Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Asset splitting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Asset splitting

    So if your ex owned some buildings while you were married, you separated and he gave you half the market value of the buildings, would that money be considered your income for CS purposes?
    My ex brought up tonight that if he were to borrow money from the other partners in the buildings and pay me out of them would that be good? I said it sounded good to me. Then he said something about it being paid to my company as an income.

  • #2
    Assets are split separately. Unless the income would then show up on your income taxes and affect your line 150, it's not considered "income" for CS purposes.

    I imagine that it could be considered some sort of sale or capital gains, and it'll likely go onto your taxes in some portion or form. If it does, then it'll affect CS as it'll affect line 150.

    Speak with an accountant on this.

    Comment


    • #3
      I just realized, if he splits the taxable capital gains with you 50-50, and you are sharing kids 50-50, then you sould be using offset CS calculation, based on his income of, say 400K, and your income of 300K, so the offset CS might actually be quite small..., and compared to ignoring this capital gain altogether, it might not make much difference.

      Including capital gain in income for CS:
      your income 300K -> 5316/mo CS
      his income 400K -> 7036/mo CS
      He pays your the difference i.e. 1720/mo CS

      NOT including capital gain in income for CS
      your income 10K -> 0/mo CS
      his income 100K ->1866/mo CS
      He pays you 1866/mo CS

      So, not much difference if you include the capital gain or not.

      Comments from anyone else?

      Comment


      • #4
        It may be income it may not. I don't know because it would really depend on how it was done. I would highly recommend getting tax advice on that.

        However, notwithstanding how you are bought out, once you have the money, there is an expectation that the money will gain interest and that interest would be income. The amount of interest would depend on how you historically invested and rates of return.

        Comment


        • #5
          The amount of interest on the sale proceeds would depend on how she ACTUALLY invested it, and it would factor into the NEXT year's CS. She would be free to buy and hold a bunch of growth stocks that pay NO income. Or put it into a GIC that pays 2% interest.

          Comment


          • #6
            It does not matter if it is income or shows up in line 150. It is net family property equalization and has NO impact on CS.

            There are exceptions in sections 16 to 19 of the CS guidelines that makes what I am saying true by law, but mostly COMMON SENSE dictates it is not included as income for CS - just the same as his retention of his half of marital property is not income and does not effect CS!!
            Last edited by billm; 09-12-2013, 10:19 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by dinkyface View Post
              The amount of interest on the sale proceeds would depend on how she ACTUALLY invested it, and it would factor into the NEXT year's CS. She would be free to buy and hold a bunch of growth stocks that pay NO income. Or put it into a GIC that pays 2% interest.
              Maybe in the following years when NOA's are exchanged....maybe...

              In the first year, it would be reasonable to impute an income equal to what interest could be obtained.

              Equate it to winning the lottery. You win $10,000,000. That $10,000,000 is not income to be included on line 150, but any interest on that money is. It would be totally reasonable to impute an interest rate equal to the rate obtainable by a savings bond or interest savings account.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Karver View Post
                So if your ex owned some buildings while you were married, you separated and he gave you half the market value of the buildings, would that money be considered your income for CS purposes?
                My ex brought up tonight that if he were to borrow money from the other partners in the buildings and pay me out of them would that be good? I said it sounded good to me. Then he said something about it being paid to my company as an income.
                I think equalization for divorce is not taxable - though the capital gains may be.

                I bought my ex out of our family cottage. I paid a reduced price by guessing at what the capital gains would be at that time if we sold it. If I sell it in the future I assume the capital gains will be from when I purchased it when I was married, so that settled the issue.

                Comment


                • #9
                  That's a very interesting question.

                  Technically he bought you out of a property. So technically you sold. If the proceeds you received from your half was more than the cost of your half, then yes I would say it was income.

                  The thing is when someone normally buys someone out of a house this is not income because it's where you live. This is different because tax law states that sale of your residents is not a taxable event. However, say you owned a cottage and had to sell it to equalize then the government would want the capital gains on this. Therefore both of you would have capital gains. Although they would end up being the same amount so technically they would negate each other for support purposes.

                  You sound like you want the sale to be income for him but not you.

                  So lets say you guys together paid $250,000 for a property during marriage.

                  At divorce the property was sold for $500,000.

                  The net gain (Capital Gain) was $250,000.

                  $125,000 would be your gain and $125,000 would be his gain. This should end up on both your income taxes.

                  Now lets say he just bought you out. He paid you (thus purchased) your half for $250,000. Your gain would still be $125,000. He would not have a gain because he didn't sell anything.

                  So this $125,000 should appear on your income. He wouldn't have to put anything on his income until he sold the property.

                  It would look like this

                  Buy 1: $125,000 (50% of $250,000)
                  Buy 2: $250,000 (What he paid you)

                  His total Cost: $375,000.

                  If he did sell it for $500,000 his gain would be $125,000 at the date of sale.

                  If he sold it for $600,000 his gain would be $225,000 ($600,000 - $375,000).

                  Hope that helps.
                  Last edited by FB_; 09-12-2013, 10:23 AM. Reason: clarification

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm definately not an investor so I'm not sure what I would do with the money other than put it in the bank.
                    That's my huge problem- I can see the whole it's his income but not mine arguement, but I don't know what's applicable or how it would be classified.
                    Ex is a commercial realtor, so leasing and sales are his business and everything was under his own company name, my name is no where on any of it.
                    My accountant and his accountant say this is his income period.
                    But I guess there could be some guidelines for this, I did phone a forensic accountant myself.
                    This is why I'm so frustrated! I just want to know these numbers before I carry on with this court shit, but no one is making finding out these numbers a priority.
                    I'm saying we need to hire a professional to just get this nailed down, but ex would rather spend $4k on a mediator and convince them instead. My lawyer just says we need to go to court, his cap gains will be doubled for CS purposes.
                    I'm saying I'm not prepared to do ANything at this point until this is figured out.
                    There are so many varying opinions, I don't feel like spending thousands of dollars just to see the cap gains wiped each other out.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      OK so if the "Business" sold the asset then it's a business transaction not a marital one as it was not a marital asset the business was. However the money you receive from the business would probably be considered income. you are probably 50% owner. That would be a business transaction and way more complicated.

                      For tax purposes you only pay tax on 50% of gains. So the actual income is 50% greater

                      If you were told by professionals I would believe them.

                      The point is you can't expect his to be income and yours not to be. You have to be on the same field. So IMO he has an argument.

                      I'm guess CRA will consider any money you received from the business as income and not equalization. There are many types of money you could have received from the business. Return on Equity, Dividend, Capital Gains. They are each handled differently for Tax purposes.
                      Last edited by FB_; 09-12-2013, 12:11 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Of course those properties have also been receiving dividends and rental income, which I've never seen a penny of. Ugh. I've talked to regular accountants, but I guess they can be argued against. I guess I gotta push for this forensic accountant to get a final verdict.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Depending on how the company is setup you should be a 50% partner. Start asking to be consulted on ALL business decisions since you "could" have equal say, again depending on how it's setup.

                          This is a "Business Law" matter though not a Family law Issue.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            At this point these buildings are just being held for me in trust for me by my ex. I don't think becoming a business partner is a good idea. Plus he has never offered to put my name on the books. He clearly wants to keep control of it all.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Karver View Post
                              At this point these buildings are just being held for me in trust for me by my ex. I don't think becoming a business partner is a good idea. Plus he has never offered to put my name on the books. He clearly wants to keep control of it all.
                              It's called leverage.

                              EDIT: He can want to do anything...fortunately the law may state otherwise.
                              Last edited by FB_; 09-12-2013, 01:56 PM.

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X