Try 10 focused CFP® MCQ questions on Tax Planning, with answers and explanations, then continue with Securities Prep.
Try 10 focused CFP® MCQ questions on Tax Planning, with answers and explanations, then continue with Securities Prep.
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Exam route | CFP® MCQ |
| Issuer | FP Canada |
| Topic area | Tax Planning |
| Blueprint weight | 14% |
| Page purpose | Focused sample questions before returning to mixed practice |
These questions are original Securities Prep practice items aligned to this topic area. They are designed for self-assessment and are not official exam questions.
Topic: Tax Planning
Nadia and Omar are spouses with two children. Nadia earns $165,000; Omar earns $38,000 and was off work for four months while attending a college program. They provide detailed receipts for $8,000 of child-care costs and say Nadia should claim the deduction because she is in the higher tax bracket. Before using this assumption in your tax projection, which follow-up question is most appropriate?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Tax Planning
Explanation: The key assumption is whether Nadia, as the higher-income spouse, can claim the child-care deduction. Child-care expenses are generally claimed by the lower-income spouse unless a specific exception applies. Omar’s education status and timing are the facts needed before relying on the projection.
For Canadian tax planning, the planner should verify the rule that supports the deduction before building it into projections or recommendations. Child-care expenses are generally deductible by the lower-income spouse or partner. A higher-income spouse may be able to claim them only in limited situations, such as when the lower-income spouse is attending a qualifying educational program, and only for the relevant period. Omar’s program status and the weeks the costs were incurred are therefore the decisive facts. Other tax-planning ideas may be useful later, but they do not validate the specific child-care deduction assumption.
This directly tests whether an exception may allow the higher-income spouse to deduct the child-care expenses.
Topic: Tax Planning
All amounts are in CAD. Nadia received a one-time taxable bonus and her marginal tax rate this year is 48%. Next year she expects to return to her usual 31% marginal rate, and her projected retirement withdrawal rate is also lower than 48%. She has $18,000 to invest for retirement and enough RRSP and TFSA room. Which contribution choice best fits these tax facts?
Best answer: C
What this tests: Tax Planning
Explanation: The key planning lens is marginal tax-rate arbitrage. An RRSP contribution is most attractive when the deduction is claimed at a higher tax rate than the expected tax rate on future withdrawals.
RRSP tax planning compares the contribution-year deduction rate with the expected withdrawal-year tax rate. Nadia’s current 48% marginal rate is temporary and higher than both her expected rate next year and her projected retirement withdrawal rate. Claiming the RRSP deduction now converts $18,000 of taxable income into a high-value deduction, while future RRSP withdrawals are expected to be taxed at a lower rate.
A TFSA may be better when current tax rates are low or flexibility dominates, but the stated tax facts favour using the RRSP deduction now.
The RRSP deduction is most valuable in Nadia’s unusually high 48% tax year, with expected withdrawals taxed at a lower rate.
Topic: Tax Planning
Amira, 61, has accepted an employer termination package. She tells her CFP professional to model the 80,000 payment as a “retiring allowance” that can be transferred entirely to her RRSP without using her 18,000 RRSP deduction limit. She has only forwarded a short HR email saying “severance package.” Which follow-up question best aligns with FP Canada expectations before relying on the tax assumption?
Best answer: A
What this tests: Tax Planning
Explanation: The planner needs to clarify the underlying tax facts before using the assumption. A termination package can contain amounts with different income character and RRSP treatment, so a written breakdown supports competence, objectivity, and documentation. It also leaves room for collaboration with payroll or a tax preparer if unclear.
Tax assumptions should be supportable and documented, especially when a client asks the planner to rely on a favourable characterization. The decisive issue is not Amira’s preferred cash-flow result; it is whether the payment’s income character and any eligible RRSP transfer amount are actually confirmed. HR’s general wording does not establish that all components are a retiring allowance or that the full amount can be transferred without using RRSP room. Asking for the employer’s written component breakdown is the focused follow-up because it obtains the tax facts needed for analysis and creates a defensible file note. If the documents remain unclear, the planner should collaborate with or refer to a qualified tax professional rather than model an unsupported treatment.
Written employer documentation verifies the payment’s tax character and transfer eligibility before the planner models a material tax result.
Topic: Tax Planning
Elena, 56, is self-employed. All amounts are in CAD. Her net income is expected to be 160,000 this year but about 70,000 next year while she retrains. She has 45,000 of unused RRSP deduction room. A full contribution before the deadline could generate an 18,000 refund, but she has only one month of expenses in cash and would need to draw a HELOC at 7.5%. She asks her CFP professional what to do. Which recommendation best aligns with FP Canada expectations for objective, client-centred tax advice?
Best answer: C
What this tests: Tax Planning
Explanation: FP Canada expectations require advice that is objective, competent, and centred on the client’s circumstances, not just the largest tax deduction. A scaled contribution based on cash-flow scenarios can capture some tax benefit while managing HELOC and emergency-fund risk.
The core issue is proportionality: a tax strategy is suitable only if the client can implement it without creating excessive financial risk. Elena’s current marginal tax benefit may make an RRSP contribution attractive this year, but funding the maximum amount with a 7.5% HELOC and minimal cash reserve could increase liquidity and repayment risk. The planner should model contribution levels, refund use, interest cost, and repayment capacity, then document the assumptions, trade-offs, and recommendation. Collaboration with Elena’s accountant may help confirm taxable income and deduction timing, but the planning recommendation must still integrate cash flow and risk tolerance. The key takeaway is that tax savings do not override feasibility.
This approach considers the tax benefit, borrowing cost, emergency reserve, and repayment capacity before making a documented recommendation.
Topic: Tax Planning
Ravi, a CFP professional, is preparing a year-end RRSP recommendation for Leila. Leila wants him to reduce her projected taxable income by support payments she has made since separating from her spouse.
Exhibit: Tax file excerpt
Which planning action is the only one supported before using a support-payment deduction in the RRSP recommendation?
Best answer: C
What this tests: Tax Planning
Explanation: A support-payment deduction should not be built into an RRSP recommendation unless the planner has documentation supporting both the legal obligation and the actual payments. The file shows payment confirmations, but no signed agreement or court order, and the child-support reference makes the tax assumption uncertain.
When a CFP professional uses a tax assumption to set an RRSP contribution, the assumption must be supportable from the client file. For Canadian support payments, deductibility generally depends on a written separation agreement or court order requiring periodic spousal support, and evidence that the payments were made. Child support is generally not deductible to the payer. Here, e-transfer records show cash movement but do not prove that the payments meet the tax conditions, and the draft lawyer email suggests a separate child-support element. The planner should obtain the signed legal document and payment evidence, or use a conservative projection and refer to the client’s tax/legal adviser if classification is unclear. The key is not to convert an undocumented client statement into a tax recommendation.
The planner needs the legal document establishing deductible spousal support and proof of payment before relying on the deduction.
Topic: Tax Planning
Mei, 59, is leaving a long-term employer in June and has been offered a $140,000 severance package payable in 2025 or January 2026; the employer has not confirmed how the amount will be reported for tax or whether any portion is an eligible retiring allowance. She can start a DB pension at 60, has a $50,000 HELOC from helping her adult son, and wants cash available for her mother’s assisted-living move. Her spouse has variable self-employment income and may report a business loss this year. Mei asks whether she should direct the severance to an RRSP, take cash to reduce debt, or defer payment to 2026. What is the best next action before making a recommendation?
Best answer: A
What this tests: Tax Planning
Explanation: A tax-sensitive severance recommendation depends on more than the payment amount. The planner needs tax reporting details, RRSP room, current and next-year income estimates, pension timing, spouse income, and liquidity needs before comparing the alternatives.
The core planning step is fact and document collection before giving tax-sensitive advice. Mei’s choice affects taxable income timing, possible RRSP deduction or eligible retiring allowance transfer treatment, debt management, retirement cash flow, and family support liquidity. Recent T1 returns and Notices of Assessment help confirm RRSP deduction limits, carryforwards, marginal tax context, and prior-year filing information. The severance letter or employer breakdown is needed to know how the payment will be reported and whether any portion has special transfer treatment. Pension estimates and spouse income projections are also needed because household cash flow and tax brackets may change between 2025 and 2026. Acting before those facts are known could create avoidable tax, liquidity, or retirement-income problems.
These documents and facts are needed to compare timing, RRSP use, withholding, pension income, family liquidity, and household tax effects.
Topic: Tax Planning
Kiran is the sole shareholder of a CCPC and plans to withdraw 80,000 before year-end. His planner is comparing a salary/bonus with a dividend. The draft tax estimate shows the dividend option leaving more after-tax cash because it treats the dividend as an eligible dividend, but Kiran says most corporate income was active business income taxed at the small business rate. Which follow-up question best clarifies the tax assumption that drives the comparison?
Best answer: A
What this tests: Tax Planning
Explanation: The key assumption is the character of the dividend. Eligible and non-eligible dividends receive different gross-up and dividend tax credit treatment, so the planner should confirm whether the corporation can validly designate an eligible dividend.
For a CCPC, a dividend paid from income taxed at the small business rate is generally a non-eligible dividend. An eligible dividend requires sufficient general rate income pool (GRIP) or another source supporting eligible dividend designation. Because the comparison’s result depends on the estimate using eligible-dividend tax treatment, the planner should clarify that assumption with the accountant before relying on the projection.
The main takeaway is to verify the tax character driving the projection before comparing salary/bonus and dividend outcomes.
The dividend tax result depends on whether the CCPC has GRIP and can designate an eligible dividend.
Topic: Tax Planning
Maria, 67, and Leo, 62, are spouses in Ontario. Maria retired last year with a defined benefit pension and OAS; Leo left work to care for a parent and has only CPP, so Maria funds most household expenses. They want to preserve their TFSA emergency reserve and avoid unnecessary reductions in government benefits. The planner reviews Maria’s current-year tax summary before filing; assume OAS recovery begins when line 23400 net income exceeds 90,000. All amounts are in CAD.
Tax summary:
What should the planner prioritize?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Tax Planning
Explanation: The tax summary reveals an immediate filing issue: Maria has eligible pension income, a low-income spouse, and no pension split election. Allocating some pension income to Leo can reduce Maria’s line 23400 net income, potentially reducing OAS recovery while using Leo’s lower tax brackets.
Pension income splitting is the most important issue shown by the summary. Maria is over 65, so both her DB pension and RRIF withdrawal are eligible pension income for splitting. Her line 23400 net income is 101,500, above the stated OAS recovery threshold, while Leo’s net income is only 11,000. A split-pension election can reduce Maria’s income for OAS recovery purposes and shift taxable income to Leo, without using their TFSA emergency reserve or changing investments immediately. The key planning insight is that the return shows an unused spouse-level tax and benefit planning opportunity.
Maria has eligible pension income and a low-income spouse, so splitting can reduce her line 23400 net income and OAS recovery.
Topic: Tax Planning
Alain, 69, and Mireille, 67, are retired and receive OAS; Alain also receives a DB pension, so they are sensitive to additional net income. Mireille needs $85,000 within six months for accessibility renovations after a stroke, and they do not want to reduce their $30,000 emergency reserve or add secured debt. Alain’s non-registered account has enough liquid securities with a large unrealized capital gain, and his latest CRA Notice of Assessment shows a net capital loss carryforward from 2021. Their RRIFs are also large, but they prefer to preserve registered assets for later-life care and beneficiaries. Which tax planning interpretation is the best starting point for recommending the funding source?
Best answer: C
What this tests: Tax Planning
Explanation: The relevant tax attribute is Alain’s net capital loss carryforward, because the proposed non-registered sale would realize capital gains. Using that carryforward may reduce taxable capital gains and net income, making the sale more tax-efficient than a fully taxable RRIF withdrawal under the stated constraints.
Net capital loss carryforwards are tax attributes that generally can be applied only against taxable capital gains, not pension or RRIF income. Here, the immediate planning comparison is a non-registered sale versus a RRIF withdrawal. Since Alain’s non-registered account has unrealized gains and his NOA shows an unused net capital loss carryforward, selling securities can raise liquidity while using the carryforward to reduce the taxable capital gain and potential OAS recovery-tax pressure. Accessibility or medical credits may be reviewed separately, but non-refundable credits do not replace the source-of-funds analysis.
A net capital loss carryforward is relevant because it can reduce taxable capital gains from selling Alain’s non-registered securities, unlike a RRIF withdrawal.
Topic: Tax Planning
Leah, 44, asks which year-end tax-planning issue should receive priority. She has no consumer debt, wants her low-risk savings accessible, and all amounts are CAD.
Tax summary: employment income $118,000; T5 interest from non-registered savings/GICs $14,800; eligible dividends $600; taxable capital gains $0; RRSP deduction room $4,000; TFSA contribution room $62,000.
Which recommendation best fits the main issue shown by the tax summary?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Tax Planning
Explanation: The summary highlights a mismatch between Leah’s income character and her available registered room. A large amount of fully taxable interest is being earned outside registered plans while she has substantial unused TFSA room and wants access, so sheltering the interest-bearing savings is the priority.
Interest income from savings and GICs is fully taxable annually at marginal rates, making it one of the least tax-efficient forms of non-registered income. Leah’s tax summary shows $14,800 of T5 interest and $62,000 of unused TFSA room, while her RRSP room is only $4,000 and she values accessibility. Using TFSA contribution room for interest-bearing savings directly targets the recurring tax issue without changing her low-risk objective or shifting funds into a plan where withdrawals are taxable. The key takeaway is to match the tax character of income to the most suitable account first.
The summary shows substantial fully taxable interest and significant unused TFSA room, making tax-sheltering accessible fixed-income savings the priority.
Use the CFP® MCQ Practice Test page for the full Securities Prep route, mixed-topic practice, timed mock exams, explanations, and web/mobile app access.
Use the full Securities Prep practice page above for the latest review links and practice route.