Case study 1
Allocating a distribution across a reconstructed holding period
The allocation is made across the period the units were held, so the calculation could not begin until the acquisition history was settled. The client had bought in tranches and reinvested distributions for years, each reinvestment creating units of its own with their own start date. We rebuilt the history from account statements and the fund's records, allocated the payment across each tranche separately, and set the results out in one schedule. The engagement produced the allocation, the supporting acquisition history, and a file that answers the only question the computation really turns on.
Case study 2
Handling the first substantial payment from a long-held accumulating fund
The fund had distributed nothing for years and then made a single large payment, which is the pattern that produces almost entirely an excess distribution, because the permitted amount is measured against what was paid in preceding years. We established the distribution history, worked out how little of the payment fell inside the permitted amount, and computed the throwback and interest elements for each earlier year. The engagement produced the computation, the disclosure, and advice on the holding itself, since leaving it untouched would repeat the exercise on every future payment.
Case study 3
Separating a sale and a distribution falling in the same year
The client sold part of a holding and received a payment on the remainder in the same year, and the two had been added together in a single figure. They cannot be. The payment is tested against the permitted amount and allocated across the period the units were held; the gain on the units sold is allocated across their own period, which ends at the sale. We unpicked the transactions, computed each on its own terms and in order, and reconciled the total to the broker's records. The engagement produced two separate computations and a note on the order in which they were done.
Case study 4
Setting out the interest charge year by year for the return
The tax and the interest are worked out for each year in the holding period rather than in one sum, and a return that presents a single total cannot be checked by anyone, including the person who prepared it. We laid the computation out year by year, with the slice allocated to each year, the rate applied to it and the period over which interest ran, each on its own line. The engagement produced that schedule as a supporting attachment, which made the return reviewable and gave the client a document that stands up to a later query.
Case study 5
Showing a client why a portfolio loss could not be offset
The client had realised a loss on one investment in the same year as a large payment from a foreign fund, and had assumed the two would net off. They do not, because the thrown-back amounts are ordinary income of earlier years and sit outside the capital gains computation where losses pool. We prepared both computations to show the position plainly, then looked at whether the order of intended sales could be changed for future years. The engagement produced the filed computation, a written explanation, and a revised plan for realising the remaining positions.
Case study 6
Stopping further years being added to the throwback period
The immediate liability was settled, but the holding was still under the default rules, so every further year of ownership was adding another slice for the next payment or sale to be thrown back into. We reviewed what the fund would supply and how its units traded, to see which of the elections was actually open, then made the election together with a step that treated the units as sold at that point so the earlier period was closed off. The engagement produced the election, the computation for the earlier period, and a fresh starting cost for the years ahead.
Case study 7
A Relief That Turned on Days Nobody Had Recorded
Treaty exemption, residence and social security are each decided by a count that has to be evidenced rather than recalled. The engagement builds the record from tickets, rosters and payroll before applying any article.
Read how this one runs
Case study 8
Canadian Pension Paid Abroad and Taxed at the Flat Rate
Pension and annuity payments to a non-resident carry a flat withholding that often exceeds what a return would produce. The alternative filing is elective, and whether it helps depends on the total income for the year rather than on the payment alone.
Read how this one runs
