Is A Natural Person Directly Included
In The Income Tax Act?
 
Myth #5  
I love this one, this is a very misleading case and what is presented on C.C.R.A.'s Myth Sheet are just enough excerpts that if read without a full understanding will say exactly what they want you to read. In both the Intermediate and Advance courses go progressively further in-depth and unspins several of this judge's reason for judgment. More importantly though, is that CCRA took me to court after this case and 5  fairly unique things  happened.
  1. There was an order made that I was a natural person.
  2. I was move to a court without a bar in another city
  3. I never presented a defence
  4. I was acquitted on all 4 counts of failing to comply.
  5. And no appeal was sought.
Even though we have spent the time to better understand what happen to us in court, today we know it is easier to comply with the Income Tax Act and stay out of court, so we don't spend much time discussing courts.

Myth #5
There is a myth that the Income Tax Act applies only to corporate entities and not to "natural" persons or human beings. ( I wonder why they put quotation marks around the word natural when they used it in writing this myth... maybe so we don't confuse it with the legal phrase, natural person, as defined in the Canadian Law Dictionary.)  This myth says that Common Law rights dating back to the Magna Carta make all taxes (not all taxes, section 12 of the Magna Carta clearly allows for certain taxes) on individuals voluntary.

The Facts
These myths have been rejected by Canada's courts. For example, on August 31, 2000, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a ruling rejecting arguments that the Income Tax Act applies only to corporate entities (of course it would rule that way, the Income Tax Act also applies to officers and tax exempt entities, like charities, under section 149) and that all taxes ( Not all, why do you keep saying "all taxes") are voluntary. ( Hey I thought we were talking about natural persons what happened)

The judge said, "I find that a 'person' as defined in s. 248(l) of the Income Tax Act includes both a natural person and an artificial person. ( because of the nature of this case the judge could find ice to be hot, if that's all the evidence ever presented to him, to bad the issue of capacity wasn't raised.) It follows that the applicant is a 'person' (wonder why he didn't say natural person as defined in the Canadian Law Dictionary?) and a 'taxpayer.' ... The reality in this case is it was a legal representative of taxpayer trying to pretend he was a natural person so the judge did rule fairly, he just had to be careful in his wording not to expose the real game.) His obligations include the filing of annual income tax returns and the payment of any income tax owing under his returns."

The judge said, "In my view, there is no support in 'the common law, (also known as) the rule of law' for the extremely broad proposition that all taxes (Why do they keep saying ALL TAXES we just want to know about income tax) are voluntary."

A number of individuals and groups are actively promoting claims that there are lawful ways to declare oneself exempt from tax. (Wonder what tax their talking about here why don't they say income tax?...It's the little things) Relying on such "advice" could result in anything from late filing penalties and interest imposed by the CCRA to fines and imprisonment imposed by the courts - in addition to having to pay your taxes. (Let's not forget about the fear tactics, they've work so good up to now, why stop.) and before paying for such information, ( Like the half truths we've been paying them for.) or participating in such groups, individuals are urged to seek comments, clarification or guidance from a tax professional ( I wonder where you find one that wasn't taught only what the Illusion wanted them know..... I only know of around a dozen or so accountants who can now see the Illusion  for what it is and in the words of one of them "While becoming a Chartered Accountant I could feel something wasn't right but just couldn't put my finger on it. So I learned to give them the answer they wanted to hear and was able to graduate in the top 3 of my class.") or the CCRA. ( Sounds like a good idea, go ahead, you've definitely paid them enough money over the years to deserve a straight answer. See if you can get honest answer from any of them and have them put it writing and stand behind it.
 
Here's the question to ask, "Is a natural person (as defined in the Canadian Law Dictionary), directly included within the definition of the word "person" in subsection 248(1) of  the Income Tax Act of Canada.
 
Maybe you'll have better luck than the thousand who have tried before you. Even Chrétien has yet to find any high level Minister who is willing to honourably answer questions, do you think that some low level agent will... Lord knows we've being trying to find one for years.
 
     So did Judge Sedgewick actually state in clear and unequivocal language that a "natural person", acting in their own capacity for their own benefit, was directly included within the definition of the word "person"  in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act?
 
                                         No!
Not only did Judge Sedgewick rely on a 1831 case law, long before we even had a country or taxes, he only relied on the first part of the two part sentence to support his reasons for judgment. Without going into ever anomaly of his reasons for judgment the biggest clue he left was his repeated statement that he was driven to his conclusions based on the information provided.
 
Another factor that needs to be considered is the fact that unlike the majority of tax cases in this case Kennedy took CCRA to court for money they took while he was working as the representative of a taxpayer.  Therefore, in this case it was the responsibility of Kennedy to give the judge sufficient information to rule appropriately, as the judge could only consider the evidence presented before him, and that was impossible to do because in all illusionary reality it was the artificial person known as a taxpayer, or the legal representative at least, that went to court trying to be a natural person, it didn't work then and it won't work now.
 
This was the fundamental difference between this case and my case. I went to court as a natural person and was recognized by the court as such. Therefore, the case was essentially between the Income Tax Act of Canada and a natural person recognized and protected by the Canadian Bill of Rights.
 
And in accordance with the permissible presumptions in law whenever there is a conflict between the Canadian Bill of Rights and any other statute, including the Income Tax Act, the Canadian Bill of Rights in all case shall prevail.