6 worked Farming Tax Returns case studies — the position a client typically comes to us with, what we do, and what it is worth. Each is an illustrative example built on the rules that apply to farming tax returns work, not a specific client's file.
Case Study 1 · Planning that cut the bill
$41,000 Saved By Correcting What Prior Filings Had Missed — Property Joint Venture, Surrey
Client: A joint-venture property partnership · Where: Surrey, British Columbia · Engagement: 6 weeks, fixed fee
Saving identified$41,000
RecurringYes
Positions documentedAll
The situation — A joint-venture property partnership, Surrey, British Columbia
A joint-venture property partnership in Surrey, British Columbia asked for a second opinion on farming tax returns. That followed three years of rising tax. The review found a proprietor planning around a September year-end that the rules did not permit.
What we did for A joint-venture property partnership, Surrey, British Columbia
We built the comparison first: current structure against two alternatives. Then we drafted the allocation, admission and withdrawal terms into a written agreement before the next partner was admitted.
The result — A joint-venture property partnership, Surrey, British Columbia
First-year saving of $41,000, with the same benefit recurring. Every position taken is documented and supported in the file.
Case Study 2 · Objection and relief
Notice Of Objection Allowed In Full, $119,000 Reversed — Family-Staffed Proprietorship, Barrie
Client: A proprietor whose spouse works in the business · Where: Barrie, Ontario · Engagement: 8 weeks, fixed fee
Amount reversed$119,000
ObjectionAllowed in full
Account balanceNil
The situation — A proprietor whose spouse works in the business, Barrie, Ontario
A proprietor whose spouse works in the business in Barrie, Ontario had been reassessed for $119,000. 23 days were left on the objection deadline. The reassessment rested on business income reported entirely on one spouse’s return despite shared operations.
What we did for A proprietor whose spouse works in the business, Barrie, Ontario
We filed the objection inside the deadline with a complete submission rather than a placeholder. Alongside it, we kept the proprietorship on a December 31 fiscal period and moved the year-end question into the incorporation plan where it could actually be answered.
The result — A proprietor whose spouse works in the business, Barrie, Ontario
The appeals officer allowed the objection in full. $119,000 was reversed and the account returned to a nil balance.
Case Study 3 · Missed incentive claimed
Incentive Review Recovered $50,000 Across 5 Open Years — Freelance Developer, Halifax
Client: A freelance developer · Where: Halifax, Nova Scotia · Engagement: 8 weeks, fixed fee
Recovered$50,000
Open years claimed5
Ongoing trackingIn place
The situation — A freelance developer, Halifax, Nova Scotia
An incentive review at a freelance developer in Halifax, Nova Scotia started from a simple question: what has never been claimed? The answer ran to 5 years. It was driven by a proprietor planning around a September year-end that the rules did not permit.
What we did for A freelance developer, Halifax, Nova Scotia
We reconciled each partner’s allocation, capital account and drawings, so what was reported for tax matched the agreement instead of the cash taken. We documented eligibility to the standard a reviewer would apply rather than the standard a claim form requires.
The result — A freelance developer, Halifax, Nova Scotia
The credits produced $50,000 across the open years. The tracking now in place means the following year's claim is documented as the work happens rather than reconstructed afterwards.
Case Study 4 · Cash and remittance control
Instalments Rebased, $50,000 Of Cash Returned To The Business — Two-Partner Architecture Practice, Kelowna
Client: A two-partner architecture practice · Where: Kelowna, British Columbia · Engagement: 7 weeks, fixed fee
Cash returned$50,000
Instalment basisCurrent year
ReviewedQuarterly
The situation — A two-partner architecture practice, Kelowna, British Columbia
A two-partner architecture practice in Kelowna, British Columbia was paying instalments calculated on a prior year. That year no longer reflected the business. A partner taxed on an allocation in a year they had drawn nothing at all was tying up $50,000 of cash.
What we did for A two-partner architecture practice, Kelowna, British Columbia
We rebased the instalments on the current-year estimate rather than the prior-year default. Alongside that, we filed the section 85 election with correct elected amounts and rolled the assets in without a taxable disposition.
The result — A two-partner architecture practice, Kelowna, British Columbia
$50,000 of cash stayed in the business, the penalty cycle ended, and the instalment position is reviewed each quarter against actual results.
Case Study 5 · Structure rebuilt
Reorganisation Completed Tax-Deferred, $57,000 Saved Each Year — Corporate-Partner Partnership, Saskatoon
Client: A partnership with a corporate partner · Where: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan · Engagement: 7 weeks, fixed fee
Annual saving$57,000
Tax on reorganisationDeferred
Elections filedOn time
The situation — A partnership with a corporate partner, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
A partnership with a corporate partner in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan had outgrown the structure it started with. A profit split applied in practice that the written agreement did not support was the immediate problem. The longer-term one was that the structure blocked the next step.
What we did for A partnership with a corporate partner, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
We mapped the current structure and modelled the target. Then we rewrote the partnership allocation to match how the practice actually operated, effective for the following fiscal year. The tax-deferred elections were filed on time and the supporting valuations documented.
The result — A partnership with a corporate partner, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
The reorganisation completed without triggering tax, and the new structure saves approximately $57,000 a year while removing the exposure the old one carried.
Case Study 6 · CRA review defended
$54,000 Proposed Adjustment Withdrawn In Full — Spousal Retail Partnership, Guelph
The situation — A husband-and-wife retail partnership, Guelph, Ontario
A husband-and-wife retail partnership in Guelph, Ontario received a proposal letter opening a review of farming tax returns. The CRA had identified three partners operating on a handshake, with no written agreement covering allocations or a departure. It proposed an adjustment of $54,000, with 30 days to respond.
What we did for A husband-and-wife retail partnership, Guelph, Ontario
We treated the response as an evidence exercise rather than an argument. We restructured the draw policy so no partner’s adjusted cost base went negative again, and reported the deemed gain correctly for the year it arose. We then indexed every supporting document against the specific line the auditor had questioned.
The result — A husband-and-wife retail partnership, Guelph, Ontario
The proposed adjustment was withdrawn in full — all $54,000 of it. The file closed in 7 weeks with no change to the assessed amounts and no penalty.
Reviewed by Udit Gupta, Founder and Tax Accountant for the 2025 tax year. These case studies are illustrative worked examples composed from the CRA rules that apply to this type of work, not specific client files; figures are representative and outcomes depend on your own facts.
