Taxing And Spending Powers Needs Income as Public Money

Marijuana Jurisdiction Dilemma Parallels Income Tax
May 22, 2018
Dual Agency Not for Realtors or CRA
June 27, 2018
Show all

Taxing And Spending Powers Needs Income as Public Money

Canada’s Parliament has both taxing and spending powers. Good and Evil, by US tax lawyer Charles Adams, traces how taxes shaped history. But having both powers is relatively new. This did not exist in England for hundreds of years. Deeming individual taxpayers as officers earning income as Canada’s public money makes Parliament having both taxing and spending powers possible.

Canada’s Parliament has both taxing and spending powers. Having both powers is relatively new. This did not exist in England for hundreds of years. Good and Evil, by US tax lawyer Charles Adams, traces how taxes shaped history.

Summary

Canada’s Parliament has both taxing and spending powers. But having both powers is relatively new. This did not exist in England for hundreds of years. Deeming individuals’ earnings as Canada’s public money allows Parliament to have both taxing and spending powers.

Background – Taxing and Spending Powers Separated

England traditionally separated taxing and spending powers. The King (or Queen) could spend, but not tax. Parliament could tax, but not spend. This is why “no taxation without representation” used to be a check and balance against excessive taxation. This is from the book, Good and Evil, by US tax lawyer Charles Adams.

The King could spend, but not tax. Parliament could tax, but not spend.

Many people believe history shaped taxes. Adams proposes the opposite: taxes shaped history. You can buy his book as a paperback, as an Apple iBook, as a Kobo ebook, or as a Kindle download.

Taxing and Spending Powers Separation Frustrates Henry VIII

King Henry VIII needed an excuse to seize the Roman Catholic Church assets in England.

Kings did not have the power to tax. Henry VIII needed an excuse to seize the Roman Catholic Church assets in England. Henry VIII, oil on wood by Hans Holbein the Younger, c. 1534–36; in the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía, Madrid.

Good and Evil gives an example of how taxes shaped historyParliament refused to give King Henry VIII more money. That is because the British revolted whenever Parliament raised taxes. They beheaded tax collectors and burned down tax offices. They once even killed the Archbishop of Canterbury. Taxes were the reason for the Magna Carta. The only exception was taxes for financing wars. So King Henry schemed another way to get more money.

No Marriage Annulment = Excuse for Seizing Church Assets

Catherine of Aragon, painting by Michael Sittow, late 15th or early 16th century; in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. © Everett Historical/Shutterstock.com

Catherine of Aragon, painting by Michael Sittow, late 15th or early 16th century; in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.
© Everett Historical/Shutterstock.com

King Henry had six wives. His first was Catherine of Aragon. King Henry asked the Pope to annul that marriage. But King Henry cut off church revenue to Rome BEFORE asking for an annulment. That is why Good and Evil speculates King Henry knew the Pope was not going to grant a marriage annulment. So why did King Henry ask? He needed an excuse to seize the Roman Catholic Church assets in England.

King Henry cut off church revenue to Rome BEFORE asking for an annulment

Church Assets in Place of No Taxing Powers

King Henry used the Pope’s refusal as an excuse to make himself the supreme head of the Church of England. This was via the 1534 Act of Supremacy. He then seized and sold all Catholic lands and buildings in England. He also redirected all tithes to him. This solved his problem, as a British King, of not having any taxing powers.

King/Queen Figurehead Removes Checks and Balances

The King or Queen was a check against unbridled spending. But in the 20th century the King or Queen devolved to a figurehead representing its people. This was a first step towards Canada’s Parliament having both taxing and spending powers.

The King or Queen was a check against unbridled spending

Representing Canadians: Her Majesty

Her Majesty in Right of Canada is the legal equivalent of all Canadians.

Her Majesty in Right of Canada is the legal equivalent of all Canadians.

This earlier blog post shows how Her Majesty legally represents all Canadians. Unlike what some anti-monarchists believe, it concludes Her Majesty does not actually own anything in Canada. Instead, she holds public property and public money in trust for Canadians. Canada’s Financial Administration Act defines “public money” as Canada’s Consolidated Revenue Fund. That is where income tax, CPP, RRSP, EI, and GST (basically anything on a T1 form) are paid.

Why Income Tax Offences are by Her Majesty

That is why it is Her Majesty who initiates income tax offences. Such charges are on behalf of Canadians 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 money.

Representing Canadians: Members of Parliament (MPs)

MPs represent Canadians in their federal ridings. These MPs vote on laws and amendments. This includes the Income Tax Act (ITA) as well as the Financial Administration Act that regulates Canada’s public money. The MPs fulfill “no taxation without representation”.

Taxing and Spending Powers: The Three Steps

Having both Her Majesty and Parliament represent Canadians is the first step towards Parliament having both taxing and spending powers. The second is deeming individual taxpayer income as Canada’s public money. The third is enticing individual taxpayers into accepting benefits. They are also paid from Canada’s public money.

Taxing and Spending Powers: Taxpayers as Officers

Judge Albert Constantineau Validates Apus Theory

Judge Albert Constantineau Validates Apus Theory. Courtesy ancestry.com

De Facto Doctrine, a law book by Canadian judge Albert Constantineau, states that anyone dealing with public money must be an officer. Apu’s Theory concludes that people consent to represent an ITA “officer” if they accept any allowable deductions for calculating net income, or net profit, or accept any benefit on a CRA T1 form. In short, 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 EI. Of course, they also spend by paying interest on the national debt, or buy things like a pipeline.

Canadian judge: anyone dealing with public money must be an officer

Conclusion

It is legally impossible for Canada’s Parliament to have both taxing and spending powers without deeming individuals as earning income or receiving benefits as Canada’s public money. Canada having both taxing and spending powers corroborates Apu’s Theory, our research on how individual income tax seems to really work.

Canada having both taxing and spending powers corroborates Apu’s Theory

Share this info!

Apu
Apu

3 Comments

  1. […] SINs as social insurance numbers. It also deduces Canada also deems individuals’ income type as public money belonging to ITA “offices”. It then is no longer their private […]

  2. […] such as handling income as if it is public money. (Of course, benefits such as CPP, EI, and GST are public money). Page 515 of Doctrine agrees with Apu’s Theory on […]

  3. […] Theory shows all benefits listed on a T1 are paid from, and to, public money, the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Confirming this is easy. Page 4 of CRA’s 2017 T1 form[7] […]

Leave a Reply