3 ms·

The headline is clickbait. The tenant wasn't paying the taxes, just withholding them and paying them to government instead. Exactly the same as an employer.

cranky908canuck 3y ago
Ok, so I got downvoted on this one. Fair enough. I would concede that it's probably not that reasonable for a consumer (mostly) to handle this sort of thing. I reckon there there is some combination of: - surprise factor for the tenant. - a general intent to discourage offshore property ownership. Agreed, this would work a lot better in a rental market with a reasonable vacancy rate (not sub-one-percent), as then many tenants would simply say 'not my bag, g'bye'. - tackling non-arms-length transactions (eg., renting from family to facilitate money transfer). Now then... I will still observe that (at least legally) there's an established obligation for purchasers to pay tax on things they buy. Everyday example: 'Sales Tax' is mostly implemented as 'sales and use tax', where technically the purchaser is liable for the tax; sales tax paid offsets the use tax owing. Generally the vendor collects and remits (ie., does not 'charge') the tax amount, and the purchaser is then relieved of the tax liability. Vendors are required to collect and remit the sales tax, so for intrajurisdiction transactions the purchasers are off the hook. (Vendors are easier to audit!). Mail-order is an issue, but historically it's far enough in the noise that nobody bothers to check this. This is pretty much across the board: the US implements it this way, so it's not a canuckistan thing. Counterexample is for interprovincial/interstate vehicle purchases: the amount is big enough to be worth going after, and the paperwork ensures that it gets someone's attention. This example comes up in the press from time to time, but not in an 'omig-d, really???' framing, more in a 'be an informed consumer' one.

cranky908canuck 3y ago

Ok, so I got downvoted on this one. Fair enough. I would concede that it's probably not that reasonable for a consumer (mostly) to handle this sort of thing. I reckon there there is some combination of: - surprise factor for the tenant. - a general intent to discourage offshore property ownership. Agreed, this would work a lot better in a rental market with a reasonable vacancy rate (not sub-one-percent), as then many tenants would simply say 'not my bag, g'bye'. - tackling non-arms-length transactions (eg., renting from family to facilitate money transfer). Now then... I will still observe that (at least legally) there's an established obligation for purchasers to pay tax on things they buy. Everyday example: 'Sales Tax' is mostly implemented as 'sales and use tax', where technically the purchaser is liable for the tax; sales tax paid offsets the use tax owing. Generally the vendor collects and remits (ie., does not 'charge') the tax amount, and the purchaser is then relieved of the tax liability. Vendors are required to collect and remit the sales tax, so for intrajurisdiction transactions the purchasers are off the hook. (Vendors are easier to audit!). Mail-order is an issue, but historically it's far enough in the noise that nobody bothers to check this. This is pretty much across the board: the US implements it this way, so it's not a canuckistan thing. Counterexample is for interprovincial/interstate vehicle purchases: the amount is big enough to be worth going after, and the paperwork ensures that it gets someone's attention. This example comes up in the press from time to time, but not in an 'omig-d, really???' framing, more in a 'be an informed consumer' one.