The taxman gets jumpy and may sniff around if you deduct losses from a rental property. Here is a reason why your losses may attract some unwanted attention.

Losses from a rental operation can be applied against other income such as wages. In essence, your rental loss is a tax deduction that nets you a refund and the taxman doesn't like to hand out refunds unless there is a legitimate reason.

To be fair, the Canada Revenue Agency isn't out to disallow all rental losses, per se. Rather the agency tries to distinguish between deductible losses from real rental operations and non-deductible losses where the operation involves a strong personal element. For instance, the tax courts have made it quite clear the CRA cannot disallow rental losses from legitimate rental operation. The key considerations are: Why did you buy and rent the property?

Was it a bona fide commercial activity, i.e., to make money, or was it a personal endeavor? If it was a commercial activity, the train stops there and the losses should be deductible.

The tax courts have also agreed losses from rental operations that involve a personal element are non-deductible if the operation isn't conducted in a business-like manner. And what do 'personal element' and 'business-like manner' mean?

Say you owned a house with two bedrooms; your parent lives in one and while living in the same house, you rented the other bedroom to your girlfriend. Consequently you claimed rental losses from deducting a percentage of the house expenses against the rented bedroom. Is there a personal element involved? If yes, was the rental operation conducted in a business-like manner? If no, the rental losses are denied.

In Slagado versus the Tax Court of Canada, Nov. 5, 2008, involving the above facts, the judge quickly concluded there was a clear personal element because the taxpayer had rented out his bedroom to his girlfriend and they shared its use. Was the rental conducted in a business-like manner?

The taxpayer had charged annual rent of $1,950 for 2003 and 2004 and claimed rental losses of $5,827 and $3,426 for those years. It turned out his girlfriend didn't even live in that property during 2003. The judge concluded there wasn't a business-like arrangement because rent was charged to a non-existent tenant.

The above case is a reckless example of an illegitimate rental operation. The case of Landriault & Bercier versus the Tax Court of Canada, July 29, 2009, is more typical of rental losses that fail the smell test.

The taxpayers, a married couple, lived on the lower floor and rented the upper floor to their son at less than fair market value. They claimed rental losses of $7,523 and $4,836 for 2003 and 2004.

The judge concluded there was a personal element because the tenant was their son. Since the rent was below fair market value and the couple could not expect to make a profit at that rent level, there was no evidence the rental activities were carried out in a business-like manner.

He concluded the operation was a family arrangement to charge minimal rent to help defray the operating costs of the property and he denied their losses.