Tag Archives: Liberal tax plan

Darren Coleman interviews Tax expert Kim Moody about Liberals floating tax on Home Equity

Darren Coleman (left) and Kim Moody (right, with glasses).

The following is an edited transcript of an interview conducted by financial advisor Darren Coleman’s of the Two Way Traffic podcast with tax expert Kim Moody, of Moody Private Client. It appeared on August 8th: click here for full link.

Moody recently wrote an article in the Financial Post about the government flirting with the idea of a home equity tax, even on principal residences. Such a tax could result in an annual levy of about $10,000 for a home worth $1 million. He described that, along with the increase in the capital gains inclusion rate that has already passed into law, “really bad tax planning” based on ideology, not economics.

In the podcast Moody and Coleman also discussed …

  • The disparity between U.S. and Canadian tax rates, beginning with how the state of Florida compares with Ontario, a difference of 17%.
  • The tax model established in Estonia lets you reinvest in your company without paying corporate tax while personal income is taxed at a flat rate of 20%. They say such a system would work in Canada, and celebrate success and entrepreneurship.
  • What organizations like the Fraser Institute and mainstream economists think about Canada’s economic performance.

Below we publish an edited transcript of the start of the interview, focusing on the capital gains inclusion rate and trial balloon about taxing home equity.

Darren Coleman, Raymond James

Darren Coleman:  I’m Darren Coleman, Senior Portfolio Manager with Raymond James in Toronto.  I’m delighted to be joined by Kim Moody of Moody’s tax and Moody’s private client. You’re also a law firm based in Calgary, Alberta, and probably one of Canada’s best known tax and estate planning advisors. You may have heard our last conversation with Trevor Perry  about some of the issues we might be seeing in terms of taxation of the principal residence in Canada.

I think because governments have spent so much money that we’re going to see tremendous innovation in taxation.  Do you want to set the table for the article you wrote in the Financial Post, where you talked about where this is coming from, and why Canadians might be on alert for what might be coming to tax the equity in their homes.

Kim Moody: The point of the piece was mainly just to put Canadians on notice that you had the Prime Minister and the finance minister sitting down with what I call a pretty radical
think tank.  I consider them an ideological bastion of radical thought but that issue aside,
they call them call themselves a think tank, and this particular one, led by Paul Kershaw of
Generation Squeeze, has stuff on their website that pretty much attacks older Canadians:
basically saying they’ve gotten rich by going to sleep and watching TV. Unbelievable. Whoever approved that, it’s just so offensive. But that issue aside,  the whole connotation of the messaging is that, hey, these people are rich. We’ve got these poor young Canadians who are not rich and they can’t afford houses because you’re rich and …

Darren Coleman Someone should do something about it, right? That’s the trick.

Kim Moody

Kim Moody: Someone should do something about it. And their solution is to introduce a so-called Home Equity tax on any equity of a million dollars or more. And they call it a modest surtax of 1% per year. So it’s like another, effectively property tax … It’s just so nonsensical and so offensive on a whole bunch of different levels. Like you think about grandma and grandpa, yeah, they’ve got equity in their homes, but they don’t have a lot of cash. They’ve been working hard their entire lives to pay off their houses. And yes, they want to transfer down to their kids at some point, but right now, they’re living again, and they’re making ends meet by living off their pensions that they worked hard, and you’re expecting them to shell out more money for that, and I find that offensive.

…. Back to the original premise of why I wrote the article:  to let Canadians know that our leaders are entertaining stuff like this. It doesn’t mean they’re going to implement it, but they’re actually entertaining radical organizations like this and secondly, just to put Canadians on
notice that this is just the beginning. If this regime continues with out-of-control spending and no
adherence to basic economics, then we could expect a whole bevy of new taxes.

Darren Coleman  

Indeed, they’ve already done some of this, right? So you know that this idea about we’re going to tax home equity, either through some kind of annual surtax on equity over a certain amount, or we’re going to put a capital gain on principal residences. And I would argue that for years now, Canadians have had to report the sale of the principal residence on their tax returns, which is a non-taxable event, yet you now have to tell them, and if you don’t, there’s a penalty. Continue Reading…

Liberal tax policy: a question for Canadian voters

The second PM Trudeau

By Trevor Parry

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in his dogged defense of what are the most fundamental tax proposals made since the report of the Carter Commission (which gave us our modern Income Tax system) claimed last Thursday that it is wrong that someone earning $50,000 a year as salary pays more in tax than someone earning $300,000 in their corporation.

Many tax professionals have dissected this ridiculous statement and could in considerable detail discuss where Mr. Trudeau was in error.  In simple terms Mr. Trudeau would have you believe that the corporate shareholder lives in a different world where they are not affected by personal taxation.

According to the Ernst & Young tax Calculator an Ontario resident earning $50,000 would pay just under 30% on their income or $8,311 in taxation. The Ernst & Young Tax Calculator can’t factor in the value of a company or government funded health benefits program or pension plan.

If we turn to the corporate tax result, an active business earning $300,000 of profit in Ontario would be subject to taxation at 15%.  We don’t need a sophisticated tax calculator to determine that this equates to $45,000.  One should be baffled.

Corporate income also attracts personal taxation

Mr. Trudeau also is comparing apples and oranges.  Does the entrepreneur who owns the business pay themselves anything? Regardless of whether they take income as salary or dividends it will attract personal taxation.   Let’s say that they took a salary of $50,000, the same as Mr. Trudeau’s downtrodden employee.  They would also have paid $8,311 in tax.

They might have had to pay themselves considerably more in order to afford an RRSP contribution, as it is highly unlikely they have a pension plan in place.  If they decided to invest that $300,000 in their corporation any income or growth on that asset would be taxed almost at the same rate as an individual and when they withdraw the money as a dividend they would pay tax at the rate of 45.3%.

Perhaps the shareholder is as malevolent as Mr. Trudeau and “Red” Billy Morneau believe and they are deducting all of their lifestyle costs, including mortgage, food, transportation, vacations, toothpaste, etc. as a corporate expense.  They would be guilty of tax evasion and the Criminal Code has provisions for dealing with that.

Continue Reading…