Canada’s top court declined to hear an appeal challenging how British Columbia’s foreign buyer tax applied to a Richmond apartment purchase.
The Story
The Supreme Court of Canada has refused the couple leave to appeal a decision involving the application of British Columbia’s foreign buyer tax to a real estate purchase in Richmond.
The B.C. Court of Appeal previously dismissed an appeal by Li-Yuan Chuang and Chia-Wen Hsia, who jointly bought an apartment in Richmond under a presale contract in 2014. Court documents described their ownership as 95 per cent in Hsia’s name and five per cent in the name of Chuang.
According to the Court of Appeal, Chuang paid 40 per cent of the purchase price, while Hsia said the difference reflected a “Chinese custom for a husband to pay a ‘bride price’ by buying his wife a home.” The couple paid the foreign buyer tax only on the five per cent registered to Chuang, but an audit later found the tax was “payable on the fair market value of the whole property.”
The B.C. government told the lower court the foreign buyer tax rule was meant to “prevent tax avoidance by foreign investors who own beneficial interests held indirectly by others.”
In its ruling earlier this year, the B.C. Court of Appeal said the couple could have avoided paying the tax on the entire property value if they had registered ownership in line with their respective contributions to the purchase price.
The couple’s legal challenge began at the B.C. Supreme Court in 2024, where their bid was initially dismissed. The March appellate ruling described the apartment—located in the Avanti Richmond complex—as having been valued at $474,500 at the time of purchase, and noted the foreign buyer tax rate is 20 per cent of market value.
A B.C. Supreme Court decision cited a tax analyst’s estimate that the additional tax owed by the couple was just over $126,000. The most recent assessed value provided in the court record is $820,000 for the two-bedroom apartment.
In response to the Supreme Court of Canada’s refusal to hear the case, the couple’s lawyer, Massao Morinaga, said they had “no comment,” adding that it was the “end of the road judicially,” and that the legislation is drafted in a way that “captures situations that are inequitable.”
← More stories