Most incorporated medical and health professionals I meet fall into one of two camps. Either way, the result is the same: nobody is running the math across all of it.
Sometimes that means I'm your personal advisor and I work alongside your accountant. Sometimes I'm both, end-to-end. It depends on what you have today — and what you actually need.
Retained earnings, salary vs. dividends, passive income, corporate-class investments. Strategically planned — not just compliant.
A clear path to where you want to be — retiring at 55, transitioning your practice, drawing income from both sides tax-efficiently.
Disability, critical illness, life, and corporately-owned insurance. Structured so your coverage matches your real income.
Estate freeze, capital dividend account, succession of your practice. So your family receives what you built, not Canada Revenue.
Retirement at 55. The cottage. The kids' tuition without a second thought. Selling the practice on your terms. Knowing the family is protected if anything happens. The plan is a means to that — not an end in itself.
01
02
03
04Four steps. The first three are no-cost — you only move forward once you've seen the analysis and decided it's worth doing.
We talk about your corporation, your goals, and whether what I do is a fit for you.
I review your actual corporate financials, current coverage, and tax situation. Look for gaps and opportunities.
A clear presentation: what I found, what I’d recommend, what it means in dollars over a decade.
If you see the value, we move forward. If not, no hard feelings and no invoice. You keep the insights either way.
Borrow against the policy, live on the loan, let the death benefit repay it. The insured retirement strategy is elegant on a slide and layered underneath: two very different ways to borrow with two tax outcomes, an interest deduction that usually does not exist, and a shareholder-benefit question most presentations skip.
Most writing about immediate financing arrangements describes who they fit. This one does the opposite, because the disqualifiers are more useful and far less discussed: the cash-flow floor, the unlevered test, the tax-tail trap, and the myths that put people into these structures for the wrong reasons.
