RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:God bless farmersfishcarrier wrote: Packer, why should a farmer not get an exemption from capital gains when he sells his farm (limit 1 M). If you bought a house 40 years ago, you would be exempt from paying cap. gains too. And that would be quite a high number as well.
Simple answer: Because he operates a business called A FARM. The house and a certain amount of land could be considered his residence and be tax exempt....I guess...but the farm is a "small business" so it already has a 1.25 million exemption from ANY tax (was 1 million before June 25).....
Forget about farmers! I know a guy that has owned a house for 40 years on ten acres....he wanted to subdivide and sell part of it....he had to pay capital gains taxes on it. CRA has a certain amount of ground (forget the number) that it considers used/needed to make a house possible....the rest of the acreage it considers an investment. That's the tax rules. Don't shoot the messenger.
It seems to me what has generated so much commentary is people have an idea of what the tax rules SHOULD be....but the tax rules have been around a LONG time...they get tweaked now and then.
If you don't like the way they are because you think they are "unfair"... run for office and change them.
Don't know what else to say. I've tried to explain them as they apply to workers with a capital gain, an investor solely and a "small business" as defined by the government (farmers, fishermen, incorporated doctors and dentists, convenience stores operators, etc etc) An investor does not get the 1.25 M exemption from ANY tax. A homeowner is not subject to tax on his residence. Is that "fair" to lifelong renters? Possibly....Any attempt by a government to tax residence capital gains should be made in very, VERY small baby steps however....otherwise it will form the opposition in the very next election.