Obfuscating Canadian tax laws impedes you from claiming your income as your private property. The movie “Arrival” illustrates how they do this. “Arrival” talks about the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. It proposes the language you use determines how you think and see the world around you. Canada’s government obfuscates tax laws in writing and through speech. For writing, there are no legal definitions for “income”, “resident”, and “social insurance number”. As for speaking, both the SIN and your name have two legal meanings. However, they sound the same.
The movie is about linguistics professor Louise Banks, played by Amy Adams. She communicates with the extra-terrestrials (ETs) who hover twelve spaceships around Earth. Naturally, governments want to know their purpose. Are they friendly or hostile? Since the ETs have no mouths, they can communicate only in writing. Their writing resemble circular Rorschach ink blots.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis proposes immersing yourself in a language means you can then re-wire your brain1. You start thinking in that language. You might even start dreaming (as Louise did) in that language. In short, Sapir-Whorf proposes the language you speak determines how you think and see the world around you.
The ETs’ written language is precise. However, some on Earth receiving their communications misinterpret it. In “Arrival”, the ETs use a word the Chinese interpret as “weapon”. In contrast, Louise believes it means “tool”. Earth’s fate hinges on which is correct.
English is an imprecise language. Law must be precise. In addition, it is a well-established legal rule that one writes income tax laws in clear, unmistakable language. This most quoted statement by a Canadian court says:
“It is not enough to attain a degree of precision which a person reading in good faith can understand, but it is necessary to attain, if possible, a degree of precision which a person reading in bad faith cannot misunderstand. It is all the better if he cannot pretend to misunderstand it.”
Therefore, it is illogical the Government does not have definitions for “income”, “resident”3, and the SIN used as a “social insurance number”4. Even tax professionals do not understand Canada’s tax laws. Lyman MacInnis, former President of the Institute of Charted Accountants of Ontario5, says in his talk to the Empire Club of Canada:
“The Canadian Income Tax Act is an unmitigated mess! The reason I say that is because it is incomprehensible! It may come as a surprise to some of you that even though it’s the Income Tax Act we’re dealing with here, nowhere in it is “income” defined.”
Apu’s Theory concludes the SIN has two legal meanings. As a Social Insurance Number, it means you agree to being liable for Canada’s “public money”. As a “social insurance number”, it identifies you holding the Income Tax Act / Canada Pension Plan “office”. But why does the Government still keep tax professionals in the dark?
For the Government, it is not enough to obfuscate writing. They also obfuscate speaking about tax law.
When Crown says to you “SIN”, do they mean Social Insurance Number, or do they mean the undefined “social insurance number”?
When Crown says to you what sounds like “Jane Doe” (insert you own name), do they mean “Jane Doe”, a private person, or did they mean “JANE DOE”, which Apu’s Theory concludes is you representing a CPP/ITA “officer”?
Canadian courts agree legal language must be precise. Canada’s Government has deliberately obfuscated tax law in writing and through speech. This impedes you from claiming your income as your private property. Your silence is consent. This converts your paycheque into “public money” belonging to Canada instead of belonging to you.