http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/cnvctns/ ... 6-eng.html
Baudais got a six month jail sentence, unsual given the relatively small amount of tax evaded. I'm assuming that is because he was a Porisky/Paridigm promoter. The Courts are coming down hard on Porisky scheme promoters.Kelowna tax protestor fined and sentenced to six month jail term for counselling others to commit income tax fraud
Kelowna, British Columbia, September 16, 2014... The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) announced today that Kelowna resident Donald Grant Baudais was sentenced on September 12, 2014 in Kelowna Provincial Court. Baudais was found guilty on one count of income tax evasion, one count of excise tax evasion, and one count of counselling others to commit fraud. Baudais was given a $24,416 fine, payable forthwith, which represents 100% of the income tax evaded and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) he failed to remit. Baudais was also sentenced to six months in jail for counselling others to commit fraud.
A CRA investigation determined that Baudais failed to report over $250,000 in income he earned from 2004 to 2008. During this period, Baudais’ main source of income was from his business as an “educator” with Paradigm Education Group, a well-known tax protestor group. Baudais’ students paid him a percentage of their income in exchange for education and assistance on evading tax. In total, Baudais evaded $13,364 in income tax and failed to remit $11,052 in GST.
The preceding information was obtained from the court records.
The Canada Revenue Agency warns all Canadians to beware of individuals that try to convince you that Canadians do not have to pay tax on the income they earn. These individuals, also known as tax protesters, not only fail to report their own earnings, but they also conspire, counsel, and promote these tax schemes. Canadian courts have repeatedly and consistently rejected all arguments made in these tax protester schemes. For those involved in tax protester schemes, the CRA will reassess income tax and interest, and charge penalties. Individuals who plan to use the tactics of tax protesters should know that this could have significant personal and financial consequences, including fines, imprisonment, or seizure of goods. More information on tax protester schemes is available at http://www.cra.gc.ca/alert under Tax Protesters.
Taxpayers who claim false expenses, credits or rebates from the government are subject to serious consequences. They are liable not only for corrections to their tax returns and payment of the full amount of tax owing, but also to penalties and interest. In addition, if convicted of tax evasion, the court may fine them up to 200% of the tax evaded and sentence them for up to a five-year jail term.
If you have ever made a tax mistake or omission, the CRA is offering you a second chance to make things right through its Voluntary Disclosures Program (VDP). If you make a valid disclosure before you become aware that the CRA is taking action against you, you may only have to pay the taxes owing plus interest. More information on the VDP can be found on the CRA's website at http://www.cra.gc.ca/voluntarydisclosures.
Further information on convictions can also be found in the Media Room on the CRA website at http://www.cra.gc.ca/convictions.
He does have one reported decision, R. v. Baudais, 2014 BCSC 856, where he tried, and failed, to get the charges tossed out for a number of reasons;
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/20 ... XMgAAAAAAE[3] Mr. Baudais has elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury. At the outset of his trial, he sought to have the charges under the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act, that is Counts 1, 2, and 3, dismissed or, in the alternative, stayed for reasons generally relating to what Mr. Baudais describes as "taxability". In addition, he applied to have the evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant excluded.
[4] After hearing argument, I dismissed both of these applications, indicating I would give my reasons for doing so later. These are those reasons.
The "Taxability" Issues
[5] In his memorandum of argument, Mr. Baudais identified four issues relating to taxability. They are:
15. The Baudais Warrant was issued for the purpose of determining taxable income and tax payable.
16. Tax liability must be "clear‑cut, obvious, indisputable, unquestionable" in order to support criminal liability.
17. The proper forum for this case is the Tax Court of Canada.
18. Civil tax liability must be quantified before criminal sentencing can take place.
Paragraph 17 is of particular interest. The Tax Court of Canda does not handle criminal tax evasion, only civil tax issues.
[30] Finally, the precise argument advanced by Mr. Baudais was made by Edwin Siggelkow in R. v. Siggelkow, reflex, 2014 ABQB 101, a decision released on February 24, 2014. Mr. Baudais did not refer to this case in his argument, although he is being assisted in his defence by a man named “Ed Siggelkow”. Be that as it may, in dismissing the argument, Wilson J. wrote at paragraph 124 and following:
[124] Consistent with his earlier comments that any tax problems are only civil issues the accused now submits that these criminal charges should be before the Tax Court of Canada and not the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta.
[125] The accused claims that his activities were “non‑commercial in nature” and that monies received were through "personal endeavours". In his interpretation of the Income Tax Act the accused appears to believe that this results in him having no taxable income …
…
[127] The accused's submission repeats or parallels the claim of “non‑taxability and therefore no criminal jurisdiction” found in a number of cases set out in the Crown's materials. Some of those cases also involve Paradigm adherents. All such claims have been dismissed and, in my view, properly so.
[128] Disputing taxability does not oust a court's criminal law jurisdiction.
[129] At its highest what the accused is really advancing is a purported defence to the charges.
[130] A trial in this court will determine if the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt which includes proving taxability beyond a reasonable doubt.
[31] I agree with those observations.
"Ed" Sigglekow is another Poriskyite promoter who was also very recently convicted of tax evasion and given a jail sentence. We covered him here;
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9894