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

Business

U.S., China agree to 90-day tariff reduction after negotiations

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

The United States and China have agreed to reduce tariffs for 90 days following trade negotiations in Geneva, offering temporary relief to global markets. The deal marks a pause in the escalating economic conflict, with both countries pledging to resume talks during the truce.

Key Details:

  • The U.S. will lower tariffs on Chinese imports from April levels by 24 percentage points, maintaining a 10% base rate.
  • China will implement a matching reduction and suspend additional non-tariff measures targeting American goods.
  • S&P 500 futures jumped 3%, while U.S. bond yields climbed as investors reacted to signs of de-escalation.

Diving Deeper:

After weeks of mounting economic tension,Ā the United States and China on Monday jointly announced a 90-day reduction in tariffs, signaling a temporary easing of the trade war that has unnerved businesses, investors, and policymakers across the globe.

The agreement, reached during weekend negotiations in Geneva, was confirmed by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. ā€œWe had very robust discussions. Both sides showed great respect to what was a very positive process,ā€ Bessent said in remarks to reporters. According to Bessent, the U.S. will lower its tariffs to 30%, while China will cut its rates to 10% during this period—a proportional rollback from their respective April highs.

The White House clarified that the reduction affects tariffs announced by President Trump on April 2, cutting them by 24 percentage points while keeping the base ad valorem rate of 10%. In response, Beijing agreed not only to match the tariff rollback but also to lift administrative barriers and non-tariff measures it had imposed since April.

Both countries are expected to implement the agreed measures by Wednesday. The joint statement released following the talks indicated that discussions will continue over the coming months as the two sides explore a longer-term resolution.

Markets reacted quickly and positively. S&P 500 futures surged over 3% on the news, providing a shot of optimism after weeks of uncertainty. The U.S. Dollar Index, which had been under pressure due to investor anxiety about America’s trade posture, rose more than 1%. Meanwhile, bond markets adjusted sharply, with the yield on the 10-year Treasury climbing to 4.445%, its highest point since early April.

While the 90-day pause offers breathing room, the underlying issues remain unresolved. Businesses that had delayed orders due to tariff costs may now rush to restock, a move that could cause short-term volatility or even a demand shock in some sectors. Economists warn that without a longer-term agreement, the reprieve may prove fleeting.

For now, though, the breakthrough offers a glimmer of hope. It’s a notable win for President Trump’s strategy of tough negotiations, underscoring his administration’s commitment to putting American interests first while forcing adversaries to the table. The outcome stands in stark contrast to the previous administration’s conciliatory tone and may reinforce the argument for a more assertive U.S. economic posture on the world stage.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

In Britain the ā€œThought Crimeā€ Is Real

Published on

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance,Ā subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

By

A pensioner faced a raid not for plotting mayhem, but for posting a sarcastic tweet fewer than 30 people saw

It takes a very special kind of madness to send six baton-wielding, pepper-spray-toting police officers to arrest a 71-year-old man in his slippers. But here we are: welcome to Britain 2025, where tweeting the wrong opinion is treated with the same urgency as a hostage situation in Croydon.

Julian Foulkes, once a proud servant of law and order, now finds himself on the receiving end of what can only be described as a full-scale, Kafkaesque raid. His crime? Not drug-dealing, not fraud, not even refusing to pay the TV license. No, Julian questioned a pro-Palestinian demonstrator on X. Because apparently, free speech is now a limited-time offer.

The Curious Case of the Grocery List

The story began in Gillingham when Kent Police decided to deploy what must be half their annual budget to storm the Foulkes residence. Six officers with batons barged into the home of a pensioner who’s spent a decade in service to the very same force now treating him like the Unabomber.

And what high-level contraband did they uncover in this den of danger? Books. Literature. And not just any literature; ā€œvery Brexity things,ā€ according to bodycam footage obtained byĀ The Telegraph. One can only imagine the horror. Perhaps aĀ Nigel FarageĀ biography lying next to a battered copy of The Spectator. It’s practically a manifesto.

But wait, it gets better. A shopping list, penned by Julian’s wife (a hairdresser, no less), featured such ominous items as bleach, aluminum foil, and gloves. For those keeping score at home, that’s also the standard toolkit of anyone doing household chores or dyeing hair. But to Kent’s finest, it must have looked like the recipe for domestic terrorism. You half expect them to have called in MI5 to decipher the coded significance of ā€œtoilet paper x2.ā€

Now, this could all be darkly amusing if it weren’t also painfully cruel. While Kent’s squad of crime-fighting intellects were turning over Julian’s life like a garage sale, they rummaged through deeply personal mementos from his daughter’s funeral. Francesca, tragically killed by a drunk driver in Ibiza 15 years ago, had her memory poked through as if it were a bag of potato chips.

An officer was heard stating: ā€œAh. That’s sad,ā€ before carrying on like she was flicking through junk mail.

After the shakedown came the cell. Eight hours locked up like a mob boss, while the state decided whether tweeting concern about a reported rise in antisemitism qualified as incitement or merely the audacity of having an opinion. It’s hard to say what’s more insulting; the arrest or the mind-numbing absurdity of it all.

A Nation Eating Its Own

Now, let’s not kid ourselves. This isn’t just a Kent problem. This is a snapshot of aĀ country in full bureaucratic freefall. We’ve reached a point where police forces, rather than chasing burglars or catching knife-wielding lunatics, are now busy raiding the homes of retirees over innocuous social media posts.

Julian Foulkes is not a revolutionary. He’s not leading rallies, he’s not printing manifestos in his shed, and he’s certainly not strapping himself to the gates of Parliament. He’s a retired cop who owns a few books, uses X to vent the occasional opinion, and wants to visit his daughter in Australia without being flagged at passport control like he’s smuggling plutonium.

But after hours of interrogation for what the police grandly labeled malicious communication, Foulkes accepted a caution. Not because he believed he’d done anything wrong, he hadn’t, but because the alternative might have been even more grotesque. A criminal conviction. Which, for a man with family overseas, could turn his trips to Heathrow into a permanent no-fly zone.

ā€œMy life wouldn’t be worth living if I couldn’t see her. At the time, I believed a caution wouldn’t affect travel, but a conviction definitely would,ā€ he said about being able to visit his daughter.

ā€œThat’s about the level of extremist I am… a few Douglas Murray books and some on Brexit.ā€

He reads. Possibly evenĀ thinks. The horror.

The Apology That Barely Was

Kent Police did what all institutions do when caught with their pants around their ankles. They mumbled something vaguely resembling an apology. They admitted the caution had been a mistake and removed it from his record.

And while that’s nice, it rather misses the point. Because they’d already sent a message, loud and clear: Think the wrong thing, tweet the wrong joke, and we might just pay you a visit. It’s the sort of behavior you’d expect in some authoritarian state where elections are won with 98 percent of the vote and the only available television channel is state news. Not the Home Counties.

Foulkes, for his part, hasn’t gone quietly.

ā€œI saw Starmer in the White House telling Trump we’ve had [free speech] in the UK for a very long time, and I thought, ā€˜Yeah, right.’ We can see what’s really going on.ā€

He’sĀ not wrong. For a nation so smug about its democratic values, Britain seems increasingly allergic to people expressing them.

He goes further, pulling no punches about the direction his former profession has taken.

ā€œI’d never experienced anything like thisā€ during his time on the force, he said, before diagnosing the whole debacle as a symptom of the ā€œwoke mind virusā€ infecting everything, including the police.

The Tweet That Triggered the Avalanche

The whole affair kicked off in the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, a day of bloodshed that left 1,200 dead and more than 250 taken hostage. The shockwaves weren’t limited to the Middle East. They rattled through Europe, igniting a fresh wave of pro-Palestinian marches across the continent.

Foulkes, like many watching the news, saw a video of a mob in Dagestan storming an airport reportedly to find Jewish arrivals.

So, when he saw a post from an account called Mr Ethical; who, with all the irony the internet can muster, threatened legal action if branded an antisemite, Foulkes couldn’t help himself. He replied:

ā€œOne step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals….ā€

A social media post exchange where Mr Ethical responds to Suella Braverman saying if called an antisemite he will sue, followed by Julian Foulkes commenting about storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals.

That was it. One tweet. One line. No threats. No calls to violence.

Foulkes maintains he’d never interacted with the account before. There was no feud, no history. His post had fewer than 30 views.

And yet, within days, he had six police officers treating his home like a crime scene.

What does this tell us? That we’ve entered an era where satire is indistinguishable from evidence. Where sarcasm is treated like sedition. And where a retired constable who’s paid his dues can still find himself pulled into the maw of state-sanctioned nonsense for a tweet.

So yes, the caution’s gone, wiped clean like it never happened. But the message is still smoldering in the ashtray: think twice before you speak, and maybe don’t speak at all if your bookshelf includes anything more provocative than a Gordon Ramsay cookbook. Because in modern Britain, it’s not always the rapists and murderers who get doorstepped, it’s pensioners with opinions. And if that’s where we’ve landed, then the only thing truly extreme is how far the country’s gone off the rails.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance,Ā subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

Trending

X