CRA Monitors Your Bedroom Common Law Marriage For Tax Purposes - Tax - Canada
Be forewarned - the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is starting to challenge these cases. What exactly is a "conjugal relationship" anyway? Under Canadian tax law, "common-law partners" are defined as two people. The definitions for marital status are laid out by CRA (Canada with whom you are living in a conjugal relationship, and to whom at least one. Learn about how the Canada Revenue Agency classifies your relationship, and find out the resulting The Definition of a Common-Law Relationship. The CRA .
Do they continue to report themselves as "single" on their tax return to get access to higher Child Tax Benefits and higher GST credits? But let's get at the heart of the matter. What exactly is a "conjugal relationship" anyway? Chocolates, roses, romantic dinners - it must be February. But what could the annual Valentine's Day ritual, where couples celebrate their intimate relationships, possibly have to do with tax planning?
Furthermore, what interest does the taxman have in affairs of the heart?
Are You Married in the Eyes of the CRA?
A lot more than you might think. For starters, take a closer look at that seemingly innocuous question on page one of the personal tax return: You have a number of choices, including: It's this last option that seems to cause the most confusion and misunderstanding. The common-law conundrum Under Canadian tax law, "common-law partners" are defined as two people, regardless of sex, who cohabit in a conjugal relationship and have done so for a continuous period of at least one year.
In other words, two adults who are "living together" in a relationship of some permanence even if just for one year must report themselves as living common law.
Sounds straightforward, so why the fuss?
- Here's why the CRA wants to know what's going on in your bedroom
- Marital status
- Assessing conjugal relationships
Under the Income Tax Act, common-law couples are treated exactly the same as spouses who are legally married. As a result, two people living together who are not legally married may be tempted to continue filing as "single" taxpayers to avoid losing certain government benefits, such as the GST credit, certain provincial tax credits and, in some cases, the Child Tax Benefit, whose amounts are all based on the combined net income of both partners.
Meanwhile, other tax rules, such as spousal RRSPs and inter-spousal rollovers of property, may only benefit couples. Going to the courthouse and Each year, there are several reported cases and presumably dozens more that get settled before trial that make their way to Tax Court dealing with this issue.
In these cases, the court is asked to determine whether two people were, in fact, living in a "conjugal relationship" in a particular year. In most of the cases, the couple is claiming they are merely living together as roommates.
Consequently, each individual has indicated a filing status of "single" so they can each collect higher government benefits. In such cases, the big question that always arises is how the Canada Revenue Agency can possibly determine whether two people are indeed living in a "conjugal relationship" since, unlike legally married spouses, their relationship is not automatically registered in a public document, such as a marriage certificate.
Are You Married in the Eyes of the CRA? | H&R Block
Rather than sneaking behind bushes and peeping in windows, the CRA has responded that it relies on a "self-assessment system" in which Canadians "are expected to tell the truth and in which persons who make false declarations can be penalized". Whether or not two people are living in a conjugal relationship is a question of fact, and this can include whether or not the couple presents itself publicly as a conjugal couple or has claimed couple status for purposes of a pension or health plan, among other factors.
The Queen [ DTC ] in which one of the factors that the judge looked at was the frequency of sexual relations. The issue in this case was whether the taxpayer, Mr. Roby, should have been entitled to the equivalent of spouse amount, child tax benefits, GST credits and childcare expense deductions duringand Roby were married and seven years later, after they had three children together, the marriage turned sour.
He claimed that at this point, he and his wife were "living separate and apart The frequency of sexual relations came up in the testimony.Conjugal Sponsorship Applications
The husband admitted to four times in to while Ms. Roby said that they had sexual intercourse regularly in the period in question".
Although the judge didn't comment on whether or not three or four times in a year was considered "regularly", he felt that "such activity casts some doubt on both the separation of the spouses and the breakdown of the marriage". The judge denied Mr.
Roby's appeal, concluding that the couple was not living separate and apart and that the marriage had not broken down, although, in his words, "it was unquestionably fragile". Is it, or isn't it? Judges who must decide such cases often rely on the Ontario District Court's seminal decision in Molodowich v. In the Molodowich decision, the judge provided some guidance as to what constitutes cohabitation in a conjugal or marriage-like relationship.
The judge identified seven factors that may be indicative of a common-law relationship: Do the parties live under the same roof and what are the sleeping arrangements? Common Law Partner Definition In order to qualify as common law partners for tax purposesa Canadian taxpayer has to be cohabiting in a conjugal relationship with another person.
Here’s why the CRA wants to know what’s going on in your bedroom | Financial Post
Additionally, they must have been cohabiting throughout the last 12 months or both be the parents of the same child. Meaning, a cohabiting couple in a conjugal relationship with a child together automatically qualify as common law partners regardless of how long they have cohabited.
On the other hand, a cohabiting couple in a conjugal relationship without children together must have been cohabiting for the last 12 months before they gain common law partnership status. To be clear, cohabiting together for the last 12 months does not mean that the two people have to live together everyday. Once it is determined that a couple have begun cohabiting in a conjugal relationship, they are considered to be cohabiting in a conjugal relationship for everyday after that regardless of their actual circumstances unless they live separate and apart for at least 90 continuous days because of a breakdown of their conjugal relationship.
Conjugal Relationship Factors There is no bright line test for whether or not a conjugal relationship exists.
Trout Lake Group
Rather, the Supreme Court of Canada in M v. H has adopted 7 key characteristics in identifying a conjugal relationship; 1 shelter; 2 sexual and personal behaviour; 3 services; 4 social; 5 societal; 6 support; and 7 children.
For sexual and personal behaviour, where the parties have sexual relations with each other, maintain fidelity to each other, discuss their problems with each other, share their meals together, assist each other with problems and during illness, and buy gifts for each other on special occasions, that points towards a conjugal relationship. For the social factor, where the parties participate together in community activities, treat each other's family members as a couple would and are treated by each other's family as part of the family, the relationship leans towards conjugal.
The societal factor looks at the community's attitude and conduct and towards the parties and whether they treat them as if they were a couple. The support factor looks at the financial relations between the parties and whether they share finances for the necessities of life such as shelter, clothing, and food, and what their arrangements are for the acquisition and ownership of property, with the greater the degree of sharing and intermingling of finances, the more conjugal the relationship.
The final factor, children, looks at the parties' attitude and conduct concerning children, where having or contemplating children in the future positively impact the conjugal nature of the relationship.