The government will not go broke if you withdraw your portion of the $160,000,000,000 yearly (as of 1998) contribution that Canadians throw into the pot ? of which over 50% is wasted every year. 27% of this jackpot (or $43,200,000,000 a year) goes to cover just interest payments on the accumulated debt and over 25% goes to politicians pensions, special interest subsidies, patronage, land claims, bigger bureaucracies, duplication of services? need I go on. You realize I am being extraordinarily conservative when I count 50% as the yearly wastage. By some accounts, it is closer to 70%. This is incredibly obscene. You and I have no say in the use of this money. Yet the demand for more of our property (money) keeps growing insatiably.
Most Canadians would have no problem paying taxes if they received equal value for their money. Studies on the efficiency of government services show that the value for each dollar in taxes returns less than 30 cents in service ; and the service received is about half as good as that in the private sector. The truth about how much Canadians are in debt, as I recently found out, shocked me beyond description. The total combined debt in every form, from every level of government in the country, is now over $5,100,000,000,000. That's right, with a "t." That's ten times the per capita debt of U.S. citizens.
I need not go on a tirade here about this hot subject because it either incites an anger that pushes people toward revolution or it makes people run toward the whole hearted defense of the government. Both
irrational and emotional reactions with negative consequences. I must also make clear that my beliefs are based on the golden rule and as an extension, on common-law, our heritage. Everything that is happening
in our country today goes against all beliefs that the majority of the population hold dear. Folks, we cannot afford to be non-committal Canadians anymore.
Let us consider instead, taking another more reasoned, methodical and rational route. Let us find out if it
is possible to actually withdraw ourselves completely out of being subject to the Income Tax Act and not be in an unlawful position by doing so. The answer will amaze you and, I hope, delight you as well. You may find out that you have more power over your financial life than you were ever led to believe by your peers, your government, your teachers, or your parents. Not because you were intentionally misled (except by government) but because they are ignorant of the truth, buried in dusty manuals and statutes in
the basements of libraries and courts.
I must warn you that the material in this book is very strongly opinionated. You may not agree with everything stated. In fact, there is much even I do not agree with in this book. However, all the allegations that may at first sound preposterous are based in fact. And I am a strong believer in the right to freedom of speech. It upsets me greatly to find that, supposedly free, men and women are afraid to speak out against CCRA. Of all the federal bureaucracies, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) maintains the strongest grip of fear on a citizen's need to speak out against their government?s actions. This is only due to intimidation, blackmail and the denial of your rights. I will attempt to give sources and additional information regarding these allegations where possible. Do not let passages you do not agree with prevent you from seeing the "big picture." Government and Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) use obscurity and lack of awareness as their key weapon to control the individual citizen.
I want you to know that I am not recommending a total tax revolt. It may surprise you to know that I do believe in paying some taxes' to a reasonable limit. I am opposed, however, to being dictated how much I have to pay with no true representation by my government. I will not be able to show you how to pay no taxes at all. My job is to show you that you do not have to pay any income taxes. For all those who are uncomfortable with the idea of withdrawing from the highest income tax rates in the western world, let me assure you, you will still be paying taxes, plenty of them, in a hundred
different ways. It's just in most cases, you can feel like you have some choice and control over your tax expenditures.
Here is a short list of where Canadians currently pay taxes:
(We have over 160 overt and hidden taxes and government fees in Canada.)
 |
Federal Income Taxes |
|
Provincial Income Taxes |
|
Municipal Taxes |
|
Goods and Services Taxes |
|
Provincial Sales Taxes |
|
Gasoline Taxes |
|
Cigarette Taxes |
|
Alcohol Taxes |
|
Restaurant Liquor Taxes |
|
Transit Levy Taxes |
|
Medical User ?Fees? Taxes |
|
Probate Taxes |
|
Capital Gains Taxes |
|
Unemployment ?Insurance? Taxes |
|
Canada ?Pension Plan? Taxes |
|
Oil and Tire Disposal Taxes |
|
Property Taxes |
|
Photo Radar Taxes |
|
Municipal Parking Ticket Taxes |
HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS COURSE
Income tax is most likely "legal" (according to interpretation of a statute passed by government) However, it is most likely not lawful, as lawful means intent, or intention of use, as well as what the statute may say, or appear to say.
1. The tax provisions of the BNA Act have nothing to do with the income tax. The Income Tax Act is private legislation for specific persons, with such persons being defined in the Income War Tax Act (1917.)
2. The Federal Government has hypothecated a legal entity (artificial person) called a taxpayer by specific definition in the Income War Tax Act (1917.) It has further hypothecated the existence of the making of a contract based upon the filing of an income tax return by a natural person, thus supposedly making the filer this legal entity called a taxpayer.
3. The basic and only tool the Federal Government has in law for these hypothecation's is presumption, an anciently established common law tenet to establish debt or duty where no formal contract exists. The remedy against presumption is timely negation.
4. A "taxpayer" entity is equal to "slave" status and owns nothing, including his/her labour and skills.
5. To retrieve oneself from this hypothecated "slave" position and to return to "natural person" status requires a correct and specific use of the "trespass warning."
6. Specific remedies are required to counteract potential Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA)'s actions against you, as well as other person's unlawful actions against you, in the procurement of income tax.
7. A grounding in common law and an understanding of your status under common law is presented as a very necessary "rock" upon which to stand and to face the actions of our "pirate" government in Canada.
**Before we continue! BEWARE**
There are dangerously ineffective so-called detax programs being taught through seminars and videotapes. Whether these are Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) sponsored programs, or the work of naive individuals who have recognized a need by the Canadian people which can be exploited, is open to speculation.
The test: In their program !
1. Do you remain in the "system"? That is, are you still required to keep records, file income tax returns and negotiate in any way with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA)?
2. Are you still a feudal serf - a "taxpayer"?
3. Are you left behind still under the authority of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA)?
4. Are you told that income tax is voluntary because of the "voluntary compliance" clause?
5. Are you left in a "confrontational" position to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA), rather than being left in a "withdrawal" position from the entire income tax system?
6. Are you taught about the constitutionality of the federal governments right to collect taxes?
If "yes" to any of the above, BEWARE, it is not really a "detax" or "untax" system. Ask anyone who has been to court for "failure to file" or for "tax evasion" if income tax is "voluntary."
Many people in the USA got trapped by IRS sponsored "sting operations" in the 1970's (which were run by either IRS accomplices or naive entrepreneurs) by declaring themselves in rebellion against the income tax. Their presence and participation in these programs made those people with such attitudes known. They were declared ?Illegal Tax Protesters? (ITP's), which is equivalent to ?mutineer? under Admiralty Law. Admiralty is the form of law under which the Canadian income tax is administered. Rather than have a bull's-eye placed upon your back, why not run up a flag that has a picture of a rattlesnake upon it
and the inscription "Don't tread on me!"
NOW, TO CONTINUE WITH THE PROGRAM WHICH WORKS...
LESSON #1
There is NO law in Canada requiring a Canadian Citizen to file a personal income tax return or pay a personal income tax.
Let's go back a few years. Do you remember being a young person just beginning to move into adulthood and being excited about starting your first after school job. You were full of enthusiasm and optimism! You made it through the job interview and started your new job. Your parents simply told you to work hard and be at your job on time. That's where it ended with the advice. It seemed enough for you at such a young age. It was tough enough just keeping yourself to a disciplined schedule while your friends were out cruising or doing other fun things. Your new boss was very nice and very helpful to you the day you started. You were ushered into his office and told what was expected of you, how long your training would last and so forth. There were also these forms that you were "required" to fill out as an employee. Your boss helped you get through all of them because they seemed so overwhelming. You were told to fill out a TD-1 for taxes and then you would get to file your first tax return the following April, just like a grown-up. You were now a "taxpayer," just like your parents. Oh, how important that made you feel, how grown-up. The following April, you asked your mother for help in filling out one of these complicated T-1 tax forms and you were told if you did so, you could expect a check back from the government in a few weeks. Wow, more money! When was all this generosity going to stop? Looking back on those times today, what happened? You were kept in the dark, weren't you? Were you told the following at any time in your life?
The act of filing an income tax return (T-1 Form) and paying income tax places one under assumpsit contract with the Minister of National Revenue (and thus, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA).
The terms of the contract are the Income Tax Act and Income Tax Regulations. Your status becomes a legal entity called a "Taxpayer" - a form of feudal serf (or slave.)
Assumpsit (root word - assume) comes from old English law - an actual or implied contract not under seal. Or in modern terms, not witnessed.
"Entity" or "legal entity" in law is an "artificial" or "fictitious" person created by privilege arising from the Government, thus making the Government its creator and owner.
You will learn more about artificial and natural persons later in this book. Some of the information in this book will be hard to understand at first reading. I would strongly recommend you read through these passages at least 4 times over a couple of weeks if you want to really understand them fully. Let's continue now.
"Taxpayer"
The Income War Tax Act (1917) definition of "taxpayer:" 2. (f) "Taxpayer" means any person paying, liable to pay, or believed by the Minister to be liable to pay, any tax imposed by this Act;
You became a "taxpayer," a fictitious person or legal entity, by filing an income tax T-1 form.
Becoming a "taxpayer" is similar to that of being in the Army. Once you sign on the dotted line to join the army, you lose all rights. You are placed under Admiralty Law (law related to the military or international contracts.) Court cases involving the income tax are "cases in contract" under administrative procedure. Laws and Rights have no bearing in such cases. Legislation, effective in 1997, supposedly requires reporting foreign investments and trusts to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA). Taxpayers must continue to submit to these new amendments to the rules and regulations. Definitions within the legislation preclude natural persons of commoner status.
The following are quotes from that legislation:
Quote: A "reporting entity" is defined to be a specified Canadian entity (i.e., a taxpayer resident in Canada other than a mutual fund trust, non-resident owned investment corporation, exempt corporation or trust, or a partnership of which Canadian residents own more than 10%). End quote
Quote: Reporting Entity For the purposes of the foreign affiliate rule, a "reporting entity" is defined to be a taxpayer resident in Canada - - etc., etc.). End quote.
Remember, in law, unless otherwise specified, an "entity" is a fictitious or artificial person.
In 1677, the Statute of Frauds was enacted in England by Queen Elizabeth I, primarily for the purpose of putting a stop to the abusive use of assumpsit contract. That statute required that all, except very minor contracts, be in writing and signed. A large class of contracts, such as wills, deeds, etc. had to be written, signed, sealed, witnessed, and acknowledged (delivered.) One would expect that the converting of a natural person" into a "legal entity" easily falls into the latter category. There is no reason why we Canadians cannot use that statute for our protection. It falls within a clear interpretation of the common law in the protection of rights, especially since the conversion of a natural person into a legal entity called a "taxpayer" outlaws that natural person in violation of article 39 of the Magna Carta.
(Please note that it has come to my attention that the province of Manitoba recently chose to abolish the Statute of Frauds within their laws. They used the word "abolish" The people of Manitoba were not consulted or asked if they would like to "abolish" or maintain this anciently respected Statute that is still in force in the rest of Canada. Welcome to the country of freedom and respect for laws. Since Manitoshan's do not have any understanding of the importance of this statute, it would make no difference to any citizen if it was quietly "abolished." Alex)
Regarding the belief that income tax is "voluntary" - becoming a "taxpayer" is voluntary.
If you are NOT a "taxpayer," any compliance with the Income Tax Act of Canada is voluntary.
However, as a "taxpayer," compliance is mandatory.
Of course, any voluntary compliance with the Income Tax Act implies that you are a "taxpayer."
Isn't this fun?
There are three major clues in the Income War Tax Act (1917) which preclude the act from applying to
Canadian citizens (especially in the Provinces) as a "public" or general set of laws and regulations requiring mandatory compliance by everyone.
Income War Tax Act, 1917 definition of "person" 2. (d) "Person" means an individual or person and any syndicate, trust, association or other body and any body corporate, and their heirs, executors, administrators, curators and assigns or other legal representatives of such person, according to the law of that part of Canada to which the context extends; Section 248, Current Income Tax Act of Canada N.B.: Sub-notes state: Derived from the Income War Tax Act (1917).
Therefore, this is an addendum to the Income War Tax Act definition. "Person," or any word or expression descriptive of a person, INCLUDES any body corporate and politic, and their heirs, executors, administrators or other legal representatives of such person, according to the law of that part of Canada to which the context extends;
1. In defining "person," other acts and statutes clearly include "Natural Person" in their definition when a natural human being is subject to that act. The Income Tax Act does not. In statutory law, the term "person" usually means, and in most cases can only mean a corporate or fictitious entity. "Individual" and "person" used in the definition could possibly mean "natural person" - if the context would allow it, but read on...
2. The expression in the definition of "person:" ?to that part of Canada to which the context extends? would indicate that there is some part of Canada to which the context does not extend. Could that be the Provinces? They had the exclusive right to direct taxation according to Section 92(2) of the BNA Act in 1917, when the Income War Tax Act was passed. Section 91 three times forbids access to the Federal Government of exclusive authorities granted to the Provinces. The fact that the Federal Government was not allowed to impose direct taxes was clearly addressed in the ivy Council's decision of 1887 - Lambe vs. The Toronto Bank. Section 94 requires Provincial legislatures to pass Federal legislation dealing with "common good" property and civil rights issues.
Remember that the original Income Tax Act was put into effect in 1919, during the time when the BNA Act was in effect. Therefore, if the Federal Government is, and was in 1917, at least somewhat law abiding, the income tax was/is not imposed as a "public," or generally applicable law and therefore must be "private" or specific law for some group, company or person.
3. The limiting of appeals to the Exchequer Court (subsequently "Tax Court" and now "Federal Court") would be a direct violation of an ancient right of "a man's right to his court" if Natural Persons were subject to the Income Tax Act (Section 17, Income War Tax Act).
I have had reports recently that some versions of the Income Tax Act (All versions are by private publishers - it is not a Government publication) have in the notes that ?natural person? is construed to be in the Income Tax Act definition of "person." To not get tricked by this, you need to know that the only portion of any statute that is enacted into law is the main body.
Notes are not part of enacted law.
WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT?
If you feel that you were fraudulently tricked or coerced into becoming a legal entity called a "taxpayer," you can void the supposed contract by constructive notice to the Minister of National Revenue in Ottawa.
You must send it in a manner that verifies it was received by the office of the minister with delivery verification (signature from person accepting the letter.) Keep copies of everything.
If you do use the post office, keep your registered mail receipt. On that receipt is a toll-free number. After 5 working days of sending your notice, call that number and request a hard copy of the receiving signature at the other end. There is a $5 charge for this. It costs around $4.75 to send a registered letter to Ottawa.
A constructive notice is a form of trespass warning. It is your refutation to the Federal Government showing that no lawful contract does in fact exist, or has ever existed. However, should the Crown bring a charge against you at a future date (only an extremely rare possibility) based upon their assumption that here was in fact a contract, your constructive notice becomes your defense of 'fraud committed by the Crown? for which they have been served notice. They have only one trick in their bag - the
"assumpsit contract" or "Presumption." And they use this extensively in their income tax administration tactics.
This is not an income tax issue, but a contract issue.
Assumpsit is an instrument within the broader concept of "PRESUMPTION." This is an accepted method of establishing responsibility for a debt or duty within the Common Law. Presumption is obviously very misused and maliciously used by the bodies politic, while it is very misunderstood by or absent from the knowledge of the average Joe on the street.
If you have already quit filing or if you intend to do so, YOU MUST VOID THE SUPPOSED CONTRACT THAT MADE YOU A TAXPAYER or you will, or could be subject to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) action against you. You must also be aware and ready to counteract all administrative and legal tricks that Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) may try and use to bring you "back into the fold." I will show you how to VOID any correspondence a little further down.
Getting out from under the income tax scam in this manner is not an act of tax evasion or tax avoidance. You simply are no longer subject to the tax.
As each supposed contract is a result of the individual act of filing an income tax return, the undoing has to be an individual act, so don't expect some court precedent to alleviate you of the income tax burden.