News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

No one wants a real loss to get a tax loss.

Apparently this idiot does!


TorontoMike-$$$$$$!!!!!!!!

Irony- I have a hunch that between Interested, KA1 and myself we each currently own or have owned more real estate than Mike would ever accumulate in 3 lifetimes.

But, yes we are indeed the befuddled naysayers of this melting pot forum.
 
I personally don't keep properties empty for tax reasons. I have other ways of reducing the taxes paid through corporations. I have consultants that work in the industry at very senior level positions that help with structuring. I also work full time and with corporate bonuses it can get complicated. I was sharing some of my tax experiences and some of my peers in business.

I am sorry Mike but I do not believe you are correct.


No one wants a real loss to get a tax loss. For e.g., if I have a property that is in a loss of $10K after expenses and one that has $10K profit after expenses, I will have a net zero income. However, if I did not have the property in the loss situation and only the one that was in profit, I would have $10K profit and I would have $5K left over after tax assuming a 50% tax rate(for simplicity I have assumed 50%). The same would apply if I had $100K income on my T4 and I had a real $10K loss, I reduce income to 90K...pay tax of $45K(in fact somewhat less tax but for simplicity I am continuing with 50%) Still have a $5K real loss in my Net takehome amount.

Sure you can get deductions like gas, vehicle, home office etc. but assuming these are legitimate expenses you actually spend the money on the gas and vehicle with the wear and tear, getting 1/2 of it back still means you have paid 1/2. Now as to the home office...true you could deduct some of your home office and even some of your house expense on a prorata basis so long as you can justify that the office is solely used for the purpose of doing your business. Everything will be fine until you are audited but then if you can't show that, likely I would expect the deduction would be disallowed. Most people don't get audited and you are assumed to be honest and forthright in your dealings. However, I agree you do get some deductions but the only way it makes sense is if you have deductions on things that were not deductible before. I highly doubt you could get to 50% or more of these "legitimately" based on running properties in a loss situation.

By the way, Ka1, an accountant in post 8591 would appear to agree with the rest of us about the loss against income.
 
I personally don't keep properties empty for tax reasons. I have other ways of reducing the taxes paid through corporations. I have consultants that work in the industry at very senior level positions that help with structuring. I also work full time and with corporate bonuses it can get complicated. I was sharing some of my tax experiences and some of my peers in business.

lmao
 
I personally don't keep properties empty for tax reasons. I have other ways of reducing the taxes paid through corporations. I have consultants that work in the industry at very senior level positions that help with structuring. I also work full time and with corporate bonuses it can get complicated. I was sharing some of my tax experiences and some of my peers in business.

Mike through your corporations you may get some tax savings I have no doubt. However, most of the time it is tax deferrals. Still at tax deferred is a tax not paid as the saying goes.
I think you can acknowledge at this point at least that real losses are not something someone wants, even if one gets a tax loss through the process.
 
I personally don't keep properties empty for tax reasons. I have other ways of reducing the taxes paid through corporations. I have consultants that work in the industry at very senior level positions that help with structuring. I also work full time and with corporate bonuses it can get complicated. I was sharing some of my tax experiences and some of my peers in business.

Oh lordie...

Have you guys heard about the latest tax reduction strategy sweeping Canada? People are burning huge piles of cash in their front yard and claiming the loss on their taxes to save thousands in taxes payable! :cool:
 
Hmmm... I don't understand the vitriol here. If someone is going to keep a unit un-rented anyway, s/he may as well claim the expenses when possible to reduce the overall taxes.

However, this is a tangent off the larger point, which is that the percentage of units kept empty intentionally empty for long periods of time by Chinese speculators in Canada is low to begin with. The numbers that get thrown around (like 23% or whatever) are simply misrepresentations by undereducated members of the press and it's quite unfortunate that so many people choose to believe that misinformation.
 
TorontoMike's comments would be valid if you can apply a non-cash loss, such as CCA, to active income but, as far as I know, this is not allowed in Canada.
 
Hmmm... I don't understand the vitriol here. If someone is going to keep a unit un-rented anyway, s/he may as well claim the expenses when possible to reduce the overall taxes.

Nobody is disputing that. We are disputing TorontoMike$ assertion that it makes sense to lose money because you'll get a tax benefit from it. That is obviously not true yet he insists it is.
 
Nobody is disputing that. We are disputing TorontoMike$ assertion that it makes sense to lose money because you'll get a tax benefit from it. That is obviously not true yet he insists it is.

There was no need for some of the personal attacks, though.
 
There was no need for some of the personal attacks, though.

When somebody insists on acting like a dunce, we would be doing them a disservice to not place the dunce cap on their head.

Plus, the poster in question isn't exactly the most respectful poster here...

Wow your more of a fool than we thought. Read between the lines.

Mods - lets take a percentage of ad income to get CN some much needed help!

And a new dictionary so he can learn some new words =)
 
TorontoMike's comments would be valid if you can apply a non-cash loss, such as CCA, to active income but, as far as I know, this is not allowed in Canada.

Yes, you can claim CCA to reduce rental income to Nil. However, you can not use CCA to either create or increase rental loss.

In the event of a sale of rental property at price above the book value, all the CCA taken in previous years will be taxed in full in the year of sale. And that could hurt.

Cash loss can be applied aginst income but will be added back in full, in case property is sold for a gain
 
Last edited:
http://www.thestar.com/business/rea...f_toronto_vancouver_condos_investorowned.html

CMHC report says just 17.1% of Toronto, Vancouver condos investor-owned

New survey of condo market sure to be criticized for leaving out more than it includes


By: Susan Pigg Business Reporter, Published on Fri Aug 08 2014



Canada’s federal housing agency has tried — yet again — to pull back the curtain on Toronto’s and Vancouver’s condo market and says a new survey of condo owners shows just 17.1 per cent are investors and 82.9 per cent own the unit in which they live.


The survey released Friday by the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corp. quickly came under criticism by some housing watchers, especially in Toronto where investors are generally believed to control far more — at least 40 per cent — of the new condo market.


One concern is that the survey of 42,426 households comes from a CMHC database of condo renters and owners in existing and often older buildings.


It doesn’t shed any light on the extent of foreign investment — the number of wealthy people from areas such as Asia, Russia and the Middle East who are simply looking to park their money in offshore real estate.


Nor does it include investors who own a condo in Toronto or Vancouver, but don’t live in those cities.


Most critically, it doesn’t include the mass of buyers who’ve purchased suites since the explosion of condo construction in the last five to seven years, often in hopes of making money.


Many of those projects have yet to start, are still under construction or have yet to occupy. While the Canada Revenue Agency routinely asks developers for their sales lists, to track buyers who may be flipping units and not paying capital gains, CMHC made no such efforts to actually track down owners.


Analysts simply relied on its existing database, usually used to assess rents and the strength of the rental market, and surveyed owners from that.


“That’s the biggest issue I see with this survey,†said former CMHC analyst Shaun Hildebrand, now a senior vice president with Toronto-based condo research firm Urbanation.


“The more important question for the market is what does that huge wave of (more recent) investors intend to do, how long do they plan to hold their units, what equity do they have in the units? It’s those individuals — who may be first-time or amateur investors — who we don’t know a lot about.â€


CMHC’s 2013 Condominium Owners Survey found that about half those 17.1 per cent of condo owners who are investors rent their units out. Another third said they were living in the unit themselves or had family living there.


Almost 60 per cent — 58.4 per cent — expect to hang onto their condo for more than five years. Another 17.9 per cent plan to hold for 2 to 5 years, 7.6 per cent for less than two years and 16.1 per cent “did not know or answer,†says CMHC.


About 12 per cent of respondents said they bought a condo with plans to sell for a profit within a year.


Some 42.1 per cent of the 42,426 households surveyed in August and September of last year, had no mortgage on that secondary property.


“It’s not a complete picture. (The number of) foreign investors is a really, really tough one to get at. They don’t live here and we don’t have the power to survey them,†said Bob Dugan, chief economist at CMHC’s market analysis centre.


“This survey is a starting point for us. We’ve identified data gaps (in understanding the national housing market) and condo investors is one that we’re trying to work toward filling. This is one step in that direction, but it’s not the final destination.â€


CMHC first tried to do this survey in 2012, but decided not to release the results, fearful they didn’t properly reflect the market. In another effort, it released a survey last December that also raised questions because it found just 23 per cent of Toronto’s condo stock was being rented out in 2012 by investor-owners and 26 per cent in Vancouver.


CIBC deputy-chief economist Benjamin Tal has raised concerns recently about the lack of enough data on the housing market, particularly the fast-growing condo market. He called the survey “a great and welcomed move.â€


But it assesses the “stock†rather than the “flow†of the condo market, he notes.


“When you talk to developers in the GTA and even in many pockets in Vancouver, they tell you that 70 per cent of (condo) presales and close to 50 to 60 per cent of final sales are by investors.â€


The “picture that is emerging from this survey is much more positive than the popular perception,†said Tal, calling the 17.1 investor figure “much smaller than expected.†Market watchers believe it’s critical to get a better handle on the investor-owned component of the market as they may be more prone to engage in a massive sell-off if the market heads for a downturn.

So far, that has not happened. In fact, housing watchers have been surprised at the strength of the condo market, which has become, in essence, the major supply of rental housing, especially in Toronto where almost no new apartment buildings have been constructed in the last few decades.
 
There was no need for some of the personal attacks, though.

In Canadian law, half-truth is more dangerous than an outright lie.

I made a post # 8942 to warn any innocent visitors on this thread to not to take his post seriously and get hurt financially.

TorontoMike$$ has stated that he uses the services of high priced tax smart people -- lawyers, accountants. Yet he has not come back with a confirmation of or a rebuttal to my earlier post.

This person, potentially, is too dangerous for others to be allowed posting idiotic statements unchallenged. And if it takes strong words, then, so be it.
 
Yes, you can claim CCA to reduce rental income to Nil. However, you can not use CCA to either create or increase rental loss.

In the event of a sale of rental property at price above the book value, all the CCA taken in previous years will be taxed in full in the year of sale. And that could hurt.

Yep, that's what I meant - you cannot create a loss to apply to active income. Like all tax deferrals, there is some planning involved - i.e. the expectation disposition will be in a year in which income is substantially less.
 

Back
Top