Wilfully Blind for Income Tax

Privatize Crown Corporations is a Myth
May 1, 2017
Jurisdiction, Canadian Tulip Festival, Income Tax
May 22, 2017
Show all

Wilfully Blind for Income Tax

Wilfully blind means being suspicious but refraining from asking. It is used in Canadian tax evasion cases to replace proving you have a guilty mind. To not be wilfully blind, you need to seek opinions from lawyers, CRA, and professional accountants. The problem is the Government does not give full disclosure on how Canada’s tax laws really work to any of them.

Wilfully blind means being suspicious but refraining from asking. Canadian tax evasion cases use it to replace proving you have a guilty mind. To not be wilfully blind, you need to seek opinions from lawyers, CRA, and professional accountants. However, the Government does not give full disclosure on how Canada’s tax laws really work to anyone.

Summary

Wilfully blind, in a legal sense, means being suspicious but refraining from asking. Canadian tax evasion cases1 use it to replace proving you have a guilty mind. To not be wilfully blind, you need to seek opinions from lawyers, CRA, and professional accountants. However, the Government does not give full disclosure on how Canada’s tax laws really work to any of them either. In summary, even seeking such opinions does not protect you. It only protects the Government.

Background

It is easier proving having a guilty mind for true crimes, such as assault, arson, murder, and rape. It is harder proving it for tax evasion. This is because only you know your own thoughts. Are you really self-assessing your type of income staying as your private property, or are you consenting to Canada’s tax laws deeming it to be “public money” belonging to Canada 2? The Government cannot see into your mind (at least, not yet). That is why they use the legal test of whether you are wilfully blind. Wilfull blindness fulfills the mental element, or mens rea.

Wilfully Blind – Legal Definition

Wilfully blind means3,

if a party has his suspicion aroused but then deliberately omits to make further enquires, because he wishes to remain in ignorance, he is deemed to have knowledge”.

Wilfully Blind – Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC)

The PPSC 4 is currently prosecuting a tax evasion case. Their Synopsis of Crown Case says,

The ITA does not define the word “income”. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized in Curran v. M.N.R5., that the word “must receive its ordinary meaning bearing in mind… the ordinary concept and usages of mankind.”

This is hogwash. Apu’s Theory on how tax laws really seem to work concludes individual income can be two types of income. It is either private property belonging to the individual taxpayer, or “public money” belonging to Canada. Since the PPSC prosecutes on behalf of Canada’s public, and “public money” belongs to Canada, and the PPSC are Government lawyers, they know, or ought to know, that quoting the Curran case’s explanation of what is “income” is deliberately misleading. It appears the PPSC is wilfully blind.

The PPSC is wilfully blind. They are currently prosecuting a tax evasion case. Their Synopsis of Crown Case says, the ITA does not define the word “income”. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized in Curran v. M.N.R., that the word “must receive its ordinary meaning bearing in mind… the ordinary concept and usages of mankind.” This is hogwash.

The PPSC is wilfully blind. They are currently prosecuting a tax evasion case. Their Synopsis of Crown Case says, the ITA does not define the word “income”. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized in Curran v. M.N.R., that the word “must receive its ordinary meaning bearing in mind… the ordinary concept and usages of mankind.” This is hogwash.

Wilfully Blind – Canada Revenue Agency

CRA’s Audit Manual is online at their website6. A more complete but older (2012) version is downloadable here (5.6 MB PDF file). CRA field auditors update the Audit Manual monthly on their laptops.

CRA Audit Manual – No Type of Income Distinguished

CRA’s Audit Manual mentions “Financial Administration Act” four times, and “Receiver General” sixteen times. It also mentions “private property” once. Therefore, it would have taken at most a couple of sentences to explain that income tax, paid from income, and payable to the Receiver General is “public money” belonging to Canada, as opposed to being your private property. But CRA chooses not to.

Source Definition Not Legally Binding

The Manual also tells CRA auditors (at PDF page #948 of 2058) that,

“Source” is defined as taxable income plus non-taxable income.

Canada’s Income Tax Act does not define the word “source”. The CRA Audit Manual’s definition of “source” is not legally binding. As there is no legal definition of “income” either, it misleads CRA auditors into believing that private property income is a “source of income” with income tax owing. It appears CRA is wilfully blind.

CRA Investigators: Don’t Have to Understand the Law

CRA Investigators receive additional training. Despite this, in the same tax evasion case, the CRA Investigator admitted that she does not understand the Income Tax Act. She also admitted under cross examination that she does not know what income, profit, or source means either. The judge then helpfully stated CRA Investigators do not need to understand the law. But you have to, or you incur fines and penalties, or get charged with tax evasion? Sheesh!

Wilfully Blind – Professional Accountants

They do not teach professional accountants either what type of income individuals can receive. Their Government-sanctioned training protects the Government’s obfuscation of Canada’s tax laws. Asking professional accountants about keeping your type of income as your private property is a waste of time. Yet many have children who, at probably around 5 years old, understand the concept of private property ownership. (“It’s mine.”) It appears some professional accountants are also wilfully blind.

Conclusion

Hundreds of taxpayers, including Michael Millar, Keith Lawson, and Bob and Terry Steinkey are guilty of tax evasion, partly through being wilfully blind, because they failed to seek advice. However, lawyers, CRA, and accountants do not know how the tax laws really work either. They are unaware of Canada’s twelve tax filing myths. Taxpayers have to to figure it out for themselves. When they do not, they are prosecuted, found guilty, thrown in jail, and fined to discourage others from searching for the truth.

But the quest for the truth continues for one simple reason: within Canada’s common-law based legal system (outside Quebec), how does the Government impose an income tax on your private property without committing theft? After all, a 5-year old child understands the concept of private property ownership.

Apu’s Theory seems to have an answer. It proposes income tax is on “public money” you receive while holding an “office” under the Canada Pension Plan and/or the Income Tax Act. That way, Her Majesty is not stealing your private property. Just don’t expect that answer when you ask lawyers, CRA, or professional accountants. The Government ensures they are in the dark. Their gatekeepers can then claim plausible deniability. Unfortunately, it also means taxpayers are guilty of tax evasion 96% of the time because the Government is wilfully blind.

 

  1. Searching CanLii.org using “income tax” and “wilfully blind” shows 857 hits.
  2. As defined by s.2 of the Financial Administration Act: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11/page-1.html#h-2
  3. Glanville Williams, Criminal Law:  The General Part (2nd ed. 1961), at pp. 157-58
  4. http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/
  5. Curran v. Minister of National Revenue, at paragraph 6, 1959 SCR 850, 1959 CanLII 98 (SCC), http://canlii.ca/t/22xx0
  6. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/tp/vrr/menu-eng.html

Share this info!

Apu
Apu

2 Comments

  1. […] fourth way is being wilfully blind. Therefore, the guilty verdicts are correct. It also fits Apu’s […]

  2. […] enough to actually write the decision? Or did someone else write it? (And they accuse taxpayers of being wifully blind!) Like Donald Best, the legal system closed ranks to continue financially raping people, even if […]

Leave a Reply