Filling out CRA’s TD1 form also means consenting to your income no longer belonging to you. A completed and certified TD1 means converting your former private property into public money belonging to Canada. That could be why employees and employers cannot be penalized with a mandatory fine if employees wish to keep their income status as private property and so do not fill out a TD1.
Apu’s Theory concludes Canada’s Income Tax Act (“ITA”) deems your income is converted into Canada’s “public money” as defined by the Financial Administration Act (“FAA”). This then becomes an agreed fact if this deeming is not rebutted with your contrary declaration.
CRA’s website publishes their TD1 forms. Workers are brainwashed to filling out the TD1. Employers are also brainwashed into getting employees to filling out the TD1. However, it seems Canada’s ITA definition of “employer” has two meanings. If so, then is completing the TD1 the right choice for both “employers” defined by the ITA?
Prior to 1952 the ITA did not define “employer”. It meant its natural and ordinary meaning: someone hiring an individual.
The May 14, 1953 amendments to the ITA added a definition for “employer”:
“employer”, in relation to an officer, means the person from whom the officer receives the officer’s remuneration.
This means since 1952 the ITA definition of “employer” has two meanings:
1) someone who hires an individual (i.e. no “relation to an officer”)
2) someone who hires an individual holding an ITA “office” (has “relation to an officer”)
This is covered in more detail in Apu’s Theory, Chapter 12.
In a similar fashion, the ITA defines “employee” as:
248(1) employee includes officer
This definition was also added to the ITA in 1953 along with the new definition for “employer”.
Canada’s Department of Justice guidebook on statutory interpretations defines “includes” as having a natural and ordinary meaning plus a meaning that it normally does not have. Therefore, the federal Department of Justice recognizes an ITA “employee” as:
1) an individual with no “relation to an officer”, or
2) an individual holding a CPP/ITA “office” (i.e. has a “relation to an officer”)
This mirrors the two meanings for an ITA “employer”.
Canada’s Consolidated Revenue Fund (“CRF”) pays all benefits listed on CRA’s TD1 form. The FAA defines the CRF as “public money” belonging to Canada. When you fill out a TD1, you are requesting benefits from Canada’s “public money”. Accessing “public money” is through holding an “office” of Her Majesty (Canada) as such office income is “public money”. This fits with both the Canada Pension Plan (“CPP”) and the ITA defining someone holding an office as an officer. This also fits with everyone certifying a TD1 also having deducted from their pay CPP (and income tax).
Apu’s Theory concludes the SIN used as a “social insurance number” identifies the CPP/ITA “office” handling Canada’s “public money” for the CRF. This fits with CRA using the SIN on their TD1 form as a “social insurance number” and not as the “Social Insurance Number” that you applied for.
Since an ITA “employer” may hire an individual who may not wish to have a “relation to an officer”, and filling out a TD1 means agreeing to hold that “office” of Her Majesty dealing with benefits paid from “public money”, that could be why there cannot be a law requiring such an individual to fill out a TD1.
It may also be why the ITA does not mandate fining employees who do not fill out a TD1. Canada’s Interpretation Act, Section 11, says
11. The expression “shall” is to be construed as imperative and the expression “may” as permissive.
Employees who do not fill out new (TD1) forms may be penalized $25 for each day the form is late.
The ITA says that employees “may be penalized”. It does not say shall. Of course, if the employee wishes not to have a “relation to an officer” and therefore does not fill out a TD1 which would then contravene his or her wish. A mandatory penalty contravenes Canadians’ right to liberty (freewill ) under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
CRA’s website also asks employers to get their employees’ SIN as a “social insurance numbers” (and not their SIN as a Social Insurance Number) which we believe identifies the CPP/ITA “office” that deals with “public money” from and to the CRF. Note that the penalty is also optional:
If you do not make a reasonable effort to get your employee’s SIN, you may have to pay a penalty of $100 for each number you don’t try to get.
Again, the optional penalty is not strange if the employee wishes not to have a “relation to an officer” and therefore does not fill out a TD1 which would contravene his or her wish. Of course, the employer has no right to force such an employee to have a “relation to an officer”.
Certifying a TD1 is a legal declaration for converting your former private property income into “public money” belonging to Canada. Next week, we look at declaring your income as your private property with our Income Status Declaration form, or ISD1 form.
This is a Cornerstone Article. Find the others by clicking on it within “Tags” near the top right hand corner of this article.