Serbinski Accounting Firms

The simplest question you should have asked this @$#% was "if I don't have to report the income I earned in canada on a Cdn return, how do I get the tax that was withheld in Canada back".

Once her eyes stopped rolling in the back of her head, she would have had to do a little research.

You will not be taxable in canada on your non-Cdn income, from the day you left in 2006. the most you will be liable for is interst and penalties for filing late (but that is only if you still owe taxes to Canada -- unlikley if your wages were correctly withheld). You should be getting a refund ...

Man, some professionals are idiots.

Look at the CRA website, and you will see that you are classified as an EMIGRANT, and thus had to file a departure return, with a departure date, for 2006. You are ALWAYS required to report and pay tax on Cdn-source income (either on a Cdn return, or by flat non ...

Just to give yo ua quick example, since this confuses lots of people.

Say you took your house proceeds, $200K, and put in bank on Sept 1. The dollar was, say at par, now today, you have at 1.10, if you were to buy a C$50,000 car, or buy C$50,000 worth of euros, or put C$50,000 down on a condo, or ...

How much gain do you think you are going to have? You shouldn't be keeping several 100,000 in a bank anyways.

Besides, if the dollar has peeaked, you will actually have losses.

And, again, it not the conversion to US that would trigger taxes, it would be the changing of it from cash to anything ...

"At the top of all of this, yesterday I was really happy to learn from the forum that hard earned money from house sale will be taxed when I convert CAD to US"

Whay would you be taxed? tax has nothing to do with converting or not converting money, nor where it is kept. Your sale is tax-free. Period ...

Why did you submit NR73? It is not a required submission.

Now, it will seem starnge that you would have sent a documant that is not required, but not send one that is.


because you sent an NR73, I would now be sending T2062 as well.

In a sense it is admitting guilt, when maybe it would have gone ...

pretty much. Us health covergae is extremely expensive, and it will be reflected in the lowering of your offer if you insit that they pay for it. All other employee benefits (401(K), pension) are of little value to you -- at least until the treaty is ratified. Better to be a pure contractor (who ...

I don't see why they would be 'paying' healthcare. You don't need insuarnce coverage, so get them to pay YOU instead of covering you.

Its too early to give you any laymen's synopsis. Search for "US canada treaty protocol establishment" and you will fing tax alerts from the big firms.

I'm quite sure that being an employee is the worst case, as it will give rise without fail to FICA taxes (which in itself is not that bad), but will likley result in a lower wage than cutting you a check, since they will reduce your pay by all the fringe benefits, none of which you need or can use ...

Absent a more amenable employer, I guess this is the only way to get matching.

So, what I'm saying is that the current pension/Roth/IRA/401(k) situation for Cdn residents working in US is in one word: lousy.

With the new protocol, 401(k) become a WHOLE LOT more attractive, while Roths stay just as lousy.

As you say, a Roth currently is not recognized by CRA. As such, any contributions made are not deductible (they aren't in US eirther of course), the yearly internal income is taxable (not sheltered). There is no tax upon withdrawl, since, really, you are not withdrawing anything out of a sheltered ...

Without getting into the details about various types of Roths, I would point out one thing that is emerging from the new treaty provisions on Roth.

Roths contributed to by anyone (employer or worker) for the benefit of someone living in Canada will NOT be protected.

Only roth contributions made ...

My threads on 8891 have all the mechanics.