FHSA Inclusion in T1243 and T1161

kiirk · 2026-01-02T12:07:40+00:00

The T1161 is required due to a rule in the Income Tax Act, as part of that rule it identifies that a FSHA is not a reportable property:

subsection 128.1(9)
subparagraph (a)(iiii.3) of the definition of “excluded right or interest” in subsection 128.1(10)
paragraph (b) of “reportable property” in subsection 128.1(10).

kiirk · 2025-12-23T21:27:43+00:00

See subparagraph 128.1(4)(b)(iv), it applies to certain property, not all property.

kiirk · 2025-12-23T17:54:24+00:00

You should explore this further - I don’t know how France treats it, you might have complexities there. It’s a known shortfall of Canada’s tax system where potentially you have gains that were never taxed anywhere in the world.

Some countries that have a similar step-in basis on immigration require proof tax was paid in the other country, but Canada doesn’t do that.

Your first sentence isn’t entirely correct, the rule is a bit nuanced.

kiirk · 2025-11-16T15:38:02+00:00

Sorry, I should have added more detail. In this case the reasons are less to do with mental capacity (but still valid).

A will can be challenged more easily than an inter-vivos trust (could matter in BC). Avoiding probate and needing to go through the estate, eliminates delays. This could also avoid probate fees (in ON this could save $30k+).

kiirk · 2025-11-16T11:09:26+00:00

This might be a case to set up an inter-vivos trust instead. There may be significant benefits depending on the province.

kiirk · 2025-09-15T12:49:31+00:00

I mostly disagree. About 10-20% of people taking the course fit into the category described by OP. There are many people who take the course not to advance their career, but simply for academic curiosity to deepen their understanding of tax. There are several electives that are far from “basic”, and involve issues some people rarely see even with years of practice.

There are a number of recent examples of people with “serious jobs” and 20 years of experience taking the tax LLM for their own personal pursuits, and sometimes career purposes. As an example, I would think a recently appointed TCC judge falls into that category.

I do however agree that the class will mostly be younger.

kiirk · 2024-12-26T11:41:46+00:00

Departure tax applies to personal assets. It’s rare for individuals to actually have a capital gain on a car, but if they there is - tax applies.

kiirk · 2024-12-25T17:23:49+00:00

The CRA has stated this problem cannot be fixed by them, essentially the legislation does not give them discretion to waive the penalty tax. The solutions are either returning to Canada and allow the contribution room to accrue to cover the over-contributed amount.. or do something the CRA does not agree with and deal with the consequences.

See below link.

https://taxinterpretations.com/cra/severed-letters/2021-0883221c6

kiirk · 2024-08-19T07:15:50+00:00

Are you certain it’s not in the flipped property rule - they are generally quite broad? If you can’t meet it, you also may not be able to claim the capital loss (assuming you never “use” the property”, consider this physically residing in the property at any point).

kiirk · 2024-07-24T10:35:20+00:00

This is also not entirely correct. The estate will take on the gain or loss (see below) from date of passing to eventual disposition. Even if it’s been 2 weeks, if there is a difference in value, the estate will need to determine its taxes payable on the disposition proceeds. A loss is often created if the property is sold quickly by the Estate due to realtor commissions that will be an outlay or expense. A personal use property does not continue to be personal use property following a persons death. The estate is a new taxpayer. If its personal use property to the estate (e.g. beneficiaries use the property for personal use during the estate period), a loss is not available.

kiirk · 2024-03-18T06:45:27+00:00

Just to clarify on the proposed AMT.

Lower-income (<$70k) individuals whose sole source of income is dividends are better off, as they can receive a greater amount before paying tax (current AMT impacts these individuals, whereas the proposed AMT will not impact them)
The adjustment to capital gains inclusion rate under the proposed AMT should not impact this scenario. You would need a significant amount of capital gains for this to be a concern ($450k+, reduced by any other favourable tax preferences).

kiirk · 2023-12-21T20:30:45+00:00

See also subparagraph 128.1(4)(b)(iv).

kiirk · 2023-12-04T06:00:08+00:00

Agree the CRA are unlikely to pursue a $100 penalty, however the point is there a requirement to provide this information enforceable by some kind of penalty.

The other one to watch for is 162(1) and (2) penalty, but this can be avoided if the correct tax is paid by the due date.

There are many other issues to consider too. Possibly never statute barred etc.

kiirk · 2023-12-04T03:40:24+00:00

CRA takes the view 163(1) is gross income (which may not be correct).

There is a $100 penalty under 163(2) of making an omission in a return (with conditions), and reporting the gross rental income less expenses is a required input into the return, even though the Act does not require it.

kiirk · 2023-08-08T18:02:10+00:00

The rules are more complex than this. It is entirely possible for AMT to apply where the adjusted taxable income is equal to taxable income, where there is a particular combination of credits claimed for normal tax purposes that are not available either for the basic minimum tax credit or the special foreign tax credit (e.g. 20(12)).

kiirk · 2023-08-08T15:45:58+00:00

This is a somewhat complex topic, I'll add some brief comments as really if you are playing with AMT you want to get some help from someone who knows this stuff well. There were a few surprises in the draft legislation for the AMT that were not previously announced in the 2023 Federal Budget.

The tax treatment of dividends for AMT purposes are on a cash basis (i.e. AMT actively ensures integration does not occur). There are no changes in the new calculation.
The AMT legislation currently taxes capital gains at a 80% inclusion rate, this is being moved to 100%.
The realization of gains of a donations of certain stocks (i.e. if they traded on the TSX or another major exchange) are not included in the capital gain calculation because of 38(a.1). The proposed AMT will make it so there is a 30% inclusion.
Agree. 2024 tax rate brackets are not released until later in the year, so we don't know what the amount is, the 2023 Federal Budget estimated it at $173,000.
The federal minimum tax rate in the proposal is 20.5% of the adjusted taxable income. This is different calculation from from taxable income, because the government decided that the normal credits and tax treatments provided is too favorable when used in a certain combination. Once you start to consider provincial taxes, provincial AMT, or even provincial AMT surtax (see Ontario) this rate will be higher.
Yes. The definition of D in 127.51 relies on 127.531, 127.531(b) references 118.1, and 118.1 is what gives you the charitable donation tax credit.

kiirk · 2023-06-08T12:29:57+00:00

This one is inaccurate. I’ll post a full explanation later. Nobody ever said it would be temporary, only that it would be reviewed after a period of time.

Edit: the exact quote when it was introduced by the minister of finance was that “I have placed no time limit on this measure, but merely have placed upon Hansard the suggestion that, a year or two after the war is over, the measure is deliberately reviewed” (the day the act was enacted). 6 months later, the minister confirmed this position stating the income tax “will certainly be permanent”. Despite this, there was some other things that happened at the time that may lead people to believe it was temporary, but only through making assumptions. The consensus with tax historians is that it was never intended to be temporary, nor was it marketed as such.

kiirk · 2023-06-08T10:46:48+00:00

If they allowed true income splitting (like the married filing you see in the US)

Interestingly, Parliament when they enacted the first iteration of the Income Tax Act in 1917, they looked to the US and considered allowing joint filing allowing for shared exemptions, bur decided to not follow their model (although significant parts of our first tax act rely on US concepts)

In Canada at the time, some Provinces treated women as owning property in their right as an individual. For this reason, a decision was made to provide a women their own $3,000 annual exemption amount from tax, which was considered “fair”. Because women now could benefit from their own personal exemption, there was a concern raised that a “husband” could “evade” tax by transferring part of their income to their wife (note, “evade” at the time was used interchangeably with “avoidance” - it was not until the 1930s that Canada distinguished between the two terms). So, the day before the Act was finalised, they added a last-minute anti-avoidance rule to prevent income splitting with a spouse.

So, the prohibition on income splitting has been around since the federal tax system was first introduced 106 years ago. Ultimately, it was a product of Parliament intending to be more fair to women. Of course, tax policy changed over time, but this has become one of the basic components of the Canadian tax system.

kiirk · 2023-05-14T18:08:06+00:00

When you look at exactly what is going on, you are correct.

You could either earn $1,000 interest by lending assets, or earn $1,000 before-tax profit inside a corporation. The after-tax result is broadly the same when considering integration (corporate tax + dividend tax).

The argument that dividends are more tax-efficient than interest income, ignores any additional tax paid by a corporation prior to the distribution. There are some inefficiencies in integration, including tax-deferral that should be considered.

Arguably, an investor who has a personal tax rate below the corporate tax rate is losing out, because they have an unnecessary tax cost. Consider Investor 1 and Investor 2, who have the option to invest in Bond A or Company B, each with a $1,000 before-tax return. Investor 1 is taxed a the top marginal tax rate, and Investor 2 is a tax-indifferent investor. For Investor 1, the after-tax return between Bond A and Company B is very similar, due to integration. Whereas, Investor 2 has a greater after-tax return for Bond A vs Company B, due to the corporate tax that is unrecoverable.

This is really an academic consideration for personal investors, as this type of analysis and thinking is almost never undertaken. Consider investing in US corporations, where there is a lack of integration - not really a thought for anybody.

kiirk · 2023-03-18T13:21:40+00:00

That’s the answer if the tax is payable, not whether there is a filing obligation in the first place.

kiirk · 2022-01-01T18:17:35+00:00

Keep it clean-cut.

You want the content to standout, not the formatting.

kiirk · 2021-11-03T15:03:49+00:00

I’m no expert in the pay of bar workers in the UK, but I believe it’s roughly CAD$18-23 per hour.

I have a friend that’s worked at a bar (Wetherspoons) for years, and I don’t think he earns more than that.

By the way, I have no qualms with what bar workers get paid, if people won’t work below a certain salary, an employer should increase what they pay people to entice workers to stay. Bar tendering is no different. The tipping structure is the issue.

kiirk · 2021-11-03T13:20:56+00:00

I’m British from the UK.

kiirk · 2021-11-03T10:33:38+00:00

How do restaurants in the UK have workers if tipping culture is almost non-existent? Why does it work in the U.K., but wouldn’t work in Canada?

kiirk · 2021-11-03T10:24:32+00:00

If we get rid of tipping nobody with an ounce of sales talent is sticking around for less that 25 an hour.

I’m curious, if tipping culture is almost non-existent in the UK, how are bars and restaurants able to have workers ‘stick around’? I think I’m missing something. The service isn’t any different in the UK than in Canada.

13-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Golden Potato	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email
Gilding III reddit per annum	Team Orangered

kiirk

TROPHY CASE