arayder wrote:Wake Up! Productions wrote:arayder wrote:A natural person is subject to the rule of law.
Agreed 100%. If I, acting in the capacity of a natural person, earn an income while working under an employment number (SIN in Canada), I am subject to any and all tax laws. However, the Government of Canada can not FORCE me to use that number, as it is not a "license to work". I can enter into a private contract, and work without using that number. It is commonly termed working under the table, or as CRA terms it, "the underground economy". So long as the legal name (natural person) is not involved, it is not illegal, and in fact, it is completely lawful.
I don't know Canadian tax law. But in the U.S. that is not the case.
In the U.S. you can call yourself any kind of man you want and pretend you don't owe taxes on income and disavow your social security number and it won't help you get out from under tax law.
In the U.S. the only way to make it work in a practical sense is to stay under the tax man's radar. But if the state or federal government catches up with you saying you weren't using this or that name won't help at all.
Canadian tax law is simple. You earn money in Canada you owe income tax in Canada. The Canadian Income Tax Act does not recognize "natural men" it taxes "persons". The Act stipulates this right at the beginning;
Income Tax Act
R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.)
An Act respecting income taxes
SHORT TITLE
1. This Act may be cited as the Income Tax Act.
PART I - INCOME TAX
DIVISION A - LIABILITY FOR TAX
2. (1) An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year.
(2) The taxable income of a taxpayer for a taxation year is the taxpayer’s income for the year plus the additions and minus the deductions permitted by Division C.
(3) Where a person who is not taxable under subsection 2(1) for a taxation year
(a) was employed in Canada,
(b) carried on a business in Canada, or
(c) disposed of a taxable Canadian property,
at any time in the year or a previous year, an income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the person’s taxable income earned in Canada for the year determined in accordance with Division D
So who is a person under the Act? Check section 248(1) of the Act. This is the definitions section;
“person”, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes any corporation, and any entity exempt, because of subsection 149(1), from tax under Part I on all or part of the entity’s taxable income and the heirs, executors, liquidators of a succession, administrators or other legal representatives of such a person, according to the law of that part of Canada to which the context extends;
In other words everybody is a person and there is nothing exempting some human classification that Freemen like to call natural men. One of the principal cases that established that natural persons are taxable persons was a case against a local Vancouver Freeman who claimed he wasn't an person as defined in the Income Tax Act;
MNR v. Stanchfield, 2009 Citation: 2009 FC 99
http://canlii.ca/t/22g7x
[2] Mr. Stanchfield argues that he did in fact comply with the RFI. He explains that the alleged inadequacies (referred to in the affidavit of Tove Mills) of the response of Cory Stanchfield, the taxpayer and respondent in this application are caused by the Minister’s confusion in attributing to him assets, income and activities of another, distinct entity whom he characterizes as “Cory Stanchfield, in his capacity as a natural person acting in his own capacity and for his own private benefit”. Because this is not the first time similar arguments have been made by Cory Stanchfield as well as other taxpayers in the Vancouver area, it is worth reviewing in some detail the arguments presented by the respondent.
[6] As stated above, this is far from the first time that persons have attempted to argue that “natural persons” are not covered within the scope of application of the Act. In fact this underlying notion has been specifically and thoroughly canvassed in a number of decisions, to the extent where it can be said today that such a notion is wholly without merit. Despite this, the respondent attempts to distinguish each and every one of these cases.
[11] Finally, the respondent himself attempted to argue before this Court in the course of another application for a compliance order brought against him by the Applicant, that he, as a natural person, was not a “person” for the purposes of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15 (M.N.R. v. Stanchfield (September 26, 2007), Vancouver T-1179-07). Justice Frederick E. Gibson rejects this proposition, on the basis that “the Respondent is clearly a “person” within the scope of the definitions “person” and “individual” in section 123 of the Excise Tax Act” (p. 4). The respondent seeks to distinguish the result of his very own “first kick at the can” by arguing that he agrees with the determination of Justice Gibson as he now realizes that he was in fact before him in his capacity as a taxpayer. He claims that it was counsel for the applicant that led the Court to believe that he was before the Court in his capacity as a natural person and it is for this reason that he argued in this fashion before Justice Gibson.
[12] It is of interest to note that, in a decision rendered after the date of the hearing of the present matter, the respondent was found guilty of contempt of the above-mentioned Court order. In M.N.R. v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 72 (CanLII), Justice Yves de Montigny found that “The distinction drawn by Mr. Stanchfield between his capacity as a natural person and his capacity to act in some other way is entirely of his own doing, and is devoid of any support in the case law.” (para. 27).
[27] If this is true for a corporation, purportedly created by a legislature, it even more so for a natural person. Cory Stanchfield’s attempt to argue before this Court that his body comprises two persons which act in different capacities is of one of two things: (1) an inadmissible division of his indivisible entity, or (2) an attempted creation of a second entity in a fashion which is not recognized by law, the result of which amounts to nothing in the eyes of the law. It is an attempt at the impossible and the respondent cannot do the impossible. Therefore, “Cory Stanchfield (the Respondent)” and “Cory Stanchfield, in his capacity as a natural person (the Witness)” is but one person, with one single capacity, whom is directly included in the definition of “person” contained at subsection 248(1) of the Act.
[28] Thus, natural persons, whether described as acting in their own private capacity for their own private benefit or not, are directly included in the definition of “person” contained at subsection 248(1) of the Act. This is because the qualifying terms “own private capacity” and “own private benefit” are of absolutely no relevance in the eyes of the law.
[30] As such, the Act validly applies to all persons residing in Canada for any part of a taxation year, regardless of whether these persons are afforded the protections of the Bill of Rights, or not. The absence of a notwithstanding clause or declaration in the Act does not affect the validity and the legality of this situation, which cannot be described in any other way than representing the “due process of law”.
[31] That said, has Cory Stanchfield complied with the terms of the RFI sent to him by the Minister on February 19, 2008? In light of the evidence presented to the Court by Mr. Stanchfield (see above at para. 4), it is abundantly clear that he has not. This evidence contains blatant discrepancies with the information provided to the Minister in response to the RFI. The Court is satisfied that the respondent was required under section 231.2 of the Act to provide the information requested in the RFI and that he did not fully comply with this requirement. The Court is equally satisfied that the information requested is not protected by solicitor-client privilege. The Court will thus issue the compliance order requested by the Minister, pursuant to section 231.7 of the Act.
[32] The Minister is seeking his costs on this application which are quantified at $936. Mr. Stanchfield, again relying on his untenable legal position, argued that the Court should take into consideration the fact that he is unemployed. As noted, this is not the first time that Mr. Stanchfield is involved in proceedings of this nature. Justice Gibson ordered him to pay the Minister’s costs in his order. There are no valid reasons for not granting the applicant his costs in this matter. I fix them at a lump sum of $900.
Not a lot of comfort there for natural person adherents.
The Richard Cory Stanchfield in the case above is not a stranger to Quatloos. He just pleaded guilty to income tax evasion. He'd planned to defend himself on the basis that he was a natural person.
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10464
Steve Bates seems to be saying that as long as he doesn't have or doesn't use a Social Insurance Number (SIN) he is not taxable. He said;
I can enter into a private contract, and work without using that number. It is commonly termed working under the table, or as CRA terms it, "the underground economy". So long as the legal name (natural person) is not involved, it is not illegal, and in fact, it is completely lawful.
Which indicates, at least to me, the position that the "underground economy" is a separate grouping of people without SIN numbers who are lawfully allowed to earn income without paying tax on it. This is completely wrong. The "underground economy" is comprised of people who are illegally hiding their income and not reporting it. They are as taxable as anybody else, they are just evading paying the taxes they owe. The Social Insurance Number does not make you taxable and not having one does not free you from being taxable. It is just a number regardless of the mystique that Freemen have built around it.