Peter Stoffer pushes tax break for golf

The real outrage is that this travesty went unrectified for 130 years.

Stoeffer was just on P&P pushing this idea; actually made a good case for it.

But I think this whole idea of entertainment expenses being tax deductible is bullshit - it's really open to abuse.

Economic impact study of golf for Canada 2009

I scored some tickets to a hockey game last year. Regular price for two seats in the end section - $200+ X's 2. And two seats by the Senators bench were $400+ X's 2. And $20 bucks for a cup of imported Dutch beer, because that's what they wanted. of There is no darned way I could have afforded to pay for all that. It's not like paying to see a 67's game. 18 holes is affordable by comparison.

Big business is just not creating jobs like they used to. The NDP is for job creation and small business. The other two parties represent big time corporate welfare as usual. They were fresh out of new ideas decades ago.

I've got it!

Locomotive Golf!

You try to knock the ball into a hole with a railroad locomotive before some CEO tries to fly the ball south to a right to work sweatshop state on his corporate jet.

And make it tax deductible.

Yeah, I don't imagine unemployed people are going to have much time for golf while they're out looking for work to feed their families. Rosie Barton's eyes almost popped out when she interviewed Stoffer on this golf proposal, as if she couldn't believe her ears. I felt the same way. And First Nations that are severly underfunded probably don't give two shits for Stoffer's idea.

Oh, dear:

http://www.cscm.org/downloads/NAGA%20Activity%20Update%20(2).pdf

General Strike!!!

Yeah, Stoffer mentioned the Golf Caucus on P&P as well. And he has 7 golf courses in his riding. Well, at least we know he's getting some exercise.

There are ways to make it less elitist and less land-consuming.  Indoor, room-sized golf simulators do the trick quite nicely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoor_golf#Golf_simulator

Its such a silly priority for Stoffer to have at this moment in time.

But at least a new democrat is actually getting media attention!

I think a leadership candidate who vows to squelch this dumb idea could win a few votes.  Anyone?

If Pat Martin were in the race, he could clinch it by calling Stoffer an asshole.

Tax breaks for golf?!

WWFD (what would Fidel do?)?

the best comment was "why can't i take my client for a pedicure and write that off?"  why is the government deeming some activities legit and others not?

also these provisions are widely abused....

Yeah, milo204, Rosie made me laugh with that response.

I always liked the way Stouffer fought for veteran pensions and PTSD benefits but was against his Afghanistan stance. As for the golf issue, this is beyond ridiculous when you consider all the social problems this country has. However, if Harper was to come up with the money for a new stadium for my hapless, hopeless, indigent Argos, that would be a different matter.

Second that. And to unionist

I forgot in my previous post to mention the other reason I am deeply opposed to golf/business subsidies - the environmental effects so well described in the last post. 

This is what gets me SO FURIOUS about the economists and political spinmasters who go on about the purported "fairness" of sales taxes, GST/HST and other value added taxes. These are NOT fair taxes since business people can evade taxes and deduct "expenses" for such basic necessities like food, housing and heating - or even such things as "haircuts" and clothes which are pretty much mandatory for most working environments. But we, the "consumers" are not allowed to deduct all these things from our taxes.

It makes me furious that an NDP member would be even going anywhere near this sort of pandering to the priveleged.

If you look at the Golf Caucus link that Pebbles posted ( http://www.cscm.org/downloads/NAGA%20Activity%20Update%20(2).pdf )

Stoffer isn't the only NDP member. As far as I know, however, he's the only pushing this idea of golfing tax breaks for entertaining constituents or clients. Does anyone know if other MPs are onside with him?

We could be in social democratic Norway or Sweden... who have a value-added tax of 25%.

I guess these guys are excepted:

I'm opposed to tax deductions for all meals and entertainment.  There is no need to do business over meals or sporting events.  I believe that the tax deduction drives up the cost of those services making them less affordable all around.  Essentially, the tax deduction is a subsidy for the restaurant/entertainment industries and allows self-employed persons to eat out at around 20 % off (calculated as 50% of the meal times your marginal tax rate)

From a tax policy point of view however, the justification to exclude deductions for golf courses no longer makes sense.  I'm sure just as much business gets done on the golf course as at hockey games.  I don't think the sexism justification applies anymore.  Sure, golf is still a male dominated game but it's becoming increasingly popular with women every year.  Golf ladies' leagues and nights are huge sellers.  Many guys at my old firm were always looking for women to join them.  I doubt that viewership at many tax deductible sporting events is any less male dominated than golf.

I enjoy golf.  From an entirely selfish point of view,  I really hope that it does not become tax deductible because I only play with friends and will not get the beneift of the deduction but I willl have to pay the increased green fees that the deduction causes.

It's simple supply and demand. The tax deduction raises demand for things like restaurant meals, sporting events, etc.... This increase in demand causes prices to go up. This is one reason why restaurant meals and entertainment events are so expensive in Manhattan where many rich executives write off their purchases and drive up prices for everyone.

Hockey games are expensive outings. You could be seated next to millionaires, politicians and former hockey players in the same stadium and paying hundreds of dollars for the privilege. Golf is a lot more affordable for millions of Canadians by comparison. Golf used to be dominated by upper-middle and upper class people in Canada. Exclusive private club houses are in the minority of all golf clubs today. The majority of them are operated by small business owners. 

Bravo, Maysie! Sorry to those arguing against you, but their arguments are rather weak. I doubt you (and other self employed or small business people) are having business clients to dinner frequently enough to cause a supply and demand problem in the restaurant industry.

Edited to add: I think that deductions for golf are absolutely ridiculous, however, and an embarrassment to have such horrible policy brought forward by an NDP MP.

Golf dinners and drinks were tax credits in 1997, so you'll have to blame whichever phogna-balogna majority government was in power then. I think it begins with L and rhymes with LLLLLLIES! But don't quote me. h-ha!

I suppose so - but would you even pay for a toner cartridge if there was a hole in one?

I wouldn't buy one with a hole in it, and I wouldn't deduct a golf game. I only golf once a year and I'm not good enough at it to consider it a legitimate business deduction. We do pick up the tab sometimes for clients and suppliers at restaurants, but that's usually at Boston Pizza. Business shouldn't be fancy.

It's important to recognize what is a "write off" and what is simply a business expense.  It's a basic concept - gross income as opposed to net income.

Let's say a client pays me $1,000 to do a day of training or presenting or running a retreat or something like that.  (No, I'm not self-employed and I'm just using round numbers.)  For that training, I need to buy a few supplies such as markers, flip chart paper, sticky-notes, and some other presentation materials.  I also have to get my handouts printed, etc.

I don't make a thousand bucks from that day of training.  I make maybe $900 after I pay for my supplies and photocopying.

When I do my accounting for tax purposes, therefore, I report that I earned $900, not $1000.  Because that's what I actually earned.  That doesn't mean I'm "writing off" my toner, my markers, etc.  Those are simply a business expense.  You add up your income, you add up your business expenses, you subtract your business expenses from your gross business income, and then you have your net income.

Same with the percentage of your rent or utilities or whatever when you work from home.  If you work from home, you need space to work.  You might have rented a smaller apartment (or bought a smaller house) if you didn't need an extra room to use as a dark room for your photography, or a studio for your artwork, or an office to meet with clients and do your work.  So, that is a cost of doing business, and that is a legitimate business expense.

The question is whether wining and dining a client is a legitimate business expense.  I would argue no.  (Although I do recognize that in certain industries where that's the only way you get to meet people - e.g. arts, film, etc. - that this is a disadvantage for smaller businesses or sole proprietorships.  But still - if no one could claim it, then it might become less of a practice.) 

I saw the flagrant abuse of "business entertainment expenses" when I worked as a temp in the financial district years ago.  I went out one evening after work for drinks with a bunch of folks from the office at an insurance brokerage that I was working at as a temp.  I assumed, of course, that everyone would be paying for their own drinks.  Silly me.  Some insurance adjusters from another firm that did business with the brokerage I was working for (huge corporations, both of them, by the way) came out with us, and at the end of the evening, when it came time to settle up the bill, one of the adjusters whipped out the corporate card and said it was his turn - business expense, don't you know.  Shmoozing the brokerage so they'd call these folks the next time they need an adjuster.  Completely legal, completely above-board.  Half the bars and restaurants in the financial district would probably close in a month if they got rid of this type of "business expense" in tax law.

And now, Peter Stoffer wants to make sure they can do the same thing on the golf course too?  You've got to wonder what he's thinking.  I mean, I see his point that shmoozing on the golf course is no worse than shmoozing in a bar or restaurant or corporate box at a hockey game.  So as long as business entertainment expenses are legal, then why should the golf courses in his riding be discriminated against?  I get the logic.  But shouldn't the NDP be about redistributing wealth to those who need it, rather than making sure that the rich get even more perks through tax law?

I'm guessing he wants to make green fees a deductible business expensive, couldn't imagine even a politician suggesting some form of tax credit, but who knows. @michelle, we consider write offs depending on the context, for income tax purposes they are just an expense, for accounting purposes they represent a purchase that has no longer any residual value, such as toner cartridges. Once a capital asset has been fully depreciated it is also considered written off. We may be doing it wrong.

I think your terminology is correct on the tax side. A toner cartridge is both a business expense and a tax write off from your gross revenue towards net income. The accounting stuff is different. In any case, i wish the corporate tax code was simplified to the point that we did not need expensive tax accountants to comply. I also wish entertainment deductions went to zero, like green fees currently are. While its unfortunately a necessity in our current business environment, schmoozing, the playing field would still be level if companies couldn't deduct it. The cost of schmoozing should be priced into our products and paid for by our clients who receive the schmooze, rather than the taxpayers at large.

I agree that abuse is rampant. Conference and trade show attendance is complicated for me, whereas buying people meals and entertainment should not be deductible at all IMO. Conference attendance can certainly be abused but I think it's in a different league and for many companies and professions a necessity.

Thunder Bay in February would be a tougher sell.

Heh, the conference expense thing reminds me.  I've been an admin assistant for years.  In just about every place I've ever worked, processing or distributing the mail has been part of the job, and there are these corporate training flyers you get all the time.  You know the type.

Anyhow, one of the most common ones you see is the training for "administrative professionals" (in other words, admin assistants, secretaries, receptionists, executive assistants, etc.).  The training is always held in the same two places - Niagara Falls and Banff.  I think every business/organization address in Canada gets one of those flyers every other month - I can't imagine how that training conference pays for those glossy things and the postage.  So, it's been a running joke for years that whenever I get one of these while sorting the mail, it always gets left on the boss's or supervisor's desk with a sticky-note pointing at the Banff location.

So far, I haven't managed to convince anyone over the years of the necessity of my travelling to Banff for this conference, but hope springs eternal! :D

That said, while I think that business entertainment expenses should not be allowed to be expensed for tax purposes, I wouldn't extend that to conferences, despite the fact that some people plan family vacations around them.  I think that as long as the person attending the conference is the only one whose expenses are being claimed (and I don't even have a problem with them claiming the hotel room if their spouse and/or kids come with them and stay in it with them), then I don't have a huge problem with it.  I think most people actually attend conferences legitimately in order to make contacts and get industry knowledge.

Business entertainment expenses, on the other hand, are probably abused far more than used legitimately.  As someone said above, you can just as easily meet in a board room to do deals as in a strip club at 10 p.m., a corporate box at a hockey game, or a restaurant over a 3 hour liquid lunch, so I'm not sure what situation a business entertainment expense could ever be argued to be "necessary" or even legitimate.

I'd be in favour of deducting rich people's yachts. Forthwith.