Apu Nahasapeemapetilon - Our new Tax Guru!

[Burnaby49]

And a new OPCA Guru enters the Canadian tax avoidance arena, an obviously eminently qualified expert to opine on tax matters. Here's his picture;



That's right, Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, Ph.D. Jr. (Caltech) is now a leading light in the diminishing galaxy of Canadian OPCA tax gurus. He authored this paper;

Unreported Income Not on a CRA T1 Form Is not Always Tax Evasion
Version 6.1

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2800623

Now Burnaby49 wasn't born yesterday and doesn't really believe that the owner/operator of Springfield's Kwik-E-Mart is writing about Canadian Income Tax issues in his few spare moments from reshelving tainted hotdogs and getting shot by Snake. The actual author of the paper is easily uncovered but first let's examine the premise of this new and innovative work.

This is an 81 page document. While a lot of it is cut and paste from CRA forms and other documents there is, as with all good schemed devised to baffle its readers, a lot of gibberish. The initial introduction gives this as a summary;

Since the ITA protects private property rights, the ITA can only deem and not mandate an individual’s income to be public money for Her Majesty’s office, which must be reported accurately and on time, as not to do so is analogous to a breach of trust by a public officer10. However, if the deeming is rebutted, (which must be allowed since the ITA protects private property rights), then the individual’s income not as such an officer is ITA “exempt income” which ITA s.3(f) deems to be zero. There is no line on Canada Revenue Agency’s (“CRA”) T1 forms11 to file such private property “exempt income” because a T1 uses the all-lower-case ‘social insurance number’ to indicate that it is only for filing the public money of Her Majesty’s office (in contrast to the upper-and-lower case Social Insurance Number that denotes one’s position as an ITA “legal representative”). This line omission, and the ITA s.3(f) deeming such “exempt income” = 0, both prevent private property from being illegally converted into public money on a T1 and thereby protects Her Majesty’s honour12 . That is why I propose that not reporting on CRA’s T1 form an individual’s private property (ITA “exempt income”) is not always tax evasion.

So, capitalization is a big one in this bullshit. Also Russell Porisky's totally discredited nonsense;

There are two main categories of persons in law: natural or private persons, and artificial persons. Since we just saw in the CCC that a private person is distinct from an officer, it follows that an officer must be an artificial person28, who are further subdivided into aggregate artificial persons, such as limited companies, trusts, non-profit societies, and foundations, etc., and sole artificial persons, or corporations sole (see diagram, “Persons in Law”).

And corporate souls;

8 Corporation Sole: Formed By Filling An Office

A corporation sole is usually formed by Letters Patent or by a direct Act of Parliament or of a Province. For income tax purposes, however, I propose this occurs by becoming an officer that fills a particular office of Her Majesty.

From earlier, Regina v. Porisky & Gould said, “… a corporation sole which applies to an office”. Sir Edward Coke32, considered to be the greatest jurist of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, in his famous set of books, Institutes of the Lawes of England33 defined a corporation sole as “a man who fills an office”. The Industry Canada Government website states: “A corporation sole creates a corporation out of an office.”

Based on the above, one could conclude that an individual could form a corporation sole by filling a particular office by becoming an officer. How is this office with Her Majesty identified, and how is it created? In Chapter 9, I propose it is identified with the all-lowercase ‘social insurance number’, which appears to be undefined35; then, in Chapter 10, we will look at how individuals create these offices with Her Majesty.

This next excerpt has all of the hallmarks of Michael Millar, currently waiting for the decision in his tax evasion trial. Millar is just nuts about the hidden meaning of upper and lower cases;

Upon receiving the upper-and-lower case Social Insurance Number, most individuals fill those nine digits onto a CRA TD1 form. However, all federal and Provincial TD1 forms use the all-lower-case ‘social insurance number’ and not the upper-and-lower case Social Insurance Number issued by Services Canada and as styled in ITA s. 237(1):

An electronic search for the upper-and-lower case “Social Insurance Number” from the PDF version38 of the ITA from Canada’s Department of Justice web site reveals that term used thirty times; a search for the all-lower-case ‘social insurance number’ as used in the TD1 from that same document resulted in zero matches. But is there legally a difference? The Employment Insurance Act39 (“EIA”) uses five times the upper-and-lower case Social Insurance Number, but never uses the all-lower-case ‘social insurance number’:

The Canada Pension Plan40 (“CPP”) has a definition for the upper-and-lower case “Social Insurance Number” in s.2.(1), but also has no definition for the all-lower-case ‘social insurance number’ either:

“Social Insurance Number” means a Social Insurance Number assigned to an individual under the authority of any Act of Parliament, and “Social Insurance Number Card” means a Social Insurance Number Card issued to an individual under that authority;

The CPP also uses the upper-and-lower case “Social Insurance Number” twenty-eight times (excluding headings) in s.98 to s.102, but, like the ITA and the EIA, it never uses the all-lower-case ‘social insurance number’

Leading to this conclusion;

One could conclude that the upper-and-lower case Social Insurance Number, which makes one liable to “enforcement”, is to identify an individual as an ITA “legal representative”:

Apu wraps it up, in a manner of speaking at page 75 with this as a starting point in his conclusions;

45 Conclusions

My theory agrees with all ten points made in CRA’s Tax Alert on “Tax Protestors”. This corroborates my theory, which concludes the individual taxpayer can be divisible into two legal persons (but not as two people) in a fashion recognized by law by creating a corporation sole (see diagram, “This Theory’s Conclusions on the ‘Income’ Tax Act”). This dual legal capacity – as an individual or as Her Majesty’s officer - allows the ITA to have jurisdiction over both persons, legally tax individuals who consent to be such officers, yet respect Canada’s common law principles to private property rights, and comply with its international human rights covenants. Unlike many of the “OPCA Litigants” that the Associate Chief Justice of Alberta wrote as a 135 page obiter dicta (a statement made in a court decision that is not essential to the disposition of the case) in the divorce case of Meads v. Meads141, I conclude that the ITA is legal and constitutional, as it imposes an indirect federal tax on individuals that consent to being deemed by the ITA as federal officers of Her Majesty.

I've gone through the entire paper at least superficially and it makes even less sense than the usual OPCA schemes like Porisky's and Millar's. In fact it makes no sense at all that I can tell.

OK, on to the actual authorship of this gibberish. Note on page 42 of the paper the notice ©Knosin 2005-2015. It's like looking for Waldo but it's there buried in the square in the bottom left if you turn the page to landscape..

And look who pops up on a google search with "knosin". A guy called Eric Ho:

https://twitter.com/knosin


"Eric Ho" and "knosin" are also show up together on this website:

https://escapeesblog.wordpress.com/2012 ... the-judge/

Where Eric has a lot to say about the injustice inflicted on Russell Porisky.

Media Release – For immediate release
Supreme Court judge errs in complex tax case (January 19, 2012)

VANCOUVER – Russ Porisky, charged with four tax-related offences, has been found guilty on three charges by Judge Elliott Myers in BC Supreme Court yesterday.

Drawing on 10 years of dedicated research on Canadian human rights, Porisky vigorously defended himself and his companion, Elaine Gould in a three-week trial. He is convicted on one count of income tax evasion, one count of failing to remit GST and one count of counseling others to commit an offence. The case, R. v. Porisky & Gould 2012 BCSC 67, charged the two as a partnership, a legal entity that is not a taxpayer under the Income Tax Act, and whose existence was never proven in court.

We are disappointed in the judgment, says I do not mean any disrespect, but the ruling once again includes errors and misquotes, just like many previous decisions that challenged the taxing authorities.

Ho further states, I hope that the thousands of supporters across Canada will pursue justice because our legal right to property is at risk. This ruling is just another in a long list of decisions by our courts to suppress our human right, and civic duty, to question the tax regime in Canada.

Some notable errors include, but are not limited to: ignoring Supreme Court of Canada decisions, and failing to explain why Porisky was required to collect GST; yet Porisky has been found guilty for not remitting GST. There are also at least ten misquotes in the written judgment.

Russ findings – that we have a right to private property – should not be controversial because the alternative is that we are all slaves with no private property rights. Those who have truly studied his material, including accountants, tax lawyers, and former CRA auditors find his conclusions reasonable. So why were these same accountants, tax lawyers and former auditors prohibited by the Court from testifying in Poriskys defence? says Ho.

Clearly, this is a highly complex matter that mustn't be judged by the public from media reports. All Canadians, especially tax professionals should examine this case closely. Aside from these professionals, Russ is arguably one of the most knowledgeable Canadians on the Income Tax Act. He has spent over 20,000 hours studying other acts, case law, authorities on how to interpret statutes, and our human rights regarding private property and liberty, says Ho.

Media contact:
Eric Ho, knosin@me.com
Eric Ho Legal Researcher, Canadian Rights Education Group, Skype: knosin

Apart from this Eric, right while I was composing this post, put up an article on his website telling how he beat the CRA and doesn't have to pay taxes any more;

https://canadaincometaxislegal.is/filed ... no-cra-t1/


One little quibble. I think that a website dedicated to a discussion about Canadian income tax should spell Canadian correctly in the website's name.

So who is Eric? A tax scholar with this depth of knowledge and experience and who is such a sympathetic ally of Russell Porisky should be well known to Burnaby49 but a google search for Eric comes up with almost nothing. Even the information he gives voluntarily leads nowhere. But check that PDF again. The title bar at the top of each page is a link to this website;

https://canadaincometaxislegal.is/

Iceland? It's hosted in Iceland? Why? And why is the website's postal address a mail drop in Hong Kong? And no names anywhere. On this website Apu is only identified as;

Who is Apu?

"Apu Nahasapeemapetilon" is a pseudonym for an informal group of Canadians who want to explain why Canada's income tax is legal and not private property theft. We call our research, "Apu's Theory."

It seems that our tax expert Eric doesn't want anybody connecting his name to all this stuff or finding out where he actually is. But back in January 2012 Eric seemed free and easy about putting his name up there for us all when he wrote the Media Release I linked to above. So what changed? Note the date on the Media Release;

Media Release – For immediate release
Supreme Court judge errs in complex tax case (January 19, 2012)

Then note the date on this article in my local paper, the Vancouver Sun, about a bunch of Poriskyites charged with income tax evasion and counseling evasion;

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/david+ ... story.html

After his conviction, federal Crown counsel laid charges similar charges against seven other B.C. residents who taught Porisky’s methods. They are:

• Donald Grant Baudais of Kelowna, charged with eight counts on Aug. 31, 2012.

• Michael Spencer Millar of North Vancouver, four counts, charged Feb. 2, 2012

• Richard Cory Stanchfield of Victoria, six counts, charged March 28, 2012

• Keith David Lawson and May Dang-Lawson, both of Burnaby, a combined total of nine counts, charged Feb. 1, 2012

• Eric Ho (a.k.a. Eric Siu-Kei Ho and Pat Lee) of Richmond, three counts, charged Feb. 28, 2012.

• Debbie Arlene Anderson of Chilliwack, four counts, charged Jan. 25, 2012.
All these cases are pending.

I've attended and reported on the Lawson, Millar and Stanchfield trials and am following Anderson. While I didn't follow Baudais' case he was convicted of tax evasion and counseling in 2014;

http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/ ... taxes.html

So why is Ho, a local boy (Richmond is immediately adjacent to Vancouver), the odd man out? Why haven't I attended his case or heard anything about him? Because he pulled a Menard© and bolted after attending the first day of his court hearings. Like Menard he has an outstanding arrest warrant waiting to be served. I'm assuming that the Canadian Income Tax Is Legal website has a postal address in Hong Kong because that is where Ho is currently residing.

A check of the B.C Courts Online Website gives Ho's legal problems in a nutshell. On December 28, 2011 he was charged with;

ITA - 239(1)(d) Evade Payment
ETA - 327(1)(c) failure to make payment
ITA - 239(1)(d) Evade Payment

And on February 28, 2012 he was charged with;

ETA - 327(1)(c) failure to make payment
CCC - 464(a) Counseling indictable offence

He only had one day in court before he bolted;

864-1 HO, ERIC Robson Square Provincial Court 05-Mar-2012 09:30 AM 103 FA WI
864-1 HO, ERIC Robson Square Provincial Court 05-Mar-2012 09:30 AM 103 FA WI
864-2-C HO, ERIC Robson Square Provincial Court 05-Mar-2012 09:30 AM 103 FA WI
864-2-C HO, ERIC Robson Square Provincial Court 05-Mar-2012 09:30 AM 103 FA WI
864-2-C HO, ERIC Robson Square Provincial Court 05-Mar-2012 09:30 AM 103 FA WI

FA means First Appearance and WI means Warrant Issued.

So Ho is actively promoting a legal theory that he himself was too cowardly to defend in court. The similarities to Menard are striking. But, notwithstanding Ho's abject failure to support his own theory other fools seem to be following it. People like this guy who's Tac Court decision was released just a few months ago;

Russell v. The Queen, 2016 TCC 122
http://canlii.ca/t/grswk

Russell did not file any tax returns for a number of years until the CRA caught him, reassessed him, and hit him with gross negligence penalties. He appealed on, as far as I can tell, the basis that Apu's theory exempted him from tax. The Crown made an application to strike which meant the appeal would be tossed without even getting a hearing. The judge gave the background;

The Amended Notice of Appeal

[6] A summary of the Amended Notice of Appeal follows.

[7] The years at issue are the 2010, 2011 and 2012 taxation years.

[8] The Appellant is a naturopathic doctor. He had DR. WILLIAM RUSSELL NATUROPATHIC INC. (the “Corporation”) incorporated in 2003 under the laws of the province of British Columbia. The Corporation carries on the business of providing health care services and the Appellant is a shareholder and director of the Corporation.

[9] The Appellant also claimed that he is an “individual” of the Corporation.

[10] In 2010, 2011 and 2012, the Appellant received income from the Energetic Matrix Church of Consciousness for his services as a facilitator; and, he also received fees from the Corporation for his services as director. He reported these amounts on his income tax returns.

[11] In 2005, the Appellant, as “an individual (“Agent”)”, signed a contract with the Corporation as “Principal”; a copy of the contract formed part of the Amended Notice of Appeal and it was labeled Appendix B. The contract was titled “Contract for Hire – Private (Free Agent) Agreement” but I will refer to it as the “Contract”. In the Contract, the Principal and Agent relationship was defined for the purposes of various legislation including the Canada Pension Plan (“CPP”), Taxes and Employment Insurance. With respect to “Taxes”, the Appellant consented “to being engaged for his services in his capacity as a natural person”. The Contract further stated that the Appellant did not consent to accepting or performing the duties of an “office or employment” in the capacity of an “officer” or any other entity defined in the Income Tax Act (“ITA”) for provincial or federal income tax purposes.

[12] According to the pleadings, the Appellant performed the duties as Manager for the Corporation. He invoiced the Corporation for his services and the Corporation paid him $108,000, $107,000 and $95,000 in 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively. He wrote that he reported these amounts to the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) in a letter dated February 26, 2014. A copy of that letter formed part of the Amended Notice of Appeal and it was labeled Appendix D. In that letter, the Appellant wrote that these amounts which he received for his services as Manager from the Corporation were “exempt income” because he “declined the ITA’s deeming to be a source while as Manager”. He further wrote:

The written Agreement with the Corporation states that the Manager declined to be a CPP/ITA “officer” with a social insurance number holding an office of profit. While as Manager, I was not a CPP or GST “officer” either, since those are the same as the ITA officer.
As a T1 is for filing income only from sources, there is no line on the T1 to file any exempt income. I believe that I filed all income from all sources (ie., director’s fees) but could not file the exempt income, which is also deemed by ITA Part I to be equal to zero. There are no grounds for your proposed “Unreported Business Income” or penalties, as there is no unreported income for the individual as Manager, but instead only exempt income, which is sanctioned by the ITA and by T1 to not be reported.

[13] The Appellant also pled that “it is legally impossible” to report the income made under the Contract on a T1 return that uses the SIN as a “social insurance number” styled all in lower case letters.

This next part is right out of Apu's paper;

[16] In his notice of Appeal, the Appellant raised issues with respect to several federal and provincial statutes aside from the ITA. Those issues are not relevant to this appeal because this appeal was filed against the Notice of Reassessment issued under the ITA. A summary of the issues raised by the Appellant with respect to the ITA were:

a) Whether the income earned under the Contract was received by the Appellant in his capacity as an “officer” within the meaning of section 248 of the ITA?

b) Whether the Appellant was entitled to receive the Goods and Services Tax Credit for the base years 2010 and 2011?

c) Whether the Minister erred by assessing penalties under subsection 163(2) of the ITA against the Appellant for 2010, 2011 and 2012.

d) Whether the term “Social Insurance Number”, referred to in subsection 237(1) of the ITA and styled in both upper and lower case letters, is to be distinguished from the term “social insurance number”, styled in lower case letters only and referred to in various CRA forms. Specifically, whether a Social Insurance Number is assigned exclusively to an individual who is a “legal representative” within the meaning of subsection 248(1) of the ITA, and a “social insurance number” is assigned exclusively to an individual who is an “officer” within the meaning of subsection 248(1) of the ITA.

[17] In the “Statutory Provisions Relied Upon” portion of the Amended Notice of Appeal, the Appellant relied on the ITA and several other statutes which are not relevant.

[18] A brief summary of the “Reasons the Appellant Intends to Rely On” with respect to the ITA are as follows:

a) Her Majesty is the (legal) personification of all Canadians. Her Majesty has a dual individual capacity – as a natural person and a corporation sole. Therefore, all Canadians can also have dual individual capacity.

b) The Appellant quoted from various decisions and various sections of the ITA; gave his interpretation of the quotes and the sections; and, concluded that, while he performed services under the Contract, he was not “clothed with the powers of an officer” as that term is defined in section 248 of the ITA. Therefore he was without legal capacity to convert his income from any source of income into profit.

c) The income he earned pursuant to the Contract is not income from an office, employment, business or property because he did not claim any expenses. Therefore his income is deemed to be zero by paragraph 3(f) of the ITA.

d) He never filled an “office” when he earned income under the Contract and he was not charged for making omissions or false statements on a return under paragraph 239(1)(a) or with tax evasion under paragraph 239(1)(d) of the ITA.

e) He filed all income by T1 (taxable income for the “office” as “officer”) and also by letter (exempt income received not as “officer” under the Contract).

f) The income received by him under the Contract is exempt income and deemed to be zero so that it prevents Her Majesty from doing theft by conversion. That is, it prevents Her Majesty and her agents from converting his private property into “public money” within the meaning of section 2 of the Financial Administration Act.

g) With respect to the penalties under subsection 163(2), it is the Appellant’s position that an individual who deals with “public money” as an officer owes a fiduciary duty to the public to report all “public money” earned from such “office”. Since a fiduciary duty demands a high standard of performance, one cannot be forced to be such an “officer” and he has declined to receive the income he earned under the Contract as “public money”. He argued that the CRA agreed with him that he did not make an omission or false statement because he was not charged under paragraph 239(1)(a) of the ITA.

And the court stomped on him;

Position of the Parties

[19] It was the Respondent’s position that the Appellant’s legal argument is a variation of the concepts used by so called “de-taxers”. Counsel argued that this court has found that the argument and position of de-taxers is without merit; does not disclose a reasonable ground for appeal; and, is an abuse of the court’s process.

[20] It was the Appellant’s position that he was not using a “natural person” argument. He has reported all of his income in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Some of that income he reported on a T1 and some of it he reported in a letter to the CRA. He stated that all of his income was subject to tax under the ITA. However, in 2010, 2011 and 2012, he received some of his income as an officer as defined in the ITA and he reported this income and paid tax on it. He also received income in these years not as an officer and this income was deemed by the ITA to be equal to zero.

Decision

[21] Although the Appellant argued that the facts in his case are substantially different from the facts of the litigants referred to in the Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII) decision, I disagree. He may not have made a “natural person” argument in his Amended Notice of Appeal or at the hearing of this motion, but his position was nevertheless clothed with the “natural person” concept at the time he made the Contract between himself and his Corporation. The Appellant has used the same tactics that J.D. Rooke A.C.J.Q.B. described in Meads as belonging to the Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants (“OPCA litigants”).

[22] The Appellant, like other OPCA litigants, ground his argument in a “belief” that “every binding legal obligation emerges from a contract, and consent is required before an obligation can be enforced”: Meads at para. 379. In this case, the Appellant argued that he has opted out of being taxed for a large portion of the income he earned in 2010, 2011 and 2012. A taxpayer cannot elect to contract out of the application of the Income Tax Act.

[23] The Appellant has also argued in his Amended Notice of Appeal that he exists in two separate states. Those separate states for the Appellant are as an individual and an officer; and, depending on which state he chooses, he doesn’t have to pay tax. The Appellant’s claims are “pseudolegal nonsense” and are not supported by Canadian courts: Tuck v The Queen, 2007 TCC 418 (CanLII); Ian E Brown v The Queen, 2014 FCA 301 (CanLII).

[24] First, I will address the amount of the reassessment for the 2012 taxation year and the fact that gross negligence penalties were assessed against the Appellant.

[25] The Appellant has admitted that he received $108,000, $107,000 and $95,000 in 2010, 2011 and 2012 which he did not include in his income tax returns for those years. However, according to counsel for the Respondent, the Appellant was assessed unreported income of $97,000 in 2012.

[26] In the Amended Notice of Appeal, the Appellant has not disputed the quantum of the reassessments. He has not raised any potential discrepancy as an issue in this appeal. His only argument is that he has elected not to be taxed on the amount he earned for his services as Manager for the Corporation. Therefore, I have concluded that the Appellant did not appeal the additional amount of the assessment for the 2012 year.

[27] The Appellant has been assessed gross negligence penalties and pursuant to subsection 163(3) of the ITA, “the burden of establishing the facts justifying the assessment of the penalties is on the Minister”. If this appeal proceeded to a hearing, the Respondent would have to prove (1) that the Appellant made a false statement or omission in his 2010, 2011 and 2012 income tax returns, and (2) that the statement or omission was either made knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence.

[28] It is my view that the facts necessary to prove that the penalties were properly imposed were admitted in the Amended Notice of Appeal. The Appellant admitted in the Amended Notice of Appeal that he failed to include income of $108,000, $107,000 and $95,000 in his 2010, 2011 and 2012 income tax returns. Although he gave a “pseudolegal” argument as to why he did not report the income he earned under the Contract in his income tax returns, the Appellant also admitted that he knowingly omitted this income. Unlike the case of Ian E Brown v The Queen, 2014 FCA 301 (CanLII), the material facts necessary to meet the Minister’s burden were admitted in the Amended Notice of Appeal.

[29] I have carefully considered the Amended Notice of Appeal, the oral and written submissions made by the Appellant and counsel for the Respondent and I have concluded that the Amended Notice of Appeal should be struck. The Appellant has not raised a cause of action. It is plain and obvious that the position taken by the Appellant in his Amended Notice of Appeal has no chance of success and it is an abuse of this court’s process. I order that the Amended Notice of Appeal be struck in its entirety and the appeal is dismissed.

[30] Counsel for the Respondent requested that he be given the opportunity to address costs. He must serve and file his written representations with respect to costs by June 3, 2016. The Appellant must submit his written response regarding costs by June 17, 2016.

Ball's in your court Apu.

[notorial dissent]

ITA??? He's speaking Canadian and I don't understand, well even less than I do of the rest of what he wrote. Even for a tax whack that is gibberish. Sounds like he partook of one from column A one from Column Be and one from column WTHK's.

Learned something new, didn't know that numbers came in upper and lower case, or that it matters, imagine that????

So we now have another one to add to the collection.

[Burnaby49]

You'll all note how superficial my analysis of Apu's brilliant tax analysis is. I've spent a good chunk of the last year or two attending Poriksyite trials and reporting on their antics amd I've had enough of this garbage. Frankly, when I look at yet another monstrosity such as this sludge-pit of incomprehensible babbling, I just can't be bothered. The Russell decision indicates that the Tax Court shares my view and can't be bothered either.

[bmxninja357]

Good eye but one thing. Fa isn't first appearance generally. It's fail to appear.

It meets sweet fa except to the picky reader.

Peace
Ninj

[Burnaby49]

Good eye but one thing. Fa isn't first appearance generally. It's fail to appear.

It meets sweet fa except to the picky reader.

Peace
Ninj

This is what my listing of British Columbia court abbreviations says;

DFW Dispute Fine Amount in Writing - Used when a disputant is seeking a reduction in the fine amount and/or time to pay a ticket and does not want to appear in person

DSP - For Disposition - Used when there is an indication that the matter is for disposition.

ELE - Accused will elect mode of trial - Used when a case is adjourned so that the accused may elect their mode of trial when Crown is proceeding by Indictment.

FA - First Appearance - Used when the accused is not in custody on that document and the expectation is that the accused will be attending for the first time before the court related to a specific matter.

FAW - First Appearance Warrant/Police Release - Used after the execution of a warrant where the accused has been released by the police and the accused is making a first appearance in accordance with that release document (not in-custody).

Although Failure to Appear works better. It would explain why a warrant was issued after only one hearing.

[bmxninja357]

Perhaps the difference is I'm used to seeing fa in a criminal court and not a tax court.

Peace
Ninj

[Burnaby49]

Perhaps the difference is I'm used to seeing fa in a criminal court and not a tax court.

Peace
Ninj

This was a criminal court, the Provincial Court of British Columbia. He was charged with Tax evasion and counseling tax evasion. The Tax Court doesn't hear criminal cases and can't issue arrest warrants nor can the Crown take cases to the Tax Court.

[Jeffrey]

the upper-and-lower case “Social Insurance Number”

Maybe my brain isn't working properly this morning but do numbers really have an upper and lower case? Is the SIN written out in roman numerals up in Canada?

[Burnaby49]

the upper-and-lower case “Social Insurance Number”

Maybe my brain isn't working properly this morning but do numbers really have an upper and lower case? Is the SIN written out in roman numerals up in Canada?

SIN numbers are just a series of nine number seprated into three clusters like this; 123 456 789. It is never written in letters so there are no letters to put into either upper or lower cases. This 81 page mess is so stupid I didn't bother explaining little details like that and Apu didn't either.

[Burnaby49]

the upper-and-lower case “Social Insurance Number”

Maybe my brain isn't working properly this morning but do numbers really have an upper and lower case? Is the SIN written out in roman numerals up in Canada?

SIN numbers are just a series of nine number seprated into three clusters like this; 123 456 789. It is never written in letters so there are no letters to put into either upper or lower cases. This 81 page mess is so stupid I didn't bother explaining little details like that and Apu didn't either.

Quoting myself now. I took another quick look and the number itself isn't the issue. It's the words Social Insurance Number v social insurance number. One means you pay tax the other doesn't. I'm not going to delve into which is which or why it's supposed to work that way. Russell already tried that.

[noblepa]

Maybe my brain isn't working properly this morning but do numbers really have an upper and lower case? Is the SIN written out in roman numerals up in Canada?

SIN numbers are just a series of nine number seprated into three clusters like this; 123 456 789. It is never written in letters so there are no letters to put into either upper or lower cases. This 81 page mess is so stupid I didn't bother explaining little details like that and Apu didn't either.

Quoting myself now. I took another quick look and the number itself isn't the issue. It's the words Social Insurance Number v social insurance number. One means you pay tax the other doesn't. I'm not going to delve into which is which or why it's supposed to work that way. Russell already tried that.

That way lies madness...

[Burnaby49]

Apu steps in to save Keith Lawson!

https://canadaincometaxislegal.is/keith ... ntrapment/

Although negecting to file his brilliant analysis until after Keith was convicted is a bit sloppy.

[The Observer]

Although negecting to file his brilliant analysis until after Keith was convicted is a bit sloppy.

Well, it wouldn't have been brilliant if he had filed it prior to conviction.

[Burnaby49]

Apu is back! Well, actually, it turns out he was never gone. A brief recap is in order for those of you who don’t remember Apu Nahasapeemapetilon (aka Eric Ho, Eric Siu-Kei Ho and Pat Lee). This is probably most of you since the last posting on this thread was almost six years ago. Eric Ho is the last ‘educator’ in the Paradigm tax evasion scam who hasn’t had his day in court. The reason being, as I explained in 2016, that he’d skipped his trial and fled to Hong Kong. His charges have been outstanding for over a decade. On December 28, 2011, he was charged with;

ITA - 239(1)(d) Evade Payment
ETA - 327(1)(c) failure to make payment
ITA - 239(1)(d) Evade Payment

And on February 28, 2012 he was additionally charged with;

ETA - 327(1)(c) failure to make payment
CCC - 464(a) Counseling indictable offence

The counseling an indictable offence was the Crown’s claim that he was teaching paradigm customers how to evade paying tax.

I assumed, since he disappeared long ago into Hong Kong, that he’d never face trial but I was wrong. He lawyered up and surrendered into Vancouver police custody yesterday and this morning he had a court hearing to determine if he would continue to be held in custody until trial or allowed bail again. The judge ordered a “Technical Suitability Report” to determine if it is suitable to release him on bail with electronic monitoring. This should be decided at his next hearing on September 1st and he is to be held in custody until then. I’m guessing he’ll be allowed bail. The big factor in his favour is that he voluntarily surrendered even though, as far as I’m aware, nobody was actively looking for him. Also being represented by a lawyer rather than babbling tax protester nonsense is probably a plus. Speaking of which the lawyer advised the court that Ho did not, as assumed, flee to Hong Kong. He spent the last six years here in the Vancouver area although I have no information as to what he was doing during that time.

So I seem to have a shot at reporting one last Paradigm trial. Hopefully it doesn't take another six years to get it done, I'm heading towards my mid-70's and if it takes as long as Millar or Lawson I may be too preoccupied with what's for lunch at the retirement home to attend hearings.

[wserra]

You'll all note how superficial my analysis of Apu's brilliant tax analysis is.

Only by Möwe-an standards, Burnaby. Only by Möwe-an standards.

Damn, how did I miss this the first time around?

[Burnaby49]

Indeed; I miss the days when Möwe would very politely tell me I was entirely wrong then demolish my legal analysis.

[The Observer]

Indeed; I miss the days when Möwe would very politely tell me I was entirely wrong then demolish my legal analysis.

Well, at least he never told you were so wrong you were not even wrong.