A high-income parent gives $80,000 to a 12-year-old child to invest in a non-registered bond fund. The parent expects the child to report the annual interest income. What rule should the planner identify?
A.
The income is always taxed to the child because the account is in the child’s name.
B.
Attribution rules may tax the interest income back to the parent.
C.
The child must contribute the amount to an RRSP.
D.
Attribution rules apply only when property is transferred to a spouse.
Canadian attribution rules are designed to prevent simple income splitting through transfers to related persons, including minor children. When a parent gifts property to a minor child, income such as interest and dividends from the transferred property may attribute back to the parent. The account name alone does not determine the tax result. Option A therefore misses the anti-avoidance rule. Option C is not practical unless the child has earned income and RRSP room, and it does not address attribution. Option D is too narrow; attribution can apply in several family-transfer situations. A planner should consider alternatives such as RESPs, Canada Child Benefit amounts actually belonging to the child, prescribed-rate loan structures with proper interest payment, or investing for capital gains where appropriate and legally supported. The advice must separate legal ownership, tax reporting, and beneficial source of funds. References/topics: income attribution, minor children, family tax planning, non-registered investments.
===============
Contribute your Thoughts:
Chosen Answer:
This is a voting comment (?). You can switch to a simple comment. It is better to Upvote an existing comment if you don't have anything to add.
Submit