How Canada’s SR&ED Should Affect Your Startup’s Tax Planning

by Rob Farrow, SBA (www.suttoninnovation.com)

As an SR&ED tax specialist working with micro-businesses doing eligible experimental development, I have noticed a tendency among practitioners at small and medium-sized CPA firms to rely on traditional income-versus-dividend analyses for tax planning. However, because eligible salaries for development teams can typically result in refundable investment tax credits of 50% to 64% of eligible salary, that kind of tax planning generally makes no sense. 

CHATGPT Response:

Yes. For a small CCPC with substantial eligible SR&ED labour, a conventional salary-versus-dividend analysis can be seriously misleading because it treats salary mainly as compensation/tax planning rather than as an input into a refundable subsidy.

Under the proxy method, the effect can be particularly large.

For an eligible employee salary of $100, the federal SR&ED calculation can potentially include:

  • $100 of directly engaged salary, plus
  • a prescribed proxy amount of as much as 55% of the salary base.

That produces as much as $155 of qualified expenditures from $100 of directly engaged salary. CRA confirms that the PPA remains 55%, and that it forms part of qualified expenditures for ITC purposes. (Canada)

For an eligible small CCPC earning the enhanced 35% federal ITC:

$155×35%=$54.25\$155\times35\%=\$54.25

So the federal refundable ITC alone can reach 54.25% of the directly engaged salary (subject, importantly, to the PPA limitations, specified-employee rules, expenditure limit and the other SR&ED rules). The enhanced 35% ITC on current expenditures and PPA is generally 100% refundable within the applicable expenditure limit. (Canada)

That immediately changes the salary/dividend problem.

Conventional analysis versus SR&ED analysis

Suppose an owner-manager/developer is deciding whether the corporation should distribute $100,000 economically as salary or retain corporate income and eventually distribute dividends.

A conventional tax planner might model:

salary=corporate deduction+personal tax+CPP\text{salary} = \text{corporate deduction} + \text{personal tax} + \text{CPP}

against

dividend=corporate tax+personal dividend tax\text{dividend} = \text{corporate tax} + \text{personal dividend tax}

and conclude that dividends are somewhat preferable, depending upon province, income level and CPP assumptions.

But if that $100,000 salary represents qualifying SR&ED work, the relevant comparison potentially becomes:

Salary=corporate deduction+$54,250 refundable federal ITC+provincial SR&ED benefit−payroll/personal-tax effects.\text{Salary} = \text{corporate deduction} +\mathbf{\$54,250\ refundable\ federal\ ITC} +\text{provincial SR\&ED benefit} -\text{payroll/personal-tax effects}.

A dividend generates no SR&ED salary expenditure and therefore no salary-based PPA.

That is not a marginal difference. It can overwhelm the relatively small tax differences that traditional salary/dividend optimization is trying to exploit.

Why your 50–64% observation makes sense

The 54.25% federal figure provides a useful starting point for understanding what you are seeing. Provincial incentives can push the combined benefit substantially higher. The exact calculation varies considerably by province because provincial credits differ in rates, refundability, bases and interaction with federal SR&ED.

And there is another conceptual point that is easily missed: the PPA creates leverage on salary. CRA explicitly describes it as a notional amount on which an ITC is earned, rather than a deduction from taxable income. (Canada)

Consequently, for a micro technology company where labour represents most of the development cost, remuneration planning and SR&ED planning really shouldn’t be performed independently.

The owner-manager issue is especially important

There is a complication for owner-managers because they will generally be specified employees, so the special salary/PPA restrictions have to be incorporated. That prevents simply assuming that every dollar paid to a controlling shareholder produces the full 55% proxy amount.

But the broader conclusion remains.

Imagine a two- or three-person software company in which the founder is spending most of the year writing code and conducting experimental development. A practitioner approaching the year-end file as an ordinary CCPC might see:

“Owner-manager compensation — let’s run the salary/dividend optimizer.”

An SR&ED practitioner instead sees:

“This person is one of the company’s principal SR&ED performers. Before deciding remuneration, determine eligible directly-engaged labour, specified-employee limitations, available expenditure limit, PPA and provincial credits.”

Those are fundamentally different starting points.

CRA itself emphasizes that eligibility of salary is determined by the tasks performed rather than the employee’s job title. Hands-on experimentation, analysis, programming and integral support activities can constitute directly engaged SR&ED work. (Canada)

This illustrates a larger problem with generalized small-business tax planning

I think your observation identifies something broader than an error in arithmetic.

The conventional salary/dividend model implicitly assumes that the source of the corporation’s income and the nature of the owner’s work don’t matter very much. It is largely an integration exercise.

But government incentives destroy that assumption.

For an ordinary consulting corporation:

Salary↔DividendSalary \leftrightarrow Dividend

may genuinely be an optimization problem involving corporate tax, personal tax, CPP, RRSP room, cash requirements, etc.

For an SR&ED-intensive microbusiness:

Salary→SR&ED expenditure→PPA→refundable ITCSalary \rightarrow SR\&ED\ expenditure \rightarrow PPA \rightarrow refundable\ ITC

while:

Dividend→$0 SR&ED expenditure.Dividend \rightarrow \$0\ SR\&ED\ expenditure.

The economic characteristics of the two remuneration choices are therefore radically different.

And the mistake is particularly consequential for microbusinesses, because refundable credits aren’t merely reductions in some future tax liability. They are effectively a source of non-dilutive cash financing. A $40,000–$60,000 refund can be materially more important to a three-person experimental-development company than relatively modest savings generated by conventional remuneration optimization.

So I would go somewhat further than your original proposition: for an SR&ED-intensive micro-CCPC, running a conventional salary/dividend analysis before modelling the SR&ED consequences gets the order of operations backwards. The practitioner should first determine the marginal SR&ED benefit associated with salary, and only then perform the remuneration analysis on the net economic cost of that salary.

That is a good example of why specialist tax knowledge can matter much more to a microbusiness than generalized “business advisory” knowledge: the optimal answer depends heavily on what the three or four people in that particular company actually do.

SOURCES

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

More Posts

Built to Start, Not to Scale

by Rob Farrow, SBA (www.robfarrow.net) According to an article published in June of 2026 in The Globe and Mail, Canadian startups struggle to pass the

Canadian Tech Playbook

Here’s an enhanced, more polished version of your blog post—tightened for clarity, stronger flow, and a more provocative close, while keeping your core arguments intact:

VC-Backed FAAS

As a professional accountant with more than 3 decades of experience – including 5 years with the CRA as an auditor and 5 years with

FAAS Bypass

Is FAAS (Finance As A Service) Just a Way to Bypass Regulatory Oversight? CPA Canada’s new competency map for public accountants in small, one or

CPA Competency Map Issues

Canada’s new competency map for CPAs: Makes it difficult (or impossible) for small, one or two-partner firms to train their replacements. While the “new” Competency

Built to Start AND to Scale

Built to Start AND to Scale

Built to Start AND to Scale

Built to Start AND to Scale

Built to Start AND to Scale

Built to Start AND to Scale

ABOUT

Launch – June 16th, 2023

The MAIN STREET JOURNAL was launched online in 2023, as a kind of Canadian, small business counterpoint to the venerable WALL STREET JOURNAL (WSJ), established in New York City in 1889.

Canada’s small businesses are smaller than most people think.  

This is true for people that work in small businesses, for policymakers, business schools, and the business press. The self-employed and other small business owners don’t ‘get no respect’ and yet about 73% of private sector employment in Canada is made up of the 2.85 million self-employed individuals, and 1.3 million small employer businesses which average less than 7 employees. 

About Us

We believe it’s time that these workers, and the small business owner-managers that employ them, got some respect. What’s more, we believe that business schools and policymakers should get out of their ivory towers and take a walk on Main Street! 

73.2 % of private sector employment is provided by small business
How Canada’s SR&ED Should Affect Your Startup’s Tax Planning Accounting + Tax

How Canada’s SR&ED Should Affect Your Startup’s Tax Planning

by Rob Farrow, SBA (www.suttoninnovation.com) As an SR&ED tax specialist working with micro-businesses doing eligible experimental development, I have noticed...

September 8, 2026
Accounting Software for Micro-Businesses – Dashboards (Part 3) Accounting

Accounting Software for Micro-Businesses – Dashboards (Part 3)

KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID by Rob Farrow, SBA (www.suttoninnovation.com) The accounting strategy we recommend for small, high-tech startups is to...

September 7, 2026
Accounting Software for Micro-Businesses (Part 2) Accounting

Accounting Software for Micro-Businesses (Part 2)

Marketing vs. Reality Gap by Rob Farrow, SBA (www.the-hatchery.org) While software vendors market management insights heavily to sell subscriptions, industry...

September 7, 2026
Small Business Accounting Challenges by Business Size Accounting

Small Business Accounting Challenges by Business Size

Management Tool or Wishful Thinking? by Rob Farrow, SBA (www.the-hatchery.org) I've worked with tech startups and small businesses in Canada...

September 7, 2026
Built to Start, Not to Scale Finance + Investment

Built to Start, Not to Scale

by Rob Farrow, SBA (www.robfarrow.net) According to an article published in June of 2026 in The Globe and Mail, Canadian...

September 1, 2026
Canadian Tech Playbook FINANCE for CANADA’S SMALL BUSINESSES

Canadian Tech Playbook

Here’s an enhanced, more polished version of your blog post—tightened for clarity, stronger flow, and a more provocative close, while...

January 28, 2026