Declining Income Sprinkling as Corporation Sole Can Reduce Taxes

Robert Marquis Passes Away – Is Income Tax Unconstitutional?
August 28, 2017
Anonymous Contributors to Apu’s Theory – Why?
September 7, 2017
Show all

Declining Income Sprinkling as Corporation Sole Can Reduce Taxes

Declining income sprinkling can lower your taxes to zero. Instead, you could claim your pay as your private property. The tax laws deems such income to be equal to zero. Taxes then are also zero. This is because you have private property rights. Stealing private property is theft and is a Criminal Code offence.

Declining income sprinkling as a corporation sole, or ITA “officer”, can lower your taxes to zero. Slide: http://www.fin.gc.ca/n17/data/tppc-pfsp-eng.pdf

Summary – Income Sprinkling

Income sprinkling rules for Canada are changing. Those doing income sprinkling (as a corporation sole) will pay more taxes. Complaining about it just lets the Government continue obfuscating the tax laws. This is because declining income sprinkling can lower taxes to zero. Until the Government tells Canadians how the tax laws really work, complaining about the proposed income sprinkling changes is futile and a waste of time. Otherwise, they are just toying with you, like an owner toying a cat with a piece of string.

Background – Income Sprinkling

The Government doesn't really care about your income sprinkling opinions. They are just toying with you.

The Government doesn’t care about your income sprinkling opinions. They are just toying with you, like a cat owner does with their cat. Besides, it’s cuter than any Finance Minister. (No cats were harmed while shooting this picture.)

Finance Minister Bill Morneau proposes amending Canada’s Income Tax Act (“ITA”) on income sprinkling. His proposal is, “Tax Planning Using Private Corporations”. It will increase small business and professional corporation taxes. His excuse? The changes are about “improving fairness in the tax system“. We say bull crap. They just want to collect more tax. Umm, how about wasting less of what you are already collecting?

Improving fairness in the tax system?” We say bull crap

Income Sprinkling with a Corporation Aggregate

Income sprinkling means spreading income from a limited company (a corporation aggregate) among its family members. This results in less overall tax for the family. This is because Canada income tax is progressive. It means paying a higher percentage as income tax when you make more.

Progressive Tax is From Communist Manifesto

Marx and Engel’s Communist Manifesto. It advocates a progressive income tax and also abolishing private property. Picture credit: www.marxists.org (Of course, real communists don’t take credit.)

A progressive income tax is from the Communist Manifesto. So is abolishing private property. However, the Manifesto is not the basis for Canada’s legal system. So how can Canada have a progressive income tax that seems to steal your private property?

Our theory (Apu’s Theory) is income tax isn’t stealing your private property. It just seems it is.

Income tax isn’t stealing your private property. It just seems it is.

Income Tax Act Recognizes Private Property

In 2013 Commonwealth of Nations adopted this flag.

Common law-based countries are the former British Commonwealth. Biblical laws are the basis for common law principles. The Eighth Commandment says, “You shall not steal”. In Canada, theft is a Criminal Code offence. On July 1, 2017 the ITA started recognizing private person property. So how does Her Majesty get around this when levying an income tax through income sprinkling?

On July 1, 2017 the ITA started recognizing private person property

Types of Corporations

In law, legal persons can be human or non-human. Canadian law refers to humans (of legal age and sound mind) as private persons due to bijuralism. Corporations are non-human legal persons, or legal fictions. They can be a corporation aggregate or a corporation sole. Limited companies are the most popular kind of corporation aggregates. The corporation sole is relatively unknown. (A one-person limited company is different from a corporation sole).

Corporation Sole

A corporation sole is an office. An office, and the officer representing it, are conceptually divisible but legally indivisible. Therefore, legally speaking, a corporation sole is also an officer. An officer is a non-human legal person you choose to represent.

An officer is a corporation sole that you choose to represent

Officers surround us: police officers, Chief Executive Officers, and lawyers and judges (court officers). An officer acquires unique powers and duties from that office. Being an officer means acquiring (adding) a legal ‘layer’ of powers and duties.

Corporation Adds Legal ‘Layer’

The Meads versus Meads court case agrees. It says at paragraph 445:

There is only one legal identity that attaches to a person. If a person wishes to add a legal ‘layer’ to themselves, then a corporation is the proper approach … the legal effect of that ‘layer’ is clearly established in common law and statute.” – Judge Rooke, Meads v. Meads

Judge Rooke gave this decision as a judge, as a court officer. Being such an officer gave him the legal power to render a court decision.

Judge Rooke and his Ford Galaxie. Picture credit: http://bit.ly2ewSz0V

Judge Rooke and his Ford Galaxie. Picture credit: http://bit.ly2ewSz0V

Judge Rooke says, “there is only one legal identity that attaches to a person.” This means when you are representing a corporation sole, such as an officer, you are then no longer a private person of full capacity.

Representing Corporations is a Freewill Choice

Written laws, called statutes, is one way to create corporations. The ITA is a federal statute. Canada can amend the laws (i.e. amend the powers and duties) on corporation aggregate and corporation sole at any time. Therefore, the 75 day consultation period is a farce. The Government will just do whatever they want since both types of corporations are their legal creations. However, you can choose whether you want to represent either one.

The 75 day consultation period is a farce

Individual Income Tax is on Corporation Sole

Stealing private property is a Criminal Code offence. That is why the ITA deems you wanting to represent an ITA “office”. Canada’s Financial Administration Act says the income of that office is Canada’s “public money”. (This paper theorizes how CRA identifies the ITA “office”/”officer”).

That office’s income is not your private property as a private person. Income tax then is on Canada’s “public money” that you earn while representing a non-human legal person, an ITA “officer”. (Apu’s Theory concludes income tax could be an “office privilege access fee“.) This allows Canada to legally impose a progressive income tax. Being on a federal officer’s income also makes income tax constitutional. Taxing officers is nothing new. Officers were taxed 3,500 years ago.

Income tax is on Canada’s “public money” you earn as an ITA “officer” (aka a corporation sole)

Corporations and Income Sprinkling

This is not income sprinkling. Donut sprinkles are more exciting, tastier, and has more carbs than income sprinkling. Picture credit: msbakery.com

This is not income sprinkling. Donut sprinkles are more exciting, tastier, and has more carbohydrates than income sprinkling. Mmmm, sprinkles! Picture credit: msbakery.com

Corporation Aggregate

From earlier, income sprinkling occurs when income from a corporation aggregate (limited company) is spread among family members who are consenting to work as non-human legal persons, as federal ITA “officers”, aka corporation soles.

Corporation Sole

Income sprinkling also occurs when the ITA allows income from two “federal spouses” (i.e. ITA “officers’) to be divvied up. One way is through the Canada Child Benefit (“CCB”). Canada pays CCB to the “federal spouse” (yes, recently CRA used this phrase in a proposal) receiving the lowest income as an ITA “officer”.

You get CCB only if you consent to being deemed as a corporation sole, an ITA "officer". It is income sprinkling for individuals.

You get CCB only if you consent to being deemed as a corporation sole, an ITA “officer”. It is income sprinkling for individuals who consent to be ITA “officers”.

Corporations Make Retroactive Legislation Legal

The Government proposes making the changes retroactive to July 15, 2017. However, common law principles do not allow laws being retroactive against private persons. In fact, around 1996, the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants jointly wrote a letter to the Minister of Finance. They were complaining about tax laws being retroactive.

The Canadian Bar Association doesn't know why tax laws can legally be retroactive.

The CBA doesn’t know why tax laws can legally be retroactive.

Apu’s Theory concludes Canada tax law is on corporations aggregate and on corporations sole. Both are non-human legal persons. Therefore, the proposed retroactive changes do not violate common-law principles against retroactive legislation on private persons. This is yet another example why we conclude the Department of Finance refuses teaching even tax professionals how the ITA really works. In short, the Government is toying with you, like an owner toying a cat with a piece of string. That is why alleged tax evaders are often found to be wilfully blind.

The professional accountants also don't know why tax laws can be retroactive.

The professional accountants association also don’t know why tax laws can legally be retroactive.

Conclusion

Instead of income sprinkling, what if those family members claim their pay as their private property? The tax laws then deems such income to be equal to zero. Taxes then are also zero. Is this because stealing a private person’s private property is a Criminal Code offence? Is this why Canada income tax is based on self-assessment, which CRA defines as voluntary compliance? Hmm.

However, this doesn’t mean the Government will let you do it. We gave examples earlier of why there is no rule of law in Canada. That is why we strongly suggest against declaring your paycheque as your private property. Instead, ask the Minister of Finance why they continue obfuscating how the ITA really works, and why they continue refusing to obey the rule of law. They are doing tax cheating. Until Canadians know how the ITA really works, complaining about the proposed income sprinkling changes is futile and a waste of time. Don’t be like a cat!

Canadians continue going to jail because the Department of Finance refuses to reveal how the Income Tax Act really works. There also is no rule of law. Picture credit: CRA

Canadians continue going to jail because the Department of Finance refuses to reveal how the Income Tax Act really works. There also is no rule of law. So who is really doing tax cheating? Picture credit: CRA

#UnfairTaxChanges

Share this info!

Apu
Apu