Spring Promo | Page 3 | Tangerine Bank | Discussion forum

Loonie said
One has to be realistic. No bank is ever going to be sufficiently charmed by anyone's deposits, in the current interest rate environment, to offer their highest rates to anyone all the time.

Anyway, I lucked out this time at 3.21. Had had very little in savings for the last six months or so. I have zero expectation of getting this every time but happy to take it when it comes.  

I have the same outlook.

Slybanking said
For wath it's worth, I talked to my fiscalist last month and he said no way CRA would ever care or act on money going from one spouse account to another unless one of the spouse never worked at all and even then, it would have to be huge amounts of money. I do it all the time using our joint account to move money from my account to my wife's account.

Loonie said
It would be reassuring if CRA would come here and say this themselves.
A little "advertising" on this would be quite welcome, with a link to the new improved policy.
So, you see, I'm not completely opposed to advertising!

That is not strictly correct. CRA does care.

There's no longer any gift taxes in Canada. So, it is not the transfers that CRA is interested in. If one spouse gives the other $100,000 in cash, there isn't an issue with CRA.

It is any income on the money and who owes the tax on the income that is of interest. It is that 2% a year of interest ($2,000 a year) or that 4% a year in dividends ($4,000 a year/$5,520 taxable) on the money that they would have be interest in.

I assumed the gist of the fiscalist's remark was that the CRA would never come sit at your kitchen table and make you prove what money in which accounts was actually earned by which spouse. If both spouses work, or have worked for extended periods over the years, would they bother? Attribution of exact monies would be pretty hard to prove either way.

Bill said
… I wonder how many people on here (who don't have business activity, are just T4 employment income earners) have ever been subjected to a comprehensive CRA audit that would pick up something like that.

RicksBank said
I assumed the gist of the fiscalist's remark was that the CRA would never come sit at your kitchen table and make you prove what money in which accounts was actually earned by which spouse. If both spouses work, or have worked for extended periods over the years, would they bother? Attribution of exact monies would be pretty hard to prove either way.  

It can be done. One just needs to keep track.

CRA doesn't have to do a field audit for that. They can just send out a letter asking the couple to substantiate the split on the interest for the accounts.

CRA and the taxpayer don't actually have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Both just have to show a probable attribution.

CRA isn't going to put the effort in if there won't be a difference in taxes paid. If both spouses are in the same tax bracket, then it is not really material which spouse pays the same income tax on the interest.

Well true to my name I was a bit slow checking Tang until today, not having received an email from them yet.
Last few times we had no offers and my cash has been chillin at EQ.
So this time we moved all the cash in the other accounts out or to Tang chequing
We both received the ok 2.81% offer. At least I received one this time, but seems low compared to others

To me an inquiry about a specific item on a tax return every few decades or so is hardly evidence that CRA is watching - in fact, it's quite the opposite. My experience is that CRA is like much of law enforcement, it relies heavily on the public's perception that it is watching every move. I have some knowledge of their "fraud" division (no, not in an adversarial way) and their main modus operandus is to get the occasional conviction and then have the media heavily publicize it to create the impression miscreants will be caught.
And, yes, a desk audit is a review done from a CRA office based on information filed by the taxpayer. For those familiar with the term, it's a misleading exaggeration to use the word "audit" but, again, it sounds more impressive.