先谢了.作者: Richard 时间: 2006-7-19 20:59 标题: to answer your question Shirley,
We are living in Canada, nobody can take your home or asset away eventhough something wrong happen to you, to answer this question, actually, it depends on how many family members you have, whether you have beneficiary, the only problem here is if you do not specify the transfering method for your asset in your will, the government will decide how your asset be divided among your beneficiaries. This may triger more tax you owe to the government.
Therefore, it is very important for everyone to have a will which specify your own intention about the division of your asset.
If you still have questions, please call me at work 514-331-5838 ext.238
leave message if I am not at desk.作者: Tiggr 时间: 2006-7-20 09:48
律师，notary public 都可以做公正遗嘱，city hall也可以做
自己写一封遗嘱也可以生效作者: Richard 时间: 2006-7-21 08:55 标题: This may be helpful! When writing your will, make sure your intentions are clear
TIM CESTNICK
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Things can move from mere confusion to costly legal battles if you leave your heirs uncertain about your intentions when you're gone. And few things can cause greater problems than joint ownership.
In the past, I've written about the drawbacks of joint ownership from a tax perspective. Today, I want to share with you a family's unfortunate story, and how to avoid the same fate in your family.
On Nov. 1, 2005, the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered its decision in the case of Saylor v. Brooks (CanLII 39857). This is the story of three children whose father, Niels Michael Madsen, died in 1998. Mr. Madsen's will said his estate should be divided into two equal parts, with one part being divided among his grandchildren, and the other part being divided equally among his three children, Betty, Anthony and Patricia.
aPs="boxR";var boxRAC = fnTdo('a'+'ai',300,250,ai,'j',nc);
There was no disagreement about the wording of the will. Instead, there was disagreement about what assets should form part of Mr. Madsen's estate. You see, prior to his death, Mr. Madsen had put his bank and investment accounts in joint names, with right of survivorship, with his daughter Patricia. These assets totalled $365,000. The rest of his assets were worth approximately $400,000.
Betty and Anthony argued that it was not the intention of their father to make a gift of those assets to Patricia when they were put into joint names, but was done simply for convenience. Patricia, on the other hand, argued that her father had intended to make a gift of those assets to her upon his death.
Now, when you put assets in joint names, there's no question you have changed the "legal" ownership of the assets. But this is not the same as changing "beneficial" ownership. From a tax point of view, changing legal ownership alone does not give rise to a taxable disposition -- that is, a taxable event. Changing beneficial ownership, however, can be a taxable event (unless you're transferring ownership to your spouse). But I digress.
In this case, the issue was not a tax issue, but whether or not the assets held jointly should be included in Mr. Madsen's estate and therefore shared partly with Betty and Anthony. It's clear that Mr. Madsen changed the legal ownership when he made Patricia a joint owner, but was his intention to change beneficial ownership so that Patricia should inherit the joint assets alone?
In the end, the court ruled in favour of Betty and Anthony, because the facts seemed to indicate that Mr. Madsen had not given up beneficial ownership. Patricia has sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The nasty battle between siblings, and the extensive legal fees (almost $300,000 for all parties in this case), could have been limited or avoided if Mr. Madsen had made his intentions very clear.
A simple solution exists here. First, think twice before placing significant assets in joint names. Second, always write down whether your intentions are to hold assets jointly for convenience, or because you intend to make a gift to the joint owner(s). Make sure your financial and legal advisers have a copy of this written intention.
Tim Cestnick is a principal with WaterStreet Group Inc. and author of Winning the Tax Game, among other titles.作者: shirley 时间: 2006-7-22 18:51
收益颇丰，谢谢大家的回复，实例更有帮助 :p 。作者: chenhui 时间: 2006-8-1 21:11 标题: 基本规则 没有WILL的情况下，遗产1/3给配偶，2/3给孩子。在魁北克，在Notary处做的WILL有最高的法律效力。
:p 。