Left behind???

[BubbOZ]

Hi folks,

Here's the situation. One of us is a Canadian citizen and the other half is a PR. We fully intend to convert from PR to citizenship, but here's the problem.

The Canadian is offered a job in the USA. Does the PR stay back in Canada? I understand that the PR can maintain the residency requirements by being abroad with Canadian spouse. I'm wondering what to do once we can apply for citizenship. Does the PR return to Canada to wait out the process to oath?

Cheers...

 

[Leon]

The Canadian does not have to be armed forces for the spouse to maintain PR residency. The spouse can keep their PR forever if accompanying a Canadian partner abroad.

However, as for citizenship residency, the Canadian must be armed forces or govt. in order for the spouse to be able to use days abroad for citizenship.

If the thing is that the PR person already qualifies to apply for citizenship and applies for citizenship before they both leave Canada, that is iffy right now because of the intent to reside, see http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/cit/grant/residence/intention.asp

Basically when you apply for Canadian citizenship, you have to declare that you intend to reside in Canada in the future. If you have already left Canada with your spouse in order to work and live in another country, it will be pretty hard to convince immigration that you still intend to reside in Canada in the future.

So basically, you should stay in Canada until you have completed the oath ceremony and gotten your CDN passport.

 

[BubbOZ]

Hi Leon,

Thanks that. That's what we also thought.

How or would the proposed Bill C-6 change that? Did previous rules allow for application of citizenship from abroad?

Thanks

The Canadian does not have to be armed forces for the spouse to maintain PR residency. The spouse can keep their PR forever if accompanying a Canadian partner abroad.

However, as for citizenship residency, the Canadian must be armed forces or govt. in order for the spouse to be able to use days abroad for citizenship.

If the thing is that the PR person already qualifies to apply for citizenship and applies for citizenship before they both leave Canada, that is iffy right now because of the intent to reside, see http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/cit/grant/residence/intention.asp

Basically when you apply for Canadian citizenship, you have to declare that you intend to reside in Canada in the future. If you have already left Canada with your spouse in order to work and live in another country, it will be pretty hard to convince immigration that you still intend to reside in Canada in the future.

So basically, you should stay in Canada until you have completed the oath ceremony and gotten your CDN passport.

 

[torontosm]

Hi Leon,

Thanks that. That's what we also thought.

How or would the proposed Bill C-6 change that? Did previous rules allow for application of citizenship from abroad?

Thanks

C6 will eliminate the intent to reside clause, but PR's must still live in Canada for 3/5 years (when the bill is passed) to qualify for citizenship. They can then apply and leave the country if they wish.

 

[Leon]

C6 will eliminate the intent to reside clause, but PR's must still live in Canada for 3/5 years (when the bill is passed) to qualify for citizenship. They can then apply and leave the country if they wish.

This is true but even before the intent clause, applications from people who had left Canada seemed to have been given special treatment, RQ's and delays etc. so lets say even if they remove the intent clause, they don't seem to particularly like it when somebody leaves after applying.

 

[BubbOZ]

Hi Leon,

That's what we though, too. It'll make the decision even harder.

If the PR is left behind in Canada and the Citizen goes to work in the USA, that would also attract tax obligations to both the CRA and IRS. That would effectively negate any tax benefits of being non-residents to the CRA.

Cheers,

This is true but even before the intent clause, applications from people who had left Canada seemed to have been given special treatment, RQ's and delays etc. so lets say even if they remove the intent clause, they don't seem to particularly like it when somebody leaves after applying.

 

[links18]

This is true but even before the intent clause, applications from people who had left Canada seemed to have been given special treatment, RQ's and delays etc. so lets say even if they remove the intent clause, they don't seem to particularly like it when somebody leaves after applying.

True, but as long as the applicant maintains PR status and meets other qualifications, they should be able to eventually get citizenship.

 

[links18]

Hi Leon,

That's what we though, too. It'll make the decision even harder.

If the PR is left behind in Canada and the Citizen goes to work in the USA, that would also attract tax obligations to both the CRA and IRS. That would effectively negate any tax benefits of being non-residents to the CRA.

Cheers,

Take a look at the US/Canada tax treaty. There are tiebreakers that should p

 

[BubbOZ]

Take a look at the US/Canada tax treaty. There are tiebreakers that should p

Spoke to a few Canada/US tax specialists today and according to them, it'll be a very hard to attain non-resident tax status to have my PR spouse in Canada and while I work in US. Having tax obligations in the both Canada and US is making the job offer less attractive on a financial basis...

Decisions, decisions.... :/

 

[links18]

Spoke to a few Canada/US tax specialists today and according to them, it'll be a very hard to attain non-resident tax status to have my PR spouse in Canada and while I work in US. Having tax obligations in the both Canada and US is making the job offer less attractive on a financial basis...

Decisions, decisions.... :/

Seriously, look at the tax treaty. There is a provision to get a ruling regarding which country you are a tax resident of. You shouldn't face double taxation, even if both countries consider you a tax resident under domestic law, they have to abide by the treaty. In complicated cases you might have to get a ruling from the tax authorities, but you shouldn't be subject to double taxation. Make sure whatever tax professional you talk to knows about the treaty. Not all of them do.....

 

[BubbOZ]

The two folks I spoke to were the tax specialists at their respective firms. I hope they know about it with 20+ years of doing just Canada/US tax stuff...

As they both explained to me, the biggest driver of the residency for tax purpose is, "Where's your spouse?". They dont want a guy commuting from the Cayman Islands or something like that and not pay CRA taxes. Same thing with folks living near the border; work in Detroit with a spouse in Windsor, for example.

Suppose I earn 100,000 USD. I owe 30% to the IRS and I owe 47% to CRA... Because of the treaty, I just owe CRA another 17%. I think that's how it works...

Cheers...

Seriously, look at the tax treaty. There is a provision to get a ruling regarding which country you are a tax resident of. You shouldn't face double taxation, even if both countries consider you a tax resident under domestic law, they have to abide by the treaty. In complicated cases you might have to get a ruling from the tax authorities, but you shouldn't be subject to double taxation. Make sure whatever tax professional you talk to knows about the treaty. Not all of them do.....

 

[Naheulbeuck]

You are correct, the treaty avoids double taxation however you would still have to pay the higher tax rate.

 

[links18]

The two folks I spoke to were the tax specialists at their respective firms. I hope they know about it with 20+ years of doing just Canada/US tax stuff...

As they both explained to me, the biggest driver of the residency for tax purpose is, "Where's your spouse?". They dont want a guy commuting from the Cayman Islands or something like that and not pay CRA taxes. Same thing with folks living near the border; work in Detroit with a spouse in Windsor, for example.

Suppose I earn 100,000 USD. I owe 30% to the IRS and I owe 47% to CRA... Because of the treaty, I just owe CRA another 17%. I think that's how it works...

Cheers... Q

That sounds like tax using foreign tax credits (another option), not invoking the treaty. It sounds to me like the specialists you spoke to were NOT taking the treaty into account. I would research further, if I were you. Here is some info to start. You don't get the automatic protection of the treaty, you have to affirmatively invoke it. The fact that your spouse lives in Canada is only one factor to consider under the treaty, but there are many others....

http://www.bna.com/wheres-center-vital-n17179873803/