Divorced for 4 years and have given ex use of my address for some mailings regarding kids etc. Try cohabiting since May 2010. RC and the GST/HST arm needs proof we were separate for between years which we provide. RC sends letters stating that they have adjusted our status to commonlaw since that May 2010. They write that no adjustment is required for the 2005 to 2009 years. I thought you are not commonlaw until 2 years have passed. This seems to be a stretch. They have kept most letters we sent in while saying they should be returned. They are extremely rude and arrogant on the phone. They are breaking their own rules. I want this ruling undone. Any ideas?
RevCanada made me commonlaw after 2 months
- Thread starter bin56
- Start date
- Status
standing on the sidelines
New member
here is what i found on the CRA site
Common-law partner
A common-law partner applies to a person who is not your spouse (see above), with whom you are living in a conjugal relationship, and to whom at least one of the following situations applies. He or she:
a) has been living with you in a conjugal relationship for at least 12 continuous months;
b) is the parent of your child by birth or adoption; or
c) has custody and control of your child (or had custody and control immediately before the child turned 19 years of age) and your child is wholly dependent on that person for support.
In addition, an individual immediately becomes your common-law partner if you previously lived together in a conjugal relationship for at least 12 continuous months and you have resumed living together in such a relationship. Under proposed changes, this condition will no longer exist. The effect of this proposed change is that a person (other than a person described in b) or c)) will be your common-law partner only after your current relationship with that person has lasted at least 12 continuous months. This proposed change will apply to 2001 and later years.
Common-law partner
A common-law partner applies to a person who is not your spouse (see above), with whom you are living in a conjugal relationship, and to whom at least one of the following situations applies. He or she:
a) has been living with you in a conjugal relationship for at least 12 continuous months;
b) is the parent of your child by birth or adoption; or
c) has custody and control of your child (or had custody and control immediately before the child turned 19 years of age) and your child is wholly dependent on that person for support.
In addition, an individual immediately becomes your common-law partner if you previously lived together in a conjugal relationship for at least 12 continuous months and you have resumed living together in such a relationship. Under proposed changes, this condition will no longer exist. The effect of this proposed change is that a person (other than a person described in b) or c)) will be your common-law partner only after your current relationship with that person has lasted at least 12 continuous months. This proposed change will apply to 2001 and later years.
logicalvelocity
Moderator
Did you not answer that question already on your submitted Itax returns for those respective years?
Yes they already know all this from t4 etc from pevious years. We had to prove it to them, though, at our expense and time.
blinkandimgone
Moderator
I don't think I quite understand your post. You and your spouse divorced 4 years ago and it was your spouse using your address to recieve mail about the children?
dadtotheend
New member
And they appear to have reconciled in May 2010. It's not clear from what was written.
logicalvelocity
Moderator
The question on the first page of the ITAX schedule is specific for a given day
Next question on the schedule...
Sin, name, net income, etc.
....................
Scenario - If you commenced living with a partner on December 1 of a year - on December 31, of the same year your still not common law even for Revenue Canada. As SOTS shared:
Resubmit your tax returns for those years. If any changes - It's considered an amendment which you are fully allowed to do for last ten taxation years.
The expenses would be generally low considering the price of a stamp and some photo copies. Perhaps it was your former partner that completed the forms incorrectly for prior years.
Next question on the schedule...
Sin, name, net income, etc.
....................
Scenario - If you commenced living with a partner on December 1 of a year - on December 31, of the same year your still not common law even for Revenue Canada. As SOTS shared:
Resubmit your tax returns for those years. If any changes - It's considered an amendment which you are fully allowed to do for last ten taxation years.
The expenses would be generally low considering the price of a stamp and some photo copies. Perhaps it was your former partner that completed the forms incorrectly for prior years.
blinkandimgone
Moderator
See, I didn't get that they'd reconciled just that he/she had lent out their home address.
Because they have children together would they not be considered common law right away if they reconciled?
Because they have children together would they not be considered common law right away if they reconciled?
logicalvelocity
Moderator
I believe so for CCRA purposes as SOTS shared at B. However, what if you leased space to your former spouse. ie: Room and Board - Would this construe to be common-law or just a business arrangement.
blinkandimgone
Moderator
In a leased space agreement they wouldn't be conjugal but one would asume they are if they've reconciled?
I think I'm just confused by the original post, not quite sure what the OP was outlining!
I think I'm just confused by the original post, not quite sure what the OP was outlining!
dadtotheend
New member
The CRA's administrative position is that the parties must be living separate and apart for them not to be considered common law or married. I have dealt with many cases where the parties continue to live in the same home (usually for economic reasons) but are not sleeping together.
The CRA's position I think is based on the fact that economically the couple are still together, even if not conjugally.
The CRA's position I think is based on the fact that economically the couple are still together, even if not conjugally.
logicalvelocity
Moderator
I like this "dated" declaration on the respective Schedules:
If new information surfaces concerning "undeclared income" ie: room and board - An amendment for those tax years be in order.
If new information surfaces concerning "undeclared income" ie: room and board - An amendment for those tax years be in order.
Thanks for all the effort. To answer a few questions we did have kids while married for 27 years. Now we are trying to work it out, she's livivng with me. conjugal. I allowed her to use my adrress as she was not stable, did not realize about rev can rules, but that's done now. Proved about being apart since she left in 2005. were divorced in 2007, officially, and have lived apart all this time until May, 2010. My post was to know if they can arbitrarily change my status like they seem to have done, and said they did. Thanks again all.
blinkandimgone
Moderator
Ahhh, ok, sorry for the misunderstanding. I hope it works out for you both the second time around - good luck! 
- Status