OVERALL: This should NOT be a problem.
A DETAILED EXPLANATION (far more than most will want to know or need to know):
I have been living in Canada from Septemper 2015. And I filed income taxes every year from 2015 to 2018
I asked my accountant and she told me check No on the collum REQUIRE TO FILE thats why . . . [answered NO/YES]
The responses you entered meet the eligibility requirements for citizenship, so this part of your application will pass the completeness screening.
As long as you did in fact file tax returns for the years indicated, you meet the tax filing obligation requirement whether or not you were required to file.
Thus, what appears to be errors made in the "Required to file" column do NOT directly affect your eligibility. You meet the tax filing requirement and your responses indicate you met the tax filing requirement.
Assuming the "NO" not-required-to-file answers were errors: Erroneous information can be considered misrepresentation.
BUT generally mistakes are
NOT considered misrepresentation, since they are just mistakes not deception, innocent errors not fraud. And assuming your "NO" responses were erroneous, they are obviously merely mistakes. Moreover, since you did in fact file returns, and thus met the eligibility requirement without regard to whether you were required to file, the erroneous information (assuming it is erroneous) should not be considered "material," and thus NOT misrepresentation.
OVERALL: As noted, this should NOT be a problem.
It might trigger questions. It could trigger an inter-agency inquiry, which should simply confirm you filed taxes and thus met the citizenship eligibility requirements. Whether that would cause some delay in processing is difficult to predict. My GUESS (just a guess) is this would be minimal if it happens at all.
OR perhaps there will be questions about this asked during your PI Interview (interview at time of test), and just your simple honest answers to the particular questions asked should easily resolve any questions.
Generally a "YES" did file, if truthful, is good to go. The only problematic response is a "YES" Required to file and "NO" did not file. Any other combination (YES/YES or NO/YES or NO/NO) shows that tax filing obligations were met for that year, so that year counts as one of the years toward meeting the
met-tax-filing-obligation for three of five years requirement.
Only a YES/NO response shows a year in which tax filing obligations were not met. BUT even two years like this can be OK as long as for each of the other three tax years the applicant can truthfully answer YES filed or NO/NO.
The only seriously problematic response is a NO/NO response for a year in which the PR was actually obligated to file a tax return. This is BOTH false information AND misrepresents meeting an element of eligibility that is not true.
Thus, again, overall this should NOT be a problem.
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS regarding "Required to file:"
The threshold triggering an obligation to file a tax return is very low. As others have observed, almost everyone who has filed a return was either absolutely required to file, or by filing was entitled to a benefit or obtained a credit which required filing. Thus, in practical terms, just the act of filing a return means they are required to file, even if they would not have been required to file if they had not filed. Sorry about how convoluted this observation is.
The more simple way to state this in practical terms is much as many here have stated: if you file a return, it is almost always correct to check YES/YES.
Checking YES/YES is a safe answer for anyone who did in fact file a return for that year.
In particular, there is nothing wrong with this response even if technically the correct response about being required to file is somehow "NO," since at worst that is merely an easily made technical mistake not materially relevant in a citizenship application.
Note: In contrast, a "NO/NO" response could be problematic if the "NO"
not-required-to-file part is not true, but even this is more likely to be treated as a mistake than a misrepresentation UNLESS the situation is one in which the applicant was obviously required to file and the applicant's eligibility depended on counting this as one of the three years in compliance with the filing obligation.
OBSERVATIONS regarding accountant's recommendation to check "NO" not-required-to-file:
I am usually reluctant to second-guess or challenge advice or opinions offered by paid-for professionals. In addition to their qualifications and, one hopes, their expertise, most importantly they almost always are better acquainted with the facts. Knowing the facts is huge.
I can ONLY GUESS what was happening. My
GUESS (emphasizing it is just a guess) is that the accountant was not familiar with the particular citizenship eligibility requirement and gave advice based on a literal reading of the question, as if the "required-to-file" question was asking whether there is an outstanding need to file. That is, the accountant appears to have read the "required-to-file" question as asking whether the applicant still needs to file a return for that year and did not realize that in context the question is really about whether any return needed to be filed for that previous tax year.
This is an easily understood mistake from an accountant's perspective. Among tax filing mistakes people commonly make is the failure to include this or that form or part of a return, or some information was missing in part of the return, so even though a return was filed, CRA will give the taxpayer notice that some additional "return" needs to be filed. It may be natural for an accountant to see a question asking whether a return is required to file, and analyze that prospectively.
In particular, a flaw many professionals are prone to have, is thinking inside their particular silo of information. An accountant may have minimal if any familiarity with the requirements for grant citizenship. This is similar to the problem some encounter when they are involved in a criminal case, lawyers experienced and skilled in criminal cases are often not well-informed about the impact of criminal cases on immigration and citizenship, and even if they are, they are more likely to know about the impact on immigration admissibility rather than what constitutes a prohibition for grant citizenship.
Thus, the accountant is prone to answering a question like this in a context more focused on questions related to accounting issues and not recognize the context for grant citizenship.
Some may jump all over an accountant who makes this kind of mistake. As if that signals the accountant's incompetency. Sure, it does not inspire a lot of confidence in the professional's judgment. The best professionals recognize questions depending on an understanding outside their area of expertise and at least couch their advice or opinions accordingly. But this sort of mistake does not signal general incompetence in that person's respective profession. Again, many professionals tend to make this kind of mistake.
In any event, this one falls under the category NO HARM, NO FOUL.
Hi everyone
I have been living in Canada from Septemper 2015. And I filed income taxes every year from 2015 to 2018
I asked my accountant and she told me check No on the collum REQUIRE TO FILE thats why I filled the chart like below
1)Tax year 2)Required to file (yes/No) 3)Taxes filed(Yes/No)
2018 NO. YES
2017 NO. YES
2016 NO. YES
2015 NO YES
2014 NO NO
However I did search somewhere here that people recommend check Yes On the collum Required to file
I trusted the accountant thats why I didnot search this question in this forum.
I was confuse now. Did I fill wrong on this part especially in the collum Required to file?
I already sent the application to IRCC office some days ago.
If I did wrong . Is that the serious mistake?
Thanks
In 2015 I had no income, unemployment
But from 2016 to 2018 I have worked and had income
She just said that as I filed taxes every year on time thats why the gorverment didnot request to file taxes,
Do you think this is a serious mistake on my application?
So worry now
