Skip to Content News Archives Economy Energy Oil & Gas Renewables Electric Vehicles Mining Commodities Agriculture Real Estate Mortgages Mortgage Rates Finance Banking Insurance Fintech Cryptocurrency Work Wealth Smart Money Wealth Management Investor Personal Finance Family Finance Retirement Taxes High Net Worth FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials More Innovation Information Technology FP500 Podcasts Small Business Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Financial Post Store Obituaries Place a Notice Advertising Advertising With Us Advertising Solutions Postmedia Ad Manager Sponsorship Requests Classifieds Place a Classifieds ad Working Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ News Economy Energy Mining Real Estate Finance Work Wealth Investor FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials HomePersonal FinanceTaxesQuick home flips can lead to CRA challenge of principal residence exemption Jamie Golombek: CRA disallowed a Vancouver condo seller the capital gain shelter and assessed her $457,000 as business income You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.Canada Revenue Agency headquarters in Ottawa. Photo by HYUNGCHEOL PARK/Postmedia filesReviews and recommendations are unbiased and products are independently selected. Postmedia may earn an affiliate commission from purchases made through links on this page.New anti-flipping rules for residential real estate (including rental properties) that came into effect in 2023 were designed to “reduce speculative demand in the marketplace and help to cool excessive price growth.”Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman, and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorThe rules essentially prevent you from claiming the principal residence exemption (PRE) to shelter the capital gain realized on the sale of your home if you’ve owned it for less than 12 months. If you’re caught by the rule, the gain on the sale is 100 per cent taxable as business income rather than only 50 per cent taxable as a capital gain, subject to certain exemptions for life events such as death, disability, separation and work relocation.Although these new rules only came into play as of 2023, the Canada Revenue Agency can still challenge real estate “flips” that took place prior to 2023 if it feels a taxpayer has speculated and flipped a property for a quick profit. That’s exactly what happened in a new case decided last week involving a Vancouver taxpayer whose 2018 tax return was reassessed for failing to report the gain on her sale of a condominium unit, relying on the PRE.Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againIn February 2015, the taxpayer entered into a pre-construction contract for the purchase of a condo located in North Vancouver for $660,000. Construction was completed, and she took possession in October 2017.The property was then listed for sale by the taxpayer on Dec. 6, 2017. It didn’t sell right away and was subsequently relisted with a different agent on Feb. 21, 2018. A month later, on March 22, 2018, the taxpayer sold the property for $1,161,000, which closed on June 28, 2018. After deducting her costs, the gain or profit on sale was approximately $457,000.The taxpayer claimed this property as her principal residence, and thus did not report the gain on her 2018 tax return. The CRA disagreed and reassessed the taxpayer on the basis that she was engaged in a business or “an adventure or concern in the nature of trade,” and included the $457,000 in the taxpayer’s income as business income.Under the Income Tax Act, the PRE can only be used to shelter a gain from tax if the property sold is considered to be capital property. If the property isn’t capital property because it’s sold by an individual in the course of a business, then the PRE cannot shelter the gain from tax.Thus, the question before the Tax Court was whether the taxpayer was carrying on a business in respect of her purchase and sale of the property. If so, the taxpayer’s profit is said to be on “income account,” meaning that any profit from sale would be treated as 100 per cent taxable business income.Prior jurisprudence has developed a series of tests that help the courts determine whether an individual bought an asset on income or capital account. The tests consider: the nature of the property sold, the length of period of ownership, the frequency or number of other similar transactions, the work expended on or in connection with the property, the circumstances that were responsible for the sale of the property and the taxpayer’s motive.The judge reviewed each factor, making various observations. First, the period of ownership from closing (Oct. 2017) to sale (June 2018) was fairly short, pointing toward an adventure or concern in the nature of trade.Second, it appears that the taxpayer, along with her former spouse, was previously engaged in a number of real estate transactions over the years, several of which the judge called “notable.” For example, in October 2005, the former couple jointly acquired a property in West Vancouver for $4.2 million and spent additional amounts on upgrades. The property was sold in July 2010 for a loss, which was reported as a business loss for tax purposes.In June 2008, the taxpayer purchased a condominium unit in West Vancouver with a friend on a 50-50 basis for approximately $698,000. The property was listed for sale a few weeks later, and was sold in June 2009 for net proceeds of $588,616, resulting in a loss.The taxpayer attempted to adjust her 2009 income tax return to treat her share of the loss as a business loss, which prompted inquiries from the CRA. In a letter to the CRA, the taxpayer explained that she intended to “pursue small-scale property refurbishment projects to generate a source of income, and that the (property sold) was to be the first such project.” She also stated that she had “plenty of experience owning and refurbishing properties” and that, after relocating to Vancouver, real estate “seemed like a logical sector to be making investments.”In court, the taxpayer testified that she moved a few items into her North Vancouver condo around Nov. 3, 2017, and in late November moved in some additional furniture, including two couches, a chest of drawers, bedside tables, a bed for the main bedroom and a sofa bed in the second bedroom. She said her daughters shared that room.Her evidence was that she lived at the condo from Nov. 23, 2017, to June 2018.The judge didn’t buy this argument. The taxpayer’s other property remained available, and that is likely where the taxpayer and her daughters had been residing when the daughters were not with her ex. As the judge said, “It is highly improbable that (her teenage daughters), would have moved into a smaller condominium and shared a bedroom after having separate bedrooms at (their previous three properties).”The judge also noted that the taxpayer didn’t bother to install Wi-Fi at the condo, nor did she change the address on her driver’s license, nor update her address with the CRA. Furthermore, when the condo was listed for sale, it was listed as “brand new” in the real estate listing.As the judge noted, “occupancy involves more than simply moving a few items into the premises. … It seems illogical that she would list the (condo) on December 6, 2017, and — while at the same time — move in and begin occupying the property primarily as a place of residence.”As the judge wrote, “On a balance of probabilities, and considering the totality of the evidence adduced together with common sense, I am unable to find that the (taxpayer) occupied the (condo) as a place of residence. … Instead, it is more probable that the (taxpayer) and her daughters continued to reside primarily at the four-bedroom home.”This led the judge to conclude that the taxpayer had acquired her interest in the condo with a speculative intent, motivated primarily by the possibility of resale at a profit. Thus, the judge ruled that the profit was properly taxable as business income.Jamie Golombek, FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Estate Planning with CIBC Private Wealth in Toronto. Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com.If you liked this story, sign up for more in the FP Investor newsletter. Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.