CDIC Insurance Coverage | Page 2 | General financial discussion | Discussion forum

I think this is an area which is ripe for legal reform.

It's ludicrous that a court should be asked to divine the intentions of the deceased when it could have been made clear in the law. It's also ludicrous that people should be able to set up arrangements that they don't really intend to be held to simply in order to create a tax dodge or get more insurance from CDIC. It is ludicrous to say to someone, in effect, "Here you go. here are the keys to all my cash (and non-reg'd investments?); you can do whatever you want with them including taking them all for yourself right up until the moment I die, at which point your permit expires.
The current situation is full of contradictions and just makes more employment for lawyers.

If you don't intend the other party to have control now and ownership later, then you shouldn't put them on the title or the account. In my view, it really is that simple, and the law should conform to this principle. But such changes will likely never happen because the people we have running the country probably find the current arrangement useful. Some want more CDIC insurance, some want to avoid probate, etc.

For the record, the only joint ownership i have is with my spouse. I don't want it with my mother, even though it would likely save me probate tax.

Here's a tip that may be useful to some. You can register the ownership of a car in the names of both partners, even if one doesn't have a driver's licence - at least in Ontario. This makes it a lot easier when one dies or becomes disabled. The last time we bought a car, at a dealership, from a very experienced salesperson, he didn't know this was possible, so I concluded that most people don't know they can do this. Some may choose not to, e.g. rocky marriages etc.

The presumption of resulting trust works well to protect the estate against self-serving joint account holders.

Ontario case Tiedemann v. Tiedemann, mentioned by law firm Hull & Hull in Joint Accounts: When a Sibling is the Surviving Account Holder, illustrates that.

MG, perhaps your situation met the requirements to be excluded from probate (i.e. you were not added to the account to assist your mother administer her affairs but instead to be gifted her money while she was alive) as outlined in the RBC Wealth link Norman1 cites in post #10:

"Where the joint tenancy is between a parent and adult children, upon the death of the parent, the account may be considered to form part of the deceased parent’s estate. The adult children are required to demonstrate that the parent intended to gift the account and its assets to them, as opposed to having added the children to the account for the purpose of ease of account administration. Where the adult children so demonstrate, the
account will generally pass to them as surviving joint tenants. Otherwise the account forms part of the deceased parent’s estate and may be subject to probate."

Bill said
Sometimes a parent (not me!) might co-sign a child's mortgage, I think that puts the parent on title too. Sometimes a parent will guarantee a child's mortgage, I think that doesn't put the parent on title. I presume there are advantages and disadvantages to either situation, I don't mind that people have choices on how they arrange things.

Adding a child as joint holder of a parent's bank account does not avoid probate fees when the parent dies.  

Perhaps you are right about the mortgage, but I don't know that. Seems to me that financing is separate from purchasing and ownership. However, a specific loan agreement might include something to protect the lender.

As Norman's experience indicates, probate tax is avoided by joint accounts. That's why people have them in many cases - for a tax dodge. Ontario specifically excludes "assets where there is joint ownership that automatically become assets of the other owner(s)".

And, by the way, money paid for probate is a tax, not a fee.

Yes, I could have called it Estate Admin Tax, but then many people would not have understood what was meant. But it's a tax, not a fee.

I wouldn't depend on RBC Wealth Management for this kind of advice, however helpful they may be trying to be. There are various websites from law firms that advise joint accounts as a way of avoiding probate, and Norman's experience confirms this. What RBC WM is saying is entirely from their perspective and outlines what they are prepared to do or not do with the assets they have custody of. My experience with RBC Bank taught me that they have all kinds of rules that they are very emphatic about but will modify whenever they see fit. In any event, the RBC WM statement doesn't really say what you want it to say. It does allow for the account to be passed to the child without probate, but also allows that probate might be required if they are not satisfied that the funds were meant to go to the child. What it really says is that RBC WM considers that its their decision.

If in doubt, readers should speak to their lawyer.
And that's why we need new legislation. It shouldn't be nearly this complicated, and people shouldn't have to be paying more money to lawyers to clarify what should be made clear in law. All these posts are really about people trying to sort out legal matters which they are probably hot qualified to do.

It sounds like we are now in agreement that parent and child can have a joint account with the parent's money which avoids probate tax.

Bill said
You've got it, just like there also can be a parent/child joint account with parent's money that does not avoid probate tax. And not just money but gifts of any kind prior to death are not part of the estate thus not subject to probate tax.  

It is certainly a given that money that is not the property of the deceased at time of death is not part of the estate and thus not subject to probate tax. Not sure why you felt the need to mention the obvious, especially since gifts made before death can be taxed at an even higher rate. I'm sure that small amounts are not an issue, however. Large gifts should be run by a lawyer first.

"......especially since gifts made before death can be taxed at an even higher rate....."

Not sure what that means, Loonie, can you clarify, maybe with an example?

Norman1 said

Loonie said

It is certainly a given that money that is not the property of the deceased at time of death is not part of the estate and thus not subject to probate tax. …

That's not always the case.

Dividends declared before date of death and received after date of death form part of the deceased's estate. Possibly also with a real estate purchase where purchase agreement is signed but one of the joint purchasers dies before closing.

  

I didn't say anything about when it was received, only about whether it is the property of the deceased. Any monies owing to the deceased would presumably form part of their estate when received. At the time of death, it is their property, just not yet received. But these are fine points and I don't think worth arguing about the semantics. Leave it to the lawyers.

I believe what Bill has said is correct as far as it goes, but it doesn't cover what I read on the law firm's site.
They were not talking about the kind of cap gains we are used to such as Bill describes. Those would be due if the property is sold, regardless of whether there was a gift. It was specifically related to gifts and said nothing about real estate. They did not give an example.
I can't comment further.
Consult a lawyer or perhaps an accountant if you are concerned. Perhaps it was just badly worded, but I don't know that.