Come on guys, I don’t see the problem here. You folks just don’t understand Government-Speak.
The wording is actually written to cover many cases without having to write many paragraphs.
Rather than writing numerous permutations, this paragraph covers them all in one. Without this wording you would have to write a paragraph to cover each of the following situations:
1) Employee + deemed resident + moved to Canada
2) Employee + deemed resident + moved from Canada
3) Employee + deemed resident + moved between two locations outside Canada
4) Employee + factual resident + moved to Canada
5) Employee + factual resident + moved from Canada
6) Employee + factual resident + moved between two locations outside Canada
7) Self employed individual + deemed resident + moved to Canada
8. Self employed individual + deemed resident + moved from Canada
9) Self employed individual + deemed resident + moved between two locations outside Canada
10) Self employed individual + factual resident + moved to Canada
11) Self employed individual + factual resident + moved from Canada
12) Self employed individual + factual resident + moved between two locations outside Canada
And if you don’t cover the situation there will be guys (Laird) looking for the loop holes.
. I which case I'm hooped.
