# Father in law gifting his primary residence to us. How to minimize taxes?



## throwaway2 (Nov 9, 2018)

Background:

My wife and I live in a condo in Toronto as our primary residence, with no mortgage. 
My father in law lives in a paid-off home in Markham as his primary residence, and wants to gift his house to us (worth $2M, for example). 
My mother in law passed away, leaving her 50% share of the house split evenly between my wife and my brother in law. 
While my father in law has 100% of the house legally on paper, the family consensus is the house ownership is 50% father in law, 25% my wife's, and 25% brother in law.
We plan to take out low interest/interest-free loans to repay my brother in law's share ($500K) and my father in law's share ($1M) over time.
After we take possession, we'd like to tear down the home and rebuild it. Once it's ready, we would keep the condo as a rental property and make the house the primary residence.


Here's our plan:

My father in law gifts the house to us, and so he disposes of the house at fair market value (FMV). Since the house is his principle residence, the house qualifies for the PRE, so no capital gains for him. 
We acquire the house at FMV (say $2M).
We would define a private agreement to determine the repayment intervals back to my brother and father in law.
When the house is rebuilt, we would file a "change of use" from the condo as primary residence to the house as primary residence. We'd claim PRE on the condo/house accordingly when either are sold.


Assuming everyone is good with the plan, any there any other concerns to implementing this, or are we good to go to work this with our lawyers?
When should we do the teardown/rebuild of the house...while my father in law has the home, or after it is gifted? Does it matter?
Can we factor the renovation costs into the adjusted cost base (ACB) of our house, so that ACB = FMV + renovation costs?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

A few things are confusing:
How are wife and BIL entitled to deceased MIL's 50% share of house - was this specified in her will? And FIL shows as the 100% owner on title? 
You say FIL wants to gift his 50% to wife and you. But then you say you want to pay him back. Why would you be paying him back if he has gifted it to you?
Where is FIL going to move to?
Not sure why the acb of your (new) principal residence matters. While reported, it is not taxable if/when sold. 

Added: As to minimizing taxes. Yes, neither FIL or yourselves would face capital gains on the sale (or change of use of you condo) of your principal residence.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I suppose you could gift the money back to them...but there may be limits on gifts.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Danger Danger Danger!. Family dispute in the making.

If Dad owns the house or he received by JTWROS, Mum had nothing to bequeath. Is Dad part of the "family consensus!" (Something tells me he might be a step Dad?) Does Dad want to gift his notional 50% to sister and BIL. Why are you saying gift and then talking about low/no interest loans and repayment. How is FIL and BIL's interest secured, personal agreements are pretty much useless. Sister and you get the house and BIL and FIL get a piece of paper.

If Dad actually agrees that sister and BIL should receive 25% each then he should sell the house and give them each 25% and if he also wants to gift his 50% to his daughter and son then he should give them a further 25% each or an equal $ amount if he needs to keep some $ for himself, OR if Dad effectively wants to gift the house to the 2 kids and if sister wants to keep the house to develop she should pay out the brother 50% of FMV now. by getting a mortgage on the condo and or the house.


If this was always Dad and Mum's PR then yes Dad has no CG and he could give the kids each 50% of the house proceeds without tax consequences.


----------



## throwaway2 (Nov 9, 2018)

There are no limits on gifts.

While I can appreciate the family dispute warnings, let's proceed with the assumption that all members in the family are on the same page. 
Not sure what you mean about the sister? There is no sister.
FIL wants to keep the house "in the family". This was always Dad and Mom's PR. 

The house is a gift from father in law to avoid eventual probate for tax reasons.
We can structure a separate gift back to brother in law and father in law to keep them whole. Yes, it is based on a private arrangement and our word, but if it's really needed we can structure up a trust like in the last paragraph of the link above.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

throwaway2 said:


> There are no limits on gifts.
> 
> While I can appreciate the family dispute warnings, let's proceed with the assumption that all members in the family are on the same page.
> Not sure what you mean about the sister? There is no sister.
> ...




Sister = your wife. (contextually I should have said that)

Upon fathers death there would still be no CG tax on the home, just probate fees. Not sure what province you're in but in BC probate is 1.4% so 28K on 2M. A pretty small amount imo. I haven't read the link but it's my understanding that trust's are not cheap to maintain.

BIL and FIL need to get independent legal advice. 

Sorry but I've known too many of these types of things to start with the best of intentions only to end tearing families apart.


----------



## throwaway2 (Nov 9, 2018)

Province is Ontario as mentioned. We would like avoid paying $28,000 extra in probate if we can avoid it via proper planning.

My question is more about how we account for our ACB upon gifting.

For example, if the FMV land is $1.5M, and the teardown house is worth $500K today. In 2019, the FIL gifts the house to us at $2M FMV. 
We spend $800K rebuilding the house, and the new FMV is $3M when we move in 2020 and make primary residence. 
Is our ACB $2.8M ($2M FMV in 2019+$800K in reno costs)? And so when it comes time to sell the house, we pay partial capital gains on the one year that we didn't move in (2019)?


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

Not sure why he has to gift you the house. He can sell it to you for the full value. He can then gift the son his share and gift the daughter back her share. He can hold a VTB motgage if he likes for his share. Not sure where you are going to arrange an interest free loan?
In regards to probate, won't FIL then have to buy a house to live in? Which would be subject to probate?
Even he rents, he would have cash or the VTB which would be subject to probate.

In regards to capital gains. Assuming you have the funds in place, via cash or loans to rebuild the house as well as payoff FIL and BIL, you could have the FIL move out to a rental, teardown the house and rebuild, then transfer ownership of the new house which would avoid complications with capital gains on the build. ( the house remains the FIL prin res in this case during the rebuild). 

We are obviously getting only part of the picture here and it is very hard to give advice without complete details.
Keeping the house in the family doesn't make sense to me if it is being torn down and rebuilt. I assume the FIL wants the property in the family but doesnt care about the house?

What happens if someone loses a job during the process. What happens if the BIL dies and his estate wants the cash. I can think of a million ways for this to go wrong. A trust will not solve anything and will end up over time costing close to what probate would cost.

Keep it simple. Buy the house from the FIL. 2,000,000. 
Give a down payment of 500,000 which would go to the BIL for his hypothetical share. You can arrange a bank mortgage or the FIL can hold back a VTB mtg of 1,000,000. The remaining equity of 500,000 is the daughters( your wifes) hypothetical share.
You can then do what you want with the property. You have some time for the two properties to overlap and still claim PRE.

On the FIL death, he can structure his will that 1/2 of the VTB is forgiven and the balance goes to the BIL which means the BIL would then hold the mortgage.
Unless the FIL has other assets to balance things out of course which I suspect may be the case.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

The situation and proposed plan, as described, has so many holes in it and possible pitfalls I will not comment further. Except to suggest tax and legal advice.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

^+1 twa2w's comments - keep it simple.
You should understand the 'plus 1' rule (that allows a taxpayer to treat both properties as eligible for the principal residence exemption for a year where one residence is sold and another is purchased in the same year) and work within its timelines. Once it is your principal residence, it's eventual sale is tax free (under current rules) so trying to account for rebuild costs is not necessary.
Refer to:
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...eal-estate/sale-your-principal-residence.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publications/forms/t2091ind.html


----------



## throwaway2 (Nov 9, 2018)

twa2w said:


> Not sure why he has to gift you the house. He can sell it to you for the full value. He can then gift the son his share and gift the daughter back her share. He can hold a VTB motgage if he likes for his share. Not sure where you are going to arrange an interest free loan?
> In regards to probate, won't FIL then have to buy a house to live in? Which would be subject to probate?
> Even he rents, he would have cash or the VTB which would be subject to probate.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the suggestion and we will consider this. 
Questions: If the FIL holds back a VTB mtg of $1M, rates can be set at any rate, including 0%? Does probate apply for the unpaid share assuming VTG mtg is not all paid back before FIL death? 

When you say "properties overlapping" to claim PRE, we are not selling the condo, so we can only claim PRE for one property in any given year, correct?



OnlyMyOpinion said:


> ^+1 twa2w's comments - keep it simple.
> You should understand the 'plus 1' rule (that allows a taxpayer to treat both properties as eligible for the principal residence exemption for a year where one residence is sold and another is purchased in the same year) and work within its timelines. Once it is your principal residence, it's eventual sale is tax free (under current rules) so trying to account for rebuild costs is not necessary.
> Refer to:


Yes however this would not apply since we are not selling the condo, only purchasing the house. Am I understanding correctly?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

You are deemed to have disposed of your condo and can make that election.
https://business.financialpost.com/...rsa-heres-what-ottawas-new-rules-mean-for-you
https://www.ggfl.ca/change-use-rules-principal-residence-rental-properties/
etc...


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

' If the FIL holds back a VTB mtg of $1M, rates can be set at any rate, including 0%? Does probate apply for the unpaid share assuming VTG mtg is not all paid back before FIL death? '

My understanding, in Ontario, that the interest rate must be set at some rate above zero. Your lawyer can advise on this. Some people say it has to be set at the CRA rate but I am not sure that is correct.

Technically probate is required for all assets not under joint with survivorship rules or beneficiary designation so even an unregistered private loan.

In your case, if the VTB was 1,000,000 and there were no other assets to offset this. Then on death, assuming brother and dister are equal beneficiaries and there is a clause in the Will, you wife would get 1/2 the VTB forgiven, and the brother would be owed the remaining amount. This is an asset of the estate. So technically it should attractnprobate on at leastbthe brothers half. Since it is private, you could arrange to pay the BIL from other sources. Have the estate declare it paid and have the executors do a discharge and remove from title. Not sure I would want to push my luck on this though.

Now if the Father has lots of assets, the estate could forgive the 1,000,000 mortgage( or whats left of it). The brother then would get an equivelant amount from other assets. In this case probate would still be required due to amounts but likely the mortgage could be left out depending how worded.

As far as the property goes, the father could add your wife to the property. The proprty could be torn down and rebuilt. The father still gets the PRE. then the house is transferred to you and your wife and at that time it becomes your PRE and your condo becomes a rental.( assumes your FIL does not buy another property). This would be messy if he dies during the process.

As mentioned previously, you do have some time overlap when changing PR. Sometimes you buy a house and can't sell your old one right away, or you are building a new one and it is not ready on time. Even if you decide to keep the condo, you still get this leeway. Change of use counts same as sale AFAIK.

Again I think you are better to arrange financing separate from family and keep things clean. Too much other s**t can happen that is not planned for. Trying to juggle things to avoid a little probate can and often does cause more grief in the long run. Remember whether your FIL owns the house or the cash from it, it is technically probateable. 
He could just add your wife and BIL to title as joint tenants. As long as he lives in it, it is his PR and fully qualifies for the PRE. It does not ( unless the recent rules changed that) does not affect your wifes PRE on the condo until your FIL dies and of course loses the PRE.
This would mean the property transfers at death outside of probate ( which may be required forbother assets). It doesn't get you into a new home now and your wife would have to buy out the brother in the future.( or vice versa or sell then)
Of vourse lots can go wrong with this scenario.

Some of your choices of course may hinge on the health of the FIL.

Of vourse I am just throwing ideas out as I have no idea of the financial, marital situations involved for the three parties.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

I knew a guy that bought his son & his sons wife a house, After about a month of marriage his son broke up with the wife & had to split the value of the house 50/50


The guy was not super rich & probably threw away about 10 years of savings that ended up going to the sons wife. He would have been better off to have held onto the tittle & let his son & wife live in it for free just pay the taxes & utilities


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

IF as you say, the father LEGALLY owns 100%, then 'family consensus' is meaningless. The father is free to do as he pleases with 100% at any time. He may CHOOSE to take the wishes of the son and daughter into account if he so wishes as well as the wishes of his late wife even though they are not legally binding on him in any way. If we presume as your OP suggests, the father wishes to sell/gift now and move elsewhere, then all he has to do is consult a lawyer and tax consultant as to HIS best way to do so given his own goals and whatever account of his children's wishes he chooses to try to accommodate. 

IF we presume that your description of everyone's wishes including the father's are correct, then it should not be that difficult for the father to consult a lawyer and tax consultant as to how to structure the sale/gifting of the property to your wife. Your wife and her brother should make clear their preferences if he has asked them for their input and then leave it to him to deal with as HE wishes and then INFORM them of what he is going to do.

That would be the advise I would give to my FIL if ASKED. Otherwise, it would be none of my business.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> That would be the advise I would give to my FIL if ASKED. Otherwise, it would be none of my business.


Right that is the only way forward for thoughtful unbiased people.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I’d also be cautious of the “there’s no limit on gifts” idea. The government may not agree. There are the cases of the TFSA accounts where people made millions only to find the government changed the rules and made the account taxable because they made to much money with them. 

I wouldn’t want to “gift” a couple million dollars back and forth and then face an audit.


----------



## Koogie (Dec 15, 2014)

^^^ +1 

There is a fine line between avoidance and evasion and sadly in dealings with the CRA, the onus of proof is on the taxpayer. Sometimes ambiguous language in the legislation is not a help either. To the chagrin of large TFSA holders, as noted above.


----------



## throwaway2 (Nov 9, 2018)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> You are deemed to have disposed of your condo and can make that election.
> etc...


Thanks for the perspective. To summarize, I think there are 3 options to consider that impact the family:










If we do nothing, the family will pay $30K probate on the $2M house upon the death of FIL.
If we sell and buy the house, the family pays $72K in LTT.
If we gift the house, then the family pays neither probate or LTT.

In all instances the capital gains are exempt due to FIL having PRE, or me/wife having PRE. Rebuild of the house should qualify HST rebate. Does that sound about right? If so, we'll work the arrangements with the accountant and tax lawyer.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

FYI: OP asked the same question on Financial Wisdom Forum, but greatly simplified the scenario. Did not mention earlier partial "inheritance" upon the death of the mother. Apparently she had no will, and it was merely a verbal understanding.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

lonewolf :) said:


> I knew a guy that bought his son & his sons wife a house, After about a month of marriage his son broke up with the wife & had to split the value of the house 50/50
> 
> 
> The guy was not super rich & probably threw away about 10 years of savings that ended up going to the sons wife. He would have been better off to have held onto the tittle & let his son & wife live in it for free just pay the taxes & utilities


In what province and when did that occur?

In BC, after a marriage of only a one-month duration that would be an unusual result at any time in BC family law history, even assuming that there was indeed a gift of the house to both the son and his wife and not just the son alone.

See, for eg., the case below where the wife's father paid for a farm. The marriage lasted 3 years - a lot longer than a month. They also had a kid together. The court said the wife's interest in the farm should be set at 65%. In the case of a 1-month marriage, no kids, I would expect to see a reapportionment of 90/10 or 95/10. Certainly not 50/50.

MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY — Contribution of third parties • Duration of marriage — Parties obtaining monies from wife's father to purchase farm — Court finding advance was a gift, not a loan — Short duration of marriage, father's gift and other factors causing court to reapportion farm sale proceeds 65/35 in wife's favour. • MAINTENANCE — Lump sum — Court finding husband unlikely to accord spousal support obligation a high priority — Lump sum of $50,000 awarded. • CHILDREN — Maintenance — Liability — Parties separating after short marriage — Wife found to have no support obligation towards husband's son of prior relationship.

The parties were married in 1994 and separated in 1997. They had one child, born in 1997. During the marriage the parties purchased a farm and equipment for $538,000. The plaintiff wife's father put up $238,000 and the balance was raised by way of a mortgage. The father paid off the mortgage in 1996. The main issue at trial was whether his contribution to the acquisition of the farm, the main asset, was by way of loan or gift and whether there should be any reapportionment of the proceeds of $523,000 from the sale of the farm. The court was also asked to decide whether the defendant husband was entitled to child support for his son by a previous relationship. The son was age 13 at the trial date. Finally, the court was asked to deal with the wife's claim for child and spousal support. Held, in part for both parties. The evidence did not support the claim of the wife and her father that all monies he advanced for the farm purchase were by way of loan rather than gift. Rather, the evidence, including the fact that there was no realistic basis on which the parties could have repaid the father, supported the view that the monies were a gift. The case did not turn on the presumption of advancement, nor were trust principles applicable. However, taking into account the magnitude of the economic benefit, the source and reason for the benefit, the short duration of the marriage and the wife's need to become economically independent, the wife was entitled to a 65/35 reapportionment in her favour. The evidence at trial was that the husband had a pattern of seasonal employment, earning about $25,000 per year, while the wife had returned to university. The wife was entitled to spousal support. There was reason to believe the husband would not give his support obligation high priority and, accordingly, support would be by way of a lump sum award. Quantum would be fixed at $50,000. The husband would be required to continue paying the $300 per month in child support he had been paying on a voluntary basis. As for the husband's son, the wife had no support obligation. The marriage was a short one and the wife never formed a good relationship with the child, which was a principal cause of the marriage breakdown. It could not be said that she stood in the place of a parent to him at the material time.

Henderson v. Henderson S.C., Preston J., Penticton 14275, 15074, December 07, 1999 , 28pp.

https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/99/19/s99-1968.html


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

throwaway2 said:


> Thanks for the perspective. To summarize, I think there are 3 options to consider that impact the family:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How are you getting 72,000 in land transfer? Should be less than 40,000 if my back of envelope calculation is correct.
Just don't get caught transferring as a gift and the government finding there actually was consideration. Fraud is not something you want to play with.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

throwaway2 said:


> Thanks for the perspective. To summarize, I think there are 3 options to consider that impact the family:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I find it amusing how the 'impact the family' has now surfaced and the 'impact ME and my wife" has receded from view. How does any of the numbers you are using impact the OWNER of the property, that is your wife's father? He won't pay $30k or $72k regardless of what he decides to do with the house. Let's tell it like it is, this is not about 'the family' this is about YOU and your wife.

How does 'we' SELL the house? There is no 'we' who own it, only one person does. The same applies to 'we' gifting the house, there is no 'we' who can gift it.

Some posters are happy to go along with discussing the ins and outs of costs in detail, simply because they like to show how much they know (or think they know) about the details. They are quite willing to ignore as you are, the other aspects of what this is about. YOU are talking about deciding what your FIL should do with his property, when in fact it's his decision to make, not yours.

I will say again, if ASKED give your input and then BACK OFF and let him make his own decisions. Or do you want to suggest that he is too senile to do so?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I’m surprised with the fact that someone with a multi-million dollar property, and assumingly other assets worth more (considering they are going to tear down and rebuild, have no current mortgage, are going to gift back, etc.) are worried about 25k or 70k. 

If they are worried about that, I can imagine how the family will start fighting when the time comes to actually do the division of assets...


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Certainly worth pointing out - it may indeed be that the OP is looking after their own interests at the expense of the FIL. But it is difficult to be sure based on limited postings. It could equally be that this is what the FIL wants to do but that is not coming across in this thread. 

My concern is more around the focus on gifting then repaying?, trying to avoid probate and land transfer taxes, etc. As pointed out by JAG and Koogie, the OP stands to be in deep trouble if the intent is to buy the FIL's house but make it appear like it was gifted.

Probate goes away as soon as the property is transferred whether sold or gifted. 
LTT is not payable if truly gifted, but if the intent is to only 'appear' to gift it, then OP should expect to get caught. LTT on a $2MM SFR is $36.475k. 

If they are too cheap to pay that, to the point of committing fraud, then they are truly stupid. I am not making that accusation though, I am giving OP the benefit of the doubt. After all, there is nothing wrong with structuring the plan as tax efficiently as possible - just don't cross the line into fraud. Since they intend to retain lawyer(s) to structure this, I assume everything will be done 'above board'. Certainly the FIL should have their own counsel to protect their interests.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

LOL, I have to laugh at the comment you have made about, "Since they intend to retain lawyer(s) to structure this, I assume everything will be done 'above board'."

You are kidding right OMO.

I am quite willing to give the OP the benefit of the doubt and presume there is no ill intent here at all but that doesn't mean the OP isn't considering their own needs first and not giving enough attention to the FIL and what is best as in easiest for him. 

Let me clarify a bit. I as someone who is 70+ and own, along with my wife, our home. We have 2 sons. If my wife and I decided tomorrow that we wanted to sell up and move for some reason, then we would do so. If one of my sons made it clear after I told them that we were planning to sell, that he was interested in buying the property, I would have no objection. If however he started telling me about how he wanted to structure that so that they paid the least tax etc. AND included provision for his brother's presumed 50% inheritance share of the property after our deaths, I would be saying, 'whoa up there boy.'

I can retain a real estate agent and sell my home with very little hassle and very little cost to me. A typical real estate sale in other words. Asking me to take into consideration tax implications for my son and inheritance implications for my other son, all in the sale of my home, is no longer a simple and relatively hassle free thing to do. Now you are causing me grief and that ain't gonna happen bubba.

I guess for me, the question would be, WHO came up with this idea to begin with. If it were MY idea, then fine. If on the other hand I just said we were going to sell and move and THEN my son (or daughter in this case) came up with the idea, then I might seem to be going along because I didn't want to not please my child but the fact is it would not be fine at all, it would be a hassle I really don't need. And please don't ask me if it would be fine if it were a son-in-law or daughter-in-law who came up with the idea.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> LOL, I have to laugh at the comment you have made about, "Since they intend to retain lawyer(s) to structure this, I assume everything will be done 'above board'." You are kidding right OMO.


Actually, no. Should I have assumed that the 'crooked lawyer' stereotype applies? 
Perhaps I should presume that you, with your 'principled' US boycott, are the only honest person around? 

On the rest, no need to convince me, I have no doubt that it is you who would come first, before children or family.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

^ "like button" punched a few times.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> On the rest, no need to convince me, I have no doubt that it is you who would come first, before children or family.


While what you say is true, I think it is too harsh a conclusion on the post referred to. He is stating a normal position IMHO to counter the spin by the originator.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

kcowan said:


> While what you say is true, I think it is too harsh a conclusion on the post referred to. He is stating a normal position IMHO to counter the spin by the originator.


Why thank you kcowan for your support. Yes, I think it is a normal position as you state. I love my sons as much as anyone else loves their children and if push came to shove, I would do anything for them. But it would need to be a real 'push', not just a selfish preference on their part. 'Do this to save me some tax costs', is not the same as 'I'm about to lose my home, my wife and my children, will you sell up, downsize and give me my inheritance now to bail me out of this deep, deep hole.'

I think that it is a catch-22 kind of thing. Should the children consider the parent before themselves or should the parents consider the children before themselves. The answer is of course that both should consider the other first. The question is, is that happening in this case or is it only the parent considering the children first and the children being happy to have that happen as it is to their advantage.

I'm just not happy with the apparent willingness of the son-in-law to put their wishes first and I see no responses here by the son-in-law that are denying that is the case. As they say sometimes, 'silence speaks volumes'.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Actually, no. Should I have assumed that the 'crooked lawyer' stereotype applies?
> Perhaps I should presume that you, with your 'principled' US boycott, are the only honest person around?
> 
> On the rest, no need to convince me, I have no doubt that it is you who would come first, before children or family.


A lawyer does not need to be 'crooked' to be willing to advise a crook. How else would a criminal be able to get a lawyer to work for them? A lawyer does not need to be complicit in order to advise you on what is legally tax avoidance vs. tax evasion. When it comes to taxes and getting advice from a lawyer on whether a plan to avoid tax will work or not, there is also no question of what the purpose is. 'Above Board' in that case simply means 'what can I get away with without actually breaking the law?' Or in other words, 'will this loophole work?' Do you really think any moral concerns are discussed? The whole point is to get out of paying taxes using any means you 'legally' can, end of story.

I'm sure Mukhang pera would be happy to provide you with a lengthy discourse on the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion and how morality has nothing to do with legality.


----------

