I largely agree with the conclusions (but not necessarily the reasons) posted by
@jc94.
But some emphasis seems warranted in addition to offering some clarifications, such as to the "required to file" tax question, for example, regarding which I do NOT agree with the statement "
If you were a resident, you were required to file . . ." That is simply NOT correct. There are situations in which a resident is NOT required to file a tax return. (Further clarification below.)
These questions also present an opportunity to address HOW-TO-COMPLETE the application form more generally. That is, this response GOES LONG for the purpose of addressing some more general best-practices approaches when applying for citizenship.
I am applying for the Citizenship and while filling up the form I got confused with couple of sections. Please help me with clarifying those.
1. Section 6 :- List of the Name that You have Used .....
Q:- I only used one name my entire life. Do I still need to fill up this table with that information ?
Yes. Except this is item 5 in the current application form. Not item 6.
It was item (section) 6 in CIT 0002 (06-2018).
BEST TO USE THE CURRENT CIT 0002 (01-2019), in which, again, the question asking for all names used is number 5.
Note that the question itself, as presented in CIT 0002 (in both the current and former forms), explicitly answers this question since it specifically states "all names you have used, including name at birth . . ."
Which invites repeating an important guideline: "
When in doubt, follow the instructions; otherwise, yep, follow the instructions."
2. Section 12b :- Tell us when you filled your income taxes for last 5 yesrs ....
Q:- I am a housemaker but filing the tax every year--> With in the table , under Required to file --> Should I put No. And under Taxes filed ; I have put YES.
As I noted, it is NOT true that being a resident means a person is "required to file" a CRA tax return.
That noted, there are many reasons why it is prudent to file a return EVEN IF NOT REQUIRED to FILE.
I also do not agree that "
Putting No/Yes would be an issue."
All that is required is that the total number of years for which the applicant states No/No or No/Yes or Yes/Yes add up to three. (Basically this means that the total number of years in which "YES/NO" is entered must be two or less.)
That said, for any year that the applicant could have checked "NO" not required to file, but did file, I am certain it is OK to check Yes/Yes (or No/Yes).
As I said, checking "No/Yes" should not be an issue.
That said, generally the best impression is made if (1) the responses are consistent with the applicant's work, address, and presence history, and (2) there is no year for which the applicant checks "Yes/No" (even though the applicant can check this for two of the five years and still meet the required compliance in three of the relevant five years), and (3) the applicant filed for all years the applicant was a resident (even if not required to file).
Some Very Technical Considerations:
At the risk of being hyper-technical, filing a return ordinarily involves qualifying for a benefit or credit, either personally or for another person such as a spouse, which in effect requires the filing of a return . . . which is to say the act of filing a return thus means, usually, in a sense, a rather rough sense, filing a return was required . . . even if technically the individual was not required to file (but for the benefit or credit).
This rather technical observation illustrates an important principle: while some questions in the application ask for very precise details regarding which there is a precisely correct answer and any other answer would be erroneous, and thus more or less likely to "
be an issue," much of what the application asks for is collateral information. Some of this has a precise answer, such as the applicant's date of birth. But the applicant's date of birth does not, not itself, involve a requirement for citizenship. An erroneous date of birth will be an issue because it raises questions about the applicant's identity.
Work history information, in contrast, can be way less than precise. And as long as the applicant provides substantially accurate information, the precise details are not important. (Note the significant change in the more recent application form, which has dropped "contact" and telephone number fields from the work history item.)
In any event, for many items it is far more important to provide an honest response, one that is as accurate as possible based on what the applicant knows and believes, than it is to provide this or that precise detail. Date of birth: there is one correct answer. "Occupation" or "field of employment," in contrast, is subject to interpretation and varied answers depending on the individual's own understanding of what is requested and what the best, most truthful answer is.
Bottom-line: there is NO reason why, for the tax year filing compliance chart, a "No/Yes" response would raise an issue UNLESS the applicant did not file a return.
3. 9b :- Status Table . During my eligibility period , I applied for Open work permit but never worked. SHould I mention that in the Status table as Worker? Rest of the duration I am putting as Visitor(As I was on dependent Visa).
For this item in particular the appropriate response depends on the applicant's best understanding of the question AND of the applicant's actual immigration status during the relevant periods of time.
It is important to recognize that a formal issuance of status MAY be necessary to get credit for the time in Canada. For example, a visa-exempt FN who was waived into Canada without being issued a formal visa or Visitor's Record SHOULD be able to count the time in Canada toward meeting the presence requirement . . . BUT IT WOULD BE FOOLISH TO APPLY DEPENDING ON THAT TIME since the absence of a formal visa or VR means IRCC does NOT have internal information verifying the individual's status in Canada during that time. Better to wait and apply without relying on this period of time . . . yes, still properly report it in the application and presence calculator. Consider it part of a
buffer or margin over the minimum. But an application depending on such days has a substantial risk of running into non-routine processing that will delay the process significantly longer than waiting to apply would have . . . and there is some risk it could even result in a negative outcome (remember, the burden of proof is on the applicant, and if there is no formal documentation of status it might be difficult to PROVE presence with status).
I am not clear what happened in the OP's case, regarding the application for an Open Work permit. If such a permit was granted, the permit itself is the kind of formal documentation that shows status and as long as the individual was present in Canada while the permit was valid, those days will count AND it should be safe to rely on counting those days. So the individual can populate item 9.b) with "open work permit" in the first column, and then the date it was issued and the date it expired (which if still valid as of the date the individual landed and became a PR, it expired then).
The important thing is to distinguish and rely on status that is formally documented. Again, if there is no formal documentation (no visa, no Visitor Record, or no formal permit) that does not mean the time will not count BUT there is a significant risk IRCC will not count it unless and until it has been verified in the course of non-routine processing. If possible, better to wait so that the period of time for which one does not have formal documentation of status is NOT necessary to meet the minimum presence requirement.
