Rents going down ...

[foenix]

Ummmm........once again NO. There is no tax bracket 13K-43K in Canada. This is another example of moving the goalpost and rationalizing after the fact, again.

Hmmm, ... there is. In BC. It's 5% up to $43k (42-ish actually). Federal tax 15% is up to $49k. And anything bellow $13k is not taxable (aka personal amount). So, I was correct to say that your income in between $13k and $43k is taxed 20%, federal and BC taxes combined (15+5%). Most "mom & pop" landlords would be in this category.

Again No.......still no tax bracket like that for BC or Federal......the lowest is 0 to $42,184 and Federal is 0 to $48, 535.


https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-ca/lear ... x-brackets

https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-cons ... s-2/5.html

[Catsumi]

I am baffled as to how we got from Rents Going Down to filing Income Taxes ???

Get back to original topic. Thanks

[alanjh595]

A landlord is not responsible for the tenant's financial issues. If the tenant can't pay the rent (which is not included in disposable income) then they can find a place where the rent is cheaper and free up some extra disposable income.

By the same token, in a negotiation to change a renter's rental rate, does the renter have an obligation to have the rent go up because of the landlord's financial issues is the question. So if you're saying the renter is responsible for his own finances, why should the renter worry about the landlord's finance as well? The landlord can certainly try and recoup it with the next tenant according to what the market is at that time when the existing tenant moves out.....see how that works?

OR at the end of the lease term.

[foenix]

By the same token, in a negotiation to change a renter's rental rate, does the renter have an obligation to have the rent go up because of the landlord's financial issues is the question. So if you're saying the renter is responsible for his own finances, why should the renter worry about the landlord's finance as well? The landlord can certainly try and recoup it with the next tenant according to what the market is at that time when the existing tenant moves out.....see how that works?

OR at the end of the lease term.

Yup, good point......see how easy it is to get around the rent control.

[Rejigger]

OR at the end of the lease term.

Yup, good point......see how easy it is to get around the rent control.

Not so fast...

Effective December 11, 2017, fixed term tenancy agreements can no longer include a clause requiring a tenant to move out at the end of the term unless: The tenancy agreement is a sublease agreement; or. The tenancy is a fixed term tenancy in circumstances prescribed in section 13.1 of the Residential Tenancy Regulation.

Fixed term tenancy — circumstances when tenant must vacate at end of term
13.1 (1)In this section, "close family member" has the same meaning as in section 49 (1) of the Act.

(2)For the purposes of section 97 (2) (a.1) of the Act [prescribing circumstances when landlord may include term requiring tenant to vacate], the circumstances in which a landlord may include in a fixed term tenancy agreement a requirement that the tenant vacate a rental unit at the end of the term are that

(a)the landlord is an individual, and

(b)that landlord or a close family member of that landlord intends in good faith at the time of entering into the tenancy agreement to occupy the rental unit at the end of the term.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/hous ... ant-notice
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/docu ... #section13

So back to what I wrote above, "Or the landlord can move into or sell a property that’s losing money. We all see how that works."
~

[foenix]

Yup, good point......see how easy it is to get around the rent control.

Not so fast...

Effective December 11, 2017, fixed term tenancy agreements can no longer include a clause requiring a tenant to move out at the end of the term unless: The tenancy agreement is a sublease agreement; or. The tenancy is a fixed term tenancy in circumstances prescribed in section 13.1 of the Residential Tenancy Regulation.

Fixed term tenancy — circumstances when tenant must vacate at end of term
13.1 (1)In this section, "close family member" has the same meaning as in section 49 (1) of the Act.

(2)For the purposes of section 97 (2) (a.1) of the Act [prescribing circumstances when landlord may include term requiring tenant to vacate], the circumstances in which a landlord may include in a fixed term tenancy agreement a requirement that the tenant vacate a rental unit at the end of the term are that

(a)the landlord is an individual, and

(b)that landlord or a close family member of that landlord intends in good faith at the time of entering into the tenancy agreement to occupy the rental unit at the end of the term.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/hous ... ant-notice
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/docu ... #section13

So back to what I wrote above, "Or the landlord can move into or sell a property that’s losing money. We all see how that works."
~

Too funny! I haven't seen that clause as I haven't kept up but it's interesting to note it came under a Conservative Premier Christy Clark.

....looks like to me there is still some possibility in cicumventing this new amendment. Section 49(1) says

close family member" means, in relation to an individual,

(a) the individual's father, mother, spouse or child, or

(b) the father, mother or child of that individual's spouse;

.......so lots of outs there......And check put how the new amendment is doing and what happened when the landlord flaunted the new amendment. ........

 one of the most recent decisions concerning compensation for a s.49 eviction sheds some light on instances where the landlord issues notice on the basis that they will return to occupy the unit. In Decision 7033, heard in November 2017, the applicant tenant alleges that the landlord has not moved back into the unit after she moved out. However, the arbitrator wrote that:

“… In my view a rental unit is occupied by the Landlord providing they are using it for a personal purpose, even if that purpose is simply to store personal property.”

https://victorialaw.ca/evicted-for-land ... nancy-act/

So back to what I wrote back........still lots of outs.

[Catsumi]

Still baffled. What the …does this have to do with downward trend of rents??

Close to lock up here