Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : CDN. MOMO PUPPIES -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WhatsUpWithThat who wrote (27074)	2/21/2000 12:51:00 AM
From: keith massey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36688

Incorporating - If you are a true active trader then the first $200,000 of trading revenue is taxed at 22% and the remaining revenue is taxed at 38%. Of course you can pay yourself a wage out of your company, pay dividends on the shares you issue yourself and other, get your company to buy 1/2 your RRSP's, do share buy backs from yourself and other as the asset value of the company grows, right off your expensives from your earnings, etc. There are several benefits and also negatives to incorporating yourself. Can cost you as little as $300-400 or more than $5000 to incorportate yourself depending on which route you take and how much you know. There is also a yearly fee (several $100 to several $1000) and you must keep solid books. I'm sure AriK will comment on this because it is his area of expertise. Best Regards KEITH

To: WhatsUpWithThat who wrote (27074)	2/21/2000 8:39:00 AM
From: Buckey	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36688

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.