Can't pay my taxes (Phil Naudi)

Moderator: Burnaby49

freedavep

Can't pay my taxes (Phil Naudi)

Postby freedavep » Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:31 am

Could someone here explain to me why People who don't have "Social Security Numbers" (Social Insurance Numbers "SIN" in Canada) or "Taxpayer Identification Numbers" Don't or Can't pay taxes ??? Doesn't make sense to me. Revenue Canada preaches that "everyone" is required to pay "Income Tax" and file a return, yet they are consistantly being defeated in court by people that represent themselves. Layne v. R. (BCSC), R. v. Naudi (BCPC), R. v. Lutes (BCPC) and R. v. Larsen (BCPC). What's going on here ?? That Rob Menard kook even had a part to play in that "Lutes" case......don't tell me he's actually right when he says "No SIN no Taxes" (that's what these decisions indicate). I'm sure the decent and honest folk at Revenue Canada wouldn't lie to us........would they ?? I went to their site hoping to find an explaination as to why these kooks apparently won, but these cases aren't even mentioned. All they have on there is a bunch of cases that they HAVE won.......I'm sure the Government wouldn't present only one side of the story with the intention of keeping the truth hidden from us.....would they ?? I was reminded recently of another one of these crazy kooks who say Income Tax is "Voluntary" his name is George Gordon and has the nerve to teach this stuff through his "Law School"........and ON THE AIR......PUBLICLY no less !!! He even goes further by telling people to avoid earning "income" altogether. and just deal in "property". He uses a case called "Deifendorff vs. Gallet" to prove his point that "property" (not real estate) has never been assesed or taxed in the United States. Here's his radio shows on taxation - 1st of 7 - http://library.georgegordon.com/audio/d ... 54a-32.mp3

and another series- 1 of 7-
http://library.georgegordon.com/audio/d ... 78a-32.mp3

So I decided to test out what he say's on his shows (just to prove him wrong).

I called Revenue Canada and stated that I have no SIN and wouldn't allow anyone to issue a TIN to me....but still wanted to pay taxes on money that I've earned working privately for various different people over the last lear.

THEY WON"T ALLOW ME TO !!!

It turns out that kooky guy was right. They wont allow someone with no account with them to pay taxes !!!

What's the world coming to........crazy crackpots furnishing real evidence to support their crazy claims....I don't believe it !!!!!!!! Court cases being won against the Taxman by people representing themselves ????? Government agents who won't take tax money from me because I don't want an account with them ???? Revenue Canada hiding important cases from the people ????

I think these guy's must be right. GET RID OF YOUR SSN/SIN, refuse a TIN and deal in PROPERTY instead of "income". and let all the Tax Protesters continue going to jail.

Cheers :lol:

Nikki

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby Nikki » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:07 am

Trollin, trollin, trollin; Trollin on the river.

Moderators, please file this one in the DMVP And Other Sovereignoramuses Delusions folder,

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7172
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby Famspear » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:18 am

freedavep wrote:Could someone here explain to me why People who don't have "Social Security Numbers" (Social Insurance Numbers "SIN" in Canada) or "Taxpayer Identification Numbers" Don't or Can't pay taxes ??? Doesn't make sense to me.


That's right. It doesn't make sense to you - or to anyone else. It's baloney.

......Revenue Canada preaches that "everyone" is required to pay "Income Tax" and file a return, yet they are consistantly being defeated in court by people that represent themselves....


No, "they" are not being defeated in court.

.....Layne v. R. (BCSC), R. v. Naudi (BCPC), R. v. Lutes (BCPC) and R. v. Larsen (BCPC). What's going on here ??


What's going on here? Nothing, except that those are not proper citations to court cases. Without a proper citation, you can prove nothing.

That Rob Menard kook even had a part to play in that "Lutes" case......don't tell me he's actually right when he says "No SIN no Taxes" (that's what these decisions indicate).


No, he's not right, and "these decisions" do not "indicate" that he's right. My guess is that since you haven't cited the decisions properly, you've never even read the decisions. You don't know anything about these decisions. Now, prove me wrong.

I'm sure the decent and honest folk at Revenue Canada wouldn't lie to us........would they ?? I went to their site hoping to find an explaination [sic] as to why these kooks apparently won, but these cases aren't even mentioned.


Maybe that's because "these cases" don't say what you claim they said. Now, prove me wrong.

All they have on there is a bunch of cases that they HAVE won.......I'm sure the Government wouldn't present only one side of the story with the intention of keeping the truth hidden from us.....would they ??


I'm sure you're asking a rhetorical question to back up a specious argument -- with no proof to back you up.

I was reminded recently of another one of these crazy kooks who say Income Tax is "Voluntary" his name is George Gordon and has the nerve to teach this stuff through his "Law School"........and ON THE AIR......PUBLICLY no less !!! He even goes further by telling people to avoid earning "income" altogether. and just deal in "property". He uses a case called "Deifendorff vs. Gallet" to prove his point that "property" (not real estate) has never been assesed or taxed in the United States.


Yeah. So what?

So I decided to test out what he say's [sic] on his shows (just to prove him wrong).


No you didn't.

I called Revenue Canada and stated that I have no SIN and wouldn't allow anyone to issue a TIN to me....but still wanted to pay taxes on money that I've earned working privately for various different people over the last [sic] lear.

THEY WON"T ALLOW ME TO !!!

It turns out that kooky guy was right.


No, it doesn't turn out that the kooky guy was right. Now, prove me wrong.

They wont allow someone with no account with them to pay taxes !!!

What's the world coming to........crazy crackpots furnishing real evidence to support their crazy claims....I don't believe it !!!!!!!! Court cases being won against the Taxman by people representing themselves ????? Government agents who won't take tax money from me because I don't want an account with them ???? Revenue Canada hiding important cases from the people ????


8)
Trollin', trollin', trollin'......

I think these guy's [sic] must be right.


I think you're just as clueless as your gurus are.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

User avatar
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby Imalawman » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:51 am

I got about 4 sentences in before it just became too much effort for too much crazy.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown

User avatar
jcolvin2
Grand Master Consul of Quatloosia
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 4:19 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby jcolvin2 » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:57 am

Two of the four cases cited related to situations where the Canadian government tried to take a short cut in the process of proving that a taxpayer had not filed a tax return. They most assuredly do not establishe that no tax was due in the absence of a SIN:

R. v Layne
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/98/01/s98-0112.txt

R v. Naudi
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2003/04/p03_0453.htm

(I was unable to download the other two cited cases because of problems with the BC Provincial Court's judgments database, but I will do so in the future.)

The Layne holding have been limited to it's facts as the following cases, most of which involve Canadian TP types, establish:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/10/03/2010BCCA0337.htm

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/08/2010BCSC0831cor1.htm

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/06/15/2006bcsc1585.htm

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/06/14/2006bcsc1493.htm

Finally, I note that R v Larsen was reversed by the BC Supeme Court:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/05/18/2005bcsc1867.htm

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation: R. v. Larsen

2005 BCSC 1867

Date: 20051215
Docket: 57945-2
Registry: Kelowna

REGINA

v.

ROBERT JOHN KONRAD LARSEN

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Brine

Oral Reasons for Judgment

December 15, 2005

Counsel for the Federal Crown:
J. Hyman

Appearing on his own behalf:
R.J.K. Larsen

Place of Trial/Hearing:
Kelowna, B.C.



[1] THE COURT: This is an appeal of an acquittal on three counts of failing to comply with the requirements to file a return against the respondent. The appeal raises two issues. First is the admissibility of statements made by the respondent to a C.C.R.A. field officer, and the second, whether the Crown must prove that a person has a specific social insurance number in order to prove that they have not filed a return.

[2] The respondent was charged with three counts of failing to comply with requirements to file returns which have been served on him pursuant to s. 231.2 of the Income Tax Act, contrary to s. 238 of that Act, by not providing tax returns and statements of income and expenses for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002. Section 231.2(1) of the Act provides:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Minister may, subject to subsection (2), for any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of this Act, including the collection of any amount payable under this Act by any person, by notice served personally or by registered or certified mail, require that any person provide, within such reasonable time as is stipulated in the notice,

(a) any information or additional information, including a return of income or a supplementary return; or

(b) any document.

[3] Section 238(1) of the Act provides:

Every person who has failed to file or make a return as and when required by or under this Act or a regulation or who has failed to comply with subsection 116(3), 127(3.1) or 127(3.2), 147.1(7) or 153(1), any of sections 230 to 232 or a regulation made under subsection 147.1(18) or with an order made under subsection 238(2) is guilty of an offence and, in addition to any penalty otherwise provided, is liable on summary conviction to

(a) a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $25,000; or

(b) both the fine described in paragraph 238(1)(a) and imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months.

[4] On January 21, 2005, a trial commenced on Information 57945 in the Provincial Court of British Columbia in Kelowna. The respondent appeared on his own behalf at trial and pleaded not guilty to each of the three counts. The Crown's case consisted of one witness who had been employed in the Penticton office of the C.C.R.A. as a field officer. This individual, Mr. Ambler, first took charge of the file with respect to the respondent, and when he did so it contained the following information: That the file pertained to a person named Robert John Konrad Larsen. That Robert John Konrad Larsen, whose social insurance number was 714 671 260. That the address of Robert John Konrad Larsen was 26 - 3737 Gellatly Road South, Westbank, B.C. Robert John Konrad Larsen's date of birth was April 21, 1956. Robert John Konrad Larsen was employed by a water supply company by the name of Eco Water, and Hannah Chesher, a collections officer with the C.C.R.A., had attempted to contact Robert John Konrad Larsen.

[5] With respect to the admissibility of the statements, there are two or actually three sub issues. First is whether or not the statements were made to a person in authority, and if so, were they voluntary, and as a collateral issue, was a warning required in the circumstances of this case.

[6] The background of the statements is that in September 2003, Mr. Ambler went to the address at 26 - 3737 Gellatly Road South, Westbank, B.C., which is a townhouse unit, with the intention of meeting with the respondent. On his arrival at the Gellatly Road South address, Ambler knocked on the door. It was answered by a woman. Ambler asked for Mr. Larsen and the woman re-entered the residence.

[7] A short while later, a man appeared at the door, that would be the respondent appeared at the door. Ambler had a conversation with the respondent and then served him three notices of requirement to file addressed to the respondent, which requirements obliged the respondent, pursuant to s. 231.2(1) of the Act, to file income tax returns and statements of income and expenses for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 within ninety days, and to be sent to the attention of Ambler at the tax office in Penticton.

[8] The conversation and circumstances of Mr. Ambler's conversation with the respondent, which were the subject of a voir dire in the trial, are as follows: As the respondent approached the door to the residence, Ambler asked, "Are you Robert Larsen?" The respondent replied, "Yes," at which time, or during which time Mr. Ambler extended his hand to shake that of the respondent. Mr. Ambler showed a C.C.R.A. identification card to the respondent and provided him with a business card. Ambler explained that he was at the residence with regard to unfiled tax returns for the years in question, that is, 2000, 2001, 2002.

[9] Ambler asked if the respondent was aware of the unfilled tax returns and the respondent replied that, "I haven't had any reportable income." Ambler asked the respondent why he did not file the returns on time and the respondent replied, "That does not matter." Ambler asked if the respondent was working and the respondent said no. When asked when he last worked, the respondent replied, "About six months ago, but that doesn't matter." The respondent said that he had an appointment with Hannah Chesher of the collections department, and Ambler replied he was concerned with the unfilled tax returns, not an income tax debt.

[10] The respondent indicated that he no longer wished to speak to Ambler and attempted to close the door. Ambler prevented the closure by putting his foot in the door and served the respondent with the requirements. As he left the residence, Ambler noted that certain Eco Water decals were attached to a car parked in the driveway of the residence.

[11] Whether a person is a person in authority is dependent on the accused's subjective perception of that person. In Grandinetti, the Supreme Court of Canada Madam Justice Abella, said at ¶38:

The test of who is a “person in authority” is largely subjective, focusing on the accused’s perception of the person to whom he or she is making the statement. The operative question is whether the accused, based on his or her perception of the recipient’s ability to influence the prosecution, believed either that refusing to make a statement to the person would result in prejudice, or that making one would result in favourable treatment.

[12] In my view, the opening words of the conversation cannot be said to have been made by the respondent to a person in authority. The respondent did not know who Ambler was, had no idea who he represented or the purpose of his visit. The portion of the conversation, therefore, where Ambler asked, "Are you Robert Larsen?" and the respondent's response was, "Yes," ought to have been admitted.

[13] Thereafter, the conversation between the respondent and Ambler is one between a person and an officer or agent of the state. I am not convinced, however, that Ambler is a person in authority. There is, I think, some merit to the Crown's position that it is difficult to be a person in authority regarding an investigation of an offence when, firstly, no offence has occurred, and secondly, it is quite possible that no offence may ever occur.

[14] For the purposes of this analysis, however, I do not propose to determine the issue one way or the other. I am proceeding on the assumption that Ambler was a person in authority and that the Crown was, therefore, obliged to prove that the statements made by the respondent were made voluntarily.

[15] The trial judge found that the respondent had not been detained. The judge did conclude, however, that the statement was involuntary because the respondent did not receive a warning from Ambler in order that he might be able to appreciate the level of his jeopardy. As I said, there had been no detention. In my view, in those circumstances, a warning is not required.

[16] The basis of the confessions rule is reliability. The analysis of whether a statement was or was not made voluntarily requires an examination of the circumstances surrounding the statement in order to determine whether there is any reasonable doubt that the statement was made voluntarily.

[17] R. v. Oickle describes a number of possible circumstances which might give rise to a determination that a statement might not be made voluntarily. At ¶69, Mr. Justice Iacobucci states:

Voluntariness is the touchstone of the confessions rule. Whether the concern is threats or promises, the lack of an operating mind, or police trickery that unfairly denies the accused's right to silence, this Court's jurisprudence has consistently protected the accused from having involuntary confessions introduced into evidence. If a confession is involuntary for any of these reasons, it is inadmissible.

[18] Here, the lack of voluntariness is found only from the failure to provide a warning to the respondent by Ambler. I conclude that the circumstances in place at the time of the conversation between Ambler and the respondent were not such as required a warning. I am also of the view that none of the hallmarks of situations which might give rise to a determination that the statements made by the respondents were not made voluntarily are present. Indeed, the circumstances lead me to the opposite conclusion.

[19] I find, therefore, that the exclusion of the introductory remarks was improper, as they were not made to a person in authority. I also find that the exclusion of the balance of the statements of the respondent was improper as they were made voluntarily.

[20] I am aware that a finding of voluntariness is a factual one, or may be a factual one, generally, and ought not to be overturned unless there has been some palpable and overriding error affecting the judge's assessment of the facts. In my view, a determination that a warning was required was a palpable and overriding error and clearly affected the judge's assessment of the facts. The statements should have been permitted into evidence in their entirety.

[21] Secondly, must the Crown prove that a person has a specific social insurance number in order to prove that they have not complied with a request to file a return? The Act requires, in effect, that the Crown must prove three essential elements. Firstly, the identity of the accused; secondly, proof of service of the request; and thirdly, proof of failure to comply. If these are proved, a rebuttable presumption arises. It may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary.

[22] Under the relevant sections of the Income Tax Act, proof of failure to file may be proved by filing an affidavit of an officer of the Department of National Revenue. This affidavit becomes proof of the offence in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The authorities hold that in such cases strict compliance with the section permitting the admission of the evidence is required, referring to Layne. Only affidavit evidence of personal knowledge is permitted. Here I refer to R. v. Layne at ¶23, a decision of Madam Justice Bennett, where she said:

In my opinion when the Crown is permitted to prove a case against an accused on the basis of affidavit evidence and that evidence becomes proof of the offence, (as in this statute), in the absence of "proof to the contrary", then there must be strict compliance with the section permitting the admission of the evidence. I agree with Barnet J. in the Brecknock case above wherein he held that only affidavit evidence of personal knowledge was admissible in this type of case. It would have been a very simple matter for Ms. Hill to simply confirm in the records the information that she had been provided by Mr. Blackwell. There is no evidence that she did so. In my opinion, once it has been established that she has received some information on the basis of hearsay, then there is an obligation on the Crown to lead evidence that she also has that information from her own personal knowledge.

[23] In this case, the notices served on the respondent required him to deliver the returns to Ambler. Ambler's evidence in that regard is that he received no returns and it is based on his personal knowledge.

[24] As to Ambler's search of the computer system, he did so personally. He looked up the respondent's social insurance number personally, he obtained information which appeared to link the individual whose records he was searching with the respondent. In short, it appears that Ambler likely had sufficient personal knowledge of information linking the respondent to the person whose records were searched. That person did not file returns as requested and, in the absence of proof to the contrary, would be evidence of the respondent's failure to comply.

[25] However, I am also of the view that the failure to admit the statements of the respondent to Ambler is sufficient to require a new trial. It would not be appropriate to prevent the respondent from defending the charges against him as he sees fit and defending them in their entirety.

[26] I am, therefore, directing that the acquittals be set aside and the matter be remitted to Provincial Court for a new trial.

[27] MS. HYMAN: Thank you, My Lord.

[28] THE COURT: All right.

“D. Brine, J.”
The Honourable Mr. Justice D. Brine

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby wserra » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:02 am

freedavep wrote:I was reminded recently of another one of these crazy kooks who say Income Tax is "Voluntary" his name is George Gordon and has the nerve to teach this stuff through his "Law School"........and ON THE AIR......PUBLICLY no less !!!


What's really crazy is that people like you are dumb enough to believe it.

He even goes further by telling people to avoid earning "income" altogether. and just deal in "property". He uses a case called "Deifendorff vs. Gallet" to prove his point that "property" (not real estate) has never been assesed or taxed in the United States.


And you swallow it hook, line and sinker.

The actual name and cite is Diefendorf v. Gallet, 51 Idaho 619, 10 P.2d 307 (1932). Gordon apparently didn't tell you that, probably because he'd really rather you didn't find it. First of all, please note that it's an Idaho state court case; it can't possibly prove what is or is not taxed in the United States, because it only applies to Idaho. Second, of course, it doesn't say what you quote Gordon saying it says. It is a case interpreting, not the United States Constitution and income tax law, but the Idaho Constitution and income tax law. Look it up. If you can't be bothered to do that - "Survivor" may be on, after all - consider this passage: "And the point to be decided is, not whether income may not, possibly, be comprehended under the general name of property, but whether such is its meaning, and such was the design of the Legislature, in this Act." The Idaho Supreme Court is interpreting an Idaho statute, in light of the Idaho Constitution.

Oh, one other thing, before leaving Diefendorf: it's been overruled. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Neill, 79 Idaho 385, 319 P.2d 195 (1957). Still, if you needed to know some obscure details of the Idaho state income tax between 1932 and 1957 - man, you hit the nail on the head.

What's the world coming to........crazy crackpots furnishing real evidence to support their crazy claims....I don't believe it !!!!!!!!


Me either.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby wserra » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:18 am

jcolvin2 wrote:[26] I am, therefore, directing that the acquittals be set aside and the matter be remitted to Provincial Court for a new trial.


Obviously no Double Jeopardy Clause.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Harvester

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby Harvester » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:02 am

Re: Can't pay my taxes
Yes it's true. Income taxes are voluntary, but this fact and the true nature of the scam are hidden from the average taxpayer. I haven't paid income taxes since 2007. These resources were helpful to me:
www.losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?145/page2

User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby LPC » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:04 am

freedavep wrote:Revenue Canada preaches that "everyone" is required to pay "Income Tax" and file a return, yet they are consistantly being defeated in court by people that represent themselves. Layne v. R. (BCSC), R. v. Naudi (BCPC), R. v. Lutes (BCPC) and R. v. Larsen (BCPC). What's going on here ??

Wrong forum. You want "Abuse." That's two doors down, on the right.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

Nikki

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby Nikki » Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:44 am

Harvester wrote:I haven't paid income taxes since 2007.


Hamster neglects to mention that he hasn't posted a truthful statment since 2009. He repeatedly posts an alleged tax refund check which is SO photoshopped that even the board's electrons laugh at it.

Hamster might actually attract the attention of the IRS if the value of scrap aluminum cans were significantly higher.

User avatar
jcolvin2
Grand Master Consul of Quatloosia
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 4:19 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby jcolvin2 » Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:39 am

jcolvin2 wrote:I was unable to download the other two cited cases because of problems with the BC Provincial Court's judgments database, but I will do so in the future.)


The BC Provincial Court's judgment database is working again. R v Lutes doesn't show up in the Court database, but the 2008 decision in R v Miekle does.
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2008/02/p08_0265.htm

The Miekle case contains the following discussion:

Identification and the SIN

[25] Mr. Meikle has a vision of the requirements of proof, a demand for a level of certainty and complexity, which far exceed any tests in our law. As citizens many things can help establish our identity, our name, our residence, place of employment, how we identify ourselves to others, our social insurance number etc. There is more than enough proof here to link Mr. Meikle to a failure to file his income tax. His argument on procedural strictness is based on cases that are not now followed in our law, i.e. the first Larsen case before it was overturned on appeal, and cases from other provinces that are not presently followed in British Columbia, or cases such as R v. Lutes, R v. Naudi and R v. Layne which are fact based decisions which have been subsequently supplanted by the decisions of R v. Larsen (on appeal) R v. Blackburn, and R v. Larsen (the retrial). His argument that the SIN regime can not be trusted because more SIN numbers have been issued than there are eligible citizens is disingenuous. Mr. Meikle should not worry about that. In the context of this case there is no evidence that another person is using Mr. Meikle’s SIN number to fraudulently file Mr. Meikle’s income tax returns.

Accordingly I convict Mr. Meikle of all four counts.


Consistent with the discussion in my earlier post, the Miekle court also noted that the the Larsen case was revised on appeal. Our troll has posted a 0-4 record in BC and a 0-1 record in Idaho. I think we have today's big winner ...

User avatar
Thule
Tragedian of Sovereign Mythology
Posts: 694
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:57 am
Location: 71 degrees north

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby Thule » Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:57 am

Harvester wrote:Re: Can't pay my taxes
Yes it's true. Income taxes are voluntary, but this fact and the true nature of the scam are hidden from the average taxpayer. I haven't paid income taxes since 2007. These resources were helpful to me:
http://www.losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?145/page2


So, because the USC don't define "income", Canadian citizens don't have to pay taxes under Canadian law? That's dumb, even by Hamster-standards.
Survivor of the Dark Agenda Whistleblower Award, August 2012.

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3501
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby grixit » Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:06 am

STOP! Hamster Time!
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4

ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 2667
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby ArthurWankspittle » Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:01 am

Harvester wrote:I haven't paid income taxes since 2007.

The usual suggestion is that he hasn't made enough money in any year since 2007 that warrants him filling in a tax return.
Going to Tibet now and deleting Facebook you have my email address

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby wserra » Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:09 pm

LPC wrote:Wrong forum. You want "Abuse." That's two doors down, on the right.


Ahh, we're all a trifle conciliatory.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Nikki

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby Nikki » Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:55 pm

CaptainKickback wrote:My dad has not filed an income tax return since 2007 either.*
* - of course being killed in 2007 probably has had a lot to do with that.....
Assumption: You filed the 2007 return (in 2008) for him.

Brandybuck

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby Brandybuck » Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:04 pm

I haven't filed my 2011 taxes yet! And the IRS lets me get away with it! Suckers!

rumpelstilzchen
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2165
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:00 pm
Location: Soho London

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby rumpelstilzchen » Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:26 pm

Hhhhmmm....

freedavep wrote on Icke's on 10/10/2010:
R vs Lutes is a Tax case. Revenue Canada tried (unsucessfuly) to convict Brian Lutes of 5 counts of "Failure to comply with the Income Tax Act" (failure to file a return X5) sec 238 (1) ITA.

The judge basically ruled that if the accused could NOT be linked with a Social Insurance Number then he DID NOT have to file the returns that Rev. Canada claimed were required of him.

It's interesting reading. It sure gives a good insight as to how things really play out in court (something you don't get by reading a Ruling).

Rob Menard gives some testamony in this one. It's quite humorous actually hearing about how he went to various different Tax offices to find a "Form T1" (there's actually no such form marked as a "Form T1" but a whole bunch of T1 everythings).

Very good reading......think I might post it on the Quatloose site LoL LoL.


http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php ... stcount=34
BHF wrote:
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.

freedavep

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby freedavep » Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:52 pm

IT"S SIMPLE- Just try to pay Income Tax without having an account with them. I dare you.

There's no way in hell you'd be able to.

Nice to see you here Rumple :D You'll do as well here as you do over at the Ickes.....lol.

Oh BTW I will call Rev. Canada again and record it this time for you all. You can't pay without an account PERIOD.

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1514
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Can't pay my taxes

Postby Dr. Caligari » Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:09 am

You can't pay without an account PERIOD.


...but you can go to jail for not paying. So you'd better get an account, pronto.
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest