Published on: 1/29/2014 2:20:36 PM Print | Font Sizes:  Normal Text Large Text

Should your family-run business pay into EI for relatives?


By: Laurie Bissonette

Laurie Bissonette, CA, is a partner with KPMG Enterprise. She can be reached at 705-669-2521 or lbissonette@kpmg.ca
Laurie Bissonette, CA, is a partner with KPMG Enterprise. She can be reached at 705-669-2521 or lbissonette@kpmg.ca

Is your company paying too much EI? Many family-run companies fail to realize family members working in the business are usually not eligible to collect Employment Insurance if they’re laid off for any reason, including shortage of work, maternity leaves, etc.

That means neither the company nor the employee should be paying EI premiums.

Premiums can cost the employee and employer more than $2,000 each year.

For example, in 2014 employers will pay $1,279 for each insurable employee who earns $48,600 or more and the employees will each pay $913.

However, there is a saving grace: employers and employees who have overpaid may be able to claim refunds going back three years.

The rules are intended to prevent abuse of the EI system by stopping employers from creating artificial employment situations for family members.

But how is eligibility determined? An employee is not eligible to claim EI benefits and thus does not have to pay premiums if he or she controls more than 40 per cent of the corporation’s shares or if the employee and employer are not dealing at arm’s length.

The 40 per cent share ownership rule is fairly straightforward, but determining whether there is a non- arm’s length relationship between the employer and employee can be more complicated.

Employees who are closely related to their employers are usually not dealing at arm’s length. These relatives include a spouse or common-law partner, children, parents, and brothers and sisters of an owner.

When ruling on a particular situation, the Canada Revenue Agency looks at the nature of the employment along with the relationship between the parties. To determinewhether employees are not dealing at arm’s length with their employers, the CRA considers the circumstances of their employment.

In some situations, relatives can be considered to be at arm’s length if the circumstances of their employment are substantially similar to those that would exist if they were dealing at arm’s length. These employees would pay EI premiums and be eligible for benefits if they were laid off. If you can convince the CRA that the company would have entered into a similar employment contract with an employee who was not a relative, then it will consider the employment to be arm’s length.

To determine whether an employee is not dealing at arm’s length with the employer, the CRA looks at a long list of factors.

For example, does the employee’s pay reasonably compare to that an arm’s length employee would accept for similar work?

Does the employee receive bonuses or benefits other employees do not get?

Does the employee work significantly more or less hours than other employees, or on what would normally be a day off with no extra pay?

Are the employee’s hours tracked in the same way as other staff ?

Is the vacation taken consistent with standard employees?

Other factors include whether the employee has access to the businesses’ assets that other employees in similar positions do not, and whether the employee has signing authority for company cheques and guarantees.

Unfortunately, companies and employees may only discover they have overpaid EI premiums when the employee is laid off and finds out he or she cannot claim EI benefits.

If you’re not sure about the arm’s length status of any of your company’s employees, you can request a ruling from the CRA.

The CRA may ask for information consistent with that information reflected herein to make its ruling but the benefits of requesting the ruling can be substantial.

comments powered by Disqus

Videos

Loading
Loading Viddler Videos

    Advertisement

    Advertisement