Originally Posted by TaxGuru
In Canadian law you have to be fiscally resident somewhere. See Churchill v. Canada (TCC, 1991):
"Mr. Justice Mahoney touches the point when he says in the case Reeder vs The Queen at page 5163 D.T.C. (4.02(1)) that:
The matter of ties within the jurisdiction asserting residence and elsewhere runs the gamut of an individual's connections and commitments: property and investment, employment, family, business, cultural and social are examples, again not purporting to be exhaustive. Not all factors will necessarily be material to every case. They must be considered in the light of the basic premises that everyone must have a fiscal residence somewhere and that it is quite possible for an individual to be simultaneously resident in more than one place for tax purposes."
Does that mean in places where you need to spend X days to be considered a fiscal resident, that it isnt actually a requirement, but just one of the things they look at? So if you don't spend the required amount of time anywhere, it just goes on down the list of things like property, employment, family, etc? Does that mean that if you are only a resident in one place, that regardless of how much time you spend there you will be considered a fiscal resident?
Thanks for putting up with the potentially dumb questions