Oh, Canada

[Demosthenes]

‘Detaxers’ exposed for going ‘au naturel’: Shanoff
By ALAN SHANOFF, TORONTO SUN
Last Updated: May 2, 2010 5:57am

With the April 30 income tax deadline behind us, most Canadians can breathe a sigh of relief.
Others, a group known as “detaxers,” can continue to wrestle with Canada Revenue Agency as they rack up penalties and face potential prosecution.

These detaxers believe the obligation to pay taxes is purely voluntary and may be avoided by the use of magic words. Every year it seems another detaxer is publicly exposed.

In the second half of 2009 Michael and Petra Kion of British Columbia were exposed by a tax court judge. The Kions operated an air conditioning sales and servicing business. They dutifully paid taxes for years until in 2000 they declared themselves to be “natural persons.”

I will let Judge Georgette Anne Sheridan of the Tax Court of Canada try to explain what the Kions intended by this declaration.

“Briefly stated, their contention was that each human creature comprises both a physical being (i.e., the ‘natural person’) and some sort of other legal entity created upon the government’s issuance to the human creature of a social insurance number. Conveniently, any income earned by the human creature is attributed to the natural person while the obligation to pay tax rests exclusively with its legal doppelganger.”

Are you with me so far? According to the Kions and other detaxers, to avoid having to pay income tax you declare yourself a natural person.

I suppose even detaxers understand the legal requirement to file a tax return so they file tax returns but these returns report “zero” income. They take the position that as natural people they have no income; it is only the taxpayers who have the income but they aren’t filing as taxpayers.

Don’t worry if you don’t follow the logic. I don’t and no judge has ever bought this malarkey.
Judge Sheridan — like every other judge who has heard the same nonsense — concluded there is “no basis in law” for the natural persons argument. She upheld the Canada Revenue Agency assessments including the imposition of gross negligence penalties.

In 2008 the Ontario Court of Appeal exposed Windsor optometrist Jack Klundert as a detaxer.
Klundert tried to avoid the payment of hundreds of thousands in income taxes on the basis he filed the tax returns only as a “natural person, as the legal representative of the taxpayer.” He claimed when he worked and earned income he did so in his “individual capacity for (him)self as a natural person and not for the taxpayer.” Right.

In 2006 a British Columbia judge exposed dentist Eva Noturga Marita Sydel as a detaxer.
She tried to avoid paying tax on $700,000 of income based on the natural persons argument. The court had no difficulty brushing aside that argument.

Sydel went a step further than most detaxers; she also argued the Income Tax Act is invalid. She claimed the federal government had no legal power to enact its income tax legislation. You won’t be surprised to learn the court disagreed.

Where do seemingly intelligent people come up with this nonsense? Of course, most of us don’t like paying income tax and try to legally minimize the tax we must pay, but why would an otherwise rational person buy into this natural person hocus pocus?

I’ll leave the last word to Judge Sheridan.

“The Kions are not the first to hang their hats on the ‘natural person’ argument and, regrettably, are unlikely to be the last. Like others of their ilk, though opposed to paying taxes themselves, the Kions had no compunction about wasting the tax dollars of their fellow Canadians by failing to comply with their obligations under the law and prosecuting nonsensical claims at the administrative level and in the judicial system.

“Nor did their philosophical underpinnings prevent them from pocketing amounts received for the Child Tax Benefit and the GST Tax Credit.”

[grixit]

Ok, we need to dual quarantine the border, lest the tps from Canada and the US start crossbreeding.

[Prof]

And, as if on cue, from today's Lost Horizons:

ryan350z

Location: California
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 2:11 am Post subject: Canada wants me to file a return

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is anyone aware of a web site(s) that could be considered the Canadian counterpart to LostHorizons? I ask because I moved to the US from Canada in 2007, didn't file a Canadian return in 2008 because I lived here (they tax based on residency, as defined by the Canada Revenue Agency), and now my folks tell me the CRA sent a letter demanding I file a return for 2008. I suppose I could just file and show my "foreign-source income" as 0, since that's what I earned according to my CtC-educated return for that year. However, I'd like to educate myself a little more on the Canadian system prior to doing so.

I don't want to take away from all your valuable research time devoted to fighting for the American rule of law but I certainly would appreciate a hyperlink or 2 if you know of any!

[Pottapaug1938]

What's especially impressive about the idiocy of this Canadian buffoon is that he (she?) is using a collection of misinformation about the US tax laws to prepare a Canadian tax return....

[Gregg]

What's especially impressive about the idiocy of this Canadian buffoon is that he (she?) is using a collection of misinformation about the US tax laws to prepare a Canadian tax return....

Hey, it's just as valid there as it is here!

[Pottapaug1938]

What's especially impressive about the idiocy of this Canadian buffoon is that he (she?) is using a collection of misinformation about the US tax laws to prepare a Canadian tax return....

Hey, it's just as valid there as it is here!

True; but you'd think that even the dumbest Canadian would read CtC and then realize that it talks about a foreign tax code. Maybe CtC is sold, in Canada, with a two-four of Moosehead to enjoy while trying to read this garbage....

[fortinbras]

I have already detected a good deal of contact between Canadian and US tax dodgers. Some years ago they even attempted to bring in David Wynn "Full Colon" Miller, but Canadian authorities deported him (evidently worried that the US wouldn't take him back).

[Pottapaug1938]

I have already detected a good deal of contact between Canadian and US tax dodgers. Some years ago they even attempted to bring in David Wynn "Full Colon" Miller, but Canadian authorities deported him (evidently worried that the US wouldn't take him back).

Maybe they gave him a Full Colon-oscopy and decided that he was no good....

[Gregg]

What's especially impressive about the idiocy of this Canadian buffoon is that he (she?) is using a collection of misinformation about the US tax laws to prepare a Canadian tax return....

Hey, it's just as valid there as it is here!

True; but you'd think that even the dumbest Canadian would read CtC and then realize that it talks about a foreign tax code. Maybe CtC is sold, in Canada, with a two-four of Moosehead to enjoy while trying to read this garbage....

I'm not in any way disparaging Canada when I say that stupid knows no boundries

[notorial dissent]

What's even more entertaining are the ones in Australia trying to use CTC or the equivalent on their taxes, and then wondering why it isn't working. That or trying to use the UCC in either Canada or Australia. I'm sure the prosecutors have some odd moments trying to figure out how to reply to something that doesn't even apply in either place.

[wserra]

Ok, we need to dual quarantine the border, lest the tps from Canada and the US start crossbreeding.

Remember "Robert-Arthur:Menard"?

He's Canadian, and a break from inbreeding definitely seems in order.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

‘Detaxers’ exposed for going ‘au naturel’: Shanoff
By ALAN SHANOFF, TORONTO SUN
Last Updated: May 2, 2010 5:57am

In the second half of 2009 Michael and Petra Kion of British Columbia were exposed by a tax court judge. The Kions operated an air conditioning sales and servicing business. They dutifully paid taxes for years until in 2000 they declared themselves to be “natural persons.”

I will let Judge Georgette Anne Sheridan of the Tax Court of Canada try to explain what the Kions intended by this declaration.

“Briefly stated, their contention was that each human creature comprises both a physical being (i.e., the ‘natural person’) and some sort of other legal entity created upon the government’s issuance to the human creature of a social insurance number. Conveniently, any income earned by the human creature is attributed to the natural person while the obligation to pay tax rests exclusively with its legal doppelganger.”

Are you with me so far? According to the Kions and other detaxers, to avoid having to pay income tax you declare yourself a natural person.

...

I’ll leave the last word to Judge Sheridan.

“The Kions are not the first to hang their hats on the ‘natural person’ argument and, regrettably, are unlikely to be the last. Like others of their ilk, though opposed to paying taxes themselves, the Kions had no compunction about wasting the tax dollars of their fellow Canadians by failing to comply with their obligations under the law and prosecuting nonsensical claims at the administrative level and in the judicial system.

“Nor did their philosophical underpinnings prevent them from pocketing amounts received for the Child Tax Benefit and the GST Tax Credit.”

While doing some research I turned up the reported cases for Michael and Petra Kion:

Kion v. The Queen, 2008 TCC 516: http://canlii.ca/t/20sb9

The taxpayers unsuccessfully argued that CCRA employees must have a valid oath of office to carry out their duties.

Kion v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 447: http://canlii.ca/t/25q04

The Kions return to court and argue a Porisky-type double/split person scheme where they are ‘natural persons’ and immune from tax obligation. Gross negligence penalties were appropriate given the Kions had purposefully adopt a detaxer strategy: paras. 12-13.

My attempts to learn more about Michael and Petra Kion were largely unsuccessful, though I observed the probably non-coincidental fact that that the space combat massively multiplayer online game “EVE Online” has amongst its players a “Michael Kion” and a “Petra Kion”. They belong to different in-game ‘corporations’, which hopefully does not reflect conflict in their ‘meat-space’ lives.

SMS Möwe

[AndyK]

Kion v. The Queen, 2008 TCC 516: http://canlii.ca/t/20sb9

The taxpayers unsuccessfully argued that CCRA employees must have a valid oath of office to carry out their duties.

Kion v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 447: http://canlii.ca/t/25q04

Looks like David Merrill's influence is spreading.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Kion v. The Queen, 2008 TCC 516: http://canlii.ca/t/20sb9

The taxpayers unsuccessfully argued that CCRA employees must have a valid oath of office to carry out their duties.

Kion v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 447: http://canlii.ca/t/25q04

Looks like David Merrill's influence is spreading.

Oh, there's an long, (ig)noble history of spurious oath demands in Canadian litigation. The oldest one I'm aware of is Kilini Creek/Patricia Hills Area Landowners v. Lac Ste. Anne (County) Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, 2001 ABCA 92 at para. 2. Our dear friend "minister" Belanger got this answer:

Reverend Belanger demands that I take an oath (for his use) that acknowledges the supremacy of God and the Charter of Rights. I have declined this opportunity.

Something for which I have never read an explanation - I have often seen demands for the judge or government official's oath, but also their "bond" or "bond information". What is the "bond" in question?

SMS Möwe

[notorial dissent]

In certain state and local gov't positions, it used to be, and still is a requirement in some that officials who handled money were covered by a surety bond in case they absconded with the local money, and also has to do with their performance in office so that the local gov't didn't end up holding the bag as it were. At least in the states, all public officers are required to take and oath of office, usually consisting of a formal swearing in, and then a signed one that is supposed to be, but isn't always filed with the appropriate office. Since no one "wins" or gets appointed to any office in this country without a lot of paperwork and an actual, usually very public, swearing in ceremony of some kind, the likelihood of some public official not having taken an oath of office at some point is like slim and none. However, the actual paper versions have been known to get lost, forgotten, misplaced, misfiled, you name it. Certain of the sovrun idjit crowd maintain that unless that magic piece of paper is on file somewhere, then the office is empty, and they go on from there. They also claim that if the public servant doesn't do what they think is appropriate they can "arrest" or seize their bond for lack of performance. All of which is purest hooey. There have been several cases over the years I am aware of where one public officer or another didn't have an oath on file, and their office was challenged in court, and the courts dismissed the charges stating they were of no matter and that all the lack of filing showed was that the oath hadn't been properly filed, but that they were legally in the office, and a new oath was filed to cover the discrepancy, since they had taken the official oath when they were actually publicly sworn in. In any event, since the only beneficiary of the bond would have been the local gov't, the sovrun idjit's actions would have accomplished nothing for them, and the bonds can't be enforced except for very specific reasons in any event.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

notorial dissent - thank you for the explanation of the surety bond concept. I'd never heard of such a thing for public officials. Perhaps just not something that occurs / occurred in Canada.

SMS Möwe

[Prof]

Perhaps in Canada, as in the U.S., the practice is largely or perhaps even exclusively limited to officials who are responsible for the collection of taxes, fees (court clerks, registrars of deeds, etc.). Also, those offices generally purchase surety bonds to cover employees who steal government funds.

As far as I know, no judge in the US is required to post a bond before entering into his or her official duties. And, as Not. Dis. has pointed out, a number of times, the administration of an oath of office is almost universally a public ceremony, memorialized in the press in one way or another. I no longer have a copy of my oath of office nor do I have a copy of my "swearing in" to the Texas and District of Columbia bars; that does not mean I was not sworn in and that I once occupied a "vacant" office or am not a licensed attorney in the two jurisdictions.

In other words, no one takes these legal arguments seriously.

[notorial dissent]

Prof is quite right. As far as I know, Fed officers, judges in particular are not required to have any kind of bond, and I don't recall that they ever did. they are ALL universally sworn in, oftimes several times over the course of the process. Locally, the bond is, or was, a more common thing for precisely the reason she noted. I don't know if it is as common any more, but in any case, the beneficiary is universally the the gov't body they are part of, so there is no "arresting of a bond" or such nonsense, and I know of several instances where the actual officer/employee DOESN'T have a bond in their name because it was cheaper for the gov't unit to just get a blanket surety to cover the whole bunch of them, with again the gov't being the beneficiary. So, basically just more sovrun mythology with no real basis in reality. Same nonsense with the "oath". They are universally to the constitution if anything, and not to anyone, and so cannot be given or taken by someone and then claimed back against them.

All of the court cases I have seen to date specifically come down to that if the paper oath is missing, it has NO EFFECT, as it was assume to have been completed as part of the appointment process, and most likely was, and was lost, misfiled, misplaced. So, again, no magic sovrun bullet.

[grixit]

What would a sovereign do if if they grilled a judge about their oath but the judge said they had not sworn one and would not, for religious reasons?

[notorial dissent]

Their head would explode????