So now you agreed @dpenabill did not correctly point out ... that tax residency is not relevant?
Proof required for staying outside Canada with Canadian Spouse to renew PR Card
- Thread starter umairfood1
- Start date
Apologies upfront for getting weedy. No apologies for having oriented my responses above to the query posed by the OP.
As for getting into the weeds, evidence is almost no one's favourite subject, except perhaps the nerdy jurist. Guilty as charged.
But standing alone evidence is not really evidence. Let alone proof. What the evidence tends to show matters. Absent a correlation with a purpose, a connection to what it is intended to show or prove, so-called evidence is mere extraneous detail of no import, no relevance.
Common-sense covers most of this. Any decision-maker who is presented this or that item of evidence is inherently asking "so what?" As in what difference does this evidence make? Why is it relevant? What does it show?
And for those compiling and presenting evidence, good idea to orient what is being presented likewise, knowing the answer to the "so what?" question, knowing what this evidence shows, why it is relevant.
Leading to what difference might having Canadian ties have in a PR's Residency Determination? As is so often the case, there is NO one answer fits all. It depends.
Here, in reference to the OP's situation, the Canadian ties, be that maintaining a home in Canada or otherwise filing Canadian tax returns, are of little or NO import. So, "so what" the OP filed taxes in Canada? So, "so what" the OP maintained a residence in Canada (if the OP did)? Answer: does not help.
Perhaps the OP's question, "Will the taxes filed by both of us as residential in Canada in last years, have any effect on my applications?" was merely exploratory, asked without expectations. My impression is otherwise. My impression is the OP likely filed Canadian tax returns with an expectation this would likely help the OP keep PR status. Misperceptions about this appear to be rather common. Indeed, it appears to be a rather common misperception that owning residential property or a business in Canada, and filing tax returns in Canada, among maintaining other types of "ties" in Canada, will in some way help a PR keep their PR status DESPITE failing to be IN Canada sufficiently to comply with the RO.
It is worth noting that the nature and extent of ties in Canada can help, depending on the situation. BUT not always. BUT not here, NOT for the OP, NOT in the situation posed by the OP.
And for those with RO compliance issues, or potential issues, it is important to understand just how Canadian ties might help, and recognize the parameters, the limitations.
Here, however, in this topic, in regards to the OP's queries, it demands making it totally clear that the OP, in this situation, is not likely to benefit from having filed Canadian tax returns.
If the reference to a "slight internet misquote" is about what I posted, quoting "But it is a significant tie," no that was not a misquote. Which should have been clear enough, as my commentary made it amply clear I was indeed referring to the context, the fact the quoted text was in reference to having a home in Canada, and tax filing status as well. After all, my response specifically stated the context. I stated:
And while "so what?" might be a fair response to the whole tangential discussion about determining who is a tax resident, who is not, qualifying for provincial health care, and all that, when I posted "But so what?" it was not subtweeting about that at all, not close.
My "so what" response was clearly and specifically about the statement it followed, which again was "Having a home in Canada is indeed a "significant tie" with Canada, as is otherwise filing tax returns in Canada," meaning:
The weedy side of this is important generally: again, there is NO one answer fits all here. As noted, in some contexts Canadian ties can help (noting, however, more often it is the absence of certain ties that can influence how things go in a Residency Determination, such as in scenarios where IRCC has concerns about the PR's claims of presence during certain periods of time). Again, for those with RO compliance issues, or potential issues, it is important to understand just how Canadian ties might help, and recognize the parameters, the limitations.
Meaning the "so what?" question is no mere rhetorical retort, but a genuine and potentially important question
In the OP's situation, for that side of this, for which there is one answer, the answer is likewise important; no, such ties are NOT going to help.
That is . . . for the OP, for the OP's situation, for purposes of the OP getting credits toward meeting the RO, as I commented, to now put it in highly technical terms (I am joshing), such significant ties are a nothing-burger. They are a nothing-burger here because the OP was not actually present in Canada, so such ties will NOT support credit for days IN Canada toward meeting the RO. As I said:
But yeah, in other contexts, in other situations, ties to Canada can bolster the PR's case, either as supporting evidence of presence (but only for days the PR was in fact present) or as positive H&C factors for a PR trying to save status despite failing to comply with the RO.
As I noted, thought it was a big clue, "Medicine for one is sometimes poison for another."
I am reminded of the case in which a mother was denied citizenship when IRCC determined she had failed to meet the burden of proving her presence in Canada based on a lack of credibility. She had reported being outside Canada for a period of time she had submitted documents (evidence) indicating she was most likely IN Canada (her children's school records). IRCC did not revise its calculation of presence to include additional days for that. Rather, it concluded this reflected the applicant could not be trusted to be a reliable reporter of facts, and so basically gave little weight to any of her information not otherwise corroborated by other sources. That is, evidence of her presence in Canada was the basis for inferring she was NOT in Canada more than she reported.
Yeah, "so what?" is an important question for any evidence. Usually the answer is obvious, easily seen with common sense. But not always.
As for getting into the weeds, evidence is almost no one's favourite subject, except perhaps the nerdy jurist. Guilty as charged.
But standing alone evidence is not really evidence. Let alone proof. What the evidence tends to show matters. Absent a correlation with a purpose, a connection to what it is intended to show or prove, so-called evidence is mere extraneous detail of no import, no relevance.
Common-sense covers most of this. Any decision-maker who is presented this or that item of evidence is inherently asking "so what?" As in what difference does this evidence make? Why is it relevant? What does it show?
And for those compiling and presenting evidence, good idea to orient what is being presented likewise, knowing the answer to the "so what?" question, knowing what this evidence shows, why it is relevant.
Leading to what difference might having Canadian ties have in a PR's Residency Determination? As is so often the case, there is NO one answer fits all. It depends.
Here, in reference to the OP's situation, the Canadian ties, be that maintaining a home in Canada or otherwise filing Canadian tax returns, are of little or NO import. So, "so what" the OP filed taxes in Canada? So, "so what" the OP maintained a residence in Canada (if the OP did)? Answer: does not help.
Perhaps the OP's question, "Will the taxes filed by both of us as residential in Canada in last years, have any effect on my applications?" was merely exploratory, asked without expectations. My impression is otherwise. My impression is the OP likely filed Canadian tax returns with an expectation this would likely help the OP keep PR status. Misperceptions about this appear to be rather common. Indeed, it appears to be a rather common misperception that owning residential property or a business in Canada, and filing tax returns in Canada, among maintaining other types of "ties" in Canada, will in some way help a PR keep their PR status DESPITE failing to be IN Canada sufficiently to comply with the RO.
It is worth noting that the nature and extent of ties in Canada can help, depending on the situation. BUT not always. BUT not here, NOT for the OP, NOT in the situation posed by the OP.
And for those with RO compliance issues, or potential issues, it is important to understand just how Canadian ties might help, and recognize the parameters, the limitations.
Here, however, in this topic, in regards to the OP's queries, it demands making it totally clear that the OP, in this situation, is not likely to benefit from having filed Canadian tax returns.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, or what should have been obvious . . .Chill out. Why do you think people are attacking you? Yeah, it was probably a slight internet misquote (should have quoted someone else).
If the reference to a "slight internet misquote" is about what I posted, quoting "But it is a significant tie," no that was not a misquote. Which should have been clear enough, as my commentary made it amply clear I was indeed referring to the context, the fact the quoted text was in reference to having a home in Canada, and tax filing status as well. After all, my response specifically stated the context. I stated:
"Having a home in Canada is indeed a "significant tie" with Canada, as is otherwise filing tax returns in Canada."
And while "so what?" might be a fair response to the whole tangential discussion about determining who is a tax resident, who is not, qualifying for provincial health care, and all that, when I posted "But so what?" it was not subtweeting about that at all, not close.
My "so what" response was clearly and specifically about the statement it followed, which again was "Having a home in Canada is indeed a "significant tie" with Canada, as is otherwise filing tax returns in Canada," meaning:
So what if having a home in Canada is a significant tie with Canada; so what if filing tax returns in Canada constitutes a significant tie?
The weedy side of this is important generally: again, there is NO one answer fits all here. As noted, in some contexts Canadian ties can help (noting, however, more often it is the absence of certain ties that can influence how things go in a Residency Determination, such as in scenarios where IRCC has concerns about the PR's claims of presence during certain periods of time). Again, for those with RO compliance issues, or potential issues, it is important to understand just how Canadian ties might help, and recognize the parameters, the limitations.
Meaning the "so what?" question is no mere rhetorical retort, but a genuine and potentially important question
In the OP's situation, for that side of this, for which there is one answer, the answer is likewise important; no, such ties are NOT going to help.
That is . . . for the OP, for the OP's situation, for purposes of the OP getting credits toward meeting the RO, as I commented, to now put it in highly technical terms (I am joshing), such significant ties are a nothing-burger. They are a nothing-burger here because the OP was not actually present in Canada, so such ties will NOT support credit for days IN Canada toward meeting the RO. As I said:
Whatever points there are for having ties to Canada, they will never add up to credit for presence in Canada for days the PR was not present in Canada.
But yeah, in other contexts, in other situations, ties to Canada can bolster the PR's case, either as supporting evidence of presence (but only for days the PR was in fact present) or as positive H&C factors for a PR trying to save status despite failing to comply with the RO.
As I noted, thought it was a big clue, "Medicine for one is sometimes poison for another."
I am reminded of the case in which a mother was denied citizenship when IRCC determined she had failed to meet the burden of proving her presence in Canada based on a lack of credibility. She had reported being outside Canada for a period of time she had submitted documents (evidence) indicating she was most likely IN Canada (her children's school records). IRCC did not revise its calculation of presence to include additional days for that. Rather, it concluded this reflected the applicant could not be trusted to be a reliable reporter of facts, and so basically gave little weight to any of her information not otherwise corroborated by other sources. That is, evidence of her presence in Canada was the basis for inferring she was NOT in Canada more than she reported.
Yeah, "so what?" is an important question for any evidence. Usually the answer is obvious, easily seen with common sense. But not always.
Well, I tried to restrain myself from leaping into the debate, but I am tired of @canuck78 constantly telling people they must contact CRA when they leave the country. Again, having been an expat for over 10 years, and consulting a tax attorney at the time of departure, there is no obligation, other than filing taxes for anytime spent in Canada during the tax year, to contact CRA to advise them of anything. I would suggest that should you doubt this, contact a tax attorney and ask for yourself, rather than misinterpreting the available information and misleading others.
As for why someone would file taxes, despite non resident status, there is the option for those overseas to record income with CRA and contribute to CPP to ensure maximum available benefits at retirement.
As for why someone would file taxes, despite non resident status, there is the option for those overseas to record income with CRA and contribute to CPP to ensure maximum available benefits at retirement.
Just one of the many examples from CRA and experts that you do need to inform CRA that you are leaving Canada. You don’t have to phone them directly on your tax return there is the option to indicate that you no longer live in Canada. As always it is best to ask CRA to determine you tax residency status first. Sadly CRA is not good at actually monitoring departures and there tends to be minimal consequences so many do no inform CRA the they have moved abroad and that may have been why you were advised that you didn’t have to inform CRA. You may also be working as part of the Canadian government which would also be an exception. One of the big issues when it comes to determining population when looking at date from the CRA. Many only inform CRA that they have emigrated when they discover there is no tax treaty with the country they have moved to.Well, I tried to restrain myself from leaping into the debate, but I am tired of @canuck78 constantly telling people they must contact CRA when they leave the country. Again, having been an expat for over 10 years, and consulting a tax attorney at the time of departure, there is no obligation, other than filing taxes for anytime spent in Canada during the tax year, to contact CRA to advise them of anything. I would suggest that should you doubt this, contact a tax attorney and ask for yourself, rather than misinterpreting the available information and misleading others.
As for why someone would file taxes, despite non resident status, there is the option for those overseas to record income with CRA and contribute to CPP to ensure maximum available benefits at retirement.
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/international-non-residents/individuals-leaving-entering-canada-non-residents/leaving-canada-emigrants.html
https://www.cifinancial.com/ci-gam/ca/en/expert-insights/articles/emigrating-from-canada.html
Last edited:
Dear friemds
I am grateful for all the discussion. But my question stays there that what kind of proof i should attach with PR renewal application, for residence with my spouse? I mean she doesnt have electricity bill or bank correspondence in Pakistan, except proof of her job in Pakistan in a private college. please guide
I am grateful for all the discussion. But my question stays there that what kind of proof i should attach with PR renewal application, for residence with my spouse? I mean she doesnt have electricity bill or bank correspondence in Pakistan, except proof of her job in Pakistan in a private college. please guide
With all due respect, you know better what you can submit than we do.Dear friemds
I am grateful for all the discussion. But my question stays there that what kind of proof i should attach with PR renewal application, for residence with my spouse? I mean she doesnt have electricity bill or bank correspondence in Pakistan, except proof of her job in Pakistan in a private college. please guide