Stino Scaletta

Freehold Mineral Rights: Canadian Resource Property for Income Tax Purposes

Friday, September 16, 2011 by Stino Scaletta

 

A “Freehold Mineral Right” is Canadian Resource Property (CRP) for income tax purposes and is not considered capital property; any gain on the disposition of CRP either on a sale or upon death will be taxed at the 100% inclusion rate.

Income received from CRP is generally treated as investment income and as a result is not considered earned income for RRSP purposes nor is the income eligible for the small business rate for income tax if received by a corporation. A Canadian controlled private corporation which receives royalty income and pays a dividend to its shareholders will be entitled to a refund of some of the corporate taxes paid on the royalty income.

Upon the death of an individual CRP holder there will be a deemed disposition for proceeds equal to the fair market value on the final tax return and by definition the CRP cannot be reported on a “Right or Thing” tax return. If the value of the CRP is significant, the tax liability on the final tax return may create an unwanted tax burden to the estate causing a situation where the only recourse for the estate is to sell the CRP. Valuation of an interest in CRP has become complicated in that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) had previously allowed or not challenged the rule of thumb method of valuing CRP. The rule of thumb method uses a multiple applied to the average annual royalty income received.

Recently the CRA has stated through their audit process that a simple multiple of annual cash flow is not sufficient evidence of value and that a proper valuation should take into account initial production, decline rates, price forecasts and discounts factors. For situations when CRP is not yielding royalty income and a value is needed for estate or tax planning, consultation with a geologist, business valuator and tax specialist should be done prior to commencing the transaction.

For estate planning purposes, a popular strategy is to incorporate CRP thereby changing an income asset into a capital asset.

Advantages to Incorporation

The transfer of CRP can be done on a tax deferred basis with the ability to “freeze” the value of the estate. This frozen estate value can then be reduced over time on a tax efficient basis. There is also the ability to income split the royalty income with other family members. On death, the disposition of shares will be subject to tax at the 50% inclusion rate thereby reducing the estate tax on the CRP by 50%.

Disadvantages of Incorporation

The tax rate for Income on royalty income will be higher than the personal tax rate. There are potential pitfalls in that obscure tax such as corporate attribution, “kiddie” and land transfer tax may apply after the incorporation of the CRP.


Although incorporation of CRP can be used to minimize tax upon the death of a CRP holder, this strategy may not be appropriate for all situations and professional advice should be sought before proceeding. For more information please contact your local MNP Tax advisor or MNP business valuator.

Subscribe to email updates of MNP Tax blog posts here >>

Comments:

Monday, January 23, 2012 - 01:57PM GMT | Ty
"The tax rate for Income on royalty income will be higher than the personal tax rate." Hi could you please explain the above statement a little further? In a scenario where the CRP holder receives say $100,000 in royalty income and it is the only source of income for the household, would that household benefit more from the wife holding the CRP in her personal name or holding the CRP in a CCPC and splitting the income between the husband and wife. (Disregard rollover costs) Thank you.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 02:57PM GMT | Stino Scaletta
Ciao Tyler! In regard to your questions, I will provide answers in 2 parts. What I meant with the comment "the tax rate on royalty income will be higher than the personal tax rate"; under a scenario where mineral rights have been transferred to a corporation, there are 2 levels of taxation to consider. First the royalty income will be taxed at the corporate level, which for a Manitoba or Saskatchewan corporation will be 46.67%. A portion of this 'high rate" tax will go into a refundable pool whereby on a payment of dividend to the shareholders, the corporation will be refunded a portion of this 'high rate" tax. If a dividend paid to the shareholders is large enough, the full portion of the refundable pool will be credited to the corporation resulting in the corporate income tax rate going form 46.67% to 20%. Based on royalty income of $100,000, the second level of tax comes in the form of personal tax on the dividend received from the corporation ($80,000).; in Manitoba, the overall tax rate to a person receiving royalty income via a corporation would be around 36%. Had this person receive the royalty income personally, the effective tax rate (ignoring other income) would be slightly below 34%. In Saskatchewan, the combined corporate/personal tax rate would be around 30% whereas the personal tax rate would be 31% (a slight advantage in Saskatchewan for income at this level due to the tax on dividends being lower). If the royalty income is higher than $100,000, there may be a situation where the advantage for the Saskatchewan corporation may be lost. With respect to your second question of splitting income with a spouse, this area can be quite complicated as it relies on the value of the mineral rights being transferred plus the prescribed rate of interest being charged by the CRA. In simple terms, one must be cognizant of rules which are designed to limit or prevent income splitting with a spouse or minor children. In particular, Section 74.4 of the Income Tax Act contains a corporate attribution rule that applies where an individual has transferred property to a corporation and one of the main purposes is to reduce the income of that individual by shifting the income (from mineral rights) to minor children or to a spouse who owns greater than 10% of a class of shares (a designated person). This section applies only if the corporation was at anytime in a taxation year, not a small business corporation, which would be the case in your situation. This corporate attribution rule applies to create income in the hands of the individual who transferred property to a corporation and is designed to prevent income splitting of passive income, such as royalty income through the use of a corporation. When the corporate attribution rule applies it may result in double taxation; therefore it is important that you receive a return on the assets transferred to the corporation (base on the prescribed formula) before any income is allocated to your spouse who has not contributed mineral rights to the corporation. Even with the corporate attribution rules applying, that is, where you are compensated or given a fair return on the value contributed to the company, the allocation of income to a spouse may be beneficial in that the total income (based on $100,000 of total income for the household) may be taxed at favourable rates. However, not knowing all the facts (such as the value of the mineral rights), the tax liability may be different and can only be determined with some level of accuracy once all factors have been examined. Thank you for your question.

Add A Comment:

Anonymous
Required  
http:// (Optional)
 
Protected by FormShield
Refresh
Listen
<%=MNPPage.EnterSecurityCodeErrorText %>
  Enter the text from the image above. (Required)