yzfr1 wrote:reallyreal2 wrote:yzfr1 wrote:
Simmer down there..
If they wanted to tax the presale contract. Upon transfer of the contract the actual value of the sale would be declared. Both sides would write it down and would be registered in a binding contract.
If buyer wants to declare actual value, then seller won't give him the discount. Its in the buyers interest to declare less so buyer and seller can save on tax.
Because value is declared on the spot of sale of contract there will be no future changes in value and CRA blah blah blah.
Reallyreals whole argument is netrualizes with basic logic. Again wasting everyone's time with stupid posts.
I think you are starting to go to TDMA's school of english via Google Translate.
I have zero idea what you are talking about - mostly because you don't have a clue.
Above, I have very simply explained how CRA can track down assignment contracts. I have zero clue what your point is.
If what you are saying is that the buyer and seller are colluding on price of an assignment so the seller avoids tax - and by doing so, the seller is giving the buyer a discount.... well then the seller has paid tax by accepting less proceeds (just the buyer in this case is the beneficiery). Then when the buyer goes to sell, his ACB will be lower by the discount... meaning they will pay more tax when they sell.
Again - think this through step by step ... it's not that hard.
If what you are saying is that the buyer and seller are colluding on price of an assignment so the seller avoids tax - and by doing so, the seller is giving the buyer a discount.... well then the seller has paid tax by accepting less proceeds (just the buyer in this case is the beneficiery).
Ill make this easy for you to understand,
Party A has a contract on a $500,000 apartment. Person B wants to buy that contract, they agree on $10,000. There is no way anyone can know the amount of the agreed upon purchase of the contract. That's a private # only party A and party B are privy to. If there is regulation changes, and thus forcing a amount to be disclosed in the event of a contract change. The only way to ascertain that information is for Party A and B is to declare that value in the contract takeover. That value will always be fraudulently lower.
Part A would be on the hook for tax $1,200. Party A can turn around and say the sale was $1 and both split this difference of $600. Party A still gets his $9,400 instead of $ 8,800 and party B pays $9,400 instead of $10,000
Then when the buyer goes to sell, his ACB will be lower by the discount... meaning they will pay more tax when they sell.
When you do your tax, try adding "pre sale $" and deduct. You just made that up, its a practice that doesn't exist. If this was allowed the fraud would be huge, it would be even more beneficial to overstate the value.
Also for most people there would be no taxes when the seller sells.
Before you go on shooting your mouth. Why dont you answer EyesTheBall... you kept claiming there was $2 million dollars sales in 2015 in gradview area. Tyga tried be nice and give you benefit of the doubt.
You can't be a troll when you can't win the argument and when you feel like you want to add some input have people take you seriously.
Don't be such a scum bag. Have some humanity
Looks like notnot3 is a certified noob