im staying with my brother in canada. so im not renting ,and Im not planning of opening any bank accounts or have any ties here in the mean time. I will just stay 5 months each year for 5 years to fulfill the 2 year residency requirement. How will I be jeopardizing my PR status ? I dont understand.. can I fulfil my 2 year requirement and still get rejected for residency renewal ? whats the reason..please elaborate more..
why perhaps, is it not certain ?
Beyond the general observations already offered, including cautions about potentially being confronted with personal priority decisions, such as whether to risk losing PR status in order to avoid taxation, your questions are more complicated and more individual fact specific than can be reasonably answered in a forum like this.
Hypothetically it is possible for an individual to never establish residency for tax purposes in Canada and still keep PR status. In practical terms, however, there are all sorts of RISKS and PITFALLS looming, on both accounts, relative to meeting the PR Residency Obligation and keeping status, and relative to taxation obligations.
Beyond describing some of the RISKS and CONTINGENCIES and potential pitfalls rather generally, NO ONE HERE can offer any in-depth, reliable opinion or advice about how to navigate according to your objectives. There are way, way, way too many variables and contingencies involved.
The Longer Explanation:
First, regarding relationship between residency for tax purposes and PR obligations (residency for tax purposes can trigger an obligation to pay Canada tax on worldwide income; at the least, it requires reporting worldwide income):
Residency for tax purposes is a relevant factor when IRCC weighs evidence of presence in Canada in the process of a PR Residency Obligation determination. It is just one factor, among many factors.
There is NO tax filing let alone tax paying requirement imposed on an individual just by virtue of that individual's PR status.
BUT of course when a person has not been a resident of Canada for tax purposes for five years that is a fairly strong reason to question if not outright suspect the individual has not been present in Canada enough to meet the minimum PR Residency Obligation. It clearly indicates the individual has NOT established or maintained a primary residence in Canada. Thus, it is an almost for-sure indicator the individual has not done what Canada expects of PRs. Since the purpose of granting PR status is so the individual can and will settle and live PERMANENTLY in Canada, the absence of residency for tax purposes tends to SHOUT cause to doubt the PR's accounting of presence in Canada.
To be clear: a PR can indeed spend, on an average, just 150 days a year present in Canada, and NOT be a resident for tax purposes in any year, and nonetheless be in compliance with the PR RO. And so long as the PR satisfactorily
PROVES, to CBSA (in any PoE examination as to RO compliance) and IRCC (in any PR card, PR Travel Document, or other RO examination), that he or she has in fact met the minimum RO, that should suffice. Some serious emphasis on that "should" is warranted.
In particular, some rather big, looming contingencies underlie that "so long as the PR proves . . . sufficient presence."
As I have oft emphasized,
cutting-it-close has RISKS. Anything less than half the time in Canada is
cutting-it-close (thus, less than 900 days in five years is
cutting-it-close). Less than half the time spent in Canada means it would be reasonable to infer any day not documented as present in Canada is at least possibly (and perhaps likely) a day spent where the individual spent most of the time: OUTSIDE CANADA.
For a person not employed in Canada, not renting or owning a home in Canada, with minimal residential ties in Canada, it could be difficult to PROVE days in-between a known date of entry and the next known date of exit were all spent in Canada.
Most of the time and in most contexts, PRs benefit from a favouable inference of presence in Canada between known entry dates and next known exit dates. In contrast, PRs who are
cutting-it-close or who otherwise do not appear to have settled in Canada, who appear to not have established primary residence in Canada, may encounter some difficulty proving all those in-between days.
PR status is also relevant when CRA evaluates an individual's residency for tax purposes:
While immigration status is relevant when CRA evaluates whether a particular individual is a "resident" for tax purposes, this is just one evidentiary factor among many, many others. Generally no one factor will determine tax-residency.
As I have observed elsewhere, remember Canada has treaties with many countries regarding taxation related obligations of citizens and residents of the respective countries. Thus, one particularly dominant factor is whether the individual is recognized as having tax-residence in a country that has a treaty with Canada governing tax filing and tax paying obligations for the respective countries.
Thus, trying to answer your questions in the abstract is largely a waste of effort. To even approach answering your questions, it is necessary to determine whether the country which is the source of your income has a treaty with Canada and have some idea what that means for a person who is a resident of and has income from that country.
Apart from that, even if it is a country which does not have a treaty with Canada, the individual's BONA FIDE residency in another country can also be a key factor.
Thus, for example, if a person spends 183 or more days in Canada, that may support a presumption of residency for tax purposes, EXCEPT that bona fide residency for tax purposes in another country which is also the source of the income may be enough to establish the individual is NOT a resident of Canada for tax purposes. This is more certain for countries with tax treaties (many such treaties specifically provide that a person who is a resident of one country for tax purposes is presumed to NOT be a resident for tax purposes of the other country).
In contrast, just because an individual spends less than 183 days per year in Canada does NOT automatically or conclusively establish the individual is NOT a resident for tax purposes. As others have noted, there are other factors which can lead CRA to conclude the person is a resident for tax purposes.
It gets complicated. Nature and source of the income matters. Earned income is different from other types of income. Payment of taxes on the income to another country can have a big impact. And, thus, non-payment of taxes to another country can have an impact.
Issues related to where the income is earned can arise in contrast to the source country (for example: all my income comes from and is paid to me OUTSIDE Canada, but it is all deemed earned in Canada, and thus taxable in Canada).
In other words: your agenda demands specialized planning contingent on many specific facts and circumstance peculiar to your situation, depending on a number of future contingencies, and thus is well beyond the scope of what can be reliably answered in a forum like this.
THAT SAID, it is easy to recognize there are looming RISKS and PITFALLS in your plan. The hypothetical plan probably sounds a lot better in your head than it will play out in real time in the real world. As others have emphasized: a plan which delays making the full move to Canada for two or three years is more practical, a necessary course to pursue for many, but a plan which postpones settling in Canada much beyond that is prone to risks and pitfalls. Be aware that this forum is full of tales of woe told by PRs who had the postpone-settlement-for-two-to-three-years plan, but contingencies in real life intervened and things did not turn out all that well.
