Canadian Retail Thread

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

It is commercial and (two) residential properties. And no tax collected from the income of this billionaire. it all goes back to her buddies in Communist China. Totally emblematic of how Liberal gov'ts sold Canadians down the road to foreign money. Let's hope she doesn't get her hands on those old Bay leases.

Permanent residents pay tax in Canada on their income, just as citizens do.

[someone123]

Did any of the responders here read the article? It discusses how Ruby Liu said she was a permanent resident of Canada to the media (and purchased a large portfolio of real estate here) but apparently is not registered as a resident for tax purposes. Apparently this is a known issue and it's possible to be a permanent resident for immigration/property buying purposes while not being one from the point of view from the CRA. Must be nice:

In other words, the officials acknowledged it is possible to live in Canada, have permanent resident status and own hundreds of millions of dollars in commercial and residential property in the country and still “be considered a deemed non-resident under subsection 250(5) of the income tax act.”

It doesn't surprise me at all. It appears the federal government does not coherently administer immigration and taxes, and the system is open to exploitation. The fact that Ruby Liu happens to be Chinese is not relevant, except I guess in so far as she appears to be funding a country that is semi-hostile to Canada as she profits off of our half-baked immigration and property law system here.

[someone123]

My understanding is that with tax treaties, generally the amount paid in income tax to the country where the income was earned becomes a tax credit to the other country. It's not that you tick a box and pay no tax in Canada.

It makes me wonder what tax rate the rich and connected pay in China or how we can trust what they say they are paying.

[casper]

Originally Posted by someone123

Did any of the responders here read the article? It discusses how Ruby Liu said she was a permanent resident of Canada to the media (and purchased a large portfolio of real estate here) but apparently is not registered as a resident for tax purposes. Apparently this is a known issue and it's possible to be a permanent resident for immigration/property buying purposes while not being one from the point of view from the CRA. Must be nice:

It doesn't surprise me at all. It appears the federal government does not coherently administer immigration and taxes, and the system is open to exploitation. The fact that Ruby Liu happens to be Chinese is not relevant, except I guess in so far as she appears to be funding a country that is semi-hostile to Canada as she profits off of our half-baked immigration and property law system here.

She is under no obligation to tell the truth to the media. Not telling the truth may and likely puts her reputation at risk, making false statements to a reporter is not illegal. Is it?

As for taxes. It would be extremely unlikely for her to own these shopping centers directly. The property is likely owned by some incorporated entity. That corporation charges rents, pays employees and suppliers, etc. At the end of day is pays a dividend to its share holder. The normal withholding tax on dividends paid to a shareholder outside the country is 25%. Perhaps she hired some smart accountants/lawyers to find a way out of that? I don't know.

While I don't like the fact that two of the nicest shopping centers on the island are owned by someone who may have connections to the communist party in China as far as we know they were purchased legally. We don't even know if her connections are as strong as some suggest.

Had she been given the opportunity to take over the leases for the Bay, then she would have wasted all that money on Canadian labour running a failing department store. Maybe she should have been given that chance.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by casper

She is under no obligation to tell the truth to the media. Not telling the truth may and likely puts her reputation at risk, making false statements to a reporter is not illegal. Is it?

If it was I can think of several politicians who would be serving consecutive life sentences by now.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by casper

…Had she been given the opportunity to take over the leases for the Bay, then she would have wasted all that money on Canadian labour running a failing department store. Maybe she should have been given that chance.

So did the landlords get their way/is she officially out as a potential buyer? Are there other suiters still being considered?

[casper]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

So did the landlords get their way/is she officially out as a potential buyer? Are there other suiters still being considered?

Canadian tire ended up with Bay brand. One of the other retail groups ended up with Zellers.

As for the leases, my understanding was in the court filling she showed up trying to represent herself and send a number of e-mails to the judge that he ended up taking offence to.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Nite

Why should Canadians be outraged about non-Canadians owning commercial properties???

They should be outraged that permanent residents with significant assets in Canada are deemed non-resident.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by casper

…As for the leases, my understanding was in the court filling she showed up trying to represent herself and send a number of e-mails to the judge that he ended up taking offence to.

Ah, so she inadvertently made things worse for her case. Well I hope that whoever gets the leases will not let the spaces sit vacant and will create interesting and exciting things for consumers!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by casper

She is under no obligation to tell the truth to the media. Not telling the truth may and likely puts her reputation at risk, making false statements to a reporter is not illegal. Is it?

Did you read the quote in the post that you replied to? They went on to to talk to the CRA and confirm that it's possible to say you're a permanent resident when financially beneficial and then opt-out of being a resident when it comes time to pay taxes. That is the real systemic problem. Ruby Liu is an example who popped up because of her real estate transactions.

Really it seems just about any time something like this happens there turns out to be a bunch of abuse and corruption of the system, like when it turned out that the Huawei lady's family of course had a large portfolio of BC real estate and convoluted immigration story.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by acottawa

They should be outraged that permanent residents with significant assets in Canada are deemed non-resident.

I suspect we have such deep corruption and propaganda related to real estate that there is a huge amount of inertia around changing anything that might hurt prices, even fraud prevention, and even many who don't really benefit from this have drunk the kool-aid.

As far as I know we still don't even have CRA verification of incomes to prevent mortgage fraud. Implementing this is a never-ending saga in Canada but they've had it in the US for some time and it is fairly straightforward.

I think these are instances where we could have modestly hardened systems not open to the simplest of abuses but that would tend to cause downward pressure on real estate so it's a no-go.

[casper]

Originally Posted by someone123

Did you read the quote in the post that you replied to? They went on to to talk to the CRA and confirm that it's possible to say you're a permanent resident when financially beneficial and then opt-out of being a resident when it comes time to pay taxes. That is the real systemic problem. Ruby Liu is an example who popped up because of her real estate transactions.

Really it seems just about any time something like this happens there turns out to be a bunch of abuse and corruption of the system, like when it turned out that the Huawei lady's family of course had a large portfolio of BC real estate and convoluted immigration story.

Landed immigrant status is a right to live in Canada. She can chose to make use of that right or not. If she does not live in Canada that is her prerogative.

What we probably need is a system where if you don't make use of it expires more quicky and you lose it.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by casper

Landed immigrant status is a right to live in Canada. She can chose to make use of that right or not. If she does not live in Canada that is her prerogative.

What we probably need is a system where if you don't make use of it expires more quicky and you lose it.

Whether or not you are a “deemed resident” has nothing to do with whether you lived in Canada year around. For non-billionaires, “residential ties” such as owning a residential property or other investments would get them deemed resident status in CRA’s eyes.

[acottawa]

Back on topic, the recent Starbucks closures have reminded me how many coffee shops have disappeared in Ottawa over the last few years. The Rideau Centre has gone from 5 (plus one in the transit station) to one. St Laurent Mall has lost both. The Byward Market has lost all but one. Timothy’s has disappeared, Second Cup is down to a handful of locations. Starbucks and Bridgehead have closed numerous locations.

Is this an Ottawa thing or a national trend?

[casper]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Whether or not you are a “deemed resident” has nothing to do with whether you lived in Canada year around. For non-billionaires, “residential ties” such as owning a residential property or other investments would get them deemed resident status in CRA’s eyes.

We don't know if her accountants setup a series of shell companies so she owns something incorporated somewhere else that owns the Canadian assets.

There is a 25% withholding tax on foreign payouts. Unless they figured out some way of avoiding that as well.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Back on topic, the recent Starbucks closures have reminded me how many coffee shops have disappeared in Ottawa over the last few years. The Rideau Centre has gone from 5 (plus one in the transit station) to one. St Laurent Mall has lost both. The Byward Market has lost all but one. Timothy’s has disappeared, Second Cup is down to a handful of locations. Starbucks and Bridgehead have closed numerous locations.

Is this an Ottawa thing or a national trend?

People just can’t afford to spend fifteen bucks a day on a couple coffees while at work anymore. These places will be the first to go. Then it will be the fast food chains.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Hecate

People just can’t afford to spend fifteen bucks a day on a couple coffees while at work anymore. These places will be the first to go. Then it will be the fast food chains.

I was always surprised that was a thing. If your at your office or home, making coffee should be easy and faster that going out for it. Never understood that desire. I agree its expensive if that is part of your regular day.

The only time I go to Starbucks etc is if I am traveling or I am meeting up with someone.

As for Ottawa I also used the cafe in the arts center for that. Tables were spaced out so you could have a conversation, local independent operator, etc.

Starbucks also roasts its coffee in the US. They pre-ordered their supply for the year so they have not started to pass on the tariff in increased costs yet. That is going to make them even more uncompetitive.

Being a responsible Canadian, we should be buying from local roasters instead of those in the US.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Back on topic, the recent Starbucks closures have reminded me how many coffee shops have disappeared in Ottawa over the last few years. The Rideau Centre has gone from 5 (plus one in the transit station) to one. St Laurent Mall has lost both. The Byward Market has lost all but one. Timothy’s has disappeared, Second Cup is down to a handful of locations. Starbucks and Bridgehead have closed numerous locations.

Is this an Ottawa thing or a national trend?

WFH has killed coffee shops. They'll return along with RTO.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Hecate

People just can’t afford to spend fifteen bucks a day on a couple coffees while at work anymore. These places will be the first to go. Then it will be the fast food chains.

I was surprised when I popped into a local 7-11 that they had a huge automated coffee counter. Prices much cheaper than a regular coffee shop. Sure, I can't sit down and enjoy it there but neither can I in most Sbux after their disastrous post-Covid refits.

[Coldrsx]

Using my office as an example of 'where did all of the coffee shops go', we used to have capsules which many enjoyed but a lot of us still went out for something better.

Now we have two grind and pull set ups that are part of our overall office amenities and so I still hit up a shop on the way to work, but unless I have a meeting I resort to those mid-morning and mid-aft.