Crown Prerogative Creates Canada Income Tax Offices

Apus Theory Part 3 Released – FREE Partial Download
July 17, 2018
Pay It Forward is an Illegal Pyramid
July 29, 2018
Show all

Crown Prerogative Creates Canada Income Tax Offices

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 is you consenting to being an ITA “officer”, by acting like one.

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 is you consenting to being an ITA “officer”, by acting like one. Image: http://www.parliament.uk

Crown Prerogative in Canada: Summary

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[1] 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.

Crown Prerogative in Canada: Background

Apu’s Theory is on how Canada’s individual income tax really works. This new Part 3 concludes Crown prerogative, public policy, and income tax law history all support it. Part 3 cites 70 court cases and 10 law books. Some date from 1675. Most are on officers and public money. In summary, Part 3 further supports our position Apu’s Theory is correct.

Some think Canada’s Government[2] 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.”[3]

 

Canada’s fourth branch of government is the Crown, with its Crown prerogative.

 

Crown Prerogative: First Half of Creating Offices

Judge Albert Constantineau Validates Apus Theory

Judge Albert Constantineau’s book is on offices and officers. (Ancestry.com)

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[4] (“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.[5]

Crown Prerogative in Canada: First Half of Creating Canadian Offices

Her Majesty in Right of Canada exercises Crown Prerogative.

Her Majesty in Right of Canada exercises Crown prerogative.

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[6]. Therefore, this Crown prerogative can fulfill only the first half of creating offices.

 

The Crown is the fountain of all Canadian offices

 

Your Consent: Second Half of Creating Offices

Crown prerogative was the subject of a book by Joseph Chitty. Image from National Portrait Gallery: www.npg.co.uk

Crown prerogative was the subject of a book by Joseph Chitty. Image: UK’s National Portrait Gallery: npg.co.uk

Joseph Chitty says in his book from 1820,[7]

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.[8]

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!

Your Consent Needed Since Offices Are a Burden

Doctrine, page 223, agrees with Apu’s Theory that offices are a burden[9]:

§163. At common law an office is regarded as a burden[10]….

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

 

You Consent By Acting as an Officer

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[11]:

§ 374 “It is a general presumption of law that a person acting in a public capacity is duly authorized so to do.”[12]

That could be why Canada does not need a contract with you to assess income tax.

Conclusion

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

 

  1. Canada’s Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1, 5th Supp. does not define “income”.
  2. Introduction and The Law of the Crown Prerogative, National Defence and the Crown Prerogative, Government of Canada website.
  3. O’Donohue v. Canada, 2003 CanLII 41404 (ON SC), paragraph 14.
  4. Constantineau, A Treatise on the De Facto Doctrine in its Relation to Public Officers and Public Corporations (1910), at § 18, page 27.
  5. Darley vs. The Queen (1845), 12 CI. & Finn. 520.
  6. Officers are also called corporations sole. See Apu’s Theory, Part 1, Chapters 7-8, 23.
  7. Chitty, A Treatise on the Law of the Prerogatives of the Crown, and the Relative Duties and Rights of the Subject, 1820, page 81.
  8. 2 Inst. 553. 34 Ed. 1 .st. 4. c. 1; 1 Bla. Com. 272. See the statute 22 Geo. 3. c. 82. s.2.
  9. See Apu’s Theory, Part 1, Chapter 33: Fiduciary Duty to Report All Income
  10. R. vs Lane (1710), 2 Ld. Ray. 1304; E. vs Jones (1741), 2 Stra. 1146.
  11. See Apu’s Theory, Part 1, Chapter 10: Creating Her Majesty’s Office
  12. R. vs. Verelst, (1813), 3 Camp. 432,14 R.R. 775

 

Share this info!

Apu
Apu

3 Comments

  1. […] income tax seems to really work. It concludes only Income Tax Act (“ITA“) “officers” can apply tax-deductible receipts against taxable income. Being artificial persons in law, […]

  2. […] officer is a legal person in law. From Sir Edward Coke above, another legal definition is “corporation […]

  3. […] in check and for controlling inflation. And there are lots of taxpayers working in Canada (and so have to pay income tax) to take care of […]

Leave a Reply