Crown prerogative is the Crown’s residual power. One is the power to create offices, such as the Income Tax Act (“ITA”) “office”. But that is only the first of two steps. The second step requires you consenting to being an ITA “officer”, by acting like one. One way is handling income as if it is Canada’s public money. This could be why income tax in not a contract. All this fits with our Canadian income tax research, “Apu’s Theory”.
This article is excerpted from our latest research, aka Apu’s Theory, Part 3. Download it from the link in last week’s article.
Some think Canada’s Government has only three branches: Legislative (Parliament), Executive (Senate), and Judiciary (courts). However, an Ontario case says, “The constitutional scheme of our democratic government consists of four branches: the Crown, the legislative body, the executive and the courts.”
Canada’s fourth branch of government is the Crown, with its Crown prerogative.
One Crown prerogative is the power to create offices and corporations. This is from Canadian judge Albert Constantineau’s Doctrine in its Relation to Public Officers and Public Corporations (“Doctrine”), which says:
In England, the Crown is the fountain of all offices, whether the same be directly created by it by virtue of its prerogative, or indirectly so, with the advice and consent of Parliament.
Page 29 of Doctrine says:
§ 20 As in England the fountain of all Canadian office is theoretically in the Crown… all Canadian offices are of statutory or constitutional creation, though there are very few of the latter kind.
Therefore, if Apu’s Theory is correct, Canadian individual income tax is indirectly from Crown prerogative, through Canada’s Parliament enacting a statutory tax for using ITA “offices” for receiving benefits from public money.
However, corporations and offices cannot exist unless someone also acts as its officer. Therefore, this Crown prerogative can fulfill only the first half of creating offices.
The Crown is the fountain of all Canadian offices
Nor can any King create any new offices with new fees annexed to them, or annex new fees to old offices, for this would be a tax upon the subject, which can only be imposed by an Act of Parliament.
Chitty says offices can have fees “annexed” (attached) for using them. He also says any fees attached to offices “would be a tax.” Hey, both statements fit Apu’s Theory!
§163. At common law an office is regarded as a burden….
Since offices are a burden, your must consent. Consent fulfills the second half of creating offices.
At common law an office is regarded as a burden
Crown prerogative allows an ITA “office” to come into existence if you also act as that office’s officer, such as handling income as if it is public money. (Of course, benefits such as CPP, EI, and GST are public money). Page 515 of Doctrine agrees with Apu’s Theory on this:
§ 374 “It is a general presumption of law that a person acting in a public capacity is duly authorized so to do.”
That could be why Canada does not need a contract with you to assess income tax.
Creating offices takes two steps. Crown prerogative allows Canada to set up the first step. The second step needs you consenting to acting as the officer. This is because offices are a burden. In addition, there often is a fee (such as income tax) attached for using them. All this fits with Apu’s Theory.
This is from our latest research paper, Apu’s Theory, Part 3. Download FREE the first 10 of 48 pages from the link here.
It is a general presumption of law that a person acting in a public capacity is duly authorized so to do so
Share this info!