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!)
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
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.
These Educators failed to rebut CRA deeming their money as Canada’s “public money”.
Accepting expense deductions against income converts it into taxable income
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 states that if one has no income source, then taxable income is zero. This case law is at paragraphs 147-148.
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.
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.
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.