Words and Phrases - "reside"
9 June 2011 Internal T.I. 2011-0396721I7 F - Déduction - habitants de régions éloignées
The taxpayer works at a worksite located in prescribed zone. In accordance with the contract of employment, the taxpayer returns to the taxpayer’s principal residence outside the zone every 35 days for a period of 8 days including travel. Does the qualifying period referred to in s. 110.7(1)(b)(ii) apply to all the days stated in the contract of employment or only the accumulation of the 35-day periods? CRA responded:
[T]emporary absences from the place of residence in the prescribed northern or intermediate zone may constitute an interruption in the continuity of the period of residence. However, those temporary absences will not constitute a break in the continuity of the period of residence if they are of short duration and if they are not frequent. …
[I]n the situation you described, an individual who resides in a prescribed northern or intermediate zone for a period of at least six months and who has a 35-day work cycle in the said zone followed by an 8-day leave in his other residence at XXXXXXXXXX would be entitled to the deduction provided for in section 110.7.
Talbot v. The Queen, 2018 TCC 94 (Informal Procedure)
The taxpayer worked for Canadian Royalties Inc. in a remote area of Quebec, that was a prescribed northern zone, where he operated a crusher. He followed a regular pattern of working in the northern zone for 22 consecutive work days, followed by 20 days off. At the end of each work period, he would leave the work site, and return to his residence in the City of Quebec.
In finding that the taxpayer did not qualify for relief under s.110.7, Fournier J. stated (at paras. 15-16):
In this case, unlike the taxpayer in Morecroft, the Appellant’s employer provided him with meals and a room, which he had to vacate for his replacement when he left the work site during his time off. That was when he would return to his ordinary residence in the City of Québec. Every time he left the work site, he had to bring his personal belongings with him, because he no longer had a place to store them. At no time did he have a self-contained domestic establishment in a prescribed zone. …
The most that can be said is that he intermittently stayed at the work site and did not even have the means of establishing a “residence” within the meaning of section 110.7 of the Act, even though that was his intention.
B Morecroft v. MNR, 91 DTC 937, [1991] 2 CTC 2265 (TCC)
The taxpayer, who ate and slept at a trailer near his worksite in the Carmanah Valley on Vancouver Island was found to "reside" there "throughout" a period of more than six months notwithstanding the occasional visit to his wife and three children in Nanaimo, B.C. "To reside anywhere does not require the constant and uninterrupted presence by a person in a particular area" (p. 939).