A privilege access fee for accessing Canada Pension Plan and income tax related benefits from an office is what Canada’s income tax seems to be. Offices have certain privileges, powers, and duties. (If they did not, then there is no point in holding any office1). Income tax cannot be a long term direct tax on your private property because Canada’s common law heritage2 prohibits private property theft. That is why theft (including conversion) is a Criminal Code s.322(1) offence. The authority to charge a privilege access fee for accessing privileges from Canada’s “public money” (CPP, tax deductions) is in the Financial Administration Act (“FAA”), which regulates Canada’s “public money”. Income tax, which is payable to the Receiver General, is also “public money“. Therefore, it seems anyone consenting to privileges from “public money”, such as CPP and/or tax deductions, must pay this privilege access fee, aka income tax.
Canada introduced the Income War Tax Act in 1917 during the First World War. The timing is because one of the few exceptions allowed under common law for directly taxing private property is during wartime3. That is why Finance Minister Sir Thomas White had to promise it was a temporary tax until the war was paid off.
In 1926 Canada’s Standing Committee on Finance were told the war was paid off4. This is why they had to introduce a new Income Tax Act (“ITA“) in 1927. Since it is illegal to directly tax your private property if not at war, the new ITA had to be an indirect tax. That could be why the 1927 ITA was on a “householder” and so was no longer a direct tax. Remember how you were taught in high school income tax was temporary? The Government did not lie to you. That is because the 1917 Income War Tax Act (direct tax on your private property) is legally different from the 1927 Income Tax Act (indirect tax on a federal artificial person, a “householder“) and also the current Income Tax Act (indirect tax on you holding the CPP/ITA “office”, aka “officer”, another federal artificial person). Sneaky, eh?
In 1948 they again revised the Income Tax Act. Apu’s Theory, Chapter 12, shows the 1953 legislation which introduced the new ITA definitions of “employee” and “employer” being, (in addition to its natural and ordinary meaning), as also possibly someone holding an ITA “office” (Canada Pension Plan (“CPP“), and the CPP “office”, came later in 1964). The CPP/ITA “office” income is “public money”. Perhaps that is why the Canada Revenue Agency Act. s.6(1)d states income tax is an internal tax. Could it be internal only to Canadians holding the CPP/ITA office?
19.1 The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board,
(a) by regulation prescribe the fees or charges to be paid for a right or privilege conferred by or on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada, by means of a licence, permit or other authorization, by the persons or classes of persons on whom the right or privilege is conferred; or
(b) authorize the appropriate Minister to prescribe by order those fees or charges, subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Governor in Council.
A “class of persons on whom the right or privilege is conferred” could be anyone holding the CPP/ITA “office”. Consequently, subsection (b) could authorize the Minister of National Revenue “to prescribe by order those fees”. We think that is the income tax fee schedule.
It is easy to find benefits and privileges of the CPP/ITA “office”. Apu’s Theory concludes the SIN used by CRA as a “social insurance number” (instead of a SIN as a Social Insurance Number) identifies that office or the individual holding that office (aka officer). Since 1991, CRA’s T1 form5 uses the SIN as a “social insurance number” (Apu’s Theory, Chapter 9). Therefore, it seems everything listed on CRA’s T1 forms and schedules are benefits and privileges of that office. Consequently, some of these are:
Accepting any income amount on a T1 which is calculated against any of these benefits and privileges of the CPP/ITA “office” usually results in owing income tax. We discussed earlier our view that is why Russ Porisky and other former Paradigm Education Group private property advocates, such as Keith Lawson and Michael Millar, lost in court. They all accepted income, CPP and various deductions on T1s calculated and proposed as evidence by CRA. We also covered how the Government illegally entrapped them since neither lawyers, professional accountants, or CRA seem to know how income tax really works.
Canadian income tax seems to be a privilege access fee for accessing the CPP/EI/GST/ITA “office”6. This means anyone consenting to CPP, EI, GST credits, and/or tax deductions and credits calculated against income declared on a T1 must pay that privilege access fee known as income tax. Is that why this Government of Canada website and this CRA website push benefits so hard?
Finally, we believe income tax is legal and constitutional because since 1927 it is no longer a direct tax on your private property but a privilege access fee for accessing benefits and privileges from “public money”. This fee is an indirect tax on an artificial person, which is you while holding the CPP/ITA “office” (as a CPP/ITA “officer”). That is why our site is called www.CanadaIncomeTaxIsLegal.
This is a Cornerstone Article. Find the others by clicking on it within “Tags” near the top right hand corner of this article.