viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9488
they are getting very efficient at disposing of them, almost getting to be an assembly line operation. Next up for review Frank Joseph Bertucci;
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/d ... 7/index.do
This decision is a bit longer than the current standard Tax Court Freeman dismissal because there were factual issues to review. The issue under appeal was Bertucci's refusal to file his 2001 and 2002 income tax returns. This apparently took until 2014 to get to Tax Court because he had a prior appeal on whether he was an employee or independant contractor of a company he owned. This did not get resoved until 2007 when the Tax Court determined him to be an independant contractor;
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/d ... Y2kAAAAAAQ
There was no rush as far as the Canada Revenue Agency was concerned. The CRA has three years from the date a tax return is filed to reassess, after that, absent fraud or gross negligence, it can't be touched. However, since Bertucci had never filed the returns, there was no limit on how long the CRA could wait before assessing him.
Bertucci tried to convince the court that he wasn't refusing to pay his taxes because of any unseemly self-interest but because he was bravely fighting for the "little people";
The court's analysis of Bertonni's Freeman arguments (although he disavowed being one!) deserves to be quoted in full;5] At the beginning of the hearing, the Appellant stated that he did not intend to be adversarial; he was in court to represent the “little people” by finding ways to minimize his taxes. It was his position that in 2001 and 2002 he was engaged as an independent contractor and the ITA (note - Income Tax Act) did not apply to independent contractors. He also argued that the ITA is incomprehensible to the common person and it should not apply.
Meads v. Meads is shaping up to be the most cited case in the history of Canadian jurisprudence. Bertucci's argument that he is not a person as defined in the Canadian Income Tax Act is classic Freeman. It has been consistantly rejected by the courts, including most of the trials I've covered in my first-hand reports, but these guys still dredge it up and try it yet again.[6] Although the Appellant stated that he did not belong to a particular group, he used the concepts and terminology associated with the Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (“OPCA”) litigant who was described by J.D. Rooke A.C.J.Q.B. in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571. The Appellant relied on a plethora of legislation (none of which was relevant except the ITA); legal maxims; definitions from the Canadian Law Dictionary; forms and letters from the CRA; and forms from various departments in the Ontario government. He stated that the forms from the CRA were not clear whereas the forms from the Ontario government were unambiguous; he questioned whether the T1 form with the General Income Tax and Benefit Guide was “legitimate”; and, whether the CRA represents the Minister of National Revenue. It appeared to me that the essence of his argument was that the definition of “person” in the ITA did not clearly state that it applied to him as a “human being, a private individual” and an independent contractor.
[7] It is my view that the Appellant, like most litigants who use the tactics of saying that the ITA does not apply to them, did not really misunderstand the ITA. In the present case, the Appellant did not misunderstand the definition of “person” in the ITA. His actions and letters to the CRA indicated a “conscious intention to disobey”. See Meads (supra) at paragraph 561. The Appellant was not trying to minimize his taxes but was avoiding the payment of any taxes. There was absolutely no merit to any of his arguments.
[8] In conclusion, the Appellant was a “person” resident in Ontario, Canada in 2001 and 2002 and the income he received in those years is taxable. There was never a dispute that he received income of $16,221 and $31,764 in 2001 and 2002 respectively and that he did not file his income tax returns for those years. Late filing penalties were correctly assessed against the Appellant. The appeal is dismissed.
