Opinion

Budget 2019 – Poor wording requires 2 ex-spouses within 5 years for Home Buyers Plan

Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr

Published

6 years ago

6 minute read

This is one of those rare times I hope I am wrong in my interpretation, and look forward to being proven wrong by my professional colleagues.

On March 19, 2019 the federal government tabled its election-year budget. One of the newest and strangest provisions is the ability for people going through a separation or divorce to potentially have access to their RRSP under the Home Buyers Plan.

Now in my article and podcast entitled: “Escape Room – The NEW Small Business Tax Game – Family Edition” with respect to the Tax On Split Income (TOSI) rules, I made a tongue in cheek argument that people will be better off if they split, because then the TOSI rules won’t apply.

In keeping with the divorce theme, beginning in the year of hindsight, 2020, the federal government is giving you an incentive to split up and get your own place.

However, there are a few hoops:

On page 402 of the budget, under new paragraph 146.01(2.1)(a), at the time of your RRSP withdrawal under the Home Buyers Plan, you must make sure that:

– the home you are buying is not the current home you are living in and you are disposing of the interest in the current home within two years; or
– you are buying out your former spouse in your current home; and

you need to:

be living separate and apart from your spouse or common-law partner;
have been living separate and apart for a period of at least 90 days (markdown October 3, 2019 on the calendar),
began living separate and apart from your spouse or common-law partner, this year, or any time in the previous 4 years (ok, you don’t have to wait for October); and…

…here is where the tabled proposed legislation gets messy.

Proposed subparagraph 146.01(2.1)(a)(ii) refers to where the individual

wouldn’t be entitled to the home buyers plan because of living with a previous spouse in the past 4 years that isn’t the current spouse they are separating from

“(ii) in the absence of this subsection, the individual would not have a regular eligible amount because of the application of paragraph (f) of that definition in respect of a spouse or common-law partner other than the spouse referred to in clauses (i)(A) to (C), and…”

The problem with the wording of this provision, is that it is written in the affirmative by the legislators using the word “and”. This means, you must be able to answer “true” to all the tests for the entire paragraph to apply.

The way I read this, the only way to answer “true” to this subparagraph is if you have a second spouse (ie: spouse other than the spouse referred to) that you shared a home with and you split from in the past four years.

If you have a second spouse that you shared a home with in the past four years, then “paragraph (f)” in the definition of “regular eligible amount” would apply and the answer would be “true”.

If the answer is “true” you can then get access to your RRSP Home Buyers Plan.

If you don’t have a second spouse then, even though “paragraph (f)” might be met, the phrase “spouse other than the spouse referred to” would not be met, and therefore the answer would be “false”.

This would, in turn, cause the entire logic test of the provision to be “false” and so you would not be able to take out a “regular eligible amount” from your RRSP for the Home Buyers plan because you do not meet the provisions.

If my interpretation is correct then I would really be curious as to what part of the economy they are trying to stimulate.

In my opinion the legislation could be fixed with a simple edit:

“(ii) in the absence of this subsection, the individual would not have a regular eligible amount because of the application of paragraph (f) of that definition in respect of:

(A) a spouse or common-law partner; or

(B) a spouse or common-law partner other than the spouse referred to in clauses (i)(A) to (C); and…”

—
Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr is the President & Founder of CGL Strategic Business & Tax Advisors; you can find out more about Cory’s biography at http://www.CGLtax.ca/Litzenberger-Cory.html

Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr

CEO | Director CGL Tax Professional Corporation With the Income Tax Act always by his side on his smart-phone, Cory has taken tax-nerd to a whole other level. His background in strategic planning, tax-efficient corporate reorganizations, business management, and financial planning bring a well-rounded approach to assist private corporations and their owners increase their wealth through the strategies that work best for them. An entrepreneur himself, Cory started CGL with the idea that he wanted to help clients adapt to the ever-changing tax and economic environment and increase their wealth through optimizing the use of tax legislation coupled with strategic business planning and financial analysis. His relaxed blue-collar approach in a traditionally white-collar industry can raise a few eyebrows, but in his own words: “People don’t pay me for my looks. My modeling career ended at birth.” More info: https://CGLtax.ca/Litzenberger-Cory.html

Follow Author

Escape Room 2 – The NEW Real Estate Owner Tax Game – High Stakes Edition

Community / 4 years ago

Black Entrepreneur Support Announcement: Well Intentioned but not Black and White

Business / 5 years ago

CEWS 2.0 – Why I see it as another attack on the small business owner

Business

FEMA paid for hotels housing Tren de Aragua, Laken Riley killer, Noem says

Published on February 13, 2025

Todayville

Kristi Noem, secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

From The Center Square

By Sarah Roderick-Fitch and Alan Wooten

Luxury hotels in New York City including the Roosevelt, recipients of $59 million from FEMA to house immigrants, were a base of operations for Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and served as a residence of the convicted killer of Laken Riley.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem shared the startling revelation Wednesday afternoon, just more than 48 hours after the Department of Government Efficiency team led by Elon Musk revealed the payments. She specifically said the Roosevelt Hotel was utilized by the notorious Venezuelan prison gang with members among the highest priority in thousands of arrests and detainers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement since the inauguration of President Donald Trump.

“I have clawed back the full payment that FEMA deep state activists unilaterally gave to NYC migrant hotels,” Noem wrote on social media. “FEMA was funding the Roosevelt Hotel that serves as a Tren de Aragua base of operations and was used to house Laken Riley’s killer. Mark my words: there will not be a single penny spent that goes against the interest and safety of the American people.”

Riley, a University of Georgia nursing student, was murdered while out jogging. Jose Antonio Ibarra, 26, was illegally in the country and subsequently found guilty in November 2024.

The murder became a rallying cry for conservatives and a central issue in Trump’s reelection campaign.

The bipartisan Laken Riley Act – authorizing law enforcement to detain people illegally in America arrested for committing theft, assaulting law enforcement, or causing serious injury or death to another person – was the first major bill the 47th president signed into law on Jan. 29.

In the wake of the Trump administration’s findings through DOGE, four federal workers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency were fired Tuesday. The embattled agency previously ran by Alejandro Mayorkas in the Biden administration is a major agency within Noem’s DHS.

Homeland Security, in an emailed statement to The Center Square on Tuesday, said the firings included FEMA’s chief financial officer, two program analysts, and a grant specialist.

“Under President Trump and Secretary Noem’s leadership, DHS will not sit idly and allow deep state activists to undermine the will and safety of the American people,” the DHS said in its email.

Tren de Aragua is designated a foreign terrorist organization.

According to ICE, the Tren de Aragua gang is known for engaging in various criminal activities such as drug trafficking and violent crimes – including murder. Multiple reports indicate its operation is nationwide, the volume in certain locales greater than in others.

A couple of the gang members were tied to assaults on New York Police Department officers in Times Square last year. The attack garnered national outrage after four of the Venezuelan migrants indicted in the attack were apprehended by federal law enforcement but were released without deportation.

Sarah Roderick-Fitch

Regional Editor

Alan Wooten

Managing Editor

Censorship Industrial Complex

UK Could Weaken Online Censorship Law To Avoid US Trade Battle

Published on February 12, 2025

Todayville

By Dan Frieth

London weighs free speech against trade as Washington pressures Labour to amend online censorship laws.

As European leaders scramble to shield their economies from impending US tariffs, the UK’s Labour government appears ready to make significant concessions. Facing the risk of economic fallout, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s administration has reportedly signaled to Washington that it is open to revising the controversial and dangerous Online Safety Act — legislation critics have described as an aggressive censorship regime.

The Act, which gives UK regulators the power to fine tech companies for failing to remove vaguely defined “harmful content,” has been a major point of contention between the two allies and has become a major threat to free speech online. The Trump administration has been especially vocal in its opposition, viewing the law as an affront to free speech and a potential financial burden on US tech giants.

According to The Telegraph:

“Downing Street is willing to renegotiate elements of the Act in order to strike a trade deal, should it be raised by the US, The Telegraph understands. The law has been heavily criticized by free speech advocates and economists, who argue its broad provisions to tackle harmful online content could lead to excessive censorship and deter investment from American tech giants.”

The Online Safety Act arms UK media regulator Ofcom with sweeping new authority over social media platforms, enabling the imposition of multimillion-pound fines for failing to police content according to government directives. While supporters claim the law is necessary to protect users, critics argue that its vague wording and punitive approach encourage preemptive censorship — where platforms remove lawful content simply to avoid regulatory punishment.

President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has intensified scrutiny of the law. The president, who has been highly critical of social media censorship, has surrounded himself with influential voices in the tech world, including Elon Musk, whose platform, X, is already preparing to challenge Ofcom’s authority.

“Another source close to the Trump’s (sic) administration suggested the act was viewed as ‘Orwellian’ in the US and could become a flashpoint in negotiations. ‘To many people that are currently in power, they feel the United Kingdom has become a dystopian, Orwellian place where people have to keep silent about things that aren’t fashionable,’ they said. ‘The administration hate it [Online Safety Act]. Congress has been saying that [it is a concern] ever since it was enacted. Those in the administration are saying the exact same thing.’”

Musk has publicly condemned the Act, and with Ofcom set to gain new enforcement powers in March, tensions between US tech firms and the UK government are likely to escalate. The entrepreneur recently welcomed Trump’s presidency as a potential counterweight to the UK’s regulatory crackdown.

Free speech advocates on both sides of the Atlantic have long warned that Britain’s approach to online regulation represents a stark departure from the First Amendment protections enjoyed in the US. The Free Speech Union and groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argue that the law’s restrictions on “harmful but legal” speech will lead to widespread content suppression, limiting open debate and investigative journalism.

Lord Young of Acton, the founder of the Free Speech Union, underscored the looming confrontation between UK regulators and US tech leaders:

“If that happens, Trump will side with his tech bros and tell Sir Keir that if he wants a trade deal, he’ll call off his dogs.”

Labour has previously doubled down on online regulation, with its election manifesto promising additional measures to “keep everyone safe online.” However, in the face of potential US trade repercussions, the government’s stance appears to be softening.

From Washington’s perspective, the Online Safety Act has become an obstacle to trade negotiations, raising concerns that UK regulatory overreach could deter American investment. Andrew Hale, a trade policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, confirmed that this issue has been a recurring theme in discussions with US officials.

“Every meeting I have to discuss trade policy with people either in the administration or Congress, they always raise that. They say, ‘This is a huge roadblock’.”

With Ofcom’s enforcement powers set to take effect soon, Britain faces a fundamental choice: cling to its stringent online censorship policies or prioritize economic cooperation with the US. The decision could shape the future of free speech in the UK for years to come.

Reclaim The Net needs your help

You subscribe to Reclaim The Net because you value free speech and privacy. Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.

Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.

Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause.

Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.

Thank you.

Make a one-time donation