I guess a good place to start is Brian's 2014 bankruptcy hearing where a lot of his past dirty laundry got aired. Not surprisingly his bankruptcy issues mostly revolved around his massive unpaid tax bill. As the bankruptcy court said;
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/20 ... NTcAAAAAAQ[1] THE COURT: This is an application for a discharge from Mr. Drosdovech’s first bankruptcy. It is not opposed by the trustee but is opposed by Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Revenue, primarily on the ground that this is a tax-driven bankruptcy as defined by s. 172.1 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, which applies if the bankrupt has $200,000 or more of personal income tax debt and those personal income taxes do represent more than 75 percent of the bankrupt’s total unsecured proven claims in his bankruptcy. This is certainly the case here. The bankrupt has proven a debt of $729,997, and that constitutes 98 percent of his overall debt.
While a tax deadbeat he is apparently not (unlike a previous first lady upon leaving the White House) "dead broke."
Since he is an employee his taxes are taken off his paycheck at source. So how did he amass such a huge tax bill? By participating in tax avoidance schemes that generated big refunds before they were reassessed;[11] The bankrupt was and still is a school teacher and has consistently earned employment income in the range of between $40,000 and $60,000 a year since the tax debts were incurred in addition to any investment income he was found to have earned.
[12] His wife, Moira Drosdovech, was and still is a veterinarian. I am told by the CRA in the affidavit of Ms. Patak that Moira Drosdovech’s income historically exceeded that of Mr. Drosdovech. In 2008, her income was $214,000; in 2009, her income was $222,000. Her reported income has diminished since the proceedings in Federal Court were commenced.
[13] In 1998, the bankrupt and his wife sold their farm and her veterinary practice and collapsed their RRSPs so they could try other investments. They owned a home prior to the bankruptcy. I am assuming that they owned it at the time the debt was incurred, but I am not certain of that fact.
I remember the 1999 scheme from when I worked in the CRA. Straight fraud. The purported trading losses were based on nothing but fake trading records with no actual trades at all behind them. The participating taxpayers did not buy into a business venture, they bought pre-fabricated phony tax losses.[4] In 1999, the bankrupt invested in a foreign currency trading loss scheme, which was disallowed by the CRA because it found that there was no commercial activity being carried on by him for the purpose of gaining or producing income and the only apparent activity was to obtain income tax refunds. Ms. Patak attaches the audit report, which concludes that the trades did not occur and the documentation was created in order to give the appearance of a business transaction, but its sole purpose was to create a tax loss. The tax shelter was not a registered tax shelter.
[5] In 2000, the bankrupt participated in an investment in Equinox, a movie production partnership. It created losses arising from a contribution of $20 million from investors to create a $20,000 low budget film. The entire loss was written off in 2000.
So the CRA reassessed. Instead of appealing the reassessments to the Tax Court of Canada, the correct step, the Drosdovech's took their litany of injustices to the Federal Court of Appeals which outlined some of their prior tactics in an August 2010 decision;
The Federal Court of Appeal joined the oppressors in abusing our valiant tax protesters;I. Background
[2] It all began when the Drosdovechs, husband and wife, and self-represented in this Court, objected to reassessments of their 1996-2000 taxation years. An appeals officer at the Canada Revenue Agency made each of them a without prejudice settlement offer in which, in consideration of waiving rights of objections or appeals with respect to the notices of reassessment, the Canada Revenue Agency would reassess their income tax returns by confirming certain disallowances, waiving gross negligence penalties and reducing net business income. It was stipulated that the offer was to be accepted by signing and faxing a copy of the waiver attached to the offer.
[3] The reply, as per a letter by Mrs. Drosdovech, was “I find that your claim is unsubstantiated. Once I hear back from you inclusive of what you are relying on as proof of claim, I will be more than happy to consider signing the provided waiver.” The Drosdovechs choose to say that they had conditionally accepted the Agency’s offer.
[4] The Agency responded by providing them with a copy of an auditor’s report. In turn the Drosdovechs sent something titled “Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure”. Among other things, the appeals officer at the Agency was called upon to state facts and law, disclose evidence, and provide a sworn affidavit. Mrs. Drosdovech said: “I hereby conditionally accept the claims and jurisdiction of Canada Revenue Agency upon verified proof of claims, supported by evidence, made under oath, full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.” The Agency was called upon to rebut the statements, which the Drosdovechs chose to call a contract, and that failure to respond constituted an agreement to all the terms and conditions of the so-called contract, and that if no response was forthcoming it was agreed that the Agency was forever estopped from collecting taxes allegedly owed.
[5] The Minister did not do what the Drosdovechs told him to do. He responded with a Notice of Confirmation of the assessments for the years in question.
[6] The Drosdovechs had 90 days to appeal the assessments to the Tax Court of Canada in accordance with s. 169 of the Income Tax Act. They did not. Thereafter, the Agency commenced collection proceedings. It issued a requirement to pay to the Bank of Nova Scotia by way of garnishment under s. 224 of the Income Tax Act and registered certificates with this Court in February 2010 in respect of the tax liabilities of both applicants. The Bank paid.
[7] Other steps which were taken included registering charges against their residence and issuing requirements to pay to others.
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/dec ... VjaAAAAAAB[14] The obligation to file tax returns and to pay taxes said therein to be owed are imposed by law and have nothing to do with the consent of the taxpayer. A settlement offer was proposed. The Drosdovechs did not accept it. That is the end of the matter. They may wish to call their response a “conditional acceptance”, but the most that can be said is that it was a counter offer. The counter offer was not accepted. It is as simple as that.
[15] The Drosdovechs can speak all they like about administrative processes, their “Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure”, settlement by silence or inertia, collateral estoppels, failure to provide prima face evidence and “Petition for Agreement and Harmony within the Admiralty…”, all they want. In fact and in law, they have no cause of action. These proceedings are frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
[17] In accordance with the inherent right of this Court to control its own process, I strike out all the applicants’ pleadings and order that the case be dismissed, without right to amend. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the applicants’ motion for an interlocutory injunction.
Since that didn't work Drosdovech tried employing the OPCA bag of tricks. The court used the handy-dandy reference guide Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 571 to analyze these.
First, the standard name change to turn himself into a dead man. In 2011 Drosdovech sent a notice to admit to the CRA under the name Brian-Walter; House of Drosdovech, Office of Executor of Brian Walter Drosdovech Estate, requesting an admission that all legal and financial obligations alleged against them have been fully settled as confirmed by the written acceptance and approval of a CRA staff member.
When that didn't do anything for him he tried the old appointment of trustee scam so beloved of OPCA types here in Vancouver.
When all his tactics failed he finally faced up to reality and do the right thing by actually paying his debt off. So he used the Chief Rock Sino General type foisted unilateral contract to start afresh. On October 23, 2011, he offered to settle his outstanding tax for a payment of $5,000 made in installments of $100 a month. He voluntarily paid eight installments of $100 then declared his tax debt completely settled because the Crown, by cashing his cheques, had agreed to the terms of his contract. Nice try, getting out of a quarter of a million in tax debts for $800 is a pretty sweet deal! Unfortunately the judge didn't buy in;[18] On January 11, 2011, he purported to appoint a representative of the CRA and of the court as interim fiduciary trustees for the estate of the bankrupt.
The bankruptcy decision was not sympathetic to Mr. Drosdovech's plight.[20] He says he interpreted the CRA’s cashing of these cheques to be acceptance of the offer to settle in excess of $700,000 of tax debt for $5,000. This appears to be a foisted unilateral contract tactic (Meads at para. 447). The CRA did not respond, and so the bankrupt took the position prior to the bankruptcy that they had accepted the contract. This settlement offer is, of course, not an enforceable contract. Both parties must agree to the terms to be legally bound, and a person cannot foist a contract without the consent of the other. The bankrupt did not rely on this foisted settlement at the discharge hearing.
[21] I do not accept his assertion that he is not a tax protester. He does, however, seem to have dropped the OPCA tactics now, but he still takes the position that he is a conscientious objector against unfair tax schemes. He does and always has, however, filed income tax returns and his employer does remit income taxes on his behalf.
Paragraph 35 gives another clue why he owes so much tax. He apparently tried to cash out his RRSP's (Registered Retirement Savings Plan) tax free and failed. RRSP's are a government sanctioned form of retirement investment. I have some myself. When put the money into the plan you get a tax deduction for the amount invested. Anything earned within the plan is tax-free until you withdraw it. Any cash-out of the plan is taxable, both invested amount and earnings. I face a big tax bill when I cash out mine. Ms. Gelpke, cited above, was happy to take the deductions for investing in her RRSP's but not as enthusiastic about paying the tax imposed when she took the money out. There used to be a lot of basically fraudulent schemes to get money out of RRSPs tax free and Mr. Gelpke, and apparently Drosdovech, participated in them. She had her funds stolen by the promoter but, tough, she still owed tax on the $502,000 withdrawal. It looks like the same thing happened to our boy.[35] The tax avoidance scheme that Mr. Drosdovech participated in was similar to those noted by Master McCallum in the Gelpke decision, 2012 BCSC 1770 (CanLII), 2012 BCSC 1770. Mrs. Gelpke participated in an RRSP strip scheme and ended up losing her investment. The investment did not qualify as a recognized RRSP investment, and so the withdrawn $502,000 was treated as income in her hands for that taxation year and she lost the entire amount of the investment.
His wife is not an innocent bystander to all this, she had drunk as much of the tax avoidance and OPCA Kool-aid as he had;[38] In the case before me, the bankrupt set in motion the circumstances that led to the reassessment. He may not enjoy the same enviable lifestyle as Mrs. Gelpke, but he is not an unfortunate debtor.
45] I do not find that Mr. Drosdovech is rehabilitated because he can prepare a few balanced budget sheets for his trustee. He refuses to acknowledge that the true cause of his bankruptcy is his failure to abide by his tax obligations. He denies that he owes the amount of the reassessment. He is willing to pay some income tax on employment income, but he continues to assert that the income tax system itself breaches his human rights. I am not satisfied that he will not try further income tax avoidance schemes. In imposing this condition, my primary focus is on deterrence.
Pardon? Did I hear you say you wanted more on our quarrelsome couple? Happy to oblige![22] Certainly Mrs. Drosdovech attempted some pseudo-commercial tactics quite unsuccessfully in foreclosure proceedings, but I am not going to judge Mr. Drosdovech based on his wife’s conduct in a non-related proceeding.
[24] The bankrupt says that the CRA seized Mrs. Drosdovech’s veterinary practice and have issued to her several requirements to pay, so she has restructured her business so that her corporation pays her no money. It is not because it cannot; it is to avoid the requirement to pay.
Moira runs the “Pawsitive Veterinary Care” centre (Motto - Pets are to life what sunshine is to flowers!) and is a veterinary homeopath.
http://www.pawsitivevetcare.com
She apparently worked near me before moving to Kelowna;
She’s recommended by this goofball;Past employment
· O/O Head Veterinarian at Rutland Pet Hospital
· Associate Veterinarian at Burnaby New Westminster Central Animal Hospital
http://animal-communicator.com/links/
She accepts payment in gold and silver bars and bitcoins!
http://cointelegraph.com/news/112157/pa ... nary-care-
She has had a professional setback, disciplined for using unapproved drugs/pharmaceuticals on animals:
http://www.cvbc.ca/cfm/index.cfm?It=100&Id=369
She also seems to be involved with the GLOBAL F.A.C.T. Radio and Freemen of British Columbia, Central Interior Facebook Groups
https://www.facebook.com/moira.drosdovech/about
Not to leave Brian out, he purchased an account with Copyright-Name.com so I apparently owe him $1,000,000 for using his name here.
http://www.copyright-name.com/brian-walter-drosdovech/
copyright-name.com
We've discussed Copyright-Name.com here;
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... =48&t=9496
Note - edited because I initially linked to the same decision when discussing both the Supreme Court of British Columbia decision and the Federal Court of Canada decision.