Well, although these
propaganda sound bites may preach well, every one of them falls short of reality
when put to the test of having them substantiated with anything more
than an opinion. So how could this be? How could so many people, from
layman, to professionals, to men of God become so willing to believe in something
that has no more reality behind it than the tooth fairy?
To answer these
questions we need to take a journey deep inside the box of the Tax Game.
The first stop we'll
make is to look at
some
of the
techniques Canada Revenue Agency uses to convince the masses that they
no longer have the common-law right to structure their affairs to fall
outside the scope of some taxing acts, in particular the Income Tax
Act and Part IX of the Excise Tax Act, G.S.T.
To save reiterating
what has already been discussed on page 4 of the Advance level of this
site, we'll focus more on the one question, and the reasons why, the C.R.A., the judiciary and apparently every politician and professional
association in this country has done everything in their power to avoid
answering in clear and unequivocal language.
The one question that
is central to understanding the strategies of the
C.R.A. is as follows;
|
Is a natural
person, as defined in
the Canadian Law Dictionary, 4th
Ed., by John A. Yogis, Q.C.,
acting in their own capacity for their own benefit,
directly included
within the definition of the word "person" as defined in
subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act?
|
|
Now let's think about
this question for a moment. Assuming we know that a natural person is
a human being with the capacity for right or duties, and as such we
think we are one, it would appear that the most obvious answer would be,
"Yes, a natural person, as defined in
the Canadian Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., by John A. Yogis,
Q.C.,
acting in their own capacity for their own benefit,
is directly
included within the definition of the word "person" as defined in
subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act.
However, despite the
fact that the only reason, "Yes" appears to be the most
obvious
answer is because many of us have never taken the time to actually
understand the specificness of the question being asked. Yet, the fact
remains that after more than five years of this one simple question being
asked of those who know or ought to know the answers, not one of them
has ever been willing to answer the question with a simple, "Yes" and
provide substantiating support for their answer.
Why is that?
Perhaps because those
who understand the specificness of the question know that the answer
to it is, "No", and those who ought to understand the specificness of
the question, such as accountants and lawyers, are either too afraid to
expose the fact that they too have been deceived by the very system
they've come to blindly worship, or too afraid to acknowledge the
absurdity of their false belief for fear of losing the vested
interests they have in preserving the Illusion they think their
self-worth is reliant on.
Nevertheless,
regardless of the reason why
those who know or ought to know have done
everything in their power to avoid answering this one simple question
in clear and unequivocal language with a simple, "Yes", and provide
substantiating support for their answer, the one thing we should all
be able to agree on is that the answer can only be, Yes or No.
Therefore, let's
examine the resultant reality for each of these potential answers. By
doing so, not only will we come to a conclusion that is based on
something more than an opinion we've formed from hearing a well
preached sound bite, but we will be able to see for ourselves if the
CRA has
employed
some
strategies to
initiate, perpetuate and enhance the blind obedience to their
authority they have come to expect from all Canadians.
First, if the answer to the question
is, No, a natural person, as defined in
the Canadian Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., by John A. Yogis,
Q.C.,
acting in their own capacity for their own benefit,
is not directly
included within the definition of the word "person" as defined in
subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act, then perhaps that's why after
more than five years of seeking a clear and unequivocal answer no one in
the C.R.A., or any other governmental department for that matter, has
been willing to provide one, but would rather skirt answering the
question directly and, in favour of perpetuating their plausible
deniability, used ambiguous wording in their letters to imply they have
jurisdiction over the private contractual affairs of a natural person.
An example of
this can been seen in a recently received letter where, instead of
using the legally recognized phrase "natural persons", the C.R.A.
appeared to deceptively use the phrase "natural people", which lacks
legal definition and recognition.
Not only does the C.R.A.'s
curiously deceptive use of ambiguous wording add to the probability
that the answer to the question
is, No, but there's also the fact that to date there has not been one
judge who has presided over any of the numerous so called natural
person tax cases who has stated in clear and unequivocal language
that a natural person, as defined in
the Canadian Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., by John A. Yogis,
Q.C.,
acting in their own capacity for their own benefit,
is directly
included within the definition of the word "person" as defined in
subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Granted,
this absence of judicial clarity may be due to the fact that this
specific and qualified question has never been properly raised in any
of these so called natural person tax cases, as well as the fact that had this specific and qualified question been
raised and presented properly in any of these cases, then even if the
honourable judges were to find that a natural person acting in their
own capacity for their own benefit was in fact directly
included within the definition of the word “person” in the Income Tax
Act, each of them would, in an attempt to resolve the obvious conflict
that would be created between the Canadian Bill of Rights and the
Income Tax Act due to the Income Tax Act’s lack of a notwithstanding
clause as required by section 2 of the Bill of Rights, no doubt do the honourable thing and follow
the further direction from Parliament and fulfill their duty by
regarding the Income Tax Act as inoperative with respect to the facts
before them, or as more eloquently expressed in Driedger’s, Construction
of Statutes, 2nd Ed., 1983, on page 244.
|
Driedger’s, Construction of Statutes, 2nd Ed., 1983, pg 244.
"If the conflict is between the Bill
of Rights and another statute, the courts will no doubt try to
“construe” the statute consistently with the Bill of Rights
and, if possible, will reconcile the two by reducing the scope
of words or by modifying the grammatical or ordinary sense of
the words. But if the absolute intractability of language
makes this impossible, then they have the further direction
from Parliament that they must “apply” the statute so as not
to infringe the Bill of Rights; and they comply with this
direction by regarding the statute as inoperative with respect
to the facts before them.”
|
Furthermore, if the
answer to the question
is, No, a natural person, as defined in
the Canadian Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., by John A. Yogis,
Q.C.,
acting in their own capacity for their own benefit,
is not directly
included within the definition of the word "person" as defined in
subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act, then that would in turn mean
that Parliament actually intended for the use of the word
"includes", as used in the definition
of the word "person", to be restrictive and equivalent to
"means", so to create an exhaustive
list for the meaning of the word "person" in and for the purposes of
the Income Tax Act.
Alternatively, in the spirit of
education as opposed to indoctrination, if the opposite is true and
the answer to the question
is, Yes, a natural person, as defined in
the Canadian Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., by John A. Yogis,
Q.C.,
acting in their own capacity for their own benefit,
is directly
included within the definition of the word "person" as defined in
subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act, then first and foremost why
hasn't anyone in the C.R.A., the Department of Justice, or even the
judiciary been willing to simply tell it like it is in clear and
unequivocal language?
Perhaps the answer to
this question is because if they were ever to provide such a clear and
unequivocal answer to such a specific and qualified question they'd
find it rather difficult explaining away the numerous conflicts
in law that would occur as a result of such an answer.
For example, here are 3
of the more obvious conflicts that would occur if the answer to the
one simple question were to be, "Yes"
The first example of a conflict
in law that would arise if the answer to the question
is, Yes, a natural person, as defined in
the Canadian Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., by John A. Yogis,
Q.C.,
acting in their own capacity for their own benefit,
is directly
included within the definition of the word "person" as defined in
subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act, is
in regards to the Canadian Bill of
Rights, when consideration is given to the fact that section 1
recognizes and declares that in Canada a natural person has the right
to the enjoyment of his or her property and the right not to be
deprived thereof except by due process of law, as well as
the fact that
the
Income
Tax Act
lacks the necessary declaration, in prescribed form, as would be
required by section 2 in order
to directly levy an income tax
on the private property of a natural person
and operate
notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights,
it is reasonable to conclude that Parliament
only intended for the word
"includes" to be used to create an
exhaustive list for the definition of the word “person”,
as the alternative
intention would have resulted in an unnecessary and easily avoidable
conflict between the Canadian Bill of Rights,
and the Income Tax Act.
Furthermore, regardless of the fact
that clear and unequivocal language was not used in the Income Tax
Act to express such a direct inclusion of a natural person, as it
was in the Excise Tax Act and several other federal statutes in
respect of the general principle of language application to the
construction of written instruments, as summarily expressed in the
legal maxim, Expressio unius personae est exclusio alterius, this
single conflict alone ought to be sufficient for a reasonable person
to conclude that Parliament never intended for the definition of the
word “person” in the Income Tax Act to directly include a
natural person because of the fact that, according to Driedger’s,
Construction of Statutes, 2nd Ed., 1983, on page 243 and 244,
Parliament itself has already declared in effect that, in the
absence to the contrary by Parliament in a prescribed form, an
intention to infringe on human rights and fundamental freedoms must
not be attributed to Parliament in any statute, whether enacted
before or after the Canadian Bill of
Rights, and if there is a conflict between the
Canadian Bill of Rights and another
statute, the Canadian Bill of Rights
must in all cases prevail over a conflicting statute.
A second example of a conflict in
law that would have been created if Parliament did in fact intend
for the word "includes" to be used to add to the natural and
ordinary meaning of the word person and directly include a
natural person acting in their own capacity for their own benefit,
within the definition of the word “person” within subsection 248(1)
of the Income Tax Act, is in regards to the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
Without elaborating on the obvious conflicts that
would be created in regards to section 26 of the Charter, when
consideration is given to the fact that subsection 15(1) guarantees
that every individual, or “natural person” in other words, is equal
before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection
and equal benefit of the law, without discrimination, as well as the
fact that the Income
Tax Act lacks an expressed declaration,
as required under
section 33.1 of the Charter that would be necessary
to authorize the Income
Tax Act, to operate notwithstanding the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and impose a discriminatory
progressive income tax scale upon a “natural person”, contrary to
subsection 15(1) of the Charter, it is
once again reasonable to conclude that Parliament only intended for
the word "includes" to be used to create an exhaustive list for
the definition of the word “person”, as
the alternative intention would have resulted in another unnecessary
and easily avoidable conflict, albeit this time between the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
and the Income Tax Act.
The third example of a
conflict in law that would be created if Parliament did in fact
intend for the word "includes"
to be used to add to the natural and ordinary meaning of the word
person and directly include a natural person acting in their
own capacity for their own benefit, within the definition of the
word “person” within subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act, is in
regards to the Income Tax Act itself.
To address this
conflict appropriately, the use of several other words that have been
defined in the Income Tax Act is required, and have been placed within
quotations marks for clarity.
This conflict becomes abundantly
clear when consideration is given to the definition of the word
“corporation” in section 248(1) of the Income Tax Act, and the fact
that the word "includes" has been used within it.
It would appear by the fact that
the word “corporation” is defined in the Income Tax Act to mean what
could be considered its natural and ordinary meaning, an incorporated
company, that this definition only further supports the fact that an
Act can not be read by giving all the words contained in therein their
natural and ordinary meaning. Especially considering that the vast
majority would readily agree that an incorporated company and a
“corporation” are one and the same when spoken of in their natural and
ordinary meaning.
This logical conclusion is easily
supported when consideration is given to the fact that the natural and
ordinary meaning of the word corporation is sufficiently broad enough
to mean any group of individuals, such as members of a family unit,
acting together as one body.
With rational
consideration of this logical conclusion, it appears that Parliament
intended for the word "includes" to be construed as
equivalent to "means"
for the purpose of creating an exhaustive meaning for the word
“corporation”, to just an incorporated company, thereby ensuring that
the Income Tax
Act
would be capable of achieving its object and maintaining its scheme
and integrity.
After all, if Parliament had
intended for the use of the word "includes" for the purposes of
the Income Tax Act to be expansive, as would be the consequential
conclusion if a natural person acting in their own capacity for their
own benefit was directly included within the definition of the
word “person” within subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act, then it
would seem reasonable to conclude that Parliament also intended to
allow all non-statutory incorporated groups of natural persons, such
as same-sex or traditional family units, to file their taxes as
“corporations” carrying on the “business” of life, as both of these
examples, along with many others, naturally and easily fall within the
broadness of the natural and ordinary meaning of the word corporation.
I trust you see the
absurdity of the inherent conflict that would arise if, for the
purposes of the Income Tax Act,
Parliament intended for the word includes to be construed as
equivalent to, "plus", rather than equivalent to, "means".
In fact, it would seem that the
inherent conflict created when includes is construed as
equivalent to "plus" would eventually result in Parliament
having to admit it intended for any type of corporation, statutory or
otherwise, to take advantage of the provisions of the Act that were
obviously intended to apply only to incorporated companies, thus
allowing all to defer their taxes and deduct their “personal or living
expenses” as “business” expenses, such as their daily bread and their
family vacations, as they could now be considered “business” expenses.
Imagine if Parliament did in fact intend for the word
"includes"
to be expansive, as would have to be the case if in fact a natural
person was directly included within the Income Tax Act's definition
of the word "person",
it makes you wonder how many cases the
C.R.A., in an attempt to have their
cake and eat it to so to speak,
would attempt to bring before the courts to seek a ruling that
Parliament had intended that the use of the word
“includes”
for the purposes of the Income
Tax Act
was to be “exhaustive”, in particular, as it’s used in the
definition of “corporation”
in subsection 248(1) of the Income
Tax Act.
It would appear
that a reasonable person would not
only have to agree that when they rationally consider even just
these three conflicts that are created if the answer to the one
simple question is anything but…No, they would, again providing they don’t
choose to become willfully blind to protect some vested interest
that is, also have to come to the logical conclusion that had
Parliament intended to directly include a natural
person acting in their own capacity for their own benefit, within
the definition of the word “person” within subsection 248(1) of the
Income Tax Act, it would have done so with the use of clear and
unequivocal language as it did in the Excise Tax Act and several
other federal statutes in respect of the general principle of
language application to the construction of written instruments, as
well as in respect of the principles of fundamental law as summarily
expressed in the Canadian Bill of Rights and in other predominant
legislation, such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Alberta
Bill of Rights to name a few.
|
