnout relates to underlying goodwill that cannot reasonably be determined at closing, and the vendor/seller is resident in Canada.

The earnout may be no longer than five years.

A copy of the sale agreement must be attached to vendor/seller’s tax return for the year of closing, together with a letter requesting application of the cost recovery method.

A transaction structured with a maximum amount paid up-front and potential deduction if certain conditions are not met (mentioned in IT-462) is known as a “reverse earnout.” Note that it requires that the buyer pay the full purchase price at closing, and also that the seller generally record the full disposition in the year of closing.

As the reverse earnout likely reflects the fact that the parties have not determined the final proceeds of disposition, a capital gains reserve may not be taken, meaning that the capital gain must be realized in the year of closing.

2013-0505391E5 F—Clause de earnout renversé

Is it possible to deduct an amount on account of the capital gains reserve where there is a reverse earnout agreement in a share purchase agreement?  CRA has said no. Proceeds of disposition are not certain at the moment of disposition, which is one of the requirements to be eligible to deduct an amount as a capital gains reserve.

Earnouts and reverse earnouts are not available for asset sales. Using either arrangement will result in income treatment for the seller, where eligible capital property might have otherwise applied.

2004-0098121E5 (E)—Goodwill Sold Subject to an Earnout Agreement

This CRA letter addressed whether an earnout in an asset sale would qualify under the definition of cumulative eligible capital, or alternatively if the cost recovery method under IT-426R could be used.  The CRA representative stated that where the consideration received for eligible capital property is dependent upon the use or production from that property and no amount can be quantified at the time of sale, such consideration is not an eligible capital amount but is taxable as income under paragraph 12(1)(g). Furthermore, the cost recovery method is only available on a share sale.

Smith v R. deals with a case where a combination of fixed and variable payments was attempted. On their own, the agreed upon fixed amounts would likely have enabled the seller to claim them as proceeds of disposition. However, the payments were subject to a price adjustment clause calculation based on actual commissions earned, with unfortunate tax results for the seller.

Smith v R., 2011 TCC 461

A property/casualty brokerage was purchasing a client list. The price was based on $156,000 in current commissions, times a 2.25 acquisition factor, totaling $351,000. Payments were set at 40% in the closing year and 20% each of the next three years, with annual interest payments for remaining outstanding amounts. A price adjustment clause adjusted the annual payments based on actual commissions earned from the clientele.  The court found that the price was not fixed and determined, but was instead dependent on actual commissions. All amounts (not just the post-closing amounts) were determined to be taxable per s.12(1)(g). Interest was taxable as investment income per s.12(1)(c).


Interest on payments

As mentioned earlier, interest payments are treated as income to the seller/recipient, and are generally a deduction to the buyer/payer.

Income inclusion—ITA s.12(1 c)

“Interest—subject to subsections (3) and (4.1), any amount received or receivable by the taxpayer in the year (depending on the method regularly followed by the taxpayer in computing the taxpayer’s income) as, on account of, in lieu of payment of or in satisfaction of, interest to the extent that the interest was not included in computing the taxpayer’s income for a preceding taxation year”

Interest deduction related to acquiring business or property—ITA s.20(1)(c)(ii) (partial extract)

“an amount paid in the year or payable in respect of the year … pursuant to a legal obligation to pay interest on: … (ii) an amount payable for property acquired for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the property or for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business.”

Restrictive covenant

It is normal for a buyer to require the seller to grant a restrictive covenant not to compete in future. There is a value to the covenant, in that the seller is foregoing the right to earn income. If no value is explicitly mentioned in the agreement, the value may be implied based on the seller’s circumstances and the scope of the covenant.

Income—restrictive covenants—ITA s.56.4(2) (partial extract)

“There is to be included in computing a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year the total of all amounts each of which is an amount in respect of a restrictive covenant of the taxpayer that is received or receivable in the taxation year by the taxpayer or by a taxpayer with whom the taxpayer does not deal at arm’s length.”

There’s no income inclusion if one of the exceptions in ITA s.56.4(3)(a-c) applies. The first exception is where income has already been included as employment income (to avoid double taxation).

The second exception is where the amount relates to the sale of ECP (i.e., goodwill on an asset sale), and the third deals with sale of an eligible interest in a corporation or partnership (in our case, a share sale).

For an ECP or share sale, the parties must jointly file a prescribed form (found on the CRA website) by the seller’s tax-filing deadline for the year of closing. The benefit to the seller is that the tax treatment will mirror that of the underlying transaction (i.e., ECP or capital gain), rather than having the full income inclusion.

While this benefits the seller directly, it also provides a negotiating platform that the buyer may use to influence a lower sale price.

TREATMENT SUMMARY[1]

Notes:

[1] Compiled by Invesco Canada. Uses pre-2017 ECP regime.

[2] Earnout payments on a share sale (not asset sale) that qualify under the cost-recovery method up to five years (per CRA IT 426R2) are entitled to capital treatment. Capital gains reserve normally available up to five years, but not if final price is uncertain (i.e., dependent on earnout or reverse earnout). No reserve allowed for ECP at any time.

[3] Capital gains on share sales are eligible for lifetime capital gains exemption (LCGE) assuming all other requirements are met.

[4] Capital gains-like treatment can arise on the closing of the business and the related disposition of remaining ECP. However, where the seller has claimed past amortization out of the CEC pool, the tax calculation on disposition is more complex.

Selling an advisor’s book [7/8] – Selling when incorporated vs. unincorporated?

[Eight-part series, current to publication date only]
1 – Why and how do we prepare
2 – Finding the right buyer
3 – Getting the best price
4 – Tax issues overview
5 – Incorporation issues overview
6 – Caveats and limitations
7 – Selling when incorporated vs. unincorporated?
8 – Ways to get paid

7 – Selling when incorporated vs. unincorporated?

What happens when you sell an incorporated book versus an unincorporated book?

Asset vs. share debate

Where there is no corporation, the thing being sold is the goodwill associated with the client list (an asset). You’ll want to consider:

Seller’s preference. Where the business is run through a corporation, the seller usually prefers to sell the shares. Doing so gives rise to a capital gain and the potential to protect some or all of that gain with the lifetime capital gains exemption (LCGE), as well as the sharing of the gain and LCGE with other shareholders.

Buyer’s preference. A buyer typically prefers to buy the client list, rather than acquiring the corporation itself. While either route would be a capital transaction (leading to either a capital gain or eligible capital property, ECP), acquiring the shares would bring with it exposure to any corporate liabilities. For MFDA commissions redirected to a corporation, it’s unclear what rights the corporation may actually have to sell.

In a share sale, the seller may realize a capital gain on the amount paid above the shares’ ACB. Only half of capital gains are taxable. Where payments are made over time, a capital gains reserve may be allowed for up to five years, with at least 20% of the gain having to be taken into income each year.

If the shares qualify for the LCGE, up to $824,176 of gains (for 2016, indexed annually) may be protected from taxation. To qualify, the corporation must be a CCPC and must meet two capital tests:

  1. In the two years prior to the disposition, at least 50% of the assets must be earning active business income (ABI).
  2. On the date of disposition, at least 90% of the assets must be earning ABI (based on CRA practice).

On the buyer side, the purchase price will form the ACB of the acquired shares. This is the base upon which the buyer will calculate the capital gain (and possibly LCGE) when she later disposes of the shares.

Sale of goodwill/client list

New regime

The sale of goodwill related to a client list falls under the category of ECP. The amount paid is called the eligible capital expenditure, 75% of which is credited to an account called the cumulative eligible capital (CEC) pool.  [New regime: The 2016 Federal Budget will replace the eligible capital property (ECP) tax regime with a capital cost allowance class. There is a transitional period, so we’ll still discuss the legacy ECP regime, but be aware that new rules are coming in 2017.]

For a buyer, annual amortization of 7% may be claimed based on the balance in the CEC pool, which then reduces the pool accordingly. As compared to buying shares, the buyer will wish to consider whether this regular annual deduction is more or less preferred to capital gains treatment (and potential LCGE) on a future share sale.

Where a seller is selling all goodwill and has not previously claimed any ECP-related deductions, 75% of the amount received for the ECP is deducted from the CEC pool. This creates a negative balance in the CEC pool, two thirds of which is taken into the seller’s income. Where the seller has claimed past amortization out of the CEC pool, the tax calculation on disposition is more complex; discuss the transaction with a tax advisor.

There are important differences between capital property and ECP. There is no equivalent to a capital gains reserve in the ECP regime, for example, meaning that the seller must pay the tax on the full terminal allowance in the year of closing.

Selling an advisor’s book [6/8] – Caveats and limitations

[Eight-part series, current to publication date only]
1 – Why and how do we prepare
2 – Finding the right buyer
3 – Getting the best price
4 – Tax issues overview
5 – Incorporation issues overview
6 – Caveats and limitations
7 – Selling when incorporated vs. unincorporated?
8 – Ways to get paid

6 – Caveats and limitations

As we saw in my last column, incorporation has tax and estate benefits, especially when selling your book. But it may not be possible for all advisors.

Life insurance

In most provinces, a corporation can be licensed to receive insurance commissions, including commissions on insurance-based investment products such as annuities and segregated funds. The corporation must be controlled by individuals who are similarly licensed in the province.

The corporation is a licensed advisor in its own right, and is the taxpayer earning the income that’s at issue. On the other hand, where income is earned by a taxpayer and then redirected to a person or corporation at a lower tax bracket, it will be attributed back to its original earner. This is the default administrative approach of CRA.

Wallsten V. R (TCC) [2001] 1 CTC. 2847

In this case, Wallsten’s contract with Sun Life prohibited the assignment of commissions. When he received commission cheques from Sun Life, Wallsten deposited them to the bank account of his corporation. CRA reassessed Wallsten to include the income as his, rather than the corporation’s.  The court found the corporation was actually carrying on the business. Even though the assignment of the cheques violated his contract with Sun Life, there was nonetheless a valid assignment under tax law.


Mutual Fund Dealer’s Association (MFDA)

The MFDA rule that enabled redirection of commissions to a corporation (Rule 2.4.1) was suspended in 2006.

Technical letter 2006-0176531I7E—Commission income assigned to a corporation, April 18, 2006

In response to Wallsten, the CRA originally stated in Income Tax Technical News (ITTN) 22 that it would not be following the ruling.  The author of the 2006 CRA technical letter says commissions could be redirected to a corporation as long as the advisor is not otherwise precluded from doing so, and the corporation is actually carrying on the business. It was also noted that neither the OSC nor the MFDA were at that point pursuing the respective rules prohibiting or disallowing the practice at the time.

Rule 2.4.1 was republished in 2010. Under the rule, an MFDA dealer may agree with an Approved Person (i.e., a licensed advisor) to redirect commissions to a corporation. The agreement must be executed in writing in the form approved by the MFDA. (Note that the MFDA explicitly stated at the time of the republication that MFDA staff could not provide guidance on the tax implications of the rule change.)

The rule applies to advisors in all provinces except Alberta. It also does not apply to income related to clients resident in Alberta, even if the advisor is located elsewhere.

On republication and adoption of the rule in 2010, the OSC noted the dealer and advisor would be expected to “comply with any and all applicable tax legislation when any portion of an Approved Person’s remuneration, in respect of business conducted by the Approved Person on behalf of a Member firm, is being directed to an unregistered corporation.” As to what those requirements may be, the OSC made no further comment.

Boutilier v. R. 2007 TCC 96

Boutilier was an advisor who assigned mutual fund trailers to his corporation. The evidence showed that dividends were paid from the corporation to a trust and on to (presumably) lower-bracket family members. The net funds appear to have ended up with Boutilier personally.  The court upheld the CRA reassessment attributing the income to Boutilier. In support, the judge noted that there was no formal employment contract, no remuneration was paid to him, and there were few or no business expenses paid by the corporation.  The judge commented: “Although I believe, given the right set of circumstances, a company could be engaged in the active business of providing services to earn trailer fees, that is not the case here.”  This case was decided after CRA letter 2006-0176531I7E, and before MFDA rule 2.4.1 was reinstated in 2010, though neither of those would bind a court.


Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC)

Corporations cannot be licensed to receive commissions earned under the authority of IIROC.

In December 2014, Alberta amended its Securities Act to allow for licensing of a “registered professional corporation.” However, the province has not yet taken the final step to proclaim the provisions in force.

Council of Ministers of Securities Regulation

In 2013, the council committed to moving forward with its incorporation project, intended to give “financial representatives the flexibility to provide dealing and advising services […] though a corporation, without compromising investor protection.”

At the time, the expectation was that all jurisdictions would bring forward legislative amendments before the end of 2014. Apart from Alberta’s 2014 amendments, Saskatchewan had passed (but not proclaimed) changes in 2012, and Quebec brought forward draft legislation in 2013 that died on the order paper.