🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 29, 3:09 pm, Alan Baggett <canada.revenue.age...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Have Canadians Ever Had the Right to Pay the Lowest Tax Allowed by
> Law? Part I of II :CRA SOTW
>
> ----
> Due to request, this week and next week we’ll be rerunning one of last
> year’s most popular tax tales from the Canada Revenue Agency SOTW
> Library
> ---
>
> Every court in the land has affirmed that Canadians have the right to
> pay lowest amount of tax allowed by law.
>
> Makes perfect sense. Doesn't it?
>
> But although National Department of Revenue, Revenue Canada, the CCRA
> or the CRA (or whatever name they choose to use) has been present at
> each and every one of these court decisions somehow... well... lets
> just say that for some reason they consider this to be a guideline
> rather than an actual set-in-stone law.
>
> Let's consider audits for a moment. Oft times auditors do find
> discrepancies in Books and Records and so they are right in adjusting
> income/expenses and tax owed. But, other times, it seems that a CRA
> auditor will decide on a discrepancy simply because they feel they
> have to - to justify their job (and paycheque). After all if they
> don't find error than they don't need auditors do they?
>
> Now of course we all have the right to appeal questionable
> assessments. So, for example let's say that you're unjustly reassessed
> with tax, penalty and interest totalling $1000. To fight this you may
> have to pay an accountant to help you out. If you go to court you may
> decide on hiring legal representation. You have to take a day or more
> off work to prepare everything and appear in court - that's lost pay.
> There's the time and expense of travel. And the possibility of further
> appeals. This could all add up to $1000. Or more. Much more. And of
> course the aggravation and stress. So in the end very often it is
> cheaper to pay tax that you don't owe than to challenge a bogus
> assessment.
>
> And some feel that by paying a tax debt that they don't owe that the
> CRA will just let them be while if they challenge... well the CRA will
> just go after them with a vengeance. But is this true? Or does it just
> make them bolder? If we got an extra $1000 this tax year why not go
> for $1500 the next?
>
> Still not convinced?
>
> Well then lets go back a number of years to a chap by the name of
> Blair Longley.
>
> Blair Longley (Blair T. Longley and Her Majesty the Queen) dreamed up
> a plan whereby Canadians could receive federal political contribution
> tax credits for contributions made to a political party. But his idea
> was a bit different because the contributor could direct their
> contribution so as to benefit the contributor or to benefit the
> contributor's designate. This plan became known as the "Contributor's
> Choice Concept" (the "CCC"), or "Longley's Loophole". But because some
> were skeptical of his scheme Mr. Longley requested confirmation from
> the tax collector that his idea was legal. For five long years he
> pursued RevCan seeking written confirmation that his idea was legal.
>
>  But Revenue Canada  refused to acknowledge this to him in writing.
>
> His patience finally wearing thin he decided to take this issue to
> Court. It was the Court's decision that:
>
> "Revenue Canada dealt dishonestly with Mr. Longley. It is apparent
> that Revenue Canada was aware from early on that Mr. Longley's scheme
> did not appear to be contrary to the provisions of s. 127(3) of the
> Act. Nevertheless, they set out to discourage him and his potential
> contributors by refusing to confirm that fact and, ultimately, to
> mislead him with respect to the legal strength of the Department's
> position. The Department acted without regard for its obligation to
> deal fairly and openly with all taxpayers and to administer the Act in
> accordance with the law."
>
> But the judge's decision did not end here, he concluded by stating:
>
> "I am of the view that the award in this case ought to be one which
> reflects the Court's displeasure with the abuse by Revenue Canada of
> its position. In the circumstances of this case I have concluded that
> the appropriate award of punitive damages, intended to dissuade
> Revenue Canada from acting again in such a high handed, arrogant and
> dishonest way, is $50,000."
>
> Convinced? No? You're not?
>
> Well than stay tuned for next weeks stunning conclusion to the
> question "Have Canadians Ever Had the Right to Pay the Lowest Tax
> Allowed by Law?" For a pair of Court cases that you just will not
> believe.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--------------------------
> Miss a Tax Tale Miss a lot!
> Pop the link below into your browser to view the entire CRA SOTW
> Library!http://canada.revenue.agency.angelfire.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------------------------
> Alan Baggett – Tax Collector’s Bible

It's all bad enough - Christ, I thought I had you blocked.