# Married Couple Separate Houses



## sbarkano (Apr 24, 2015)

Unfortunately, my husband and I have to work in different provinces, so we live in separate houses. However, spouses can designate only one home as a principal residence. So, if we finally find work at the same place somewhere and sell both houses to move, we'll have to pay capital gain on one of them. Does not seem fair. Any advice?


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I see it as the only way to do it to avoid abuse.


----------



## CalgaryPotato (Mar 7, 2015)

You should only pay capital gains on the period of time that you owned a property and it wasn't your primary residence though.... 

I'm not sure what the rule is on this situation though. You'd better have a really good paper trail if you plan to try to prove to the CRA that you guys each lived in a different primary residence.

But I don't know why you'd buy in both places in this situation anyway. Just hope real estate doesn't drop across country before you sell both.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

CalgaryPotato said:


> You should only pay capital gains on the period of time that you owned a property and it wasn't your primary residence though....
> 
> I'm not sure what the rule is on this situation though.


Looks like you can't have both residences declared as principle residences .if you are still married, and not legally separated.
here's what CRA has to say about this.



> For 1982 and later years, you can only designate one home as your family's principal residence for each year.


http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/...-ncm/lns101-170/127/rsdnc/dsgntng/mr-eng.html


----------



## CalgaryPotato (Mar 7, 2015)

I knew there was a rule like that, I just wasn't sure if there an exception in a case like this where they live in separate provinces for a prolonged period. Good link.

I still think the OP is just lucky that both houses have made money. I imagine they only bought in both places because they were expecting the houses to go up anyway, so really it is an investment.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Has to be this way or practically a majority of rental properties held by a married couple would become the second primary residence, and tax evasion of rental income would go through the roof.


----------



## Westerly (Dec 26, 2010)

One possible relief is if you buy a new home in the new location. If you sell your home (and buy another in the new location) when moving at least 40 kl closer to your new work location you can deduct the cost of realtor fees, lawyer, the move itself etc. The expenses are only deductible against the income earned in the new location. I haven't thought of this in terms of 2 homes but, unless it's specific to principle residence, I'm not aware of any restriction. Worth the research at least. If it is restricted to one home, you can take this into consideration when deciding which house to elect as the principle residence. Note: These expenses are always CRA reviewed so be prepared with any documents.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

sbarkano said:


> ... Does not seem fair. ...


It isn't really about how many residences you (have to) live in. It's about how many residences a couple can own at any one time that are exempt from capital gains tax. When you reword the question that way, the restriction in the definition of "principle residence" will appear more fair.


----------

