Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the CRA.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle de l'ARC.
Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the Department.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle du ministère.
Principal Issues:
If paragraph 250(1)(a) of the Act applies to deem a person to be a resident of Canada, will the spouse of that person be deemed to be a resident of Canada?
Position:
No.
Reasons: Paragraph 250(1)(a) applies only to the particular individual who has sojourned in Canada for more than 183 days. Where the spouse is not a factual resident of Canada and did not sojourn in Canada for more than 183 days, he or she would not be considered a resident of Canada.
XXXXXXXXXX 2001-010254
Jim Wilson
September 26, 2001
Dear XXXXXXXXXX:
Re: Paragraph 250(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act ("Act")
This is in reply to your letter of September 19, 2001, requesting our views regarding the above-mentioned provision. You have described a situation where an individual (Mrs. A) has sojourned in Canada for more than 183 days and is deemed by paragraph 250(1)(a) of the Act to be a resident of Canada. Your question is whether the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency ("CCRA") will automatically consider Mr. A (i.e. the spouse of Mrs. A), an individual who did not sojourn in Canada for 183 days or more, to be a deemed resident of Canada under the Act. You have asked us to assume that both Mr. A and Mrs. A did not established sufficient residential ties to Canada to be considered factually resident in Canada.
Paragraph 250(1)(a) of the Act applies only to the particular individual who sojourned in Canada for 183 days or more. Where the spouse of that particular individual did not sojourn in Canada for 183 days or more, he or she would not be deemed to be resident in Canada unless he or she fell into one of the other deeming provisions in subsection 250(1) of the Act. However, it is a question of fact whether a particular individual is a resident of Canada. Even though we have not been provided with all the relevant information regarding residency and you have asked us to assume that neither Mr. A or Mrs. A are factual residents of Canada, based on the information you provided us, there may be an argument that one or both of the individuals are factually resident in Canada.
We trust that the above comments will be of some assistance to you.
Yours truly,
Jim Wilson
for Director
International and Trusts Division
Income Tax Rulings Directorate
Policy and Legislation Branch
All rights reserved. Permission is granted to electronically copy and to print in hard copy for internal use only. No part of this information may be reproduced, modified, transmitted or redistributed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in a retrieval system for any purpose other than noted above (including sales), without prior written permission of Canada Revenue Agency, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L5
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2001
Tous droits réservés. Il est permis de copier sous forme électronique ou d'imprimer pour un usage interne seulement. Toutefois, il est interdit de reproduire, de modifier, de transmettre ou de redistributer de l'information, sous quelque forme ou par quelque moyen que ce soit, de facon électronique, méchanique, photocopies ou autre, ou par stockage dans des systèmes d'extraction ou pour tout usage autre que ceux susmentionnés (incluant pour fin commerciale), sans l'autorisation écrite préalable de l'Agence du revenu du Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L5.
© Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada, 2001
Email this Content