Another Fiscal Arbitrator DOA

Moderator: Burnaby49

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Another Fiscal Arbitrator DOA

Postby Burnaby49 » Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:38 pm

Today's loser is Ian Brown, who's disastrous foray into the Tax Court of Canada can be reviewed here;

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tcc/doc/201 ... tcc91.html

I have to say I question the wisdom of his tactics at Tax Court, telling the judge that a Tax Court judge's understanding of tax law was only an opinion and his opinion was as good as any judge's! Justice Campbell is not the best choice to try that one on.

Respondent Counsel provided a transcript of the oral reasons of Justice Boyle in which Mr. Brown’s appeal was struck. Throughout that transcript, there were attempts at getting Mr. Brown to provide information on the type of business he operated. The ensuing exchange went in circles. Mr. Brown’s only comment concerning the transcript contents was that he, and I quote, “misspoke” when he responded to Justice Boyle’s questions concerning a business. He advised me that it was simply Justice Boyle’s opinion, that Mr. Brown had his own opinion and that opinions were equal before the law.


This seems to be yet another Fiscal Arbitrators case. The group of fools who were sucked into a con that claimed they could escape paying taxes by claiming completely fake business expenses. I've written up numerous Fiscal Arbitrator cases here;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9713

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=9443&p=160048&hilit=fiscal+arbitrators#p160048

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=9396&p=158492&hilit=al+arbitrators#p158492

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9804

This appeal is very similar to the Cassa decision which I wrote up Under the topic title "A Tax Court Judge goes Ballistic";

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9112

Well the judge who went ballistic in that case was Justice Dianne Campbell who is also the judge in Brown. And she is pissed off!

[7] I have purposively issued my oral reasons in several prior motions respecting this group of appeals. I meet this argument of fictitional, artificial entities, that are somehow exempt from tax, head-on when I refer to such arguments as unintelligible and incomprehensible at best and at worst as complete nonsense and a waste of this Court’s resources and time. It is a very clear case of abuse of process. The Appellant’s attempt at persuading me that I should not hear this motion because it would be an “abridgment of his Charter rights” has no basis. Nor does the fact that he filed a “Fresh Notice of Appeal” yesterday, render the motion moot.

[8] For these reasons, the Respondent’s motion is granted and the Notice of Appeal dated September 10, 2013, the Amended Notice of Appeal dated January 15, 2014 and the Fresh Notice of Appeal dated January 20, 2014 are struck, with costs of $1,000 payable forthwith to the Respondent.

[9] I have been case managing this group of appeals since 2012. I have enough reasons out there and there have now been decisions by other Judges on similar motions and in addition, a number of cases have proceeded through hearings and decisions have been rendered. In future, I am going to send clearer messages by way of costs to individuals coming before me who are foolish enough to run with these absolutely ridiculous and futile arguments.


Justice Campbell was the unfortunate judge assigned as case manager for all the Fiscal Arbitrator cases; there are apparently hundreds of them. As you can tell by reading Brown she is streamlining her decisions to the minimum, probably necessary to process the flood of them on her docket. She has given fair warning what the rest of these fools can expect if they continue their appeals; you can't be blunter than her comments at the end of paragraph 9. However this group seems determined to have their day in court even though it is obvious to any sentient being that their cases are totally hopeless. So you can expect more reporting from me on this issue.
Last edited by Burnaby49 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
Lambkin
Warder of the Quatloosian Gibbet
Posts: 1202
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:43 pm

Re: Another Fiscal Arbitrator DOA

Postby Lambkin » Wed Apr 02, 2014 10:14 pm

The public is lucky to have her. Time to start printing Justice Campbell Fan Club t-shirts.

Fmotlgroupie
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:09 pm

Re: Another Fiscal Arbitrator DOA

Postby Fmotlgroupie » Wed Apr 02, 2014 10:36 pm

Talk about a judge taking one for the team! Thanks to her, and to you Burnaby49 for another entertaining tale.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Another Fiscal Arbitrator DOA

Postby Burnaby49 » Wed Apr 02, 2014 10:44 pm

Lambkin wrote:The public is lucky to have her. Time to start printing Justice Campbell Fan Club t-shirts.


I've been in Justice Campbell's court. She doesn't take any crap from either side. I have a post-retirement sideline of writing specialized profession publications on tax jurisprudence. This requires me to read all published Canadian federal income tax decisions. It can be a slog but cases like this motivate me to continue.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10642
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Another Fiscal Arbitrator DOA

Postby notorial dissent » Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:27 am

Burnaby, to say the judge "is pissed off", is a fine exercise in understatement. In her defense, and I would say she has more than right on her side. I would imagine dealing with what seems like a never ending stream of these lemmings would try anyone's patience, let a lone a judge's. On the other hand, they can't say they aren't getting treated fairly and evenly, as it sounds like they are all going to get swatted with the same gavel when it comes down to the end, and really, why reinvent the wheel for each case, when it will all be the same collection of excuses material. If they are all coming out of the same pot, they might as well all get the same sauce, when they are served.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Another Fiscal Arbitrator DOA

Postby Burnaby49 » Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:33 am

Another installment in the saga of our Fiscal Arbitrator Ian Brown. He appealed his loss at Tax Court to the Federal Court of Appeal reported as IAN E. BROWN v HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN 2014 FCA 301.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tcc/doc/201 ... 3duAAAAAAE

To refresh memories Brown bought into the Fiscal Arbitrator scheme where the promoters made up totally fake business expenses and told the suckers (who did not have any business) who bought into the scheme that they could deduct them. I believe the underlying justification was that staying alive to earn money to pay taxes was, in itself, a business so personal expenses could be deducted. I can't recall if that is entirely correct but I'm not going to dredge through all the fiscal arbitrator files to check it out. Brown didn't help his case at Tax Court by arguing that his claimed business expense deductions of $181,167 were valid but refusing to tell the judge even what business he was in and refusing to provide any proof of any kind that the expenses even existed. He apparently argued that it was up to him, not the CRA to decide if he was in business and, if he so decided, the CRA had to accept whatever expenses he claimed. To quote;

[6] Respondent Counsel provided a transcript of the oral reasons of Justice Boyle in which Mr. Brown’s appeal was struck. Throughout that transcript, there were attempts at getting Mr. Brown to provide information on the type of business he operated. The ensuing exchange went in circles. Mr. Brown’s only comment concerning the transcript contents was that he, and I quote, “misspoke” when he responded to Justice Boyle’s questions concerning a business. He advised me that it was simply Justice Boyle’s opinion, that Mr. Brown had his own opinion and that opinions were equal before the law. Mr. Brown believes the section 248 portion of the Income Tax Act definition of “business”, that is, “undertaking of any kind” leaves it pretty much wide open for interpretation. It was also clear to me that Mr.Brown was not going to be cooperative in providing any more particulars to me concerning his operation of a business than he had been with Justice Boyle. Where Mr. Brown is an employee and yet is alleging that he has a business and that he has suffered business losses, it is incumbent upon him to include those facts in his pleadings. He refused to do so and was evasive in responding to my questions concerning an alleged business, which leaves him with pleadings that are deficient in material facts so that the Respondent cannot know how to properly respond. This is a fundamental rule of pleadings.


So he lost. But he won at Federal Court of Appeal. In a way.

First he tried to argue that the terms in the Income Tax Act are so darned vague that nobody can really understand them and so he should not be penalized by the court's understanding of words like taxpayer, expense, business etc. His proposed solution was to throw the entire Income Tax Act out as being unconstitutionally vague.

[7] Mr. Brown's argument that the Act is void is based mainly on the definitions of "business", "employee", "employment", "person" and "taxpayer" in subsection 248(1) of the Act. These terms are defined in subsection 248(1) of the Act as follows:

"business" includes a profession, calling, trade, manufacture or undertaking of any kind whatever and, except for the purposes of paragraph 18(2)(c), section 54.2, subsection 95(1) and paragraph 110.6(14)(f), an adventure or concern in the nature of trade but does not include an office or employment;

"employee" includes officer;

"employment" means the position of an individual in the service of some other person (including Her Majesty or a foreign state or sovereign) and "servant" or "employee" means a person holding such a position;

"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;

"taxpayer" includes any person whether or not liable to pay tax;


Court wasn't buying it;

[8] His argument is that the definitions provided for "business", "employee", "person" and "taxpayer" are not complete definitions because the Act only provides specific references to what is included in these terms. As a result, he submits that these expressions are vague.

[9] However, this is simply the choice of Parliament in determining what guidance will be provided in the interpretation of these terms by ensuring that these terms will include what is specifically referenced. Even if no guidance would have been provided by Parliament, each of these terms would have a meaning that could be determined by a court for the purposes of the Act. By providing that these terms "include" what is specifically identified in these definitions, it does not make these provisions void, nor does it make the entire Act void.


So his next shot was to claim the old Porisky natural person argument. He wasn't a "person" as defined in the Income Tax Act, he was a human being. Since there is nowhere in the Act that says that Human Beings pay tax he was exempt. Again, the court didn't buy it;

[13] For example, in this case, Mr. Brown raised the question of whether he was a person for the purposes of the Act since the definition of person only provides that it includes corporations, certain entities "and the heirs, executors, liquidators of a succession, administrators or other legal representatives of such a person". Human beings or individuals are not specifically included in the list.

[14] However, in Canada (Minister of National Revenue) v. Stanchfield, [2009] F.C.J. No. 133, 2009 FC 99, Gauthier J. (as she then was) stated:

23 When one uses simply the term "person", one necessarily includes the notion of the human being, as it is the very essence of the reality represented by this term. This explains why, in the Act, subsection 248(1) does not specifically mention the term "human being" in its definition of the term "person". This is not necessary given that, as explained by professors Duff, Alarie, Brooks and Philipps in Canadian Income Tax Law4, "this definition merely expands on the ordinary meaning of the word "person"" (emphasis added). This is entirely consistent with the approach of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Lindsay (see above at para. 10). There is thus absolutely no doubt that a natural person is directly included within the definition of the word "person" at subsection 248(1) of the Act.

[15] Mr. Brown is a person and a taxpayer for the purposes of the Act.


He did get a bit of temporary relief. The Tax Court disallowed his claimed business expenses and maintained the gross negligence penalty the CRA had hit him with. The Tax Court did this just by striking his appeal in it's entirety rather than actually hearing the appeal on it's merits. The FCA said that this was incorrect and while he was properly disallowed the expenses he should have been allowed to argue that the gross negligence penalty was unjustified. So the FCA sent the case back to the Tax Court to have the appeal on the gross penalties heard.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Fussygus
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:54 pm

Re: Another Fiscal Arbitrator DOA

Postby Fussygus » Thu Jan 15, 2015 4:05 pm

Writing attempts to convey and understanding, it is not in fact the understanding.

There is more to communicate than words can express. The words are just an attempt to do so. In the case of the written law, it does just that, it ATTEMPTS to communicate the agreement of the people of this society. It isn't the end all to be all, hence the continual need to amend the law as it is written. Such amendments come about in response to what occurs in our courts of justice. They come about because there appears to be misunderstandings about what the written law says.

The principal articulated per Paradigm is that the written law is the law carved in stone and never fallible in it's writing nor subject to change. Such is not the case, nor could reasonably be the case.

Just imagine if your agreement with your wife was just the vows that you said to each other the day you got married? Did they cover every element of the terms of the agreement? Were they to never change? Of course the specific terms change, you don't know what you do not know. You don't have children (typically) when you get married so how do you know what the terms should say when you got married? The fundamental element of the agreement is that it works to protect both your and her well-being and interests. The laws of the land work in the exact same way to protect your and all others well-being and interests. Just because it isn't phrased the way you think it should the intent is fairness.

The first order of the courts is to rule on what is reasonable and fair based on the situation. The law is written then to best consider what is reasonable and fair for all those within it.

So the law isn't the Virgin Mary, the personification of perfect, the law is the dirty peasant girl that we are as a society are working to clean up. You want perfect law and justice? Live alone in the middle of nowhere. Otherwise, expect that things will be a little dirty.

Fuzzy
Les semper intendit quod convenit ratione.


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest