|
Since nobody posts in LAN and this is the closest we've got to a Vancouver thread, had a little chuckle seeing this in an old game last night: Just a coincidence, developers were Polish, but still. 
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
The Butcher posted:Since nobody posts in LAN and this is the closest we've got to a Vancouver thread, had a little chuckle seeing this in an old game last night: Lol, read the text and had an idea of the character in my mind’s eye then I saw the anime depiction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BuiltJustice/status/1156306066465906688?s=20 Yeah let's start this call to action and unity with an assertion that only one group of people actually care about helping the homeless. I'm sure that'll rally people together.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:Since nobody posts in LAN and this is the closest we've got to a Vancouver thread, had a little chuckle seeing this in an old game last night: Join us in the van goons slack dude. I'll fire you an invite when I get home
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 03:04
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:Join us in the van goons slack dude. I'll fire you an invite when I get home Oh thanks! Please do, didn't know that was a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:Oh thanks! Please do, didn't know that was a thing. check your pms, need an email
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 04:40
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:check your pms, need an email Would love to get added to this, too!
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
This morning in yikes.quote:A judge has sided with a Vancouver Island couple who took their daughter to court over an emotional family breakdown that resulted from a dispute over $110,000 provided for the purchase of a home. https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/judge-sides-with-vancouver-island-parents-in-110000-property-dispute-with-daughter
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
incontinence 100 posted:This morning in yikes. Can someone with specialist knowledge weigh in here? Assuming I am understanding this story correctly; how the hell is it legal for the parents to openly admit they transferred ownership to evade taxes and yet still enjoy the full rights of ownership? You can literally be listed as the owner of a property, perform regular duties such as maintenance, occupy the dwelling, and still not be considered to actually "own" the property if somebody else provided the cash for the purchase and then suddenly decides they want to sell it? I always knew that this was how things were done but I didn't realize the extent to which this kind of thing is apparently explicitly allowed for under the law and actually protected by the courts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
I'm slightly on the periphery of "expert knowledge", but my reading of the newspaper summary is basically "the 110k is a (poorly documented) loan, they are within their rights to call it." You are explicitly allowed to loan money to related parties so that they may invest with the tax liability becoming theirs, instead, with no attribution of income. From 2009 to 2018ish, the interest rate on such loans was 1%. (It's still only 2%) It's a "home" in Colwood for a student, no mention of tenants and rental income, so likely a 1br condo. Those would have been really cheap a decade ago and probably appreciated significantly between time of purchase and present - the parents don't appear to be seeking any part of that gain, just their original capital. (Chances are high that the parents didn't actually charge interest, but if they had it would have been a trivially small amount and would make the avoidance of capital gains tax, property transfer tax, and the reduction in annual property taxes all completely legitimate. There's a little bit of tolerance for people doing things wrong out of ignorance and fixing it after the fact, so maybe the CRA retroactively nails the parents for 1k additional taxable income on interest the daughter retroactively pays ... or she doesn't, since this itself went to court because the daughter was apparently that ungrateful for the free place.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
Mandibular Fiasco posted:Would love to get added to this, too! Hell, same here please
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Can someone with specialist knowledge weigh in here? Assuming I am understanding this story correctly; how the hell is it legal for the parents to openly admit they transferred ownership to evade taxes and yet still enjoy the full rights of ownership? You can literally be listed as the owner of a property, perform regular duties such as maintenance, occupy the dwelling, and still not be considered to actually "own" the property if somebody else provided the cash for the purchase and then suddenly decides they want to sell it? You're just describing a mortgage? Sounds like she wasn't repaying her parents at a reasonable rate (or at all if she owed the same amount they lent her). A mortgager has the right to sell the property if the loan isn't being repaid at the agreed rate. She would have been more successful arguing that it was a loan to be repaid within 15 years and her parents weren't clear on the schedule or something rather than a full gift. The government of canada is getting in on this with their Shared Equity shenanigans. Hell most people in this thread are probably cashing in on other people's tax rights by owning some slice of mortgage backed securities somewhere or in our pensions. They lent her the money expecting to be repaid, she didn't repay so we sell the house to cover the loan. Very standard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:You're just describing a mortgage? Sounds like she wasn't repaying her parents at a reasonable rate (or at all if she owed the same amount they lent her). A mortgager has the right to sell the property if the loan isn't being repaid at the agreed rate. I admit the whole thing seemed a lot less mysterious after a minute of thought and a second cup of coffee, but what confused me is the apparent lack of any documentation. This must be such a minefield when you have situations where, say, a couple gets married and someone's parents gives them a bunch of money to buy a home with. If the couple later divorces and the parents suddenly claim that despite the lack of any documentation the money was a loan rather than gift then its good to know that the lack of any documentation won't necessarily be too much of an legal issue for your vindictive ex-parents in law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I admit the whole thing seemed a lot less mysterious after a minute of thought and a second cup of coffee, but what confused me is the apparent lack of any documentation. This must be such a minefield when you have situations where, say, a couple gets married and someone's parents gives them a bunch of money to buy a home with. If the couple later divorces and the parents suddenly claim that despite the lack of any documentation the money was a loan rather than gift then its good to know that the lack of any documentation won't necessarily be too much of an legal issue for your vindictive ex-parents in law. It does seems bonkers that the judge ruled it was a loan lacking any documentation at all that it wasn't a gift. No emails, no repayments, nothing? Beyond the "they paid for her cosmetic surgery", I'm going to guess there was a bunch of other red flags flying around. Also, the best thing to do if your inlaws lend you a large sum of money is immediately send them a thank you card, just in case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I admit the whole thing seemed a lot less mysterious after a minute of thought and a second cup of coffee, but what confused me is the apparent lack of any documentation. This must be such a minefield when you have situations where, say, a couple gets married and someone's parents gives them a bunch of money to buy a home with. If the couple later divorces and the parents suddenly claim that despite the lack of any documentation the money was a loan rather than gift then its good to know that the lack of any documentation won't necessarily be too much of an legal issue for your vindictive ex-parents in law. Whoa now, the way you do that one is that the parents own the place and "rent" it to the kids so that the other half gets nothing in case of divorce.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
James Baud posted:Whoa now, the way you do that one is that the parents own the place and "rent" it to the kids so that the other half gets nothing in case of divorce. This is how you shield assets, and how you will see many affluent families set up arrangements for their children. It's very callous and petty, where one spouse holds all the power or they must both kowtow to the owner parents.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
Yeah legally there should have been a loan document and a minimum 1% per year repayment for it to qualify as a family loan. Lacking that, the judge ruling it as a loan instead of a gift is a weird call.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
James Baud posted:Whoa now, the way you do that one is that the parents own the place and "rent" it to the kids so that the other half gets nothing in case of divorce. Yeah but then the parents have to pay taxes on capital gains on the house, and this whole situation was set up as a tax evasion/avoidence scheme.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:It does seems bonkers that the judge ruled it was a loan lacking any documentation at all that it wasn't a gift. No emails, no repayments, nothing? Beyond the "they paid for her cosmetic surgery", I'm going to guess there was a bunch of other red flags flying around. Also, the best thing to do if your inlaws lend you a large sum of money is immediately send them a thank you card, just in case. "Dear Mother and Father in Law, Thank you so much for this generous GIFT. You are so incredibly generous to have GIVEN THIS GIFT out of the kindness of your heart with NO EXPECTATION OF ANYTHING IN RETURN. I am moved and humbled by your incredible generosity in giving me this GIFT. Sincerely, your grateful Son/Daughter in Law plus Witness [Signature] [Exact day, time and year plus notary's signature]"
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc1236/2019bcsc1236.html Haven't read it, but here's the full decision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
quote:[6] The plaintiffs’ son attended BCIT, and the plaintiffs assisted him by renting an apartment for him while he was in school. They also gave him a truck when he was 16 years of age. In 2006, the plaintiffs purchased a house in Port Hardy for $107,000 for their son to live in, but registered it in their own names. They granted a mortgage to the Royal Bank of Canada for $80,250.00. They sold the property to their son on June 10, 2010 for $170,000. Their son took out a mortgage, also from the Royal Bank of Canada. The Purchaser’s and Vendors’ Statements of Adjustments show “[e]quity gifted by Vendor” of $34,000 “to Purchaser”. color me suspicious quote:[8] A similar pattern of support occurred with the defendant. The plaintiffs provided her with a vehicle and paid for her undergraduate education at the University of Victoria, other than her contribution through a student loan of approximately $10,000. In 2014, the defendant sought bariatric surgery and approached her parents for funds to pay for it, as it was not covered under any plan. She entered into pre-surgical counselling in May of 2015 and the surgery occurred in October. She was recovered by December 2015. So the plaintiffs have a pattern of gifting large sums of money to the kids...
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 20:59
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Helsing posted:"Dear Mother and Father in Law, Both parties would have to sign that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:I'm going to guess there was a bunch of other red flags flying around yikes quote:[50] The defendant displayed a sense of entitlement, stating that when she asked her parents for money, sometimes her mother would say they did not have money for her, and yet they would spend money on holidays. I find this testimony supports T.L.G.’s evidence she felt the defendant was harassing her for funds. It also indicates a lack of objectivity on the defendant’s part, suggesting she is of the view that her needs should outweigh those of her parents.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
Reminder that this woman is 37.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
quote:[43] V.J. [a friend of the plaintiff who testified at trial] had reviewed her records of her activities, saying she kept calendars going back 25 years noting her activities. lol wtf quote:[47] The defendant’s objectivity and reliability are undermined by her assertion she lived in fear of her father G.A.G. and felt threatened by him. She testified she moved out of the Colwood Property and relocated to Nanaimo in late 2016 because her father had a key to the home and that was a threat to her. She referred as well to seeing her father working on vessels twice at her workplace in Nanaimo and said his presence caused her “shock and fear”. Yet she acknowledged that he had not contacted her since 2016. She provided no particulars supporting her alleged fear of her father. She testified she did not disclose her Nanaimo address at the discovery out of fear of her father. However, the Residential Tenancy Agreement for the residence she rents in Nanaimo, which was disclosed in these proceedings and put to her on cross-examination, shows the address of her home in Nanaimo. As a result, G.A.G. would have known where she lived since that disclosure, and yet he never approached her. I think this is the way more incriminating bit. e: I hope to god the CRA comes after them for the capital gains now that this is so plainly stated in the public record. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Jul 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
That daughter sounds like a spoiled piece of work holy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
incontinence 100 posted:Reminder that this woman is 37. WHAT
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
Parents sign gift letters all the time and expect repayment. It's just to make the lender happy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
Lol the daughter sounds like a horrible human being.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
Court filings like that one really do give you an amazing keyhole view into the lives of random families. It's a real shame that politicians don't get divorced as often as they used to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
All those people sound awful. Including the judge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
I know it's not actually surprising but I still find myself somehow incredulous that its built right into the legal reasoning of the judge that these poor beleaguered parents were just legitimate avoiding their tax obligation and (seemingly falsely?) claiming a first time home owners rebate or credit or whatever. Obviously everyone knows this is how the game is played but I didn't realize you could just openly say you were doing it in court and actually use it as a pretext to claim a property that you only actually own 1% of and that you have never occupied.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:https://twitter.com/BuiltJustice/status/1156306066465906688?s=20 This dude criticized these tweets much better and more succinctly than I ever could with this one tweet.  Worth reading the whole thread for a history of housing activism that Stephanie Allen hand waves away. https://twitter.com/eastvanhalen/status/1156454334890037249?s=20 Allen, as the VP of a non-profit housing builder and housing advocate is doing good work to create new below market housing but man it seems lovely as hell to me to put one group up and dismiss the work of so many others that are also trying to help in their own way. It's easy for her to 'put in the hrs' to do this work because um this is literally her job and she's paid to do it???? Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Aug 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I know it's not actually surprising but I still find myself somehow incredulous that its built right into the legal reasoning of the judge that these poor beleaguered parents were just legitimate avoiding their tax obligation and (seemingly falsely?) claiming a first time home owners rebate or credit or whatever. Obviously everyone knows this is how the game is played but I didn't realize you could just openly say you were doing it in court and actually use it as a pretext to claim a property that you only actually own 1% of and that you have never occupied. Yes that is how double standards work and you should also take advantage of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 03:02
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I know it's not actually surprising but I still find myself somehow incredulous that its built right into the legal reasoning of the judge that these poor beleaguered parents were just legitimate avoiding their tax obligation and (seemingly falsely?) claiming a first time home owners rebate or credit or whatever. Obviously everyone knows this is how the game is played but I didn't realize you could just openly say you were doing it in court and actually use it as a pretext to claim a property that you only actually own 1% of and that you have never occupied. Tax is legalized theft in the same way that laws are legalized violence. There's avoiding taxes which is legal and everyone's moral obligation. Then there's tax evasion which is illegal and reprehensible. It's fine for me to max my RRSP to lower my taxes. It's fine for me to take a short term loan from the bank to do the same. It's fine for the bank to lend me the money and get paid interest cashing in on my tax benefit. As long as it's legal and not a glaring loophole involving offshore accounts or morneau-shepelle, the only immoral tax avoidance is paying more than half of the tax owed to avoid it. As a general rule, it's not immoral to make more income than other people (legally) so the other side of that coin is that it's not immoral to lower expenses (legally).
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 03:45
|
|
|
*forms a corporation* *gets paid into it* *claims a metric fuckload of bullshit business expenses against it* *draws an income from it and pays way less income tax than everyone else* *is rewarded and lauded by conservatives as a small business owner*  very moral and legal
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
incontinence 100 posted:*forms a corporation* When an individual or business intentionally doesn’t comply with Canada’s tax laws with actions such as falsifying records and claims, hiding income, or inflating expenses, it’s tax evasion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 03:52
|
|
|
Is legality the same a morality?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 04:11
|
|
|
incontinence 100 posted:Is legality the same a morality? I'd argue yes in the domain of how much tax should you feel obligated to pay. A good accountant isn't less moral than a bad one and a person isn't bad for choosing an accountant that will legally get them a larger return. If anyone is immoral here, it's the government for owning such a convoluted tax system rife with incentives and nudges that allows the richer to be able to afford better legal ways of avoiding tax and counts on people obeying the "spirit" of the law
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
That's like saying moral bankruptcy isn't moral bankruptcy because it's legal!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 04:46
|
|