Blog

06/11/20:

Legal Fees incurred for Child/Spousal Support Payments May be Tax Deductible

There are 2 types of support payments, spousal support and child support.

Spousal support is to support a spouse or common-law partner as stated in a court order or written agreement. The support payments are made only to support the recipient.

Child support is to support a child, or a child and a spouse or common-law partner, as stated in a court order or written agreement. The support payments are not only made to support the recipient.

The tax rules are different depending on the type.

Generally, child support payments made under a court order or written agreement made after April 1997 are not deductible by the payer and do not have to be included in

the recipient’s income. Spousal support payments continue to be deductible to the payer and must be included in the recipient’s income.

However, as the recipient, you can deduct, on line 22100 of your tax return, legal and accounting fees incurred:

■ to collect overdue support payments owing

■ to establish the amount of support payments from your current or former spouse or common-law partner

■ to establish the amount of support payments from the legal parent of your child (who is not your current or former

spouse or common-law partner) where the support is payable under the terms of a court order

■ to try to get an increase in support payments

You can also deduct, on line 23200 of your tax return, legal and accounting fees incurred to try to make child support payments non-taxable.

As the recipient, you cannot claim legal and accounting fees incurred:

■ to get a separation or divorce

■ to establish child custody or visitation rights

Legal and accounting fees paid to collect a lump-sum payment are not deductible. The lump-sum also does not qualify as a support payment.

For further information and details speak to a family lawyer today.

____________________________________________________________________________

06/11/20:

Am I a Refugee If I Have Already Left My Home Country?

A person who was not a refugee when he left his or her country, but who becomes a refugee due to circumstances arising in his or her country of origin during their absence is called a refugee ‘sur place’.

The fact that the individual’s departure from his or her homeland may have been perfectly legal is not relevant. What is required is an assessment of the situation in the country of origin after the individual left it.

Further, a person may become a refugee “sur place” as a result of his own actions, such as associating with refugees already recognized, or expressing his political views in his country of residence.

Even if the Refugee Protection Division determines your account of experiences in your home country, your refugee “sur place” must be considered separately on the evidence relating to the claim.

If there are emerging issues in your home country that cause you fear or danger to return to your country of origin, you may have a refugee ‘sur place’ claim available to you.

____________________________________________________________________________

06/04/20: IRCC Covid-19 Program Update information

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/coronavirus-covid19/permanent-residents.html#outsidecanada

____________________________________________________________________________

06/01/20: Recent Kang & Company success at the Federal Court of Canada:

2020 FC 214 Singh v Canada:

The Federal Court of Canada held that assessing humanitarian and compassionate considerations with reference to a country where the applicant has no legal status is an error. The status of the person must be examined based on his right at the date the assessment is made to relocate to any particular country. It cannot be made based on what might occur in the future.

https://www.canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/70898

2020 FC IMM 4516-19

The Federal Court ordered that the IAD must provide the Applicant an opportunity to provide oral testimony in a show-cause hearing. Failure to do so is a breach of the Applicant’s procedural fairness protections.

2020 FC IMM-24-20

The Federal Court ordered that the Applicant’s procedural fairness protections were violated when the CBSA turned an interview into an admissibility hearing without notice. (This was a serious violation of the Applicant’s rights and resulted in the Removal Order being set aside.)

2020 FC IMM-6225-19

The Federal Court ordered that the Visa Officer failed to sufficiently consider and assess responsive evidence to a procedural fairness request. (Always ensure sufficient evidence and documentation is included for a Visa Officers to assess.)

2020 FC IMM-6588-19

The Federal Court ordered that the Visa Officer failed to consider and assess various pieces of evidence provided by the Applicant that were directly relevant to the legal issue at hand. The Visa Officer thus erred in their decision making, rendering an unreasonable decision that was not defensible on the evidence and facts.

____________________________________________________________________________

01/06/20:Recent Kang & Company success at the Immigration Appeal Division:

Sandhu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2019 CanLII 128360

The Appellant was convicted of two counts of assault. Accordingly, five years have not yet elapsed from the completion of the sentence.

The test to be applied with respect to discretionary jurisdiction of the IAD is whether, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the decision, there are sufficient humanitarian or compassionate considerations that warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case.

“The Appellant has met the onus of proof. In the circumstances of this case, the positive factors in favour of granting special relief outweigh the negative factors. Based on the evidence and on a balance of probabilities, although the refusal is valid in law, taking into account the best interest of the children directly affected by the decision, I find that there are sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations that warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of this case. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.”

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2019/2019canlii128360/2019canlii128360.pdf

2. Dhaliwal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2019 CanLII 127432

“I find, on a balance of probabilities, there was sufficient credible evidence to indicate a genuine spousal relationship between the Appellant and the Applicant. Therefore, based on the evidence before me and on a balance of probabilities, I find the marriage is genuine.

The determination of whether or not this marriage was entered into to gain a status or privilege under the Act is the other test.

In considering the evidence in relation to this marriage, the Appellant and the Applicant provided generally consistent and credible evidence regarding the genesis and development of a genuine spousal relationship and future plans. The witnesses provided satisfactory explanations for most of the immigration officer’s and Minister’s counsel’s concerns. Based on the evidence and on a balance of probabilities, I find the marriage was not entered into primarily for the Applicant to gain a status or privilege under the Act.

Therefore, the appeal is allowed.”

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2019/2019canlii127432/2019canlii127432.pdf