New anti-flipping guidelines for residential real estate (together with rental properties) that got here into impact in 2023 had been designed to “cut back speculative demand within the market and assist to chill extreme worth progress.”
The principles primarily stop you from claiming the principal residence exemption (PRE) to shelter the capital gain realized on the sale of your own home in case you’ve owned it for lower than 12 months. When you’re caught by the rule, the acquire on the sale is 100 per cent taxable as enterprise revenue moderately than solely 50 per cent taxable as a capital acquire, topic to sure exemptions for all times occasions reminiscent of dying, incapacity, separation and work relocation.
Though these new guidelines solely got here into play as of 2023, the Canada Revenue Agency can nonetheless problem actual property “flips” that passed off previous to 2023 if it feels a taxpayer has speculated and flipped a property for a fast revenue. That’s precisely what occurred in a brand new case determined final week involving a Vancouver taxpayer whose 2018 tax return was reassessed for failing to report the acquire on her sale of a condominium unit, counting on the PRE.
In February 2015, the taxpayer entered right into a pre-construction contract for the acquisition of a apartment positioned in North Vancouver for $660,000. Building was accomplished, and she or he took possession in October 2017.
The property was then listed on the market by the taxpayer on Dec. 6, 2017. It didn’t promote straight away and was subsequently relisted with a special agent on Feb. 21, 2018. A month later, on March 22, 2018, the taxpayer bought the property for $1,161,000, which closed on June 28, 2018. After deducting her prices, the acquire or revenue on sale was roughly $457,000.
The taxpayer claimed this property as her principal residence, and thus didn’t report the acquire on her 2018 tax return. The CRA disagreed and reassessed the taxpayer on the idea that she was engaged in a enterprise or “an journey or concern within the nature of commerce,” and included the $457,000 within the taxpayer’s revenue as enterprise revenue.
Beneath the Income Tax Act , the PRE can solely be used to shelter a acquire from tax if the property bought is taken into account to be capital property. If the property isn’t capital property as a result of it’s bought by a person in the middle of a enterprise, then the PRE can not shelter the acquire from tax.
Thus, the query earlier than the Tax Court docket was whether or not the taxpayer was carrying on a enterprise in respect of her buy and sale of the property. In that case, the taxpayer’s revenue is claimed to be on “revenue account,” which means that any revenue from sale can be handled as 100 per cent taxable enterprise revenue.
Prior jurisprudence has developed a sequence of exams that assist the courts decide whether or not a person purchased an asset on revenue or capital account. The exams take into account: the character of the property bought, the size of interval of possession, the frequency or variety of different comparable transactions, the work expended on or in reference to the property, the circumstances that had been answerable for the sale of the property and the taxpayer’s motive.
The choose reviewed every issue, making numerous observations. First, the interval of possession from closing (Oct. 2017) to sale (June 2018) was pretty brief, pointing towards an journey or concern within the nature of commerce.
Second, it seems that the taxpayer, alongside along with her former partner, was beforehand engaged in quite a few actual property transactions over time, a number of of which the choose referred to as “notable.” For instance, in October 2005, the previous couple collectively acquired a property in West Vancouver for $4.2 million and spent extra quantities on upgrades. The property was bought in July 2010 for a loss, which was reported as a enterprise loss for tax functions.
In June 2008, the taxpayer bought a condominium unit in West Vancouver with a good friend on a 50-50 foundation for about $698,000. The property was listed on the market a number of weeks later, and was bought in June 2009 for web proceeds of $588,616, leading to a loss.
The taxpayer tried to regulate her 2009 revenue tax return to deal with her share of the loss as a enterprise loss, which prompted inquiries from the CRA. In a letter to the CRA, the taxpayer defined that she supposed to “pursue small-scale property refurbishment tasks to generate a supply of revenue, and that the (property bought) was to be the primary such mission.” She additionally said that she had “loads of expertise proudly owning and refurbishing properties” and that, after relocating to Vancouver, actual property “appeared like a logical sector to be making investments.”
In court docket, the taxpayer testified that she moved a number of objects into her North Vancouver apartment round Nov. 3, 2017, and in late November moved in some extra furnishings, together with two couches, a chest of drawers, bedside tables, a mattress for the principle bed room and a settee mattress within the second bed room. She mentioned her daughters shared that room.
Her proof was that she lived on the apartment from Nov. 23, 2017, to June 2018.
The choose didn’t purchase this argument. The taxpayer’s different property remained obtainable, and that’s possible the place the taxpayer and her daughters had been residing when the daughters weren’t along with her ex. Because the choose mentioned, “It’s extremely unbelievable that (her teenage daughters), would have moved right into a smaller condominium and shared a bed room after having separate bedrooms at (their earlier three properties).”
The choose additionally famous that the taxpayer didn’t trouble to put in Wi-Fi on the apartment, nor did she change the tackle on her driver’s license, nor replace her tackle with the CRA. Moreover, when the apartment was listed on the market, it was listed as “model new” in the actual property itemizing.
Because the choose famous, “occupancy includes greater than merely transferring a number of objects into the premises. … It appears illogical that she would record the (apartment) on December 6, 2017, and — whereas on the identical time — transfer in and start occupying the property primarily as a spot of residence.”
Because the choose wrote, “On a stability of possibilities, and contemplating the totality of the proof adduced along with frequent sense, I’m unable to search out that the (taxpayer) occupied the (apartment) as a spot of residence. … As a substitute, it’s extra possible that the (taxpayer) and her daughters continued to reside primarily on the four-bedroom house.”
This led the choose to conclude that the taxpayer had acquired her curiosity within the apartment with a speculative intent, motivated primarily by the opportunity of resale at a revenue. Thus, the choose dominated that the revenue was correctly taxable as enterprise revenue.
Jamie Golombek, FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Non-public Wealth in Toronto. Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com .
When you favored this story, sign up for more within the FP Investor e-newsletter.
