Sharma – Tax Court of Canada indicates that the NHR test of "occup[ied] as a place of residence" test in ETA s. 254(2)(g) sets a “low bar”

The taxpayer was found to have satisfied the GST/HST new housing rebate (NHR) requirement in s. 254(2)(b) of acquiring a newly built residential property in Guelph as the “primary place of residence of her or her husband notwithstanding that they listed the property for sale less than two months after taking possession and then quickly sold it. This was explained by her contemporaneous promotion by her Toronto employer, which rendered the long commute between Toronto and Guelph impracticable.

Sorenson J. went on to find that she had also satisfied the "occup[ied] … as a place of residence" test in s. 254(2)(g), notwithstanding their brief and interrupted stay at the new property. This conclusion was supported by the contrast between "place of residence" test in s. 254(2)(g) and the "primary residence" test in s. 254(2)(b), which established a “low bar set by s. 254(2)(g).”

Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Sharma v. The King, 2025 TCC 145 under ETA s. 254(2)(b) and s. 254(2)(g).