- Without a rule like this, a taxpayer in a high tax bracket could transfer income-producing property into a trust, have the income taxed in the hands of a lower-income beneficiary (such…
- In broad terms, the rule can apply where a person transfers or lends property to a trust and one or more of the following is true: - The property (or property substituted for it) may…
- Common examples of arrangements that are generally structured to fall outside this rule include: - A trust where the contributor has genuinely and irrevocably given up any right to have…
Setting up a family trust is sometimes pitched as a way to shift income to a lower-income family member and reduce the household's overall tax bill. Canada's tax system anticipated this and built in a specific defence — often called the reversionary trust attribution rule — that can undo the intended benefit by taxing the trust's income and capital gains back to the person who put the property into the trust in the first place, rather than to the trust or its beneficiaries.
If you're considering setting up a trust, or you've been told a trust arrangement will "split" income within your family, understanding when this rule applies is essential before you rely on the plan.
What the Rule Is Trying to Prevent
Without a rule like this, a taxpayer in a high tax bracket could transfer income-producing property into a trust, have the income taxed in the hands of a lower-income beneficiary (such as a spouse or minor child), and keep effective control over the property the whole time — arranging things so the property could revert back to them, or so they retained the power to decide who benefits and when. The attribution rules exist to stop this kind of income splitting when the person who contributed the property hasn't genuinely given up control or the future benefit of it.
When Attribution Generally Applies
In broad terms, the rule can apply where a person transfers or lends property to a trust and one or more of the following is true:
- The property (or property substituted for it) may revert back to the person who contributed it, or to their spouse;
- The contributor retains the power to determine who will receive the trust property or income in the future; or
- The contributor's consent is required before trust property can be distributed to a beneficiary.
Where any of these features exist, income and capital gains the trust earns on the contributed property are generally attributed back to the contributor for tax purposes — even though the trust, not the contributor, legally owns the property and the income was actually paid out to someone else.
What Falls Outside the Rule
Not every trust triggers attribution. Common examples of arrangements that are generally structured to fall outside this rule include:
- A trust where the contributor has genuinely and irrevocably given up any right to have the property revert to them or their spouse, and has no retained power over who benefits;
- Certain trusts created by will (since the rule is aimed at arrangements made during the contributor's lifetime, not testamentary trusts arising on death);
- Outright gifts to an adult, unrelated beneficiary with no strings attached, where none of the reversion, control, or consent features exist.
Because the line between "genuinely given up control" and "retained an indirect string" can be subtle — and because other income-splitting rules in the Income Tax Act can also apply depending on who the beneficiaries are — this is not an area to structure based on general assumptions.
Why This Trips People Up
| Assumption | Reality |
|---|---|
| "It's in the trust's name, so the trust pays the tax." | If attribution applies, the contributor is taxed, not the trust or the beneficiary who received the funds. |
| "I can still be a trustee and have this work." | Being a trustee isn't automatically disqualifying, but retaining control over distributions or a right of reversion generally is. |
| "My spouse or child actually received the money, so it's their income." | Attribution overrides who physically received the payment — the tax result follows the attribution rule, not the cash flow. |
| "This only matters for large trusts." | The rule applies based on the features of the arrangement, not the dollar amount involved. |
Frequently asked questions
Does this rule apply to trusts created in a will?
Generally no — this attribution rule is aimed at arrangements made during a person's lifetime. Trusts created on death through a will are governed by different rules. Still, get advice specific to your situation, since estate planning often involves multiple overlapping rules.
Can a trust be redesigned to avoid triggering attribution?
Often, yes, with the right drafting — the key is making sure the contributor has genuinely given up any reversionary interest, control over distributions, or veto power. This needs to be built into the trust document correctly from the start.
What happens if I didn't realize this rule applied and I've been filing as if the trust or beneficiary owned the income?
This is worth raising with a tax lawyer or accountant promptly. Depending on the years involved, there may be options to correct past filings, but the right approach depends on the specific facts and timelines.
Is this the same as the "kiddie tax" rules on income paid to minors?
No — they're related but distinct anti-income-splitting provisions. The reversionary trust rule attributes income back to the contributor based on retained control or reversion; other rules can separately tax certain income differently when it's paid to a minor. A trust arrangement can potentially engage more than one of these rules at once.
This is a tax question
Start a file online — flat, published fees, reviewed by a licensed Ontario lawyer before a dollar is owed.