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 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.

Mixing and Matching: The Financial Ins and Outs of Blended Families

In February 2018, the Vanier Institute of the Family reported that there were nearly 518,000 stepfamilies, or blended families, in Canada in 2016. This total accounted for 12% of couples with children. The institute further broke down stepfamilies as simple (only one spouse brought children into the blended marriage - 61%) and complex (both spouses brought children into the marriage - 39%).

These statistics reflect that the Brady Bunch is not the uncommon family situation it once was. Blended families have gone mainstream.

Blended families bring a host of issues, from family integration to increased stepsibling rivalry to financial and tax issues. Today, I will address the key tax and financial issues.

Financial assets coming into the marriage

Unlike the typical marriage, where there are often minimal financial assets and the couple begins the slow climb to build those assets, blended families tend to occur later in life, where one or both parties have not only children but also substantial assets.

Both spouses have often gone through divorces and are very cognizant of protecting their assets. This results in some of the following issues:

1. In many cases, while both parents love and treat each others’ children as their own, the reality often is that one or both parents want to protect some or all of their assets for their biological children.
2. One spouse feels the other spouse should treat the stepchildren and biological children equally when it comes to finances and inheritance.
3. The children of one or both spouses fear their family’s assets or inheritance will be taken by the new spouse.

These are very complicated financial and emotional issues and are a minefield that must be navigated with care.

Key areas of financial and tax concern

The financial issues for a blended family are too numerous for a single blog post. Today I will cover the following issues:

1. The money discussion
2. Marriage contracts
3. Wills and powers of attorney
4. Prior documents
5. Estate planning

The Money Discussion

In a blended marriage, saving and spending habits are typically already in place for each spouse, and those habits may not be the same. The spouses’ financial assets may also be significantly different. Each spouse will have thoughts on their legacy. It is thus practical and responsible to discuss these issues before you enter into the blended marriage.

These discussions typically center on how expenses are shared, whether to open joint bank accounts, how assets purchased after the wedding will be owned, how to fund the children’s RESPs, and how to plan their estates.

While some of these topics can be contentious, it is always better to discuss financial topics before the discussion is forced on you.

Marriage contracts

Marriage contracts are very important in blended marriages where there are substantial assets and private corporations brought into the marriage. These agreements (technically known as prenuptial agreements when signed before the marriage), deal with support and division of property if the blended marriage dissolves or one spouse dies. It is also important to get advice on how family homes and other assets brought into the marriage are treated under the family law of that province. These variations in law may tie back directly into the marriage contract.

Discussing a marriage contract can be very unsettling for people entering a first marriage. In second or third marriages, the sobering reality of divorce proceedings often makes both parties more amendable to discussing and negotiating a marriage contract. It is suggested the contract take the form of a prenuptial agreement (i.e.- entered into before the marriage, not after). 

Many experts recommend discussing your marriage contract with your children (especially if they are older and responsible) to possibly alleviate their concern that their inheritance will be “taken” by the new spouse.

Wills and powers of attorney

Readers of this blog know I have written ad nauseam on ensuring you have an updated will and ensuring you have financial and personal care powers of attorney (POAs), the latter covering medical treatment and healthcare treatment. The POA gives authority to an individual to act as your agent.

Updating or preparing these documents is vital when entering into a blended marriage. This is because most provinces have rules relating to wills upon divorce that can affect or void how your current will is distributed. While provincial laws may or may not negate provisions related to your former spouse, you clearly in almost all cases want to remove any reference to your ex-spouse.

Your POA document will also often designate your former spouse, so you will want to update these documents and not leave it to provincial law to assign this key role.

As noted above, each province has different rules in respect to wills and POAs, so legal advice should be obtained.

Prior documents

It is important to review documents to determine if beneficiaries need to be updated. Some of the more important documents to review include the following:

1. Life insurance polices
2. RRSPs
3. Pension plans

The last thing most people want to do is leave their insurance, RRSP or pension plans to their former spouse.

Estate planning

Estate planning is complicated enough in a first marriage; second or third marriages multiply the risks and complexity. Say you leave all your assets to your spouse because their will also has provisions for your children. But as noted above, if your ex-spouse remarries, certain provinces may void their prior will and leave your children out of luck. Alternatively, they could change their will and “write out” your children. How do you ensure your wishes are undertaken?

Spousal trusts

Spousal trusts in general will allow your assets to flow tax-free into the trust for the benefit of your spouse. Your spouse, subject to terms of the trust, will be the beneficiary of the income and capital for as long as they live, and then the terms can specify that the remaining assets are transferred to your children and stepchildren. These trusts are complicated, and you need to engage a lawyer who specializes in estates to assist you with your planning. It is also prudent to have your accountant work hand in hand with the estate lawyer to cover off your financial and tax issues.

Direct gifts in your will

Another option is to leave distinct inheritances to your spouse, biological children and stepchildren in your will, create separate trusts for each, or do both. Again, tax planning is imperative, as there may be deemed tax dispositions on the gifts to your children if the inheritance is not a cash-only gift.

Gifts during lifetime

Depending upon your financial situation, it may be simpler to give gifts to your children while you are alive to help with home purchases, grandchildren’s educational needs or any other expense. Before undertaking this strategy, you should ensure you create a financial plan to ensure you do not put your retirement or your spouse’s future living expenses in jeopardy.

Insurance

Many people in blended marriages are conflicted or feel pressure to ensure their new spouse is taken care of, their biological children receive the inheritance the parent envisioned, and their stepchildren receive a similar inheritance to the biological children or at least something substantial. As there is only so much money and assets to go around, it is common to use life insurance to build additional liquidity to cover or assist in paying estate taxes, ensure vacation properties or businesses do not need to be sold, and provide funds for inheritance equality for children and stepchildren.

The above is a very cursory review of some of the complex issues facing the parents of blended families. As noted throughout the post, it is essential you obtain proper family, estate and tax advice as you navigate the financial issues of a blended marriage.

This post covered steps you can take to protect your assets when getting married - steps that are taken well in advance of a potential divorce. These days, as we weather the economic effects of COVID-19, we’re facing a challenge to our portfolios that few could have anticipated. But there are things you can do to protect your wealth. Have a look at this recent COVID-19 roundtable discussion featuring top economic and investment professionals.

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 Best of The Blunt Bean Counter - A Family Vacation - A Memory Worth Not Dying For

This summer I am posting the "best of" The Blunt Bean Counter blog while I work on my golf game. Today, I am re-posting a May 8, 2012 blog that I already re-posted in 2015 on the merits of a grandparent/parent taking their family on a vacation if they have the financial means.

The impetus to post this blog yet again, was a retirement webinar for small business owners I took part in earlier this month. During the webinar I discussed this topic, which reinforced to me, how valuable these trips can be for family bonding (taking the optimistic viewpoint, as opposed to the possibility that too much togetherness may not be good for some families).

A Family Vacation- A Memory Worth Not Dying For

I have written several times on the topic of whether parents (parent can be interchanged with grandparent wherever used in this post), who have the financial means, should provide partial gifts while they are alive, as opposed to just leaving an inheritance to their children or grandchildren.

I am a proponent of providing partial gifts while alive if you have the financial resources. My rationale is simple. Why not receive the pleasure of your gift either directly (such as a family vacation) or vicariously (by observing your children or grandchildren enjoy their gift such as a bike, car or even cottage).

The concept of a partial gift being used at least in part for a family vacation has substantial appeal to many parents. A family vacation is appealing because a parent can participate in the experience, the vacation more often than not, results in memories that last a lifetime for all the participants, and lastly, the parent has control over the gift.

I can attest personally to the benefits of a family vacation. Several years ago, my in-laws funded a Disney Cruise vacation for their children, their children's spouses and their grandchildren. This trip had a profound impact on the bonding of the grandchildren. In the case of my in-laws, the memories and enhancement of their grandchildren’s relationships was priceless and continues to this day.

Another very poignant and moving example of the gift of travel is the story of Les Brooks. Les, a Vietnam veteran, had unresolved issues relating to the war and as he states in this Princess Cruises travel blog.

One day during the course of a conversation, Les’ mother asked him if he could take a trip anywhere in the world, where would he go. After thinking about the question he surprised his mother by saying Vietnam. Unbeknownst to Les, she later booked him on a cruise to Vietnam. 

Sadly, his mother passed away before Les took the cruise and could not observe the impact this gift had on her son’s life; but I would surmise, she knew the impact it would have as she paid for the cruise. Les says this about the special gift his mother provided while alive; “I realized my mother’s gift had opened the door to many profound gifts. Through her kindness and intuition, she provided the way back to Vietnam and my healing. There, through the smiling acceptance and unspoken forgiveness of that little girl and the many other Vietnamese who welcomed me, I was able to put aside much of the guilt that had gnawed at me for so long."

While Les’ gift was not a family bonding vacation, it was a gift provided while his mother was alive, a trip that may never have occurred if Les inherited the money and spent it otherwise.

The concept of using a partial gift to fund a family vacation has become popular for both family bonding and financial reasons. As grandparent David Campbell says in a USA Today article (link expired), he is mostly motivated by a desire to make his children's lives a little easier. "It's getting to a point I'd like them to enjoy life," says Campbell, a regional sales manager. "And if they're going to enjoy it, they might as well enjoy it with me."

I have observed the family vacation phenomenon on several of my own vacations. Suddenly a horde of people arrive at the pool or restaurant (not necessarily a welcome site for other vacationers) with corny matching t-shirts, saying “Smith Family Vacation 2011” or some other similar sentiment. 

Although we all know that any large family gathering can veer off the rails, these trips often bridge the generation gap between offspring and grandparents and parents. I often hear people reference these types of family vacations when they have a family get-together or the topic arises over dinner with non-family members.

Personally, I would rather hear my grandchildren say or know they are saying "When I was young, my grandparents took me on the most amazing trip!", than, “I just inherited $25,000 from my grandparents, what should I buy with it?”

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 of The Blunt Bean Counter - Is a Corporate Executor the Right Choice?

This summer I am re-posting the "best of" The Blunt Bean Counter blog while I work on my golf game. Today, I am posting an April, 2011 blog on why you may wish to use a corporate executor, where you do not have a family member or friend capable of the task or you feel conflicts could arise among your family if one or two children are selected as executors.

You Have Been Named an Executor Series

The first blog in my executor series, discussed the concerns the Globe and Mail had in respect of the estate tax system and in particular, some of the issues surrounding the Paul Penna estate. The problems associated with Mr. Penna’s estate, highlight the importance of considering a corporate executor in certain circumstances.

In my second blog, I discussed the duties and responsibilities of an executor. These responsibilities can often overwhelm the appointed executor(s); which again leads back to today’s guest blog on whether a corporate executor is the best choice for estates that will have unsophisticated executors?

Today, in my final installment of the series I have a guest blog by Heni Ashley. Heni is a lawyer with over 20 years experience in the estate and trust industry, who brings a unique perspective to this issue. I thank Heni for her contribution.

Is a Corporate Executor the Right Choice? (By Heni Ashley)

I have read Mark’s two prior blogs and the Penna estate article with great interest. The Penna estate, in my opinion, was just the type of situation where a corporate executor should have been considered.

What exactly is a corporate executor?  Corporate executor services in Canada are available through incorporated trust companies, which are typically subsidiaries of our national banks.

Had Mr. Penna appointed a corporate executor, his bequests would have been carried out and the estate’s finances would have been tracked diligently and accurately.

In my opinion, a corporate executor provides an estate with the following:

1)    Professionalism, knowledge, expertise.  Knowledge in the area of estate, trust and tax law is invaluable, as is expertise in asset gathering and valuation, property management, investing and accounting.

2)    Impartiality.  A corporate executor can manage conflicting interests (i.e. second marriages), difficult personalities and bring an objective, unemotional approach to the estate administration.

3)    Availability.  The corporate executor is always there.  There is no need to worry about an out of town executor, or an executor dying or becoming incapacitated or physically unable to carry out the task. 

4)     Ease of administration.  There is no worry about unduly burdening a family member, friend or associate as the job of an executor can be difficult (depending on the size of the estate and the personalities of the beneficiaries) and time-consuming (depending on the nature of the assets).

5)    Continuity/permanence. A corporate executor can provide the continuity needed for certain family situations such as an ill or incapacitated spouse or minor or disabled children where there is a need for long term trusts and financial care.

6)    Cost efficiency.  The personal executor can charge the same fee as a corporate executor.  Often a fee agreement can be negotiated with a corporate executor at the time that the will is drawn.  Also, a corporate executor often eliminates the need to hire additional outside experts, which results in a cost savings to the estate.

Notwithstanding the above, had the deceased in the Penna case given thought to using a corporate executor, there are a few reasons why he might have decided against it:

1)       Impartiality (which can sometimes be viewed as indifference to family):  Some people are concerned that a corporate executor will be indifferent to the needs of the beneficiaries. This objection, however, can be overcome by jointly appointing a corporate executor together with a personal executor who can shed some light on the personal circumstances of a deceased’s family.  The two executors can then act as a check and balance against each other.  Another way to deal with this is to leave a detailed memo together with the will, explaining to all executors the reasons for certain bequests and discretionary powers (i.e. to help a child get established in business, to see a particular charity get off the ground, to provide the best of care for a sick spouse, etc.)

2)      Knowledge: A testator (the person making a will) may have a knowledgeable professional relative, friend or colleague who is willing to act as an executor (although Mr. Penna thought he had such a person).

3)      Cost: While a personal executor can take the same fee as a corporate executor, in many cases he/she will not take the maximum fee because he/she feels it is excessive (the fee can be as high as 2.5% of the assets coming in and 2.5% of the assets going out as well as a fee on income earned by the estate and a care & management fee).

I would suggest it does not make sense to engage a corporate executor in the following circumstances:

1.     Where the estate is very small,

2.     Where there are only a few well defined beneficiaries,

3.     Where the gifts are all outright (i.e. no long term trusts to be administered), and

4.     Where the assets are all very straightforward (e.g. one or two bank accounts or brokerage accounts, no real estate).

In summary, each situation is as unique as the individual parties involved.  Some beneficiaries are never happy no matter what, whether it is with their bequest, with someone else’s bequest, with the choice of executor, the manner in which the estate is administered …  Often childhood jealousies surface to complicate matters – families can be difficult and the job of an executor is rarely an easy one!

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 Nest

In February, 2012, I wrote on the taboo topic of whether it is morbid or realistic to plan for an inheritance. In the blog post, I noted that I had observed over my career, a couple people living beyond their current means, on the assumption they would inherit money at a later date. Their future inheritance would be the fix for their current overspending and excessive debt.

In the circumstances I witnessed, the inheritances were actually received as hoped for/expected by the children when their parents passed away. I noted in the post that I had yet to observe a circumstance where a planned inheritance had been less than what the beneficiaries expected and that is still the case to date.

Thus, when searching for a book to read last summer, I was intrigued when I saw The Nest, by Cynthia D’Aprix Sweeney on The New York Times Best Sellers List. The Times described the book as “Set in New York, The Nest features four neurotic siblings who are squabbling over their inheritance and struggling with the disappointments of middle age. Their joint trust fund, which they call “the nest,” is jeopardized when Leo, the hard-partying black sheep of the family, gets in a drunken-driving accident with a teenage waitress in the passenger seat”.

While the book may not be one of my all-time favourites, this satire about the dysfunctional Plumb family was definitely an entertaining read. More Magazine said this about the book “Few things are more compelling than looking into the interiors of other people’s lives-and finding a truth or two about our own. In Cynthia D’Aprix Sweeney’s wickedly funny novel THE NEST, four midlife siblings squabble over their inheritance; universal questions about love, trust, ambition, and rivalry roil.”

As I do not want to give away too much about the book should you decide to read it, I will just note a few of the interesting concepts Ms. D’Aprix highlights:

1. How a known inheritance can impact current day living.

2. How future plans are premised on the known inheritance.

3. The desperation that ensues when a planned inheritance is jeopardized.

4. How family dynamics can be improved or worsened through the process.

5. Money is not everything.

Retrospective

In my "morbid or realistic" blog post I had the following conclusion:

“Is it morbid to plan for an inheritance? Clearly, it is. Would most people rather have their parents instead of the inheritance? Yes. This topic is a very touchy subject and an extremely slippery slope, but to ignore the existence of a significant future inheritance that would impact your personal financial situation may be nonsensical. However, if your financial planning takes into account a future inheritance, you should ensure you have discounted that amount to cover the various risks and variable that could curtail your inheritance and be extremely conservative in your planning”.

I still feel that in situations where there is a high certainty of an inheritance (significant family assets, strong family bonds, etc.) it is nonsensical to ignore the inheritance in your planning.

However, in other less certain cases, I think Preet Banerjee (whom I quote in the postscript) has it right. He says "There are enough variables affecting your own financial success. Ideally, you shouldn’t bank on an inheritance in your financial plan, but rather treat it as an unexpected windfall”.

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 - Personal Use Property - Taxable even if the Picasso Walks Out the Door

This summer I am posting the "best of" The Blunt Bean Counter blog while I work on my golf game. In March, 2011 I wrote this blog post on personal use property and how many families tend to "ignore" these type of items for income tax and probate purposes.

Since 2011, this has become an even larger issue in Ontario, to name one province, as recent legislation has increased the liability of executors. So if you are an executor, tread carefully with respect to Personal Use Property such as art and collectibles.

Personal Use Property - Taxable even if the Picasso Walks Out the Door

I will start today’s blog with a question. What do stamps, duck decoys, hockey cards, dolls, coins, comics, art, books, toys and lamps have in common?

If you answered that the collection of these items are hobbies, you are partially correct. What you may not know is, that these hobbies also generate some of the most valuable collectibles in the world.

When a collector dies and leaves these types of collectibles to the next generation, the collectibles can cause rifts among family members. The rifts may occur in regard to which child is entitled to ownership of which collectible and whether the income tax liability related to these collectibles should be reported by the family members.

Let’s examine these issues one at a time. Many of these collectibles somehow "miss" being included in wills. I think the reason for this is two-fold. The first reason is that some parents truly do not recognize the value of some of these collectibles, and the second more likely reason is, that they do realize the value and they don't want these assets to come to the attention of the tax authorities by including them in their will (a third potential reason is that your parents frequented disco's in the 70's and they took Gloria Gaynor singing "Walk out the Door" literally- but I digress and I am showing my age).

Two issues arise when collectibles are ignored in wills:

1. The parents take a huge leap of faith that their children will sort out the ownership of these assets in a detached and non-emotional manner, which is very unlikely, especially if the collectibles have wide ranging values; and
2. The collectibles in many cases will trigger an income tax liability if the deceased was the last surviving spouse or the collectibles were not left to a surviving spouse. 

Collectibles are considered personal-use property. Personal-use property is divided into two sub-categories, one being listed personal property (“LPP”), the category most of the above collectibles fall into, and the other category being regular personal-use property (“PUP”).

PUP refers to items that are owned primarily for the personal use or enjoyment by your family and yourself. It includes all personal and household items, such as furniture, automobiles, boats, a cottage, and other similar properties. These type properties, other than the cottage or certain types of antiques and collectibles (e.g. classic automobiles), typically decline in value. You cannot claim a capital loss on PUP.

For PUP,  where the proceeds received when you sell the item are less than $1,000 (or if the market value of the item is less than $1,000 if your parent passes away) there is no capital gain or loss. Where the proceeds of disposition are greater than $1,000 (or the market value at the date a parent passes away is greater than $1,000) there maybe a capital gain. Where the proceeds are greater than $1,000 (or the market value greater than $1,000 when a parent passes away), the adjusted cost base (“ACB”) will be deemed to be the greater of $1,000 or the actual ACB (i.e. generally the amount originally paid) in determining any capital gain that must be reported. Thus, the Canada Revenue Agency essentially provides you with a minimum ACB of $1,000.

LPP typically increases in value over time. LPP includes all or any part of any interest in or any right to the following properties:

1. prints, etchings, drawings, paintings, sculptures, or other similar works of art; 
2. jewellery; 
3. rare folios, rare manuscripts, or rare books; 
4. stamps; and 
5. coins. 

Capital gains on LPP are calculated in the same manner as capital gains on PUP. Capital losses on LPP where the ACB exceeds the $1,000 minimum noted above, may be applied against future LPP capital gains, although as noted above, these type items tend to increase in value.

The taxation of collectibles becomes especially interesting upon the death of the last spouse to die. There is a deemed disposition of the asset at death. For example, if your parents were lucky or smart enough to have purchased art from a member of the Group of Seven many years ago for say $2,000 and the art is now worth $50,000, there would be a capital gain of $48,000 upon the death of the last spouse (assuming the art had been transferred to that spouse upon the death of the first spouse). That deemed capital gain has to be reported on the terminal income tax return of the last surviving spouse. The income tax on that gain could be as high as $12,000.

The above noted tax liability is why some families decide to let the collectibles “Walk out the Door.” However, by allowing the collectibles to walk, family members who are executors can potentially be held liable for any income tax not reported by the estate and thus, should tread carefully in distributing assets such as collectibles.

If you are an avid collector, it may make sense in some circumstances to have the collectibles initially purchased in a child’s name. You should speak to a tax professional before considering such, as you need to be careful in navigating the income attribution tax rules.

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 of The Blunt Bean Counter- Inheriting Money - Are you a Loving Child, a Waiter or a Hoverer

This summer I am posting the "best of" The Blunt Bean Counter blog while I work on my golf game. Today, I am re-posting a June, 2014 blog post on how people act when they become aware they will inherit money from their parents or grandparents.

This topic is a bit controversial and the post became the basis for an article by Adam Mayers of the Toronto Star on inheritances, titled Inheritances are about love, money and greed.

Inheriting Money - Are you a Loving Child, a Waiter or a Hoverer

In February 2012, I wrote a blog post titled “Is it Morbid or Realistic to Plan for an Inheritance?”. I knew this was a touchy subject and would elicit various reactions from my readers. In the post, I stated that to “ignore the existence of a significant future inheritance that would impact your personal financial situation may be nonsensical” from a financial and retirement planning perspective.

Whether you believe you should plan for an inheritance or not, is your own personal decision. Today I want to deal with the behaviors and actions of those who stand to inherit money from their parents. Over the last 25 years, I have dealt with the tax, financial and psychological issues surrounding numerous client estates. I have observed the actions of those who will be the recipients of an inheritance and have found their behavior anywhere from fascinating to sickening.

I have found people who will inherit money fall into 4 groups:

1. The Loving Child

2. The Pragmatic Loving Child

3. The Waiters

4. The Hoverers

The Loving Child

For this group, their parents come first and money is secondary. Typically, these children are very close to their parents throughout their life and call and see them on a consistent basis, often weekly, or even daily. They have always helped their parents with their medical needs or in some cases with their financial needs, without giving it a second thought; because, their parents are well, their parents. This group would tell you they would give back any inheritance, if it allowed them another day to be with their parents and would consider it blasphemy to plan for an inheritance.

The Pragmatic Loving Child

This group is a subset of #1. These children love their parents and just want their parents to enjoy their lives, even if it means that they spend the children's inheritance. Children in this group may consider the reality that they will likely receive an inheritance. Even so, they do not want to take it into account in their planning and it is only at the insistence of an accountant or financial planner that they would even consider such.

The Waiters

I am not sure who coined this term, but I have seen it used many times. Waiters are described as children waiting for their parents to die, so that they can benefit from their parents assets. Waiters are considered to have a warped sense of entitlement to their parent’s money. I have observed several waiters over the years, some who went into debt to live a lifestyle based on an assumed inheritance. In my limited sample size, the children have always received their inheritance. However, one day I would love to see the face of a waiter when a lawyer informs them their parent decided to leave everything to charity instead of them.

The Hoverers

Hoverers are an even lower species than the waiters. These children often pay little or no attention to their parents their whole life, but when their parents get sick or older, they start hovering around. Many years ago one of my clients was very sick and was expected to pass away any day. I received a call from one of his children. I assumed the call was going to be the bad news that my client had passed away and the child was going to provide me the details of the funeral. The call was indeed to tell me their parent had passed away, but they were not calling to tell me about the funeral arrangements; their question to me was when they could start accessing their inheritance. I just felt sick to my stomach.

Don’t ask me why I decided to write about this topic. I guess as I have stated many times in my blog, I am just fascinated by how money affects people’s behavior. Thankfully, most people fall into the first two groups. If you are a Waiter or Hoverer, consider taking a good look at yourself in the mirror.

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 - A Family Vacation- A Memory Worth Not Dying For

This summer I am posting the "best of" The Blunt Bean Counter blog while I work on my golf game. Today, I am re-posting a May 8, 2012 post on the merits of a grandparent/parent taking their family on a vacation if they have the financial means.

A Family Vacation- A Memory Worth Not Dying For

I have written several times on the topic of whether parents, who have the financial means, should provide partial gifts while they are alive, as opposed to just leaving an inheritance to their children or grandchildren.

I am a proponent of providing partial gifts while alive if you have the financial resources. My rationale is simple. Why not receive the pleasure of your gift either directly (such as a family vacation) or vicariously (by observing your children or grandchildren enjoy their gift such as a bike, car or even cottage).

The concept of a partial gift being used at least in part for a family vacation has substantial appeal to many parents. A family vacation is appealing because a parent can participate in the experience, the vacation more often than not, results in memories that last a lifetime for all the participants, and lastly, the parent has control over the gift.

I can attest personally to the benefits of a family vacation. Several years ago, my in-laws funded a Disney Cruise vacation for their children, their children's spouses and their grandchildren. This trip had a profound impact on the bonding of the grandchildren. In the case of my in-laws, the memories and enhancement of their grandchildren’s relationships was priceless and continues to this day.

Another very poignant and moving example of the gift of travel is the story of Les Brooks. Les, a Vietnam veteran, had unresolved issues relating to the war and as he states in a Princess Cruises travel blog (unfortunately the link has expired)  “Vietnam was a place I left in 1966 praying I would never have to go back. But Christle sensed the deeper truth…I was curious about the place; I wanted and needed to see for myself what life was like today for the people of a country that I left so torn apart by war.”.

One day during the course of a conversation, Les’ mother asked him if he could take a trip anywhere in the world, where would he go. After thinking about the question he surprised his mother by saying Vietnam. Unbeknownst to Les, she later booked him on a cruise to Vietnam. 

Sadly, his mother passed away before Les took the cruise and could not observe the impact this gift had on her son’s life; but I would surmise, she knew the impact it would have as she paid for the cruise. Les says this about the special gift his mother provided while alive; “I realize my mother’s gift had opened the door to many profound gifts. Through her kindness and intuition, she provided the way back to Vietnam and my healing. There, through the smiling acceptance and unspoken forgiveness of that little girl and the many other Vietnamese who welcomed me, I was able to put aside much of the guilt that had gnawed at me for so long."


While Les’ gift was not a family bonding vacation, it was a gift provided while his mother was alive, a trip that may never have occurred if Les inherited the money and spent it otherwise.

The concept of using a partial gift to fund a family vacation has become popular for both family bonding and financial reasons as discussed in this USA Today article . As grandparent David Campbell says in the article, he is mostly motivated by a desire to make his children's lives a little easier. "It's getting to a point I'd like them to enjoy life," says Campbell, a regional sales manager. "And if they're going to enjoy it, they might as well enjoy it with me."

I have observed the family vacation phenomenon on several of my own vacations. Suddenly a horde of people arrive at the pool or restaurant (not necessarily a welcome site for other vacationers) with corny matching t-shirts, saying “Smith Family Vacation 2011” or some other similar sentiment. 

Although we all know that any large family gathering can veer off the rails, these trips often bridge the generation gap between offspring and grandparents and parents. I often hear people reference these types of family vacations when they have a family get-together or the topic arises over dinner with non-family members.

Personally, I would rather hear my grandchildren say or know they are saying "When I was young, my grandparents took me on the most amazing trip!", than, “I just inherited $25,000 from my grandparents, what should I buy with it?”

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 - How Much Money do I Need to Retire? Heck if I Know or Anyone Else Does! - Part 5

This summer I am posting the "best of" The Blunt Bean Counter blog while I work on my golf game. Today, I am re-posting Part five of my 2014 six part series titled "How Much Money do I Need to Retire? Heck if I Know or Anyone Else Does!" If you have not read this series, the links to each part of the series can be found down the right hand side of my blog, under the retirement section.

I decided to re-post this particular blog post because recently there have been numerous articles discussing whether the 4% withdrawal rate is too high (The 4% withdrawal rule is one of the most commonly accepted rule of thumb retirement strategies. Simply put, the rule says that if you have an equally balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds, you should be able to withdraw 4% of your retirement savings each year, adjusted for inflation, and those savings will last for 30-35 years).

One of the reasons retirement experts are concerned about using the 4% rule is that our longevity continues to increase. Longevity is just one of the many factors that can impact not only your withdrawal rate in retirement, but the funding of your nest egg.

Today's post discusses these various factors and how the unpredictable nature of most of these factors, make it virtually impossible to determine a definitive retirement number and is why I say the "Heck if I Know or Anyone Else Does" how much money you need to retire.

Your Longevity - The Ultimate Wildcard

It goes without saying, that if we knew who long we would live, retirement planning would be a lot simpler. Unfortunately, the best we can do is plan based on longevity studies and family medical history. The Vanguard paper I referenced in Part 3 of this series cites such as study by the Society of Actuaries which found:

“there is an 80% chance that at least one spouse will live to age 85, a 55% chance that one will live to age 90 and 25% chance one spouse will reach 95.”

In Canada, the average male lives to approximately age 79 and the average female lives to approximately 84. Based on the above, your retirement planning should at a minimum assume one spouse will live to at least 95 years old.

Inflation – Grasping for the unknown

The rate of inflation can drastically alter your retirement savings and consumption. An economic environment of low market returns and high inflation can severely impact the funds you accumulate to fund your retirement and the real returns you achieve in retirement. Conversely, interest rates tend to rise with inflation, providing a potential buffer if you lock in higher interest rates and inflation subsides (I remember Canada Savings Bonds paying 19.5% interest in 1981 when inflation was around 12.5%, however, inflation was back down to 4.5% by the end of 1983 and many people were very pleased they had CSB's or GIC's paying very high rates of interest for many years). An average inflation rate of 2% will mean that the $50,000 you expect to spend in retirement in 2014 dollars will require approximately $61,000 in spending in 2024.

One of the criticisms of the 4% rule is that the models cumulative inflation adjustment may force you to take larger and larger withdrawals without regard to your actual spending requirements. Substantive evidence for this criticism is provided below by David Blanchett, the head of retirement research at Morningstar in Chicago.

In this Wall Street Journal article by Kelly Greene, Mr. Blanchett said the following about the correlation between spending and inflation. "Pretty much every paper you read about retirement assumes that spending increases every year by [the rate of] inflation." Ms. Greene went on to say that "when he analyzed government retiree-spending data, he found otherwise: Between the ages of 65 and 90, spending decreased in inflation-adjusted terms. Most models would assume that someone spending $50,000 the first year of retirement would need $51,500 the second year (if the inflation rate were 3%). But Mr. Blanchett found that the increase is closer to 1%, which has big implications over decades, 'because these changes become cumulative over time,' he says".

Sequence of Returns – Bull vs Bear Markets upon your Retirement

The various studies that support a 4% retirement withdrawal, included periods of both bear and bull markets. If you are lucky enough to retire at the beginning of a bull market, your retirement funding will be drastically different than if you retire at the beginning of a bear market. William Bergen in his original 1994 article said:

“This is a powerful warning (particularly appropriate for recent retirees) not to increase their rate of withdrawal just because of a few good years early in retirement. Their “excess returns” early may be needed to balance off weaker returns later.”

It is interesting to note that Mr. Bergen showed that even if you started retirement in the great depression or in the recession of 1973-1974 (which also included a period of high inflation); your money would still have lasted over 30 years, because of the power of stock market recoveries.

However, Moshe Milevsky and Anna Abaimova in this report for MetLife (see page 4 of the report, page 7 of the PDF), very clearly reflect the dramatic difference in retirement outcomes you will have when you have negative market returns early in your retirement vs later in your retirement.

In this blog, Wade Pfau states that:

“In fact, the wealth remaining 10 years after retirement combined with the cumulative inflation during those 10 years can explain 80 percent of the variation in a retiree's maximum sustainable withdrawal rate after 30 years.”

Thus, prudent planning would be to start your retirement following a bear market :).

Registered vs. Non-Registered Accounts

The allocation of your retirement funds between registered (RRSPs, LIRAs, Pensions, etc.) and non-registered accounts (bank, investment, TFSA, etc.) will have a significant impact upon your cash flow in retirement. If you consider all the money in those accounts as capital, the capital in the registered accounts is fully taxable, meaning that if you are a high income tax rate taxpayer, you may be paying as much as 46% or higher upon the withdrawal of those funds. For non-registered accounts, the withdrawal of capital is tax free. This issue raises the much debated question of TFSA vs. RRSP as you accumulate your retirement nest egg and for those who own corporations, the issue of salary vs. dividend (see my three part series "Salary or Dividend? A Taxing Dilemma for Small Corporate Business Owners" from last year on this issue and my 2014 Update). The drawdown of your RRSP/RRIF and/or funds from your holding company in a tax effective manner requires a detailed analysis of your specific situation and cannot be addressed here in a generic manner; however, suffice to say, it is an important cash flow issue. 

Home Sweet Home

Some planners suggest you try and exclude your home from your retirement savings and have it serve as a back-up for any retirement shortfall. However, for many people, part of their retirement will include at least the incremental benefit of downsizing their home. For others, their retirement will only be funded by selling their home and moving into an apartment or reverse mortgaging their home.

Spending in Retirement - Sharpen your Pencil

If you are diligent about this process, you should be able to at least determine a ballpark number for your anticipated spending upon retirement. The spending wildcard for many people is travel. Good health will allow for years of travel, while poor health will not only restrict how much you can travel, but could lead to significant medical costs. In a perfect retirement model you would factor in greater spending as you begin retirement and smaller spending as you grow older. In addition you need to consider occasional and lump sum expenditures.

The aforementioned David Blanchett suggests many peoples spending in retirement maybe overstated by as much as 20% in traditional retirement models. Mr. Blanchett details these views in a very interesting paper on “Estimating the True Cost of Retirement”.

You may also wish to consider your spending in context of the three stages of retirement Michael Stein CFP came up with in his book “The Prosperous Retirement, Guide to the New Reality". In his book Michael suggests there are 3 stages of retirement:

Go-Go Stage- Retirees maintain the same lifestyle and their spending remains fairly constant with their spending pre-retirement, essentially because they still consider themselves “young” and travel extensively.

Slow-Go Stage - Stein says that between the ages of 70-84, your budget will decline 20-30% as your body is not quite able to keep up with your mind and your intended activities or you just become weary of airports and trains.

 No-Go Stage - As you reach 85+, health issues tend to cause you to restrict travel and you are tied to a certain place, be it your home or a retirement home.

Pensions - The Older you are, the more you Appreciate them

If there is one thing this series has revealed to me, is that I truly underestimated the worth of a defined benefit pension plan. I had never really considered the possibility of purchasing an annuity in retirement, however, the more calculations I undertook, the more I realized that without a company pension plan, it may be prudent to consider purchasing at least a small annuity in my retirement. Moshe Milevsky and Alexandra MacQueeen suggest that annuities should be used to “pensionize” part of your retirement funds and that it may be worth the piece of mind to forgo potential growth of your nest egg to provide some comfort that you will not outlive your retirement funds.

If you have a pension plan that covers off most of your retirement spending needs, you are afforded the freedom to take greater equity risk in retirement; since you can withstand stock market swings, knowing your day to day costs are covered off by your pension. Those without a pension face the dilemma of whether to annuitize some portion of their retirement funds or not.

Healthcare coverage - Will we be Fully Covered in 25 Years

As Canadians, we assume we will always have full medical coverage. But who knows if the government will have the money in twenty-five years to support a top-heavy population. In addition, if your health deteriorates and you require private care, all your retirement funds could be eaten up by those costs.

Interest Rates – Will they ever Rise?

People have been expecting interest rates to rise for several years. Many of those same people now think the US government will be forced to keep rates low for the foreseeable future. Selfishly, higher interest rates would be welcomed by many people in or near retirement. A spike in interest rates would likely cause some disgruntled stock market investors to re-allocate their equity investments to fixed income instruments.

Inheritances - No One Plans for an Inheritance do They?

Baby boomers will inherit a massive amount of money in the next twenty or so years. However, the size of individual inheritances will fluctuate widely based on the longevity of their parents. I wrote a blog a while back on whether you should plan for an anticipated inheritance. I suggested that if you are certain you will inherit money, you should at least consider factoring a discounted amount of your potential inheritance into your retirement planning.

Lifestyle in Retirement

For Canadians who live in large cities, have expensive homes and lifestyles, an easy solution to an underfunded retirement is to downsize/sell your home and move to a less expensive city. Whether you are willing to do that is another question.

Evolving into retirement - Keeping the Income Stream Alive

Stan Tepner, CPA, CA, MBA, CFP, TEP, First Vice-President & investment advisor with CIBC Wood Gundy and an advisor to some of my clients, told me "he often finds many people consider retirement an absolute event. One day you are working and the next you’re golfing". He adds "that more and more people 'evolve' into retirement. They may shift into part-time employment or self-employment. This shift may be required for financial reasons or because you wish to keep your mind sharp. Either way, the extra income will assist in funding your retirement needs, especially if you have a savings shortfall because of poor market returns or you have just miscalculated your actual retirement needs".

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.

Cottage Trusts

Last week Katy Basi wrote a blog post on the various estate planning challenges in passing on your cottage to your family. Today, in part 2 of her series, Katy discusses the use of cottage trusts to facilitate the transfer of your cottage. I thank Katy for her excellent series.

Cottage Trusts

By Katy Basi

 

This blog is a follow-up to my previous blog on the topic of inheriting a cottage, cabin or chalet. There are three main reasons that I have come across for a cottage in Ontario to be owned by a trust:

1) Minimization of estate administration tax, aka probate tax. Ownership of a cottage by a trust was a popular strategy in Ontario in first half of the 1990’s as a way to avoid having to pay probate tax on the value of the cottage. (In the first half of the 1990’s the Ontario government increased the rate of probate tax from its then fairly negligible rate to its current level (1.5% of the fair market value of an estate over $50,000)). A number of cottage owners were convinced to transfer the cottage to a trust in order to avoid probate tax on the value of the cottage upon their death. Many of these trusts are now reaching their 21 year anniversary. Without professional planning, a cottage trust will be required to pay tax on any accrued capital gain on the cottage due to the “21 year deemed disposition rule”. Given the increase in Ontario cottage prices over the last 21 years, very significant tax bills could result. There is often planning that can be undertaken to avoid this capital gain, usually involving a transfer of the cottage to one or more beneficiaries of the trust, but this planning must be undertaken a number of months before the 21st anniversary. If this is your situation, do not delay in getting professional advice!

2) Protection from having to share the value of the cottage upon separation or divorce. As noted in my previous cottage blog, a cottage often qualifies as a matrimonial home for family law purposes, in which case the value of the cottage is shareable upon a separation or divorce (as part of a process called “equalization”). If the cottage is instead owned by a discretionary trust, with a number of beneficiaries, and no guaranteed right of the beneficiaries to any of the income or capital of the trust, the argument can be made that none of the beneficiaries actually own the cottage or have any right to the cottage that can be valued, so that no equalization payment should be made. I advise my clients that a family court may “look through” any trust, including a cottage trust, and allocate a value to a discretionary trust interest. However, if three siblings would otherwise co-own a cottage, each having a one-third interest subject to potential equalization, this situation may be ameliorated by having a discretionary family trust own the cottage with the three siblings as trustees, and the siblings and all of their children as potential beneficiaries. If each sibling has two children, there will be 9 beneficiaries. The value of a 1/9 interest in the trust will be far less than the value of a 1/3 direct ownership interest, and there is a chance that a sibling’s interest will be valued at nil due to the discretionary nature of the trust.

3) “Wait and see” trust. When a cottage owner wants to give their children the option of inheriting the cottage, but is unsure as to whether the children will be able to deal with the practical issues of cottage ownership, and the even greater challenges of cottage co-ownership, a “wait and see” trust may be a good option. The cottage owner leaves the cottage to a cottage trust in his or her Will. The cottage trust is structured to last for the length of time that the parent thinks will be required for the children to figure out a workable long term plan for the cottage. If there are sufficient funds in the estate, the parent may leave a “cottage maintenance fund” as part of the cottage trust in order to reduce the financial burden on the children of maintaining the cottage for the duration of the trust. Upon the termination of the cottage trust, the children figure out if they will co-own the cottage, whether one child will buy out the other children’s interests, or whether the cottage will be sold to a third party.

Transferring a cottage to a trust during the lifetime of the owner can trigger capital gains tax, unless the trust qualifies as an alter ego trust or a joint partner trust. In addition, the trust itself is a separate taxpayer which pays tax at the highest marginal rate, resulting in higher tax bills, under certain circumstances, compared to ownership by the previous owner. Cottage trusts are often created in the Will of the cottage owner as a method of assisting the beneficiaries to keep the cottage in the family, given that any accrued capital gain on the cottage is taxable upon the death of the owner in any event (especially where the owner does not leave the cottage to his or her spouse). Cottage trusts are not appropriate for all situations, but they can be a lifesaver under the right circumstances.

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.

The above blog post is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice or an opinion of any kind. Readers are advised to seek specific legal advice regarding any specific legal issues.

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.