farid- said:
OK great sounds good n sure make sense one last question we were going through new application for citizenship n got confused with question 6 h I guess. where it says tax return should be for 4 yrs. out of 6. then it asks for details for if u have sin n u filed taxes does that column need 6 yrs data or 4 yrs..I need little clarification can anyone please help.
Thanks
Not sure what you need clarified.
Mostly, see the CIC
Program Delivery Instruction (PDI) for "Income tax filing" (this is a link).
The application has space to list the six years preceding the year in which the application is made. For each of those years there are two checkbox items, yes or no the applicant was "required to file" a tax return for that year, and yes or no the applicant did file a tax return for that year.
For at least four of those six years, the applicant needs to have checked yes to a tax return having been filed
or checked no that there was no obligation to file a return for that year. That is, the applicant's response to the item overall must reflect that the applicant met his or her obligations to file tax returns for at least four of the six years preceding the year in which the application is being made.
New provisions, including regulations, allow CIC to share information with CRA to verify the information submitted: thus at the least CRA will confirm what years a tax return was filed or not filed.
For example, for a PR who landed in early 2010 and is applying in September 2015, 2015 cannot be one of the "taxation years" since the year is still in progress (according to the example CIC uses in its PDI). Since the applicant did not land until 2010, I do not think that 2009 counts either (not sure of this but that is what makes the most sense). So 6 H will look something like this:
Tax year ... Required to file ... Taxes filed
2010 ......... (yes or no) ....... (yes or no)
2011 ......... (yes or no) ....... (yes or no)
2012 ......... (yes or no) ....... (yes or no)
2013 ......... (yes or no) ....... (yes or no)
2014 ......... (yes or no) ....... (yes or no)
Since the applicant must have been physically present in Canada 183+ days in each of at least four years (thus at least three in the 2010 to 2014 years if the PR was present 183 or more days in 2015 before applying), it is
presumable that the applicant was required to file a tax return for each of those years (CRA presumes resident status for tax purposes for anyone who was present in Canada for 183 days or more).
In any event, to meet the tax filing requirement, the applicant needs to have checked yes in taxes filed column, or no in the required to file column, for each of at least four of the listed years.
This information can be shared with the CRA and it can also be used in the assessment of meeting the physical presence requirement.
Obviously, for example, a person who checks "no" in the "required to file" column and the "taxes filed" column, for a given year, faces at least some scrutiny about presence unless it is clear in the application why "no" is applicable: presence in Canada less than six months and not a resident that year, or perhaps a stay-at-home parent with young children who has no personal income and is fully supported by a spouse. But even the latter scenario is likely to draw attention and scrutiny since there are benefits for filing a tax return.
In the example I pose above, there might only be three years for which a "yes" in both columns is the minimum response . . . a "no" for the year in which less than 183 days is reported as present in Canada will be a year that the applicant was not a resident and not required to file a tax return (unless the applicant had Canadian based income that year) . . . so that would meet the four years compliance requirement
but might not escape elevated scrutiny . . . since any year in which the applicant was resident (at least presumably, as in present 183 or more days) but is a year in which "yes" does not get checked in both columns, is likely to draw attention, some elevated scrutiny (that is, there should be a "yes" in both columns for all years in which the applicant was present at least 183 days, even if that is not specifically required by the tax filing provision).
There are many things CIC appears to be looking for. Applicants relying on foreign-based income is one. Applicants failing to disclose all absences is another big one (particularly applicants who may have business or employment abroad). Incongruities in general (family not taking advantage of benefits available through filing tax returns; applicants with lifestyles disproportionate to income; among many others).
Obviously the vast majority of legitimate applicants will be checking yes in both columns for each year since landing and settling in Canada (or, at least since coming to Canada to actually settle in Canada for those who delayed settling in Canada after landing), and CRA will confirm that information to CIC. No problem.
ashirale said:
I thought candidates were not invited to the test if they did not meet the residence requirements.
For pre-June-11-applicants, meeting the basic residency test was sufficient to establish eligibility for the grant of citizenship. For such applicants there are three different tests for determining if the residency requirement was met. Only a Citizenship Judge can decide which test is to be applied unless the applicant was actually physically present for at least 1095 days (in this case, the residency requirement is met and there is no reason for referring the case to a CJ). Thus, those PRs who applied based on meeting the basic residency requirement (which is all PRs who have been a PR more than three years, regardless of how much time was spent in Canada, and also many who were a PR more than two years and who were living in Canada prior to becoming a PR) must be processed through the whole procedure, including knowledge test, and then referred to a CJ. CJs can (and apparently in some cases still do) approve shortfall applicants based on the applicant having centralized his or her life in Canada (per
Koo criteria), even though it appears the odds are not at all good for shortfall applicants.
Note: since June 11, there is no possibility of making a shortfall but eligible for citizenship application.
