Another Fiscal Arbitrator DOA
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:38 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.
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!
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.
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;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.
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!
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.[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.