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: Is a married individual who is separated from the individual's spouse for other than a breakdown of their marriage entitled to a deduction under paragraph (b) of the description of B in subsection 118(1) of the Income Tax Act providing the individual otherwise meets the requirements of that paragraph?
Position: Yes
Reasons: There is no requirement in clause (b)(i)(B) of the description of B in subsection 118(1) of the Act that the separation (as in "nor lived with their spouse") need be "by reason of a breakdown of their marriage."
January 8, 2002
XXXXXXXXXX Tax Centre HEADQUARTERS
XXXXXXXXXX Jacques E. Grisé
Refund Exam Section 957-2059
2001-011414
Subsection 118(1)
This is in reply to your memorandum of December 7, 2001, requesting our comments on the possible application of paragraph (b) of the description of B in subsection 118(1) of the Income Tax Act (the Act) to the situation described in your memorandum.
You describe the situation wherein individuals A and B, who are married to each other, both indicated "separated" (as their marital status on December 31) on their 1999 and 2000 income tax returns. Individual A had been confined in a federal penal institution from 1993 to 2001. Individual A commenced residing at the same address as individual B upon being released from the institution in 2001. There seems to be no evidence indicating that the two individuals were living separate and apart due to a breakdown in their marriage. Individual B claimed the equivalent-to-spouse amount in 1999 and 2000 with respect to a dependant who resided with individual B in both years.
In our view, it is possible for individual B to successfully claim the equivalent-to-spouse amount in both 1999 and 2000, even though B may have been living separate and apart from A for a reason other than the breakdown of their marriage. Clause 118(1)(b)(i)(B) of the Act may apply in a particular year where, at any time in that particular year, an individual is married and neither supported nor lived with his or her spouse and who is not supported by that spouse. Whether or not a spouse supported, or received support from, the other spouse is a question of fact.
We hope our comments are helpful.
John Oulton, CA
Manager
Business and Individual Section
Business and Partnerships Division
Income Tax Rulings Directorate
??
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, 2002
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, 2002
Email this Content