Robert Marquis Passes Away – Is Income Tax Unconstitutional?

Private Persons Income in Canada Income Tax Act
August 14, 2017
Declining Income Sprinkling as Corporation Sole Can Reduce Taxes
September 4, 2017
Show all

Robert Marquis Passes Away – Is Income Tax Unconstitutional?

Robert Marquis was 95. He passed away a few weeks ago. In his book, “Fraud Deception Manipulation”, he states Canada income tax is illegal and unconstitutional as a direct tax. His position is opposite to Apu’s Theory, our research on how Canada income tax seems to work. We believe it is not unconstitutional.

The Robert Marquis book, “Fraud Deception Manipulation”, states Canada income tax is illegal and unconstitutional as a direct tax. His position is opposite to Apu’s Theory, our research on Canada income tax.

Robert Marquis: Summary

Robert Marquis was 95. He passed away a few weeks ago. In his book, “Fraud Deception Manipulation”, he states, as a direct tax, Canada income tax being illegal and unconstitutional. His position is opposite to Apu’s Theory, our research on how Canada income tax seems to work. We believe it is not unconstitutional.

Robert Marquis: Background

Robert Marquis was a Chartered Accountant. Fraud Deception Manipulation’s subtitle is, “The Parliament of Canada has Deceived Canadian People Since 1917 by Imposing Direct Taxation on Incomes and Why This Tax is Illegal”. You can buy it at Amazon for $3,000. Or download it from Slideshare: http://bit.ly/2viDnzx. It is there because someone used it for proposing to the Ontario Government that income tax is unconstitutional.

Canada BNA Act

Canada’s British North America Act (“BNA Act”) is part of Canada’s Constitution Act, 1867. The BNA Act, Section 92, states:

92 In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say.

2 Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Provinces

Work Under Provincial Jurisdiction

Section 92(13) of the BNA Act states the Provinces have “Property and Civil Rights in the Province”.

Work is a civil right in the Provinces. Therefore, your pay for working is a property right in the Province.

The BNA Act states work is a property and civil right within the Province. So why are you paying a federal income tax?

So why are you paying a federal income tax?

Unconstitutional Problems

Levying a federal income tax means the federal government somehow:

  1. Transitions you working from provincial to their federal jurisdiction;
  2. Is not stealing your private property through a direct tax.

Unconstitutional? Legal Solutions!

Apu’s Theory concludes that Canada’s Income Tax Act (“ITA”):

  1. Deems you are representing a federal ITA “officer”.
  2. You may want to represent that federal ITA “officer” as it is also the same “officer” for Canada Pension Plan (“CPP“).
  3. An officer, as a corporation, is an artificial person in law. (A corporation sole is an officer.) Industry Canada’s website used to say, “Once the corporation (sole) is established, there is no distinction between the person who holds the office and the office itself.”
  4. The income belonging to the federal CPP/ITA “office” is Canada’s “public money”.
  5. The officer’s name is spelled the same and sounds the same (when spoken) as a private person’s name.
  6. However, private persons are not artificial persons.
  7. Private persons receive money as their private property.
  8. Therefore, income tax is not a direct tax on a private person’s private property.
  9. Instead, 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 private property.
  10. Therefore, income tax is not unconstitutional.

Income Tax: Not Unconstitutional

If you choose to represent the CPP/ITA “office” (usually by agreeing your work is CPPpensionable employment”), then you may view income tax as an indirect tax. You indirectly pay on behalf of your CPP/ITA “officer”. You may also view it as a direct tax on the CPP/ITA “officer”. In short, it is irrelevant whether income tax is a direct or indirect tax. It is not unconstitutional.

BNA Act: Parliament Can Tax by Any Mode or System

Section 91(3) of the BNA Act states that the Parliament of Canada has exclusive powers over:

91(3) The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.

This corroborates Apu’s Theory that federal income tax can be either a direct or indirect tax. Canada income tax is not unconstitutional.

Lord Nelson Hotel Case: Irrelevant

Supreme Court of Canada. Picture credit: Apu Nahasapeemapetilon

Supreme Court of Canada. Picture credit: Apu Nahasapeemapetilon

The so-called 1950 Lord Nelson Hotel case says,

The Parliament of Canada and each Provincial Legislature is a sovereign body within its sphere, possessed of exclusive jurisdiction to legislate with regard to the subject matters assigned to it under s. 91 or s. 92, as the case may be. Neither is capable therefore of delegating to the other the powers with which it has been vested nor of receiving from the other the powers with which the other has been vested.”

That could be why, in 1952, they amended the ITA with these definitions (still being used today):

  • employee includes officer,
  • employer, in relation to an officer, means the person from whom the officer receives his remuneration

This article discusses Canada’s Department of Justice’s definition of “includes”.

Deeming you as a federal ITA “officer” is how Parliament legally sidesteps the Lord Nelson Hotel case. It makes that Supreme Court of Canada case irrelevant.

In 1952 the ITA defined an employee as “employee includes officer

Direct or Indirect Tax: Just More Obfuscation

Deputy Minister, Department of Finance, Paul Rochon

After 100 years, Canada’s Department of Finance still refuses to explain how the ITA really works. For example, only recently, on July 1, 2017, they amended the ITA and finally used the SIN as a “social insurance number” styled in all lower case. (Apu’s Theory concludes this style of SIN identifies the ITA “office”/”officer”). The amendment also refers to private property (as property benefiting a private person).

The Department of Finance continues obfuscating whether income tax is direct or indirect through Tax Myth #1 on the CRA website. They avoid addressing the real issue: that you convert any money you report on CRA’s T1 form into Canada’s “public money”. See our Tax Filing Myths article.

Conclusion

Robert Marquis believes Canada income tax is illegal and unconstitutional as a direct tax. Robert Marquis was a Chartered Accountant. However, that did not stop him from going down the direct tax and unconstitutional argument.

Lawyer Paul McKeever also makes the same argument that income tax is a direct tax, and therefore unconstitutional. Both support our conclusion that the Department of Finance does not teach Canadians, including professional accountants and lawyers, how the ITA really works. However, we agree with Robert Marquis that Canada’s income tax system is through fraud, and also through manipulation and deception.

This is a Cornerstone Article. Find the others by clicking on it within “Tags” near the top right hand corner of this article.

Share this info!

Apu
Apu