This tax thingy has been discussed many times - I hold by the conviction thatif you are datytrading you better be prepared to pay tax on it as full income and keep all records of expenses and apply them against those gains
Look it up here
ccra-adrc.gc.ca
Go down to scetion 11 - I don't think it leaves much room for argument - Daytrades are not cap gains
It states
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
PAGE 4
(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. |
