Vancouver's Real Estate Market

[PeanutButter]

Originally Posted by Hehe

Second this.

While at this, I'll add one more. Alter-Ego Trust.

I don't think it applies to most of us here yet except MG1 (65yr+), but it's a great tool that can be used for estate planning. One of the key benefits (IMO) is the ability to by-pass, well, technically postpone, the 21yr deemed disposition problem that Canadian Trusts face.

This is great for passing down things like family estate home. My in-laws have this kind of setup for their place that would pass their real estate when they pass away one day to their grandchildren. Skipping their daughters.

Oh, this is interesting. I'll have to look into this alter-ego trust. The 21 year rule in Canada seems to defeat the purpose of having a trust to begin with.

[whitev70r]

Originally Posted by Traum

If you don't have anything designated, the responsibility defaults to your spouse, then your adult children, and then your next of kin, right?

This is what you want to avoid ... today's family is so effin complicated, which spouse? Your 1st, 2nd, or 3rd that you recently divorced. Children, which one ... from 1st marriage, 2nd marriage or the one that came as a 17 yo with your 3rd marriage ?

[Traum]

As long as the mistresses don't have a say in it, I should be relatively safe? That said, illegitimate children might still be an issue...

I guess I better go get that will written up and notarized.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by Traum

As long as the mistresses don't have a say in it, I should be relatively safe? That said, illegitimate children might still be an issue...

I guess I better go get that will written up and notarized.

You should also see this guy.

https://www.pollockclinics.com/

[bcrdukes]

Originally Posted by whitev70r

This is what you want to avoid ... today's family is so effin complicated, which spouse? Your 1st, 2nd, or 3rd that you recently divorced. Children, which one ... from 1st marriage, 2nd marriage or the one that came as a 17 yo with your 3rd marriage ?

Badhobz - please take note.

[Badhobz]

I’ll let my “wives” deal with this on their own. I only want custody of the dog (she can keep the brown one, he’s an asshole ! )

[Traum]

Originally Posted by Manic!

You should also see this guy.

https://www.pollockclinics.com/

Obviously my sense of masculinity isn't gonna let me do that! Potency is king, consequences be damned~!

[lowside67]

A will is important, no doubt. It is just as important though to make sure that the free and easy details are in place. In no particular order, if you are married:
1) Real estate, cars, boats, etc in joint name, no exceptions
2) Partner named as your beneficiary to RRSPs, successor of TFSAs
3) Non-registered investment accounts in joint name

Somebody above asked how likely/realistic the courts would be to rule against a written will and the answer is it absolutely, 100% can happen in the right circumstances. Our firm's estate specialist has some wild stories about this and the laws are especially lax/generous in BC in favour of the person who "could" have been in a will.

Good reading here: https://www.linleywelwood.com/blog/w...iation-in-b-c/

If you truly want to have a will that cannot be challenged, you need to deal with it outside the will. Example - trust structure, insurance benefit, segregated funds, etc.

-Mark

[PeanutButter]

TFSA should be 'Successor holder' NOT 'Beneficiary'

Beneficiary has the TFSA liquidated and proceeds go to beneficiary in cash.
TFSA successor holder gets transfered and all assets within the TFSA stay in that TFSA. Meaning the successor holder now holds two TFSA and can hold or sell the assets as they please. Way more advantageous to have the control.

[lowside67]

Originally Posted by PeanutButter

TFSA should be 'Successor holder' NOT 'Beneficiary'

Beneficiary has the TFSA liquidated and proceeds go to beneficiary in cash.
TFSA successor holder gets transfered and all assets within the TFSA stay in that TFSA. Meaning the successor holder now holds two TFSA and can hold or sell the assets as they please. Way more advantageous to have the control.

Corrected, I should not post when I am ready for bed lol.

-Mark

[Hondaracer]

Who would set that? Would it be whoever holds my investments or would be it in a will?

[lowside67]

You'll set those out with whoever holds your investments. By having those in place, those assets are not covered by the will at all, essentially your partner provides a death certificate and they'll be transferred into their name.

-Mark

[PeanutButter]

Yup, it would be the institution that holds your TFSA. So if your TFSA is with TD bank, just call them up and tell them you want to add a Successor Holder on the TFSA account. You might have to fill out paperwork, I can't remember.

[quasi]

Originally Posted by PeanutButter

TFSA should be 'Successor holder' NOT 'Beneficiary'

Beneficiary has the TFSA liquidated and proceeds go to beneficiary in cash.
TFSA successor holder gets transfered and all assets within the TFSA stay in that TFSA. Meaning the successor holder now holds two TFSA and can hold or sell the assets as they please. Way more advantageous to have the control.

This, I had to fill out a form and drop it off at my branch so my wife was the successor for mine. Maybe there is a way to submit it online but I couldn't figure it out.

[headhunt3r]

Does the successor holder get to keep that TFSA and its holdings and TFSA benefits once they assume control? What restrictions does the new owner have with the deceased's TFSA account?

[PeanutButter]

Originally Posted by headhunt3r

Does the successor holder get to keep that TFSA and its holdings and TFSA benefits once they assume control? What restrictions does the new owner have with the deceased's TFSA account?

TFSA continues to exist and the successor holder assumes ownership of the TFSA contract and all of its contents.

Any income earned after that date continues to be sheltered from tax under the new successor holder.

The successor holder's unused TFSA contribution room is unaffected by their having assumed ownership of the deceased holder's account.

The successor holder, after taking over ownership of the deceased holder’s TFSA, can make tax‑free withdrawals from that account. The successor holder can also make new contributions to that account, depending on their own unused TFSA contribution room.

If the successor holder already had their own TFSA, then they would be considered as the holder of two separate accounts. If they wish, they can directly transfer part or all of the value from one to the other (for example, to consolidate accounts). This would be considered as a qualifying transfer and would not affect the available TFSA contribution room.

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-age...sa-holder.html

[PeanutButter]

The only point that is not clear is if withdrawals from the successor holder TFSA can be re-contributed.

Like, if you consolidated both accounts, how would the government distinguish if the withdrawal was from the successor holder account or your own TFSA account?

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by PeanutButter

The only point that is not clear is if withdrawals from the successor holder TFSA can be re-contributed.

Like, if you consolidated both accounts, how would the government distinguish if the withdrawal was from the successor holder account or your own TFSA account?

From my understanding, it's not all that complicated. Once it merged, the sum is calculated and merged into one.

Say now after merging the 2 accounts, you have a TFSA worth 200k, you take out 100k, you'd have room for contribution of 100k in the next year.

[whitev70r]

^ those are some really nice benefits! Surely, the surviving spouse cannot contribute any more to the deceased partner's TFSA limit as of the year of his/her death. So if you were 18 in 1991, when all this started, the max amount would be $95K ... if you withdraw some you can put it back later but the limit can't grow year by year. That wouldn't make sense.

[dat_steve]

How would guys interpret this language? (from RTB-32 Form)

3. LANDLORD MUST COMPENSATE YOU
If this Notice was served under the reasons for landlord’s use of property, on or before the effective date of this Notice, your landlord has to compensate you an amount equal to one month’s rent payable under your tenancy agreement. You may withhold your last month’s rent instead of being paid compensation. If you have already paid your last month’s rent, your landlord must refund you that amount.
If this Notice was served to you for no longer qualifying for the subsidized rental unit, the provision for compensation equivalent to one month’s rent does not apply.

Situation: A friend currently has a tenanted suite that started off on a year lease that has lapsed for a while now so it's currently month-to-month. Friend wants to take the space back for personal use, and will not be putting it back on the market. Tenancy has been smooth, amicable relationship thus far.

Question: In addition to the two-months notice, is the tenant entitled to 1 month of rent in compensation? (either in the form of free rent or cash)

[donk.]

Yes, they must pay 1 months rent as a "sorry payment"

I kicked out a tenant to sell a unit, gave them 2 full months notice, plus 1 month rent. (Tenant actually notified me i owed them 1 month rent, i had no idea about this)
Otherwise i may have been on the hook for 12 months rent as the "fee" for not paying 1 month.

Spoiler!

the funny thing was, is that this will chick was loaded, daddy was sending her 50-120k a year to study here from china, and yet she still came at me for 1800$ lol

[GLOW]

$1800 is a coach bag she ain't giving that away to you

[Badhobz]

Stupid glowjob. Nobody’s spending 1800 on a lousy coach bag. That’s idiotic. At 1800 it’s atleast a prada or a Gucci/ entry level LV neverfull.

[EvoFire]

Originally Posted by GLOW

$1800 is a coach bag she ain't giving that away to you

You got ripped off if you paid 1800 for a Coach

[SSM_DC5]

Wtf? 2 month notice + 1 month of rent to ask someone nicely to leave?!? Why do people even complain that landlords choose Airbnb over a tenant when rtb has silly rules like that??


Is there a situation where the landlord doesn't pay the tenant to leave when the landlord wants the tenant out?