Words and Phrases - "residence"
Thomson v. Minister of National Revenue, 2 DTC 812, [1946] S.C.R. 209
For a number of years the taxpayer spent between 81 and 159 days in Canada each year, with most of the balance spent in the United States. The taxpayer argued that he was not "ordinarily resident" for the purposes of what was then s. 9 (now reformulated in ss. 2(1) and 250(1)).
Rand J. set out the scope of "residence" at pp. 224-25:
For the purposes of income tax legislation, it must be assumed that every person has at all times a residence. It is not necessary to this that he should have a home or a particular place of abode or even a shelter. He may sleep in the open. It is important only to ascertain the spatial bounds within which he spends his life or to which his ordered or customary living is related.
The Court rejected the taxpayer's appeal. Kurwin J. at p. 214:
The appellant seeks to make himself a sojourner as he carefully remained in Canada for a period or periods amounting to less than 183 days during each year. This attempt fails. The family ties of his wife, if not of himself, the erection of a substantial house, the retention of the servants, together with all the surrounding circumstances, make it clear to me that his occupancy of the house and his activities in Canada comprised more than a mere temporary stay therein.
Estey J. also stated for the majority at p. 233 that, throughout the Income Tax Act, "during" means "in the course of."
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 2 - Subsection 2(1) | 262 | |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Interpretation Act - Subsection 34(2) | 80 |
Midyette v. The Queen, 85 DTC 5565, [1985] 2 CTC 362 (FCTD)
S.250(3) is not a deeming provision because it does not impose a meaning on "residence" that that term would have in the absence of the provision. The purpose of s. 250(3) is only to make it clear that "residence" does not have a narrow meaning of "actual physical presence at any given time", but instead refers "to the circumstantial concept of the person who has centralized his ordinary mode of living at some place in Canada or has maintained a sufficient nexus or connection therewith as to be logically regarded as being ordinarily resident in Canada, even though physically absent therefrom."
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 63.1 | 68 | |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Interpretation/Definition Provisions | Verrette rule | 36 |
Daruwala v. The Queen, 2012 TCC 257 (Informal Procedure)
Woods J. stated (at paras. 25-26):
The term "residence" has a flexible meaning which is dependant on the context in which it is used. ...
The term "residence" as used in the context of Thomson applies in determining the liability of an individual to income tax. The focus in this context is on the individual rather than on a property and a myriad of personal factors involving the person's customary mode of living are looked at. This include things such as social and economic ties. It does not make any sense to apply this test in the context of s. 191(1) [of the Excise Tax Act].
The context of s. 191(1) was to make the builder of a substantially completed complex liable for GST if it arranged to lease or license the complex to an individual as a place of residence.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 191 - Subsection 191(1) | informal arrangement included | 168 |
Thomson v. Minister of National Revenue, 2 DTC 812, [1946] S.C.R. 209
For a number of years the taxpayer spent between 81 and 159 days in Canada each year, with most of the balance spent in the United States. The taxpayer argued that he was not "ordinarily resident" for the purposes of what was then s. 9 (now reformulated in ss. 2(1) and 250(1)).
Rand J. set out the scope of "residence" at pp. 224-25:
For the purposes of income tax legislation, it must be assumed that every person has at all times a residence. It is not necessary to this that he should have a home or a particular place of abode or even a shelter. He may sleep in the open. It is important only to ascertain the spatial bounds within which he spends his life or to which his ordered or customary living is related.
The Court rejected the taxpayer's appeal. Kerwin J. at p. 214:
The appellant seeks to make himself a sojourner as he carefully remained in Canada for a period or periods amounting to less than 183 days during each year. This attempt fails. The family ties of his wife, if not of himself, the erection of a substantial house, the retention of the servants, together with all the surrounding circumstances, make it clear to me that his occupancy of the house and his activities in Canada comprised more than a mere temporary stay therein.
Estey J. also stated for the majority at p. 233 that, throughout the Income Tax Act, "during" means "in the course of."
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 250 | 262 | |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Interpretation Act - Subsection 34(2) | 80 |