How is someone tax exempt at Walmart in Canada?
"The short answer is you're tax exempt if the tax laws say you are.  There are a bunch of specific exemptions based on who you are, what you're buying and why. Taking British Columbia as an example. One exemption is supplies for business use: Some exemptions are only available to certain purchasers in certain circumstances. These exemptions include: You can also claim an exemption if you are buying ""adult size"" clothing for a child under 15 years. Farmers are exempt from sales tax on various goods and services. First Nations individuals are exempt in some circumstances. And so on and so on." Note that folks may also be shopping for supplies for a nonprofit tax-exempt organization. I made such a purchase a few weeks ago. Whatever the legal basis of the exception,  you need to be able to prove to the store that you have it. If you can't,  they must collect the tax.
Walmart does all kinds of illegal shit.  Extortion, bribery, price fixing, wage theft, sexual discrimination, and I have heard first hand accounts of Walmart ruining farmers that get into contracts with the the company.    The sad part is.....I still shop there. "The bill proposed to ""Under existing law, employers may take tax deductions for the costs associated with moving jobs out of the country. The proposed legislation would have eliminated that, and used the resulting new revenue to fund a 20 percent tax credit for the costs companies run up ""insourcing"" labor back into the U.S."" From http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=16816660 as found by beermethestrength. I will explain this in an example below.   Lets use allen edmonds. I manufacture shoes and sell them in the US. The facts we will assume is Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Tax rate is 10%. Therefore, Profit before tax is $100 -$50 = $50. Tax is $5. Net profit is $45.  However, suppose offshoring to Canada saves money. They say please and thank you at every opportunity and the positive work environment allows them to work faster. Correspondingly to make the same number of shoes our costs has decreased because we pay less for labour. The manufacturing cost decreases to $30. However, we incur costs to move such as severance payments to layoff contracted employees. (I promise to hire you and pay $1 a year for 2 years. I fire you at the end of the first year. To be fair, I pay you $1) However, it can be any legitimate expense under the sun. In this case we suppose this moving cost is $10. Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Moving cost is $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax is $100 -$40 = $60. Tax is $6. Net profit is $54. Yay more jobs for Canadians.   However, the legislation would have changed this. It would have denied that moving expense if you were moving out of the country. Therefore, we cannot consider $10 worth of expenses for tax purposes. Therefore Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $30 = $70. Tax is $7. Net profit for tax purposes is $63. However, my accounting/net/real profit is $53. I must deduct the $10 associated with moving. The difference between the two scenarios is $1. In general our net profit changes by our moving cost * our tax rate.  There is no tax break associated with moving. In Canadian tax, any business expense in general can be deducted as long as it is legitimate and not specifically denied. I am uncertain but would assume US tax law is similar enough. Moving expenses in general are legitimate and not specifically denied and therefore can be deducted.  Offshoring and onshoring are seen as legitimate business activities as in general companies do things to increase profit. (forget about patriotism for the moment).  The bill was to make offshoring more expensive and therefore fewer companies would find offshoring profitable. However, republicans defeated this bill in congress. Most likely the house  For completeness let us examine what would happen when we onshore (bring jobs from canada to us :( ). In our example, silly unions demand unrealistically high wages and increase our cost of manufacturing to $50 again. We decide to move back to the US because if it is the same everywhere for the sake of silly national pride we move our jobs back to the US. We incur the same moving cost of $10. Therefore we have Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Moving cost of $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $60 = $40. Tax is $4. However, we are given a 20% tax credit for moving expense. $10 * .2 = 2. The government only assess us tax of 2. Net profit is $38. Tax credits are a one time deal so profit in the future will be $100 -$50 - $5 = $45. Same as the first example.  insourcing = onshoring , outsourcing = offshoring for the purposes of this article. Not quite the same in real life." A wal-mart successfully unionized in Quebec years ago, shortly after, wal-mart shut the store down. They're so anti-union, they'll cut off the entire revenue source instead of make slightly less money due to slightly better salaries being paid.  There's a reason I never shop at wal-mart, it's a despicable company.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2005/02/09/walmart-050209.html mmmm smells like capitalism in the morning.   Edit: Also, legally Walmart can't fire these employees. They walked out under complaints about unfair working conditions, which is protected. Of course this would have to be argued in court potentially... "Amazon is looking for tax breaks...not only from the location of their new site, but also from WA State. WA stands to gain more long term tax revenue if Amz changes it's mind and decides to stay so they will likely kick in tax breaks to minimize the # of employees shifted to the new office.  Also worth noting, they specifically say ""North America"" in the search so Toronto, Montreal, and Mexico City could all theoretically be in the running too. (Vancouver BC is out because it is just too close geographically to Seattle.) It really depends on their search criteria and long term plans." I don't have a problem with Wal-Mart, except in certain situations.  They just got caught bribing Mexicans despite advice from their American counsel.  That is extremely illegal and goes pretty high up in the corporate office.      I was just pointing out there's a big ass denominator, so it's a bit difficult to interpret any raw statistics about Wal-mart without taking that into context.  The article linked does this without remorse regarding Wal-Mart employees on Medicaid. "In a nutshell - Value Added Tax. America, as usual, discovers what others have known and used for years. The idea of not taxing income that's tied to it is ridiculous. If you're only taxing spending but not income, people will just take spending elsewhere (Canada, Mexico, further away), and the economy will go down the drain. That's similar to the way people avoid paying sales tax now, except that it will be in orders of magnitude. Why should a corporation by office supplies in the US, if it has a branch in China? Edit Also, Fair Tax doesn't take into account moving money overseas. I've mentioned living elsewhere down below, and that also got me thinking of how I personally would certainly gain from that ridiculous thing called ""Fair Tax"". Basically, that's exactly how the ""rich folks"", those who push for it, will gain from it. Being able to move money out of the US basically makes it a perfect tax shelter. You don't pay taxes on the income (that you have in the US), and you don't pay taxes on the spendings (that you have elsewhere, because in that country income is taxable so you only pay VAT or sales taxes). This means that all the wealthy people, while investing and gaining money from the American economy (stocks, property, etc), will actually not be spending it in the US. Thus, no taxes paid to the US, dollars flowing out. Perfect. Actually, I should be all for this stupid idea. Very fair to me, no need to pay any taxes at all, because food will probably be exempt anyway." Many things I buy from Amazon I could get cheaper from Walmart but I pay more from Amazon just so I don't have to go to Walmart. It isn't the company itself that keeps me away, its the people that frequent the establishment and the lines.  Funny you should mention the locker. I remember when they first started rolling this out and until just now, I had no idea I actually have 2 in my area. Wal-mart pays their employees so little, many of the workers need to be on foodstamps, in fact, the store has programs helping their workers apply for foodstamps.  Are you ok with that? The only reason wal-mart gets away with paying them so little is because the government is basically propping them up by paying the employees the missing part of their salary that actually allows them to survive on the shitty pay they give.... "What about 2nd hand pants from Craigslist? Walmart's ""evil policies"" are the reason they can offer those cheap prices people ""need"". It's hypocritical to claim to be against those practices while you continue to take advantage of those low prices.  It's as hypocritical as welfare recipients who are ""against big government.""" After the deal, which is expected to close by early next year, Burger King and Tim Horton said their newly combined company would have about $23 billion in sales and more than 18,000 locations. The corporate headquarters will be in Canada, but Burger King will still be operated out of Miami.  So it can be considered an inversion.    Do you understand how companies avoid taxes in these deals?  The US taxes all your revenue at 35% and then gives you credit for foreign taxes paid.  In many other countries, they just tax you for domestic revenue, not world wide.   So previously, Burger King had to pay 35% tax on all revenue world wide, and then got back credits for taxes paid in say, Canada or England.   Now, they will pay 35% only on US income and the foreign tax in those countries it operates, which can be much less than 35%. "There is actually a restriction on how high a wage they can pay you. There didn't use to be, but now it has to be reasonable for the work you are doing, so they can't pay you $100/hr while other people doing the same work get minimum wage. You might ask why on earth a parent would want to pay a child way more than they're worth? The salary is tax deductible to the company. Then the child pays their ""expenses"" - hockey fees and equipment, field trips, birthday presents for their friends and so on - out of the money the company paid them.  They also save for their post-secondary education. The rest of the family budget now has a little more room, and the parents can lower their own salaries if they have expensive children. This means more net money in the company and less total income tax paid by the family for the same total income. My concern is that if your parents don't know whether or not you must be paid minimum wage (you must, there's no family exemption) then they also don't know whether you should have EI deducted (probably not) and various other special cases like eligibility for summer student subsidies. The firm's accountant should be able to help with these things and the company should know all this. It's not the role of a 14 year old to ask the Internet how to run a business, the business owners should know it." No, Walmart does not rely on government support of workers. That is a very child like view of the matter. Let's not make these people out to be victims. If those workers are not earning enough at Walmart, they should be searching for work elsewhere, or other jobs to supplement their incomes. Nobody is forcing them to work there. This type of job is really best suited for a student, or a retired person, who aren't trying to support a family, etc.  Also, Walmart is only one of a million businesses who operate as a low-cost leader, and I guarantee you that you enjoy the low prices that these companies charge on a regular basis. And this makes you a hypocrite, really, because your purchases are supporting their way of doing business, which in turn leads to the low wages. So if you really want to go down the blaming road, we can blame you as well.  Now, having said that, I believe a living wage is a good thing, and I support legislation in favor of this as a solution to the problem, rather than trying to stifle the natural flow of business by singling out one company and blaming them. And doing this won't harm companies like Walmart; they will still operate just as usual, only *all the prices, at every low cost store* will increase as a result of the higher wages. "The other answer has mentioned ""factual resident"", and you have raised the existence of a U.S./Canada tax treaty in your comment, and provided a link to a page about determining residency. I'd like to highlight part of the first link: You are a factual resident of Canada for tax purposes if you keep   significant residential ties in Canada while living or travelling   outside the country. The term factual resident means that, although you left Canada, you   are still considered to be a resident of Canada for income tax   purposes. Notes If you have established ties in a country that Canada has a tax treaty   with and you are considered to be a resident of that country, but you   are otherwise a factual resident of Canada, meaning you maintain   significant residential ties with Canada, you may be considered a   deemed non-resident of Canada for tax purposes. [...] I'll emphasize that ""considered to be a resident of Canada for income tax purposes"" means you do need to file Canadian income tax returns. The Notes section does indicate the potential treaty exemption that you mentioned, but it is only a potential exemption. Note the emphasis (theirs, not mine) on the word ""may"" in the last paragraph above. Please don't assume ""may"" is necessarily favorable with respect to your situation. The other side of the ""may"" coin is ""may not"". The Determining your residency status page you mentioned in your comment says this: If you want the Canada Revenue Agency's opinion on your residency   status, complete either Form NR74, Determination of Residency Status   (Entering Canada) or Form NR73, Determination of Residency Status   (Leaving Canada), whichever applies, and send it to the International   and Ottawa Tax Services Office. To get the most accurate opinion,   provide as many details as possible on your form. So, given your ties to Canada, I would suggest that until and unless you have obtained an opinion from the Canada Revenue Agency on your tax status, you would be making a potentially unsafe assumption if you yourself elect not to file your Canadian income tax returns based on your own determination. You could end up liable for penalties and interest if you don't file while you are outside of Canada. Tax residency in Canada is not a simple topic. For instances, let's have a look at S5-F1-C1, Determining an Individual’s Residence Status. It's a long page, but here's one interesting piece:  1.44 The Courts have stated that holders of a United States Permanent Residence Card (otherwise referred to as a Green Card) are   considered to be resident in the United States for purposes of   paragraph 1 of the Residence article of the Canada-U.S. Tax   Convention. For further information, see the Federal Court of Appeal's   comments in Allchin v R, 2004 FCA 206, 2004 DTC 6468.   [...] ... whereas you are in the U.S. on a TN visa, intended to be temporary. So you wouldn't be exempt just on the basis of your visa and the existence of the treaty. The CRA would look at other circumstances. Consider the ""Centre of vital interests test"": Centre of vital interests test [...] “If the individual has a permanent home in both Contracting States, it   is necessary to look at the facts in order to ascertain with which of   the two States his personal and economic relations are closer. Thus,   regard will be had to his family and social relations, his   occupations, his political, cultural or other activities, his place of   business, the place from which he administers his property, etc. The   circumstances must be examined as a whole, but it is nevertheless   obvious that considerations based on the personal acts of the   individual must receive special attention. If a person who has a home   in one State sets up a second in the other State while retaining the   first, the fact that he retains the first in the environment where he   has always lived, where he has worked, and where he has his family and   possessions, can, together with other elements, go to demonstrate that   he has retained his centre of vital interests in the first State.” [emphasis on last sentence is mine] Anyway, I'm acquainted with somebody who left Canada for a few years to work abroad. They assumed that living in the other country for that length of time (>2 years) meant they were non-resident here and so did not have to file. Unfortunately, upon returning to Canada, the CRA deemed them to have been resident all that time based on significant ties maintained, and they subsequently owed many thousands of dollars in back taxes, penalties, and interest. If it were me in a similar situation, I would err on the side of caution and continue to file Canadian income taxes until I got a determination I could count on from the people that make the rules." This person must pay taxes in both the overseas country and in the U.S. This is unusual; generally, only the U.S. demands this. Depending on the specific country, he would likely not be taxed twice as the U.S. generally recognises tax paid in a different country. Note there are some gotchas, though. For example, although Canada has a generally higher tax scheme than the U.S., you may still end up owing tax if you use the Tax-Free Savings Account system in Canada, as that is not recognised in the U.S. As to whether or not this person should form a company, that is far too broad a question. It's going to depend in large part on the tax situations of the countries involved. This person needs to consult an accountant specialising in this situation. That is, on personal versus business tax and on tax involving U.S. citizens. Yes, this person can and indeed must file and pay taxes in the U.S., from outside the U.S.