But, as we all are prone to do, he left a few negative details out. Minor, almost irrelevant items such as his recent conviction for income tax evasion, his divorce, and his owing the government about $700,000. There's also this very recent notice issued by the Law Society of Manitoba limiting the legal advice that Woody, still for the moment a practicing lawyer, is allowed to give;
NOTICE OF RESTRICTED PRACTICE
TAKE NOTICE that by undertaking to The Law Society of Manitoba signed on June 15, 2017, BRIAN ATTWOOD (WOODY) LANGFORD is restricted from providing any clients with advice with respect to the constitutionality of the Income Tax Act.
DATED at the City of Winnipeg, in the Province of Manitoba, this 16th day of June, 2017.
Has Woody been giving bad tax law advice? Advice that he himself followed to his great detriment? It certainly looks like it. His misfortunes seem to have started over his purported belief that the Canadian Income Tax Act is not constitutional and he therefore did not have to pay taxes. So he didn't. Instead he filed income tax returns but put down nil income.
 An Agreed Statement of Facts was filed.
 The Applicant is a practicing lawyer in Manitoba, and has been since 1980.
 The Applicant signed and filed an income tax return for each year 2002 - 2010 with the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”). On each return the Applicant reported no income.
 An investigation by CRA determined that during each of the years 2002 - 2010, the Applicant had received payment for legal services. It is agreed by the Applicant that the total amount of unreported income for the taxation years 2002 - 2010 is $622,820 and that the total amount of alleged unpaid federal income tax based on the CRA assessment for those years is $99,053.
 As a result of not reporting income for the years 2002 - 2010, and not paying income tax on the income he had received as payment for his legal services during those years, the Applicant was charged with the offences under the Income Tax Act. The Applicant was also charged under subsections 327(1)(a) and (c) of the Excise Tax Act for failing to remit GST in the amount of $39,647 based on income he received for his legal services during those years. The Applicant reached a civil settlement with CRA and is no longer in arrears for GST.
Specifically the charges were;
The Applicant is charged with the following offences:
• Nine counts of making or participating in, assenting to or acquiescing in the making of false or deceptive statements in his T1 Individual Tax Returns, by understating his taxable income, contrary to section 239(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. There is one charge for each of the nine taxation years 2002 through 2010;
• Two counts of unlawfully and willfully evading the payment of taxes, imposed by the Income Tax Act by understating his taxable income and evading payment of income tax thereon, contrary to section 239(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. There is one charge for the taxation years 2002 through 2008, and one charge for the taxation years 2009 and 2010;
• Four counts of making false or deceptive statements in Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) Returns, by understating the GST, contrary to section 327(1)(a) of the Excise Tax Act. There is one charge for each of four filing periods that collectively span from July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007; and
• One count of willfully evading or attempting to evade remittance of taxes imposed by the Excise Tax Act, contrary to section 327(1)(c) of the Excise Tax Act. That count spans June 30, 2003 to October 1, 2008.
R v Langford
2015 MBPC 58
The cited decision was the result of a hearing which took place during his income tax evasion trial and was a desperate attempt by Woody to stop the trial with a hopeless argument.
If we rewind history Woody could have avoided the tax evasion charges and still made his constitutional arguments by filing his tax returns with his actual income declared but with a statement in the returns that he was constitutionally exempt from tax and was therefore not including any income tax payments. He would have been reassessed but he could have appealed the reassessments and put his arguments to the Tax Court of Canada. Since he'd accurately declared his income there would have been no income tax evasion, just an unwillingness to pay. Had he lost at Tax Court he would have just been a routine collection problem rather than a tax evader. However he chose not to rely on his claimed belief and instead decided not to tell the government about his income. So he ended up in the worst of all possible worlds, charged with tax evasion and having to make his doomed argument in court anyhow.
Why Doomed? Because his arguments had already been litigated to death.
 The very issue put forward by the Applicant has been considered and decided by other courts.
 It is settled law that the Income Tax Act is validly enacted federal legislation pursuant to section 91(3) of the Constitution Act, and that section 92 (giving provinces exclusive power to enact direct taxation in the provinces) does not take away Parliament’s power given by section 91(3) to directly tax Canadians (Caron v. The King 1924 CanLII 461 (UK JCPC),  A.C. 999; and more recently (Frank) Bruno v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (24 January, 2002), Vancouver CA027674 (B.C.C.A.).
 In Re Anti-Inflation Act 1976 CanLII 16 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 373, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that direct taxation is within Parliament’s legislative jurisdiction.
 As previously indicated, the exact issue raised by the Applicant was specifically addressed by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Winterhaven Stables Limited v. Canada (Attorney General), 1988 ABCA 334 (CanLII). An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied ( 1 SCR xvi at 215), so at this time, the Winterhaven decision is the most authoritative decision on this issue.
Note that Winterhaven was decided in the government's favour twelve years before Woody decided that he wasn't taxable based on the same arguments.
So what were Woody's DOA arguments? He was arguing a position which was very popular with Canadian Detaxers at the turn of the millennium.
 The Applicant’s position is that the Income Tax Act is ultra vires Parliament because it imposes a direct tax within the province in order to raise revenue for provincial purposes, which is a matter that is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature under section 92(2) Constitution Act, 1867. The Applicant argues that all monies raised by direct taxation of Manitobans and used in Manitoba for provincial purposes can, constitutionally, only be raised pursuant to provincial legislation. The Applicant points to specific sums of money that are disbursed by the Government of Canada and are used for provincial purposes in Manitoba, and says that since those monies, or at least some of them, are raised by direct taxation of Manitobans pursuant to the Income Tax Act, such legislation is unconstitutional as it encroaches on exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Woody relied on his interpretation of the Constitution Act of 1867 to make this argument but, not surprisingly, the Crown went to the same Act to show that Woody was wrong;
 The Respondent and the Attorney General of Manitoba agree that the Income Tax Act imposes a direct tax, but say that the Income Tax Act is intra vires Parliament, on the basis that section 91(3) Constitution Act, 1867 gives Parliament the authority to raise money “by any mode or system of taxation”, which includes direct taxation. The Respondent and the Attorney General of Manitoba agree that the Government of Canada returns some of the monies it raises by income tax back to the provinces and that such monies are used for provincial purposes. But, they say, the fact monies are returned to the provinces by the Government of Canada, by means of subsidies, grants, shared cost programs and equalization payments, which are then used for provincial purposes, is constitutionally within Parliament’s spending jurisdiction, and does not equate to Parliament exceeding its constitutional jurisdiction to raise monies by direct taxation from all Canadians.
And, of course, the knee in the groin;
 The Respondent and the Attorney General of Manitoba submit that the very argument the Applicant makes before this court has made before other courts, and has been rejected.
Since the issue is indeed res juricata the court could have just phoned this one in by relying on precedence. Instead the judge did a detailed analysis of the arguments behind Woody's Notice of Constitutional Question. Woody's point was very basic. In his interpretation the Constitution Act did not allow the federal government of Canada to spend money for the benefit of individual provinces if that money was raised by a direct tax (ie. Income tax). Since the federal government had clearly spent tax money on the provinces it had acted unconstitutionally and the Income Tax Act was invalid.
 The real crux of the issue raised by the Applicant is whether the fact the federal government spends some of the monies it raises by the imposition of income tax by returning it to the provincial governments, and that such monies are ultimately used for provincial purposes, makes the Income Tax Act unconstitutional.
While the court went into considerable analysis this was the key paragraph;
 Indeed, section 92 constrains the provinces in terms of both raising revenue and spending revenue. Provinces can only raise money by direct taxation within the province, and that money must be spent on provincial purposes. But section 91 only deals with the federal government’s raising of revenue by direct taxation. It does not contain any limits as to how the federal government must spend the monies raised by such taxation. The jurisprudence and legislation provide that the federal government may spend money as it sees fit. There are no constitutional limits on Parliament’s spending powers except that they must be for “the public purpose” as required by section 106.
In other words the Act constrains how the provinces raise and spend tax money but is silent on how the federal government can spend it. Woody had taken section 92, which applied to provincial taxing and spending, and incorrectly also applied it to the federal government. So poor Woody's arguments were doomed leaving Woody in the position of having deliberately not reported $623,000 of taxable income and having no defensible legal basis for not reporting it.
 The court’s analysis set out above results in the conclusion that the Income Tax Act is intra vires Parliament, falling within Parliament’s authority to raise money “by any mode or system of taxation” as provided for in section 91(3) Constitution Act, 1867.
 Further, the argument made by the Applicant has been made before, in superior courts, including in the Winterhaven and Hoffman cases. Those courts have found the Income Tax Act to be intra vires, that Parliament is legally competent to impose direct tax by income tax, that imposing and collecting such tax does not fall outside of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and nor does it infringe on the taxation powers granted to the provinces under section 92 Constitution Act, 1867.
 This court specifically inquired of the Applicant, during submissions, whether there were any arguments he was able to advance that had not been considered by the superior courts in the cases referred to. The Applicant did not make any argument not advanced and considered in those cases.
 Given the principle of stare decisis, and that the very issue argued by the Applicant has already been decided by the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench in Hoffman, this court must come to the same conclusion as was reached in Hoffman.
 The Income Tax Act is intra vires Parliament and is constitutional.
 The Applicant is not entitled to a constitutional exemption.
 The Applicant’s constitutional application is dismissed.
With that blip out of the way Woody's trial continued and the Manitoba Queen's Bench docket shows that he was convicted of income tax evasion on Feb. 11, 2016 and sentenced on May 11, 2016. He received a conditional sentence order - the duration is not reported. Woody appealed. The Crown sought to have the CSO set aside so that Langford would go to remand, pre-trial. That was refused. The appeal hearing is scheduled for April 27, 2018.
His wife didn't wait for his conviction before bailing. She sought divorce on Nov. 5, 2015 (one month before the cited decision was released) and got it Nov. 7, 2016.
Woody is now 72, divorced, owes a massive debt to the CRA, and has a criminal conviction for tax evasion which will almost certainly mean the end of his days as a lawyer. So I think he might be having some difficulty adhering to the philosophy he espouses at the end of his bio;
Woody says "I try to enjoy life everyday and to get out of bed with a smile on my face."
But, then again, I can't sympathize too much with someone who publishes an online bio using Comic Sans for his font.