Connect with us

Opinion

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

Published

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 ā€œandā€. This means, you must be able to answer ā€œtrueā€ to all the tests for the entire paragraph to apply.

The way I read this, the only way to answer ā€œtrueā€ 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 ā€œparagraph (f)ā€ in the definition of ā€œregular eligible amountā€ would apply and the answer would be ā€œtrueā€.

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 ā€œspouse other than the spouse referred toā€ would not be met, and therefore the answer would be ā€œfalseā€.

This would, in turn, cause the entire logic test of the provision to be ā€œfalseā€ and so you would not be able to take out a ā€œregular eligible amountā€ 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

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: ā€œPeople don’t pay me for my looks. My modeling career ended at birth.ā€ More info: https://CGLtax.ca/Litzenberger-Cory.html

Follow Author

Daily Caller

Daily Caller EXCLUSIVE: Trump’s Broad Ban On Risky Gain-Of-Function Research Nears Completion

Published on

 

From theĀ Daily Caller News Foundation

By Emily Kopp

President Donald Trump could sign a sweeping executive order banning gain-of-function research — research that makes viruses more dangerous in the lab — as soon as May 6, according to a source who has worked with the National Security Council on the issue.

The executive order will take a broad strokes approach, banning research amplifying the infectivity or pathogenicity of any virulent and replicable pathogen, according to the source, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the anticipated executive action. But significant unresolved issues remain,Ā according to the source, including whether violators will be subject to criminal penalties as bioweaponeers.

The executive order is being steered by Gerald Parker, head of the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, which has been incorporated into the NSC. Parker did not respond to requests for comment.

Dear Readers:

As aĀ nonprofit, we are dependentĀ on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider makingĀ a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!

In the process of drafting the executive order, Parker has frozen out the federal agencies that have for years championed gain-of-function research and staved off regulation — chiefly Anthony Fauci’s former institute, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

The latestĀ policy guidanceĀ on gain-of-function research, unveiled under the Biden administration in 2024, was previously expected to go into effect May 6. According to aĀ March 25 letterĀ cosigned by the American Society for Microbiology, the Association for Biosafety and Biosecurity International, and Council on Governmental Relations, organizations that conduct pathogen research have not received direction from the NIH on that guidance — suggesting the executive order would supersede the May 6 deadline.

The 2024 guidance altered the scope of experiments subject to more rigorous review, but charged researchers, universities and funding agencies like NIH with its implementation, whichĀ critics sayĀ disincentivizes reporting. ManyĀ scientists sayĀ that researchers and NIH should not be the primary entities conducting cost–benefit analyses of pandemic virus studies.Ā 

Parker previously served as the head of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), a group of outside experts that advises NIH on biosecurity matters, and in that roleĀ recommendedĀ that Congress stand up a new government agency to advise on gain-of-function research. Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield has also endorsed moving gain-of-function research decision making out of the NIH to an independent commission.

ā€œGiven the well documented lapses in the NIH review process, policymakers should … remove final approval of any gain-of function research grants from NIH,ā€ RedfieldĀ said in a February op-ed.

It remains to be seen whether the executive order will articulate carveouts for gain-of-function research without risks of harm such as research onĀ non-replicative pseudoviruses, which can be used to study viral evolution without generating pandemic viruses.

It also remains to be seen whether the executive order will define ā€œgain-of-function researchā€ tightly enough to stand up to legal scrutiny should a violator be charged with a crime.

Risky research on coronaviruses funded by the NIH at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through the U.S. nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance typifies the loopholes in NIH’s existing regulatory framework,Ā some biosecurity experts say.

Documents obtained through theĀ Freedom of Information Act in 2023Ā indicated that EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak submitted a proposal to the Pentagon in 2018 called ā€œDEFUSEā€ describing gain-of-function experiments on viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 but downplayed to his intended funder the fact that many of the tests would occur in Wuhan, China.

Daszak and EcoHealthĀ were both debarredĀ from federal funding in January 2025 but have faced no criminal charges.

ā€œI don’t know that criminal penalties are necessary. But we do need more sticks in biosafety as well as carrots,ā€ said a biosecurity expert who requested anonymity to avoid retribution from his employer for weighing in on the expected policy. ā€œFor instance, biosafety should be a part of tenure review and whether you get funding for future work.ā€

Some experts say that it is likely that the COVID-19 crisis was a lab-generated pandemic, and that without major policy changes it might not be the last one.

ā€œGain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens caused the COVID-19 pandemic, killing 20 million and costing $25 trillion,ā€ said Richard Ebright, a Rutgers University microbiologist and longtime critic of high-risk virology, to the Daily Caller News Foundation. ā€œIf not stopped, gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens likely will cause future lab-generated pandemics.ā€

Continue Reading

John Stossel

Climate Change Myths Part 1: Polar Bears, Arctic Ice, and Food Shortages

Published on

From StosselTV

Climate zealots tell us the end is near. It’s the era of “global BOILING!ā€ says the UN Secretary General. Climate alarmists say the Arctic will soon be ice-free and cities will be underwater! But what do the facts say?

The facts say that the climate change fanatics’ catastrophic claims are wrong.

In this video and the next, we’ll debunk 7 myths about climate change.

First up: melting ice, polar bear extinction, and climate change famines.

Here are the sources for this video:

No new record low summer ice extent observed since 2012. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.c…

Satellite data show average annual sea ice volume largely stable since 2010: https://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-c…

Total arctic ice mass: http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projec…

Polar Bear Estimates 1993-today: https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/wp-content/…

1981: https://portals.iucn.org/library/site…

1960s: https://www.google.com/books/edition/…

Global agricultural output: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ag…

NASA Greening study: https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-faci…

Malnutrition deaths: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ma…

Coffee production: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare

 

After 40+ years of reporting, I now understand the importance of limited government and personal freedom. ā€

——————————————

Libertarian journalist John Stossel created Stossel TV to explain liberty and free markets to young people.

Prior to Stossel TV he hosted a show on Fox Business and co-anchored ABC’s primetime newsmagazine show, 20/20.

Stossel’s economic programs have been adapted into teaching kits by a non-profit organization, ā€œStossel in the Classroom.ā€ High school teachers in American public schools now use the videos to help educate their students on economics and economic freedom. They are seen by more than 12 million students every year.

Stossel has received 19 Emmy Awards and has been honored five times for excellence in consumer reporting by the National Press Club. Other honors include the George Polk Award for Outstanding Local Reporting and the George Foster Peabody Award.

_ _ _ _ _ _

In order not to miss the next video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://johnstossel.activehosted.com/f/1

_ _ _ _ _ _

Continue Reading

Trending

X