Bonner,
TCJ
[ORALLY]:—The
appellant
appeals
from
assessments
of
income
tax
for
the
1976,
1977
and
1978
taxation
years.
The
sole
issue
is
whether,
in
those
years,
the
appellant
was
a
person
resident
in
Canada
within
the
meaning
of
subsection
2(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
In
July
of
1976
the
appellant
left
Canada
for
Nigeria.
He
went,
according
to
his
evidence,
to:
(a)
provide
consulting
services
to
the
Government
of
Nigeria
under
the
contract,
Exhibit
A-2;
and
(b)
to
attempt
to
establish
a
consultancy
practice
in
Nigeria.
As
to
the
second
objective,
there
is
no
doubt
that
the
contraction
in
the
management
consulting
business
was
a
sufficient
reason
for
an
attempt
to
find
work
offshore.
Further,
it
is
clear
on
the
evidence
that
the
appellant
made
a
considerable
effort
when
in
Nigeria
to
establish
the
contacts
necessary
to
secure
consulting
work.
However,
I
am
not
persuaded
that
the
appellant
ceased
to
reside
in
Canada
when
he
left
for
Nigeria
in
July
of
1976.
The
consulting
contract
with
the
Canadian
Commercial
Corporation
was
for
a
term
ending
January
14,
1978.
When
work
under
that
contract
came
to
an
end
a
little
early,
in
December
of
1977,
the
appellant
came
right
back
to
live
in
Canada.
His
action
in
doing
so
is,
in
my
view,
very
strong
evidence
that
Canada
was
and
never
ceased
to
be
his
home.
There
was
no
evidence
that
the
appellant
had
any
ties
with
Nigeria
or
any
other
place
which
would
justify
viewing
the
July
1976
departure
from
Canada
as
anything
other
than
departure
with
a
temporary
absence
in
view.
It
was
not
shown
that
the
prospects
for
consulting
work
in
Nigeria
were
so
good
that
the
appellant
could
say
with
any
degree
of
confidence
that
he
planned
to
stay
on
in
Nigeria
after
the
work
on
the
Exhibit
A-2
contract
had
come
to
an
end.
On
an
overall
view
of
the
evidence
I
regard
this
as
a
case
of
a
Canadian
resident
leaving
the
country:
(a)
for
a
temporary
purpose,
namely,
doing
the
work
under
a
contract
of
a
limited
and
relatively
short-term
period;
and
(b)
with
a
view
to
exploring
the
feasibility
of
earning
a
livelihood
and
living
for
an
indefinite
period
of
time
at
his
destination.
The
appellant
was
somewhat
timid
in
cutting
his
ties
with
Canada.
He
kept
his
Canadian
bank
account
and
ensured
that,
save
for
his
day-to-day
needs,
his
income
was
to
be
deposited
in
the
Canadian
account.
He
did
this
not
only
because
of
a
lack
of
confidence
in
Nigerian
banks,
but
also
because
of
Nigerian
foreign
exchange
controls
which
he
feared
would
prevent
him
from
taking
his
money
out
of
that
country.
This
is
hardly
a
fear
which
would
be
of
great
weight
to
a
person
intending
to
reside
in
Nigeria
indefinitely.
Further,
the
appellant
stored
all
his
large
furniture
in
Toronto.
He
did
not
suggest
that
he
made
any
attempt
to
find
a
more
permanent
accommodation
in
Nigeria
than
the
room
he
took
in
the
residential
wing
of
the
hotel.
The
accommodation
taken
by
the
appellant
strikes
me
as
the
sort
which
would,
even
given
the
housing
situation
described
by
the
witness
Mooney,
be
chosen
by
a
person
expecting
to
stay
in
Nigeria
for
18
months
or
so.
It
hardly
seems
to
be
the
sort
of
place
which
would
be
chosen
by
a
person
expecting
to
reside
indefinitely
in
that
country.
Finally,
I
note
that
the
arrangement
made
by
the
appellant
with
the
Canadian
Commercial
Corporation
provided
for
the
payment
to
the
appellant
not
only
of
the
cost
of
moving
to
Nigeria,
but
also
for
the
cost
of
moving
back
to
Canada
upon
the
completion
of
work
under
the
contract.
This
is
not
the
sort
of
arrangement
which
would
be
sought
by
a
person
intending
to
take
up
residence
in
Nigeria.
For
the
foregoing
reasons
I
find
that
the
appellant
did
not
cease
to
reside
in
Canada.
Throughout
the
period
in
question
Canada
remained
the
appellant’s
home.
Nigeria
was
at
best
a
temporary
home.
The
appeal
will
therefore
be
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content