The Importance of Tracking Your Adjusted Cost Base from an Inheritance

From an income tax perspective (I am obviously ignoring the emotional issues) receiving an inheritance provides two tax related benefits. The receipt of the inheritance is typically tax-free and you may also receive a “bump” (increase) in the adjusted cost base (“ACB”) of any capital property inherited.

However, over the years, I have seen cases where people pay unnecessary income tax and/or have disputes with the CRA because they (1) forget or are not aware of the cost base bump (2) have misplaced documentation or never obtained documentation (3) have switched accountants (or the original work was prepared by their parent’s accountants and is no longer accessible).

Today, I want to remind those of you who have inherited capital property, to ensure you have in place the documents (easily accessible) to support the ACB of any inherited property when you sell the property in the future.

Taxation on Death

I think to provide context for my comments, I first need to explain how the Income Tax Act works when someone passes away.

In Canada, where you receive cash or a cash like inheritance, there are no income tax implications. Where you inherit capital property, such as stocks and real estate, you will have no immediate income tax implications, plus you will inherit the “bumped-up” cost base of the capital property to the deceased.

By “bumped-up” I mean the following. When a person passes away there is a deemed disposition of the deceased persons capital property at the fair market value ("FMV") of the property right before the person's death (this is typically the last spouse or common-law partner to die, as the income tax allows a tax-free transfer of property to a surviving spouse or common-law partner).

For example; say your mother passed away in 2015 and she owned 1,000 shares of Royal Bank (ignoring stock splits) that were worth $80 a share at her passing, that had been purchased for $12,000 in 2001. (Note: The Royal Bank shares could have been transferred to your mother as a tax-free spousal transfer from your father on his passing or the shares could have been purchased directly by your mother, it is the same tax result).

Your mother’s estate would have filed a final (terminal) income tax return reporting a deemed capital gain of $68,000 (FMV at death of $80,000-$12,000 original cost). This deemed capital gain is known as a deemed disposition on death and occurs despite the fact the Royal Bank shares were not sold. This is because your mother was the last surviving spouse and owned the shares at her date of death. Your mother’s deemed disposition FMV of $80,000 becomes the new cost base of your inherited shares. So, if you sell the Royal Bank shares in the future, the gain would be equal to your sales proceeds less your bumped-up cost base of $80,000. 

The same thing would occur if your father/mom owned real estate. The fair market value at your mothers passing would become your new ACB, although there would be an allocation between land and building. The rules relating to the inheritance real estate can get tricky for a non-arm’s length decedent. You should speak to your accountant to get an accurate understanding of your cost base and allocation between land and building.

While I use parents in the above example, the same result occurs if you inherited the capital property from a relative or friend etc.

A totally separate but interrelated ACB tax issue, is the 1994 Capital Gains Election. In 1994, the $100,000 capital gains exemption was phased out. However, individuals were eligible to make an election on their 1994 personal tax return to bump the value of their capital properties by up to $100,000. Where you inherit capital property, if possible, before the accountant files the terminal return of the deceased, you should ask them if they have the 1994 election on file, or if not, see if you can find the deceased's 1994 return to determine if an election was made in 1994. If the election was made, it will likely have no impact on your inherited ACB, but it may reduce the tax on the terminal tax return of your parent or relative etc.

Supporting Your "Bumped- Up" Adjusted Cost Base

Now that I have provided the income tax context, I can discuss the importance of documentation, as without the documentation, you will not know the inherited cost base of your capital property.

The key documents you hopefully already have on hand or can dig up from a box in storage are:

1. The terminal income tax return of your last surviving parent. This return will reflect the deemed disposition of any capital property held on your parent’s passing on Schedule 3 -Dispositions of Capital Gains (or Losses). The proceeds of disposition on this form will form the new ACB of the inherited property to you. Using my prior example, Schedule 3 would reflect proceeds of disposition of $80,000 for the 1000 RBC shares held on death and the $80,000 would become your new ACB.

2. It is possible a parent who pre-deceased their spouse left property directly to you. If that is the case, you would need their terminal tax return to review their schedule 3.

3.  Tax reorganization memos from your parent’s accountants if they undertook any post-mortem tax planning for your parent(s) private corporations. Depending upon the reorganization, there could be ACB increases, although in many cases, the key planning is creating tax-free promissory notes.

An interesting capital asset is the principal residence (“PR”) of your parents or anyone else you inherited property from. If the house was inherited and not sold immediately (say you kept the PR as a rental property), then the FMV of the PR on the death of your parent becomes important. However, prior to 2016, when the sale of a PR had to start being reported on Schedule 3 (and from 2017 onwards when it had to be reported on Schedule T2091) administratively the CRA did not require you to report the sale of your PR if it had always been your PE and the sale was exempt from tax as your PR. 

Thus, you may need to obtain a real estate valuation for the value of the PR at the deceased's passing, since there may be no record of the FMV on death.

If you have inherited capital property from your parent’s or any other person, hopefully you already have the documentation discussed above in place. If not, it would be a very useful project to try and obtain the documents before you decide to sell the asset and are forced to scramble to find information that can be twenty or thirty years old.

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation. Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.

The Best (Most read all-time) of The Blunt Bean Counter - Transferring Property Among Family Members - A Potential Income Tax Nightmare

This summer I am posting the "best of" The Blunt Bean Counter while I work on my golf game. Today, I am re-posting my most read blog post of all-time (over 200,000 page views); a post on transferring property amongst family members. As you will read, there is potential for some strange income tax results and care must be taken when transferring property to family members. I thus strongly suggest you obtain professional advice before undertaking any such transfer.

Transferring Property Among Family Members - A Potential Income Tax Nightmare

In today’s blog post, I will discuss the income tax implications relating to the transfer of property among family members. These transfers often create significant income tax issues and can be either errors of commission or errors of omission. Over my 25 years as an accountant, I have been referred some unbelievably messed up situations involving intra-family transfers of property.

Transfers of Property - Why They Are Undertaken

Many individuals transfer capital properties (real estate and common shares, being the most common) in and amongst their families like hot cakes. Some of the reasons for undertaking these transfers include: (1) the transferor has creditor issues and believes that if certain properties are transferred, the properties will become creditor protected (2) the transferor wishes to reduce probate fees on his or her death and (3) the transferor wishes to either gift the property, transfer beneficial title or income split with lower-income family members.

I will not discuss the first reason today because it is legal in nature. But be aware, Section 160(1) of the Income Tax Act can make you legally responsible for the transferor's income tax liability and there may be fraudulent conveyance issues amongst other matters.

Transfers of Property - Income Tax Implications

When a property is transferred without consideration (i.e. as gift or to just transfer property into another person's name), the transferor is generally deemed to have sold the property for proceeds equal to its fair market value (“FMV”). If the property has increased in value since the time the transferor first acquired the property, a capital gain will be realized and there will be taxes to be paid even though ownership of the property has stayed within the family. For example, if mom owns a rental property worth $500,000 which she purchased for $100,000 and she transfers it to her daughter, mom is deemed to have a $400,000 capital gain, even though she did not receive any money.

There is one common exception to the deemed disposition rule. The Income Tax Act permits transfers between spouses to take place at the transferor’s adjusted cost base instead of at the FMV of the capital property.

This difference is best illustrated by an example: Mary owns shares of Bell Canada which she purchased 5 years ago at $50. The FMV of the shares today is $75. If Mary transferred the shares of Bell Canada to her brother, Bob, she would realize a capital gain of $25. If instead Mary transferred the shares of Bell Canada to her husband, Doug, the shares would be transferred at Mary’s adjusted cost base of $50 and no capital gain would be realized. It must be noted that if Doug sells the shares in the future, Mary would be required to report the capital gain realized at that time (i.e. the proceeds Doug receives from selling the shares less Mary’s original cost of $50) and Mary would be required to report any dividends received by Doug on those shares from the date of transfer.

When transfers are made to spouses or children who are minors (under the age of 18), the income attribution rules can apply and any income generated by the transferred properties is attributed back to the transferor (the exception being there is no attribution on capital gains earned by a minor). The application of this rule is reflected in that Mary must report the capital gain and any dividends received by Doug. If the transferred property is sold, there is often attribution even on the substituted property.

We have discussed where property is transferred to a non-arm’s length person that the vendor is deemed to have sold the property at its FMV. However, what happens when the non-arm’s length person has paid no consideration or consideration less than the FMV? The answer is that in all cases other than gifts, bequests and inheritances, the transferees cost is the amount they actually paid for the property and there is no adjustment to FMV, a very punitive result.

In English, what these last two sentences are saying is that if you legally gift something, the cost base and proceeds of disposition are the FMV. But if say your brother pays you $5,000 for shares worth $50,000, you will be deemed to sell the shares for $50,000, but your brothers cost will now only be $5,000; whereas if you gifted the shares, his cost base would be $50,000. A strange result considering he actually paid you. This generally results in “double taxation” when the property is ultimately sold by the transferee (your brother in this case), as you were deemed to sell at $50,000 and your brothers gain is measured from only $5,000 and not the FMV of $50,000.

Transfers of a Principal Residence - The Ultimate Potential Tax Nightmare

I have seen several cases where a parent decides to change the ownership of his or her principal residence such that it is to be held jointly by the parent and one or more of their children. In the case of a parent changing ownership of say half of their principal residence to one of their children, the parent is deemed to have disposed of ½ of the property. This initial transfer is tax-free, since it is the parent’s principal residence. However, a transfer into joint ownership can often create an unforeseen tax problem when the property is eventually sold. Subsequent to the change in ownership, the child will own ½ the principal residence. When the property is eventually sold, the gain realized by the parent on his or her half of the property is exempt from tax since it qualifies for the principal residence exemption; however, since the child now owns half of the property, the child is subject to tax on any capital gain realized on their half of the property (i.e. 50% of the difference between the sale price and the FMV at the time the parent transferred the property to the child, assuming the child has a principal residence of their own).

An example of the above is discussed in this Toronto Star story that outlines a $700,000 tax mistake made by one parent in gifting their principal residence to their children.

I have been engaged at least three times over the years by new clients to sort out similar family transfer issues.

Transfers for Probate Purposes

As noted in the first paragraph, many troublesome family transfers are done to avoid probate tax. Since I wrote on this topic previously and this post is somewhat overlapping, I will just provide you the link to that blog post titled Probate Fee Planning - Income Tax, Estate and Legal Issues to consider.

Many people are far too cavalier when transferring property among family members. It should be clear by now that extreme care should be taken before undertaking any transfer of real estate, shares or investments to a family member. I strongly urge you to consult with your accountant or to engage an accountant when contemplating a family transfer or you may be penny wise but $700,000 pound tax foolish.

 

Note: I will not be answering any questions on this "best of" post. The original post has 268 comments. Please scan those comments; it is likely your question has already been addressed.

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation. Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.

The Implications of Receiving an Inheritance

There is a large wealth transfer occurring in Canada, with estimates as high as $750 billion dollars.

While I have written on issues and concepts related to inheritances (with a bit of a caustic tone, based on my actual experiences), I have written very little on receiving an inheritance. Thus, today, I will discuss the income tax implications of receiving an inheritance and some of the issues to consider upon receiving an inheritance.

If you are interested, the posts I referenced in the prior paragraph are:"Is it Morbid or Realistic to Plan for an Inheritance?", and “Taking it to the Grave or Leaving it all to your Kids?” and “Inheriting Money – Are you a Loving Child, a Waiter or a Hoverer”.

The Income Tax Implications of Receiving an Inheritance

In Canada, there are generally no direct income tax consequences to receiving an inheritance. I say generally because there are a couple very rare circumstances where you could pay tax. The first is where you are the beneficiary of a deceased’s RRSP/RRIF and the estate does not have enough money to pay the estate taxes. Surprisingly to most people, the CRA has the right to go after the beneficiary of a RRSP as the CRA considers the beneficiary jointly liable with the estate. The second rare situation is where a will makes a beneficiary liable for taxes arising on the transfer of assets from the deceased. However, both these exceptions are highly unusual and in almost all situations, there are no taxes due upon the receipt of an inheritance.

So, to be clear. If your inheritance is in cash, you receive those funds tax-free. If your inheritance is a capital property of some kind such as stocks or real estate, you again receive the capital property tax free.

However, in the case of capital property, you generally inherit the cost base of the property to the deceased, which is typically equal to the deemed proceeds of disposition for the deceased. Usually, this amount is the fair market value ("FMV") of the property right before the person's death.

So for example, if your mother passes away as the last surviving spouse (it is likely when your father passed away he left his estate to your mother – which is typically a tax-free spousal transfer at his passing) and she owned 100 shares of Bell Canada that originally cost $25 a share, but were worth $65 a share at her passing; her estate would file a final (terminal) income tax return reporting a deemed capital gain of $4,000 (FMV at death of $6,500-$2,500 original cost). This deemed capital gain is known as a deemed disposition on death and occurs despite the fact the Bell Canada shares were not sold, because your mother was the last surviving spouse. Your mother’s deemed disposition FMV of $6,500 becomes your new cost base of the inherited shares. So, if you sell the Bell Canada shares in the future, the gain would be equal to your sales proceeds less $6,500.

If you wish to learn more about how your estate is taxed on death if you are the last surviving spouse, see this blog post I wrote a few years ago, The Two Certainties in Life: Death and Taxes - Impact on Your Personal Income Tax Return

Dealing With an Inheritance

Receiving a large inheritance can be overwhelming, especially if you are not financially sophisticated. I wrote a detailed blog on this topic in 2011 if you wish to read it Dealing with Financial Windfalls & how to stave off the Money Leeches

However, today I will give you the Coles notes version.

Practically, it is almost impossible for a large inheritance to go unnoticed. A family member or friend will advise someone of the passing of your parent /sibling/relative etc. and somehow someway it is likely an investment person will be amongst those to find out and you will get a call. If you avoid the above, a large deposit at the bank will likely trigger someone at the bank to speak to you. It is almost unavoidable.

If you already have an investment advisor/manager you work with and trust, selecting an advisor is a non-issue. But if you have not really worked with an investment advisor/manager or their practice is built around smaller net worth clients and your inheritance is substantial, you will want to review your situation. The best advice is often to “park” the money in a GIC for a couple months until you have regained both your emotional and financial equilibrium and have had time to speak to family and friends to get a couple good referrals and absorb your new situation.

The “parking” of the inheritance would also apply to any decision to give money away (as you may receive subtle or less than subtle hints about gifting part of your inheritance to various family members) as well as holding off investing part of your inheritance.

Putting the money in a GIC or similar investment also provides you a built-in excuse to not be able to make any decisions in the near-term, since if anyone has the audacity to ask, you answer, “my money is locked in for 3 or 6 months and I cannot touch it”.

Inheritances typically come on the heels of emotional distress and in many cases, significant changes in your financial situation. The good news is that in almost all circumstances the cash or capital property inherited is tax-paid money and you have no additional tax concerns. However, the “new-found” wealth can be stressful from both an investing and gifting perspective and you need to ensure you have a clear mind before making any decisions on both fronts.

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation. Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.

Gifting and Leaving Money to Your Grandchild

Many grandparents ask me about the tax and practical ramifications of gifting or bequeathing money or assets to their grandchildren. Some wish to make gifts while they are alive, others choose to make gifts upon their passing, and still others give both while alive and after passing.

I wrote the first draft of this blog post prior to COVID -19, but it is more relevant than ever, given many people have been laid off, lost their jobs or been set back financially, and many grandparents want to help them until they regain their financial footing. Today I will discuss some of the tax and other planning considerations for grandparents wishing to make these gifts or transfers.

Please note for brevity, I will use “grandparent” in lieu of “grandparent/grandparents” and “child” in lieu of “child/children” where applicable.

Tax Considerations

In Canada, unlike the United States, there is currently no gift tax. (Here’s hoping this remains the case.) While there may not be a gift tax, a grandparent may need to take specific steps for effective tax planning. Remember, you should never make a gift that puts your own retirement finances at risk.

Deemed Disposition

The deemed disposition rules are one of the tax issues that apply to gifts. A grandparent will be subject to a deemed disposition tax where they gift or transfer an asset (other than cash) that has appreciated in value to a grandchild, as the CRA will tax the capital gain.

For example, Grandma Johnson is very tech savvy and purchased 100 Shopify shares at $250, which are now worth $1,200 or so a share. She decides to gift the shares to her grandson Tom. Grandma Johnson will have a deemed disposition, resulting in a capital gain of $95,000 ($1,200-250 x 100 shares). 

In English, this means she will have to report a capital gain on her personal tax return of $95,000, even though she gifted the shares and did not sell them. If she is a high-rate taxpayer, she will owe approximately $25,000 in tax on shares she did not receive any money for. Thus, she potentially has a cash flow issue.

The folly of gifting a principal residence

Occasionally a grandparent thinks they will save money on tax and probate by transferring or gifting their principal residence (PR), or a part of it, to their grandchildren.

In truth, a grandparent generally should not gift a principal residence, as any gain on disposition of the PR will be tax-free as long as they continue to own and live in the PR (in addition, typically, a grandparent will need most if not all the value of their home to fund their retirement). While the deemed disposition of their PR in most cases will be tax-free, the grandparent will lose their principal residence exemption going forward on the portion of their PR that they transferred to the grandchild. Not only that - the grandchild will be taxable on any future growth of their share of the PR, assuming the grandparent continues to live in the home and the grandchild does not move into the house.  

Appreciated assets left in a will 

If a grandparent leaves appreciated assets in their will to a grandchild, the grandparent will again have a deemed disposition (this time triggered by their death as opposed to a gift) that must be reported on their terminal tax return (January 1 to date of death).

Takeaway #1 - You will generally want to gift cash. If you wish to gift assets with appreciated values, ensure you have enough excess cash to pay the income tax on the deemed disposition and you do not put your own retirement lifestyle at risk. You should also speak to your financial advisor or accountant before undertaking any substantial gift.

Takeaway #2 - Never transfer your home without first obtaining professional tax advice.

Attribution

Where a gift of money or assets is made during a grandparent’s lifetime to a minor child (under 18 years old), the grandparent will be subject to attribution on the gift, as well as the tax on the deemed disposition (on appreciated assets other than cash) discussed above.

This means that the grandparent reports the income – dividends or interest, for example – and pays the tax at the grandparent’s marginal rate, not at the grandchild’s tax rate. For example, if you gift marketable securities that pay a dividend of $500 a year, you pay tax on the $500 dividend.

In summary, capital gains realized by a minor child are not subject to attribution, but income such as interest and dividends is subject to attribution. There is no attribution if your grandchild is 18 and over. 

Attribution on assets left in a will 

Where a grandparent passes away and assets are bequeathed to a grandchild, there is no future attribution of income.

Takeaway #3 – If you intend to gift marketable securities to your minor grandchild, it may make sense to gift non-dividend paying stocks to avoid the attribution rules on dividends. This is not a rule, but an option to consider.

Attribution – RESPs, TFSAs and RRSPs

For children 18 years old and over, there is no attribution if you contribute to their Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP), Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA) and Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP). A minor child (under 18) cannot have a TFSA, so attribution is a moot point. However, assuming they have contribution room, a minor can have an RRSP and there is attribution on gifts for RRSP contributions. There is no attribution on RESP contributions on behalf of a minor.

See the detailed discussion in Part 2 of this post (in two weeks) for traps and tax considerations before making these contributions.

Avoiding attribution – Prescribed rate loans

A grandparent can avoid the attribution rules by making a prescribed interest rate loan (the current rate is 1%) to a family trust. Prescribed rate loans are not subject to the Tax on Split Income (TOSI) rules.

Note, when I say trust above, I mean a properly set-up legal trust, not an informal “in-trust” account in the grandparent’s name. Informal in-trust accounts are not legal trusts and can cause unintended income tax and family issues and should be avoided.

Family Law

Grandparents (and parents) should always obtain family law advice for significant gifts. The laws are different for each province. In general, most gifts or inheritances are excluded property when the funds are not co-mingled or used for a matrimonial home; however, always first check with your family lawyer.

Grandparents often lend or gift grandchildren money to assist them in buying a house. There are various trips and traps when the loan is not legally documented and the interest on the loan not paid.

Takeaway #4 – Each province has its own Family Law Act and you should obtain family law advice for any significant gift or loan of cash made to a grandchild. Doing so will hopefully avoid your grandchild losing part of the value of that gift upon a marital break-up because the gift or loan was not property set up or the grandchild did not understand how to keep the property excluded.

That's all for Part 1 of this key topic that I get asked about a lot. In Part 2, we'll cover gifting by grandparents using a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP), Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA), or Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP). We will also briefly discuss estate planning considerations for grandparents.

The content on this blog has been carefully prepared, but it has been written in general terms and should be seen as broad guidance only. The blog cannot be relied upon to cover specific situations and you should not act, or refrain from acting, upon the information contained therein without obtaining specific professional advice. Please contact BDO Canada LLP to discuss these matters in the context of your particular circumstances. BDO Canada LLP, its partners, employees and agents do not accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any loss arising from any action taken or not taken by anyone in reliance on the information on this blog or for any decision based on it.

Please note the blog posts are time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation.

BDO Canada LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership, is a member of BDO International Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, and forms part of the international BDO network of independent member firms. BDO is the brand name for the BDO network and for each of the BDO Member Firms.

What To Do When Your Spouse Dies Before You – Part 2, Taxes

Two weeks ago we discussed the administrative steps people need to take when their spouse dies.

The truth is, there is more to this topic than the administrative steps we listed in that post. Surviving spouses also need to navigate several high-stakes tax issues, some of which are specific to a surviving spouse. Our blog from two weeks ago tackled the administrative piece – today we dig deep to analyze the steps related to tax.

It should be noted that for income tax purposes, “spouse” includes not only a married couple but also common-law and same-sex couples.

When the surviving spouse avoids tax

On death, a taxpayer is deemed to dispose of all of their assets at their fair market value. This means that tax must be paid on any accrued capital gains to the date of death. For your RRSP, the value at the time of death is included as income on the deceased's terminal tax return.

However, where the assets are transferred under the terms of the will to their surviving spouse or a qualifying spousal trust, the deemed disposition at fair market value is avoided and the assets transferred to the spouse take place at their adjusted cost base (the same deferral can occur for a RRSP where the spouse is a designated beneficiary of the RRSP or a beneficiary under the will and an election is made). If the assets are not transferred to the surviving spouse or qualifying spousal trust, there is a deemed disposition and tax must be paid on the accrued gains and/or value of the RRSP.

As the deemed disposition rules are complicated, I think an example at this juncture may help clarify how these rules work.

 Let’s consider the case of Tom and Mary. Tom unfortunately died while preparing his 2018 income tax return and transfers all his assets to his wife, Mary, under his will. He owned 1000 shares of Bell Canada stock. He had paid $10 per share for them (a $10,000 cost), but they are now worth $30 per share ($30,000 fair market value).

In this case, the shares roll over to Mary at $10,000. She effectively steps into Tom’s cost base of $10 per share, and there are no current income tax consequences. However, Mary will pay tax on the deferred capital gain on the Bell Canada shares at the earliest of when she actually disposes of the Bell Canada shares or dies. 

Saying no to the rollover

Tax-free transfers sound good on paper, and this one is no different. But sometimes the surviving spouse should consider saying no to the automatic rollover. They can do this by “electing out” – a procedure that is highly specific to a surviving spouse and involves triggering taxable capital gains.

The surviving spouse should consider this path in several scenarios. Common ones are when the deceased spouse had:

• a very low tax rate - for example, they had low income in the year of death, or they died early in the year and only have a month or two of income
• unused capital losses carried forward
• alternative minimum tax carryforward

The election is made on a security-by-security basis (i.e., you can select anywhere from one Bell Canada share to all thousand shares) at the fair market value (or stock price) of Bell Canada at the date of death.

Once the election is made, the surviving spouse inherits the higher tax cost base from the deceased spouse. Put simply, where the election is made, the surviving spouse’s tax cost will be the fair market value of the asset as of the date of death of their spouse.

To explain, let’s return to our Bell Canada example from above. if it was determined that for tax purposes to elect to trigger the entire Bell Canada capital gain $20,000 ($30,000 fair market value less $10,000 cost) because your deceased spouse had capital losses, the surviving spouse would have a cost base of $30,000 going forward on these shares, instead of the $10,000 cost base if no election was made.

In some circumstances it may make sense to elect to trigger a capital loss or losses at death instead of a capital gain. This would be for example to offset capital gains on the terminal return. There are various technicalities to this election, so speak to your advisor.

The election may also be applicable if the deceased spouse owned shares in a qualified small business corporation. It may make to elect to trigger a gain to utilize the capital gains exemption, which is $866,912 in 2019. This is a highly complex mechanism, so again, speak with your advisor. 

Family farms

If your spouse owned part of a family farm you may also wish to speak to a professional who is familiar with farming to determine the best course of action. 

Filing an income tax return

Finally, you will need to file at minimum a terminal income tax return for the deceased from January 1 to the date of death. You may have other filing option such as a rights and things tax return. I will post a blog in the next few weeks with more detail on filing returns at death.

The tax and administration issues are immense when a spouse dies. For the surviving spouse, they represent a huge burden. The above will hopefully assist you in understanding these issues. However, I strongly urge you to obtain professional legal and tax assistance immediately in the event of your spouse’s passing.

The content on this blog has been carefully prepared, but it has been written in general terms and should be seen as broad guidance only. The blog cannot be relied upon to cover specific situations and you should not act, or refrain from acting, upon the information contained therein without obtaining specific professional advice. Please contact BDO Canada LLP to discuss these matters in the context of your particular circumstances. BDO Canada LLP, its partners, employees and agents do not accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any loss arising from any action taken or not taken by anyone in reliance on the information on this blog or for any decision based on it.

Please note the blog posts are time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation.

BDO Canada LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership, is a member of BDO International Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, and forms part of the international BDO network of independent member firms. BDO is the brand name for the BDO network and for each of the BDO Member Firms.

The Two Certainties in Life: Death and Taxes - The Impact on Small Business Owners

In my two prior blog posts in this series on death and taxes, I discussed with you the general income tax rules as they relate to the death of an individual. Today, I am going to discuss the income tax issues that arise on death, where you own shares in a private Canadian corporation (“CCPC”).

Note:You may own shares in a private corporation (typically a Canadian company controlled by non-residents) as opposed to a CCPC  or shares in a private foreign corporation. Although the general deemed disposition rule will apply upon death, for purposes of this blog post, I am not considering any issues related to these type entities. Please seek specific advice if you own such shares.

It has been my experience that some owner-managers of CCPC’s are surprised to find out that their shares are subject to the general deemed disposition rules upon death. The rule being: that upon your death, the shares of your CCPC (assuming the shares are not transferred to your spouse) are deemed to have been disposed of for proceeds equal to the fair market value (“FMV”) of those shares and a capital gain results to the extent that FMV (which is often difficult to determine for a CCPC) exceeds the adjusted cost base (“ACB”) of those shares.

There are two reasons I typically hear as to why the private company owner-manager does not think their shares are subject to the deemed disposition rules:

(1) They thought the corporate taxes they paid each year took care of that issue.

(2) They thought if they left the company to their children, their kids would be the ones who pay the tax (as per my blog on estate freezes, this tax can be mitigated, but not eliminated by undertaking an estate freeze).

The owner-manager may also be surprised to hear that their shares are potentially subject to double taxation if proper steps are not undertaken to alleviate this liability. Double taxation can occur where the estate pays tax on the deemed disposition reported on the owner-manager’s terminal tax return, and then the estate pays further tax when it removes the assets from the corporation in the form of dividends to the estate.

There are two tax planning strategies that can generally eliminate any double tax; however, both techniques have some potential restrictions:

(1) The first is known as a subsection 164(6) loss carryback. In simple terms a loss is created on a share redemption by the estate that reduces or eliminates the capital gain that arose as result of the deemed disposition on death. It should be noted that new legislation related to the changes to “graduated rate estates” could impact this planning in the future, as the loss carryback may be restricted.

(2) The second, known as the pipeline strategy allows the estate to remove the corporate funds tax-free by in very simple terms, transferring the deceased owner-manager’s shares to a new corporation and using redemptions and a netting of promissory notes to remove those funds tax-free.

However, a pipeline strategy can be problematic in certain circumstances.

Capital Gains Exemption

In many cases the owner-manager can avail themselves to the $800,000 capital gains exemption ("CGE") to utilize against any deemed capital gain. However, as discussed in this post, it can be problematic to access the exemption where the corporation has excess cash or the owner-manager dies suddenly without implementing the proper planning.

In summary, as morose as this sounds, if you own shares of a private corporation, you and your tax advisor should be proactively planning for your death, which includes monitoring on an ongoing basis, whether your shares will qualify for the CGE.

The planning process would in general start with a determination of your potential income tax liability on death, including an estimate of the liability related to your private company shares. This will lead to a discussion of whether or not your estate will have enough liquidity to cover that anticipated liability or if you need to consider purchasing life insurance to cover any taxes potentially owing upon your death. The discussion should then morph into a succession planning discussion, and whether or not an estate freeze/sale to family member would make sense in your situation, or what plans you have in regard to an exit strategy.

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation. Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.

The Two Certainties in Life: Death and Taxes - Impact on Your Personal Income Tax Return

Last week you read that upon your death, you are deemed to have disposed of your assets for income tax purposes (unless you leave them to your spouse). Today, you'll get a closer look at these rules.

For purposes of this post, I am assuming your spouse has predeceased you, or you leave your property to someone other than your spouse; so that there is not a tax-free transfer available upon your demise.

General Rule

Upon death, you are deemed to have disposed of your property for proceeds equal to its fair market value (“FMV”). This is known as a deemed disposition. The deemed disposition being equal to the excess of the FMV over the adjusted cost base of the property (“ACB”). For example, say you purchased 1000 shares in Blunt Bean Inc. for $150,000 and the shares are worth $275,000 upon your death. Your executors would have a $125,000 capital gain to report on your terminal tax return (final return from Jan 1st of the year you die to the date of your death).

For most people, there are two basic categories or property upon death, those being non-depreciable capital property and capital property.

Non-Depreciable Capital Property

Non-depreciable capital property would typically include shares, bonds, land (note: depending on the circumstances, land may not be capital property) and partnership interests. As noted above, upon death you are deemed to have disposed of your non-depreciable property for proceeds equal to its FMV. To be clear, that means the $125,000 capital gain in the example above is reported on your terminal return, notwithstanding you never sold the shares of Blunt Bean Inc. Thus, upon your death, for tax purposes you have in essence been “deemed” to have sold all your non-depreciable capital property even though there is no actual sale.

If you left the shares of Blunt Bean Inc. to your daughter, the ACB of the shares to her will become $275,000, which accounts for the fact your estate already paid tax on the increase in value from $150,000 to $275,000.

If the deemed disposition results in a capital loss, the losses offset any capital gains on the terminal return. If your capital losses exceed your capital gains in your final return, you can then deduct those excess losses against other income in the year of death, or in the previous year to the extent you have not previously claimed the capital gains exemption.

Principal Residence

Your principal residence is technically subject to the deemed disposition rules. However, if you only have one house (no cottage) and have lived in that house since it was purchased, your estate will typically be able to claim the principal residence exemption on your behalf and that property will be tax-free. It is important to note that your estate may have a capital gain or loss when it sells your principal residence, if the value of your principal residence has increased or decreased from the deemed value on the date of your death. This can occur where it takes a while to sort out the estate and the principal residence is not sold for months or even years.

Some Exceptions to the Deemed Disposition Rules

There are a couple significant exceptions to the deemed disposition rules:

(1) There is no deemed disposition on your cash holdings; however, if you hold foreign currency, you could have a foreign exchange gain.

(2) There is also no deemed disposition on your TFSA; however, there are various rules relating to what happens after your death to your TFSA. Taxtips.ca has a good summary here.

Depreciable Capital Property

Depreciable capital property would typically include buildings owned for rental purposes by the deceased taxpayer, and equipment used in an unincorporated business.

For depreciable property the same deemed disposition rules apply. However, there can also be recapture of prior depreciation (capital cost allowance claimed) where the FMV exceeds the undepreciated capital cost allowance (“UCC”) or instead of a capital loss, there may be a terminal loss where the deemed proceeds are less than UCC which can be used to offset other income in the year of death.

RRSP/RRIF

At the date of your death, the value of your RRSP or RRIF is included as income on your terminal return. For example, if your RRSP has a FMV of $560,000 on the day you die; your terminal return would reflect income of $560,000. The estate is supposed to receive a tax slip for the $560,000 RRSP/RRIF value upon death, but it has been my experience, that these slips are often not issued or are issued incorrectly, so you need to be diligent that the correct value is included on the terminal return. (As noted at the outset, I have assumed your spouse has already passed away, so the RRSP cannot be transferred tax-free to your spouse. However, the tax may be deferred if the beneficiary is a financially dependent child or grandchild under 18 years of age, or a financially dependent mentally or physically infirm child or grandchild of any age).

Note: See the comment section below for an interesting point made by Jean-Pierre Laporte about using a personal  pension plan to avoid the deemed disposition in relation to RRSPs.

Asset Rich but Cash Poor

Under the deemed disposition rules, it is possible to have a large deemed capital gain and a large associated income tax liability, yet not have the liquid assets to pay that liability. For example, you have significant real estate assets that appreciated considerably before your death, but little cash. In these cases, the estate may qualify to file form T2075 which allows for taxes to be paid in ten or less annual installments, with interest. In order to utilize this provision, security would have to be provided to the CRA.

The above is just a general overview of the income tax rules upon death. There are various other detailed rules I have not discussed that may relate to the death of an individual. Next week, I finish this discussion when I review the rules relating to the ownership of shares of a private corporation.

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation.

The Two Certainties in Life: Death and Taxes

We have all heard the famous quote “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”. Did you know the person who uttered this profound statement was none other than Benjamin Franklin?

This blog post and the two follow-up posts, will share with you the income tax consequences of Benjamin's second certainty, the always popular subject of dying.

Deemed Disposition

Ignoring the fact that the U.S. Income Tax Code in the 1700's may have been slightly different than today, Franklin's view on death and taxes was that of an American. This distinction is very important. The U.S. tax system taxes you on the value of your estate upon death, while Canada deems you to have disposed of your property at death, at its fair market value, which triggers income tax on any unrealized capital gains (paper gains).

I will explain this “deemed disposition” in greater detail later on, but simply put, if you own shares in say Bell Canada that are worth $40 upon your death, that you purchased for $15, you/your estate are deemed to have a $25 ($40-$15) capital gain per share, if your assets are not left to your spouse.

Probate Fees

Depending upon the province in which you live, you may also be subject to probate fees (Estate Administration tax in Ontario) on the value of your estate at death. However, notwithstanding people plan around probate fees, often to their detriment; these fees/taxes are typically fairly immaterial to an estate in Canada (1.5% versus 40% Estate tax in the U.S. or higher, depending upon the state and size of your estate). Here is a summary of the probate fees for each province. For purposes of this blog, and the two follow-up blog posts I have written, I am just going to focus on the “deemed disposition” upon death and ignore probate fees.

Personal vs Corporate

 

It has been my experience that most people are not clear about how the income tax system works upon their death. In particular, shareholders of private corporations are often surprised when I inform them that any increase in value of the shares of their private corporate shareholdings are subject to income tax upon their death (they often think the yearly corporate tax they pay has covered this liability). This does not even account for the fact that without proper tax planning, there could be double taxation in respect of their corporate shareholdings.

In order to deal with the distinction between the personal and corporate income tax consequences, I have made this topic a three-part blog series. Next week, I will deal with the personal income tax consequences of you dying, and the following week, I will discuss the income tax consequences of dying when you own shares in a private corporation.

Just Die First

 

You can avoid all these messy income tax complexities upon death by just dying first☺ if you are married or in a common-law relationship. This is because if you leave your property to your spouse or common-law spouse, the property passes to them at the adjusted cost base of the property and the capital gain is deferred until the surviving spouse or common-law partner dies, or they sell the property during their lifetime.

Consequently, the deemed disposition rules typically only apply in the following three situations:

(1) Your estate elects out of the automatic transfer to your spouse (this can be done on a property by property basis).

(2) You are the last to die spouse.

(3) You leave your property to your children or other beneficiary, instead of your spouse.

Next week, I will discuss in greater detail, the personal income tax consequences of passing away. 

This site provides general information on various tax issues and other matters. The information is not intended to constitute professional advice and may not be appropriate for a specific individual or fact situation. It is written by the author solely in their personal capacity and cannot be attributed to the accounting firm with which they are affiliated. It is not intended to constitute professional advice, and neither the author nor the firm with which the author is associated shall accept any liability in respect of any reliance on the information contained herein. Readers should always consult with their professional advisors in respect of their particular situation.

The Best of The Blunt Bean Counter - Transferring Property Among Family Members - A Potential Income Tax Nightmare

This summer I am posting the "best of" The Blunt Bean Counter while I work on my golf game. Today, I am re-posting my second most read blog of all-time; a post on transferring property amongst family members. As you will read, there is potential for some strange income tax results and care must be taken when transferring property to family members. I thus strongly suggest you obtain professional advice before undertaking any such transfer.

I also wrote this article for The Globe and Mail on the same topic. 

Transferring Property Among Family Members - A Potential Income Tax Nightmare

In today’s blog post, I will discuss the income tax implications relating to the transfer of property among family members. These transfers often create significant income tax issues and can be either errors of commission or errors of omission. Over my 25 years as an accountant, I have been referred some unbelievably messed up situations involving intra-family transfers of property. Most of these referrals come about because someone has read an article and decides they are now probate experts or real estate lawyers have decided they are also tax lawyers. 

Transfers of Property - Why They Are Undertaken

Many individuals transfer capital properties (real estate and common shares, being the most common) in and amongst their families like hot cakes. Some of the reasons for undertaking these transfers include: (1) the transferor has creditor issues and believes that if certain properties are transferred, the properties will become creditor protected (2) the transferor wishes to reduce probate fees on his or her death and (3) the transferor wishes to either gift the property, transfer beneficial title or income split with lower-income family members.

I will not discuss the first reason today because it is legal in nature. But be aware, Section 160(1) of the Income Tax Act can make you legally responsible for the transferor's income tax liability and there may be fraudulent conveyance issues amongst other matters.

Transfers of Property - Income Tax Implications

When a property is transferred without consideration (i.e. as gift or to just transfer property into another person's name), the transferor is generally deemed to have sold the property for proceeds equal to its fair market value (“FMV”). If the property has increased in value since the time the transferor first acquired the property, a capital gain will be realized and there will be taxes to be paid even though ownership of the property has stayed within the family. For example, if mom owns a rental property worth $500,000 which she purchased for $100,000 and she transfers it to her daughter, mom is deemed to have a $400,000 capital gain, even though she did not receive any money.

There is one common exception to the deemed disposition rule. The Income Tax Act permits transfers between spouses to take place at the transferor’s adjusted cost base instead of at the FMV of the capital property.

This difference is best illustrated by an example: Mary owns shares of Bell Canada which she purchased 5 years ago at $50. The FMV of the shares today is $75. If Mary transferred the shares of Bell Canada to her brother, Bob, she would realize a capital gain of $25. If instead Mary transferred the shares of Bell Canada to her husband, Doug, the shares would be transferred at Mary’s adjusted cost base of $50 and no capital gain would be realized. It must be noted that if Doug sells the shares in the future, Mary would be required to report the capital gain realized at that time (i.e. the proceeds Doug receives from selling the shares less Mary’s original cost of $50) and Mary would be required to report any dividends received by Doug on those shares from the date of transfer.

As noted in the example above, when transfers are made to spouses or children who are minors (under the age of 18), the income attribution rules can apply and any income generated by the transferred properties is attributed back to the transferor (the exception being there is no attribution on capital gains earned by a minor). The application of this rule is reflected in that Mary must report the capital gain and any dividends received by Doug. If the transferred property is sold, there is often attribution even on the substituted property.

We have discussed where property is transferred to a non-arm’s length person that the vendor is deemed to have sold the property at its FMV. However, what happens when the non-arm’s length person has paid no consideration or consideration less than the FMV? The answer is that in all cases other than gifts, bequests and inheritances, the transferees cost is the amount they actually paid for the property and there is no adjustment to FMV, a very punitive result.

In English, what these last two sentences are saying is that if you legally gift something, the cost base and proceeds of disposition are the FMV. But if say your brother pays you $5,000 for shares worth $50,000, you will be deemed to sell the shares for $50,000, but your brothers cost will now only be $5,000; whereas if you gifted the shares, his cost base would be $50,000. A strange result considering he actually paid you. This generally results in “double taxation” when the property is ultimately sold by the transferee (your brother in this case), as you were deemed to sell at $50,000 and your brothers gain is measured from only $5,000 and not the FMV of $50,000.

Transfers of a Principal Residence - The Ultimate Potential Tax Nightmare

I have seen several cases where a parent decides to change the ownership of his or her principal residence such that it is to be held jointly by the parent and one or more of their children. In the case of a parent changing ownership of say half of their principal residence to one of their children, the parent is deemed to have disposed of ½ of the property. This initial transfer is tax-free, since it is the parent’s principal residence. However, a transfer into joint ownership can often create an unforeseen tax problem when the property is eventually sold. Subsequent to the change in ownership, the child will own ½ the principal residence. When the property is eventually sold, the gain realized by the parent on his or her half of the property is exempt from tax since it qualifies for the principal residence exemption; however, since the child now owns half of the property, the child is subject to tax on any capital gain realized on their half of the property (i.e. 50% of the difference between the sale price and the FMV at the time the parent transferred the property to the child, assuming the child has a principal residence of their own).

An example of the above is discussed in this Toronto Star story that outlines a $700,000 tax mistake made by one parent in gifting their principal residence to their children.

I have been engaged at least three times over the years by new clients to sort out similar family transfer issues.

Transfers for Probate Purposes

As noted in the first paragraph, many troublesome family transfers are done to avoid probate tax. Since I wrote on this topic previously and this post is somewhat overlapping, I will just provide you the link to that blog post titled Probate Fee Planning - Income Tax, Estate and Legal Issues to consider.

Many people are far too cavalier when transferring property among family members. It should be clear by now that extreme care should be taken before undertaking any transfer of real estate, shares or investments to a family member. I strongly urge you to consult with your accountant or to engage an accountant when contemplating a family transfer or you may be penny wise but $700,000 tax foolish.

The blogs posted on The Blunt Bean Counter provide information of a general nature. These posts should not be considered specific advice; as each reader's personal financial situation is unique and fact specific. Please contact a professional advisor prior to implementing or acting upon any of the information contained in one of the blogs. Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.

Qualifying Spouse Trusts – How do They Actually Work? -Part 2

Today, in the conclusion of her two part guest post on Qualifying Spousal Trusts, Katy Basi discuses how these trusts actually work. I thank Katy for her excellent posts.

Qualifying Spouse Trusts - How do They Actually Work? 

By Katy Basi

In Part 1 of this blog, BBC aficionados were introduced to the idea of leaving their estate to their spouse using a “qualifying spouse trust” or QST ("QST"). This week we look at the degree of protection that a QST can provide to non-spouse beneficiaries, and at methods of ensuring that a QST functions effectively.

In Monday's post, Fred’s will left the residue of his estate to his wife Wilma by way of a QST. The QST provides that any property remaining in the QST upon Wilma’s death is equally divided among Fred and Wilma’s children. How confident are we that the children will actually receive anything from Fred’s will? How protective is this QST?

The degree of protection afforded by the QST to the children (and any other non-spouse beneficiaries) will depend on two main factors:

1) The trustee’s ability to encroach on the capital of the trust for the benefit of Wilma.

2) The identity of the trustee.

The QST must provide that all income be paid or payable to Wilma. Of course, the trustee can invest the QST in assets producing high amounts of income, or no income at all. (In the latter case, the trustee should be cautious about a potential claim by Wilma.)

As to capital, the QST can provide that:

(i) no one is entitled to the capital of the QST during Wilma’s lifetime (very protective but also very inflexible),
(ii) the trustee can encroach on the capital for Wilma’s benefit under limited circumstances (eg for medical reasons), or
(iii) the trustee has full discretion to encroach on the capital for Wilma’s benefit, even if the encroachments exhaust the trust prior to Wilma’s death.

Clearly, the broader the encroachment power, the greater the likelihood that there will be minimal property remaining in the trust upon Wilma’s death.

A broad encroachment power can still be protective, depending on the identity of the trustee. If Wilma is the sole trustee of a QST with a broad encroachment power, we are back in “just trust me” territory. We are relying on inertia/laziness for protection – Wilma can pull all of the funds out of the QST, but we’re hoping that she doesn’t get around to it!

It would be more protective to name an independent trustee, or Wilma and an independent trustee, jointly, to manage the QST and make encroachment decisions. In my view, some flexibility is necessary re capital encroachment – Wilma could have major medical needs and require some (or even all) of the capital of the QST for very legitimate reasons.

At this point in my explanation of QSTs, many of my clients revert back to the “just trust me” option (no doubt thanking their heavenly stars that they didn’t go to law school), while others go ahead with the QST structure.

For the latter group, it is imperative to note that only assets falling under the will are grabbed by the QST. Therefore, joint assets (which are inherited by right of survivorship, and not under the will) and assets with completed beneficiary designations (eg RRSPs, RRIFs, TFSAs, life insurance, pensions) do not fall into the QST.

It is often necessary to split joint investment accounts (ie create two investment accounts, one in Fred’s name, and one in Wilma’s name) in order to make the QST structure viable. There is often no point in having a spouse trust containing only $20,000, as a trust tax return must be filed every year, and the QST funds must be held in a separate, segregated account which may also incur fees.

Splitting joint accounts is viewed with horror by the probate tax-avoidance crowd, as Wilma may have to then probate Fred’s estate and pay probate tax on his investment account. I am not terrified by this concept, as I view it more as a prepayment of half of the probate tax bill when Fred dies. If the account were maintained as a joint account, probate tax would be payable on the entire account upon Wilma’s death in any event – so we’re just paying half of the probate tax early (this is a very simplified analysis, of course!)

Finally, let’s get to the income splitting benefits of a QST. QSTs are often recommended not for any of the protective reasons mentioned above, but because the QST is a separate taxpayer that has access to the marginal rates of tax. In other words, Wilma can elect to have some or all of the income of the QST taxed in the QST, and essentially income split with her QST (which seems only fair, since she can no longer income split with dead Fred).

However, the federal budget in March of this year indicated that marginal rates for testamentary trusts (which would include QSTs) may soon be a relic of the past. We are waiting for draft legislation to be released, but the idea of inserting a QST purely to income split may be dying a slow, tortured death – we will have to wait and see. [Mark comment: As per this government consultation paper, it is proposed that testamentary trusts will only be allowed a low rate of tax for 36 months].

Income splitting aside, if you or your clients like the idea of their cold, dead hands controlling their assets long after their death, and can live with some complexity in their estate planning, a QST may be just the ticket.

The blogs posted on The Blunt Bean Counter provide information of a general nature. These posts should not be considered specific advice; as each reader's personal financial situation is unique and fact specific. Please contact a professional advisor prior to implementing or acting upon any of the information contained in one of the blogs. Please note the blog post is time sensitive and subject to changes in legislation or law.

Katy Basi is a Barrister and Solicitor with her own practice, focusing on wills, trusts, estate planning, estate administration and income tax law. Katy practiced income tax law for many years with a large Toronto law firm, and therefore considers the income tax and probate tax implications of her clients' decisions. Please feel free to contact her directly at (905) 237-9299, or by email at katy@katybasi.com. More articles by Katy can be found at her website, katybasi.com.