Debbie Anderson No Income Source As Tax Evasion Defence

Public Harm Fix: Bill Mori Uses Apu’s Theory in Tax Court
August 7, 2017
Private Persons Income in Canada Income Tax Act
August 14, 2017
Show all

Debbie Anderson No Income Source As Tax Evasion Defence

 

Debbie Anderson was charged with tax evasion. Her tax evasion defence analyzes what “income source” means. That term is undefined since “income” and “source” are undefined. Debbie Anderson had no income source. That means her taxable income is zero.

Debbie Anderson was charged with tax evasion. Her tax evasion defence analyzes what income source means. That term is undefined since “income” and “source” are undefined. Debbie Anderson had no income source. That is why the law deems her taxable income as zero.

Summary – Debbie Anderson Tax Evasion Defence

Debbie Anderson was charged with tax evasion. Her tax evasion defence analyzes what “income source” means. That term is undefined as “income” and “source” are undefined. Debbie Anderson had no income source. That means her taxable income is zero. However, they do not teach professionals this. Writing the tax evasion defence took over 400 hours. Download a free copy below (but heed the Caution!)

Background

Debbie Anderson was a Human Rights Educator with Paradigm Education Group (“PEG”), aka Russ Porisky. CRA did not like PEG teaching Canadians about their private property rights, or the PEG Contract for Hire which self-assesses the type of income as private property. This is because the law deems your income as Canada’s “public money”.

CRA did not like Paradigm teaching Canadians about their private property rights

Paradigm Education Group Educators Had Income Source

The decision for Debbie Anderson is on November 3, 2017. Besides her, so far every PEG Human Rights Educator is guilty of tax evasion. This includes Russ Porisky, Keith Lawson, and Michael Millar. The Department of Finance’s Income Tax Act obfuscation produced tax offences.

Why Guilty

These Educators failed to rebut CRA deeming their money as Canada’s “public money”.

  1. One way is by accepting benefits, such as business expenses, as deductions. Porisky accepted this in his trial (tax evasion defence of Debbie Anderson, paragraphs 206-207). Calculating net income from such deductions results in taxable income (unless exempted by law). However, Debbie Anderson declined all benefits (paragraph 184 – 205).
  2. A second way is not rebutting the deeming of books and records as being for Canada’s “public money”. In contrast, Debbie Anderson claimed hers as records of private property (paragraphs 82 – 86).
  3. A third way is many never entered evidence on the witness stand. Debbie Anderson did.
  4. A fourth way is being wilfully blind. Therefore, the guilty verdicts are correct. It also fits Apu’s Theory.
  5. Finally, this article explains how entrapment produces income tax offences.

Accepting expense deductions against income converts it into taxable income

Income Source Means Type of Income is Public Money

For Canadian income tax, “income source” means the type of income is Canada’s “public money”. It is no longer your private property. It is taxable income. Analyzing the law, and deducing this, is at paragraphs 120-139 in the tax evasion defence of Debbie Anderson.

“Income source” means it is Canada’s “public money” and no longer your private property

Case Law on No Income Source

Case law states that if one has no income source, then taxable income is zero. This case law is at paragraphs 147-148.

Debbie Anderson – Tax Evasion Defence Not Only Income Source

No income source is only one tax evasion defence by Debbie Anderson. There is more in the tax evasion defence, such as why there is no fraud counselling. We will analyze them at another time.

Slide credit: http://www.edelman.com/trust2017/trust-in-canada/

Slide credit: http://www.edelman.com/trust2017/trust-in-canada/

Caution on Debbie Anderson Tax Evasion Defence

We discussed earlier the Tax Court of Canada deliberately misquoting a taxpayer to rule in favour of CRA. In addition, we discussed Canada lacking rule of law. Here, CRA changed her T1 filings and never told her (paragraph 40, 265-279). The CRA Investigator then swore an affidavit that Debbie Anderson reported her income as the changed amounts (paragraph 39, 299). The CRA Investigator also admitted she never received any training on human rights, or know the definition of income, residence, or profit (paragraph 310). But we are supposed to know the law and obey it!

As there is no rule of law, even a 100% correct position (which Apu’s Theory definitely is not) does not guarantee you winning. That is why Debbie Anderson is putting her tax evasion defence into the court of public opinion. It for entertainment purposes only.

CRA changed her T1 filings. They never told her. On top of that, the CRA Investigator lied on her affidavit.

Apu’s Theory is available as an 82-page essay, as a 460-slide presentation, and as a Tax Court (civil) legal argument. It is now available as a criminal tax evasion defence. Click here to download the 80-page PDF file.

Update

Debbie Anderson was found guilty on November 3, 2017. Among many things, the judge ignored Supreme Court of Canada case law, and that the CRA Investigator lied on her affidavit. In short, we believe the judge’s inane reasons shows how corrupt the legal system is. An analysis is forthcoming.

Share this info!

Apu
Apu

4 Comments

  1. […] of tax offences using words with no legal definition, such as “income” and “source“. But using those words in their natural and ordinary meaning violates your inalienable […]

  2. […] like losing. They do everything they can to continue financially raping people. Debbie Anderson argued that she did not have a source of income. No source of income means no income tax due. That argument is unprecedented because Canada’s […]

  3. […] Brown ignored Anderson’s sworn, uncontested facts. Instead, he accepted CRA’s false facts in order to find her guilty. Therefore, Judge Brown […]

  4. […] private property and not as Canada’s federal property, or “public money”. That is why she filed $0 on federal T1 returns. However, CRA amended them to $1. The change is significant since Apu’s Theory shows why a $1 […]

Leave a Reply