Inflation, property and capital taxation

I do not post about taxation much in this site simply because it is too depressing.

The last analysis I performed was in the last year of the Trudeau administration, where inclusion rates above $250k would be taxed at 2/3rds of regular income instead of the 1/2 it is today. This proposal got delayed to 2026 on January 31, 2025 and formally shelved by Prime Minister Mark Carney on March 21, 2025.

I identified that the big target of this was not necessarily the doctors and lawyers investing through their corporations (although this was certainly a side target), but rather going after estates and situations that were likely to incur large deemed dispositions.

A story was making the rounds a few days ago where the CRA sucked up about $670k of an (inferring from the tax bill and facts reported in the story) approximate $2M estate. The long story short is that a husband and wife died within a year of each other in their early 60’s and they sold their primary residence 5 years earlier and moved to a ‘cottage’ which was held since 1998 and were only able to claim a partial principal residence exemption. The beneficiaries were complaining that the RRSP collapse coupled with the deemed disposition sucked away most of the liquid RRSP cash, leaving the beneficiaries with “nothing” (let’s ignore the fact there is a cottage remaining at a relatively high cost basis).

At a 2/3rds capital gain inclusion rate, the tax bill for them on the deemed disposition of the cottage would have been an extra $100k or so.

My post is not about the ignorance and feigned outrage of having a large amount of money sucked up but rather the manner of taxation that will increasingly be exhibited in the future. Inheritance taxes are going to increase in countries as the baby boomer generation dies off and the demographic inversion accelerates. The amount of wealth that is transferred will be an irresistible target for governments – we already see countries like Japan that will apply 30% marginal rates above CAD$500,000 equivalent and 40% over CAD$1,000,000. In Canada, the deemed disposition of capital assets on death acts as an effective inheritance tax.

It is pretty obvious at this point that governments are quite keen to collecting higher amounts of taxes through inflation.

The other aspect of capital is while dollars and cents in the monetary system are mobile between countries that have free capital controls, if the taxation and/or inflation situation is too punitive, capital will flow out of the jurisdiction in question. The taxation of immovable or geographically locked assets such as land titles and mineral resources will be subject to increasing scrutiny. In Canada, the administration and taxation of land titles is under the provincial jurisdiction and in British Columbia, land titles have been picked away at with the speculation and vacancy tax (essentially a 1% yearly tax on assessed value if you do not occupy or rent it out), the federal underused housing tax (effectively a tax on foreign ownership) and also the elevated “school tax” (an additional property tax levy on properties assessed at more than $3 million).

There is a Laffer curve that applies to taxation on these immobile assets and this is typically indicative of the pricing of these assets. When projected carrying costs of land titles (taxes, insurance, maintenance, and carried interest) increase, it has an effective of decreasing the capitalized value of the property at hand. There is also a reverse causation – a perceived increase in land title value will also trigger increased interest in land titles. In addition to capturing a captive value on land titles (note: this is irrespective of actual assessed value – rates can simply be increased further in times of decreasing net aggregate assessed values), governments in appreciating markets will capture capital gain value, in addition to property transfer taxes.

It is difficult to say when the tax market has been saturated but on the real estate front, it appears we’re getting close to that point, if not exceeded it. Hence, the lever that is being pulled currently is reducing the cost of capital and trying to instigate demand in the asset markets – to increase volume and also to generate those precious capital gains taxes.

We have a federal government that is going to announce a budget on November 4, 2025. It’s no secret that this budget is going to contain a gigantic amount of spending investment.

At 3.2% on 10-year government debt, why not? To the government, it is virtually free money. And if you’re one of the institutional fund managers out there looking at the bond offerings, where else are you going to put your capital and clear a 300bps equity risk premium? It will simply be paid for in a hidden manner with debasement. For those saying that Japan’s government pulled it off without causing huge amounts of inflation – different culture! North American culture is much more predisposed of spending and debt.

Did I begin this post by saying I don’t write about taxation too often because it is too depressing?

One implication of the capital gains changes

Maximum price changes occur when there is demand or supply added to the market in a very short period of time.

The upcoming finalization of the June 25 “Delivering Tax Fairness for Canadians” capital gains tax inclusion rules has created an interesting ripple in the market.

Well-pocketed individuals or anybody managing a portfolio within a corporation that anticipated an upcoming liquidation of unrealized gains over the next three to five years are compelled to realize such gains in the next 5 trading days. The math is pretty straight-forward for somebody in the top Ontario marginal tax bracket – you sell your shares today and $10,000 of capital gains results in a $2,676 tax bill, or you sell your same shares at the end of this month and it will result in a $3,569 tax bill. The value of the tax deferral of the capital gain only reaches a break-even point in about 5 to 6 years assuming a 9% rate of return – quite a liquidity penalty if you decide to hold! (See: RBC report, page 8 and 9 for some reasonable analysis on the matter).

The people that have the capital to be concerned with these rules (over $250,000 in individual capital gains, or any capital gains in a trust or corporation) are more likely to have the economic substance to push the market in a short period of time with a significant amount of assets.

Hence I deeply suspect that there has been over the past week or so and will be, until June 21 (note – the change occurs on or after June 25 and now that stock trades settle T+1day, the last trade you can do is Friday June 21 to qualify for the 50% inclusion rate), a very unique form of “tax gain selling” on stocks that have reasonable potential for gains to be realized.

All things being equal, next week may prove to be a better than not opportunity to put capital to work.

Life, death and taxes… and taxes after death!

Federal Budget 2024 made headlines yesterday, primarily for the reason that the capital gains inclusion rate is increasing from 50% to 66 2/3% for corporations and trusts, and for individuals reporting capital gains above $250,000.

Two broad implications:

1. The concept of “integration” between the income earned in a corporation vs. that earned individually is further broken – it is significantly more advantageous for an individual to take the first $250k of capital gains. Small corporations now have an increased disincentive to engaging in activities that will net them capital gains (the net reward after such an action will be lessened with the increase in the inclusion rate);
2. This change is very obviously a tax grab for estates, and to a lesser degree, will disincentivize sales of non-primary residences.

In particular, the cited reason for individuals (“tax fairness”, i.e. an excuse to tax more) was in the following chart:

For most individuals, there are two common triggering events that will cause capital gains going over $250,000: the disposal of a non-principal residence property that has been held for a considerable period of time, and death.

While it is true that Canada does not have an inheritance tax, there is a functional equivalent of it – the deemed disposition upon death.

In Canada, when you die, your capital assets undergo a “deemed disposition”, where it is assumed for tax purposes they are sold and re-acquired at the fair market value of the time of death.

For many people, this will result in a significant capital gain pushing estates above the $250,000 threshold. This especially applies for long-held assets that have had their nominal values increase over time due to inflation, but the real value has remained constant (say a cottage out in Ontario, or shares held in the Royal Bank for the past 20 years). The entire slab of capital gains becomes payable in a single tax year and the only element of taxation strategy is to choose to die early in the calendar year instead of later when you have a bunch of other (pension) income accumulated in the year!

By the time of death, there are few tax planning options to “smooth” this out. You inherently have to predict your passing in advance to construct an optimal tax plan. Needless to say, this is a morbid exercise, but one that potentially made much easier with one industry in Canada that is exhibiting huge growth rates – Medical Assistance in Death (MAID), AKA assisted suicide!

Clarke / Terravest spin-off – tax matters

Clarke’s (TSX: CKI) interest in Terravest (TSX: TVK) shares was about 40% of its market capitalization.

Today, Clarke made the decision to spin off the shares to shareholders.

This decision does not come without consequences – for shareholders, they will be paying a tax bill of an increase in income of $5.49 per Clarke share, in the form of an eligible dividend. For non-Canadian holders, this does mean there will be tax withholdings in most cases.

Most holding companies do not do this primarily for such reasons – more movement of capital usually means more taxation. There are a few exceptions – tax-free spinoffs (which require significant amounts of ownership of the company in question), for instance. Inter-corporate dividends of after-tax income is another. Finally, if you are lucky enough to have the capital sheltered in a registered account or TFSA, you’re covered.

Otherwise, when money moves, prepare to pay taxes.

Reitmans / Substantial Issuer Bid / Taxation

Hat tip to Tyler for getting this on my radar. I’ve personally been following Reitmans (TSX: voting stock RET, non-voting stock RET.A) on-and-off for the past decade or so. Not that I’ve been a purchaser of women’s clothing but financially it is a typical story of the decline of a fairly benign women’s fashion retailer facing the steamroller of competitive marketing and the internet.

Fortunately for Reitmans, they are highly un-leveraged. As of May 4, 2019, they have $122 million cash and zero debt. As Tyler pointed out, IFRS 16 had a disproportionate impact on the reporting of their balance sheet – I will point out any accounting system does not change the actual economics of a company’s operations (other than covenants and restrictions that are governed by the stated accounting values!).

On June 3rd, RET announced their quarterly results, which were less than inspiring (sales down, margins down, cash drain increased from the previous year’s quarter) and their stock tanked. There was a panic sale before somebody with larger pockets decided they wanted to accumulate shares in the low 2’s.

On June 17, RET announced a substantial issuer bid (SIB) for CAD$3/share of up to 15 million shares of RET.A stock. There were 49,890,266 shares outstanding, so the 30% SIB is not a trivial amount – and also nearly 40% of the cash on RET’s balance sheet. The voting stock has 13,440,000 shares outstanding and this will be untouched – directors and insiders have 56.9% control of these shares, although if you want to be a muzzled voting partner, the stock does trade a few thousand shares a day on the TSX.

Shareholders have until July 26 to figure out whether to tender.

The SIB was filed on SEDAR, but I will spare you the trouble and attach it here.

I always find these documents interesting to read, specifically the background of the transaction. Merger documents also have to include the timeline of discussion and negotiations. For RET’s SIB, it is as follows:

During the spring of 2019, senior management of the Corporation was approached by a significant unrelated Shareholder indicating its desire to realign its portfolio and to sell all of its Shares. As a result, such members of senior management and the Board of Directors began engaging in preliminary discussions concerning possible strategic activities and opportunities that may be in the best interests of the Corporation and could provide enhanced liquidity for all of the Shareholders. Among the alternatives discussed was the possibility of pursuing a substantial issuer bid to repurchase a portion of the issued and outstanding Shares.

“a significant unrelated Shareholder” is not defined in this document, but my first guess is Fairfax.

I’m sure another alternative was trying to find a buyer for the company, but this would require the control group agreeing to it.

In May 2019, following discussions with senior management of the Corporation, certain independent members of the Board of Directors seriously considered the possibility of pursuing a substantial issuer bid and the alternatives thereto. Given the Corporation’s significant cash on hand and marketable securities portfolio, certain independent members of the Board of Directors and senior management of the Corporation considered that, in light of the trading price of the Shares, the low return from its investment in marketable securities and interest rates earned on the cash balance, a substantial issuer bid would be a good use of the Corporation’s funds and sought preliminary advice from Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, legal counsel to the Corporation, in order to further consider and evaluate the possibility of making an offer to repurchase a portion of the Shares.

The key word is “certain” in “certain independent members of the Board of Directors”. Clearly this was not a unanimous decision.

The rest of the document is bureaucracy to adhere to MI 61-101 and is not terribly juicy.

Taxation (hat tip to Fred for this one)

This is for Canadian residents.

A Resident Shareholder who sells Shares to Reitmans pursuant to the Offer will be deemed to receive a taxable dividend on a separate class of shares comprising the Shares so sold equal to the excess, if any, of the amount paid by Reitmans for the Shares over their paid-up capital for income tax purposes. Reitmans estimates that the paid-up capital per Share on the date of take-up under the Offer will be approximately $0.66. As a result, Reitmans expects that a Resident Shareholder who sell Shares under the Offer will be deemed to receive a dividend. The exact quantum of the deemed dividend cannot be guaranteed.

Careful – if you tender your shares, you will receive a deemed dividend of $2.34/share! Fortunately your capital gain will be reduced (in most cases, one exception is if you just bought the shares before/after 30 days of the final disposition) by said amount, which will lessen the tax bill somewhat. Unfortunately, almost all shareholders of RET are sitting on loss situations – so in order to take full tax advantage of the situation you would need to be able to offset 3 years’ prior capital gains, or future capital gains. Otherwise, you are taking a very large tax hit to tender your shares.

Putting on my individual CPA tax advisory hat, in general, if your desire is to dispose your shares of RET, you should ask yourself whether taking a dividend with a relatively large capital loss (the tender route) or a relatively small capital loss with no dividend (sell in the open market) is better for your personal taxes. RET.A shares are trading at around $2.85 presently so going through the open market approach will involve surrendering a potential 15 cents per share, offset with the tender route uncertainty that at a minimum, only 30% of your shares will be tendered.