Next Section

Previous Section

 
 CANADA-U..............1
paragraph of article IV of  Canada-U .S. Income Tax Convention. 220
 
 CANADIAN..............37
The notion of residence in tax law is a key concept, causing people to be subject to  Canadian  34
the wish of the  Canadian  government to harmonize a federal tax legislation in harmony with the 52
deemed to be a resident  Canadian  under a specific provision of the I.T.A.. This is the case of a 62
Despite its importance in  Canadian  tax law, the notion of residence is not defined in theI.T.A.. 64
memberships with  Canadian  churches, clubs, etc.; 132
membership in a  Canadian  pension plan; 134
 Canadian  drivers licence; 136
 Canadian  health insurance card; 136
filing a  Canadian  income tax return; 138
In pursuing numerous cases decided by the  Canadian  and British Courts, it is obvious 180
 Canadian  courts in a domestic context, as the following analysis by Lamarre J. demonstrates:196
immigrant status nor  Canadian  citizenship. He is an American citizen and has an 216
federal tax authorities assumed that, where a  Canadian  resident was absent from Canada for 234
Under paragraph ()c) of the  Canadian  Citizenship Act the Minister grants citizenship to 286
In immigration matters, residence therefore constitutes a condition for the granting of  Canadian  300
In my opinion a person is resident in Canada, within the meaning of the  Canadian  Citizenship 306
Act only if he is physically present (at least usually) on  Canadian  territory. I feel that this 308
wishing to acquire  Canadian  citizenship, not only that he possess certain civic and moral 310
 Canadian  citizenship is granted only to persons who have shown they are capable of becoming 312
the meaning of the provision paragraph ()(c) of the  Canadian  Citizenship Act. As I 346
be a resident for tax purposes although he only had visitors status under  Canadian  immigration 376
laws, because he had married a resident  Canadian  and he had sworn that he was not a non-376
connection with Canada, or to exempt from GST transactions of a  Canadian  resident which 538
Translation  Canadian  and Quebec case law has established certain benchmarks such 622
lead to unjustifiable differences of treatment among  Canadian  taxpayers based on their province 704
In tax law cases,  Canadian  courts have generally understood and uniformly applied the 712
 Canadian  legal traditions (civil law in Quebec and common law in the other provinces) and that 720
Residency Rules for Canadians: Tax Considerations, CCH  Canadian , , chap. . 836
John V. HALPERN, Residence or Domicile?: A state of mind (),  Canadian  Tax 862
G. McGREGOR, Domicile Tests for Residence (),  Canadian  Tax Journal - 864
Conference Report, Toronto,  Canadian  Tax Foundation, , pp. :-. 866
Conference, Toronto,  Canadian  Tax Foundation, at p. :. 882
(b) was, at any time in the year, a member of the  Canadian  Forces; 902
(d.) was, at any time in the year, a member of the overseas  Canadian  Forces school staff 912
Jean-Gabriel Castel,  Canadian  Conflict of Laws, ed., Toronto, Butterworhts, , 972
(b) was a member of the  Canadian  Armed Forces and was resident in Québec immediately 1054
Droit fédéral et droit civil: complémentarité, dissociation (), ,  Canadian  Bar Review 1108
 
 CANADIAN-RESIDENT.....1
 Canadian-resident  taxpayer who earns income, regardless of its source. 544
 
 CANADIANS.............1
Residency Rules for  Canadians : Tax Considerations, CCH Canadian, , chap. . 836
 
 CANADIEN..............2
Luc Blanchette, La résidence des individus en droit fiscal  canadien  et québécois, Thesis 832
Guide de lImpôt  canadien  Canada tax guide, th ed. , Farnham, Publications CCH 844
 
 CAPITAL...............1
of the United States of America with Respect to Taxes on Income and on  Capital  (signed in 932
 
 CARBONNIER............1
Jean  Carbonnier , Droit civil; - Les Personnes civil law; - Persons, Paris, Presses 838
 
 CARD..................3
Canadian health insurance  card ; 136
one credit  card  which he had here in Canada for his day-to-day living expenses, the 202
property, the holding of a drivers licence or a health insurance  card , etc. constitute indications 998
 
 CARDS.................1
holding credit  cards  and bank accounts in Canada; 134
 
 CARRIES...............2
The expression ordinarily resident  carries  a restricted signification, and although the 92
the individual  carries  on, away from Canada, specified work of limited duration (bridge 586
 
 CAS...................2
Rogers v. I.R.C. (), Tax  Cas . (Scot. Ct. of Ex.). 890
Lloyd v. Sully (), Tax  Cas . (Scot. Ct. of Ex.). 892
 
 CASE..................46
established by the  case  law; this is what is known as ordinary residence. Second, he may be 60
deemed to be a resident Canadian under a specific provision of the I.T.A.. This is the  case  of a 62
governing the determination of residence in a tax context. A review of the tax  case  law is thus 70
facts and circumstances of each  case . It is therefore not always easy to develop uniform 84
criteria. As mentioned by Rand J. in the Thomson  case : 84
the same matter. In one  case  it is satisfied by certain elements, in another by others, 90
Canada, regardless of the number of hours. The  case  law, however, does not support this 172
who is also an American citizen. In the Wolf  case , it was held that the taxpayer had dual 188
Although this  case  arose in Quebec, the judge ignored the notion of residence in the C.C.Q., 222
law. Furthermore, nothing could be found in the established  case  law to support this position..242
constitutes a better summary of the principles developed by the  case  law. 246
Koo  case  summarizes the state of immigration law involving residence in the following terms:316
In the Koo  case , Reed J. drew a parallel between the notion of residence for tax purposes 352
The Thomson  case , of course, dealt with tax matters. I am not convinced that the 354
The tax  case  law also supports the conclusion that the concept of residence for tax purposes 374
It is interesting to note that, in Droit de la famille , a divorce  case , the Superior Court 418
refers to the Adderson v. Adderson  case , which held that: 424
jurisdiction. Thus, where a  case  includes extraneous elements, we must ask which legal system 492
will be able to decide it. In that  case , the applicable law must be determined. In cases involving 492
(d) in the  case  of an individual, if the individual is deemed under any of paragraphs 510
purposes. The  case  law developed under the I.T.A. is therefore relevant in interpreting the 514
addition, the Quebec  case  law on residence for tax purposes has been developed in conjunction 564
with the common law  case  law, with the difference that the Quebec case law seems to give 564
with the common law case law, with the difference that the Quebec  case  law seems to give 564
Translation Canadian and Quebec  case  law has established certain benchmarks such 622
 case . 626
In addition, in the Roy  case , Crête J. of the Court of Appeal of Québec used the criteria 628
Translation Among the factors to consider, the Reeder  case  mentions the following:636
can only have one domicile, whereas it has been established by the  case  law that an individual 648
force. In that  case , the Court of Quebec not only reaffirmed the reciprocity of federal tax law 666
and provincial tax law, it also considered  case  law from other common law countries.668
interpreted by the tax  case  law inspired by the common law. Accordingly, there is a 690
principles of residence for tax purposes developed in the federal tax  case  law. 714
law in force in the province in which the  case  arises. 722
Canada (Attorney General). The issue in that  case  was whether the meaning of the 724
C.C.Q. where a  case  arises in Quebec: 730
fact, quite simply, that the federal enactment in a given  case  must be applied to situations or 768
on the source of the litigation. In this  case , although the notion seems to be similar in both 778
similar nature, but in the  case  of an estate or trust, only to the extent that income, derived by 940
Blaha v. Department of Citizenship and Immigration, F.C. . This  case  982
Id., at p. , par. -. In this  case , the Court held that, although the purchase of 996
Id., par. . In that  case , the Court held that, in addition to not having met the three-year 1002
Id., at p. . In that  case , the Court established that the notion of sojourn must be 1012
That  case  was decided under the Civil Code of Lower Canada. 1038
fact and consequently that the facts in each  case  must be examined closely to see whether they 1082
resident though travelling continuously and in such a  case  the status may be acquired by a 1092

Next Section

Top of Section