Cases
Sampson v British Columbia, 2018 BCSC 1503
Mr. Sampson, who was described (at para. 126) as “a wealthy CEO of an international energy company” (Niko) maintained a 600 square foot apartment within three blocks of the Niko Calgary headquarters. In the four taxation years in question between 24% and 29% of his days were in Calgary and between 39% and 46% of his days were in B.C., where there was a 10,000 square foot home (near his parents’ home) owned by his wife, and with contents insured for $2.1M, and where they also used their yacht. Over 20% and 7% of his time was spent respectively on business travel and personal stays outside Canada. Their social life was centred in B.C., although Mrs. Sampson and their grown children (who lived in B.C.) would occasionally visit him in Calgary, and he had one close friend and club memberships in Calgary. He had an Alberta health card and driver’s licence.
After stating (in applying Hauser) that “the question of a person’s residency in one jurisdiction will be answered by examining the person’s connection to that jurisdiction and will not be influenced by evidence of links to a second jurisdiction” (para. 108) and finding that Mr. Sampson was resident both in B.C. and Alberta, Gaul J found that B.C. was Mr. Sampson’s “principal place of residence” under Reg. 2607. He stated (at para. 123):
[T]he fact that Mr. Sampson spent close to half of his time in British Columbia points to a clear personal connection with the province. Moreover, when compared to how much time he spent in Alberta during the same period, the importance of his time in British Columbia is magnified. Finally, looking at the nature and quality of the time he spent in British Columbia, I am satisfied that Mr. Sampson had a much closer and profound personal tie with British Columbia than Alberta.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 2 - Subsection 2(1) | residence in two provinces before tie breaker rule applied | 132 |
Administrative Policy
28 February 2005 External T.I. 2004-0104121E5 F - Détermination du statut de résidence
Regarding the residence on December 31, 2004 of an individual who had been working in Ontario since August 2004, where he maintained an apartment, but visited his wife and children for two weekends a month at the family home in Quebec, CRA stated:
[Y]our province of residence is the one where you maintain the most significant residential ties. Based on the information provided, you appear to maintain significant residential ties in Quebec and Ontario. On the one hand, your wife and children live in the family home located in the province of Quebec, and on the other hand, since August 2004, your permanent employment is located in Ontario where you maintain a dwelling. If the province in which you maintain the most significant residential ties cannot be determined, we look at all secondary ties in both provinces. In your letter, you did not provide any information regarding secondary ties you may have established in Ontario (e.g., health insurance, social ties, other economic ties, etc.). However, you have indicated that you regularly visit your family in the province of Quebec and you do not appear to have changed your driver's licence, car registration and provincial health insurance. Based solely on the information available to us, we are inclined to conclude that the province of Quebec was your principal place of residence on of December 31, 2004, and that you should complete your tax return using the 2004 T1 General Income Tax and Benefit Return for Quebec Residents.
22 March 1995 External T.I. 9414435 - RESIDENCE IN A PROVINCE (HAA 7576-1)
"Generally, the principal place of residence of a person is the province where the person ordinarily resides in a permanent home with which he or she has close or social and economic ties."