# common law status being forced on roommate situation



## canacat

So this is a weird one.

2002 to 2005 I lived with a guy. the *2005 year, we declared common law status. We then broke up at the end of 2005.*

2006 to 2008 we lived seperately, stayed distant friends.

2009 our respective roomates coincidentally moved away at the same time. We both needed new roomates. We were still in touch, friends, very platonic, 100% no feelings for eachother. We discussed at length and both reasoned we can live together, date other people as we are doing now, and there wouldn't be any problems.


*2009 to now we've been living together again*, fully seperate rooms, fully seperate food, fully seperate lives. We are very platonic roommates, no one would ever guess there is history between us, it is utterly a non issue. 

*The only costs we share is rent (split 50/50) and cable (50/50). No other financial crossover occurs. *

Obvsiouly this whole time we've been declaring single status, since we are just roommates. 

*The government has decided that we are common law again, and is insisting we file as common law, and is telling us we owe them $600 for tax receipts we weren't ellegible for as common law status since 2009.*


They sent us forms to complete if they are "wrong":

1- We got signed written letters from 4 people that have jobs on their approved list (dentist, lawyer, CAs, etc.) stating that we are not common law, only roommates. 

2- We sent photocopies of our various seperate bills and bank statements, showing we do not share financial responsibilities except splitting rent and cable tv (normal roommate splitting costs). One of the bills showed we even have seperate contents insurance plans, different companies even.

3- We sent phone records showing we barely call eachother, but we do make multiple calls to boyfriend/girlfriends, which we supplied the names and numbers for them to call (and one was also the signer of one of the 4 witness letters, since the guy I'm dating fits their job requirements as witness).


Their response back was that even though we consider ourselves to be roommates only, we are still considered common law for tax purposes. Also, in the future, if we don't start properly LYING that we are common law, then there will be penalties.



My mind is utterly boggled. We are going to write to the ombudsman, but have low hopes of that working. They did say if we send them more information, they'll further review our case, but I don't know what they could possibly consider as definitive proof that we haven't already sent.

Any thoughts? Has anyone had trouble proving theyre not common law?

I'm so desperate for ideas!


Some links to canada's ambiguous definition of common law, and rules on seperation / getting back together:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/prsnl-nf/mrtl-eng.html

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/mrtl/sprtd-eng.html
"If you continue to live together in the same household, we will not consider a separation to have occurred. An exception to this may occur when separate living quarters are self‑contained in the same household."
we have self contained seperate rooms. Kitchen is common space....


----------



## meddlesomemarmots

canacat said:


> http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/mrtl/sprtd-eng.html
> "If you *continue* to live together in the same *household*, we will not consider a separation to have occurred. An exception to this may occur when separate living quarters are self‑contained in the same household."
> we have self contained seperate rooms. Kitchen is common space....


Looks bloody crazy to me.

I fully understand the CRA wanting to stop people falsely declaring a single-status income tax return, but I definitely think there should be a provision for proving a separation of finances/relationship ties. It's like they're telling people to falsely declare they are in a common law relationship when they aren't.

Only solution I can see is paying the back taxes, and moving out... Completely ridiculous situation that the government have put you in here.

Edit: If you are (which I presume you will be) fighting the decision with the tax appeals office, I would have thought your best basis for appealing would have been that they state that if you continue to live together. You didn't 'continue' to live together - you lived elsewhere (from what I understand), and then _recommenced_ living together years down the line.

Alongside that, the government are very strict about what constitutes a common law relationship (that is my experience in proving a common law relationship for immigration issues!). You could argue that you are not continuing to live in the household, as the household is the entity that you created by combining your separate lives, in your common law relationship of 2002-2005.

I'd be extremely peeved if my appeal was going to boil down to semantics.


----------



## OptsyEagle

I have no personal experience with this but I suspect that more people figure out that they pay more tax being common law then not, and lie, then there are people who seperate and still live together (date other people, etc. - not many).

Soooo, you need to fight this one. It is my belief that as soon as an impartial observer (a judge) hears your story as opposed to CRA (the people who believe there is a 98% chance you are lying), you will be exonerated.

Good luck. I wouldn't pay them a cent ... but then I wouldn't have declared being common law in the first place. Your honesty is now being punished but not much you can do about that now. You could send in your story to the press. They love this stuff. Not going to matter much with the judge but CRA might bend to it. Probably not though.


----------



## MoneyGal

In reading your story, I have a question:

1. Were you not considered common-law long before you declared it the first time 'round? 

You say you were living together from 2002 onwards, but only declared your common-law status in 2005 - when it really should have been from 12 months after you began living together. 

The reality is if you screw CRA once, you are on their "hit list" forever. And if I read your post correctly, you have already made false declarations about your marital status (for tax purposes) - or, if not, I don't understand your post. 

It may be that CRA is now going to presume that you are in a common-law relationship with this other person no matter what you say simply because you falsely withheld the status of your relationship with this same person from CRA in the past. 

My other piece of advice is that you should not use, as one of your references, someone who is connected to you personally in any way. You used your current boyfriend - who *may* stand to gain financially if you have the marital status you are claiming (not common law with Former Boyfriend). 

This is a tactical error. You should use professional references with whom you have zero personal relationship to vouch for your marital status (or not, as the case may be). 

Good luck with the ombudsman.


----------



## NorthernRaven

Assuming the CRA isn't acting as Cupid or fate isn't try to tell you something, can you get CRA to assume a situation such as you describe, and have them outline what proof they _would_ consider acceptable is such a case?

Do either of you have work-related benefits (dental plans, etc) open to common-law partners that would be valuable to the opposite party? If so, showing that you are not claiming common-law status with the employer might be useful, especially if you _did_ the first time around.

Have you tried the government's Tax Ombudsman program? [Later: Oops, I see you are].

Finally, a clear letter to your MP (perhaps with a personal appointment, as well), outlining the facts and your attempts to resolve this. Copy the CRA and the ombudsman. They may be able to get this raised so that someone with sense looks at it.


----------



## MoneyGal

FWIW, the question of whether a couple is in a "conjugal relationship" is always a question of fact, not of opinion. 

Here are the rules judges rely on in determining whether a couple is in a conjugal relationship or not:

*Shelter*: Do the parties live under the same roof and what are the sleeping arrangements? 

*Sexual and personal behaviour*: Do the parties have sexual relations and do they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other? 

*Services*: What is the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to domestic services, such as preparing meals and performing household maintenance? 

*Social*: Do the parties participate together in social activities? 

*Societal*: How does the community view the parties, both individually and as a couple? 

*Economic support*: What are the financial arrangements of the parties in terms of their relationship? 

*Children*: What is the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning any children? 

Interestingly, whether or not you are having sex is not the determining factor in whether you are considered to be in a conjugal relationship for tax purposes. It is ONE factor among many.


----------



## hboy43

Hi:

In this day and age of homosexual rights, I wonder why any combination of two people living together couldn't be considered common law by CRA? Do they go after with equal vigor a same sex pair under one roof?

hboy43


----------



## Dmoney

If they won't fix it, can you screw the CRA right back by claiming any tax savings from your current situation?


----------



## jamesbe

Wow that is messed up.

My common law partner and I flipped flopped on our tax returns for years out of ignorance and never heard a peep from them!


----------



## kcowan

CRA are looking for the quick and easy hits. Stay under the radar.


----------



## Addy

We had a similar thing happen. I used to rent a large house in Vancouver and rent rooms out as a way to supplement my rent (ie I lived rent free as a result of managing the room rentals and taking the risks involved in renting a large house). I was single at the time and met many great people. One of these people was my husband. For five of the six years I lived in the house he lived there, completely not involved with me romantically in any way (I dated people, he dated people... just like any other room mate in the house). We hooked up and after living together as a couple for almost a year we moved out, bought our own condo and claimed common law. CRA went back those six years and forced both of us to claim common law. I did not realize there was any appeal process so I just bit the bullet and paid it, along with a penalty and interest.

What made me really mad was that if my husband was a female (I dated men and women at the time) I bet CRA would not have pulled the common law card.... I am still pissed off knowing that because the partner I choose has a penis that the CRA thinks they are entitled to assume things about him and I that were simply not true.


----------



## peterk

As Money Gal points out. "Common law" does not quite have the same meaning as "living together and having sex" By this definition two same sex heterosexual roomates who pay for everything together could possibly be considered common law, perhaps to their benefit for health insurance or tax purposes. I guess the knife has to cut both ways. You can't just be or not be common law because "it feels right"

Hilariously though, it beats me how the CRA could possibly go about ascertaining such things as "How does the community view the parties, both individually and as a couple?"
"What is the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to domestic services, such as preparing meals and performing household maintenance?"


----------



## Plugging Along

^We knew someone that went through one of these audits, and CRA went through the troubles of sending someone to interview friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc. It was my coworker, and they asked if we had ever met the other person 'common law' or heard him talking about her, and in what ways.


----------



## peterk

Geez.
I find that insane. Glad to see the government living up to their ususal efficiency of spending thousands to save hundreds...


----------



## andrewf

I knew someone at university who thought I was in a polyamorous relationship with some of my roommates (she was also telling other people this as if she knew--crazy lady). So by that definition, we were commonlaw? Yikes. Of course, I think she was projecting onto us something that most of society would just see as friendship.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

Whatever happened to "The State has no place in the bedrooms of the Nation"? (P.E.Trudeau)

I think some people need to write to their MPs about this insanity - arguing with CRA is pointless. They are trying to interpet an extremely complex piece of legislation - but it's Parliament that can change the legislation.


----------



## Plugging Along

^ That was actually the other funny part of the whole audit. The person went to their home to check out if they were in the same room or not. They had to get another bedroom set up. He told me the guy even opened a couple of drawers to make sure there was no clothes in the same room.

In all fairness, these two were common law, and I think he was trying to beat the system. He's was also kind of a jerk, so I'm am glad he had to go through all of it, he deserved whatever he got.


----------



## canacat

*update*

sorry for the delay. figured I'd wait till there was an update.

So 2 more letters came in between then and now, bills for my roommate to pay, and automatic deposits in to my account. It seemed they were making him not elligible and me elligible for everything (which is odd, since we made the same in salary). 

We were owing about $400 each up till the last batch of credits/owing notices. The last one tipped us over in to the positive! We gained $175. I'm flabberghasted. 

I mean, ok, I was all moral about this before, when i owed money, of course. I dont want to LIE on my taxes by saying im in this common law relationship, but they're insisting that i DO lie. I WANTED to do this all legally, play by the rules, correct the injustice, but now that we're in the positive... well.... friggin hell. I might as well just do as they say right? 

If the government is going to pay me to lie rather than tell the truth, when I WANT to tell the truth, and they refuse to let me tell the truth... well.... who am I to argue?

sigh!

So we're going to drop the arguing. 

We're still going to move out though. It's just too ridiculous. Semantics! painful.


----------

