Turkey just about done (smelling damn good). Lots of bad stuff happening in the world, lots of sadness for what's going on, but today feeling most grateful for the opportunity to be a Canadian.
I doubt the OP's situation here warrants addressing the specific elements of the working-abroad credit much if any further, since it is rather clear how the rules will most likely apply in the OP's situation. No need to wrangle with the nuances here. In particular, the practical outcome in such a situation is readily apparent, and it would be a distraction (as to the OP's situation) to dive into the weeds in regards to analyzing how specific facts map into the particular issues (ranging from what qualifies as a "
Canadian business" or who qualifies as a "
full time employee," to what constitutes a "
temporary assignment"). Among numerous threads in which others and I have gone into those weeds, I have cited, discussed, and linked dozens of relevant IAD and Federal Court decisions about this in an extensive discussion of the working abroad RO credit here:
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/working-abroad-ro-credit-including-business-trips-an-update.607559/
It may be time to update the latter thread with some more in-depth observations about cases in which PRs with owner/operator roles in what is, at least ostensibly, a Canadian business, seek credit for days working abroad for that business.
It warrants noting that I disagree with the view that having an ownership interest in the business is not relevant.
Don't disagree with much of what you wrote except that I don't understand this sentence. It is relevant, and you don't seem to disagree with that.
If you do think it's 'not relevant', then I think you're wrong; at minimum, that IRCC will likely approach with the view that the ownership/control interest creates a presumption it's not an 'employment' relationship in the context that matters here (i.e. that the owner can decide to 'post' the employee for non-business reasons. That presumption may be incorrect on IRCC's part (it may be a genuine business need), but to rebut extremely difficult (and extreme difficutly is also relevant).
Anyway I think this can be stated in a way we'd both agree with: given all of this, a PR should consider carefully in advance - when making plans - that there is a significant probability the days abroad will NOT count towards the RO (and it is/can be quite difficult to appeal in any way). And since once cannot get any kind of 'approval' in advance, the PR would have to be prepared to accept all of the consequences of being found not compliant with RO after the fact.
Sorry about my clumsy sentence structure. Translation/revision: "
Since ownership interest in the business can be relevant, I disagree with the view it is not relevant" (that is, it can matter, so I disagree with the view it does not matter). Allowing, however, this revised version is still clumsy, still clouded by a double-negative.
There's a reason my English teachers emphasized avoiding double-negatives. And lots of reasons my English teachers never suggested I pursue a career in writing. My Spanish teachers were less generous and my German language instructors were, well, rather more severe one might say. I don't want to talk about my dismally sad, utterly futile efforts to learn French (going way back, way over a half century ago, in the mid-1960s).
That said, even though the double-negative clouds things, I did go on to explain how owning the business can be relevant, explaining why having an ownership interest could influence how it goes when trying to claim this credit. Why it can matter (and, it needs noting,
indirectly it almost certainly will).
Otherwise, in that particular paragraph I was trying to thread the needle between what the law and rules and practices technically require, versus how such circumstances arise in real world settings in the context of PRs and smaller businesses in which they have an owner/operator role (or even businesses owned and operated by a family member). I was, in particular, responding to a statement, in effect, that it does not matter whether the OP is an employee or a shareholder . . . or, by extension, both. That is, again I was saying it can matter. (Note: regardless of what other role or relationship the PR has to the business, to qualify for the working-abroad credit the PR must be an employee; an owner/operator also can be an employee.)
But the mechanics underlying this are more complex, and very much dependent on the particular facts in each individual case, than any presumption, or even inference, arising from just the fact that the PR has an owner/operator role in the business. To be clear, there is nothing in the law or how it is applied that specifically precludes an owner/operator of a Canadian business from qualifying for this credit, if the qualifying criteria is in fact met. There is
NO presumption that an owner/operator of a Canadian business does not qualify for the working-abroad credit. (As always, citation to any source otherwise would be appreciated.)
As I suggested, given the practical realities there is no need to do a deep dive into this here, in the context of the OP's situation. For those interested, I will make an effort, nonetheless, to address the underlying decision-making in cases involving PRs with an owner/operator role, as illuminated in the stated reasons for decisions in such cases, not just the reasons articulated by the respective tribunals, but also visa officers as well as positions argued by the minister's representative in such cases. I will try to post that in the thread where this credit, including the technicalities, is discussed in more depth:
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/working-abroad-ro-credit-including-business-trips-an-update.607559/
