The Canadian dividend tax credit: Why is it that someone can earn a lot in dividends but pay no/little tax?
Basically, yes. That doesn't mean that it's easy to do. The government provides a dividend tax credit since an individual takes on more risk to invest in dividend-paying corporations rather than trading their human capital for an income. Thus, for the most part, $1 earned from dividends is taxed much less than $1 earned from income or interest. Finally, note that foreign dividends are not eligible for the dividend tax credit, and are not preferentially taxed. "The profits that the corporation had to earn to be able to pay you ""eligible"" dividends for the dividend tax credit were already taxed, and at a somewhat high corporate rate, in the case of large public companies with big profits. The dividend tax credit, which permits an individual to earn a lot from dividends and not pay any personal income tax, essentially recognizes that the profit making up the dividend was already highly taxed to begin with via corporate income tax.  It aims to eliminate double-taxation. FWIW, if you own and run a small private business in Canada and pay yourself a dividend, such dividends are considered ""non-eligible"", i.e. you don't get as much a benefit from the dividend tax credit, since small business corporate income tax rates are much lower."
It comes down to the practical value of paying dividends. The investor can continually receive a stream of income without selling shares of the stock. If the stock did not pay a dividend and wanted continual income, the investor would have to continually sell shares to gain this stream of income, incurring transaction costs and increased time and effort involved with making these transactions. Firstly a stock split is easy, for example each unit of stock is converted into 10 units.  So if you owned 1% of the company before the stock split, you will still own 1% after the stock split, but have 10 times the number of shares.   The company does not pay out any money when doing this and there is no effect on tax for the company or the share holder. Now onto stock dividend… When a company make a profit, the company gives some of the profit to the share holders as a dividend; this is normally paid in cash.  An investor may then wish to buy more shares in the company using the money from the dividend.      However buying shares used to have a large cost in broker charges etc. Therefore some companies allowed share holders to choose to have the dividend paid as shares.   The company buys enough of their own shares to cover the payout, only having one set of broker charges and then sends the correct number of shares to each share holder that has opted for a stock dividend.  (Along with any cash that was not enough to buy a complete share.) This made since when you had paper shares and admin costs where high for stock brokers.   It does not make sense these days. A stock dividend is taxed as if you had been paid the dividend in cash and then brought the stock yourself. "Let me provide a general answer, that might be helpful to others, without addressing those specific stocks. Dividends are simply corporate payouts made to the shareholders of the company.  A company often decides to pay dividends because they have excess cash on hand and choose to return it to shareholders by quarterly payouts instead of stock buy backs or using the money to invest in new projects. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by ""dividend yield traps.""  If a company has declared an dividend for the upcoming quarter they will almost always pay.  There are exceptions, like what happened with BP, but these exceptions are rare.  Just because a company promises to pay a dividend in the approaching quarter does not mean that it will continue to pay a dividend in the future.  If the company continues to pay a dividend in the future, it may be at a (significantly) different amount. Some companies are structured where nearly all of there corporate profits flow through to shareholders via dividends.  These companies may have ""unusually"" high dividends, but this is simply a result of the corporate structure.    Let me provide a quick example: Certain ETFs that track bonds pay a dividend as a way to pass through interest payments from the underlying bonds back to the shareholder of the ETF. There is no company that will continue to pay their dividend at the present rate with 100% certainty.  Even large companies like General Electric slashed its dividend during the most recent financial crisis.  So, to evaluate whether a company will keep paying a dividend you should look at the following: Update: In regards to one the first stock you mentioned, this sentence from the companies of Yahoo! finance explains the ""unusually"" dividend: The company has elected to be treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes and would not be subject to income tax, if it distributes at least 90% of its REIT taxable income to its share holders." "If you're referring to times when they pay nothing (or receive a refund) at the end of the year, it's because they're paying taxes throughout the year. At the end of the year, the accountants find that they paid exactly what they needed to (or more), so they don't have to pay anything (or get money back) on their yearly forms.  I don't think there's a US corporation paying ""almost zero tax"" in the US." The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future).  The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account. The answer to your question doesn't depend on who you trade with but what country you live in. If you live outside of the US, you will have to pay tax on dividends... sometimes. This depends on the tax treaty that your country has with the US. Canada, Australia, UK and a few other countries have favorable tax treaties with the US that allow you to not be double taxed. You must look into the tax treaty that your home country has with the US to answer the question. Each country is different. That's not especially high income, and while I can't speak for Canadians,  most of us south of the border just pay the tax. There are tax-advantged retirement savings plans, and charitable donations are often offset by a tax credit, and there are some tax incentives for mortgages, and so on.. but generally the right answer is to just accept that the income tax money was never yours to begin with. It doesn't make much difference in the end. Imagine you have $100 of revenue in your company. You can either pay it to yourself as salary, meaning that you don't pay corporate tax on it, or you can keep it in the company, pay corporate tax on it, then pay yourself a dividend of what is left. While that dividend will be treated better than salary, remember that the company already paid tax on it. You paying less on what's left doesn't equate to paying less overall. Go ahead and run the numbers using your actual corporate tax rate and your personal income tax rate. Try doing your whole salary as dividends - not dollar for dollar, but as how much the company would have as profit to give you a dividend if it didn't spend (and deduct) salary money on you. You are unlikely to see any difference at all. The net final money in your pocket, and the amount that went to the government, will probably be the same. If paying dividends keeps your earned income low, you may find that you can't use RRSP or childcare deductions. You are also not getting CPP credit. That's an argument for salary, or at least a certain minimum amount of salary. You have to deduct taxes at source on salary and send it along to the government, which is an argument for dividends if you feel you could invest that money and use it well before the taxes get around to being due. Possibly you may discover an edge case where you move a few thousand from one marginal tax rate to another and clear a few hundred extra as a result. I don't discourage you from doing the math, I just point out that the various percentages (tax rates, grossups, deductions etc) have all been carefully chosen so that it pretty much works out the same, or gives a small preference to salary. We give excess money to ourselves as bonus rather than dividend having run the numbers a few times. There's no secret trick here. Revenue Canada allows for some amount of tax deferral via several methods. The point is that none of them allow you to avoid tax, but by deferring from years when you have high income to years when you have lower income allows you to realize less total tax paid due to the marginal rate for personal income tax. The corporate dividend approach (as explained in another answer) is one way. TFSAs are another way, but as you point out, they have limits.  Since you brought TFSAs into your question: About the best and easiest tax deferral option available in Canada is the RRSP. If you don't have a company pension, you can contribute something like 18% of your income. If you have a pension plan, you may still be able to contribute to an RRSP as well, but the maximum contribution amount will be lower. The contribution lowers your taxable income which can save you tax. Interest earned on the equity in your RRSP isn't taxed. Tax is only paid on money drawn from the plan because it is deemed income in that year. They are intended for retirement, but you're allowed to withdraw at any time, so if you have little or no income in a year, you can draw money from your RRSP. Tax is withheld, which you may or may not get back depending on your taxable income for that year. You can think of it as a way to level your income and lower your legitimate tax burden Remember that long term appreciation has tax advantages over short-term dividends. If you buy shares of a company, never earn any dividends, and then sell the stock for a profit in 20 years, you've essentially deferred all of the capital gains taxes (and thus your money has compounded faster) for a 20 year period. For this reason, I tend to favor non-dividend stocks, because I want to maximize my long-term gain. Another example, in estate planning, is something called a step-up basis: Let's say your marginal tax rate is 33%.  For every dollar you put in an RRSP, you'll get 33 cents back on your taxes, while the whole amount grows tax free inside the investment.  If you can afford it, money in an RRSP generates a lot of free money. "The answer is Discounted Cash Flows. Companies that don't pay dividends are, ostensibly reinvesting their cash at returns higher than shareholders could obtain elsewhere.  They are reinvesting in productive capacity with the aim of using this greater productive capacity to generate even more cash in the future. This isn't just true for companies, but for almost any cash-generating project. With a project you can purchase some type of productive assets, you may perform some kind of transformation on the good (or not), with the intent of selling a product, service, or in fact the productive mechanism you have built, this productive mechanism is typically called a ""company"". What is the value of such a productive mechanism? Yes, it's capacity to continue producing cash into the future. Under literally any scenario, discounted cash flow is how cash flows at distinct intervals are valued.  A company that does not pay dividends now is capable of paying them in the future.  Berkshire Hathaway  does not pay a dividend currently, but it's cash flows have been reinvested over the years such that it's current cash paying capacity has multiplied many thousands of times over the decades. This is why companies that have never paid dividends trade at higher prices. Microsoft did not pay dividends for many years because the cash was better used developing the company to pay cash flows to investors in later years. A companies value is the sum of it's risk adjusted cash flows in the future, even when it has never paid shareholders a dime. If you had a piece of paper that obligated an entity (such as the government) to absolutely pay you $1,000 20 years from now, this $1,000 cash flows present value could be estimated using Discounted Cash Flow. It might be around $400, for example.  But let's say you want to trade this promise to pay before the 20 years is up.  Would it be worth anything?  Of course it would.  It would in fact typically go up in value (barring heavy inflation) until it was worth very close to $1,000 moments before it's value is redeemed. Imagine that this ""promise to pay"" is much like a non-dividend paying stock.  Throughout its life it has never paid anyone anything, but over the years it's value goes up.  It is because the discounted cash flow of the $1,000 payout can be estimated at almost anytime prior to it's payout." This is the point of the article. Somehow a company which is so successful has, for tax purposes, such a razor thin margin. So their taxation clearly isn't in keeping with its actual ability to pay, passing along the burden to other businesses and individuals. Tax-advantaged accounts mean you pay less tax. You fundamentally pay less tax on IRAs and 401ks than other accounts. That's their benefit. You keep more money at the expense of the government. It makes sense for the government to limit it. If you don't understand why you pay less tax, you must consider the time value of money -- the principal now is the same value of money as the principal + earnings later. With IRAs and 401ks, you only pay income tax once: with Roth IRAs and 401ks, you pay tax on the entire amount of money once when you earn it; with pre-tax Traditional IRAs and 401ks, you pay tax on the entire amount of money once when withdraw it. However, with outside accounts, you have to pay tax more than once: you pay once when you earn it, and pay tax again on the earnings later, earnings that grew from money that was already taxed (which, when considering time value, means that the earnings have already been taxed), but is taxed again. For things like savings in a bank, it's even worse: interest (which grew from money already taxed) is taxed every year, which means some money you pay tax on n times, if you have it in there n years. If you don't understand the above, you can see with an example. We start with $1000 pre-tax wages and for simplicity will assume a flat 25% income tax rate, and a growth rate of 10% per year, and get the cash (assume it's a qualified withdrawal) in 10 years. "This scheme doesn't work, because the combination of corporation tax, even the lower CCPC tax, plus the personal income tax doesn't give you a tax advantage, not on any realistic income I've ever worked it out on anyway.  Prior to the 2014 tax year on lower incomes you could scrape a bit of an advantage but the 2013 budget changed the calculation for the tax credit on non-eligible dividends so there shouldn't be an advantage anymore. Moreover if you were to do it this way, by paying corporation tax instead of CPP you aren't eligible for CPP. If you sit with a calculator for long enough you may figure out a way of saving $200 or something small but it's a lot of paperwork for little if any benefit and you wouldn't get CPP. I understand the money multiplier effect described above, but the tax system is designed in a way that it makes more sense to take it as salary and put it in a tax deferred saving account, i.e. an RRSP - so there's no limit on the multiplier effect. Like I said, sit with a calculator - if you're earning a really large amount and are still under the small business limit it may make more sense to use a CCPC, but that is the case regardless of using it as a tax shelter because if you're earning a lot you're probably running a business of some size. The main benefit I think is that if you use a CCPC you can carry forward your losses, but you have to be aware of the definition of an ""allowable business investment loss""."