Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
^ but when you look at this through the superficial loss lens, you often do exactly what you’re describing here. You sell one thing to crystallize the loss, and buy something similar as a proxy (or maybe new permanent, depending on how things go) holding. CRA is well aware that this happens and they’re fine with it. I’m not sure why that would suddenly be viewed differently here?
|
Original idea implied reacquiring the same investments. I said, superficial gain concept doesn't exist. I was speculating that I think CRA might be very interested in the transactions that look very similar to something mentioned in the superficial loss rule, but if the wording was superficial gain instead.
CRA wouldn't look at it differently. It's a totally brand new concept and lens. However, in recent history, when the CRA was closing certain rules (I think it was one of the surplus stripping rules?) they did comment that they might look at some of the activities and transactions of those legitimate that were done just before the new rules came into effect.
I'm not saying it'll stick. I'm not saying it's guaranteed. I'm just saying the risk is elevated that CRA may want to have a friendly chat. Just because someone squeaks the transaction in just before the rule is officially in effect doesn't mean the CRA won't potentially consider looking at it. They've been more aggressive since their JR and SR auditor hiring spree last summer.