http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/144396/index.do
Yu v. The Queen (May 18, 2016 – 2016 TCC 121, Favreau J.).
Précis: The Minister reassessed Ms. Yu to deny her a New Housing Rebate for GST/HST purposes. She agreed to purchase the property in 2011, closed toward the end of 2012 and flipped the property for a profit of roughly $300,000 six months later. She claimed that she had purchased the home as a primary residence for her parents who were citizens and residents of China but had visited Canada for a period in 2013 after the property was acquired and before it was sold. The Tax Court rejected the evidence of Ms. Yu and dismissed the appeal.
Decision: This case turned entirely on the question of credibility. The last few paragraphs of the decision tell it all:
[25] In the circumstances, I give little weight to Ms. Yu’s stated intention of May 2, 2011. The first indication that her parents may have had the intention to move to Canada were the three transfers of funds made in September 2012, more than a year after the signature of the agreement of purchase and sale of the Property.
[26] The appellant alleged that the funds from her parents were used to pay for the Property. Unfortunately, there is no indication that the said funds were in fact so used. No bank statements were filed and no evidence was provided as to how and when the payments to acquire the Property were made.
[27] It is not contested that the appellant’s parents came to Canada at the end of 2012 but the issue is to determine in what capacity, as visitors or as immigrants. No immigration papers, declarations for immigration purposes, visas or supervisas were filed as evidence. All what we know is that the appellant’s father had a medical condition which required her to take a one-year insurance policy for him while he was here. The type of insurance subscribed to by the appellant was a policy for a temporary visitor. The appellant’s father had no Ontario Health Insurance Plan.
[28] I consider that the appellant’s parents came to Canada to help her while she was going through a difficult period, financially and emotionally. They never had the intention to move to Canada and to establish their primary residence in Canada. They did not appear in Court to confirm their real intention. They kept their house in China and they could not speak English.
[29] The facts that the appellant’s parents brought some personal goods to Canada, stayed in the Property for a few months, purchased window coverings, an air conditioner, appliances and some other furniture and paid for the various utility bills, internet and the mobile phone service fall short of proving that they actually resided here with the intention of using the Property as their primary place of residence.
As a result the appeal was dismissed.