Treadstone Associates
Case File № 775 · Self-Employed Income

Whose money is in the business account

a Cornwall contractor's down payment and the HST sitting next to it

An unincorporated Cornwall contractor's down payment was drawn directly from the business's own operating bank account -- the same account that also held GST/HST collected from clients and not yet remitted to CRA. The lender's source-of-funds review needed to separate the two before crediting the withdrawal as the owner's own money.

OntarioInsured · PurchaseFiled August 9, 20265 min read
$42,500

the down payment -- drawn from a business operating account that also held HST collected from clients

39.6%

TDS, comfortably inside CMHC's 44% cap

37.0%

GDS, comfortably inside CMHC's 39% cap

Anonymized illustration. The borrowers, dollar figures, and rates in this file are an illustrative composite — no real client is identifiable, and any rate shown is illustrative, not a quote. The rules are real: every regulatory figure is cited to its source in the Sources section, and the math computes exactly as shown.

№ 01

The client

An unincorporated contractor in Cornwall buying a $425,000 home at 10% down, funding the down payment directly from the business's own operating bank account.

Purchase price

$425,000, Cornwall

10% down, insured

Down payment source

Business operating account

Same account also held GST/HST collected from clients

Two-year-average qualifying income

$8,500/month

Other debt

$220/mo car loan

№ 02

The problem

For a sole proprietor, a business's operating account and the owner's own money are, legally, the same pool -- but that same account also holds GST/HST collected from clients on recent invoices, money that is owed to CRA rather than freely the owner's to spend.

What the withdrawal alone could not answer

  • The $42,500 down payment came straight out of the business's operating account
  • That account's balance at any given moment includes GST/HST collected from clients, not yet remitted
  • A withdrawal that happened to include HST-in-trust dollars would still be legal for a sole proprietor to make -- but it would leave the business short when the remittance came due

Nobody suggested the withdrawal was improper. The lender's own source-of-funds review just needed to know which dollars in that account were actually available to spend.

№ 03

The numbers

Once the withdrawal was confirmed as net proceeds rather than HST-in-trust money, the insured purchase math itself was routine.

The insured purchase, source confirmedAmount
Base mortgage (90% of purchase price)$382,500
CMHC premium (3.10% at 90% LTV)+$11,858
Total insured mortgage$394,358
Ratio check at the qualifying rateFigure
Payment at the qualifying rate (6.90%), 25 years$2,738/mo
GDS (payment + $290 tax + $115 heat) ÷ $8,500 income37.0%
TDS (GDS numerator + $220 car loan) ÷ $8,500 income39.6%

37.0% and 39.6% sit comfortably inside CMHC's 39% GDS and 44% TDS maximums -- the ratios were never in doubt; confirming whose money was actually in the account was the real work on this file.

№ 04

The solution

A mortgage agent licensed under Ontario's Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act treated the business account withdrawal as a documentation question, not an assumption to wave through.

First, pulled the business's recent GST/HST return and remittance schedule, showing how much of the account's balance at the time of withdrawal was collected tax owed to CRA versus the owner's own net proceeds.

Second, reconciled the $42,500 withdrawal against that schedule, confirming the amount withdrawn came from net proceeds already clear of any HST collected and outstanding.

Third, obtained a short accountant's letter confirming the reconciliation, alongside the same T1/T2 income documentation already being used for the two-year income average, so both questions drew on one consistent paper trail.

Business's recent GST/HST return and remittance schedule
Bank records showing the down payment withdrawal from the operating account
Accountant's letter reconciling the withdrawal against net proceeds, not HST collected
Standard two-year self-employed income documentation for the insured purchase
Confirmation the business's own GST/HST remittance obligation remains fully funded
№ 05

The outcome

The purchase funded insured at 37.0% GDS and 39.6% TDS, with the down payment confirmed as the owner's own money and the business's HST remittance obligation untouched.

Both ratios sit comfortably inside CMHC's 39% GDS and 44% TDS maximums; the file was never close to either ceiling once the source-of-funds question was resolved.

№ 06

What to take from this file

  • 01A sole proprietor's business account and personal funds are legally the same pool -- but not every dollar in it is freely available. GST/HST collected from clients is money owed to CRA, sitting in the same account as the owner's own proceeds.
  • 02Reconcile a down-payment withdrawal against the business's own GST/HST remittance schedule, not just its bank balance, before assuming the withdrawal is clean.
  • 03An accountant's letter documenting the reconciliation is worth more than a bank statement alone. The bank statement shows the withdrawal happened; the letter shows what kind of money it actually was.
  • 04This distinction matters for a sole proprietor precisely because there is no separate corporate structure to keep the two pools apart. The documentation has to do the separating instead.

Sources

Every regulatory figure in this file traces to one of these primary sources. Client details and anything that varies by lender are illustrative, as flagged below.

Illustrative in this file — lender-specific, not rules:

  • 4.90% contract rate — rates move daily; not a quote.

Authority & provenance

How this case file was built

We publish the origin, the verification method and the reviewer for every case file, so you can judge how far to trust it before you rely on it with a client.

Where it comes from

Derived from files handled by Treadstone’s fulfillment desk and from scenarios contributed by partner brokerages. Names, employers, exact amounts and dates are changed so no client or file is identifiable.

Provenance: Composite — a pattern seen repeatedly on fulfilled files, not a single transaction.

What is verified

Every regulatory figure traces to a primary source listed above and was checked against it on the date shown. The arithmetic is recomputed by machine on every rebuild.

Anything that varies by lender is labelled illustrative rather than stated as a rule.

Who reviewed it

Reviewed for Canadian regulatory accuracy before publication, and re-checked whenever a cited rule changes.

Reviewed by: Nicholas Parson, Treadstone Associates — reviews every case file before publication.

First published 9 August 2026Rules last verified 9 August 2026Next scheduled review 9 February 2027

This case file is professional reference material for licensed mortgage professionals. It is not advice to a borrower, and it is not a lender commitment. Insurer rules, qualifying rates and provincial taxes change — confirm the current position with the insurer, regulator or lender before you rely on any figure here in a live file.

Treadstone fulfillment

Files like this are daily work for our desk.

Document collection, ratio math under multiple treatments, lender placement notes, and submission-ready packaging — for Canadian mortgage brokers who would rather be in front of clients.