Talk:Tax-free savings account

Canada: Law Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Taxation (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gambling

This could be just another way to get people gambling on the stock market...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.149.236 (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign holdings

The article says it's identical to RRSP for taxes, but Canada has agreements with other countries so that foreign RRSP holdings aren't taxed by those countries. For example, US dividends in a TFSA will be taxed by the US government (this won't happen with an RRSP). See http://blog.taxresource.ca/tfsa-non-resident-withholding-taxes/ --64.7.132.78 (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overcontribution

73,000 Canadians got hit with stiff penalties from the CRA for the 2009 tax year. Overcontribtion laws are poorly laid out and make no real sense. Canadians should be aware of these laws and the penalties they carry. For example, you could have never gone over your $5000 limit and still end up with a $25,000 over contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.161.130 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I am hit by that. How to defend myself? 216.19.183.88 (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The article states: "This measure was well received by Canadians, " and as an example of these "Canadians" it sources the C.D. Howe Institute, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Canadian Bankers Association, Bank of Montreal economist Doug Porter, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

These are financial institutes, bankers, and organizations funded by them. Perhaps evidence for how well received it was should be substantiated by parties without a business interest in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.20.26 (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is not a financial institute. It is a charitable organization devoted to fighting for taxpayers' rights. I can't see how they would have a "business interest" in protecting TFSA. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of $$$

How do I make millions of $$$ using TFSA? The article should explain this. 206.47.141.21 (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions by spouse

The article says:

The TFSA also allows income splitting to an extent, because a higher-earning spouse can contribute to the TFSA of a lower-earning spouse.

This isn't true anymore so I've deleted it. When TFSAs were first announced, the budget indicated spouses would be able to contribute to each other's TFSA, but the actual legislation only allows the account holder to contribute. CRA's TFSA page [1] notes this rule (page retrieved on June 11, 2013). -Shaundd (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overcontributions section

I removed the sentences below from the former Overcontributions section (after merging it with Contribution room). IMO, this unreferenced piece provides very little encyclopaedic value, and reads way too much as a tax-advice article. If you see value in it, can find references and are willing to re-write, here it is...

For example, if you contributed $5,000 to a TFSA in January 2009, withdrew it all in July, and then later recontributed the $5,000 in November 2009, this would put you in an overcontribution position because the $5,000 July withdrawal does not create further room until 2010. This rule has caused much confusion.
The CRA recommended taxpayers still send in their payment penalty with the TFSA return and a letter explaining the situation by June 30, 2010. The CRA stated it would review this information on a case by case basis. If relief was granted, the CRA said they would return the payment. As of June 2010, the CRA has received about 10,000 responses to its letter from taxpayers.
TFSA holders can wait until they receive a Notice of Assessment, expected to be issued in August 2010, and then either file a formal Notice of Objection or apply for administrative relief by writing to the CRA. The risk of waiting, however, is that a late-filing penalty as well as interest may be charged by the CRA.

--Truther2012 (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creditor protection

Problems

Missing citations
RRSPs are not always protected from creditors. Province determines level of protection.
Contributions made to RRSPs in the 12 months prior to a claim may not be protect. Also varies by province.
TFSAs may be protected from creditors if structured right with the help of an insurance company.

E.g. http://www.ironshield.ca/articles/tax-free-savings-accounts-tfsa-myths-and-tips

South African TFSA

Is there any reason why all references to South African TFSAs were removed?

From time to time I find references to South African TFSAs, which were introduced on March 1, 2015. We know that a South African resident aged 18 and above can contribute up to 33,000 rands yearly, after which overcontribution can occur with a 40% penalty, and the lifetime contribution limit is 500,000 rands. In addition, the entirety of a TFSA can be transferred between financial institutions free of charge up to twice in a fiscal year.

References:

--Xiaoshan Math (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa's TFSA should have its own article. I don't see much value in the section "Similar accounts in other countries" in this article. Mind matrix 13:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then, perhaps, it would be correct to rename the current article to Tax-Free Savings Account (Canada) if it concerns such accounts only in that particular country? Enivid (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 August 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved with respect to casing, no clear consensus with respect to disambiguators. It unfortunately muddies the discussion when editors are disputing two different issues in the same proceeding, with disagreement centering on only one of the two. A separate move request would be the best means of dealing with the unclear issue. bd2412 T 04:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Per MOS:CAPS, Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization, and it is not necessary to use caps just because of the way the topic is abbreviated. Compare, for example, to Individual retirement account and Employee stock purchase plan and Certificate of deposit. (Also note that Locked-In Retirement Account is contrary to the usual MOS:HYPHENCAPS rule about following a hyphen with a capital letter.) —BarrelProof (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support for reasons above. Primergrey (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because parenthetical qualifier Canada was removed. What's the harm in keeping it? (was Strongly support, which continues for the original proposal. Well cited rationale, BarrelProof. You've explained it well.) Doug Mehus (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am glad you agree. I don't think this RM really has anything to do with the one at Talk:Canadian Tire Financial Services, and I wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that there is some !vote-trading happening here. There is not, so let's please keep these discussions separate. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, sorry, I didn't know that was discouraged. I appreciate you clarifying. Nevertheless, that wasn't my intent, either. My intent was just to establish positive rapport and show that despite our initial disagreement in that RM, that I can be neutral in expressing support for this RM. Hope that makes sense. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good. I think the situation is clear then. Happy editing. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The comment above was changed after there was some further commentary, so reading the above may be a bit confusing. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it seems desirable to remove "(Canada)" from Tax-Free Savings Account (Canada) and Retirement Compensation Arrangements (Canada), since the "(Canada)" seems to be unnecessary for disambiguation. Like Individual retirement account, there could be other plausible meanings, but if someone is using that specific phrase, they are probably looking for the Canada topic. Currently (since undiscussed moves in September 2011 and May 2019), Retirement Compensation Arrangements is a redirect to Retirement Compensation Arrangements (Canada) and Tax-Free Savings Account is a redirect to Tax-Free Savings Account (Canada). The September 2011 move had no edit summary, and the edit summary for the May 2019 move was "South African TFSAs should have their own page". Wikipedia does not practice pre-emptive disambiguation, so unless the South African topic is discussed on Wikipedia and is frequently consulted, it may not be necessary to disambiguate that. The same editor also added a red link to Tax-Free Savings Account (South Africa) at TFSA (disambiguation) one minute later and added the same red link to the "See also" section of this article at about the same time. It is still a red link, and I just reverted those additions. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to @BarrelProof: Since there's already tax-free savings accounts elsewhere, I don't think we should be trying to be in a race to be WP:PrimaryTopic. Thus, while I support, strongly, the original proposal to remove capitalization on the words following the first word, initial character, I've modified my !vote in light of this change. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is some other article on Wikipedia that we think people would be looking for with the phrase "tax-free savings account", there is no need for the parenthetical disambiguator. No one has identified such an article. If someone eventually does, the disambiguation can happen then. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this article also has two sentences that discuss the tax-free savings accounts in South Africa, and I am not aware of any other articles on Wikipedia that discuss tax-free savings accounts in South Africa, so people looking for information about that topic should be looking for this article. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support downcasing per WP:NCCAPS. Neutral on the (Canada) disambiguator question. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support change in case, and support removing parenthetical qualifier unless there is an actual conflict with an existing article.--Trystan (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 7 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– For goodness sakes, Tax-free savings account and Retirement compensation arrangements are red links! So why do we have parenthetical disambiguators here? But for some reason we were not able to reach a clear consensus about this in the other RM that was just closed. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first seems too generic to refer primarily to the Canadian account; if you were searching for "tax free savings account" in the UK it's more likely you'll be looking for Individual Savings Account which is roughly equivalent. Neutral on the second. PC78 (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to @BarrelProof: - I see it was moved with respect to lowercase version of "savings account", which I originally supported. As such, I'd like to propose an alternate proposal: create a disambiguation page for the unqualified pages? You or I could do that, no? I would also support this move as proposed, if unopposed, so long as should other countries adopt the same naming convention, we moved it back to the parenthetical qualifier. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support The unqualified names should obviously not be red. So either they should be the new titles of the "(Canada)" articles, or they should go to dab pages. I have not seen any convincing suggestions for what else would be appropriate to list on a TFSA or RCA dab page. If I'm a user in the UK and I want to learn about an investment account that I can open that will be exempt from tax, then either A) I'm familiar with Individual Savings Accounts by name, so I'll look that up, or B) I'll type something like "savings account tax exempt" into google. What I'm not going to do is type what is (as far as I know) a vague, invented phrase like "tax free savings account" into Wikipedia and expect it to understand what I'm looking for and whisk me to the appropriate article (somehow taking into account my location). Wikipedia is not a search engine. Even if a dab page can be mustered for either phrase, it would be very strange to me if the articles listed in this move were not primary, since there don't seem to be any other exact (or even very close) title matches. Colin M (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin M: Yeah, like I said, I'm not really taking a position one way or the other. I'm fine with the move as proposed, so long as User:BarrelProof would be fine with adding a parenthetical qualifier if and when more than, say, two other countries adopt as their registered plan names Tax-free savings account. Then, we should definitely have a dab page as you suggest, but if Canada is the only one (save for maybe South Africa), it could probably be WP:PrimaryTopic with a hatnote to the South Africa article? Doug Mehus (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. We can always do something different in the future, but I think it is clear that the Canadian topic is currently the primary topic on Wikipedia for each of these names as exact phrases. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support with either (a) a hatnote to the South Africa savings plan or (b) a See also reference in the article footer, per User:BarrelProof's comment above. Doug Mehus (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Since we have not actually identified any other article that discusses the South Africa savings plan, there is nothing to refer to in a hatnote or "see also" section. There is already some mention of the South Africa savings plan in this article. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

When is the next year's rate announced?

Does anybody know when the rate for the next year's contribution is announced? We know that the rate for 2024 is $7000, but I would like to know the rate for 2025.165.140.231.71 (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]