Because they've spent the better part of the past decade trying to get people to be dependent upon their crap ass online system and when people acquiesce to their their crap ass system it doesnt goddamned work.
Cant have it both ways.
If you do your taxes early the CRA has never had the forms in on the same day you have access to them through other sources.
Are your tax slips missing from the CRA website? This might be why
Quote:
Less than three weeks before the tax-filing deadline, some Canadians have noticed their T3s and other slips are missing from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) website.
The issue has prevented people from using the “auto-fill” option offered through online filing services.
So what’s causing the problem?
A CRA spokesperson told CTVNews.ca the missing documents are the result of a new validation process, which was introduced back in January to ensure the T3s, T5s and other slips that companies and other organizations submit to the government are accurate.
“We appreciate that this is of concern to taxpayers,” the spokesperson said of the missing slips. “The CRA is actively working to address any outstanding issues, including consulting with issuers, to ensure tax slips are made available on the portal.”
The government expects the “majority” of outstanding slips to be available online by mid-April, the spokesperson said.
There’s no indication the personal filing deadline of April 30 will be extended.
Hmm.. looks like you misunderstood what was being said. Either that or you were so busy trying to push your ideology that you didn't pay attention to what was said.
Let's try again. Jack buys a house that costs $500,000, and the next year sells it for $520,000. The capital gain is $20,000, not $520,000.
Now Jack sells a property he bought 50 years ago, paying $40,000 for it at the time, and sells it today for $500,000. You're not suggesting the capital gain is $500k, are you? It would be $460k would it not?
But adjusted for inflation and converted into today's dollars, the initial buying price is actually something like $240k. So the question was, is the capital gain $460k or $260k? Judging by the answers so far, looks like it's $460k. Just wanted to confirm.
Somewhat related...For very old property, there are basically no capital gains up to 1972. If the property was owned prior to Jan 1, 1972, the ACB when you sell it is the value of the property on Jan 1, 1972. It's known as V-day valuation.
Sent from my VOG-L04 using Tapatalk
__________________
Much like a sports ticker, you may feel obligated to read this
The Following User Says Thank You to mrkajz44 For This Useful Post:
Hmm.. looks like you misunderstood what was being said. Either that or you were so busy trying to push your ideology that you didn't pay attention to what was said.
Let's try again. Jack buys a house that costs $500,000, and the next year sells it for $520,000. The capital gain is $20,000, not $520,000.
Now Jack sells a property he bought 50 years ago, paying $40,000 for it at the time, and sells it today for $500,000. You're not suggesting the capital gain is $500k, are you? It would be $460k would it not?
But adjusted for inflation and converted into today's dollars, the initial buying price is actually something like $240k. So the question was, is the capital gain $460k or $260k? Judging by the answers so far, looks like it's $460k. Just wanted to confirm.
Ideology? No. Just legalese that you need to understand and learn before you can properly understand the scenario.
I'll put it this way... if you're asking an earnest question, I'll attempt to give you an earnest response (albeit it may be overly simplified). There's a big difference between capital gains and taxable capital gains at times depending on the situation and you have to understand that the people replying you did not create the rules, they are just explaining to you how not to run afoul of them. No need for the ideology accusations.
Although English is used, the Canadian tax act is written in a type of legalese. In such a situation, there are very specific definitions that must be used for the purposes of taxation and not the usage of any definition of a word in English from any dictionary. But your scenario is also missing far too many case facts to conclude appropriately.
For ACB, inflation is not part of the definition/situations where the cost base of the housing property can be adjusted. The purchase price in 1975 would be part of the calculation but should not be the ACB (adjusted cost base) in 2025. If Jack sold the property, the POD you may be using for calculating the taxable capital gain may be incorrect if outlays on the sale are not appropriately included.
Long story short, start understanding the scenario without calculating any numbers.
If this is Jack's sole property and principal residence for the last 50 years, the capital gain doesn't matter. The taxable capital gain matters. So you need to figure out the tax definitions to figure out how to calculate taxable capital gains properly before you determine if Jack should be upset.
If Jack has held an investment property for 50 years and it is not his principal residence, Jack is likely quite wealthy anyways, so why are you crying tears for him if he is upset he has to pay taxes? Your commentary indicates that you should be happy he's paying his fair share of taxes.
Again, your situation is missing far too much information to conclude and your application/usage of ACB, POD also do not seem appropriately accurate to ensure an accurate conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkajz44
Somewhat related...For very old property, there are basically no capital gains up to 1972. If the property was owned prior to Jan 1, 1972, the ACB when you sell it is the value of the property on Jan 1, 1972. It's known as V-day valuation.
Sent from my VOG-L04 using Tapatalk
If an ultra old property disposal, V-Day valuation is just one maybe half a dozen basic items that has to be part of the ACB. An ACB of $40K from 1975 is likely accurate only if that house is completely uninhabitable. $40K is likely to be a horribly inaccurate ACB in 2025 if the house is still habitable 50 years later.
The Following User Says Thank You to DoubleF For This Useful Post:
Ideology? No. Just legalese that you need to understand and learn before you can properly understand the scenario.
I'll put it this way... if you're asking an earnest question, I'll attempt to give you an earnest response (albeit it may be overly simplified). There's a big difference between capital gains and taxable capital gains at times depending on the situation and you have to understand that the people replying you did not create the rules, they are just explaining to you how not to run afoul of them. No need for the ideology accusations.
To clear up any confusion, I was responding to a different poster. That comment was not directed at you.
Quote:
If Jack has held an investment property for 50 years and it is not his principal residence, Jack is likely quite wealthy anyways, so why are you crying tears for him if he is upset he has to pay taxes? Your commentary indicates that you should be happy he's paying his fair share of taxes.
Fair comment. I'm all for people paying taxes on capital gains, as long as those gains are actual real gains in buying power. Imagine for a moment if Jack's property value increased at only the level of inflation. He sells the property, and has the exact same amount of buying power from its sale as he had 50 years ago prior to buying it. He essentially gained nothing from the "increase" in property value. Yet he has to pay tax on that "gain". Am I the only one who thinks it's a bit odd that there are real taxes on imaginary gains?
In my view, yes we need to increase taxes on the rich. But this isn't the way. IMO.
Also, it's a mistake to paint all wealthy people with the same wide brush. On the one hand you have Jack who worked his ass off his whole life as a construction worker, and retired at 65 with a couple million dollars in net worth to show for it. On the other hand, you have Steve who was born into all kinds of privilege and advantages, and used those advantages to quickly rise to the top of the income ladder, and through mostly trading and investments reached a net worth of $100M before his 50th birthday. Sure, Jack and Steve are both wealthy, but the level of wealth they have and the way they got that wealth are dramatically different.
How is this one the CRAs fault? You don’t have your slips from your employers and investments? Just go get them from your investment accounts. It’s nice that the government does most of this but come on you should know all your sources of income and where to get the forms from those sources.
In past years, I haven't received all physical slips sent to me from certain investment sources. Therefore I got assessed penalties for not paying taxes on some sources I didn't even know existed (I didn't always handle my own investments, or a slip gets lost in the mail etc).
So the CRA rep says to me that in order to avoid that situation in the future, always rely on the autofill slip function from the CRA. It's rock solid reliable. Sure, got it, no problem.
So in February this year, when I received some paper slips from certain funds, I just thew them away because, hey, I've been told by the CRA to just rely on their system and I've been burned by relying on physical slips before.
It's now April 13th and these slips still haven't been uploaded to the CRA website. I'm going on a trip in 2 days out of the country until the end of the month. When I called CRA a few weeks ago, they had no answers for me.
Is it my responsibility to pay my taxes and include all info? It sure is. But if the CRA gets everyone hooked on autofilling slips from the CRA website and sells it as "foolproof", should anyone be surprised when this thing blows up after they implode their system for no reason with no real advance warning?
If you blame people for following their advice, you can kiss my ass.
The Following User Says Thank You to Johnny199r For This Useful Post:
In past years, I haven't received all physical slips sent to me from certain investment sources. Therefore I got assessed penalties for not paying taxes on some sources I didn't even know existed (I didn't always handle my own investments, or a slip gets lost in the mail etc).
So the CRA rep says to me that in order to avoid that situation in the future, always rely on the autofill slip function from the CRA. It's rock solid reliable. Sure, got it, no problem.
So in February this year, when I received some paper slips from certain funds, I just thew them away because, hey, I've been told by the CRA to just rely on their system and I've been burned by relying on physical slips before.
It's now April 13th and these slips still haven't been uploaded to the CRA website. I'm going on a trip in 2 days out of the country until the end of the month. When I called CRA a few weeks ago, they had no answers for me.
Is it my responsibility to pay my taxes and include all info? It sure is. But if the CRA gets everyone hooked on autofilling slips from the CRA website and sells it as "foolproof", should anyone be surprised when this thing blows up after they implode their system for no reason with no real advance warning?
If you blame people for following their advice, you can kiss my ass.
Well said.
Largely my experience as well.
They need to take the Minister of Finance out back with a blindfold and a cigarette.
Then fire everyone who works for CRA, burn it to the ground and salt the Earth behind them and start over.
Make me the Minister of Finance. I will sort this nonsense.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Fair comment. I'm all for people paying taxes on capital gains, as long as those gains are actual real gains in buying power. Imagine for a moment if Jack's property value increased at only the level of inflation. He sells the property, and has the exact same amount of buying power from its sale as he had 50 years ago prior to buying it. He essentially gained nothing from the "increase" in property value. Yet he has to pay tax on that "gain". Am I the only one who thinks it's a bit odd that there are real taxes on imaginary gains?
In my view, yes we need to increase taxes on the rich. But this isn't the way. IMO.
Gains that match inflation aren't imaginary though. If someone put some money in a savings account for 50 years that had an interest rate that matched inflation, they'd pay tax on the interest every year. So why should capital assets be different?
Yes, getting hit with it all at once when you sell can lead to the income ending up in higher tax brackets. But capital gains taxes have other advantages that normally more than make up for that:
1) You only pay tax on half the gain.
2) Tax is deferred until you sell. So the value compounds to a larger amount than if you had to pay taxes on it each year.
And with large gains, the difference can be pretty big. If you had an investment that returned 10% a year for 25 years, if each year's return was treated as regular income and taxed in that year, you'd end up with about $575K at the end assuming a 30% tax rate. If it was all treated as a capital gain at the end of 25 years, you'd end up with about $860K with a 48% tax rate.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Gains that match inflation aren't imaginary though. If someone put some money in a savings account for 50 years that had an interest rate that matched inflation, they'd pay tax on the interest every year. So why should capital assets be different?
Yes, getting hit with it all at once when you sell can lead to the income ending up in higher tax brackets. But capital gains taxes have other advantages that normally more than make up for that:
1) You only pay tax on half the gain.
2) Tax is deferred until you sell. So the value compounds to a larger amount than if you had to pay taxes on it each year.
And with large gains, the difference can be pretty big. If you had an investment that returned 10% a year for 25 years, if each year's return was treated as regular income and taxed in that year, you'd end up with about $575K at the end assuming a 30% tax rate. If it was all treated as a capital gain at the end of 25 years, you'd end up with about $860K with a 48% tax rate.
This here.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
It is incredible how messed up the tax filing has been this year. I don't put much hope in this request but it would be great to see the next government take some serious steps to fix the CRA. I'm assuming they need a serious cash infusion to modernize and also likely need to clean house and hire some technically savvy people that can drive change and pull the CRA into this century.
It is incredible how messed up the tax filing has been this year. I don't put much hope in this request but it would be great to see the next government take some serious steps to fix the CRA. I'm assuming they need a serious cash infusion to modernize and also likely need to clean house and hire some technically savvy people that can drive change and pull the CRA into this century.
This is something that I dont understand. Why? The CRA is not underfunded. Its not like these guys aren't getting paid.
They're just bad at their jobs. Because there are no consequences for being bad at your job.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Weren't there just some... how shall we say... recent layoffs at the IRS...
Golden opportunity for CRA to bring in some new talent and let go of those not doing their jobs well.
Not saying it'll happen, just saying that it could.
Oh Good Holy and fluffy Lord! You do NOT want to bring those guys in!
1. The IRS know jack about Canadian Tax Code.
2. Those guys are evil. I mean pure, unadulterated, unapologetic evil.
Have you ever spoken to anyone from the IRS? They will kill you in the woods, rob you and not even have the goddamned common decency to bury you because....who is going to do anything about it?
Nobody. Thats who.
CRA are a bunch of ne'er-do-well incompetent feckless morons. The IRS? That is borderline Organized Crime.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
