Tax Evasion Fraud – Which Public is the Damaged Party?

Deeming Allows SIN Bait-and-Switch by Financial Institutions
February 18, 2017
Obfuscating Canadian Tax Law and the Movie “Arrival”
March 6, 2017
Show all

Tax Evasion Fraud – Which Public is the Damaged Party?

Tax evasion is now a predicate offence to Canadian tax evasion fraud. This means anyone guilty of tax evasion can also be guilty of tax evasion fraud. Fraud is more serious since it is a Criminal Code offence. It is probably the excuse for CRA’s new policy starting April 2017 fingerprinting all accused (not yet convicted) tax evaders. Canadian and international police databases will store their fingerprints. The accused then cannot travel to most countries. Fraud needs a damaged party. Who that is corroborates Apu's Theory on how Canada’s income tax system works.

Tax evasion is now a predicate offence to Canadian tax evasion fraud. This means anyone guilty of tax evasion can also be guilty of tax evasion fraud. Fraud is more serious since it is a Criminal Code offence. It is probably the excuse for CRA’s new policy starting April 2017 fingerprinting all accused (not yet convicted) tax evaders. Canadian and international police databases will store their fingerprints. The accused then cannot travel to most countries. Fraud needs a damaged party. Who that is corroborates Apu’s Theory on how Canada’s income tax system works.

Summary

Tax evasion is now a predicate offence to Canadian tax evasion fraud. This means anyone guilty of tax evasion can also be guilty of tax evasion fraud1. Fraud is more serious since it is a Criminal Code offence. It is probably the excuse for CRA’s new policy starting April 2017 fingerprinting all accused (not yet convicted) tax evaders. Canadian and international police databases will store their fingerprints. The accused then cannot travel to most countries. However, fraud needs a damaged party. Who that is corroborates Apu’s Theory on how Canada’s income tax system works.

Background

Claude St. Pierre was CRA’s Director General of Enforcement and Disclosures Directorate2. He says tax evasion became a predicate offence to tax evasion fraud in June 2010. Predicate offence means tax evasion is the key element for proving tax evasion fraud. First, prove tax evasion. That key element then also proves tax evasion fraud. But who is the damaged party?

Claude St. Pierre was CRA's Director General of Enforcement and Disclosures Directorate. He says tax evasion became a predicate offence to tax evasion fraud in June 2010. Image credit: CBC News

Claude St. Pierre was CRA’s Director General of Enforcement and Disclosures Directorate. He says tax evasion became a predicate offence to tax evasion fraud in June 2010. Image credit: CBC News

Who is Damaged Party in Tax Evasion Fraud?

Fraud Needs A Damaged Party

For fraud to exist, it needs a damaged party. Many taxpayers believe the Government steals their private property (their income) through income tax. They believe income tax is fraud. After all, property theft is a Criminal Code offence.

Tax Evasion Fraud is on Canada’s “Public Money”

In contrast, Apu’s Theory concludes income tax is not on your private property. Rather, Apu’s Theory proposes it is a ‘privilege access fee’ that your ITA “officer” must pay for using privileges and benefits from Canada’s “public money”, from that office. That is why Apu’s Theory concludes Canadian income tax is legal and constitutional. The damaged party, then, is every one who deals with “public money”. That includes every one receiving any benefit listed on CRA’s T1 Income and Benefit Returns.

Every One Deemed a Party to Tax Evasion Fraud

Previously we discussed how Canada’s case law, legal system, and statutes deems every one as receiving such benefits through holding such an office. Since hardly anyone rebuts such deeming through self-assessment, practically every one deals with “public money”. This is group Public #1 in the above Venn diagram.

Not Every One is Legally Liable

Most Canadians have a Social Insurance Number. They are legally liable for Canada’s “public money” as ITAlegal representatives”. This is group Public #2 in the Venn diagram.

However, some do not have one. For example, one of our contributors has never applied. Another contributor resigned his Social Insurance Number and so stopped being an ITAlegal representative”. (They are still part of Public #1 since the law allows new deeming at the start of every taxation year).

Three Kinds of “Public” for Income Tax

The majority of Canadians consent to being deemed holding such an office (Public #1) and also agree to be legally liable (Public #2). The Venn diagram above shows this overlap as Public #3. Since Public #3 is jointly and severally liable for Canada’s “public money”3, Public #3 must pay their fair share. This is probably why CRA says in their Annual Report to Parliament 2013-2014:

Encouraging taxpayers to come forward, correct their tax affairs and pay their fair share is a cost‐effective way for the CRA to obtain compliance.

This is also why CRA says in Bob and Terry Steinkey’s tax evasion trial, at page 307:

Well, it’s a self-assessing system, so we’re out there to ensure that the taxpayers comply with the Income Tax Act. No, we’re just out there to ensure that they pay the fair amount — fair share of tax, basically. The fair share of tax based on the way we interpret the Income Tax Act, CRA’s version.

Bob and Terry Steinkey self-assessed. They stated in writing they are declining to hold that office (i.e., not being part of Public #1 or Public #3). Why then do they have to pay Public #3’s “fair share“? Oh, that’s right – it is based on “CRA’s version” of the Income Tax Act. It’s “based on the way we interpret the Income Tax Act.

And when that still isn’t enough to suit CRA’s needs, CRA resorts to policies.

Fingerprinting of Accused Tax Evaders

Policy is Not Law

CRA probably based their new policy of fingerprinting accused tax evaders on tax evasion fraud. This CBC article mentions CRA receiving conflicting positions from Crown prosecutors on fingerprinting accused tax evaders. Perhaps that is why it is only policy. It is not law4. Companies in the past had policies of not hiring Jews, blacks, Chinese, paying women less than men, etc.

Going Beyond the Law?

CRA is pushing beyond what is legal through yet another policy. This is not their first. Another is when a taxpayer gives them written permission to share their tax information. CRA always refuses, citing policy. In reality, they do not want taxpayers to share information that may help everyone figure out how income tax really works.

Conclusion

Tax evasion fraud needs a damaged party. Apu’s Theory helps us propose the damaged parties are Public #1 and Public #3 – those who consent being deemed as dealing with Canada’s “public money”, and those that also agreed to be legally liable. This means almost everyone. However, it does not include those who self-assessed any income as their private property (Public #2). Public #3 is liable and so must pay their “fair share“.

In conclusion, Canadian income tax involves three groups of “public”. Which group is the damaged party for tax evasion fraud corroborates Apu’s Theory on how Canada’s income tax system works.

 

  1. This assumes Crown also charges them with fraud.
  2. Director General, Enforcement and Disclosures Directorate, CRA Compliance Programs Branch. He received a copy of Apu’s Theory sent by registered mail RN 088 795 246 CA.
  3. This could be how and why a CRA garnishee order to a financial institution threatens to make the bank employee personally liable if they do not obey the order. But what if the bank employee does not have a Social Insurance Number?
  4. If you doubt this, try telling CRA you have a policy of not holding the CPP/ITA office. See if they stop harassing you.

Share this info!

Apu
Apu

2 Comments

  1. […] Canada’s government tells Canadians how the ITA really works, Canadians will continue wasting time and energy protesting the wrong issues, such as the Ontario […]

  2. […] with a Social Insurance Number. Our research, Apu’s Theory, concludes that applying for one is agreeing to be jointly and severally liable for Canada’s public […]

Leave a Reply