The financial meltdown has caused many entrepreneurs to re-evaluate their retirement plans and wealth planning. Business owners face postponement, if not elimination, of retirement plans because of a decrease in the market valuation necessary to support those plans. Yet changing Canadian demographics may in the long-term have an even greater impact than the current recession for the small and medium sized enterprises.
Recessions come and go. Anyone in business more than twenty years has gone through at least one prior recession. When a recession first takes hold, it always seems that this one is the “worst” or the “big one” or “like the great depression”. Yet while there are failures, most businesses survive and within a few years recover with the rest of the economy and the retirement plan continues, perhaps slightly postponed. So what is different about demographics, and why might demographics pose an even larger threat to a succession, liquidity and wealth planning?
Demographics are about population characteristics. Canada’s is aging. The baby boom generation will complete its journey into retirement in the next ten to fifteen years. The generation after that is smaller, and the generation after that is smaller still. Records show that in 1921, one in twenty persons was over 65 years of age; by 2026 one in five persons in Canada will be over the age of 65. Virtually nothing can change this. A massive (and highly unlikely) baby boom will not change this.
The implication for the owner of a small or medium sized business is that there will be relatively more sellers, and fewer buyers, than there are today. Demographics dictate that this will get worse, not better, for the foreseeable future. The business owners that succeed with their retirement plans are those that plan for succession and liquidity now, and implement the plan well in advance of the day that they want to turn over the keys to the business and hit the golf links.
Frequently Asked Questions
I want to become an entrepreneur and start a business. Should I incorporate now, or start as a sole proprietorship and delay incorporation to a later date?
The advisability of incorporation is dependent on the particular facts and personal preferences of the entrepreneur. The role of the Lawyer and other professional advisors is to help draw out the relevant facts and explore personal preferences to assist the entrepreneur in making the decision that is right for her. Some of the relevant factors include:
Risk. Is the proposed business inherently risky? The shield of limited liability that an incorporated entity provides to the entrepreneur is an important benefit (note that the shield from liability is not absolute);
Tax. A valuable attribute of an incorporated entity is the relatively low tax rate (approx. 16%) payable on the first $500,000 of net income. This allows a profitable incorporated entity to grow much quicker using internally generated working capital than a similarly sole proprietorship where a marginal tax rate in excess of 50% of profits may be payable. An exception is where the sole proprietor has other sources of income and it is anticipated that the new business will suffer losses in the start-up year(s) – it may be possible to set off the losses against the other income and thus reduce the overall tax burden;
Costs. Incorporation of the business at an early stage is less expensive than incorporation once the business is up and running. Once the business (sole proprietorship) is up and running it is generally necessary to use a “rollover” transaction to transfer the business from the sole proprietorship to the corporation.
Separate Existence. An incorporated entity has a legal existence separate and apart from the entrepreneur. This provides for a number of real and perceived benefits including (generally): broader alternatives for raising capital; easier salability of the business and possible availability of lifetime capital gains exemption to avoid tax on sale, continuous existence past the life of the entrepreneur, public perception of greater substance, and easier separation of personal and business dealings.
I have a corporation the shares of which are held only by me and members of my immediate family. Do I really need to have annual minutes?
If your corporation is audited by the CRA and matters, such as the declaration of dividends, have not been formally documented by a written resolution of the directors or in annual minutes, the consequence can be severe. There are other risks that may be avoided by having minutes prepared annually. This is analogous to your dentist who encourages you to have good dental hygiene and periodic check-ups so that small problems do not become big problems. Practicing good corporate hygiene just makes good sense.
The minimum legal obligation of a corporation is to hold an annual meeting of shareholders to consider the financial statements, elect directors and to appoint (or dispense with the appointment of) the auditor. In practice, and as permitted by statute, narrowly held corporations often dispense with an annual meeting in favor of signed resolution of all of the shareholders. The failure to hold annual resolutions, or obtain written resolutions in lieu, can lead to legal action from disgruntled shareholders.
The practice of holding annual meetings (or resolutions in lieu) also tends to ensure that corporate matters requiring attention are addressed, such as share transfers, changes to directors, and address changes, which if left unaddressed could become significant problems.
An effective method of ensuring good “corporate hygiene” is for the corporation to instruct its accounting advisors to provide legal counsel with an annual letter of instructions to document applicable financial matters.
It is not uncommon that a new client brings us a minute book that has not been properly organized, or that has not been updated for many years. It is not a cause for embarrassment. We strongly encourage that the minute books be updated before an issue arises, such as a CRA audit.
I am considering the acquisition of a business. Long term contracts between the business and third parties are important to the business. Do such contracts affect the decision to acquire shares or assets of the business?
There are a number of factors to be taken into account when purchasing an existing business including tax, liability, due diligence and employee matters. Your question relates to the contracts between the business and third parties. These contracts may include rights obtained by the business necessary to carry on the business, such as licenses or franchises, or the benefit of sale or service agreements for the supply of products or services that generate revenue for the business.
A fundamental difference between an asset purchase and a share purchase is that in an asset sale the contracts must be assigned (along with the transfer of assets) while in a share sale the contracts remain intact (since only the shares of the business itself are transferred).A comprehensive review of all important contracts is advisable as early as possible during the due diligence process to determine rights and obligations. If third party consents are required, consideration must be given as to the risk that such consents may not be available in a timely manner, or at all, and whether the transaction may be better structured to avoid the necessity for assignment. In some less common circumstances there is an outright bar to assignment and consents cannot be obtained (this is the case in some government procurements). The acquisition of the business in such circumstances may only be achieved through a share sale to avoid termination of such contract(s). It should also be noted that some contracts contain provisions that deem a change of control from a sale of shares to be equivalent to assignment, and triggering the necessity for third party consent.