Why exactly are you fighting this losing battle?adrian2 wrote: ↑25 Jul 2017 23:36So what? Either a person is a child or is not. Don't start with the premise that income sprinkling (love this new term ) to children is bad, and in the next breath mention a 28 year old "child".fireseeker wrote: ↑25 Jul 2017 21:52The government analysis found that dividends being paid to adult family members aged 18-21 exceeded amounts paid to adult family members aged 22-29. Why? Because income sprinkling was happening at higher rates when young adult family members had very low incomes, maximizing tax savings -- an indication the system was being gamed.adrian2 wrote: ↑25 Jul 2017 18:34
Dividends to children were already taxed at a punitive rate for some two decades. The Liberals are now twisting the meanings of the word by showing examples with "children" age 25 or 27 to push their agenda. People 25 years of age may be the daughter or son of someone, but they are no longer children.
Income splitting with your spouse who's presumably at home, NOT working and helping you raise your family makes a lot of sense.
Income splitting with your adult children who don't work for you and aren't acting as a parent in your home makes no sense at all and needs to go. My entire experience with this has been spoiled children getting free money from their physician parents and it acts 100% as a tax loophole.