cooldoc80 said:
Thanks for this very detailed explanation , for sure i will try to get a job but as a specialist physician its very very difficult but i will give it all my best .
but lets say i have summed money to live for four years before i make my final move to canada and i cant get job there , but in the mean time i declare tax every year with zero income would this mean it may creat a problem for me because i lived on savings?
thanks again for this professional reply
Note : could you please explain what is the difference you mean between ( filing a tax with no income and declaring no need to file taxes )????? i really dont get it , do you mean that after i reside in canada i have the option of filing or NOT filing taxes ?! how is that possible ?
Foremost, my post was
NOT professional. I am no expert. I am not an immigration or citizenship professional. I am not a Canadian lawyer.
Additionally, you are probably way ahead of yourself. The road ahead is crowded with contingencies. Both personal contingencies, and broader contingencies.
Among the broader contingencies is the prospect of changes to the requirements for becoming a citizen. The current Canadian government, elected just last month, has promised to make some changes. Additionally, Canadian tax laws tend to change at least some every year, so whether or not you will be obligated to file a Canadian tax return for any specific year will depend in significant part on what the
future law is, not just curent law.
Beyond that, under current rules and law, the key aspects of this are simple:
-- employment is not a requirement to qualify for grant citizenship
-- compliance with CRA filing obligations in four of the six years preceding application is a requirement
-- -- tax filing compliance is ordinarily shown by filing a return
-- -- not all Canadian residents are required to file a return, so there are circumstances in which a PR can be in compliance for a given tax year even though the PR does not file a return for that year; theoretically this could include all four years, but as I outlined in my previous post not filing a return for all four years is likely to raise questions leading to potential problems
even if legally there was no obligation to file a return.
Reminder: Canadian residents are required to report worldwide income.
And as I noted in my previous post, if indeed you have saved sufficient funds to live off for four years or more, at the very least you should have
interest or dividend income, or otherwise investment income. This will trigger the requirement to file a Canadian tax return in which you would be obligated to report this income no matter where in the world it comes from. Thus, obviously I think, the
reasonable person, let alone the total-stranger bureaucrat, is likely to infer that an individual who has sufficient financial resources to go four years without being employed will indeed typically have some source of
income, triggering the tax filing requirement.
And otherwise, if there is indeed no income at all triggering filing requirements, there are benefits (including credits or rebates such as for payment of Canadian sales taxes) which will typically lead the individual to file a tax return, again even if filing a return is not legally required. Thus, again, the
reasonable person, let alone the total-stranger bureaucrat, is likely to infer something else is going on if a Canadian resident does not file a return, even if not legally obligated to file a return.
See item 6.H. in
the application, which has three columns, one for identifying the tax year, another for checking yes or no as to whether the applicant was required to file a return, and the third column for checking yes or no as to whether a return was filed.
Theoretically an applicant could legitimately check no in both columns for all years and still be in compliance with filing obligations, so long as, of course, it was true that the applicant was not required to file a return. See the CRA website and related instructions regarding precisely
who is required to file a return. Some of these are optional, such as for those who personally have no income but they have a spouse seeking certain kinds of credits or deductions (no legal obligation to file, but not filing will preclude the spouse from getting those credits or deductions).
The caution I expressed regards the person who checks off the box for "no," not required to file tax return, and "no," no return filed. While there are many circumstances in which this might apply, multiple years of this is likely to raise questions (as previously outlined).
Re the distinction between filing tax return with no income and declaring no need to file tax return:
Regarding "option" to file:" Canadian tax law requires the filing of a return in specified circumstances; these generally cover anyone with a job or other income, but again see the CRA web site and related instructions to see who
must file a return. Those who must file a return have no option, they must file a return (or be in violation of the law, subject to the prescribed penalties).
Not all Canadian residents must file a return. For example, a Canadian resident with
NO income at all (from anywhere in the world) might indeed have no legal requirement to file a return. This individual does have the
option to file or not file. But as noted extensively, the benefits of filing will tend to raise questions if a person does not file
even if they are not legally required to file a return.
The Canadian tax return involves far more than simply reporting employment income.
If your question is about what happens if the applicant checks "no," to not being required to file, but did file, this is likely to be quite common. They check "yes" in the column for reporting whether they did file. There is nothing odd or incongruous about this, because, again, there are benefits involved which are an incentive to file even if legally not required to file.
There may be some ambiguity in the way this is reported. Some applicants may interpret "required to file" to encompass the optional reasons for filing (usually entitlement to benefits). They might have no income, but check yes in both columns. A person in a very similar situation might check "no," as to whether required to file, and check yes, as to having actually filed. My sense is that either way is no big deal. In other words, I do not think there is a problem if the applicant (appropriately) checks "no" as to whether required to file and checks "yes" to having filed. Indeed, I believe this should be far more common than "no" in both columns (and indeed, much of what I have commented goes to the likelihood that "no" in both columns raises the risk of highly intrusive inquiries if not investigation).
