• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Samsung Heirs pay 10 billion in inheritance tax. Over half of fortune.

Status
Not open for further replies.

AJUMP23

Parody of actual AJUMP23
Samsung heirs to pay record $10bn inheritance tax bill (yahoo.com)

The family of Samsung Electronics' (005930.KS) former chairman Lee Kun-hee, who died in October last year, will have to cough up 12 trillion won (£7.8bn, $10.78bn) in inheritance taxes on his estate.

Samsung heirs face a £7.8BILLION inheritance tax bill - one of the world's biggest ever | Daily Mail Online


A fortune worth 20billion in US dollars, half of it gets taken by the Korean government because he died. This could impact who owns Samsung as most of it is stock in the company. The tax bill still exist even though they give away 1.3 billion in art.
 

Punished Miku

Human Rights Subscription Service
What is the justification for *any* inheritance tax?
Money makes money. If you want any semblance of a meritocracy in society instead of a 2nd guilded age of corporate royalty, then you need to tax wealth and redistribute into broad programs that help upward mobility for everyone else (health care, education, infrastructure). If you never taxed inheritance or wealth on any level, then they could just invest in the stock market and keep consolidating power by buying more property / companies, and after a relatively short period of time, they would basically own everything and you'd be in messed up combination of oligarchy / neo-feudalism.
 

AJUMP23

Parody of actual AJUMP23
What is the justification for *any* inheritance tax?
Al Gore said everyone has to pay their fair share. But no one talks about how the money was already taxed when it was earned, exchanged, earned interest and used. Money just doesn't sit there, but if you die they are going to take more again.

And they're still richer than most and can likely make that money back by reinvesting in their company.
While they could, I don't think it is justifiable to take over half of some ones estate due to their death. I am sure a great deal of it was already taken during taxation in their lifetime.
 
Meanwhile, at the Samsung heirs mansion:

GIF by netflixlat
 
Last edited:

AJUMP23

Parody of actual AJUMP23
Money makes money. If you want any semblance of a meritocracy in society instead of a 2nd guilded age of corporate royalty, then you need to tax wealth and redistribute into broad programs that help upward mobility for everyone else (health care, education, infrastructure). If you never taxed inheritance or wealth on any level, then they could just invest in the stock market and keep consolidating power by buying more property / companies, and after a relatively short period of time, they would basically own everything and you'd be in messed up combination of oligarchy / neo-feudalism.
If this was true then the Rockefellers, Carnegies, and Vanderbilt's would still own everything in the US. They don't. In fact the direct heirs of the Vanderbilt's don't even live in the houses their ancestors built, they Biltmore is a tourist attraction run by the family. It just doesn't happen that way. I think an advantageous thing to do would be to structure the code in such a way that it encourages the establishment of charitable foundations that utilize the wealth to do the things you want to do. A private organization is far more efficient than any government entity ever.
 

Punished Miku

Human Rights Subscription Service
If this was true then the Rockefellers, Carnegies, and Vanderbilt's would still own everything in the US. They don't. In fact the direct heirs of the Vanderbilt's don't even live in the houses their ancestors built, they Biltmore is a tourist attraction run by the family. It just doesn't happen that way. I think an advantageous thing to do would be to structure the code in such a way that it encourages the establishment of charitable foundations that utilize the wealth to do the things you want to do. A private organization is far more efficient than any government entity ever.
Culture has changed. I saw an author who wrote about this phenomenon discussing it, and I can't remember the name of the book. Wealthy in the past wanted to be seen as "pillars of the community," and actually did aspire to be seen in a positive light by their community; and attended the same churches, or other community events. That is part of the history of large donations and charities in the past. But that is really not the case as much today. Most people at that level aren't even part of the same communities as normal people, live entirely different lives on a trans-national level, and more frequently aspire to continue acquiring more and more on a global scale.

I don't lose any sleep about the inheritance tax. It only affects 0.07% of people in the US, and it's a very positive thing.

Also I would argue we ARE living in an oligarchy/neo-feudalism despite having inheritance taxes. That fear rings entirely hollow cos we already there brah.
Or we just aren't taxing enough.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
I dont follow inheritance taxes in any way.

But lets say a super rich guy on his deathbed decides to sell everything give away all that money to his kids before he dies, leaving him with $20 in his wallet. And the guy puts aside enough money to pay for capital gains taxes.

Do the kids still get taxed getting a giant gift? Or are they in the clear?
 
Last edited:

AJUMP23

Parody of actual AJUMP23
Culture has changed. I saw an author who wrote about this phenomenon discussing it, and I can't remember the name of the book. Wealthy in the past wanted to be seen as "pillars of the community," and actually did aspire to be seen in a positive light by their community; and attended the same churches, or other community events. That is part of the history of large donations and charities in the past. But that is really not the case as much today. Most people at that level aren't even part of the same communities as normal people, live entirely different lives on a trans-national level, and more frequently aspire to continue acquiring more and more on a global scale.

I don't lose any sleep about the inheritance tax. It only affects 0.07% of people in the US, and it's a very positive thing.

Even in the modern Era, the Walton's wealth has been diluted since Sam's death. Gates Wealth is diluted into charitable organizations. Bezos's wealth is diluted because divorce. But his is still growing and who knows what he will do with it. History has shown that the worlds wealthiest don't keep the wealth in the families forever. They never will. And besides, giving more money to the government is the worst. They help themselves more than they help anyone else.
 

AJUMP23

Parody of actual AJUMP23
I dont follow inheritance taxes in any way.

But lets say a super rich guy on his deathbed decides to sell everything give away all that money to his kids before he dies, leaving him with $20 in his wallet. And the guy puts aside enough money to pay for capital gains taxes.

Do the kids still get taxed getting a giant gift? Or are they in the clear?
The kids get taxed if the gift is over the gift limit in the US. Which is $10000 lifetime.

EDIT: it is 15k annually - 11.5 mil lifetime limit. (not so bad.)
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
Giving money back to the government is basically a waste. The U.S spends $750 billion on defense every year. That $10 billion would mean nothing.

These folks should instead donate the money to charities or hell create private schooling for poor people in rural and urban cities. That will directly help poverty more than spending almost a trillion on defense against non-existent enemies.
 
Last edited:
These kinds of laws only punishes the little people. Small businesses that get passed down to their kids and can't afford a Cayman Islands account are the ones getting taxed. Your millionaires and billionaires will just move the money to offshore to avoid the penalty.

It's a lot like gun laws, which punishes the people who can't afford private security. The uber rich don't follow the laws anyways, or are able to use the loopholes.
 
Last edited:
how big is the CEO's family? I imagine he at least have a few kids and some grandkids right? a few billions after tax is still a lot to spread around. yes I agree over half is too much in a normal situation, but consider the amount here, I feel this is probably fine. hopefully the SK gov can put the money to good use at least.
 
I wonder if anyone in the Korean Government is related to someone at Samsung and will "gift" the fortune back?

Given that nepotism seems is rife in South Korean Companies and Governments, I wouldn't be too surprised.

Money goes round.
 

Goro Majima

Kitty Genovese Member
The kids still get to be rich as shit despite doing nothing to earn it. I have a whole lot more sympathy for the people that are actually creating wealth.

Could always do like Kim Kardashian and make a sex tape thereby creating your own billion dollar brand if they're that worried about it.
 

Punished Miku

Human Rights Subscription Service
Only economically ignorant and morally corrupt people think the inheritance tax is a good idea.

Stealing Season 10 GIF by The Simpsons
I think it's one of those old things that was put into place for an extremely good reason. And everyone has forgotten the reason at this point because we haven't lived in a feudal era for some time where inheritance and royalty determines everything.

It's like people wondering why we have STOP signs on roads, wondering why people can't just regulate themselves without the government. It's because lots of people died and it sucked without STOP signs, so they put them up in the past to improve things.
 

420bits

Member
...A private organization is far more efficient than any government entity ever.
Yes, 100% agree on that, but there is also a very good reason for it (at least where I live).

REDACTED BRICKWALL OF TEXT DUE TO BORDERLINE POLITICAL ANSWER (i don't want to get banned for it :p )


Taxing already taxed money is fucked up regardless of where it comes from. I can understand the reasoning behind it but i don't agree with it.
I get taxed like 40% on my paycheck before I even get it.
Then 25% when i get my paycheck
Another 25% if i buy something in a store

So if i were to save up 100k and die and give it to my cats, there should be 0 tax on that money regardless of its 100k or 1000000000000000000000000000k, as long as i already paid my taxes on the set amount.

I mean, it's not like its going to make a difference, if you get 10 billion dollars in taxes the wealth you got already is so vast and the government isn't gonna spend it on anything useful, they are busy in a swamp of bureaucracy.
 
Last edited:

AJUMP23

Parody of actual AJUMP23
I imagine they would have to liquidate the shares
That is what will happen, and then possibly lose controlling interest in the company. One son of Samsung is in Jail for embezzlement so it isn't like they are as pure as the driven snow, but I would be trying to find way to move money and protect assets. Off shore and everywhere.
 

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
What is the justification for *any* inheritance tax?
Because money is taxed when it changes hands. If you give your kid a million dollars then it is taxed. Otherwise you could use deaths to avoid paying taxes, instead of giving stock as part of a salary for example you could give an entry in a will.
 

tsumake

Member
Yes, 100% agree on that, but there is also a very good reason for it (at least where I live).

I've worked in a government (municipality) in Sweden for 7 years and most of the shit isn't "our" doing, its the rules and laws we have to abide that the private sector don't have to care about and most people don't know or care about it.
I'm amazed that ANYTHING works because the government is so fucking complex its on the verge on being retarded.

Not going to deny that most of the people who run for politics are 100% morons and should be launched into space without a suit though, but it is a bit unfair to go with the "fuck government they don't do anything right" (generally speaking)

Here is an example on just how fucked up it can be.

Private company
- lets use macbooks for our employees and run Office 365 on them.
ok, done. Anything else?
- Sure, can we get Fiat Pandas for companycars?
Budget seems fine, don't see why not..
- Tnx man!

Government in sweden
We would like to buy Laptop from HP (insert whatever brand you want)
- OH NO YOU DON'T. This is the "Swedish Public Procurement Act "-police! SHUT THE FUCK UP!
- First of all you need to use LOU (lagen om offentlig upphandling in swedish, aka Swedish Public Procurement Act). because computers sound like its going to cost a lot of money.
- If its going to cost more than 600k SEK (thats like 75k USD) over your entire organization then you need to write a massive essay about it and let companies bid on the contract.
*Below 75k you could actually just go out and do a "direktupphandling / buy whatever" for the stuff you want , BUT, lets say you want a pink notepad (as in, papernotepad) and we have a contract for blue ones then you cant buy yours because that would interfere with the existing contract.
ALSO, lets say there was no contract on notepads and you decide to buy a 10pack, unlucky (and unknowingly) some other guy on the other side of the city already spent 74999 dollars on notepads and you just fucked up by going over the limit. You are now a lawbreaker and could get fined or fired.

- So you want a computer?
yes a H.. sorry, a laptop?
- go on
With intel cpu
*facepunch* I FUCKING TOLD YOU!
You can say you want a computer that's a laptop and a screen with resolution X and something about speed but do NOT specify any parts in the PC apart from generic ones.
- You could end up with Chromebook if you do a bad writing, or just fuck up entirely and have to redo the work you did the past months.
- Oh and btw, don't even fucking think of just saying "we want a partner who delivers any kind of PC / smartphone we want regardless of what it is" as long as its "the same kind of product" because you don't do that.
- You specify in an unspecfic way what you want and you get an offer for what you get based on your very unspecific specifications with no branding.
oh, ok... can i do like this?
- NO, probably not!



Oh and also, lets say you for some reason need a PC with a case made out of metal and in the contract you write "aluminum chassi". Company X sayd they can deliver for 1k each np and they win. The contract is to deliver X amount of PCs over the next 3 years. (The X amount is actually needed, you cant say "we could possibly be needing 10k PCs and then you end up with just buying 7k, nor can you buy 20k then you have to redo the entire thing OR, not buy any more PCs until the contract expires).

After 1 month all their alu-pcs are sold out and they offer the same PC but its chassi is made out of titanium instead, same price, what a deal!
2 years and 8 months later some of the suckers who lost the contract finds out that hey, company X that won, they don't have aluminum chassis, they are made out of titanium!
You want to know what happens to the 10k pcs we bought over the past 3 years?
We get fined to the losing company and have to pay them cent for cent the money we spend on the winning company.
So that's 1k for every computer we bought, times 2 because someone who didn't deliver shit SHOULD have so they can file for lost expenses and we have to pony up.


And then you may wonder "why is there a law like this? Sounds fucking stupid..."
Yes, it is, the law is there to prevent the government employees to spend money from the piggybank on their family company or their friends companies.

Also, we have like 200-odd municipalities in sweden + fuckknows how many government agencies in different kinds of flavour and there is no coorperation because its often not worth it as you could end up spending 6 month on a contract for whatever you need and then due to some technicality everything is void and you have to start over.

Thank you for that perspective. On a broader note, I think the issue is the size of an organization, public or private. The larger the organization the greater the need for bureaucracy, and the dilution of responsibility. Ideally a private organization should be motivated enough by revenue and profit, but I’ve seen (and worked) at companies that have terrible or mediocre management that are able to hobble by through luck, circumstance or an over abundant labor market.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Yes, 100% agree on that, but there is also a very good reason for it (at least where I live).

I've worked in a government (municipality) in Sweden for 7 years and most of the shit isn't "our" doing, its the rules and laws we have to abide that the private sector don't have to care about and most people don't know or care about it.
I'm amazed that ANYTHING works because the government is so fucking complex its on the verge on being retarded.

Not going to deny that most of the people who run for politics are 100% morons and should be launched into space without a suit though, but it is a bit unfair to go with the "fuck government they don't do anything right" (generally speaking)

Here is an example on just how fucked up it can be.

Private company
- lets use macbooks for our employees and run Office 365 on them.
ok, done. Anything else?
- Sure, can we get Fiat Pandas for companycars?
Budget seems fine, don't see why not..
- Tnx man!

Government in sweden
We would like to buy Laptop from HP (insert whatever brand you want)
- OH NO YOU DON'T. This is the "Swedish Public Procurement Act "-police! SHUT THE FUCK UP!
- First of all you need to use LOU (lagen om offentlig upphandling in swedish, aka Swedish Public Procurement Act). because computers sound like its going to cost a lot of money.
- If its going to cost more than 600k SEK (thats like 75k USD) over your entire organization then you need to write a massive essay about it and let companies bid on the contract.
*Below 75k you could actually just go out and do a "direktupphandling / buy whatever" for the stuff you want , BUT, lets say you want a pink notepad (as in, papernotepad) and we have a contract for blue ones then you cant buy yours because that would interfere with the existing contract.
ALSO, lets say there was no contract on notepads and you decide to buy a 10pack, unlucky (and unknowingly) some other guy on the other side of the city already spent 74999 dollars on notepads and you just fucked up by going over the limit. You are now a lawbreaker and could get fined or fired.

- So you want a computer?
yes a H.. sorry, a laptop?
- go on
With intel cpu
*facepunch* I FUCKING TOLD YOU!
You can say you want a computer that's a laptop and a screen with resolution X and something about speed but do NOT specify any parts in the PC apart from generic ones.
- You could end up with Chromebook if you do a bad writing, or just fuck up entirely and have to redo the work you did the past months.
- Oh and btw, don't even fucking think of just saying "we want a partner who delivers any kind of PC / smartphone we want regardless of what it is" as long as its "the same kind of product" because you don't do that.
- You specify in an unspecfic way what you want and you get an offer for what you get based on your very unspecific specifications with no branding.
oh, ok... can i do like this?
- NO, probably not!



Oh and also, lets say you for some reason need a PC with a case made out of metal and in the contract you write "aluminum chassi". Company X sayd they can deliver for 1k each np and they win. The contract is to deliver X amount of PCs over the next 3 years. (The X amount is actually needed, you cant say "we could possibly be needing 10k PCs and then you end up with just buying 7k, nor can you buy 20k then you have to redo the entire thing OR, not buy any more PCs until the contract expires).

After 1 month all their alu-pcs are sold out and they offer the same PC but its chassi is made out of titanium instead, same price, what a deal!
2 years and 8 months later some of the suckers who lost the contract finds out that hey, company X that won, they don't have aluminum chassis, they are made out of titanium!
You want to know what happens to the 10k pcs we bought over the past 3 years?
We get fined to the losing company and have to pay them cent for cent the money we spend on the winning company.
So that's 1k for every computer we bought, times 2 because someone who didn't deliver shit SHOULD have so they can file for lost expenses and we have to pony up.


And then you may wonder "why is there a law like this? Sounds fucking stupid..."
Yes, it is, the law is there to prevent the government employees to spend money from the piggybank on their family company or their friends companies.

Also, we have like 200-odd municipalities in sweden + fuckknows how many government agencies in different kinds of flavour and there is no coorperation because its often not worth it as you could end up spending 6 month on a contract for whatever you need and then due to some technicality everything is void and you have to start over.


Edit: also, taxing already taxed money is fucked up regardless of where it comes from. I can understand the reasoning behind it but i don't agree with it.
I get taxed like 40% on my paycheck before I even get it.
Then 25% when i get my paycheck
Another 25% if i buy something in a store

So if i were to save up 100k and die and give it to my cats, there should be 0 tax on that money regardless of its 100k or 1000000000000000000000000000k, as long as i already paid my taxes on the set amount.

I mean, it's not like its going to make a difference, if you get 10 billion dollars in taxes the wealth you got already is so vast and the goverment isnt gonna spend it on anything uselful, they are busy in a swamp of bureaucracy.
Government biddings systems are the worst kind of deals you can make. At least from my experience in consumer goods where they need to buy stuff for hospitals.

1. Private sector companies purposely offer a bid at a high price knowing gov has unlimited pockets and will buy anything.

2. The buyers have zero experience in the products themselves, so all they go on is price and whatever we tell them in bids and slides

3. A bid system is bad because it limits you to a number of choices. The right way to gets costs down or get higher quality products thrown in (or both) is for a buyer (let's say a buyer at Walmart for dog food) to go in a circle and get offers from dog food companies, then keep going back to each of them for better offers stressing someone else has a better deal (which could be a lie). You even tell the guy with the best current offer there's someone else better. That makes the sales reps and supplier head offices doing extra math and cost concessions until it gets to a point everyone levels off. Then the buyer has the best offers and can make a decision as all suppliers have stopped re-pitching counter offers.

Never understood why gov doesn't do that.

It also seems the buyers making decisions dont have enough experience either. So if a bunch of companies have dog food bids, the buyer in charge of the pet section will have enough experience to not only look at cost per gram an easy math, but also analyze the offer, and tell others to amp up bids because the quality of their food is crap, the bags are too big compared to others, the offer is shit because the last time it was on a weekly flyer it sold bad, your offer is out because Walmart got customer complaints etc.....

There's so much more analysis.

At my old company, the most profitable account we had was BC province because they bought anything we sold at regular price! And the reaosn why is because the west coast manager pitched in a bid at regular price and it worked! That never happens except for no-name small mom and pop shops that buy from wholesalers. Even the smallest shittiest chain we got a direct relationship with would scrape up a 5% or 10% off deal.

You just need some buyers with some negotiating skills to claw back discounts from suppliers. And to maximize savings, go around the table squeezing as much as possible until it flat lines.
 
Last edited:

zeorhymer

Member
Ideally a private organization should be motivated enough by revenue and profit, but I’ve seen (and worked) at companies that have terrible or mediocre management that are able to hobble by through luck, circumstance or an over abundant labor market.
I want to be terrible or mediocre and fail my way upwards, but my boss is too sharp and won't let me work that way :/
 
Money makes money. If you want any semblance of a meritocracy in society instead of a 2nd guilded age of corporate royalty, then you need to tax wealth and redistribute into broad programs that help upward mobility for everyone else (health care, education, infrastructure). If you never taxed inheritance or wealth on any level, then they could just invest in the stock market and keep consolidating power by buying more property / companies, and after a relatively short period of time, they would basically own everything and you'd be in messed up combination of oligarchy / neo-feudalism.

Thank fuck I'm in Canada (I don't often get to say that). I'll keep my winnings in my family.
 

Nester99

Member
Thank fuck I'm in Canada (I don't often get to say that). I'll keep my winnings in my family.


You might want to google estate tax in Canada. You don’t pay tax on the inheritance but the person who passed away get hit with a lifetime of capital gains tax on their final return.


I stole the below from the web.


With regards to your assets, it’s important to understand that all of your assets are deemed to have been “sold” just prior to death for tax purposes. This would include real estate, land, businesses, investments and your RRSPs. Here are a few common examples of how this “sale” of assets can create income tax at death.

Joe has $100,000 in RRSPs. When he passes away, the $100,000 RRSP is deemed to have been cashed in and on Joe’s final tax return, $100,000 of RRSP income will be added to his other sources of income.

Let’s pretend Joe’s money was in a RRIF instead of an RRSP and Joe had already received $5250 of income from monthly RRIF payments prior to his death. On Joe’s final tax return, there would be $5250 of RRIF income and then another $100,000 of income from the asset.

Another common example comes from Real Estate, whether it’s an investment property or a recreational property. Let’s pretend Elizabeth has an investment condo that she has owned and rented out for over 15 years. When Elizabeth passed away on June 30th, her condo is deemed to have been sold for tax purposes. Let’s say she paid $150,000 originally for the condo and now it’s worth $275,000. There is a capital gain of $125,000 of which 50% is taxable. Elizabeth’s final tax return would have to show net rental income for 6 months of the year plus the $67,500 of taxable capital gains.

Stacy has a cottage at the lake that she inherited from her parents 22 years before she passed away. The cottage has been in the family for multiple generations and rumor has it that the land the cottage was built on was originally bought for less than $1000. When Stacy passed away at the age of 77, the cottage was deemed to have been sold for tax purposes for $850,000. When she inherited the cottage the value of the cottage was $725,000. Her parents would have paid for any capital gains prior to Stacy inheriting the property. Stacy’s final tax return needs to show the $67,500 of taxable capital gains (50% of $850,000-$725,000).

The last example is for those that pass away with non-registered investments like stocks or mutual funds. Barry worked for the same company for 32 years and as a result held $325,000 worth of stock of the company he worked for. When Barry passed away, the stocks were deemed to have been sold for tax purposes. the adjusted cost base (ACB) of the shares were calculated to be $110,000. At death, Barry has $215,000 of capital gains of which 50% is taxable. Barry’s final tax return must show $107,500 of taxable capital gains plus and dividends he would have received from the beginning of the calendar year.

As you can see from these examples, the deemed disposition (sale of assets for tax purposes) can potentially trigger a lot of taxation. In any of these examples, if there was a spouse as a beneficiary, there would be some rollover provisions where the tax may not be triggered now but deferred until later.
 

Cyberpunkd

Gold Member
If this was true then the Rockefellers, Carnegies, and Vanderbilt's would still own everything in the US. They don't. In fact the direct heirs of the Vanderbilt's don't even live in the houses their ancestors built, they Biltmore is a tourist attraction run by the family. It just doesn't happen that way. I think an advantageous thing to do would be to structure the code in such a way that it encourages the establishment of charitable foundations that utilize the wealth to do the things you want to do. A private organization is far more efficient than any government entity ever.
And the fact they don’t is precisely the reason of inheritance tax being introduced in the US in 1900s.
 

AJUMP23

Parody of actual AJUMP23
You might want to google estate tax in Canada. You don’t pay tax on the inheritance but the person who passed away get hit with a lifetime of capital gains tax on their final return.


I stole the below from the web.


With regards to your assets, it’s important to understand that all of your assets are deemed to have been “sold” just prior to death for tax purposes. This would include real estate, land, businesses, investments and your RRSPs. Here are a few common examples of how this “sale” of assets can create income tax at death.

Joe has $100,000 in RRSPs. When he passes away, the $100,000 RRSP is deemed to have been cashed in and on Joe’s final tax return, $100,000 of RRSP income will be added to his other sources of income.

Let’s pretend Joe’s money was in a RRIF instead of an RRSP and Joe had already received $5250 of income from monthly RRIF payments prior to his death. On Joe’s final tax return, there would be $5250 of RRIF income and then another $100,000 of income from the asset.

Another common example comes from Real Estate, whether it’s an investment property or a recreational property. Let’s pretend Elizabeth has an investment condo that she has owned and rented out for over 15 years. When Elizabeth passed away on June 30th, her condo is deemed to have been sold for tax purposes. Let’s say she paid $150,000 originally for the condo and now it’s worth $275,000. There is a capital gain of $125,000 of which 50% is taxable. Elizabeth’s final tax return would have to show net rental income for 6 months of the year plus the $67,500 of taxable capital gains.

Stacy has a cottage at the lake that she inherited from her parents 22 years before she passed away. The cottage has been in the family for multiple generations and rumor has it that the land the cottage was built on was originally bought for less than $1000. When Stacy passed away at the age of 77, the cottage was deemed to have been sold for tax purposes for $850,000. When she inherited the cottage the value of the cottage was $725,000. Her parents would have paid for any capital gains prior to Stacy inheriting the property. Stacy’s final tax return needs to show the $67,500 of taxable capital gains (50% of $850,000-$725,000).

The last example is for those that pass away with non-registered investments like stocks or mutual funds. Barry worked for the same company for 32 years and as a result held $325,000 worth of stock of the company he worked for. When Barry passed away, the stocks were deemed to have been sold for tax purposes. the adjusted cost base (ACB) of the shares were calculated to be $110,000. At death, Barry has $215,000 of capital gains of which 50% is taxable. Barry’s final tax return must show $107,500 of taxable capital gains plus and dividends he would have received from the beginning of the calendar year.

As you can see from these examples, the deemed disposition (sale of assets for tax purposes) can potentially trigger a lot of taxation. In any of these examples, if there was a spouse as a beneficiary, there would be some rollover provisions where the tax may not be triggered now but deferred until later.
oof
 
You might want to google estate tax in Canada. You don’t pay tax on the inheritance but the person who passed away get hit with a lifetime of capital gains tax on their final return.

(snipped)
Good info. I'll have to see how this affects TFSAs and strategically draw down when the time comes.
 

HoodWinked

Member
Ya inheritance tax I'm actually kind of okay with.

The inheritors are essentially getting money for doing nothing being taxed on that gain is reasonable, comparatively if someone busts their ass and someone gives them money they'd be taxed on that. But also since they're getting money for nothing, and unlike earned income recipients protest less about what they're receiving so there is just less opposition on it's forfeiture.

Plus these amounts only appear egregious when they're astronomical amounts of money. But ya being able to have generational wealth is important to bring people into prosperity but there is a balance of also being self sufficient.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom