A Privilege Access Fee – Is That Income Tax?

Paradigm Students Avoid Jail Using Apu’s Theory
January 29, 2017
Deem – How Canada’s Laws Presume You Guilty
February 11, 2017
Show all

A Privilege Access Fee – Is That Income Tax?

A privilege access fee related to the Canada Pension Plan / Income Tax Act office is what Canada's income tax seems to be.

A privilege access fee for accessing Canada Pension Plan and income tax related benefits is what Canada’s income tax seems to be. Cartoon copyright “Baloo” aka Rex May www.CanadaIncomeTaxIsLegal.is

Summary

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.

History

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.

First World War Paid Off in 1926

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?

ITA “Officer” Linked to ITA “Employer” and “Employee” in 1952

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?

Statutory Authority

Section 19.1 of the Financial Administration Act says,

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.

Privileges of the CPP/ITA Office

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:

  • Certain credits for spouses
  • Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB)
  • Canada Pension Plan (CPP)
  • Old Age Security (OAS)
  • Employment Insurance (EI)
  • Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP)
  • Child Care Expenses
  • Ability to deduct business investment and other losses
  • Northern residence deduction
  • Certain medical expenses
  • Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB)
  • GST/HST rebate
  • Children’s fitness tax credit
  • Basic personal amount credit (basic personal exemption)
  • Government grants (including to anarchists’ associations!)

Income Tax – a Privilege Access Fee?

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.

Conclusion

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 frompublic 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.


  1. There was so much abuse in buying offices that England passed the Sale of Offices Act in 1551 (repealed in 1826).
  2. Roman law also prohibited this. The Roman Senate could collect special taxes for troops, but only for a limited time. This changed when Julius Caesar became Emperor.
  3. Many other common law based countries – Australia, India, and New Zealand – also brought in income tax during WWI. A coincidence, or legally required?
  4. Many temporary legislations that violate fundamental human rights have a “sunset clause” of 5 or 10 years. The most well-known law with a sunset clause is probably the USA Patriot Act. The Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act also had a sunset clause.
  5. Also used on CRA’s TD1, T2125, T5018. For a partial list see Apu’s Theory, Chapter 9.
  6. The US Internal Revenue Code seems to operate in a similar fashion (income tax there also seems to be a privilege access fee).

Share this info!

Apu
Apu

5 Comments

  1. […] income tax is on the income of an artificial person, a CPP/ITA “officer”. This means it is on Canada’s “public money”, and not on your […]

  2. […] legal person, an ITA “officer”. (Apu’s Theory concludes income tax could be an “office privilege access fee“.) This allows Canada to legally impose a progressive income tax. Being on a federal […]

  3. […] tax is based on self assessment[4]. If individuals do not choose, then ‘income’ tax is payable on net income (after any “income sprinkling”, etc). Silence means consent in law. Silence also means the […]

  4. […] requires reporting all income as belonging to Canada. Apu’s Theory concludes income tax is a privilege access fee for using that office. But Canadians must have choice. No choice is […]

  5. […] anyone who files a T1 is dealing with Canada’s public money. Parliament can then tax you for the privilege of holding such an office, and also spend, by giving you benefits from public money, such as GST rebates, CPP, and […]

Leave a Reply