Why Income Tax Is Not Contractual

Stopping Joint Tax Liability for a Federal Spouse
October 27, 2018
No Freedom – Canadians Died in Vain?
November 13, 2018
Show all

Why Income Tax Is Not Contractual

 

Income tax is not contractual but an agency/trust relationship.

Income tax is not contractual but an agency/trust relationship. Picture credit: sailingscuttlebutt.com

Summary

Canadian courts state income tax is not contractual. We agree. In fact, income tax is not contractual corroborates our income tax research, “Apu’s Theory”. It concludes it is an agency/trust relationship.

 

Canadian income tax is not contractual, but an agency/trust relationship

_

Background

Many courts state income tax is not contractual[1]. For example, in the Meads v. Meads divorce case, Justice Rooke states an OPCA litigant[2] belief as, ‘everything is a contract[3]. (We urge you read his thorough analysis of what constitutes a contract[4]). However, it seems he has either forgotten his first year of law school, or else is not telling you the full story. We say this because there are in fact four main legal relationships. Contracts are only one of them!

Four Main Legal Relationships

The Law of Trusts says the four main legal relationships are: contract, trust, agency, and debt.

The Law of Trusts says the four main legal relationships are: contract, trust, agency, and debt.

The four main legal relationships are: contract, trust, agency, and debt[5]. Apu’s Theory, our income tax research, concludes Canada’s legal system deems your income as their “public money”[6]. Now everyone knows GST registrants collect and remit GST in trust for Canada. Well, public money is the same type of income as GST. That means handling Canada’s public money forms an agency/trust relationship with Canada – and therefore no contract is needed.

Forming an agency/trust relationship with Canada means no contract is needed

_

Agency/Trust Relationships

Many actions trigger an agency and/or trust relationship. The incomplete list below all establish your type of income as Canada’s public money instead of being your private property:

  1. Filling out any CRA TD1 form
  2. Accepting a T4
  3. Filing a T1 or T2125
  4. Your federal spouse telling CRA[7] you received public money income
  5. Not replying to a CRA income tax or GST assessment

Income Tax is Not Contractual is True!

The courts stating you cannot contract out of income tax is true. That is because you do not contract into it in the first place! After all, if it were contractual, then the government has to give you full disclosure – such as how the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1936 that the federal government has no jurisdiction over “ordinary employment contracts.”[8]

Conclusion

Picture credit: http://bit.ly2ewSz0V

Meads v. Mead’s Judge Rooke. Picture credit: http://bit.ly2ewSz0V

Ironically, the courts stating income tax is not contractual corroborates Apu’s Theory. Therefore, Associate Chief Justice Rooke has either forgotten his first year of law school, or else is deliberately not telling you the full story. Either option is equally disturbing and is yet another sign of institutional fraud. In conclusion, it seems Meads is not the authoritative reference that Canada portrays it to be.

 

Ironically, the courts stating income tax is not contractual corroborates Apu’s Theory

_

  1. For example, Russell v. Canada, 2016 TCC 122 (CanLII), paragraph 22: “A taxpayer cannot elect to contract out of the application of the Income Tax Act.” http://canlii.ca/t/grswk#par22
  2. OPCA litigant” = Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants
  3. From Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, paragraph 554: http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq
  4. See Meads, paragraphs 458 to 472: http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq
  5. From The Law of Trusts, by Ontario judge Eileen Gillese: https://www.irwinlaw.com/authors/eileen-e-gillese-0
  6. “Public money” as defined by Canada’s Financial Administration Act: http://canlii.ca/t/53g8x
  7. On a T1, page 1, under “Information about your spouse or common-law partner”, it says, “Enter his or her net income …”.
  8. Reference re legislative jurisdiction of Parliament of Canada to enact the Employment and Social Insurance Act (1935, c. 48), [1936] SCR 427, at page 428: http://canlii.ca/t/fslwj

 

Share this info!

Apu
Apu