Harry and Susan want to keep the farm intact. Their solution is to convey it to their neighbours. As well, they want to help Luke pay off his tuition bills. They approached Nathan Heppner, a certified financial planner, and Erik Forbes, a registered financial planner, both of Forbes Wealth Management Ltd. at Carberry, Man., to develop a plan for transferring the farm to future ownership and management while ensuring the continuity of their retirement income.

Harry and Susan live modestly. They spend just $4,000 per month. They have no debts and want to continue living as they do now when retired.

Their retirement assets total $780,000 composed of two tax-free savings accounts (TFSAs) with a total value of $280,000; Susan’s $75,000 RRSP; her $35,000 locked-in retirement account (LIRA); and $390,000 in non-registered investments. Assuming they can generate a 6.54 per cent rate of return and allowing for a 2.1 per cent rate of inflation and combining that cash flow with their Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security benefits, they can make their target, Heppner estimates.

The more complex part of their dilemma is how to handle the generational transfer of their farm. However, sale for top dollar is not their concern. They will have sufficient funds for retirement, Forbes notes.

Let’s do the math. Harry and Susan bought their land for $1,115,000. The present total estimated value of their eight quarters is $3,840,000. If they can sell for that price, they could have a $2,725,000 capital gain. They have a lifetime capital gains exemption as follows:

• Market value: $3,840,000
• Book value: $1,115,000
• Capital gain: $2,725,000

Take off their combined lifetime capital gains exemption, $2,500,000, for a net capital gain of $225,000, and allow a 50 per cent inclusion rate. The result is taxable income of $112,500.

There are tax issues, Heppner notes. Canada has no estate tax, inheritance tax nor gift tax, but there is a tax liability on the $112,500 capital gain. Harry and Susan would gain nothing by selling the land to neighbours at less than fair market value. Any disposition of the land would leave the capital gain as a liability.

What to do?

If they gift the land to neighbours, there would be tax liability and payment would erode their retirement capital. If they gift the land at book value, they could not make use of their lifetime capital gains exemption. If they gift the land at less than fair market value, they would be double-taxed by the Canada Revenue Agency. And if they make use of an imaginative solution to defeat the Income Tax Act, CRA could apply the General Anti-Avoidance Rule and related penalties.

The planners recommend sale of the farmland to the neighbours at fair market value. That allows Harry and Susan to use their lifetime capital gains exemption. The neighbours lack cash for payment in full but Harry and Susan can use a vendor take-back via a promissory note for the full value of the land. The promissory note is a private mortgage on the land. It would have to be accompanied by a schedule of payments — say, $50,000 per year indefinitely. In a bad year, the agreement could allow for deferral of payment. When Harry and Susan have sufficient payments, they can elect to stop future payments or even cancel the loan.

There is flexibility in this plan. If the neighbours decide to sell the land, they would have to pay back anything outstanding on the loan. The administration of the loan would be in the hands of Harry and Susan. They could even draft a provision forgiving the loan when one or both die.

“The couple’s life of dedication and diligence has put them in a great financial position,” the planners explain. “They can achieve their retirement goals.”

The post A vendor take-back mortgage will help keep a farm intact appeared first on Grainews.

They anticipate some serious tax to pay, for land values have risen from $500 per acre, when they bought their farm, to $6,000 today. They did not do any tax planning for the day they might have to dispose of the farm. As a consequence, they face a hefty tax bill. We asked Nathan Heppner and Erik Forbes, both experienced financial planners with Forbes Wealth Management at Carberry, Man., to look into the couple’s situation.

Tax is not the only problem, Heppner and Forbes explain, for Steve and Lou are likely to need financial help. The way to do that is by holding down tax due on sale and maintaining money for their sons.

Let’s look at the tax problem in detail:

Purchase cost: $500 per acre

Sale price: $6,000 per acre

Total acres for sale: 800 (five quarter sections)

Capital gain per acre: $5,500 ($6,000 – $500)

Total capital gain: $4,400 (800 acres x $5,500)

Lifetime capital gains exemption: $2 million ($1 million each — if each qualifies, that is, and exemption not previously used)

Net taxable gain: $2.4 million ($4.4 million less $2 million)

Capital gains inclusion rate: 50 per cent

Taxable capital gain: $1.2 million

Assuming a 50 per cent average tax rate, Jack and Mary could owe $600,000 in tax. That’s a big hit to their retirement funds. There will also be some alternative minimum tax to pay, that is really a prepayment of postponable taxes.

What to do?

Contribute to RRSPs. That is at best a modest deferment of tax, given their ages.

• Invest in tax-sheltered assets such as dividend-paying stocks eligible for the dividend tax credit.

• Donate cash or securities to registered charities that issue tax credits.

• Withdraw funds from non-registered accounts slowly, so as to preserve their Old Age Security from clawbacks.

What to have done?

Looking back at what the couple could have done, there were ways to avoid high taxes on disposal of the farm. These include:

• Use of life insurance to provide tax-free retirement cash.

• A crop share or rental agreement rather than outright sale.

• Having sold land in stages over many years to spread the tax liability. Gains at sale would have raised the couple’s tax brackets and taxes due and therefore raised their exposure to OAS clawbacks.

• Put their land into a corporation. That would have preserved their lifetime capital gains exemption for successive years and allowed gradual drawdowns of corporate assets.

That would have added complexity, but it would have been cost-effective, Forbes and Heppner conclude.

The post Farmers’ sons have no interest in taking over family farm appeared first on Grainews.

“This election comes at a pivotal moment for grain farmers,” said Kyle Larkin, executive director of GGC in a Monday news release. “Farmers are facing mounting challenges, and this campaign gives them a direct way to engage with their local candidates and understand where political parties stand on key issues affecting their operations.”

Prime Minister Mark Carney announced on Sunday that a federal general election would be held on April 28.

“This election—and the decisions made in the years to come—will determine the future of Canadian grain farming. Political parties need to understand what’s at stake and commit to supporting our sector,” said GGC chair of trade Tara Sawyer.

One of the main features of the campaign is an online tool which allows farmers to easily send written statements to their local candidates.

GGC has also compiled a guide outlining some of key issues facing grain farmers this election cycle. This includes policy like the right to repair, reinstating extended interswitching, reversing the capital gains tax increase and supporting tariff-free access of grain products.

On March 21, Carney announced the government would cancel a planned hike of the capital gains inclusion rate.

The website also breaks down which of the parties support, oppose or have an unclear stance on the various issues. GGC said it will continue to update the page as they send out a questionnaire to the parties to clarify their stance on unclear issues.

The post Grain Growers of Canada urges farmers to ‘Vote for Grain’ appeared first on Grainews.

Prime Minister Mark Carney announced Friday he would terminate the measure, which many producers cited as one of their top concerns for the 2025 election.

The government will also maintain the increase in the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption limit to $1,250,000 on the sale of small business shares and farming and fishing property, according to a news release.

The government is also pledging it will “introduce legislation affecting the increase in the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption limit in due course.”

“Canada is a country of builders,” said Carney in the release. “Cancelling the hike in capital gains tax will catalyze investment across our communities and incentivize builders, innovators, and entrepreneurs to grow their businesses in Canada, creating more higher paying jobs.”

Many commodity groups in Canada have formally criticized the capital gains tax, specifically the changes to the inclusion rate.

In June, Grain Growers of Canada (GGC) Executive Director Kyle Larkin called on the government “to exempt intergenerational transfers and allow them to be taxed at the original capital gains inclusion rate” after GGC research “revealed that the capital gains inclusion rate changes will increase taxes by 30 per cent on family-run grain farms.”

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) said the change would have a negative impact on farm succession planning.

Acoalition led by the Canadian Canola Growers Association (CCGA) Canadian Cattle Association (CCA) and GGC called on the government to “reverse its decision to administer the proposed capital gains inclusion rate legislation.”

The post Carney cancels capital gains hike appeared first on Grainews.

People who fell under the scope of the proposed changes of the tax regime were concerned whether they would have to continue paying the modified capital gains tax after the measure failed to pass through parliament.

The measure could not pass the House of Commons last year due to a political logjam, and this year it got stalled again after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suspended the parliament.

The government had proposed in April to increase the proportion of capital gains subject to tax to two-thirds from half for businesses and for individuals with capital gains above C$250,000 ($174,605.39).

The measure, supposed to be implemented from June 25 last year, was not officially implemented through an act of Parliament but the government has been collecting the increased tax since the stipulated date, the government said earlier this month.

Farm groups have lobbied against the changes to the capital gains tax.

In a statement today, Grain Growers of Canada said it continues to be opposed to the change.

“The tax hike has already forced many family farms to sell early and will increase cost for most family-run grain farms who produce the majority of food that Canadians and the world rely on once implemented next year,” said GGC executive director Kyle Larkin.

“Delaying bad policy doesn’t fix bad policy – it just drags out uncertainty, derails succession planning, and challenges the future of family farms. When this tax hike takes effect, it will also target farmers’ retirement plans, move the goalposts for the next generation of producers, and further complicate the tax code, driving up accounting and legal expenses for all farmers.

Larkin called for the government to completely reverse the changes.

—Reporting by Promit Mukherjee. With files from Glacier FarmMedia

The post Federal government defers implementation of modified capital gains tax to 2026 appeared first on Grainews.

“Patchwork approaches and fragmented incentives won’t deliver the economic growth and support that Canada’s grain farmers and rural communities need,” the organization said in a news release today.

Yesterday, the federal government proposed changes to the Canadian Entrepreneurs’ Incentive. That program, which was rolled out in June, reduced the capital gains inclusion rate for eligible entrepreneurs to one third on a lifetime maximum of $2 million in eligible capital gains tax.

The government proposed to eliminate the requirement that the business owner must be a founder who has held at least 10 per cent of common shares since founding.

“Following feedback that this ownership requirement may not meet the needs of entrepreneurs, particularly in the tech and farming sectors,” the government suggested reducing the minimum ownership level to five per cent of shares and minimum ownership time to any continuous 24-month period since the business’ founding.

The program initially required business owners to be engaged in the business on a “regular, continuous, and substantial basis” for the five years preceding the sale. The government proposed to reduce the period of engagement to any combined three-year period since the founding of the business.

They also proposed to expand the eligibility to all qualified farming and fishing property and some additional small businesses.

Budget 2024 announced the incentive would increase by $200,000 annually over ten years. The feds propose doubling that to $400,000 annually over five years.

Earlier this year, Grain Growers of Canada said that, according to its analysis, the changes to the capital gains inclusion rate would increase taxes on grain farms by 30 per cent. GGC and nine other organizations had previously lobbied to exempt farmers from the increase.

At the time, Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Keith Currie criticized the federal government for “ramming these very significant tax changes through while farmers are in the field planting” and not giving enough time for producers to assess the implications.

People can submit feedback to the draft legislation by emailing it to to consultation-legislation@fin.gc.ca by September 11, 2024.

The post Changes to Canadian Entrepreneurs’ Incentive won’t offset capital gains losses says Grain Growers of Canada appeared first on Grainews.

Planned changes to the capital gains inclusion rate also drew specific concern and attention from the House of Commons’ agriculture committee.

In a May 27 letter to finance minister Chrystia Freeland, agriculture minister Lawrence MacAulay and national revenue minister Marie-Claude Bibeau, 10 signatories said they are concerned about the capital gains inclusion rate, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and the Canadian Entrepreneurs’ Incentive (CEI), which were all announced in April.

The letter said farmers appreciated the proposal to increase the lifetime capital gains exemption (LCGE) to $1.25 million to reflect the appreciation of farmland values and capital demands.

“However, we are concerned with the potential impacts associated with Budget 2024’s proposed increase to the capital gains inclusion rate from one-half to two-thirds for corporations and from one-half to two-thirds on the portion of capital gains realized in the year that exceed $250,000 for individuals on or after June 25, 2024,” said the letter.

The organizations said Bill C-208, which took effect in 2021, recognized the significant costs that section 84.1 of the Income Tax Act placed on intergenerational transfers of farms and small businesses.

“Our concern is that by increasing the capital gains inclusion rate to two-thirds, we are neutralizing the increase to the LCGE threshold, undermining the policy intent of Bill C-208 and jeopardizing the success of genuine intergenerational farm transfers to young farmers across Canada,” they said.

MacAulay appeared at the standing agriculture committee May 30 to discuss the department’s main estimates. Asked about the letter, and whether agricultural stakeholders had been consulted about changes to the inclusion rate, he replied he doesn’t write the budget.

“Did I know what was going in the budget before it went into the budget? No.” he said.

Saskatchewan Conservative MP Warren Steinley appeared incredulous at that, later posting on X that the minister must sit at the kids’ table rather than at cabinet.

However, outgoing deputy minister Stefanie Beck confirmed later that the department sends in its proposals, and discussions happen only around those suggestions.

“I’m saying it would not have been the kind of proposal that we would have made,” she told the committee.

The letter recommends that all Bill C-208-eligible intergenerational farm transfers continue to be under the one-half inclusion rate and that any capital gains eligible for the LCGE be excluded from the calculation of the alternative minimum tax, even if the exemption is not claimed.

The organizations proposed several ways the government could address agriculture’s unique circumstances and avoid unintended consequences of planned personal income tax changes.

These include postponing implementation until January 2025, rather than June 25, 2024, to allow for more consultation and analysis.

They applauded the decision to introduce the CEI, which would reduce the tax rate on capital gains for qualifying disposals but recommended it be available to successive generations and not just first-generation businesses. The organizations noted that farm families commonly transfer shares from a parent to child through donation, which would make the child ineligible for the CEI.

“The tax implications of a proposed increase to the capital gains inclusion rate and the introduction of the CEI are significant and complex, requiring careful consideration,” the letter said.

“As implicated stakeholders we need time to do a more fulsome assessment of these tax changes to ensure there are no unintended consequences.”

The letter notes the AMT requires high tax payments and although they are recoverable against taxes payable in future years, a seller must have sufficient income to pay taxes. Otherwise, the tax becomes permanent.

Retiring farmers often don’t have enough income to recover the funds.

“In these circumstances, AMT essentially undermines the utility of the LCGE, making impacted farm transfers more costly and negatively affecting the financial health of both the retiring party and next generation,” the letter said.

The organizations also said farms use diverse operating structures, such as holding companies, and recommended the CEI not discriminate against those who use different structures.

The 10 signatories are the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Canadian Cattle Association, Fruit and vegetable Growers of Canada, the National Cattle Feeders’ Association, the Canadian Ornamental Horticulture Alliance, Canadian Hatching Egg Producers, the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association, Grain Growers of Canada and the Canadian Sugar Beet Producers Association.

The post Farm groups criticize capital gains inclusion rate change appeared first on Grainews.

Their two children, Suzy, 32, and Astrid, 29, are married and have no wish to return to the farm. They want to keep the farm in the family. It looks like a stalemate, for the parents want to retire. Making a retirement plan is a challenge, but it’s eased by the parents’ net worth, $2.6 million, of which only $1.8 million is directly tied up in land. Financial assets include $427,000 in RRSPs and $85,000 in Tax-Free Savings Accounts.

Don Forbes and Erik Forbes of Forbes Wealth Management Ltd. in Carberry, Manitoba, met with Herb and Mary to advise on making the generational transfer work. In the planners’ view, the goals of winding down the farm over a five-year period and perhaps selling three quarters of land and leaving two quarters each to their daughters would be a good strategy.

Sales of farmland above the price paid will generate taxable capital gains, but the Farm Land Capital Gains Tax Exemption of $1 million each for Herb and Mary will allow $2 million of gains to be received without tax. That’s more money than the farm sale can raise, so the couple can literally take every cent to the bank.

• More ‘Farm Financial Planner’: Succession can skip a generation
• More ‘Farm Financial Planner’: A smooth transfer on the way to retirement

Qualification for the Farm Land Tax exemption is straightforward. Anyone who has filed two years of farming profit and loss statements can qualify. There is, however, a catch. The Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, will hit the couple in years of high income such as when farm assets are sold at a hefty profit. The Canada Revenue Agency will calculate and charge ordinary income tax, even though the farmland value gain will be sheltered by the $1 million per person farmland exemption. Because tax paid in excess of the AMT can be applied against future taxes for the next decade, the AMT boils down to a tax prepayment over a 10-year time frame.

The best move for Herb and Mary is to sell the first three quarters of grain land. That will trigger $1 million of gains. The AMT will be charged when the gains are realized. Next year, they can sell cattle at a profit to use up some of the AMT credit. Thus cattle profits taxable in 2018 can be offset by the AMT credit carried forward, Don Forbes says.

Some of the money realized from the land sale can be used to buy a home in town. The rest can go to the couple’s Tax-Free Savings Accounts and then to non-sheltered accounts to generate investment income. The remainder of the pasture land can be kept as a family legacy and transferred to the two children over time. The object is to use up the remaining Farm Land Capital Gains Tax Exemption. It can be done conservatively by transferring one quarter each year after the cattle have been sold. One quarter would go to Suzy in Year 1, then another quarter to Astrid in Year 2. Slow transfer can avoid sufficient gains to trigger the AMT.

Each daughter, who would presumably rent the land to an active farmer, can use her own rent-to-own plan. With title transferred, the daughters would oversee the land and pay all taxes, then pass net income on to the parents as part of their retirement income. It is vital that a zero per cent interest payable promissory note for the full transferred market value be executed, forgivable on the last death of the parents. That note should be included in the terms of the transfer of title. This measure protects the parents’ rental income in the event of either daughter’s marital breakdown personal bankruptcy.

Keeping it all straight

There is a good deal of bookkeeping needed to keep these transactions clear. All land transactions should be in separate accounts. Commingling of funds from different activities has the effect of clouding the concept of separating assets in the event of either child’s personal financial or marital difficulties, Don Forbes cautions.

In this plan, each spouse would be entitled to any gain in value of the original transfer price, but the promissory note would constitute a debt against the original value and would have to be honoured ahead of other obligations. In the absence of the promissory note or other means of avoiding commingling of common property of the marriage, the spouse would be entitled to half of the land or its value, putting Mary and Herb’s stream of rental income at risk of loss.

The post Farm Financial Planner: Lessening the sting of the AMT after land sales appeared first on Grainews.

Their eldest child, a daughter, is married to a local tradesman and owns 160 acres of her own. Three sons whose ages range from 22 to 32 want to farm part time. The eldest son rents 320 acres of cropland and uses the parents’ equipment to farm it. Two other children are married to local farmers.

The problem now is to split four quarters into six equal legacy shares while still providing a comfortable retirement for Jack and Susan. As well, all parties, especially the parents, agree that minimizing taxes is an important goal.

Don Forbes and Erik Forbes of Forbes Wealth Management Ltd. in Carberry, Manitoba, worked with Jack and Susan to make the combined shift of ownership and a retirement plan compatible and tax efficient.

The plan

“We can look at the farming operation and its related financial assets as three major value pools to generate future income,” Don Forbes explains. “The goal will be to pay income tax in a range of 26 to 33 per cent every year rather than attempting to defer the maximum amount of income tax until Jack and Susan pass away when the estate would face taxes that, at current rates, would be 50 per cent or more.

The first pool of value is the personally owned farm land. Its gains in value can be offset by the $1,000,000 Personally Owned Farm Land Capital Gains exemption to which both parents, acting as co-owners, are entitled. There is also a 100 per cent exemption on their personal residence including one acre. That is a $300,000 value duly exempted. Thus the first $2.3 million of capital gains on the farm property and home will be tax free, Erik Forbes explains.

Each farming parent can transfer land to the next generation at any price between book value and today’s market value. This includes any land, equipment and/or inventory, Don Forbes notes. The goal is to use up all tax credits and tax exemptions while not claiming the entire value of the farm and having to pay tax on it as of the date of transfer.

The package of assets will have a transfer price of book value plus the $2.3 million capital gains tax exemption. Any remaining taxable gain would be deferred to the respective future owners through a lower notional purchase price. The result will be a tax-free transfer of farming assets to the six children.

The time frame for the land transfer and for the retirement of Jack and Susan, who are only in their mid-50s, is quite long. Handing the land over to the children could be imprudent, for they could run into financial difficulties and have to sell land to pay creditors. Thus it is prudent to take back a zero per cent interest promissory note on the land given to each child. Creditors or an estranged spouse could try to seize assets, but it would be necessary to pay the parents before their claims could be adjudicated. This process results in a transfer of title to the land to each child but allows final control to be exercised by the parents, Don Forbes explains.

The family farming corporation is a more difficult problem. As a family farming corporation, favourable farm transfer rules apply. The shares can be transferred to the children active in farming at any price calculated between book value and today’s market value. Any deficiency in value and any tax liability is assumed by the new owner.

The alternative is to have the farming corporation classified as an investment holding company. On the death of the parents, all assets would be valued at current market prices and taxes paid. An estate freeze could be applied. The method is to value the common shares and convert them to fixed price preferred shares. Any future increase in the equity value of the corporation then flows to the common shares issued to the children while the parents’ value remains fixed in the preferred shares.

There is a third asset pool, namely life insurance policies. A Term to 100 term policy with a $1 million death benefit has level premiums and will pay out on the death of the final parent. All life insurance proceeds, which are viewed as the property of the beneficiaries, are paid tax free.

Apart from the farm and life insurance, Jack and Susan have registered assets. Each has an RRSP. Jack’s RRSP, with a present value of $70,100, can grow to $118,000 in nine years with no further contributions assuming a six per cent average annual gain. Susan’s $58,300 of RRSP value will grow to $98,000 in nine years. The combined value of the two accounts, $216,000, could provide $15,350 per year or $1,280 per month for the thirty two years from Jack’s age 65 to her own age 95.

The couple has tax free savings accounts with a present, combined value of $62,385. Assuming that Jack and Susan each add $8,000 a year for the next nine years, providing both a catch up and then making use of the present annual contribution limit, their currently underfunded TFSAs will grow to $289,260 and support payouts of $19,375 per year or $1,615 per month for the next 32 years.

After retirement

Assuming that Jack and Susan retire in nine years, Jack will get Old Age Security of $6,942 per year or $ 579 per month at 2017 rates and Susan a like sum two years later. Their estimated Canada Pension Plan benefits will be about $300 per month each, again at 2017 rates. Their RRSPs will pay them $1,280 per month. Their TFSAs will generate $1,615 per month. The farm property will generate a combined $1,660 per month and the land rent $1,250 per month. The sum of these income components, $7,563 per month, will be sufficient after splits of eligible pension and property source income taxed at an estimated Manitoba tax with age and pension benefits and a 18% tax rate, to provide $6,200 per month. That would more than cover estimated living costs of $5,000 a month, Erik Forbes estimates.

There are unknowns in these calculations. We have used 2017 values and a six per cent rate of return for financial assets, though inflation before Jack is 65 in nine years and in the following three decades could make an adverse change in their ability to support costs. There are no provisions for long term care or critical illness costs. These can be partially covered through low cost supplemental health insurance, which Jack and Susan should consider, Don Forbes notes.

On balance, the steps taken to realize and fix the farm values, to transfer ownership to the children, and to provide a retirement income to the parents are conservative. Moreover, the parents will retain their farm home and could sell it for what would probably be appreciated price in future, Don Forbes notes.

The post Farm Financial Planner: A smooth transfer on the way to retirement appeared first on Grainews.

Two changes have been approved as of the March 2016 federal budget announcement. These will take effect in the near future and could cost agriculture operations significantly. Here is a brief look at what is coming:

The first is a change to the way quota is taxed when it is sold. This affects all those in the dairy, egg and poultry meat supply-managed sectors. Scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2017, the Eligible Capital Property (ECP) regime changes could significantly impact the amount of money a farm owner pockets after selling, making it more critical than ever to plan today to minimize taxes tomorrow.

The second change relates to the small business tax rate that will apply to large farm tax structures. This change will go into effect in the fiscal year following the announcement in March 2016. There are many farms on a December 31 year-end that will still have time to investigate their options.

These changes may impact both the ongoing tax burden for the farm operation and the structuring of a sale of a farm business. Some operations may want to go to market now so they have an opportunity to take advantage of the lower tax burden in 2016 versus 2017. For others, creating an internal gain on the disposition in 2016 may be advantageous.

A third change we are preparing for has yet to be announced but is rumoured to be in the works and could have a significant impact on a large number of farm businesses.

The capital gain inclusion rate could be increasing. Currently, 50 per cent of capital gains realized personally in excess of an individual’s capital gain exemption are taxable, but this could increase to as much as 67 to 75 per cent with the potential. This may impact farms that are set up as companies as well and could be announced with the budget in Spring 2017 or earlier.

This change will have a significant impact on anyone that owns farmland, especially if the value of that land has increased by enough to exceed their capital gains exemption amount. My advice to anyone who is thinking of selling some or all of their land holdings in the next few years is to consider triggering a sale before this inclusion rate change comes into effect.

In my office, tax specialists are meeting with clients and asking them if they want to deliberately trigger a gain (sale) and take advantage of the 50 per cent while it is still in effect. If our client is considering triggering a sale in the next two or three years, we are recommending they look at completing the transaction now to reduce the tax burden on capital gains.

The best place to start is talking to a tax specialist and learning more about these changes, verifying your current exemption limits and the ramifications to your bottom line.

Pencil it out: For land, look at listings. Know how much gain you’ve got, then work on a plan to mitigate the tax burden. For quota, look at the purchase price, the tax deductions taken over the years, and estimate the recaptured depreciation and capital gains on a sale. The only good news here is that there is time to mitigate the potential tax consequences.

Ron Friesen, CPA, CA, is a Business Advisor, Taxation Services with MNP. He can be reached at 306-664-8324 or email ron.friesen@mnp.ca.

The post Changes coming to capital gains taxes appeared first on Grainews.