Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

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

Published

6 minute read

by Cory Litzenberger

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

Before Post

Todayville is an independently-owned digital media company. We specialize in helping community groups, local businesses and organizations tell their story. Our team has years of media and video production experience. Talk to us about advertising, brand journalism stories, opinion pieces, event promotion, or other ideas you have to make our product better. We also own and operate Todayville Red Deer and Todayville Calgary.

Follow Author

Dr John Campbell

Cures for Cancer? A new study shows incredible results from cheap generic drug Fenbendazole

Published on

From Dr. John Campbell

FenBen in Stage 4 cancer

You won’t hear much about Fenbendazole from the regular pipeline of medical information.  There could be many reasons for that. For one, it’s primarily known for it’s use in veterinary medicine.  Somehow during COVID the medical information pipeline convinced millions that if a drug is used on horses or other animals it couldn’t work for humans.  Not sure how they got away with that one considering the use of animal trials for much of modern medical history.

Another possible reason, one that makes at least as much sense, is that there’s no business case for Fenbendazole.  It’s been around for decades and its patent expired in the early 1990’s.  That means it’s considered a generic drug that a pharmaceutical company from India could (and does) produce in mass quantities for very little profit (compared to non-generics).

So Fenbendazole is an inexpensive, widely accessible antiparasitic drug used in veterinary medicine.  During the COVID pandemic a number of doctors, desperate for a suitable treatment, tried it with reportedly great levels of success.  Over some time they discovered it might be useful elsewhere.  Some doctors are using Fenbendazole to help treat late stage cancer.  Often this is prescribed when the regular treatments clearly aren’t working and cancer is approaching or has already been declared stage 4.

What they’ve found at least in some cases is astounding results.  This has resulted in a new study which medical researcher Dr. John Campbell shares in this video.

Continue Reading

Energy

It should not take a crisis for Canada to develop the resources that make people and communities thrive.

Published on

From Resource Works 

By

Canada is suddenly sprinting to build things it slow-walked for a decade.

“Canada has always been a nation of builders, from the St. Lawrence Seaway to Expo 67. At this hinge moment in our history, Canada must draw on this legacy and act decisively to transform our economy from reliance to resilience. We are moving at a speed not seen in generations,” announced Prime Minister Mark Carney at the end of August.

He was echoed by British Columbia Premier David Eby shortly after.

“There’s never been a more critical time to diversify our economy and reduce reliance on the U.S., and B.C. is leading the way in Canada, with clean electricity, skilled workers and strong partnerships with First Nations,” the premier stated after his government approved the Ksi Lisims LNG project, led by the Nisga’a nation.

In the face of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, Ottawa has unveiled a first wave of “national projects” that includes an expansion of LNG Canada to 28 million tonnes a year, a small modular reactor at Darlington, two mines, and a port expansion, all pitched as a way to “turbocharge” growth and reduce exposure to a trade war with the United States.

The list notably excludes new oil pipelines, and arrives with rhetoric about urgency and nation-building that begs a simple question: why did it take a crisis to prioritize what should have been routine economic housekeeping?

The most tangible impact of resource projects can be observed in the impact it has on communities. The Haisla Nation is enjoying an economic renaissance with their involvement in the LNG Canada project on their traditional lands, which became operational in June.

Furthermore, the Haisla are set to unveil their own facility, Cedar LNG, in 2028. Already, the impact of employment and strong paycheques in the community is transforming, as former Haisla Chief Councillor Crystal Smith as attested many times.

Former Haisla Chief Councillor Crystal Smith.

“Let’s build a bright and prosperous future for every Canadian and every Indigenous person that wants to be involved, because change never happens inside of our comfort zones, or the defensive zone,” said Crystal Smith at a speech delivered to the 2025 Testimonial Dinner Award on April 24 in Toronto.

Fortunately, the new pro-resource posture has a legislative backbone. Parliament passed the One Canadian Economy Act to streamline approvals for projects deemed in the national interest, a centrepiece of the government’s plan to cut internal trade barriers and fast-track strategic infrastructure.

Supporters see it as necessary in a period of economic rupture, while critics warn it risks sidelining Indigenous voices in the name of speed. Either way, it is an admission that Canada’s previous processes had become self-defeatingly slow.

British Columbia offers a clear case study. Premier David Eby is now leaning hard into liquefied natural gas. His government and Ottawa both approved the Nisga’a Nation-backed Ksi Lisims LNG project under a “one project, one review” approach, with Eby openly counting on the Nisga’a to build support among neighbouring nations that withheld consent.

It is a marked turn from earlier NDP caution, framed by the premier as a race against an American Alaska LNG push that could capture the same Asian markets.

Yet the pivot only underscores how much time was lost. For years, resource projects faced overlapping provincial and federal hurdles, from the Impact Assessment Act’s expanded federal reach to the 2018 federal tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast.

Within B.C., a thicket of regulations, policy uncertainty, and contested interpretations of consultation obligations chilled investment, while political positions on pipelines hardened. Industry leaders called it “regulatory paralysis.” These were choices, not inevitabilities.

The national “go-fast” stance also arrives with unresolved tensions. Ottawa has installed a Calgary-based office to clear and finance major projects, led by veteran executive Dawn Farrell, and is touting the emissions performance of LNG Canada’s expansion.

Dawn Farrell, head of the Major Projects office in Calgary.

At Resource Works, we wholeheartedly endorsed the move, given the proven ability and success of Dawn Farrell in the resource industry. It must also be acknowledged that the major projects office will only be an office unless it meaningfully makes these projects happen faster.

A decade that saw eighteen B.C. LNG proposals produced one major build, and moving to LNG Canada’s second phase is entangled with power-supply constraints and policy conditions. That slow cadence is how countries fall behind.

If the current urgency becomes a steady habit, Canada can still convert this scramble into lasting capacity. If not, the next shock will find us sprinting again, only further from the finish line.

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Trending

X