I'm a long-time Canadian reader, first-time poster. I'd lurking still except this case is too good to not pass around. Somehow one of our denser citizens picked up on your sovereign philosophy and ran with it notwithstanding the fact that Canada's legal and political history, along with its form of government, is quite different from yours and doesn't provide the same legal back-story which your sovereigns use as a defense of their position.
The case copied below is his recent Tax Court hearing. I've snipped the year-by-year court review of the income evaded in paragraphs 3-4. Essentially he ran his own garbage disposal company and simply reported no income in 1999 to 2001 when he was caught. Basically his defense was that the Canada Revenue Agency was after the wrong guy. He was just the "agent" for the "taxpayer", both of whom happened to live in the same body.
He got this nonsense from a seminar given by someone called Russell Porisky who convinced him that, as a "natural person", as opposed to the "person" defined in the Income Tax Act, he was not taxable on any compensation received because it was his private property.
In 2006 he was found criminally guilty of income tax evasion, on the basis of wilful blindness, on exactly the same issues and unreported income and apparently still refused to pay, hence the Tax Court hearing. The judge in the 2006 case got mixed up from time to time who was supposedly addressing the court because, when the defendant testified on his own behalf, he sometimes testified as the "agent" and other times as the "taxpayer". For example;
14. The accused was evasive in many aspects of his evidence and, at times, his answers simply defied logic. Examples of his include:
1. When asked whether he signed the 2001 tax return he replied that “the legal representative of the taxpayer signed it.”
2. At one point in his cross-examination when he was asked by Crown Counsel if he had signed a particular document he responded by asking “Who are you talking to?”
3. On another occasion he was asked if he had received a GST credit cheque in the amount of $207.00. He responded that “the taxpayer” had received it. He was then asked if he had cashed the cheque. He responded that “the taxpayer” did. He was then asked “Did the taxpayer give it to you?” The accused responded “No, the taxpayer gave it to the legal representative of the taxpayer and he cashed the cheque.” All the while the accused was referring to himself.
The judge noted in his decision that although the defendant claimed he was not a taxpayer he was careful to actually fill in some forms and records to keep his government benfits covered. While reporting no income for tax purposes he reported earnings of $38,000 for Canada Pension Plan purposes to ensure he got the equivalent of your Social Security. As the 2006 decision stated;
5. Despite claiming on his tax returns for 1999 and 2000 that his income was “N/A”, the accused claimed GST credits. He explained this by stating that “the taxpayer is entitled to any benefits which he is entitled to.”
6. In the year 2000 the corporate T4 summary, which was signed by the accused, showed Insurable Earnings for the accused of $38,000.00, the maximum for Canada Pension Plan purposes. The accused explained that this was inserted because “the taxpayer” wanted to maximize his Canada Pension.
7. While the accused stated that he believed he was exempt from the payment of tax he sought to maintain his right to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan and to receive GST credits. His explanation was that the “taxpayer” was a separate entity from himself as a “natural person.”
Citation: 2011 TCC 495
CHANDLER TURNNIR, Appellant,
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.
Tax Court of Canada, V.A. Miller J., October 20, 2011. (Docket: 2009-2342(IT)G)
Appellant for himself.
Selena Sit, for the respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
V.A. Miller J.:—
 The Appellant has appealed the reassessment of his 1999, 2000 and 2001 taxation years in which the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") included unreported income in the Appellant's income as follows:
Other Income Taxable
April 29, 2005
March 7, 2002
April 29, 2005
April 29, 2005
The Minister also assessed gross negligence penalties in each of the years and a late filing penalty for the 2000 taxation year.
 The Appellant reported nil income on his income tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001.
 In 2006, the Appellant was convicted by the Provincial Court of British Columbia of evading the payment of taxes by failing to report taxable income in the amount of $574,075 between December 31, 1999 and May 1, 2002. The Appellant's defence at the criminal proceedings was that he was a "natural person".  According to the Reply, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact when he determined the Appellant's income tax liability:
a) at all material times the Appellant was the sole shareholder, director and the president of Chandler Holding Ltd. ("Chandler") which was formerly known as Fair Garbage Disposal Ltd. ("Fair Garbage");
b) Fair Garbage changed its name to Chandler on February 18, 2000;
c) at all material times the Appellant was an employee of Fair Garbage and Chandler;
 At the hearing of this appeal, it was the Appellant's position that he is the "authorized administrator of the legal person named" in the Reply. He stated that all of the assumptions were false because he is a "sovereign person" and as such he does not have to pay taxes unless it can be shown that there is a contract between him and the Government of Canada. It was his opinion that only government employees had to pay taxes. The Appellant made other statements which reflected his displeasure with the governments of Canada and British Columbia. He stated that he was not relying on the "natural person" argument which I note was his position in his Notice of Appeal.
 Subsequent to the hearing, the Appellant filed documents with the court which purported to show that there was a Security Agreement between him, "the flesh and blood living man" and the straw man / legal entity CHANDLER TURNNIR.
 The Appellant did not attempt to satisfy the burden of proof. Aside from stating that the assumptions were incorrect, he adduced no evidence to challenge the assumptions.
 The Appellant's argument that he is a "sovereign person" and cannot be taxed unless there is a contract between him and the government is without merit. The Income Tax Act (the "Act") does not distinguish between "person", "natural person" and "sovereign person". The definition of "person" in section 248 of the Act includes a "flesh and blood living man" such as the Appellant. As stated by Gauthier J. in M.N.R. v Stanchfield, 2009 FC 99 at paragraph 17:
...The whole notion of their being a second capacity distinct from the one of a natural person or human being is a pure fiction, one which is not sanctioned by law. One can describe nothing in any terms one wishes; it still remains nothing.
 The Appellant is a "person" who was resident in British Columbia, Canada in 1999, 2000, and 2001 and the income he received in those years is taxable.
 It is worth mentioning that the Appellant has argued that he is not liable for income taxes; and yet, he seeks the benefits of being a person resident in Canada. In his income tax returns he applied for the GST credit. Also, the 2000 T4 corporate summary showed that he had the maximum pensionable earnings for Canada Pension Plan purposes. At the criminal proceedings, the Appellant explained this by stating that "the taxpayer is entitled to any benefits which he is entitled to" and the "taxpayer" wanted to maximize his Canada Pension.
 The Minister has the burden to show that gross negligence penalties were properly assessed. According to the Federal Court in Venne v. The Queen, 84 DTC 6247, gross negligence involves a high degree of negligence tantamount to intentional acting or indifference as to whether the law is complied with or not.
 The evidence has shown that prior to 1999 the Appellant reported his income and paid taxes on it. He stated that in 1999 he found out that there must be a contract between the legal person and the government in order for him to be liable for taxes. He wrote to the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") and was told that he had to report all of his income. In spite of this, the Appellant reported nil income in his income tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001. The Appellant was also advised by his former accountant, R. W. Burr, C.A., that he had to report the amount of $444,000 which he withdrew in 2000 from his corporation, Chandler Holdings Ltd. In a letter dated December 18, 2001 to the Appellant, Mr. Burr wrote:
I am concerned that $444,000 of wages were shown in the company records, paid to you in the prior year, that you have not reported on a personal tax return nor prepared T4 slips for (both of which I would argue are necessary).
You should be aware that you have a risk of having the wage deduction disallowed in the company because you have failed to report it personally.
In view of your opinion that you do not agree with the current assessment of personal income taxes, I am enclosing a photocopy of a recent release concerning a tax court case that went against a taxpayer with similar views. You might find this of interest and you should consider it carefully in your current stand.
 The Appellant's failure to report his income was intentional and I am satisfied that the Respondent has met the onus in this appeal and the subsection 163(2) penalties were properly assessed.
 The late filing penalty was also properly imposed and the Appellant did not speak to the issue.
 The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 20th day of October 2011.
V.A. Miller J.