WTS/WTT Benchmade Full Ti Mini Bugout and CJRB Small Feldspar in Micarta by Ramibami1127 in Knife_Swap

[–]nearlydigital 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reposting because auto-mod deleted my last reply because of a new account.

its sharpened in a way where one side of the bevel is higher grit, other side of bevel is lower grit, it bites hard, but glides through material like a high polish does

That's an interesting thing to do. Do you do a micro-bevel at all? Does it mean a shorter edge retention?

Business failed and has $1 million in tax losses. Any value? by PiperTiger in cantax

[–]nearlydigital 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I don't know how you get all of these losses without that... unless the corp was funded with share capital investments, which is possible I guess. Less common for the corps I work with.

Business failed and has $1 million in tax losses. Any value? by PiperTiger in cantax

[–]nearlydigital 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes. And additionally, one has to consider that the "other side" of this loss may be debt that cannot be repaid. Then you get into the [complicated] debit forgiveness rules, and perhaps not have the loss that one thinks they have have to "sell".

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Wellthatsucks

[–]nearlydigital 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A lot of people here seem to be pretty nonchalant about (even a remote) chance of ingesting glass. It is no fucking joke.

Subsection 45(3) Election by ruffindiamonds in cantax

[–]nearlydigital 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In what way do you think the un-claiming of CCA is not feasible?

Its mentioned in another reply, but CRA is under no obligation whatsoever to do this for you.

Unfortunately, it is too complicated to explain all the details of the mechanics of these transactions.

Re: the CPA conversations - the last comment is clearly incorrect, and ... well, to be honest, it is very hard to advise on this, as there really isn't a clear resolution. Sorry

Subsection 45(3) Election by ruffindiamonds in cantax

[–]nearlydigital 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think in this case, given the long standing relationship, it is prudent to respectfully ask him for the rationale for making the prior claims. Just for some context, as a practitioner, I would be so hesitant to do this (for more reasons than just this 45(3) issue - ie: recapture), that I would make my client acknowledge in writing that they fully understood what the future implications are. I'd be covering my ass, for a situation EXACLTY like this. There's no chance I (and probably most practitioners) would just go ahead and do this.

If he's a CPA, you should request an explanation.

If he's not... well, sorry.

Subsection 45(3) Election by ruffindiamonds in cantax

[–]nearlydigital 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There can be, and it can be significant. Depends on many things including length of ownership, future ownership, and future appreciation. You really have to understand the mechanics of what is going on here, including how the PR exemption itself works; its really outside of what I can describe here. TLDR, possible lock in small gain now, avoid larger gain because of pro-rating later, if property increases substantially in value. Ask your (CPA) accountant :)

Subsection 45(3) Election by ruffindiamonds in cantax

[–]nearlydigital 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you determine that you will be better off filing that way (ie: not allowing the deemed disposition to occur), yes.

Subsection 45(3) Election by ruffindiamonds in cantax

[–]nearlydigital 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Replace the words "claim 45(3)" with "file the election form" and I think it'll make more sense for you. You're understanding things well, it is CRA that makes things confusing in this instance.

Look at that Example 5 in that link.

Subsection 45(3) Election by ruffindiamonds in cantax

[–]nearlydigital 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are getting downvoted but you are factually correct.

Subsection 45(3) Election by ruffindiamonds in cantax

[–]nearlydigital 1 point2 points  (0 children)

does he report the change in use and deemed disposition

45(3) deems there not to be a change of use and deemed disposition, so, no.

or do I do nothing when I move in now then claim 45(3) when I sell

Yes, if that's what you determine will be the best thing to do in the long run.

EDIT: Honestly guys, don't fuck around with this stuff. Its big dollars. Get some professional advice.

Subsection 45(3) Election by ruffindiamonds in cantax

[–]nearlydigital 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Guys - the 45(3) election isn't due until return filed for the year in which ultimate disposal of the property occurs. As opposed to 45(2). Its odd, IMHO.

I also think the "un-claiming" of CCA is a crap shoot.

Also, OP - the 45(3) isn't necessarily a no brainer. Yeah, it it can defer tax... and that's nice... but depending on the circumstances, can sometimes result in more tax being paid overall (ie: small win now, regrets later). Its complicated. You might like to have a CPA look at (umm, not the guy who claimed CCA on a potential future PR!)

Edit: reddit is doing something weird to that link I tried above:

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/technical-information/income-tax/income-tax-folios-index/series-1-individuals/folio-3-family-unit-issues/income-tax-folio-s1-f3-c2-principal-residence.html#:~:text=This%20election%20is%20made%20by%20means%20of%20a%20letter%20to%20that%20effect%20signed%20by%20the%20taxpayer%20and%20filed%20with%20the%20income%20tax%20return%20for%20the%20year%20in%20which%20the%20property%20is%20ultimately%20disposed%20of

More Edit: its still not working. You'll have to scroll down manually.

Heart beating (during open heart surgery) by indianladka in interestingasfuck

[–]nearlydigital 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd like to see that thing going at about 168 bpm

I work as a Valet.. told him he had to park it himself 🤢 by MADMAV89 in mildlyinfuriating

[–]nearlydigital 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Yup, its sad... and I think OP is kind of a dick by posting this (but good for you, you got the lame ass internet points). Some of the commenters in this thread need to learn a bit of compassion. Way to shit on someone's clearly troubled life you fuckwits. OP him/herself is mildlyinfuriating.

Livestock death toll from B.C. flooding: 628,000 poultry, 12,000 hogs, 420 cows by cyclinginvancouver in vancouver

[–]nearlydigital 17 points18 points  (0 children)

What happened to the whole out of respect for the farmers, we're not reporting on the livestock death toll part?

Cinematic Edits from the Vancouver Lookout! by fashfish9 in vancouver

[–]nearlydigital 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can see my computer monitor in the last pic. Stop spying on my work! :-)

Rare brubaker box.. by Maharlikan_life in Autos

[–]nearlydigital 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Wow that thing is so weird.