quote:

11. Some of the factors to be considered in ascertaining whether the taxpayer's course of conduct indicates the carrying on of a business are as follows:

(a) frequency of transactions - a history of extensive buying and selling of securities or of a quick turnover of properties,

(b) period of ownership - securities are usually owned only for a short period of time,

(c) knowledge of securities markets - the taxpayer has some knowledge of or experience in the securities markets,

(d) security transactions form a part of a taxpayer's ordinary business,

(e) time spent - a substantial part of the taxpayer's time is spent studying the securities markets and investigating potential purchases,

(f) financing - security purchases are financed primarily on margin or by some other form of debt,

(g) advertising - the taxpayer has advertised or otherwise made it known that he is willing to purchase securities, and

(h) in the case of shares, their nature - normally speculative in nature or of a non-dividend type.

12. Although none of the individual factors in 11 above may be sufficient to characterize the activities of a taxpayer as a business, the combination of a number of those factors may well be sufficient for that purpose. Further, subsection 248(1) defines the term "business" to include "an adventure or concern in the nature of trade" and the courts have held that "an adventure or concern in the nature of trade" can include an isolated transaction in shares where the "course of conduct" and "intention" clearly indicate it to be such.

13. A taxpayer's intention to sell at a gain is not sufficient, by itself, to establish that the taxpayer was involved in an adventure or concern in the nature of trade. That intention is almost invariably present even when a true investment has been acquired if circumstances should arise that would make it financially more beneficial to sell the investment than to continue to hold it. Where, however, one or other of the above tests clearly suggests an adventure or concern in the nature of trade and, in addition, it can be established or inferred that the taxpayer's intention was to sell the property at the first suitable opportunity, intention will be viewed as corroborative evidence. On the other hand, inability to establish an intention to sell does not preclude a transaction from being regarded as an adventure or concern in the nature of trade if it can otherwise be so regarded pursuant to one or more of the above tests.

quote:

Futures contracts and other derivative instruments in respect of which the holder's risk of loss may exceed the holder's cost are not qualified investments. The fact that a broker may be willing to put in place an arrangement to close out a futures contract so as to minimize the possibility of the registered plan going into a loss position does not overcome this restriction.

AegisP posted:

Technomancer posted:

I have a question for you. I have approximately $200,000 dollars in an RRSP mutual fund with an ER of around 2.25%, which is about $4500 a year. Now I'm looking at moving this to a RRSP ETF like VGRO or VBAL, with much lower ER (I think it's around 0.22%). Is there any reason not to do it? I checked on Investopedia, and nothing appropriate came up (meaning, I did find an article listing five different things mutual funds are better at than ETFs, but none apply to me).

Technomancer posted:

I have a question for you. I have approximately $200,000 dollars in an RRSP mutual fund with an ER of around 2.25%, which is about $4500 a year. Now I'm looking at moving this to a RRSP ETF like VGRO or VBAL, with much lower ER (I think it's around 0.22%). Is there any reason not to do it? I checked on Investopedia, and nothing appropriate came up (meaning, I did find an article listing five different things mutual funds are better at than ETFs, but none apply to me).

AegisP posted:

So then it comes down to whether or not you would running afoul of 146.2(6) of the ITA, which is the carrying on a business exception (and holding non-qualifying investments). Which, as mentioned, is vague, likely due to the fact-specific nature of the determination (on an individual by individual basis). Closest reference is probably IT-479R - Transactions in Securities, as starting at section 9 it discusses whether to treat securities income as on account of income or capital, and what factors would be looked at to determine if a taxpayer is carrying on a business:

Subjunctive posted:

It makes sense that non-dividend stocks are considered more speculative, but surely it’s a small minority of investors who are primarily investing in order to earn dividends rather than looking for capital appreciation. I guess it’s the totality of the circumstances, like how just being knowledgeable about securities isn’t an automatic flag, but it was a little weird to read.

Similarly, it would be sort of funny to read a tax court judgment that hinged on “this looked a lot like trading for income, but he turns out to be really ignorant, so we’ll let it go”.

pokeyman posted:

My understanding is there’s no long term benefit to chasing dividends aside from possibly lower taxes. But the possible downsides aren’t unique to dividends (e.g. you can have a too-concentrated portfolio either way) so whatever works!

Subjunctive posted:

Dividend-earning shares also let you write off the interest if you’re leveraged to buy them, whereas without dividends they are “speculative” and not eligible for the tax deduction which honestly has never made sense to me beyond “rich people make the laws”.

Killingyouguy! posted:

My credit union is pretty gung ho about GICs. What I don't understand is, I can't seem to find a portfolio for them. What is this investment in? Where does the growth come from? And if the market crashes, how do they guarantee the return?

Ps years ago I asked this thread about how to switch off my childhood bank and the responses I got were very helpful, I'm much happier with my new credit union, thank you!!

Killingyouguy! posted:

My credit union is pretty gung ho about GICs. What I don't understand is, I can't seem to find a portfolio for them. What is this investment in? Where does the growth come from? And if the market crashes, how do they guarantee the return?

Ps years ago I asked this thread about how to switch off my childhood bank and the responses I got were very helpful, I'm much happier with my new credit union, thank you!!

Subjunctive posted:

RBC just emailed me about a 4.05% savings account.

Subjunctive posted:

RBC just emailed me about a 4.05% savings account.

Subjunctive posted:

RBC just emailed me about a 4.05% savings account.

qhat posted:

Guarantee you that’s a bonus rate and it drops to like 1.5% after a few months.

Toalpaz posted:

there's so many multi-year 5.5% GIC's out there rn.

slidebite posted:

Yeah, Mrs. and I were talking about that. Think were going to ladder (depending on return/time) various GICs for our "savings" out of our investment account. Time to do some GIC comparisons I guess. RBCDI has a decent tool for that IIRC.

Rukus posted:

There's also Horizons High Interest Savings ETF, which can be traded without needing any advisor, and beats having to constantly chase promotional rates. Though I've heard that some banks (TD is supposedly one) won't let you buy it , as they'd rather you buy their own similar product (with much higher fees).