Canada wants Ebay sellers to pay up..

[DrWatson]

You changed your avatar. Is it nap time?

Flee made it on his own based on a request for a new one.

It's a sleepytime tea label.

[lou_fine]

Alot of interesting questions posed by Beaumont. I have no dog in this fight but I do find it sad/funny that the fascist socio-economic policies in the great white north have them scrambling to unearth revenue off a website to cover the shortfalls of their pathetic healthcare shell game.

We have a $14B budget surplus for 2007 so the Government isn't hurting for cash. If the Government really wanted to raise funds, they could have not reduced the GST (National Sales Tax) from 7 to 6 per cent. They lost like 4-5 B in revenue just by doing that. This action won't even come close to recovering that type of money. I'll be more worried about your economy if I were you.

 

Interesting to note that the Canadian dollar has risen by over 16% against the US dollar so far this year alone and is expected to go even higher. I believe it works out to a 62% gain over the past 4 or 5 years.

 

In addition, house prices are still going up in virtually all of the urban centres in Canada while they are taking a big dive in the U.S. Must be really saying something when a backwater city like Saskatoon has home prices rising by over 50% in a one-year period.

 

BTW: The significant drop in the U.S. dollar also represents a crushing hit on the value of any comic collections held by foreignors over the past 5 years. The only exception to this would be the Japanese collectors since the the Yen is the only major currency in the world to keep the same downward pace as the falling U.S. dollar.

[kimik]

We have a $14B budget surplus for 2007 so the Government isn't hurting for cash.

 

This is the part that really pisses me off about the whole eBay thing. The Federal Gov't (or provincial here in Alberta for that matter) is not hurting for cash and they are going to waste their time and my money as a tax payer trying to drum up a tiny amount of tax revenue. It does not make sense to go after such a small pool of taxable dollars like this instead of other vehicles (e.g. offshore accounts) where billions of taxable dollars are sitting. So much for Harper's promises of lower taxes...........

 

My tax dollars would be better spent installing new mattresses at the CCRA offices in Vancouver so Greggy can have a more comfortable nap!

[greggy]

We have a $14B budget surplus for 2007 so the Government isn't hurting for cash.

 

This is the part that really pisses me off about the whole eBay thing. The Federal Gov't (or provincial here in Alberta for that matter) is not hurting for cash and they are going to waste their time and my money as a tax payer trying to drum up a tiny amount of tax revenue. It does not make sense to go after such a small pool of taxable dollars like this instead of other vehicles (e.g. offshore accounts) where billions of taxable dollars are sitting. So much for Harper's promises of lower taxes...........

 

My tax dollars would be better spent installing new mattresses at the CCRA offices in Vancouver so Greggy can have a more comfortable nap!

Quit yer whining. Why the hell should these big sellers not pay their fair share? Spare me the pity for these poor tax cheats. Not my fault that you dumbazzes thought that the GST cut was such a great thing when a cut in income taxes would be much better.

[joe_collector]

***Of course, if you are buying and selling on a regular basis, the Government may argue that you are running a business and any profit you make be taxed at the regular rate.

 

But that's the whole point - the gov't loves to argue that virtually any extra income is a part-time business, so if I decide to sell off some CGC comics I bought (at probably no realized profit - especially your books), then I just might come under their radar.

 

I can still remember Revenue Canada coming after several lottery winners, and contending that since their tax-free winnings (in the millions) constituted a significant portion of their income, that it should be taxable as income. They contended that these people were "playing the lottery as a business" - WTF?

 

I can't remember if they won or lost, but just the thought of attempting to change the lottery from tax free to taxable just made me want to puke.

[joe_collector]

Quit yer whining. Why the hell should these big sellers not pay their fair share? Spare me the pity for these poor tax cheats.

 

Hey Mr Clean here got audited a few years ago, for absolutely no reason, and the guy in Sherbrooke was EXTREMELY surprised that I had about 50% more in claimable receipts than I put on the form.

 

I told him "I didn't want to push my luck and get audited"

 

So I redid my tax forms, and when it was all said and done, I came out with a new check.

 

I am as straight an arrow as you can get, and I under-claim every single year, just to stay under the radar (being audited is horrible), yet somehow I got flagged, so don't give me that BS about Revenue Canada "only going after the cheats" or "big fish".

[lou_fine]

**There is another set of capital property called listed personal property (LPP)**

 

It is defined in the Income Tax Act as follows:

 

"listed personal property" of a taxpayer means the taxpayer's personal-use property that is all or any portion of, or any interest in or right to, any

 

(a) print, etching, drawing, painting, sculpture, or other similar work of art,

 

(b) jewellery,

 

© rare folio, rare manuscript, or rare book,

 

(d) stamp, or

 

(e) coin;

 

In this case, I'm sure that comic books don't fall in category ©. LPP has the same minimum of $1,000 but the proceeds of disposition also has a minimum amount deemed to be $1,000. The difference will LPP is that they can be offset against any LPP gains for the year. Any unused loss can be carried back 3 years or forward 7 years to offset any past or future LPP gains.

 

Greggy;

 

Very informative post, especially the part about the $1,000 PUP! (thumbs u

 

Based upon your cited definition of LPP, however, I would disagree with your interpretation. I am sure that comics (especially rare comics) would fall under Part C as this whole clause seems to be targeting the collectibles market.

 

If for example, Dave Anderson lived in Canada and he sold his Church copy of Action Comics #1, are you trying to imply that CCRA will not go after him for the millions in capital gains. Somehow, I think they would be very interested in these types of transactions.

 

Actually, I have been told by US collectors that the IRS is very vigilant when it comes to collecting taxes from sellers of high-end collectibles. Apparently, Revenue Canada is not even in the same ball park when it comes to chasing after these kinds of revenues.

 

I did my research solely on what's available on the internet. I'll do some further research on what constitutes a "rare book" next week at work. I never said that no one would go after Dave Anderson. I said that they are more likely to go after people with larger amount of sales regardless of the amount of volume. The Government loves to highlight when larger "fishes" are caught rather than the small ones. Dave's hypothetical sale, would definitely be big news.

 

Greggy;

 

When you get around to doing your research on this issue, can you also check into the issue of acquisition costs? If they are trying to determine the capital gains for a particular sale, then the acquitision costs should play a key part in this determination.

 

From my point of view, the adjusted cost base should not just be the initial cost of the book, but also all of the other costs associated with acquiring the book. For example, shouldn't the adjusted cost base also include costs such as buyer's premiums on auction purchases, shipping and handling charges, bank draft fees, along with travel, hotel, food, and entertainment costs to attend conventions in order to acquire books, etc.

[greggy]

***Of course, if you are buying and selling on a regular basis, the Government may argue that you are running a business and any profit you make be taxed at the regular rate.

 

But that's the whole point - the gov't loves to argue that virtually any extra income is a part-time business, so if I decide to sell off some CGC comics I bought (at probably no realized profit - especially your books), then I just might come under their radar.

 

I can still remember Revenue Canada coming after several lottery winners, and contending that since their tax-free winnings (in the millions) constituted a significant portion of their income, that it should be taxable as income. They contended that these people were "playing the lottery as a business" - WTF?

 

I can't remember if they won or lost, but just the thought of attempting to change the lottery from tax free to taxable just made me want to puke.

Until you provide me with a link to a story, there's no way I can comment on it. Interesting how it works that way, eh? Also, unless it was a criminal case, you're pretty well only hearing the story of one side because the Government is prohibited by the Income Tax Act from commenting on certain cases. You wanna hear some of the BS that is put out in the news? Back in the 90s, a Saskatchewan farmer was complaining about how the Government was going after his small business. Of course, the farmer didn't mention that he used his field to have drug planes take off and leave so he had other income that was unreported. You think the farmer would have had any sympathy if the public knew the full story?

[greggy]

Quit yer whining. Why the hell should these big sellers not pay their fair share? Spare me the pity for these poor tax cheats.

 

Hey Mr Clean here got audited a few years ago, for absolutely no reason, and the guy in Sherbrooke was EXTREMELY surprised that I had about 50% more in claimable receipts than I put on the form.

 

I told him "I didn't want to push my luck and get audited"

 

So I redid my tax forms, and when it was all said and done, I came out with a new check.

 

I am as straight an arrow as you can get, and I under-claim every single year, just to stay under the radar (being audited is horrible), yet somehow I got flagged, so don't give me that BS about Revenue Canada "only going after the cheats" or "big fish".

Well duh, lots of people get audited every year for whatever reason and a lot of them are essentially clean. People get flagged for various reasons. Some turn out to be easily explained and some have issues. Sole proprietors and single person limited companies are a prime example for this. I never said that they only go after the big fish. I said that they should use the eBay information to concentrate on the larger sellers because anyone they catch will make great headlines because the government loves headlines to show how a project is doing so well.

[greggy]

**There is another set of capital property called listed personal property (LPP)**

 

It is defined in the Income Tax Act as follows:

 

"listed personal property" of a taxpayer means the taxpayer's personal-use property that is all or any portion of, or any interest in or right to, any

 

(a) print, etching, drawing, painting, sculpture, or other similar work of art,

 

(b) jewellery,

 

© rare folio, rare manuscript, or rare book,

 

(d) stamp, or

 

(e) coin;

 

In this case, I'm sure that comic books don't fall in category ©. LPP has the same minimum of $1,000 but the proceeds of disposition also has a minimum amount deemed to be $1,000. The difference will LPP is that they can be offset against any LPP gains for the year. Any unused loss can be carried back 3 years or forward 7 years to offset any past or future LPP gains.

 

Greggy;

 

Very informative post, especially the part about the $1,000 PUP! (thumbs u

 

Based upon your cited definition of LPP, however, I would disagree with your interpretation. I am sure that comics (especially rare comics) would fall under Part C as this whole clause seems to be targeting the collectibles market.

 

If for example, Dave Anderson lived in Canada and he sold his Church copy of Action Comics #1, are you trying to imply that CCRA will not go after him for the millions in capital gains. Somehow, I think they would be very interested in these types of transactions.

 

Actually, I have been told by US collectors that the IRS is very vigilant when it comes to collecting taxes from sellers of high-end collectibles. Apparently, Revenue Canada is not even in the same ball park when it comes to chasing after these kinds of revenues.

 

I did my research solely on what's available on the internet. I'll do some further research on what constitutes a "rare book" next week at work. I never said that no one would go after Dave Anderson. I said that they are more likely to go after people with larger amount of sales regardless of the amount of volume. The Government loves to highlight when larger "fishes" are caught rather than the small ones. Dave's hypothetical sale, would definitely be big news.

 

Greggy;

 

When you get around to doing your research on this issue, can you also check into the issue of acquisition costs? If they are trying to determine the capital gains for a particular sale, then the acquitision costs should play a key part in this determination.

 

From my point of view, the adjusted cost base should not just be the initial cost of the book, but also all of the other costs associated with acquiring the book. For example, shouldn't the adjusted cost base also include costs such as buyer's premiums on auction purchases, shipping and handling charges, bank draft fees, along with travel, hotel, food, and entertainment costs to attend conventions in order to acquire books, etc.

Like I said previously before, the adjusted cost base (ACB) has a very long and complicated explanation but for most, it relates to the costs to acquire the book and some of the related costs. You're unlikely to get the convention related costs but I can imagine that the other costs are valid. The actual explanation in the Income Tax Act will just be too complicated and long.

[BEAUMONTS]

Alot of interesting questions posed by Beaumont. I have no dog in this fight but I do find it sad/funny that the fascist socio-economic policies in the great white north have them scrambling to unearth revenue off a website to cover the shortfalls of their pathetic healthcare shell game.

We have a $14B budget surplus for 2007 so the Government isn't hurting for cash. If the Government really wanted to raise funds, they could have not reduced the GST (National Sales Tax) from 7 to 6 per cent. They lost like 4-5 B in revenue just by doing that. This action won't even come close to recovering that type of money. I'll be more worried about your economy if I were you.

 

Interesting to note that the Canadian dollar has risen by over 16% against the US dollar so far this year alone and is expected to go even higher. I believe it works out to a 62% gain over the past 4 or 5 years.

 

In addition, house prices are still going up in virtually all of the urban centres in Canada while they are taking a big dive in the U.S. Must be really saying something when a backwater city like Saskatoon has home prices rising by over 50% in a one-year period.

 

BTW: The significant drop in the U.S. dollar also represents a crushing hit on the value of any comic collections held by foreignors over the past 5 years. The only exception to this would be the Japanese collectors since the the Yen is the only major currency in the world to keep the same downward pace as the falling U.S. dollar.

" Backwater" Saskatoon quick facts

The University of Saskatchewan is the only university in Canada to house all five health science colleges and a major teaching hospital on the same campus. Some of the first experiments undertaken aboard the space shuttle were a result of research conducted at the University of Saskatchewan. Innovation Place, located on the university grounds, is one of the most successful university related research parks in North America.

The Synchrotron: Canada's Light Fantastic

World Leader in Vaccine Research

SaskTel Installs World's Longest Fibre-Optics Network

Saskatoon quick facts

 

[jordanscott]

Back in the 90s, a Saskatchewan farmer was complaining about how the Government was going after his small business.

 

Was he the Last Saskatchewan Pirate?

[greggy]

Back in the 90s, a Saskatchewan farmer was complaining about how the Government was going after his small business.

 

Was he the Last Saskatchewan Pirate?

Yes

[topofthetotem]

So thats what happened to Skinny White Boy.

[joe_collector]

Until you provide me with a link to a story, there's no way I can comment on it.

 

Come on, I found quotes where Revenue Canada had tried repeatedly with the old "playing a lottery is like gambling" trick, and as you know, gambling winnings are taxable.

 

Here's one link where you suckas got beat hard in court :

 

CBC.ca: Sports lotto millionaires beat the taxman

 

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2006/12/21/lottery-tax.html

[eddly]

I got audited last year as I guess they thought I was claiming too much tuition ... school ain't cheap.

[greggy]

Until you provide me with a link to a story, there's no way I can comment on it.

 

Come on, I found quotes where Revenue Canada had tried repeatedly with the old "playing a lottery is like gambling" trick, and as you know, gambling winnings are taxable.

 

Here's one link where you suckas got beat hard in court :

 

CBC.ca: Sports lotto millionaires beat the taxman

 

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2006/12/21/lottery-tax.html

Hmmm, this is a lot different that your initial comment -->

Awhile back they successfully lobbied to find several (supposedly) tax-free lottery winners liable for tax, because that made up a 'significant portion of their income" - no sheit Sherlock, I think $5.6 million is a significant portion of anyone's income.

 

Sure, they may have lost in the case you cited because the judge agreed with the brothers that the "betting" was just lottery luck. I have no idea if an appeal was done with the file or not but what does that have to do with your other statement? I'll be more interested in hearing where you got that from? You comment indicates that the Government won the right to tax lottery winnings. Where's the link to that? Your initial statement says that the Government wins all the time in court and then you show me a link where they lost? Time to get your cases straight. Here's also a quote from your initial statement -->

I always laugh when I see headlines like this - when was the last time Revenue Canada *lost* a court battle to get MO' MONEY? If it happened, I bet a few judges will find "audit" notices in their mailbox.

If you were aware of the sports lottery case, why would you have made this statement? Actually, don't answer it. We already know the answer.

[Ares]

Until you provide me with a link to a story, there's no way I can comment on it.

 

Come on, I found quotes where Revenue Canada had tried repeatedly with the old "playing a lottery is like gambling" trick, and as you know, gambling winnings are taxable.

 

Here's one link where you suckas got beat hard in court :

 

CBC.ca: Sports lotto millionaires beat the taxman

 

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2006/12/21/lottery-tax.html

Thats not the same!

These guys were consitantly betting on sports. week after week.

this isnt a one time lottery win

[greggy]

Until you provide me with a link to a story, there's no way I can comment on it.

 

Come on, I found quotes where Revenue Canada had tried repeatedly with the old "playing a lottery is like gambling" trick, and as you know, gambling winnings are taxable.

 

Here's one link where you suckas got beat hard in court :

 

CBC.ca: Sports lotto millionaires beat the taxman

 

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2006/12/21/lottery-tax.html

Thats not the same!

These guys were consitantly betting on sports. week after week.

this isnt a one time lottery win

He knows it's not the same but he's grasping for straws. Remember, don't mess with the Government. We NEVER lose!

[Ares]

Until you provide me with a link to a story, there's no way I can comment on it.

 

Come on, I found quotes where Revenue Canada had tried repeatedly with the old "playing a lottery is like gambling" trick, and as you know, gambling winnings are taxable.

 

Here's one link where you suckas got beat hard in court :

 

CBC.ca: Sports lotto millionaires beat the taxman

 

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2006/12/21/lottery-tax.html

Thats not the same!

These guys were consitantly betting on sports. week after week.

this isnt a one time lottery win

He knows it's not the same but he's grasping for straws. Remember, don't mess with the Government. We NEVER lose!

 

http://www.olg.ca/about/play_safe/lottery_facts.jsp

No taxes of any kind have to be paid to Canadian authorities on lottery winnings in Canada.

 

Canadian tax authorities do not consider lottery winnings to be taxable for Canadian tax purposes. Although the Internal Revenue Service does consider lottery winnings to be subject to U.S. tax, U.S. residents must report such profits on their individual tax returns and send the money directly to their government themselves. OLG will never withhold the U.S. tax against Canadian winnings.