Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


rglasgow last won the day on June 1

rglasgow had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1406 Good People

About rglasgow

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

2599 profile views
  1. So a lot of this is how you structure it. Let's take an example. You're a second year associate. You earned $100K last year, and worked hard and got a 25% bonus. That bonus is paid in February and direct to your RRSP and so bypasses withholding. Let's also assume it's a rough year, so your salary for 2020 is held at $100K (just to make the math easier to see). Right now your 2019 income is $100K, and your 2020 income is $125K (since your bonus was paid to you in 2020). However, you're only withheld on $100K since that $25K bypassed withholding. You can now make a choice on how to designate your RRSP amount (assuming you deposited the bonus in the stump period of 2020) - to 2019 or 2020 taxes. If you assign the RRSP to the 2020 tax year, it will offset itself so leaving you with nothing owing. Come year end they'll say "Your income was $25K, but you have a $25K RRSP deduction, so it's a wash". You withheld on $100K, you have $100K taxable, so no changes. Your 2019 income will also be $100K and you withheld on $100K so you, again, have no changes. If you assign the RRSP to the 2019 tax year, then things change. Now in 2019 you have only $75K taxable but the government withheld on $100K. So you're owed a fairly hefty tax refund that they'll pay you in April 2020. However, because you designated that $25K deduction to 2019, you now have no similar deduction for 2020. So you'll only have withheld $100K worth of taxes, even though your taxable income for 2020 is $125K. So you'll owe taxes on that $25K. Unless you kill it again and get another 25K bonus for the 2020 year and assign that back to your 2020 tax year. That's the "overhang" that you have to be prepared for. But by doing so you get the immediate refund you can turn around and invest/use as essentially an interest free loan until the end of the tax year.
  2. So now I'm not a tax person so don't rely on this, but I believe it's that it gets around withholding. Most Bay Street firms pay out bonuses in January/February for the year prior. So ordinarily they'd be subject to full withholding (including CPP/EI). If your employer makes a payment of your bonus directly to a registered account (either through an e-transfer or through a cheque completed in a manner that designates it specifically to the Registered Account and notes that it is a bonus, and provides a letter of direction to the recipient entity), then you don't get charged any withholding for that money. Now it still counts as income in the year it's earned, so you still owe taxes on it. But you can claim the RRSP deduction for the year prior (as you can on any contribution up to a certain cut off - I think this year it was March 1), and instead of paying withholding immediately, you end up only owing it in the following year's taxes. When you can use your next bonus to offset the bonus amount of the year prior. Eventually if you get fired, or get no bonus, or move to a position that doesn't pay a bonus, you end up having a bigger tax bill owing, but you've deferred that money for some time.
  3. I would also note most people I know invest their bonus money into their RRSP as that also has some beneficial tax deferral benefits.
  4. I practice in the trade and government procurement space. My colleagues in the group also do a lot of regulatory work (labeling, product standards, etc.). Practice is pretty bumping at the moment.
  5. Remember Bill Ackman bet big on Herbalife failing - didn't go that well for him (among other bad bets). Lots of people with big money will make the wrong call (indeed, from a regression to the mean perspective most of them are due to given the role of luck and "timing" in a lot of their success). I'd also echo @WiltedGlory - I'd likely stake a lot more on the view if it were more of an academic observation (or if it were initially made prior to the investment of funds). Once the funds are invested, it becomes all that much more difficult to get yourself out of a position and accept you were wrong. Note - I could be entirely wrong about this. But I think we also have no real playbook because we've never really done the whole "shut this thing down for a couple months, pay people to keep them stocked in cash, and then turn the system back on with all that pent up demand".
  6. So as one note - in my own practice area there's a lot to be said for a wholly domestic firm. You may think that working for an international firm means that they must have a top notch international trade group. The problem is in flow - when you're in an international firm you generally only get inflow from your other offices. If you're Mayer Brown, do you want to be feeding the Canadian arm of one of your US competitors? Or would you rather channel it to a firm that essentially only practices in Canada - knowing that your core business in the US is safe? It's why the top notch trade firms in Canada are McCarthy Tetrault, BLG, and BJ (the latter two are a funny story - because it used to be just McT and BJ, but then BLG poached three big name in the space partners and a passel of associates splitting the group in two). I'd also note that just as ranking entities like Chambers/Lexpert etc. are supergranulated, the expertise/regard of firms is similarly granular. You'll get firms that are good not just at "real property" but "real property transactions in the P3 space" or REIT specialists etc. Trying to come up with a ranking that's holistic and measures absolutely everything on a global basis is (in my view) a fool's errand.
  7. Don't know what you're talking about. I'm completely stealthy and unknown.
  8. Come on man. It was right there for you.
  9. Yeah that characterization isn't right - but the poster there was strongly playing into type for it. I also agree pro bono isn't a replacement, but I think it's important for lawyers to try and engage in at least some form of community involvement in providing accessible legal services or education. To go along with massive increases in funding by the Ontario government for legal aid/modernization of the system to take things into at very least the early 2000s in terms of technology (I'm not asking for much).
  10. I mean, one way to do it is charge licensing fees that are scaled to individual/firm revenues to help fund programs for pro bono or reduced rate work (in my experience, I've seen better client outcomes on severely cut rates - like clients essentially paying minimum wage - as the client becomes more invested in things). One may also say that you have a fundamental duty to try and engage in, at very least, some forms of community education and outreach if not outright pro bono work. At a minimum you can participate in the legal aide hotlines that are set up - there's just as much need for good solicitor side people to provide basic legal advice as there is for litigators.
  11. Shortly after the announcement: Well played, FCA... well played.
  12. I think what he's saying is that the concept of a single middle class across all of Canada based upon income levels is kinda silly. Someone making $50K a year in North Bay has a very different COL/lifestyle than someone making $50K a year in downtown Toronto. It's the same logic behind why having a single minimum wage, that isn't tied to local/regional COL is also somewhat silly. If you're in Toronto I can easily see how you could earn more than a large proportion of Canadians but still be "middle class" in the context of the city in which you live. You also get into the water level trap - our spending tends to rise to fit the level we have, which leads to people feeling budget constrained without necessarily realizing it. We also have a natural aversion to not want to think of ourselves as "the upper class" because then who are we going to say should be taxed more? Ourselves? Pish, we're middle class, tax those rich(er than me) people! But this is all a little off topic. Back to the issue at hand - these cuts are a travesty and the AG should feel the deepest levels of shame for the way she throws the collective legal community here under the bus. Legal aid lawyers are fucking heroes and deserve more money and funding, not cuts. Fuck her, and fuck Doug Ford for doing this.
  13. After many attempts, apparently linking images is borked. But video works!
  14. Decision immediately is invalidated as LSUC no longer exists
  15. I once had a motion on the morning of Christmas Eve.
  • Create New...