Real Estate: Nominee or Owner?

Posted on March 24th, 2026 in Domestic Tax

Red and white "Sold, Home for Sale" sign in front of a stone, wood house that is for sale and has recently been sold. Green grass and bushes indicate the spring or summer season. Front porch and windows in background. Real estate signs in residential neighborhood. Moving house, relocation concepts.

In a November 7, 2025, French Court of Quebec case, the taxpayer was assessed with business income of $284,661 in 2015 related to the sale of a house built on land she owned.

The taxpayer argued that she acted as a nominee for her former spouse, who allegedly carried out the project, and, as such, the taxpayer did not need to report the income from the sale (her former husband would have had to report the income). She stated that, to reduce taxes as a couple, the land and the house were put solely in her name as she had little income at the time. While the taxpayer was with her former spouse at the time of the transaction, they separated shortly afterwards.

Revenu Québec (RQ) argued that the taxpayer was the project’s true owner and beneficiary.

The house was sold for $545,000, financed with $245,000 in cash and a second house valued at $300,000, which was later resold. The divorce agreement between the taxpayer and her former spouse provided that the net proceeds from the sale of the second house would be split 20.2% to the taxpayer and 79.8% to the former spouse.

Taxpayer loses

The Court noted the taxpayer knowingly and actively participated in the project as an owner: the land and property were registered in the taxpayer’s name alone, she applied for and obtained the building permit, she contributed financially to the project, and she helped choose material, colour, and decor. Further, during the taxpayer’s divorce, she acted as the sole owner and not a nominee. Finally, there was no written or other evidence of a nominee arrangement.

The Court found that the tax planning to minimize the couple’s income tax was a deliberate decision; the taxpayer could not later deny ownership. The Court further found that the taxpayer and her former spouse’s divorce agreement had no effect on the tax treatment of the proceeds of the property.

The Court stated that taxpayers should be taxed for what they did, not for what they intended to do. As such, it is not up to the Court nor RQ to apportion the taxable proceeds to the former spouse: it will be up to the taxpayer and her former spouse to take those steps.

The Court ruled that the taxpayer was the true owner of the property and therefore should have reported the full gain on the disposition.

Ensure to properly report income and/ or gains generated on assets for which you are the beneficial owner.

Download

Article originally published in: Tax Tips & Traps 2026 First Quarter – Issue 153.