Members of the baby boom generation who were born between 1946 and 1965 are now between 59 and 78 years of age, and make up about a quarter of the Canadian population. Many, if not most, are now retired, and the older members of that generation are likely experiencing the changes to physical health, strength, and agility that come with age. The process of aging is an extremely variable one – some individuals are healthier and more active at age 80 than others are at 60, but the physical changes that accompany aging come, inevitably, to everyone. And when those changes take place, it’s necessary to make some hard decisions about a number of things.

Members of the baby boom generation who were born between 1946 and 1965 are now between 59 and 78 years of age, and make up about a quarter of the Canadian population. Many, if not most, are now retired, and the older members of that generation are likely experiencing the changes to physical health, strength, and agility that come with age. The process of aging is an extremely variable one – some individuals are healthier and more active at age 80 than others are at 60, but the physical changes that accompany aging come, inevitably, to everyone. And when those changes take place, it’s necessary to make some hard decisions about a number of things.

One of the most consequential decisions to be made when age-related physical changes become a factor in decision-making is whether one’s current living arrangements are still suitable. The overwhelming choice of older Canadians is to “age in place” – that is, to remain in the homes they already occupy, living independently in a familiar community and close to family and friends. While that’s the ideal, existing living arrangements can, in some cases, no longer meet the needs of the individual, or can even be unsafe.

Almost always, changes can be made to an existing home to make it both more convenient and safer to live in for an older resident. Those changes can range from something as small as the installation of a grab bar in a shower or bath to something as extensive as renovations which will allow for one-floor living. All such changes, however, come with a price tag. Fortunately, the federal government (and some provincial governments) offer programs to help mitigate that cost.

The federal program – the Home Accessibility Tax Credit (HATC) – allows individuals who own and live in their own homes to claim a non-refundable tax credit equal to 15% of the cost of making permanent changes to their home which will make it more accessible or safer for them to live in.

The HATC is in many ways an unusually flexible and generous tax credit. First, the criteria which determine whether a particular expenditure does or does not qualify for the credit are extremely broad, covering both safety and convenience. Specifically, changes made which meet either of the following criteria can qualify for the HATC. Changes made must:

• allow the individual to gain access to, or be mobile or functional within, the dwelling; or
• reduce the risk of harm to the individual within the dwelling or in gaining access to the dwelling.

Second, there is no requirement for any kind of assessment or certification by a medical professional that a particular kind of change to the home is needed, or is justified by the homeowner’s state of physical ability or disability – such determination is made solely by the owner/resident of the home. Where a homeowner decides that the installation of a railing along a hallway in their home, or a change to a non-slip floor in the bathroom, are necessary for their mobility or safety within the home, then the cost of making those changes can qualify for the credit.

Third, expenses incurred for purposes of the HATC can also be claimed as medical expenses for purposes of the medical expense tax credit. In other words, two different tax credits can be claimed for the same expenditure.

Finally, the credit can be claimed by all “qualifying individuals” meaning anyone who is age 65 or older by the end of the year in which the expenditure is made, or who is eligible for the disability tax credit. There are no income thresholds imposed – the full credit is claimable by any qualifying individual who incurs an eligible expenditure, regardless of their income.

While the eligibility criteria for expenditures under the HATC are very broad, the credit is intended to assist with the cost of changes which become a permanent part of the dwelling, and not those that represent regular maintenance costs or charges for household services. The following types of expenses are specifically not eligible for the HATC:

• amounts paid to acquire a property that can be used independently of the qualifying renovation;
• the cost of annual, recurring, or routine repairs or maintenance;
• amounts paid to buy household appliances;
• amounts paid to buy electronic home-entertainment devices;
• the cost of housekeeping, security monitoring, gardening, outdoor maintenance, or similar services;
• financing costs for the qualifying renovation; or
• the cost of renovation incurred mainly to increase or maintain the value of the dwelling.

In order to qualify for the credit, eligible expenditures must be made to a “housing unit” which is owned and occupied by the person making the claim. That housing unit could be a detached or semi-detached or row house, or a condominium or co-op unit.

Where a qualifying individual (that is, someone who is age 65 or older, or who is eligible for the disability tax credit) lives with and is dependent on another family member (generally, a parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, nephew, or niece) who owns the home in which they both live, that family member can also make a claim for the HATC for changes made to the home to assist their older or disabled relative. For this purpose, such family members are characterized as “eligible individuals”.

Finally, there is a limit on the amount of expenditures which can be claimed for purposes of the HATC, and that limit is $20,000 per year for a particular dwelling. The tax credit claimable is 15% of the eligible expenditure, such that the maximum tax credit which can be claimed is $3,000 per year. The HATC is a non-refundable tax credit, meaning that it can reduce or eliminate federal tax payable, but cannot create or increase a refund. Where the amount of the credit exceeds the tax payable by the qualifying individual and so cannot be fully utilized, the claim can be split between that qualifying individual and any family member who qualifies as an “eligible individual”, as outlined above.

The federal HATC can be claimed by qualifying individuals and eligible individuals who are resident in any province or territory in Canada. Several of those provinces and territories provide similar programs to help offset the cost of incurring such home accessibility changes, but there is unfortunately no uniformity among those programs. Both eligibility criteria (age, income, etc.) and the type of assistance provided (loan, forgiveable loan, refundable or non-refundable tax credits) are different in each province or territory which offers such assistance. However, information on those programs is available on the particular provincial government website, and can usually be found by searching "seniors' home renovations” on those websites.

Detailed information on the federal HATC is available on the federal government website at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/deductions-credits-expenses/line-31285-home-accessibility-expenses.html.

In most cases, the need to seek out and obtain legal services (and to pay for them) is associated with life’s more unwelcome occurrences and experiences – a divorce, a dispute over a family estate, or a job loss. About the only thing that mitigates the pain of paying legal fees (apart, hopefully, from a successful resolution of the problem that created the need for legal advice) would be being able to claim a tax credit or deduction for the fees paid.

In most cases, the need to seek out and obtain legal services (and to pay for them) is associated with life’s more unwelcome occurrences and experiences – a divorce, a dispute over a family estate, or a job loss. About the only thing that mitigates the pain of paying legal fees (apart, hopefully, from a successful resolution of the problem that created the need for legal advice) would be being able to claim a tax credit or deduction for the fees paid.

Unfortunately, while there are some circumstances in which such a deduction can be claimed, those circumstances don’t usually include the routine reasons – purchasing a home, getting a divorce, establishing custody rights, or seeking legal advice about making a will or managing a family estate – for which most Canadians incur legal fees. Generally, personal (as distinct from business-related) legal fees become deductible for most Canadian taxpayers only where they are seeking to recover amounts which they believe are owed to them, particularly where those amounts involved employment or employment-related income or, in some cases, family support obligations.

The first situation in which legal fees paid may be deductible is that of an employee seeking to collect (or to establish a right to collect) salary or wages. In all Canadian provinces and territories, employment standards laws provide that an employee who is about to lose his or her job (for reasons not involving fault on the part of the employee) is entitled to receive a specified amount of notice, or salary or wages equivalent to such notice. In many cases, however, the employee can establish a right to a period of notice (or payment in lieu) greater than the statutory minimum. The amount of notice or payment in lieu of notice which is payable can then become a matter of negotiation between the employer and its former employee, and such negotiations usually involve legal representation and consequently, legal fees. In that situation, legal fees incurred by the employee to establish a right to amounts allegedly owed by the employer are deductible by that former employee. If a court action is necessary and the Court requires the employer to reimburse its former employee for some or all of the legal fees incurred, the amount of that reimbursement must be subtracted from any deduction claimed. In other words, the former employee can claim a deduction only for legal fees which they were personally required to pay in order to collect wages or salary owed and for which they were not reimbursed.

In some situations, an employee or former employee seeks legal help in order to collect or to establish a right to collect a retiring allowance or pension benefits. In such situations, the legal fees incurred can be deducted, up to the total amount of the retiring allowance or pension income actually received for that year (but not including any amounts received which were transferred to the individual’s registered pension plan or registered retirement savings plan). Where the amount of legal fees incurred is greater than the total retiring allowance or pension amount received in the year, the excess can be carried forward and claimed in any of the subsequent seven tax years.

The rules covering the deduction of legal fees incurred where an employee claims amounts from an employer or former employer are relatively straightforward. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for the rules governing the deductibility of legal fees paid in connection with family support obligations. Those rules have evolved over the years in a somewhat piecemeal fashion – the current rules are as follows.

Legal fees incurred by either party in the course of negotiating a separation agreement or obtaining a divorce are not deductible. Such fees paid to establish child custody or visitation rights are similarly not deductible by either parent. 

Where, however, one former spouse has the right to receive support payments from the other, there are circumstances in which legal fees paid in connection with that right are deductible. Specifically, legal fees paid for the following purposes will be deductible by the person receiving those support payments:

• to collect overdue support payments owing;
• to establish the amount of support payments from a current or former spouse or common-law partner;
• to establish the amount of support payments from the legal parent of one’s child (who is not a current or former spouse or common-law partner), but only where that support is payable under the terms of a court order; or
• to try to get an increase in support payments.

As well, the recipient of support payments can deduct legal fees incurred to try to make child support payments non-taxable.

On the payment side of the support payment/receipt equation, the situation is not nearly so favourable, as a deduction for legal fees incurred will not generally not be allowed to a person paying support. More specifically, as outlined on the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) website, a payer of support cannot claim legal fees incurred to establish, negotiate, or contest the amount of support payments.

Finally, where the Canada Revenue Agency reviews or challenges income amounts, deductions, or credits reported or claimed by a taxpayer for a tax year, any fees paid for advice or assistance in dealing with the CRA’s review, assessment, or reassessment, or in objecting to that assessment or reassessment, can be deducted by the taxpayer.  A deduction can similarly be claimed where the taxpayer incurs such fees in relation to a dispute involving employment insurance, the Canada Pension Plan, or the Québec Pension Plan.

Detailed information on the rules which govern the deduction of legal fees incurred is available on the Canada Revenue Agency website at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/deductions-credits-expenses/line-23200-other-deductions.html#toc2. The specific rules which govern the deductibility of legal fees relating to support obligations are outlined in the CRA publication P102 Support Payments, which can be found on the Agency’s website at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publications/publications/p102.html.

By the middle of August, most students who are beginning post-secondary education this fall have hopefully received an offer of admission from their college or university of choice and are in the final stages of planning the move away from the family home for the first time. While deciding where to live and choosing courses for the upcoming fall semester is undoubtedly exciting, the hard reality is that all such choices come with a price tag – sometimes a very steep one. Regardless of geographic location, housing arrangements, or program choices, post-secondary learning is expensive. There will be tuition bills, of course, but also the need to find housing and pay rent in what is, in most college or university locations, a very tight and very expensive rental market. Those who choose to live in a university residence and are able to secure a place will also face bills for accommodation and, usually, a meal plan.

By the middle of August, most students who are beginning post-secondary education this fall have hopefully received an offer of admission from their college or university of choice and are in the final stages of planning the move away from the family home for the first time. While deciding where to live and choosing courses for the upcoming fall semester is undoubtedly exciting, the hard reality is that all such choices come with a price tag – sometimes a very steep one. Regardless of geographic location, housing arrangements, or program choices, post-secondary learning is expensive. There will be tuition bills, of course, but also the need to find housing and pay rent in what is, in most college or university locations, a very tight and very expensive rental market. Those who choose to live in a university residence and are able to secure a place will also face bills for accommodation and, usually, a meal plan.

Fortunately for students (and the parents who are likely footing much of the bill), there are tax credits and benefits which can be claimed to offset such costs: the credits and benefits which can be claimed by post-secondary students (or their spouses, parents, or grandparents) in relation to the upcoming 2024-25 academic year are summarized below.

Tuition fees

A federal tax credit continues to be available for the single largest cost associated with post-secondary education – the cost of tuition. Any student who incurs more than $100 in tuition costs at an eligible post-secondary institution (which would include most Canadian universities and colleges) can claim a non-refundable federal tax credit equal to 15% of such tuition costs. Many of the provinces and territories (excepting Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan) also provide students with an equivalent provincial or territorial credit, with the rate of such credit differing by jurisdiction.

The charges imposed on post-secondary students under the heading of “tuition” include a myriad of costs which may differ, depending on the particular program or institution, and not all of those costs will qualify as “tuition” for purposes of the tuition tax credit. The following specific amounts do, however, constitute eligible tuition fees for purposes of the tuition tax credit:

• Admission fees;
• Charges for use of library or laboratory facilities;
• Exemption fees;
• Examination fees (including re-reading charges);
• Application fees (but only if the student subsequently enrolls in the institution);
• Confirmation fees;
• Charges for a certificate, diploma, or degree;
• Membership or seminar fees that are specifically related to an academic program and its administration;
• Mandatory computer service fees; and
• Academic fees.

The following charges, however, do not constitute tuition fees for purposes of the credit:

• Extracurricular student social activities;
• Medical expenses;
• Transportation and parking;
• Board and lodging;
• Goods of enduring value that are to be retained by students (such as a microscope, uniform, gown, or computer);
• Initiation fees or entrance fees to professional organizations, including examination fees or other fees;
• Administrative penalties incurred when a student withdraws from a program or an institution;
• The cost of books (other than books, compact disks, or similar material included in the cost of a correspondence course); and
• Courses taken for purposes of academic upgrading to allow entry into a university or college program. These courses would usually not qualify for the tuition tax credit as they are not considered to be at the post-secondary school level.

Certain ancillary fees and charges, such as health services fees and athletic fees, may also be eligible tuition fees. However, such fees and charges are limited to $250 unless the fees are required to be paid by all full-time students or by all part-time students.

At both the federal and provincial levels, the credit is a non-refundable one, meaning that it can reduce or eliminate tax otherwise payable, but cannot create or increase a tax refund. Where, as is often the case, a student doesn’t have tax payable for the year because their income isn’t high enough, credits earned can be carried forward and claimed by the student in any future tax year or transferred (within limits) in the current year to be claimed by a spouse, parent, or grandparent.

Rent, food, and other personal and living expenses

Unfortunately, although housing and food costs will take up a very big chunk of each student’s budget, there is not (and never has been) a tax deduction or credit which is claimable for such costs. In all cases, living costs incurred by a post-secondary student (whether on campus or off) are characterized as personal and living expenses, for which no tax deduction or credit is allowed.

Student debt

Most post-secondary students in Canada must incur some amount of debt in order to complete their education, and repayment of that debt is typically not required until after graduation. Once repayment starts, a 15% federal tax credit can be claimed for the amount of interest being paid on such debt, in some circumstances. And, while other types of credits related to post-secondary education (like the tuition tax credit) can be transferred to and claimed by other family members, the student loan interest tax credit can be claimed only by the student – no transfer of the credit is allowed.

Students who are still in school and arranging for loans to finance their education should be mindful of the rules which govern that student loan interest tax credit, since decisions made while still in school with respect to how post-secondary education will be financed can have tax repercussions down the road, after graduation. That’s because while interest paid on a qualifying student loan is eligible for the credit, only some types of student borrowing will qualify for that credit. Specifically, only interest paid on government-sponsored (federal or provincial) student loans will be eligible for the credit. Interest paid on loans of any kind from any financial institution will not.

It’s not uncommon for students (especially students in professional programs, like law or medicine) to be offered lines of credit by a financial institution, often at advantageous or preferential interest rates. As well, financial institutions sometimes offer, once a student has graduated and begun to repay a government-sponsored student loan, to consolidate that student loan with other kinds of debt, also at advantageous interest rates. However, it should be kept in mind that interest paid on that line of credit (or any other kind of borrowing from a financial institution which is used to finance education costs) will never be eligible for the student loan interest tax credit.

As explained in the Canada Revenue Agency publication on the subject: “[I]f you renegotiated your student loan with a bank or another financial institution, or included it in an arrangement to consolidate your loans, you cannot claim this interest amount”. In other words, where a government student loan is combined with other debt and consolidated into a borrowing of any kind from a financial institution, the interest on that government student loan is no longer eligible for the student loan interest tax credit.

Students who are contemplating borrowing from a financial institution rather than getting a government student loan (or considering a consolidation loan which incorporates that government student loan amount) must remember, in evaluating the benefit of any preferential interest rate offered by a financial institution, to take into account the loss of the student loan interest tax credit on that borrowing in future years.

Finally, the federal government announced, in 2023, that interest would no longer be charged on Canada Student Loans, effective as of April 1, 2023 (although graduates are still responsible for any interest which was levied and accumulated prior to that date). Provincial and territorial student loan programs are not affected by the federal announcement and such loans may still be subject to interest charges, depending on the province. Where interest is levied on a loan provided under a government (federal or provincial) student loan program, that interest will be eligible for the student loan interest tax credit, as outlined above.

Other credits and deductions

While the available student-specific deductions and credits are more limited than they were in previous taxation years, there are nonetheless a number of credits and deductions which, while not specifically education-related, are frequently claimed by post-secondary student (for instance, deductions for moving costs). The Canada Revenue Agency publishes a very useful guide which summarizes most of the rules around income and deductions which may apply to post-secondary students. The current version of that guide (which was last updated in May 2024), entitled Students and Income Tax, is available on the CRA website at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publications/publications/p105.html.

During the 2024 calendar year, hundreds of thousands of Canadians will reach their 71^st birthday, and a significant percentage of that group are likely to have saved money for retirement through a registered retirement savings plan (RRSP). Every one of those individuals, whether they are retired, partly retired, or still in the work force, and regardless of the amount of savings accumulated in their RRSPs, will be required, by the end of the calendar year, to make a decision on how to structure and invest their retirement income for the remainder of their lives.

During the 2024 calendar year, hundreds of thousands of Canadians will reach their 71^st birthday, and a significant percentage of that group are likely to have saved money for retirement through a registered retirement savings plan (RRSP). Every one of those individuals, whether they are retired, partly retired, or still in the work force, and regardless of the amount of savings accumulated in their RRSPs, will be required, by the end of the calendar year, to make a decision on how to structure and invest their retirement income for the remainder of their lives.

The need to make that decision arises from the rule that all taxpayers who hold funds within an RRSP are required to collapse that RRSP by the end of the calendar year in which they turn 71 years of age – no exceptions and no extensions. It’s a very significant decision, as the course of action chosen will affect the individual’s income for the remainder of their life and, in some cases, actions taken cannot be undone.

While the actual decision is a complex one, the options available to a taxpayer who must collapse an RRSP are actually quite few in number – three, to be exact. They are as follows:

1. Collapse the RRSP and include all of the proceeds in income for that year;
2. Collapse the RRSP and transfer all proceeds to a registered retirement income fund (RRIF); and/or
3. Collapse the RRSP and purchase an annuity with the proceeds.

It’s not hard to see that the first option doesn’t have much to recommend it. Collapsing an RRSP without transferring the balance to a RRIF or using that amount to purchase an annuity means that every dollar in the RRSP will be treated as taxable income for that year. In some cases, where a substantial six figure amount has been saved in the RRSP, that can mean losing nearly half of the RRSP proceeds to income tax.  And, while any balance of proceeds left can then be invested, tax will be payable on all investment income subsequently earned.

As a practical matter, then, the choices come down to two: an RRIF or an annuity. And, as is the case with most tax and financial planning decisions, the best choice will be driven by one’s personal financial and family circumstances, risk tolerance, cost of living, and the availability of other sources of income to meet such living costs.

The annuity route has the great advantages of simplicity and reliability. In exchange for a lump-sum amount paid by the taxpayer, the issuer of the annuity agrees to pay the taxpayer a specific sum of money, usually once a month, for the remainder of their life. Annuities can also provide a guarantee period, in which the annuity payments continue for a specified time period (five years, 10 years), even if the taxpayer dies during that time. Finally, annuities can be set up as joint annuities, in which annuity payments will continue until the death of the last annuitant – such joint annuities are most often purchased by spouses. Regardless of how the annuity is structured, the amount of monthly income which can be received is determined by the amount used to purchase the annuity, and also by the gender and, especially, the age of the annuity purchaser(s).

The other factor influencing the amount of income which can be received from an annuity is the interest rates which prevail at the time the annuity is purchased. Between 2009 and 2022, interest rates were so low that an annuity purchase had very little to recommend it. Beginning in early 2022, however, the Bank of Canada increased its benchmark rate several times, and annuity payment rates increased as a result. Currently (as of July 2, 2024) annuity rates for each $100,000 paid to the annuity issuer by a taxpayer who is 70 years of age range from $630 to $662 per month for a male taxpayer and from $574 to $613 for a female taxpayer (the actual rate is set by the company which issues the annuity, and will differ slightly from company to company). Those rates do not include any guarantee period.

For taxpayers whose primary objective is to obtain a guaranteed life-long income stream without the responsibility of making any investment decisions or the need to take any investment risk, an annuity can be an attractive option. There are, however, some potential downsides to be considered. First, an annuity can never be reversed. Once the taxpayer has signed the annuity contract and transferred the funds, they are locked into that annuity arrangement for the remainder of their life, regardless of any change in circumstances that might mean an annuity is no longer suitable. Second, unless the annuity contract includes a guarantee period or is structured as a joint annuity, there is no way of knowing how many payments the taxpayer will receive. If they die within a short period of time after the annuity is put in place, there is usually no refund of amounts invested – once the initial transfer is made at the time the annuity is purchased, all funds transferred belong to the annuity company. Third, most annuity payment schedules do not keep up with inflation – while it is possible to obtain an annuity in which payments are indexed, having that feature will mean a substantially lower monthly payout amount. Finally, where the amount paid to obtain the annuity represents most or all of the taxpayer’s assets, entering into the annuity arrangement means that the taxpayer will not be leaving an estate for his or heirs.

The second option open to taxpayers is to collapse the RRSP and transfer the entire balance to a registered retirement income fund, or RRIF. An RRIF operates in much the same way as an RRSP, with two major differences. First, it’s not possible to contribute funds to an RRIF. Second, the taxpayer is required to withdraw an amount from their RRIF (and to pay tax on that amount) each year. That minimum withdrawal amount is a percentage of the outstanding balance, with that percentage figure determined by the taxpayer’s age at the beginning of the year. While the taxpayer can always withdraw more in a year (and pay tax on that withdrawal), they cannot withdraw less than the minimum required withdrawal for their age group.

Where a taxpayer holds savings in an RRIF, they can invest those funds in the same investment vehicles that were used while the funds were held in an RRSP. And, as with an RRSP, investment income earned by funds held inside an RRIF are not taxed as they are earned. While the ability to continue holding investments that can grow on a tax-sheltered basis provides the taxpayer with a lot of flexibility, that flexibility has a price in the form of investment risk. As is the case with all investments, investments held within an RRIF can increase in value – or decrease – and the taxpayer carries the entire investment risk. When things go the way every investor wants them to, investment income is earned while the taxpayer’s underlying capital is maintained, but that result is never guaranteed.

On the death of an RRIF annuitant, any funds remaining in the RRIF can pass to the RRSP or RRIF of the annuitant’s spouse on a tax-free basis. Where there is no spouse, the balance of funds in the RRIF will be treated, for tax purposes, as income to the RRIF annuitant in the year of death, and must be reported as income on the tax return for the year of death.

While the above discussion of RRIFs versus annuities focuses on the benefits and downsides of each, it’s not necessary – and in most cases not advisable – to limit the options to an either/or choice. It is possible to achieve, to a degree, the seemingly irreconcilable goals of lifetime income security and capital (and estate) growth. Combining the two alternatives – annuity and RRIF – either now or in the future can go a long way toward satisfying both objectives.

For everyone, whether in retirement or not, spending is a combination of non-discretionary and discretionary items. The first category is made up mostly of expenditures for income tax, housing (whether rent or the cost of maintaining a house), food, insurance costs, and (especially for older Canadians) the cost of out-of-pocket medical expenses. The second category of discretionary expenses includes entertainment, travel, and the cost of any hobbies or interests pursued. A strategy which utilizes a portion of RRSP savings to create a secure lifelong income stream to cover non-discretionary costs can remove the worry of outliving one’s money, while the balance of savings can be invested for growth and to provide the income for non-discretionary spending.

Such a secure income stream to cover non-discretionary expenses can, of course, be created by purchasing an annuity. As well, although most taxpayers don’t think of them in that way, the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS) have many of the attributes of an annuity, with the added benefit that both are indexed to inflation. By age 71, all taxpayers who are eligible for CPP and OAS will have begun receiving those monthly benefits. Consequently, in making the RRIF/annuity decision at that age, taxpayers should include in their calculations the extent to which CPP and OAS benefits will pay for their non-discretionary living costs.

As of July 2024, the maximum OAS benefit for most Canadians (specifically, those who have lived in Canada for 40 years after the age of 18) is about $718 ($790 for those aged 75 and older) per month. The amount of CPP benefits receivable by the taxpayer will vary, depending on their work history, but the maximum current benefit which can be received at age 65 is about $1,365. As a result, a single taxpayer who receives the maximum CPP and OAS benefits at age 65 will have $25,000 in annual income ($2,083 per month). And, for a married couple, of course, the total annual income received from CPP and OAS can be about $50,000 annually, or $4,166 per month. While $25,000 a year isn’t usually enough to provide a comfortable retirement, for those who go into retirement in good financial shape – meaning, generally, without any debt – it can go a long way toward meeting non-discretionary living costs. In other words, most Canadians who are facing the annuity versus RRIF decision already have a source of income which is effectively guaranteed for their lifetime and which is indexed to inflation. Taxpayers who are considering the purchase of an annuity to create the income stream required to cover non-discretionary expenses should first determine how much of those expenses can already be met by the combination of their (and their spouse’s) CPP and OAS benefits. The amount of any needed annuity purchase can then be set to cover off any shortfall.

While the options available to a taxpayer at age 71 with respect to the structuring of future retirement income are relatively straightforward, the number of factors to be considered in assessing those factors and making that decision are not. All of that makes for a situation in which consulting with an independent financial advisor on the right mix of choices and investments isn’t just a good idea, it’s a necessary one.

Most Canadians contemplate retirement with a mixture of anticipation and trepidation. While the benefits of an end to the day-to-day grind of work and commuting (while also having more free time to spend with family and friends) are undeniable, giving up a regular paycheque also means experiencing a degree of financial anxiety. For the majority of Canadians who are not members of a defined benefit pension plan, the overriding concern is how to manage retirement savings in a way that will generate sufficient income to provide a comfortable retirement, while still ensuring that accrued savings will last the remainder of one’s life. How, in other words, to avoid the dismal prospect of outliving one’s savings, or spending too much early in retirement and being left with insufficient income to meet one’s expenses late in life? And, of course, it’s impossible to find a definitive answer to that question, since none of us knows what the future holds, in terms of either health or longevity.

Most Canadians contemplate retirement with a mixture of anticipation and trepidation. While the benefits of an end to the day-to-day grind of work and commuting (while also having more free time to spend with family and friends) are undeniable, giving up a regular paycheque also means experiencing a degree of financial anxiety. For the majority of Canadians who are not members of a defined benefit pension plan, the overriding concern is how to manage retirement savings in a way that will generate sufficient income to provide a comfortable retirement, while still ensuring that accrued savings will last the remainder of one’s life. How, in other words, to avoid the dismal prospect of outliving one’s savings, or spending too much early in retirement and being left with insufficient income to meet one’s expenses late in life? And, of course, it’s impossible to find a definitive answer to that question, since none of us knows what the future holds, in terms of either health or longevity.

Typically, expenses are higher early in retirement, when retirees are likely to be healthier and more active, and retirement plans may include travel and the pursuit of hobbies and interests. However, while such activities and their associated costs likely dwindle as retirees age, other types of expenses come into play – especially expenses related to the need to pay for medical costs, household and personal services, and, ultimately, the prospect of paying for personal and/or medical care in an assisted living facility. The prospect of such future costs can make retirees reluctant to spend accrued savings (or annuity income), out of concern that such funds will be needed in the future to pay for care.

The worry about reaching an age where some degree of care is required (and must be paid for) is an entirely realistic one for retirees. According to Statistics Canada’s figures, the average Canadian who has reached the age of 75 has a life expectancy of another 12 years. And, since that figure represents an average, a significant number of 75-year-olds can expect to live longer than that. Again, according to StatsCan figures, in 2023 there were over 896,000 Canadians aged 85 or older.

With all of these demographic and financial realities in mind, a new kind of annuity – the advanced life deferred annuity, or ALDA – was created in 2019 and is now available to Canadians in the annuities marketplace. As is the case with all annuities, the issuer of an ALDA agrees, in exchange for receiving a specified lump sum amount, to provide an annual income of a specified amount to the annuitant. The difference, however, is while an ALDA can be taken out at any time, payments under the ALDA can be deferred to as late as the end of the year in which the annuitant turns 85.

For example, a retiree who turns 71 in 2024 and who has accumulated $500,000 in retirement savings could transfer $400,000 from his or her RRSP to an RRIF, and use the remaining $100,000 to purchase an ALDA, under which payments would begin at age 85. The retiree now has the security of knowing that the $400,000 held in the RRIF (plus any additional amounts earned from investment returns) doesn’t need to last for the unknown number of years remaining in their life, but instead for a specified period of time (in this case, 14 years), at which time the income stream from the ALDA will begin, to augment or replace the income from the RRIF.

There is a limit on the amount which can be used to purchase an ALDA. That limit is 25% of the amount held in an individual’s RRSP or RRIF, to a lifetime maximum. That lifetime maximum is indexed to inflation and stands at $170,000 for 2024. Taking the example outlined above, the retiree who has accumulated $500,000 in RRSP savings would be using 20% of that amount (or $100,000) to purchase the ALDA, and would be safely under the $170,000 lifetime limit.

While the security provided by such a retirement income structure would certainly be welcome to most retirees, the obvious concern where payments under an annuity are deferred is the possibility that the annuitant won’t live long enough to collect those payments, and that the funds expended to purchase the ALDA will effectively be wasted. There are two options to address that (legitimate) concern. First, an ALDA can be structured as a “joint-life” contract, under which payments will be made to the surviving annuitant (most often the spouse of the ALDA purchaser) for the remainder of their life. It’s also possible to structure the ALDA to provide for a lump sum death benefit to be paid to a beneficiary or beneficiaries (for example, the annuitant’s children) on the death of the annuitant. That death benefit can be any amount up to the amount of the original ALDA purchase, minus any amounts already paid out to the original annuitant. So if the original ALDA purchase was for $100,000 and $25,000 in benefits under the ALDA were paid out prior to the death of the original annuitant, the maximum death benefit amount would be $75,000.

Being able to have certainty of income for one’s very old age is a major benefit of purchasing an ALDA. There is, however, another benefit to be obtained, and that is income and tax deferral.

All Canadians who hold savings in an RRSP must collapse that RRSP by the end of the year in which they turn 71 and, in most instances, such individuals open an RRIF and transfer funds held in the RRSP to that RRIF. Once funds are held in an RRIF, a specified percentage of those funds must be paid out in each year to the RRIF holder. All such withdrawals constitute taxable income to the holder of the RRIF, and that taxable income can affect the RRIF holder’s eligibility for certain tax credits and benefits, like the age credit, Old Age Security benefits, and the GST/HST tax credit. Even if the RRIF holder does not actually need the total amount which must be withdrawn, there is no option to withdraw a lesser amount, and all funds withdrawn are treated as taxable income which can affect eligibility for tax credits and benefit – with no exceptions.

Where an RRIF holder purchases an ALDA, the amount used for that purchase is no longer included in the total balance on which the calculation of required RRIF withdrawals is based. Continuing the above example, if the RRIF holder used $100,000 of their retirement savings to purchase the ALDA, the amount which they would subsequently be required to withdraw from the RRIF each year would be calculated as a percentage of the remaining $400,000 – not the $500,000 which was held in the RRIF prior to the purchase of the ALDA.  Both the RRIF holder’s required income and their tax payable for the year will therefore be lower, and the loss of partial or full eligibility for tax credits and benefits will be less likely.

As is the case with most annuities, the terms of an ALDA (purchase amount, single vs. joint annuity, existence of a death benefit, age at which the income stream begins) are up to the ALDA purchaser and the issuer, as long as the basic tax rules governing such plans are adhered to. Everyone’s financial, health, and tax circumstances are different and, as is the case with any retirement income plan, those particular circumstances will drive the decisions made on the best retirement income structure for that individual. Purchasing an ALDA may be the right approach for some retirees, but not for others – but for everyone, having that option adds another element of flexibility to retirement income planning.

More information on ALDAs can be found on the federal government website at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/rrsps-related-plans/alda.html.

By the time summer arrives, nearly all Canadians have filed their income tax returns for the previous year, have received a Notice of Assessment from the tax authorities with respect to that return, and have either received their tax refund or, more grudgingly, paid any balance of tax owing.

By the time summer arrives, nearly all Canadians have filed their income tax returns for the previous year, have received a Notice of Assessment from the tax authorities with respect to that return, and have either received their tax refund or, more grudgingly, paid any balance of tax owing.

It’s a surprise, therefore, when unexpected mail arrives from the Canada Revenue Agency (usually in mid- to late July), and the information in that mail will likely be both unfamiliar and unwelcome. Specifically, the enclosed Instalment Reminder form will advise the recipient that, in the view of the CRA, they should make instalment payments of income tax on September 15 and December 15 of 2024 – and will helpfully identify the amounts which should be paid on each date.

No one particularly likes receiving unexpected mail from the tax authorities, and correspondence which suggests that the recipient should be making payments of income tax for 2024 to the CRA during the year (instead of when they file the return for 2024 in April 2025) is likely to be both perplexing and somewhat alarming. It’s fair to say that most Canadians aren’t familiar with the payment of income tax by instalments, and are therefore at a loss to know how to proceed the first time they receive an Instalment Reminder.

The reason that the instalment payment system is unfamiliar to most Canadians is that most of us pay income taxes during our working lives through a different system. Every Canadian employee has tax automatically deducted from their paycheque (“at source”), before that paycheque is issued, and that tax is remitted by the employer to the CRA on the employee’s behalf. Such deductions and remittances accrue to the employee’s benefit, and they are credited with those remittances when filing the annual tax return for that year. It’s an efficient system, but it’s also one which is largely invisible to the employee, and certainly one which operates without the need for the employee to take any steps on their own.

Where an individual is no longer an employee – for instance, they start a business and become self-employed, or retire and begin to receive retirement income from various government and non-government sources – such deductions and remittances are no longer automatically made. However, Canadian tax rules provide that, where the amount of tax owed when a return is filed by the taxpayer is more than $3,000 ($1,800 for Québec residents) in the current (2024) year and either of the two previous (2022 and 2023) years, that taxpayer may be subject to the requirement to pay income tax by instalments.

The reason that first instalment reminders are issued in August has to do with the schedule on which Canadians file their tax returns. The amount of tax payable on filing for the immediately preceding year can’t be known until the tax return for that year has been filed and assessed, and the tax return filing deadline for individuals is April 30 (or June 15 for self-employed taxpayers and their spouses). Consequently, by the middle of July, the CRA will have the information needed to determine whether a particular taxpayer should receive a first instalment reminder for the current year.

Taxpayers who receive that first Instalment Reminder in July may also be puzzled by the fact that it is a “Reminder” and not a “Requirement” to pay. The reason for that is that those who receive it are not actually required by law to make instalment payments of tax. There are, in fact, three options open to the taxpayer who receives an Instalment Reminder.

First, the taxpayer can pay the amounts specified on the Reminder, by the respective due dates of September 15 and December 15. A taxpayer who does so can be certain that they will not have to pay any interest or penalty charges even if they have to pay an additional amount on filing in the spring of 2024. If the instalments paid turn out to be