Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can you marry to avoid common law marriage?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Can you marry to avoid common law marriage?

    Ok these are all hypothetical questions. And would love Tayken and Mess's feedback.
    Background:
    Two people (one male and one female) each have two of their own children and each file as single so each can claim one of their children as a equivalent to spouse.
    One parent has a court order which states that they can claim a child as a equivalent to spouse, the other one does not have this court order.

    Recently the female of the two got divorced from her ex, they had been separated for 5+ years, they have a good relationship and get along well.

    Now both people have just had a baby #5 between the two of them?

    Question 1: Can the two people continue to file a child as a child equivalent to spouse, remember one has a court order from their family court stating they can., the other does not.

    Question 2: If female had remained married, but separated, that would bar any common law marriage between the two people. Right?

    Question 3: A corporation is legally an artificial person. As such can a person marry a corporation they hold all the shares in, thus preventing any future common law marriage from forming?

  • #2
    You cannot legally file for the equivalent to spouse if you are in a common law relationship. Once the child was born, the parties were automatically in a common law situation.

    Even if one or both partners are not divorced, they would still be common law after three years, or as soon as they are co-parenting. They might get away with it for the previous children, but once they have a child together they are common law.

    You may not marry a corporation. Women were not legal persons in Canada until around the beginning of the 20th century. You could still marry one.

    You may not be married to two people (some exceptions if immigrating from a country that allows this), but you may have a common law spouse and separated spouse.

    Comment


    • #3
      If you want to finangle a way to do this, I would suggest that each partner buy half of an adjoining duplex. Have separate entrances through a common foyer. Both would have a separate entrance and address, but for day-to-day living you could lock the outer foyer door, leave the separate entrances unlocked, and treat them as one home.

      Our townhouse complex also has common balconies between units. With a few renovations you could do some creative things.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by involveddad75 View Post
        Question 1: Can the two people continue to file a child as a child equivalent to spouse, remember one has a court order from their family court stating they can., the other does not.
        They are common-law, so CRA will want them filing as common-law, where the higher income earner claims the lower income earner as equivalent to spouse.

        It doesn't matter what any court order says. That is just an agreement between the person and their former spouse about who claims what child, provided they are eligible.

        As soon as the couple became common-law, neither is eligible to claim a child as equivalent to spouse. To do anything other than one claiming the other is tax fraud.

        Originally posted by involveddad75 View Post
        Question 2: If female had remained married, but separated, that would bar any common law marriage between the two people. Right?
        Nope. You can remain legally married to someone who is long out of your life, but be common-law with a new person. Or a series of new people.

        Originally posted by involveddad75 View Post
        Question 3: A corporation is legally an artificial person. As such can a person marry a corporation they hold all the shares in, thus preventing any future common law marriage from forming?
        This is getting into Freemen on the Land type stuff. No judge is going to take that argument seriously, nor will CRA. Also see previous answer about legal marriage not preventing a subsequent common-law relationship from developing.

        You cannot remarry without a divorce. But you CAN live common-law. And CRA will expect you to file your taxes accordingly.

        Mess's suggestion about the duplex is pretty much the only way to avoid the relationship being called common-law, because the couple technically maintains separate addresses to reside in. If auditors someday visit however, there might be a lot of legal activity.
        Last edited by Rioe; 12-22-2013, 03:16 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Keep your nose clean. Tax evasion is haunting. I suspect a party in our case is realizing this.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by involveddad75 View Post
            Question 1: Can the two people continue to file a child as a child equivalent to spouse, remember one has a court order from their family court stating they can., the other does not.
            No you cannot claim the child as a dependent equivalent to a spouse. As soon as you started living with the other adult whom you are in an intimate relationship with the tax benefit is gone. This only is applicable to people that are not married and/or living in a common law relationship.


            Originally posted by involveddad75 View Post
            Question 2: If female had remained married, but separated, that would bar any common law marriage between the two people. Right?
            You can be determined to be living in common law if you are still married and separated. It isn't uncommon to see materials filed in court when a person seeking divorce refers to their common law partner while being married. Common law is mostly defined by residential location and sharing of a habitat. Not the same requirements of a marriage certificate.

            Originally posted by involveddad75 View Post
            Question 3: A corporation is legally an artificial person. As such can a person marry a corporation they hold all the shares in, thus preventing any future common law marriage from forming?
            Not sure what you are getting at? I hope you are not reading freemen on the land nonsense.

            The Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigant Case | ABlawg

            Organized Pseudolegal Commerical Argument (OPCA)... Stay clear away from this... you are too smart to fall into this nonsense and cult-like mentality.

            Good Luck!
            Tayken

            Comment


            • #7
              As I stated before, it was all hypothetical. What if questions.

              Hope everyone had good holidays

              Comment

              Our Divorce Forums
              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
              Working...
              X