Marijuana jurisdiction dilemma occurs if crossing, say, B.C. into Washington State. Marijuana is illegal at federal US borders. Admitting to using it can mean a lifetime ban. This article discusses a parallel jurisdiction dilemma between the Provinces and Canada for income tax.
Marijuana is legal in Washington State. It will soon be legal in Canadian provinces. However, it is illegal at federal US borders.
Refusing to answer a US border officer could mean refused entry. But admitting to pot use could mean a lifetime entry ban. House of Commons Public Safety committee recently asked Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale if the government has made a deal with the US to not bar Canadians who admit to smoking pot. That would resolve this jurisdiction dilemma.
The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”), in the recent Comeau “Beer Case” confirms that if there is no overlapping federal jurisdiction, then you must treat provincial jurisdiction with equal prominence. Section 92(13) of the 1867 Constitution Act states the provinces retain exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights inside the provinces. And in 1983 the SCC stated, “income includes property and nothing but property, and therefore is itself property.”
Since the provinces are not under Communism, your income inside provincial jurisdiction starts as your private property.
Your income inside provincial jurisdiction starts as your private property.
Canada’s Income Tax Act (“ITA”) does not specify what a return of income is. It never says it is CRA’s T1, or that it is only a T1. It also does not provide a form for reporting income inside provincial jurisdiction (because that is outside their federal jurisdiction?) Therefore, it seems a T1 is only for reporting income inside federal jurisdiction. Our Apu’s Theory concludes such income is Canada’s “public money”.
Since a T1 reports federal jurisdiction income, it seems correct to file $0 on a T1 for income staying inside provincial jurisdiction and outside federal jurisdiction.
However, such a filing, while theoretically seemingly correct, attracts tax evasion and underreporting charges. Examples are Anderson, Steinkey, Lawson, Millar, Mori and Porisky, all charged with tax offences. This is because Canadian law schools, and law textbooks, do not teach how the ITA really works. That is institutional fraud.
It seems correct to file $0 on a T1 for income staying inside provincial jurisdiction and outside federal jurisdiction.
That is why we created the ISD1 (Income Status Declaration Form One). It is for reporting private property income staying inside provincial jurisdiction and therefore outside federal jurisdiction. Reporting all income, like Russell did, results in not attracting any tax charges.
CRA officers have incentives for meeting and exceeding collection targets. That could be why CRA will reassess (propose) that you convert your provincial jurisdiction income into federal jurisdiction income.
Here is your income tax jurisdiction dilemma. Your income starts inside provincial jurisdiction. CRA then asks you to file (i.e., you’re at the federal border). If you don’t report to CRA all your income, both provincial and federal, or if you report $0 on a T1, CRA then charges you with tax offences. You might say it looks like entrapment.
But if you report your provincial income to CRA (giving them jurisdiction?), they then reassess (propose) it as inside federal jurisdiction. Since Canada no longer obeys the Rule of Law, CRA ignores your refusals to convert your income. No Rule of Law also means the courts then confirms CRA’s reassessment despite your refusals. This is what happened in the Russell case. The court lied to confirm CRA’s reassessment. Their illegal conversion is a Criminal Code offence, under theft. That is also financial rape.
Your income tax jurisdiction dilemma is because Canada no longer respects the Rule of Law.
The marijuana jurisdiction dilemma parallels the income tax jurisdiction dilemma. You’re screwed if you do. You’re screwed if you don’t. The only solution is continuing educating people about Apu’s Theory. After all, a Canadian judge’s 1910 law book seems to validate it.