3 April 1992 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 18, p. 23, ¶1865)
The purchase by an individual of the interest of a former common-law spouse in a jointly-owned home would qualify as the acquisition of a "qualifying home".
Subsection 146.01(1) - Definitions
29 September 1994 Memorandum (C.T.O. "First-time Home buyer under Home Buyers' Plan")
The exclusion in s. 146.01(1)(d.1)(ii) limits the exclusion to individuals to have spouses at the time of the withdrawal. Accordingly, if at the time of the withdrawal the taxpayer was divorced from his spouse, the previous ownership by the spouse of a principal residence will not result in disqualification.
It is also considered that the joint ownership of a home by a taxpayer with her spouse after January 1, 1990 will not result in disqualification if subsequent to that time she was separated from her spouse and did not inhabit the house, as referred to in s. 146.01(2)(a.1).
Regular Eligible Amount
An individual and other persons inherited a house and, when the others accepted the inheritance, they made a gift to the individual of their respective shares in the house. You stated that the deceased had not left a will. Can the individual benefit from the home buyer plan (“HBP”) rules based on having entered into a written agreement to acquire or construct a housing unit? CRA responded:
[W]here one or more written agreements provide for the acquisition of a house by way of legacy and gift, the CRA is generally of the view that it is a valid acquisition for the purposes of the definition of "regular eligible amount ". Consequently, provided that the other conditions…are satisfied, acquiring a qualifying home in the circumstances described above would not preclude… from participating in the HBP.
Can an individual who had already owned a home in the U.S withdraw an amount from an RRSP under the home buyers’ program? After stating that “where an individual owning a home has lived in it as the principal place of residence, we consider that the individual owned the home as an owner-occupant” and referring to the discussion in Income Technical News No. 31 of the meaning of “principal place of residence,” CRA stated:
The fact that the home was located in the United States does not alter this opinion.
After referencing the vacant possession test, CRA stated (TaxInterpretations translation):
[W]hen the individual receives the keys to the unit, and the time at which it is agreed with the vendor that the individual can move in, are key factors.