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
Many courts state income tax is not contractual. For example, in the Meads v. Meads divorce case, Justice Rooke states an OPCA litigant belief as, ‘everything is a contract’. (We urge you read his thorough analysis of what constitutes a contract). 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!
The four main legal relationships are: contract, trust, agency, and debt. Apu’s Theory, our income tax research, concludes Canada’s legal system deems your income as their “public money”. 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
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:
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.”
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