# CRA investigating large tfsa



## Jungle

It was too good to be true. if you trade frequently and have a unusually large balance, you could be labeled a business and ordered to pay tax. Quebec man with 180k Tfsa ordered to pay income tax on his gain!

http://business.financialpost.com/2...-tfsa-being-targetted-by-cra/?__lsa=0954-007f


----------



## Jungle

Also to share another article, here is what will get your Tfsa audited



http://business.financialpost.com/2...by-the-canada-revenue-agency/?__lsa=c959-72db


----------



## fatcat

finally! ... i can feel good about not being able to have a tfsa :hopelessness:


----------



## the-royal-mail

Really scary stuff. I don't have a high balance now but I've done a few trades and made a bit of money.


----------



## Charlie

well I guess that answers this guy's question....

http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/25041-Daytrading-inside-a-TFSA-for-a-living

It'll be interesting how this pans out. In the above thread there was a link to a court case that effectively said RRSPs were exempt from the active trader rules due to their unique and specific purpose. I would have thought TFSAs would mirror this.


----------



## Jungle

I wonder if this would apply to the people featured last year in moneysenses "who has the biggest Tfsa" contest. I believe one guy had 300k after a bet on a speculative penny stock turned out extremely fruitful.


----------



## Guban

Umm Jungle, aren't those two links the same?

I wonder what happens to people that have done very well within their RRSP? Same thing?

Edit: Woz's post #3 already answers my question. http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/25041-Daytrading-inside-a-TFSA-for-a-living
The answer seems to be no. RRSP's are not the same, so it seems like they should treat TFSA's the same.


----------



## sags

So if someone has their retirement already set up and wants to use their TFSA as a fun place to "go for broke" buying penny stocks.....can they deduct the losses from the "business" ?

You really don't even have to "trade" to get lucky.

If someone had invested all their TFSA money into Carfinco shares....from .25 cents on up....they would have a whopping pile of cash in their TFSA today....maxing out their TFSA only once a year.

Is making a pile of money buying a single stock okay...........but making a pile of money trading not okay?


----------



## Eclectic12

There have been reports back as early are 2012 ... though having more details helps. 



Jungle said:


> Also to share another article, here is what will get your Tfsa audited ...


I'm good on just about all of the criteria (I think that outside of TDB8150, the shortest I've held a stock is about thirteen months).

I am interested in the point about "financed by margin or other form of debt". I believe Questrade has TFSA account that's linked to margin. Other than that, I'm not sure what "other debt" could be.


Cheers


----------



## Guban

Jungle said:


> I wonder if this would apply to the people featured last year in moneysenses "who has the biggest Tfsa" contest. I believe one guy had 300k after a bet on a speculative penny stock turned out extremely fruitful.


One bet should be ok. Lots of trading may be a problem.

According to the article, this has not been finalized. Hope CRA changes their tune.


----------



## uptoolate

Yes, of course the government eventually gets their pound (or two) of flesh out of RRSPs. They're happy when people do very, very well in their RRSP. People take the risk, government reaps a good part of the gain. Personally, I think this is BS on the TFSA. As the guy said, he could have lost all the money. Statistically speaking, some people are going to do very well with their TFSAs. Does this mean that we can expect to be supporting all those who took their TFSA money and lost it? Maybe that's what CRA will do with the money the get from taking the 'TF' out of TFSA. I guess we can all expect to be able to write off our losses in the account in the coming years? Sure, I'm sure they'll put that provision in...


----------



## Eclectic12

Guban said:


> Umm Jungle, aren't those two links the same? ...


They are coming up with different articles for me.


Cheers


----------



## brad_g

From the article:



> ...Maybe 10 to 15 trades a day,” ... “The CRA says that means you are trader in securities and you are carrying on a business.”


Using the same logic, gains made through "heavy" trading in other accounts (non TFSA) could also be deemed "carrying on a business". And therefore be subject to business taxes. I can't see that ever happening so I really wonder how they'll make it stick in the case of TFSA's. 

I'm hoping this is the result of some overzealous CRA agents rather than actual policy.


----------



## Jungle

Guban said:


> Umm Jungle, aren't those two links the same?
> 
> I wonder what happens to people that have done very well within their RRSP? Same thing?
> 
> Edit: Woz's post #3 already answers my question. http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/25041-Daytrading-inside-a-TFSA-for-a-living
> The answer seems to be no. RRSP's are not the same, so it seems like they should treat TFSA's the same.


Second link is fixed. Thx.


----------



## Charlie

brad_g said:


> From the article:
> Using the same logic, gains made through "heavy" trading in other accounts (non TFSA) could also be deemed "carrying on a business". And therefore be subject to business taxes. I can't see that ever happening ...


Those are the current rules for non registered accounts and they are regularly assessed that way. 

The difference with the TFSA is that you have potential significant added penalties for ineligible activity.


----------



## brad_g

Charlie said:


> Those are the current rules for non registered accounts and they are regularly assessed that way.


Interesting. Does that mean daytrading gains in non registered accounts are subject to business taxation? Sounds like yet another reason to go passive...


----------



## Toronto.gal

Charlie said:


> The difference with the *TFSA* is that you have potential significant added *penalties for ineligible activity.*


There are also penalties for 'ineligible activity' in other registered accounts. For example, if you buy/hold [never mind trade] an investment considered ineligible. I once got a written notice from my broker about an investment being ineligible in my LIRA account, and the options I had if I wanted to avoid penalties. However, the broker had made a mistake, as the stock had been perfectly legitimate.


----------



## Charlie

brad_g said:


> Does that mean daytrading gains in non registered accounts are subject to business taxation?


daytrading is typically subject to business tax rules. But since most daytraders lose money, that's sometimes a good thing for them....

-- had the same thing with an RRSP Tgal. Had to transfer a stock out because (I think) Co went private without buying my stock. With this proposed TFSA assessment it's a bit different in that it's the activity and not the specific investment that might put you offside.


----------



## Toronto.gal

I had received the notices while away on holidays, so by the time we got back, the 2nd notice had arrived advising they had made an error. 

So what I'm trying to say, is that, if any of you were to receive same, don't panic or rush to sell/transfer b4 you double-check first [just like u should do with your travel insurance policies b4 buying/taking off]. :biggrin:


----------



## lonewolf

TFSA might be best used for putting on core positions when high confidence low risk to reward opportunities arise from the longer cycles & to not use the shorter term cycles for TFSA


----------



## Eclectic12

Jungle said:


> I wonder if this would apply to the people featured last year in moneysenses "who has the biggest Tfsa" contest.
> I believe one guy had 300k after a bet on a speculative penny stock turned out extremely fruitful.


Probably for the review part ... the articles I can recall made it sound like there might be ten trades in a year .... which probably would be too low unless a bunch of other criteria were met.


Cheers


----------



## Toronto.gal

Jungle said:


> I wonder if this would apply to the people featured last year in moneysenses "*who has the biggest Tfsa*" contest. I believe one *guy had 300k* after a bet on a speculative penny stock turned out extremely fruitful.


The way it looks, soon CRA will punish all successful high-risk investors, whether they are traders or not. I get the 'business/trading activity' part with respect to all accounts, except that of TFSA.

In the case of that astute investor, who had a $300K TFSA by 2013, he was nothing more than a disciplined/knowledgeable/responsible investor in junior Canadian companies, who bought/held a single stock from 2009 to 2012, mostly adding during that period, not selling. He eventually sold it when it grew to $45K, reinvested the returns + profit, and repeated an even better success story with a 2nd stock. He then bought a house.

To remain law-abiding, it would be nice to have clear rules.


----------



## CPA Candidate

So if someone trades multiple times a day and loses the entire balance in their TFSA, do they get the loss as a tax benefit because they were running a business and lost money? Safe investments yield virtually nothing, making us slaves to our jobs for the rest of our lives and when someone takes a risk and does well, the CRA moves in.

It's really hard to imagine that the number of people with extremely high TFSA balances is in anyway a significant source of lost tax revenue to the government. Just another shot over the bow of the successful, in the end we will get your money.


----------



## gibor365

CPA Candidate said:


> So if someone trades multiple times a day and loses the entire balance in their TFSA, do they get the loss as a tax benefit because they were running a business and lost money?


It's very interesting! So, if I lost some money in my TFSA, I should be able to declare that I have business and write off my losses from my income (when I fill taxes)?! Also I should be able to write off many things, like laptop, iPhone, partially property tax, internet, electricity, water, gas etc because those are expenses I accumulate to manage my trader "business"! It would be good even if I have gains in TFSA, as I can claim as business expenses even Plasma TV (to watch BNN in order to trade) and so on


----------



## dotnet_nerd

How does CRA know what the TFSA balance is? Gains don't need to be reported.

How do they know, are they snooping? What about privacy? How is it any of their **** business what TFSA balances are?


----------



## gibor365

dotnet_nerd said:


> How does CRA know what the TFSA balance is? Gains don't need to be reported.
> 
> How do they know, are they snooping? What about privacy? How is it any of their **** business what TFSA balances are?


You don't report , but for example, all mutual fund companies send to CRA XML TFSA file every year, and there is a tag showing your market value, and CRA perfectly knows how much you have ...


----------



## Toronto.gal

As I said, CRA just wants to target the *successful high risk-investors*, not the low to medium type, though the latter could be their next target should accounts exceed 5 figures. 

Trading isn't an illegal activity, and there should be no consequences in the form of penalties/additional taxes, with the small already after-tax amounts. How we elect to invest in a tax-free savings account, should not be the concern of CRA; it's a savings, not pension accounts.

Those with big TFSAs, have much bigger non.reg. accounts, is that not enough taxes?


----------



## Synergy

*CRA is targeting TSFAs with audits*

Just came across this video on BNN. Nothing new, but interesting nonetheless. Ive always thought the CRAs website was pretty clear on this - investing vs trading.

http://www.bnn.ca/Video/player.aspx?vid=505311

Has anyone had CRA come knocking at their door lately.


----------



## GoldStone

Toronto.gal said:


> As I said, CRA just wants to target the *successful high risk-investors*


I don't think so. They target successful traders. The criteria is the number of trades, not the amount of risk.


----------



## DmDave

Seems like CRA just make up the rules as they go along. I'll have to watch how this turns out.


----------



## DmDave

Jesus, I borrow from my LOC to contribute to my TFSA, and I don't deduct the interest from my income. Does that mean I'm asking for an audit even if I only make 3-4 trades a year? CRA needs to publish a clearer guidelines instead of going on a witch hunt.


----------



## gibor365

GoldStone said:


> I don't think so. They target successful traders. The criteria is the number of trades, not the amount of risk.


Criteria should be option trading ... who trade options -> pay taxes


----------



## Beaver101

DmDave said:


> Jesus, I borrow from my LOC to contribute to my TFSA, and I don't deduct the interest from my income. Does that mean I'm asking for an audit even if I only make 3-4 trades a year? *CRA needs to publish a clearer guidelines instead of going on a witch hunt*.


 ... +1 ... would that rule extend to CRA employees also? Or are they not allowed to trade in TFSAs?


----------



## gibor365

CRA are doing whatever they want....it's like government within government.... all decisions are "on their own discretion"....


----------



## Beaver101

So what's new? :biggrin:


----------



## DmDave

Haven't you heard? CRA employers ARE the law  Seriously, if the guidelines aren't clear, they should clarify it.


----------



## Eclectic12

DmDave said:


> I borrow from my LOC to contribute to my TFSA, and I don't deduct the interest from my income.
> Does that mean I'm asking for an audit even if I only make 3-4 trades a year?


Unless the 3-4 trades resulted in huge gains with almost no mediocre returns/losses ... I doubt you've got anything to worry about.
Though without good gains - you are likely behind with having to pay interest on the LoC with a corresponding interest charge against income.


Cheers


----------



## Toronto.gal

GoldStone said:


> The criteria is the *number of trades*, not the amount of risk.


# of trades only, not the account balance? Without risky trades/investments, the CRA would not have much to look at. 

If I were to invest $31K in a single stock @ $1 - then held/sold 2 years later @ $10, CRA would not look at my account? 

What about if a successful investor [or trader if u prefer] grew his TFSA to $300K in 3 years with 100 yearly trades vs. another, who grew it to $150K in same time period, but with 15 daily trades, who do you reckon was the most 'successful trader'? But only the latter would get audited? 

All we all deserve from the CRA = clarity. 

How about they tax the $5 million + lottery winners instead?


----------



## HaroldCrump

The acronym *CRA *has a transposition error - it is actually *RCA *- _Revenue Collection Agency_


----------



## My Own Advisor

sags said:


> ...........but making a pile of money trading not okay?


I think if people can pull it off, good on them. Even inside the TFSA. The reality is, there are very few people that can pull this off...trading and make good money on it. If the account is tax-free, the account is tax-free.


----------



## Toronto.gal

gibor said:


> Criteria should be option trading ...


LOL, but you reminded me of when I attended the options trading seminar a few years ago, one of the speakers told us of the very impressive TFSA account he had managed to produce for his daughter, with just AAPL stock - around 1/2 million IIRC.


----------



## Guban

Toronto.gal said:


> How about they tax the $5 million + lottery winners instead?


They don't have to. The tax is voluntary, and is on everybody that plays, and for most people, that translates to people that lose money.


----------



## 0xCC

I hope that they run into someone that is willing to take them to court on the issue. I suspect that is something that CRA will not be willing to do because once you open the door to tax gains in a TFSA I would expect that you also open the door to allow losses to be claimed. Two sides of the same coin and the CRA shouldn't be able to take just one side. The tax revenue loss from everyone being able to claim losses in their TFSA I am sure would far outweigh the revenue from going after the few that have substantial gains. Even if some set of criteria is applied (like a minimum number of trades over a given time frame).

Now that the story has made its way into the press I would think that an elected official will step in soon (how long until the next federal election?) to yank fairly hard on CRA's chain to get them back in line with the original spirit of the TFSA.


----------



## My Own Advisor

Just wait until the TFSA contribution limit grows to $10,000 next year, as a carrot for the budget and Conservative re-election....

That would almost, almost, make the RRSP obsolete for most Canadians....


----------



## uptoolate

The 10,000 limit might have made the RRSP less attractive if not for the fact that it is now becoming clear that the 'tax-free' status of the TFSA is not written in stone. The rules for the RRSP seem to be pretty solid as far as taxation goes... but of course no one knows what a desperate revenue starved government will do. I liked Harold's RCA observation. As far as the CRA being the law, there is some truth to this as anywhere that there is gray in the tax code, the CRA (and the individual) can push the envelope at the risk of landing in court to clarify the particular area. Of course, with their limitless resources and faceless structure, the CRA is usually less concerned about landing in court.


----------



## Eclectic12

^^^

I believe they also have the advantage that in tax court, the tax payer is guilty until proven otherwise.


Cheers


----------



## gibor365

HaroldCrump said:


> The acronym *CRA *has a transposition error - it is actually *RCA *- _Revenue Collection Agency_


nice one


----------



## gibor365

My Own Advisor said:


> Just wait until the TFSA contribution limit grows to $10,000 next year, as a carrot for the budget and Conservative re-election....
> 
> That would almost, almost, make the RRSP obsolete for most Canadians....


Not really! After group RRSPs, pension adjustments etc ... me and my wife may barely invest 10K combines to max up RRSPs... so we'd still max up both....


----------



## OhGreatGuru

This is not really about TFSA's. It is just a specific case of the more general question of whether one is engaged in "trading as a business" or engaged in investing one's savings. The tax treatment is already different for both. Trouble is, distinguishing between the two is subjective. What's new about the TFSA investigation(s) is that "traders" may be (probably are) using them to shelter their trading income totally from tax, not simply using the cover of "Investment Income" to gain beneficial tax treatment.

One more reason why TFSA's are bad fiscal policy (but that's another thread).


----------



## GoldStone

Toronto.gal said:


> If I were to invest $31K in a single stock @ $1 - then held/sold 2 years later @ $10, CRA would not look at my account?


Just a guess:

They would take a look at it... and they would give it a pass. Hitting a home run on a buy & hold investment is not a business.

OTOH, an active day-trader who accumulated 150K in the same 2 years would be flagged as a business. Even though his final balance is half of yours.


----------



## Eclectic12

^^^^

+1 ... I'd expect the TFSA account to be flagged based on the large value in a short period. 
When the criteria is applied, I could seem maybe two or three being considered to apply, with the result being "it's not a business".


Looking at the anonymous Quebec investment advisor, it would seem he passes six or seven of the eight criteria.
IMO, part of his problem is his job likely means he passes several criteria ... which I wouldn't expect to be a problem for large numbers here on CMF.


Cheers


----------



## DmDave

Sounds like everyone should keep a day job while day trading in their TFSA to pass CRA's smell test.


----------



## avrex

GoldStone said:


> The criteria is the number of trades, not the amount of risk.


Yes, the BNN video also mentions this.



> ...to define High Frequency Trading , I think the CRA is saying *10-15 trades a day* constitutes a business.


----------



## Eclectic12

DmDave said:


> Sounds like everyone should keep a day job while day trading in their TFSA to pass CRA's smell test.


What your day job is likely also has a big impact as well. The Quebec investment advisor from the first article seems to have been in trouble as his day job likely qualified him as a business on several criteria that a computer programmer wouldn't have.

Then too, where one shows up as a business on seven of eight criteria, is CRA really going to say the day job criteria is more important than the others?


Cheers


----------



## gt_23

I'm not sure why this is surprising to most people. CRA has discretion when interpreting the tax code and in this case, is demonstrating that it will enforce not just the letter of the rules, but also the spirit of the rules. This is no different than when it pursues aggressive tax avoiders.

It is not large gains themselves that trigger taxes, but rather, the type of activity that occurs to generate those gains. The gains, account sizes, and trade frequency are just screens that determine where the CRA should take a closer look. Therefore, someone who got lucky on a stock is very unlikely to be negatively impacted.

Nothing to do with the Government trying to raid retirement accounts and nothing that is at all "scary" if you're acting in good faith.


----------



## bgc_fan

Agree with gt, this is not all that different than the e-bay rulings regarding business income. Sell the odd thing on e-bay once in awhile and you are good to go. But sell hundreds of items on a monthly basis, you're a business.


----------



## warp

bgc_fan said:


> Agree with gt, this is not all that different than the e-bay rulings regarding business income. Sell the odd thing on e-bay once in awhile and you are good to go. But sell hundreds of items on a monthly basis, you're a business.



What does E-Bay have to do with a TFSA??

TFSA means TAX-FREE......TAX-FREE means TAX-FREE.

What difference does it make what you do inside a TFSA account? You follow the law, put your already taxed money in...then you should be able to take any risks you want, trade as often as you want, do whatever you want. It's YOUR money.

If you lose all the money you have put into the TFSA, can you, at any moment declare it was a "business", and deduct those losses from your other income? I doubt the CRA will ever allow this. Yet they have decided that they can come in at any time, and decide your TFSA is a "business" if you have large gains.
They will NEVER look at a TFSA with losses....and will NEVER tell the taxpayer that he should declare his TFSA losses as a "business".

As always, it's about taking as much as they can from Canadians, and calling it "Revenue Streams".


----------



## gt_23

warp said:


> TFSA means TAX-FREE......TAX-FREE means TAX-FREE.


If you want to take the name of the account as a literal interpretation of how it should be used, then why not look at the second half of the name "SAVINGS ACCOUNT", which you conveniently ignore. If we apply a strict interpretation of "SAVINGS ACCOUNT" as you do with "TAX FREE" then this implies that you shouldn't be trading in this account at all!



warp said:


> If you lose all the money you have put into the TFSA, can you, at any moment declare it was a "business", and deduct those losses from your other income? I doubt the CRA will ever allow this. Yet they have decided that they can come in at any time, and decide your TFSA is a "business" if you have large gains.


You're right they won't allow you to deduct losses, which is why (contrary to popular belief) you shouldn't hold your riskiest investments in registered accounts. By choosing to roll the dice on risky investments in a registered account, you need to accept the risk that they become worthless (and you lose that contribution room) in return for the potential of big tax-free gains, otherwise, you should invest in a non-registered account.

This is no different than other one-sided rules around reg/non-reg. For example, if you transfer securities into a registered account, you pay tax on any book profit, but on a book loss, you can't claim the loss.



warp said:


> As always, it's about taking as much as they can from Canadians, and calling it "Revenue Streams".


I don't disagree with you that Governments of all levels take far too much of taxpayers' money, but I don't agree with you that this particular effort is part of some mischievous plot to take more of it. This is about enforcing the spirit of the TFSA, which is meant for retirement savings and investment, not speculation and in/out trading, and driving a consistent set of behaviors by participants in this regard.

The rules governing TFSAs (and how the CRA enforces them) are pretty clear even if they are not all explicitly laid out. Changing those rules to allow you to "just do what you want in the TFSA" is a political matter...


----------



## bgc_fan

warp said:


> What does E-Bay have to do with a TFSA??


Other than the fact that CRA is deciding that a certain amount of transactions reaches the threshold of a business, then I guess nothing. Which was my point.


----------



## OurBigFatWallet

I think the CRA has taken a path that won't be as easy as they think. Virtually anyone who has a significant TFSA balance (ie. $200k or more) that is subject to audit will likely obtain their own legal advice. A lengthy court battle for every single TFSA holder would quickly diminish any tax recovery through pricey legal fees. Until they come down with more clear guidelines on what is "taxable" within a TFSA I can't see them challenging individual account holders.

Regarding ebay, I've seen a few people who run most of their business transactions through ebay and they pay taxes on their income. The difference here is that businesses are allowed to deduct costs and investment losses. Neither are allowed within a TFSA. With a TFSA, everyone had assumed all income is free of any/all tax.


----------



## My Own Advisor

If CRA starts going after folks with major TFSA gains, they better start allowing taxable losses as well. This is a dangerous slope for them...me thinks!


----------



## Guban

Still unsure about the TFSA vs RRSP. Both are registered accounts, and Woz's answer that I posted in message 7 up thread should still apply. It says it does not matter what we do inside of an RRSP, it won't be considered a business. 

Hope that it is just a few over zeleaous CRA auditors causing lots of us to worry.


----------



## Synergy

Guban said:


> It says it does not matter what we do inside of an RRSP, it won't be considered a business.


According to this article, it appears that you'd be correct



> “the Act treats an individual who trades within his RRSP differently than a taxpayer who is in the business of trading. For this reason, trades within an RRSP are not relevant in deciding whether an individual is in the business of trading.”


http://business.financialpost.com/2...-trading-in-an-rrsp-be-treated-as-a-business/

Edit: Oups, looks like I pulled up the same reference as the old thread.


----------



## Eclectic12

OurBigFatWallet said:


> I think the CRA has taken a path that won't be as easy as they think. Virtually anyone who has a significant TFSA balance (ie. $200k or more) that is subject to audit will likely obtain their own legal advice. A lengthy court battle for every single TFSA holder would quickly diminish any tax recovery through pricey legal fees ...


Question is ... how many are going to fit enough of the criteria and are willing to challenge CRA's ruling?

As for fighting every TFSA holder in tax court ... my understanding is that once the legal precedent is set, it's short work for the following judges as they will evaluate how the current case compares to the existing case law. If the judge finds something new in the legal arguement, the case will go to trial, otherwise whatever exists will be dictated.


Of course, this assumes someone wants to challenge CRA's ruling, where I notice the Quebec investment advisor decided he'd rather not.




OurBigFatWallet said:


> ... Until they come down with more clear guidelines on what is "taxable" within a TFSA I can't see them challenging individual account holders.


It seems clear from what's written about the Quebec investment advisor that CRA rendered their judgement and outlined what they planned to do about it. 

It's up to the tax payer to challenge what CRA has ruled.


Cheers


----------



## Guban

^ This is the key for the present. I suspect that it is just easier for a lot of people to pay CRA rather than fight them in court. That' probably what happened to the Quebec investment advisor. That advisor probably doesn't want the publicity of a public fight with CRA. Bad for business. Then again, being known as the advisor that was able to build up a TFSA to those levels may cause clients to come running to his door!


----------



## warp

gt_23 said:


> If you want to take the name of the account as a literal interpretation of how it should be used, then why not look at the second half of the name "SAVINGS ACCOUNT", which you conveniently ignore. If we apply a strict interpretation of "SAVINGS ACCOUNT" as you do with "TAX FREE" then this implies that you shouldn't be trading in this account at all!
> 
> 
> 
> You're right they won't allow you to deduct losses, which is why (contrary to popular belief) you shouldn't hold your riskiest investments in registered accounts. By choosing to roll the dice on risky investments in a registered account, you need to accept the risk that they become worthless (and you lose that contribution room) in return for the potential of big tax-free gains, otherwise, you should invest in a non-registered account.
> 
> This is no different than other one-sided rules around reg/non-reg. For example, if you transfer securities into a registered account, you pay tax on any book profit, but on a book loss, you can't claim the loss.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with you that Governments of all levels take far too much of taxpayers' money, but I don't agree with you that this particular effort is part of some mischievous plot to take more of it. This is about enforcing the spirit of the TFSA, which is meant for retirement savings and investment, not speculation and in/out trading, and driving a consistent set of behaviors by participants in this regard.
> 
> The rules governing TFSAs (and how the CRA enforces them) are pretty clear even if they are not all explicitly laid out. Changing those rules to allow you to "just do what you want in the TFSA" is a political matter...



Then they should have called it the TFSA-BNRTA......Tax free savings account but no risky trades allowed.

In any case, I am sick and tired of our government us telling what we can or can't do with our own money,
especially after-tax money.

We need to go to a Flat Tax..... Come up with what rate of tax should be applied to each income source...,,earned, interest, dividends, rental, capital gains, etc ...completely simplify the tax code....then leave us ALONE.


----------



## My Own Advisor

warp said:


> We need to go to a Flat Tax..... Come up with what rate of tax should be applied to each income source...,,earned, interest, dividends, rental, capital gains, etc ...completely simplify the tax code....then leave us ALONE.


That would put too many bureaucrats out of work though. Agreed with your comment warp, it will never happen.


----------

