# Capital gains and very old ACB



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Someone in my family is retiring and starting to move & liquidate amounts. They've had some money in RBC Mutual Funds (non registered) for a very long time... I think over 20 years.

They are aware that this will trigger capital gains and they thought that RBC would help them find records on the ACB. After all, they've been steadily accumulating units all these years and they paid all these fees to the professionals at RBC to help them manage their money. But when they asked RBC, their old rep said he could not find a T5008.

How would a retiree selling MFs for the first time in 20+ years find the ACBs for reporting cap gains? Maybe someone here has gone through this with RBC before.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

James, I'm sure you've already considered these but, 
i. If always bought and held in the original acc, the brokerage BV may have to suffice, 
ii. If they by chance have kept all of their statements they can go through and calc by hand.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> James, I'm sure you've already considered these but,
> i. If always bought and held in the original acc, the brokerage BV may have to suffice,
> ii. If they by chance have kept all of their statements they can go through and calc by hand.


I agree that if #1 is the case, the carried Book Value will suffice. The BV would have been adjusted for all the re-invested distributions. 

That said, I am surprised the RBC rep wasn't more cooperative, although it depends who you ask. It is not the rep who is the interface with the customer. it is the asset manager that has to be asked, e.g. RBC Global Asset Management itself. When I had to clean up the mutual fund mess my father left behind, I went straight to AGF Management for the answers.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

If that guy had of found a T5008, they would have used whatever BV they had on file, so as the others said, I would go with the book value.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Tell the person to check their Statements. If these are retail mutual funds bought from RBC they should have a "Unit Book Cost" and a "Book Cost" listed there. RBC will not certify that this is your ACB, because they cannot know if you had transaction fees or costs that they are not aware of, that would affect ACB. But if these are retail, no-fee funds, the Book Cost will be the same as the ACB - I have tracked the ACB for a few RBC funds for years, and they alway match.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Very interesting, thanks for all the responses.

I don't have any of these RBC statements myself but I will tell the person to look at their statements closely and find those book values.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Tell them to include an estimate of the selling commision to reduce the BV.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

kcowan said:


> Tell them to include an estimate of the selling commision to reduce the BV.


There are no costs to buy or sell RBC type mutual funds, and even if there was, a selling cost is treated as transaction cost on Schedule 3 (off net proceeds), not a BV reduction.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Yes I should have said effectively reduce rather than actually reduce. How does RBC make money selling their own funds? Do they get a kickback from the MER?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

kcowan said:


> Yes I should have said effectively reduce rather than actually reduce. How does RBC make money selling their own funds? Do they get a kickback from the MER?


The mutual funds pay RBC a trailer but from within the fund. It has nothing to do with what one's ACB calculation is, or how it is calculated. I believe even the D series, purchasable from within the RBC organization, but not external to RBC, have a trailer fee. That still has nothing to do with ACB calculations.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Yes that always seemed to be a drag on performance. My broker would charge $30 which I would deduct as a cost, but the MF always had it imbedded so I could not claim it as an expense.


----------

