A double-Header of Canadian tax dodgers
Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:30 am
The two cases I'm covering have nothing directly in common except, of the three tax decisions released by my Canadian tax reporting service today, two are tax protester/freemen/don't want to pay/whatever types.
The first is Haynes, citation:
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/2013/2 ... cc229.html
The appellant was out of time on filing an appeal for his tax assessments and gross negligence penalties and requested that the court give him an extension of time. Denied. As I stated in an e-mail I sent on this case, I'd argue that it is not necessarily the best defense to be represented by your father who argues that the Income Tax Act is not validly enacted, demand that the court prove the tax act is valid legislation, then boast that his tax knowledge, and approach to tax law, is equivalent to those of the Fiscal Arbitrators.
For you non-Canadians the Fiscal Arbitrators is a group (see link below) who:
Fiscal Arbitrators (“FA”) persuaded many Canadians to file tax returns or adjustments to previous year’s returns in order to deduct fabricated business expenses. Essentially, FA convinces taxpayers that claiming personal expenses against a fictional business will lead to legitimate tax refunds.
Canada Revenue Agency’s (“CRA”) response has been to audit the taxation years at issue, deny the deductions and levy gross negligence penalties pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Federal Income Tax Act.
http://taxjurisprudence.ca/wp/?p=8
Based on this I'm assuming that Mr. Haynes filed business losses based on his own personal expenses and was penalized for it.
Case Number two is a lower-level Alberta public school employee who tried to claim, relative to her income, huge fictitious business losses.
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/2013/2 ... cc228.html
She was guided in this endeavor by some outfit called Amed Solutions who prepared her 2009 income tax return. Her first line of defense when contacted by the CRA was to tell them that her income and expenses were none of their damned business!
[8] Some of submissions by Amed Solutions are pure nonsense. The paragraph below is an excerpt from the first response given to the CRA auditor.
The terms of the private contract of agency between the free will man commonly called Colleen, of the McLeod family, who is the principal, the contributing beneficiary and the true party of interest for the fictional entity/person/trust called COLLEEN MCLEOD, which, by necessity, has become the agent in commerce for the principal; is not subject to the scrutiny of a third party entity, and therefore; any private dealings between the principal and the agent cannot be released to the CANADA REVENUE AGENCY.
When that didn't fly she fell back on her next line of defense which was that she really didn't have any intent to file false expenses but Amed Solutions said it was ok and Amed was recommended by some solid tax experts:
(c) Ms. McLeod relied on the advice of two friends (Rebecca and Darcy) in deciding to trust Amed Solutions.
Unfortunately for Ms. McLeod she did not get a sympathetic judge:
[31] I am not persuaded by an argument based on sympathy. I accept that the penalty is higher in this case than it would be in others, but the participation of Ms. McLeod in this scheme is reprehensible. The victims in this case are Canadian taxpayers – not Ms. McLeod.
The first is Haynes, citation:
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/2013/2 ... cc229.html
The appellant was out of time on filing an appeal for his tax assessments and gross negligence penalties and requested that the court give him an extension of time. Denied. As I stated in an e-mail I sent on this case, I'd argue that it is not necessarily the best defense to be represented by your father who argues that the Income Tax Act is not validly enacted, demand that the court prove the tax act is valid legislation, then boast that his tax knowledge, and approach to tax law, is equivalent to those of the Fiscal Arbitrators.
For you non-Canadians the Fiscal Arbitrators is a group (see link below) who:
Fiscal Arbitrators (“FA”) persuaded many Canadians to file tax returns or adjustments to previous year’s returns in order to deduct fabricated business expenses. Essentially, FA convinces taxpayers that claiming personal expenses against a fictional business will lead to legitimate tax refunds.
Canada Revenue Agency’s (“CRA”) response has been to audit the taxation years at issue, deny the deductions and levy gross negligence penalties pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Federal Income Tax Act.
http://taxjurisprudence.ca/wp/?p=8
Based on this I'm assuming that Mr. Haynes filed business losses based on his own personal expenses and was penalized for it.
Case Number two is a lower-level Alberta public school employee who tried to claim, relative to her income, huge fictitious business losses.
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/2013/2 ... cc228.html
She was guided in this endeavor by some outfit called Amed Solutions who prepared her 2009 income tax return. Her first line of defense when contacted by the CRA was to tell them that her income and expenses were none of their damned business!
[8] Some of submissions by Amed Solutions are pure nonsense. The paragraph below is an excerpt from the first response given to the CRA auditor.
The terms of the private contract of agency between the free will man commonly called Colleen, of the McLeod family, who is the principal, the contributing beneficiary and the true party of interest for the fictional entity/person/trust called COLLEEN MCLEOD, which, by necessity, has become the agent in commerce for the principal; is not subject to the scrutiny of a third party entity, and therefore; any private dealings between the principal and the agent cannot be released to the CANADA REVENUE AGENCY.
When that didn't fly she fell back on her next line of defense which was that she really didn't have any intent to file false expenses but Amed Solutions said it was ok and Amed was recommended by some solid tax experts:
(c) Ms. McLeod relied on the advice of two friends (Rebecca and Darcy) in deciding to trust Amed Solutions.
Unfortunately for Ms. McLeod she did not get a sympathetic judge:
[31] I am not persuaded by an argument based on sympathy. I accept that the penalty is higher in this case than it would be in others, but the participation of Ms. McLeod in this scheme is reprehensible. The victims in this case are Canadian taxpayers – not Ms. McLeod.