A Legacy That Treats Everyone FairlyAn established Alberta couple, three adult children, and the tax that never has to be paid
The clients are an established Alberta couple in their early 70s with three adult children at different life stages. They hold a portfolio of roughly $2.2 million, live comfortably on a defined-benefit pension and government benefits, and want to do two things at once: treat all three children equitably while supporting different needs at different times, and give meaningfully without paying tax they never had to owe. They are, by their own description, intensely tax-averse. It turns out that instinct, pointed in the right direction, is the whole plan.
Read the full case study
The starting picture: about a third of the portfolio sits in cash and near-cash across seven accounts, held in high-interest savings at 2.1 percent while it waits for further investment. Registered income funds already force roughly $40,000 a year of taxable withdrawals; with the pension, dividends, and the cash pool's interest on top, his income runs high enough that the OAS recovery tax takes a bite every year. And the taxable accounts hold a handful of long-held blue-chip positions with spectacular embedded gains; the flagship holding sits at roughly seven times its book value. Selling anything feels like handing money to the CRA, so nothing gets sold, the concentration grows, and the generosity waits.
One piece of housekeeping was already in place before the engagement began. Pension income splitting lets the higher-income spouse shift up to half of eligible pension income to the other on the tax return; no money moves, no account changes, just a form, and this couple already elects it every year. The model keeps the election optimized as its baseline: worth roughly $5,700 annually versus not splitting, it holds a fully clawed-back OAS to a partial one. The double-check also set expectations honestly: at these incomes the couple's combined net sits above two full OAS thresholds, so even a perfect split leaves some recovery tax in place, and his next dollar is effectively taxed near 45 percent once the clawback stacks on the brackets. The split shrinks the bite; it cannot erase it. Worth confirming each spring, but it is context here, not move one of the plan.
The obvious route to generosity is to sell shares and write cheques. The model prices that door precisely: selling the flagship position hands the CRA about $25,000 between capital-gains tax and a wiped-out year of OAS. Roughly 22 cents of every dollar the children would receive goes to the tax collector first. The clients' instinct to keep that door shut was correct; the mistake would be concluding that generosity therefore has to wait.
Canada has no gift tax, so writing cheques from the cash pool would cost nothing today. It would also solve nothing: that pool is earmarked for new investments, and every dollar gifted away still leaves the capital-gains problem sitting in the taxable accounts. So the cash stays on its job and deploys into the market, and the appreciated shares take the exit instead. Donated in-kind to a donor-advised fund, listed securities carry a zero percent capital-gains inclusion: the sale tax is not deferred, it is never paid, by anyone, ever. The estate never pays it either; that slice of the latent bill is permanently extinguished. The charitable receipt then returns about half the gift as tax credits over three years, and those credits fund the cheques to the children. The family fund holds the full market value, the couple directs its grants for life, and all three children can share that role afterward: a piece of the legacy that is not money.
The couple had also been shown flow-through shares, marketed as giving that costs nothing. The engagement modelled the structure honestly, haircut, credit timing and risk list in the open, and the income double-check confirmed the verdict: about 93 cents delivered per dollar at a typical all-in cost, an edge that disappears entirely near a 33 percent haircut, wrapped in junior-mining price risk, renunciation risk, and a tax-shelter number on the return. Defensible mathematics; the wrong purchase for a tax-averse couple. The strategy came off the board, and the full pricing lives in the engagement record.
The taxable accounts carry roughly half a million dollars of unrealized gains, about $100,000 of latent tax at the second death, and the registered accounts add roughly $300,000 more at estate rates. Every in-kind donation tranche retires a slice of the first number at full market value, repairs the portfolio's concentration without a taxable disposition, and moves money while the market sits near a high. A follow-on tranche is already queued for a later year.
Like every engagement on this page, the advice became an interactive model: the flow board below. One balance sheet on the left, the destinations on the right, including the lane the cash pool actually belongs in: new investments. Every strategy re-routes the same dollars while you watch; ribbon width and the dot traffic both show the amounts. The couple's situation is dialled in with rounded figures, every dial can be typed or slid, and the year-by-year chart directly beneath the board shows exactly when the credits come back. The dials hold still while the charts scroll, so an adjustment and its effect stay on screen together.
This is a real planning engagement presented for illustration, with client details anonymized: no names, no account details, and rounded representative figures throughout. Tax parameters are the 2026 published federal and Alberta figures. Nothing here is a recommendation for any reader; donation, tax, and investment outcomes depend on your own facts. Maple Groove Financial · Calgary, Alberta.