Stephen Davis is not a Poriskyite! He said so himself.
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:54 am
Well he didn't actually use the word "Poriskyite". He claimed he wasn't using the "natural persons" argument.
We have already considered the Ian Brown decision here;
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9949
Mr. Davis was a private contractor who reported some of the income he made but not all. When the CRA audited his company he did not dispute the amounts he hadn't reported but, for various reasons, said they weren't taxable.
Davis tried the same argument I discussed in my Anthony Parker write-up,
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=10527
that the court could not pass judgment against him because no Canadian court is independent;
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/d ... 0/index.do[5] There were arguments today and in the written materials that went well beyond what was in the notice of appeal, relating to persons, corporations, human beings, living souls, certificates of live birth and punctuation appearing in people’s names. It was conceded by Mr. Davis and his representative that they were not advancing the “natural persons” type arguments usually associated with those references. This was wise, given that the Federal Court of Appeal has most recently, in the Ian Brown case, rejected and upheld this court in rejecting “natural persons” type arguments.
We have already considered the Ian Brown decision here;
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9949
Mr. Davis was a private contractor who reported some of the income he made but not all. When the CRA audited his company he did not dispute the amounts he hadn't reported but, for various reasons, said they weren't taxable.
Davis tried the same argument I discussed in my Anthony Parker write-up,
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=10527
that the court could not pass judgment against him because no Canadian court is independent;
So that just left the vague arguments that Mr. Davis's constitutional rights had been somehow violated by trying to tax him on what was clearly taxable income. The court wasn't buying it;[6] The written argument handed in today included several pages on the Judges Act. There was some discussion and submissions by Mr. Davis’ representative that, in the circumstances, it was their opinion that neither this court nor the judges of this court, nor any court nor any judges in Canada, could be considered to satisfy Canadians’ rights to have things heard by an independent person and an independent court. Mr. Lukiv acknowledged that he had trouble framing any relief request, given that, had I agreed with him, my opinion became worthless. So he left that dangling. I could not do anything with it in any event. So, that was dealt with satisfactorily to Mr. Lukiv.
Judge then decided that Davis had been enough of a pain in the ass to warrant costs against him even though this was informal procedure;[8] So, the only substantive issue, while multi-pronged, is what I will refer to as the Constitutional/Charter/international treaties, all as they concern the human rights arguments that Mr. Lukiv and Mr. Davis wanted to advance. I certainly agree with them and do not deny that all such rights exist as phrased in our Charter and in our Constitution. The problem that Mr. Davis and Mr. Lukiv face is that the courts have been clear that those rights do not extend to not paying tax, nor do they include expressly or otherwise a right to not pay tax. The courts have been clear and consistent. I really need not spill any more ink on this point.
[9] For these reasons, I will be dismissing the appeal. Under the Rules of the Court, in an informal case, I am able to award costs payable against an unsuccessful taxpayer if the appellant has unduly delayed the prompt and effective resolution of the appeal. In addition to my view that continuing to pursue these arguments, many, many Canadians are abusing the process of the Court, I am also satisfied that today Mr. Davis, simply by bringing these arguments forward once again with no prospect for success, unduly delayed the prompt and effective resolution of his appeal. Therefore, I am awarding costs against him in the amount of $1,185, which is the aggregate of the amounts in Rule 11 for preparing for the hearing, filing the pleadings, and the conduct of a day’s hearings.