Fiscal Arbitrators Strike Again!

[Burnaby49]

Although incognito. Apparently the identification "Fiscal Arbitrators" is getting too toxic to be brought up by taxpayers at Tax Court. As the judge said;

[2] Although the name "fiscal arbitrator" did not come up at the hearing these cases look a lot like cases that have been referred to as "fiscal arbitrator" cases.

In any case we have another pair of idiots who tried to apply Fiscal Arbitrator magic (aka totally fake tax deductions) and went whining to the Tax Court when the nasty CRA hit them with gross negligence penalties. They had a pretty strong case; when preparing their income tax returns they had relied on the expertise and knowledge of an actual tax expert; Roger. Unfortunately they were unable to give any more information on their expert than his first name, making it hard for the court to judge his expertise. The court was somewhat skeptical of the legitimacy of the claimed deductions;

3] The reassessments disallowed substantial deductions claimed on line 232, "Other deductions". In the tax return of each party after the word"specify" on the preprinted form, the words "DUE TO ANIMATOR AS AGENT" were added to the form.

[4] In the case of Rasper, the deduction claimed was $87,109.66. In the case of Peace, the amount claimed was $50,698.79.

[5] As a result of these deductions on line 232, the appellants filed returns claiming that they were not liable to any federal or Ontario income tax whatsoever and claiming a refund of all tax withheld.

[6] In support of this claim at Tab 1 of Exhibits R-1 and R-2, respectively, are documents entitled "Notice of Usage" (at page 4) and "Annual Statement for Agent's Activities" (at page 5).

[7] These documents are meaningless. For example, in the case of Rasper, Rasper is both the agent and the animator and, based on nonsensical calculations, the "Annual Statement for Agent's Activities" concludes that Rasper, as animator, owes Rasper, as agent, $87,109.66. This amount of $87,109.66 is then claimed on line 232.

[8] There is absolutely no doubt that the appellants are not entitled to these deductions.

The judge felt that letting let Roger do whatever he wanted with their tax returns without questioning, or even reading their returns before filing, indicated some carelessness on their part.

[23] Just to give some examples, on the "Annual Statement for Agent's Activities" at the top, I find it impossible to accept that they would not have had doubts about the description of the service provided as "Agent as a Transmitting Utility" or that they would not have had doubts about the existence of the contract referred to. More generally, I cannot believe that, if they made any effort to comprehend their returns, they would not have questioned this whole bizarre relationship where they are apparently dealing with themselves as both animator and agent.

[24] Finally, another example of a red flag is the wording added to the signature page of the tax returns, just to the right of the signature, which says:

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-308, NON ASSUMP SIT CONTRACT, WITHOUT COMPREHENSION

Done for the Agent by the Animator

[25] In their circumstances, it is hard to understand how the appellants came to sign their returns. The complete failure to ask any questions or review the returns, when only a little effort would have raised several red flags, clearly shows wilful blindness.

[26] Accordingly, the Minister's reassessments are correct and the appeals will be dismissed.

The decision is very short. The Tax Court is running these Fiscal Arbitrator cases through the system like an assembly line. Then again the claims, and the rationalle for them, are so preposterous that no great depth of analysis is required to toss them out.

http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/d ... 8/index.do

[JamesVincent]

Aren't they getting to the, "seen one, seen them all" point with some of these assclowns? Literally there's been years of this idiocy to draw open and more then one precedent of how to deal with them. I mean, kinda like with the FOTL. All judges really have to do anymore is render an opinion that says Meads vs Meads, para. 39 and we already know what he's referring to. Now off to prison you go.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Well, the law is one thing - that much is certain established - but most cases involve at least to some degree a variable set of relevant facts.

Here - just how blindly absurd were the Atutornus? Pretty bad, hence the penalty.

I did a little poking and discovered Rasper has had better luck in other courts. In Atutornu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 36 (http://canlii.ca/t/fvpc6) he challenged an immigration tribunal rejection of an application for citizenship of his adopted niece, Believe. The complication in the adoption was irregular inconsistent birth documentation from Ghana, which led the immigration officer to suspect Rasper was not Believe's uncle.

This was a judicial review, and the court found it was unreasonable to disregard Rasper's DNA test results that established the relationship, and Rasper's explanation of the overall scenario.

Other than that, Rasper seems to be a nurse and pastor of the Apostolic Church International (https://www.facebook.com/ratutornu). If he has links to OPCA communities I didn't find them. He and his wife appear to simply be gullible and greedy.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Other than that, Rasper seems to be a nurse and pastor of the Apostolic Church International (https://www.facebook.com/ratutornu). If he has links to OPCA communities I didn't find them. He and his wife appear to simply be gullible and greedy.

I get that feeling for all the Fiscal Arbitrator suckers I've written up. They are largely just working class types who got conned into a tax scheme out of greed. No real depth of belief (or even understanding) of any OPCA worldview, just a random asssortment of individuals with an unfortunate combination of greed and gullibility. They seemed to think that if the worst happened and they got reassessed they wouldn't be hit with penalties because they had relied on professionals like Roger. However the basis for the Fiscal Arbitrator scheme was so moronic and incomprehensibe that any normal person, giving it more than a cursory review, would realize it was a scam. So, to avoid common sense getting in the way of those sweet, sweet, refunds, they were careful not to think about it too much.

A costly mistake. Apart from having to repay their refund our two losers were hit with a 50% penalty (the point at issue at trial) and they had given Roger 20% of the refund, an amount I doubt they will see again.