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

By Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr – CEO | Director of CGL Tax
Justin time for Tax Season, we have a new version of our most popular game, but this time you are now trying to convert your Real Estate to tax-Freeland.
No those are not typos.
In 2017, we released Escape Room – The NEW Small Business Tax Game – Family Edition after then Federal Liberal Finance Minister, Bill Morneau, finally released the new version of
the Tax on Split Income (“TOSI”) or the so-called “income sprinkling” rules.
This time, in this game, there are fewer unconditional exits, and the stakes are higher.
So just like I said in December 2017:
“These rules are written like a bad “escape room” game. The way these rules are written, everyone is caught… unless you can escape… and the exits are not clearly marked.”
The talking points in the media have been that the Underused Housing Tax (UHT) Act would only apply to non-resident and foreign owners.
However, what they failed to mention is that many Canadians will be caught by the filing requirement and will have to file or face penalties, even if they won’t owe any tax.
This ain’t your Daddy’s failure to file penalty.
Failing to file a UHT return faces a minimum penalty of $5,000 per individual, per property and $10,000 if you are a corporation.
This makes the failure to file a T1135 Foreign Property form look like pocket change.
So while you may not have to pay any UHT, you still might have to pay even more if you didn’t know you had to file it already this tax season because:
- the Underused Housing Tax Act is not part of the Income Tax Act;
- there are requirements to file even if you don’t owe;
- it is due on April 30 irrespective of your ordinary income tax filing deadline
- the filing is entirely separate from any other tax filing; and
- at the time of this article’s publication, it cannot be e-filed – it must be filled out and sent manually.
The prescribed Form UHT-2900 only came out on January 31, 2023, and applies to 2022.
As a result, you will need to figure out if you must file it by April 30 this year or face a minimum $5,000 penalty, per person, per property, for failure to file.
As this is new legislation with large penalty amounts, some practitioners are unaware if their errors and omissions insurance even includes coverage for these returns. This means you can expect to see extremely high fees for preparing these forms.
Can you think of a better way to navigate the messy rules than by playing a game for you to play this Tax Season?
Escape Room 2 – Rules of the Game
IMPORTANT RULES OF THE GAME: This is not an all-inclusive list. The below information is a high-level summary of the more common areas of concern. You should seek specialist advice on your specific circumstances and how the new rules will apply to you.
1) Were you the legal owner (a person/entity registered on title), jointly or otherwise, of a residential property in Canada as of December 31?
If yes, you are still trapped and get to keep playing.
If not, Congrats! You escaped! You can go back to paying rent or sleeping in your vehicle without having to worry about the UHT.
2) Are you a publicly-traded Trust or Corporation that is incorporated under the laws of Canada or a province and listed on a Canadian Stock Exchange?
If yes, Congrats! You escaped! You may continue working on your Securities filings for your upcoming AGM.
If not, you’re still trapped – keep playing.
3) Are you a Registered Charity, Cooperative Housing Corporation, Municipality, Indigenous Governing Body, Government of Canada, Provincial Government, University, Public College, School Authority or Hospital Authority?
If yes, Congrats! You escaped! You may continue dealing with your annual audit of financial statements.
If not, you’re still trapped – keep playing.
4) Are you an individually wealthy person that does not like to share with others?
For example, you own one or more multiple residential properties – but every single one of them is only in your personal name. No spouse, no corporation, no trust, no partnerships, no friends, no one!
If yes, Congrats! You escaped! You may go back to swimming alone in your pool of wealth.
If not, you’re still trapped – keep playing.
5) Is the only reason you are on the land title because you are currently the executor or administrator of someone’s estate?
If yes, Congrats! You escaped! You may continue to grieve and fill out the mountains of government paperwork while everyone else asks you “where’s my inheritance?”
If not, you’re still trapped – keep playing.
6) Are you an individual Canadian Citizen or Permanent Resident of Canada (under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) that does not have a business, farm, or rental property owned with another person that could possibly be viewed as a partnership?
If yes, Congrats! You escaped! You may continue to live in your home, paycheque to paycheque, while your cost of payroll deductions and mortgage interest continue to rise and eat away at it.
If not, you’re still trapped – keep playing.
7) Does your business, farm, or rental property co-owned with another person have a residential dwelling on it?
For example, is your home on the same land title as your farmland or business?
If yes, Congrats! … haha – fooled you! You’re still trapped, and now you get to play the UHT Escape Room Game – Advanced Edition
If not, Congrats! You just made it out – lucky number 7!
Welcome to UHT Escape Room Game – Advanced Edition
In this Edition, everyone must file or face a minimum $5,000 penalty per person on each property.
For example, husband/wife partnership with three residential properties = 2 x 3 x $5,000 = $30,000 penalty if you don’t file!
8) Are you a Specified Canadian Corporation where at least 90% of the ownership and control (direct and indirect) are held by other Specified Canadian Corporations, Canadian Citizens, or Permanent Residents of Canada?
If yes, you have to file but you won’t have to pay. Don’t forget to file by April 30 no matter what your fiscal year-end date is!
If not, you’re still trapped – keep playing.
9) Are you a Specified Canadian Partnership where every member of the partnership is either a Specified Canadian Corporation, or would not have to file if we ignored the whole “partner of a partnership” thing?
If yes, Congrats! You have to file but won’t have to pay.
If not, You’re still trapped – keep playing.
10) Are you a Specified Canadian Trust where every beneficiary of the trust is either a Specified Canadian Corporation, or would have escaped from filing if they were the owner themselves?
If yes, Congrats! You have to file but won’t have to pay.
If not, You’re still trapped – keep playing.
11) In this filing year or last year, were you an owner of a property when another co-owner that owned 25% or more died?
If yes, Congrats! It’s sure a good thing they died! You have to file but won’t have to pay
If not, you’re still trapped – keep playing.
12) Did you die this year or last year (or are you the executor for someone that did and you were not on the land title before they died)?
If yes, then UHT definitely puts the FUN in FUNeral! You have to file, but won’t have to pay – don’t forget to play again next year!
If not, you’re still trapped (but alive) – keep playing.
13) Did you buy the property this year and never owned or had your name on it before in the past decade?
If yes, Congrats on becoming a home-owner, on your first… or second… or third… or… well it doesn’t matter how many homes you have, just as long as you bought it this year. You have to file but don’t have to pay – play again next year!
If not, you’re still trapped – keep playing.
14) Was the property still under construction before April Fools’ Day of the filing year?
If yes, Congrats – this isn’t an April Fools’ prank. You have to file, but don’t have to pay!
If not, You’re still trapped – keep playing.
15) Was the property finished before April Fools’ Day of the filing year, offered up for sale to the public, but never sold or occupied by an individual as a place of residence or lodging during the year?
If yes, Congrats! Isn’t it fun making mortgage payments on a home no one wants? You have to file but don’t have to pay.
If not, you’re still trapped – keep playing.
16) Was the property unable to be lived in for at least 120 consecutive days because of renovations undertaken that occurred in a timely fashion?
If yes, Congrats! As long as you haven’t used this escape door in the last decade, you can now use it. You have to file but don’t have to pay – otherwise, it’s still locked and you keep playing.
If not, you’re still trapped – keep playing.
17) Was the property unable to be lived in for at least 60 consecutive days in the year because of disaster or hazardous conditions caused by circumstances outside the reasonable control of an owner?
If yes, Congrats! As long as you haven’t used this escape door more than once before for the same disaster or hazardous condition on the property you have to file, but not pay – otherwise, you’re still trapped.
If not, you’re still trapped – keep playing.
18) Is the property unable to be accessed year-round because there is no maintained public access during the off-season?
If yes, Congrats! You have to file but don’t have to pay.
If not, you’re still trapped – keep playing.
19) Is the property unsuitable for year-round use as a place of residence?
If yes, Congrats! Keep following that boiled water advisory and burning everything around you to stay warm. The government is providing you with more blessings: you have to file but don’t have to pay.
If not, you’re still trapped – keep playing.
20) Is the property being used for at least a month consecutively and more than 180 days in the year by you, your spouse or common-law partner, child, or parent who is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident?
If yes, Congrats! You have to file but don’t have to pay – wasn’t this fun? – Be sure to play again next year!
If not, you’re still trapped – keep playing.
21) Is the property the primary residence for you, your spouse or common-law partner, or for your child attending a designated learning institution?
If yes, Congrats! You might have to file an election and your spouse must agree. If you need to convince them, tell them that marriage counselling will be cheaper than the failure to file penalty. That should get them to agree to anything. You have to file but don’t have to pay.
If not, you’re still trapped – keep playing.
22) Is the property a vacation property that is used by you or your spouse or common-law partner for at least 28 days in the year and is located in an “eligible area of Canada” (basically rural enough area where they might get dirty trying to find you)
If yes, Congrats on being able to take 4-weeks of vacation every year – you have to file, but won’t have to pay.
If not, you’re still trapped – and likely still at work – keep playing.
23) Speaking of work – is the property being used by you or your spouse or common-law partner for at least a month consecutively and more than 180 days in the year just while you are working in Canada, and the property relates to that purpose?
If yes, Congrats! You have to file but won’t have to pay.
If not, you’re still trapped – have you considered renting it out?
24) Is the property being rented under a written agreement for at least a month consecutively and more than 180 days in the year to someone paying at least 5% of the property value per year as rent?
If yes, Congrats! You have to file but won’t have to pay.
If not, you’re still trapped – keep playing – and raise that rent! We wouldn’t want anyone to have affordable housing.
25) Is the property being rented under a written agreement for at least a month consecutively and more than 180 days in the year to an unrelated person?
If yes, Congrats! But why are you charging them less than fair-value rent? What kind of slum lord are you? Stop making things affordable! You have to file but won’t have to pay.
If not, you are still trapped and now move on to the UHT Escape Room Game – High Stakes Edition
Welcome to UHT Escape Room Game – High Stakes Edition
In this edition of the UHT Escape Room Game, everyone must ante up and Pay to Play!
26) Is the Fair Market Value of the property lower than both the Property Tax Assessed Value and the most recent purchase price of the property?
If yes, you must have a formal appraisal done effective as of a date in the filing year or before the filing deadline. Then you only have to pay 1% of this value multiplied by your percentage of ownership as your UHT.
If not, either get that appraisal done or be happy that your property has increased in value. In the meantime keep playing.
27) Is the Property Tax Assessed Value more than the most recent purchase price?
If yes, Congrats! Not only has your property tax gone up, but so has your UHT – you owe 1% of this value multiplied by your percentage of ownership.
If no, Congrats on your property being worth less than you paid for it – keep playing.
28) Congrats on making it to the end. If you’ve come this far, it means:
- You own property in Canada;
- You are not a Canadian Citizen or Permanent Resident;
- You are alive, or you’ve been dead for more than two years;
- You don’t rent out the property under a written agreement …or if you do, it is to a relative, and it is way too affordable;
- If it is a vacation property, you don’t use it for 4-weeks of vacation likely because you don’t get 4-weeks of vacation;
- You don’t use the property for more than 30 days consecutively, nor more than 180 days in the year for a work-related purpose;
- You didn’t bother getting a formal appraisal done;
- You paid more than the current Property Tax Assessed value for the property; and
- You wonder why they didn’t just say all this in the first place
Congrats – you get to pay 1% of the purchase price when you last acquired the property multiplied by your percentage of ownership.
Do you feel like you won?
Now… as for next year…
… I want to play a game…
Business
The Digital Services Tax Q&A: “It was going to be complicated and messy”

A tax expert on the departed Digital Services Tax, and the fiscal and policy holes it leaves behind
It’s fun, and fair, arguing whether Mark Carney “caved” in suspending the application of Canada’s Digital Services Tax to revive broader negotiations with the Trump administration. But I figure there are other dimensions to this issue besides tactics. So I got in touch with Allison Christians, a tax law professor at McGill University and the founding director of the Canadian Centre for Tax Policy.
In our talk, Christians discusses the policy landscape that led to the introduction of the DST; the pressure that contributed to its demise; and the ways other countries are addressing a central contradiction of the modern policy landscape: without some kind of digital tax, countries risk having to impose costs on their own digital industry that the overwhelmingly US-based multinationals can avoid.
I spoke to Christians on Friday. Her remarks are edited for length and clarity.
Paul Wells: I noticed in your social media that you express inordinate fondness for tax law.
Allison Christians: You will not find a more passionate adherent to the tax cult than me. Yes, I do. I love tax law. Of course I do. How could you not? How could you not love tax law?
PW: What’s to love about tax law?
Christians: Well, tax law is how we create our country. That’s how we build our society. That’s how we create the communities that we want to live in and the lifestyle that we want to share with our neighbours. That’s how: with tax law.
PW: I guess the goal [of tax policy] is to generate the largest amount of revenue with the smallest amount of grief? And to send social signals while you’re at it. Is that right?
Christians: I don’t think so. Tax is not about raising maximum revenue. Tax is about deciding what society you’re trying to build and what portions of that society need to be made public, and what can be left to private interests which then need to profit. So we have decided in Canada, as a country, that basic minimum healthcare cannot be a for-profit enterprise. It has to be a public enterprise in order to make sure that it works for everybody to a certain basic level. So tax is about making those decisions: are we going to privatize everything and everyone pays for their own health care, security, roads, insurance, fire department etc. And if they can’t pay, then too bad? Or are we going to have a certain minimum, and that minimum is going to be provided in a public way that harmonizes across the communities that we have. And that’s what tax is about. It’s not about extracting revenue at all. It’s about creating revenue. It’s about creating a market. It’s about investing in a community. So I just object to the whole idea that tax is about extracting something from me, because what tax is doing is creating a market for me to be able to thrive. Not just me, but all of my neighbours, as well.
PW: Let’s jump forward to the events of the past couple weeks. Were you surprised when the Prime Minister suspended the Digital Services Tax?
Christians: I think “surprise” is probably too strong of a word, because nothing any political leader does to cope with the volatility of the United States would surprise me. We are dealing with a major threat, a threat that is threatening to annex us, to take our resources, to take our sovereignty, to take our communities and rip them apart and turn them into a different way of being. And that’s a serious threat. So nothing would surprise me in response to that. Disappointed, of course. But not disappointed in our Canadian response. More disappointed in the juggernaut that Trump has been allowed to become by his base, and that they’re pulling the rug out from under everyone that’s cooperated with the US agenda for decades, including us.
PW: What’s your best understanding of what the Digital Services Tax was designed to accomplish? And is it unusual as taxes go?
Christians: So to understand this, you really have to be a policy wonk, which isn’t much fun. So I’m gonna give you an example that might make it clear from the perspective of Canada. Why we might have a Digital Service Tax or might want something like it.
I want to preface this by saying that the Digital Service Tax is by no means the only way to do the underlying things we want to accomplish. Certainly other countries have been collecting DSTs and have been collecting billions of dollars, and US companies have had reserves for paying that Digital Service Tax. So we just left money on the table. But let me try to explain why we want to do the thing without getting too “tax nerdy” on you.
So I’m sure you can come up with the one Canadian company that’s streaming content on television or on digital devices.
PW: Crave?
Christians: Yeah, that’s the one. Crave is owned by Bell Media and is a Canadian company. And Crave pays taxes in Canada. Crave has to compete against Netflix, which does not have to pay tax in Canada. Netflix just simply doesn’t have to pay the same way that Crave does unless we force them to pay. Crave has to compete with US and foreign content streamers. We may get to a point where we can get Netflix to collect some sales tax on the GST, for example. But if Netflix itself stays out of Canada, physically, but it’s still getting all those customers that otherwise Crave would have access to, then Crave is at a structural disadvantage.
Now tell me which Canadian provider competes with Google.
PW: I can’t think of one.
Christians: Exactly. There isn’t one. How are we supposed to get a homegrown competitor when our competition simply does not pay taxes, and any one we would grow here in Canada has to pay tax here? So we have to understand the Digital Service Tax as simply our response to the fact that we normally do not tax a company unless they are physically located in Canada. But now we’ve got to go into this digital space and say: you’re still here, even if we can’t see you and talk to you, you’re still here. You’re doing something in our market. And that’s what the Digital Service Tax was trying to deal with.
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
PW: Now, how are companies likely to respond to this Digital Services Tax? It seems to me the likeliest outcome would be that they would pass those costs on to their customers.
Christians: Yes, that is what companies have said they would do. Google talked about passing those costs on to the customers. And their customers obviously are advertisers. I want to point out that advertisers in Canada used to advertise in local newspapers and media. Now they advertise on Facebook, owned by an American-headquartered Company, Meta. Right now, they advertise on those foreign platforms, so we don’t have those advertising dollars here. Advertisers might have had to pay the Digital Service Tax if Google, or whoever, had passed it on to them. I think it’s fair to say, that Canadians advertising on those foreign platforms would have faced a gross-up to cover that tax.
PW: So, the net effect is that it just becomes more expensive for Canadian consumers. I’ve seen it argued that all this tax would have succeeded in doing is making Netflix more expensive.
Christians: Okay, that’s possible. I mean, that assumes the supply is totally elastic: you can increase the price of Netflix, and people will still pay it indefinitely. Right? So that’s the assumption in the short term. But the long-term assumption is that Crave becomes more competitive — because its competitors are paying the same tax that it is paying. The Crave subscription price may or may not respond, but if you put pressure on the foreign service providers in the same manner that’s on the Canadian providers, it might cost more, but we’re also getting the tax.
PW: I believe the Prime Minister, in an interview with the CBC said that he was thinking of getting rid of this thing, anyway. [The quote I’m reaching for here is: “Look, what we did this week is something that I think we were going to do anyways, in the end, for the deal.” At 1:07 in this video. — pw] Why do you think he would have been leaning in that direction? And do you think that absent a Truth Social post by President Trump, he actually would have gotten rid of the thing?
Christians: I can’t speculate too much about the politics of this, because I’m not talking to many of the people that make policy, but I know the complaints about the DST, and I don’t dispute them. It was going to be a complicated tax to collect and it was going to be messy in terms of compliance. There’s a lot of uncertainty around the tax and I know there’s always an enormous amount of pressure to reduce all taxes. There’s always going to be that segment of society that sees taxes being thrown down the drain and not as an investment in the society that we want to live in.
American companies are famous for investing their money on lobbying and not in taxes. They spend their money convincing us that it would be bad for us to tax them, and they can spend a much smaller percentage of their money on lobbying and get us to believe that narrative. And the narrative is that somehow, if we tax Google, Google will go away and we won’t be able to use it. That Google won’t innovate. It’s nonsense, but it’s a story that resonates nonetheless. Was Prime Minister Carney pressured to get rid of the DST? Undoubtedly. And maybe he personally thinks there’s a better way to tax these companies than with an excise tax. I don’t fault him for thinking that. I have even written that there are better ways for Canada to collect this tax than the Digital Services Tax.
PW: I’m going to want you to tell me about these other ways. But I assume that if a Canadian government attempts any of these other ways, then the companies we’re talking about know that all they have to do is hit the Trump button and the pressure will be right back on.
Christians: That’s correct. There are a couple of [alternatives to the DST]. We could, like some other countries have done, redefine the types of income that we subject to withholding taxes in Canada. It’s a complicated technical idea, but basically any payments that go from our advertisers to Google, we could impose a withholding tax simply by expanding a couple of definitions in the Income Tax Act that would then carry over into our treaty. Now, people will push back on that, and say that you’re changing a deal, and people will object to that. And we can have an argument about that, but that possibility exists. That withholding tax is the most straightforward way to do this and we should probably already be thinking about it.
Another one that’s kind of fun, which I really enjoyed learning about when I came to Canada, is Section 19 in the Income Tax Act. So, Canadian advertisers are paying Google now, instead of a Canadian newspaper. Well, Section 19 basically says that whenever someone makes a payment for advertising to a foreign, non-Canadian media, that payment’s not deductible.
Now that provision seems to violate Free Trade rules because it changes, depending on who you make the payment to. But it’s a provision in law. The US objected to it when we adopted it by imposing a reciprocal tax on US advertisers paying Canadian outlets, which doesn’t seem to bother anybody.
PW: But the application of that will be very asymmetrical, right?
Christians: Yes, for sure. And I’ll tell you what the Canadian media noticed when we started paying for digital newspapers online: that they’re not subject to Section 19 — only print and traditional media are subject to this denial of deduction — and Canadian media advocated for this denial of deduction for online publications as well.
All you have to do is look at the wording of Section 19 — and you don’t even have to change the words — and all of a sudden all those payments to Google are not deductible. But if the payments were to Crave, they would be deductible, and if they are to the Globe and Mail, or other Canadian companies, they would be deductible. That is a different kind of advantage for the Canadian competitor that’s a little less susceptible to Trump’s understanding, and a little less susceptible to the politics that surround the Digital Services Tax. But it’s technical. You have to explain it to people, and they don’t believe you. It’s hard to understand it.
PW: Theoretically a two-time central-bank governor could wrap his head around it.
Christians: Yes, I think he could fully understand it, for sure. You’re absolutely right. Will he want to do it, though? I just don’t know.
PW: You said that there are other jurisdictions that continue, today, to successfully tax the web giants. Who are you thinking of?
Christians: Well, Austria’s been doing the Digital Service Tax since the beginning. The UK has the Diverted Profits Tax that they’ve been using. Australia has one that’s been enforced. Austria stands out because I think it was 2017, in Trump’s 1st term, and it was part of a group that Trump threatened to retaliate against, but they just quietly kept going and they’re still collecting it. Part of the narrative is that we, Canada, came too late to the DST party. We just weren’t part of that initial negotiation. We came in too late, and then it was too obvious, and people were able to isolate us from the pack.
PW: My understanding is we’re looking at a hypothetical $7.2 billion in revenue over 5 years. And that represents a shortfall that’s going to have to be found either in other revenue sources or in spending cuts, or in greater debt. Aside from the DST, do you think Canada could use a general overhaul of its tax code?
Christians: Always. Yes, absolutely! Taxes are funny, right? Because they come into every single political battle, and what ends up happening is that politicians treat the Tax Act and the tax system as a present-giving machinery, and not as a clear policy deliverance system.
I am, every day, surprised at how complicated the Canadian tax system is. It’s way too complicated. You can’t even fill out your own tax return in this country. You’re going to make mistakes because it’s just too ridiculously written. It’s too confusing. It’s too messy. So it’s time to take another look. But you need a commission [like the 1962 Carter royal commission on taxation]. You need to be bipartisan. You need to spend money on that. You need to think that the things that you do have long-term effects, and this takes political courage. And basically it requires upsetting a bunch of people and resetting things, and we just might not be at the right time politically to be doing that because people feel vulnerable to volatility from abroad. So it may not be the time to push that.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
Alberta
Pierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada

From Pierre Poilievre
-
Business19 hours ago
RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta Independence Seekers Take First Step: Citizen Initiative Application Approved, Notice of Initiative Petition Issued
-
Crime1 day ago
National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud
-
Health1 day ago
RFK Jr. Unloads Disturbing Vaccine Secrets on Tucker—And Surprises Everyone on Trump
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
Global media alliance colluded with foreign nations to crush free speech in America: House report
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day ago
The Game That Let Canadians Forgive The Liberals — Again
-
Alberta5 hours ago
Alberta Provincial Police – New chief of Independent Agency Police Service
-
Alberta6 hours ago
Pierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada