🚀 go-pugleaf

It's a real shame.

There are so many stories about breaches and even one about employees
who arranged to steal another employee's car, an employee who
supposedly sold goods stolen through Customs and they only care about
the fact about one famus individual. Maybe its because he's an MP and
not just because he's famous. Shameful at any rate.



On Jan 24, 6:28 pm, "dk" <d...@d.d> wrote:
> Yeah I noticed that Alan.
>
> I have been reading your articles with interest over the last while and was
> quite surprised that the gov only really complained becuase as you say..
> someone famous.. happened to be part of your article.
>
> Keep the info coming.
>
> "Alan Baggett" <canadasrevenueage...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169663366.696136.145870@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Late last year there was a tempest in a teapot over an article
> > circulated by CP:
> > (http://groups.google.ca/group/can.taxes/browse_frm/thread/e2fa830814e...).
>
> > What is confidentiality? Simply put it means to keep something private.
>
> > But what does confidentiality mean within the context of the Canada
> > Revenue Agency (CRA)? It means that ANY personal information that you
> > encounter is to be kept private. Not discussed on the street. Not
> > discussed at home. Not even discussed with the guy or gal in the
> > cubicle next door. Unless of course it is in the course of duty. But
> > never ever for curiosity's sake. EVER.
>
> > And the CRA clearly states that this IS the case. To the public and
> > especially to their employees. They are told verbally. In memorandums.
> > And, of course, it is written in the Income Tax Act in Section 241.
>
> > Yet the CP article noted above confirms that Section 241 of the ITA is
> > regularly and routinely broken. By Tax employees. Employees freely
> > admit this. And, even if they didn't admit to it, sometimes they
> > leave a trail. An Audit Trail on the computer via their USERID and/or
> > the client accounts they access via the computer.
>
> > Yet has anyone ever heard of any tax employee ever being charged, fined
> > and/or imprisoned for doing no more than openly discussing their
> > confidential cases. In the office or outside? No.
>
> > So, clearly, breaches of client confidentiality are known and accepted
> > in the CRA culture. They knew and still know that they break the law.
> > Yet they did and still do it anyway. To this day. Right across Canada.
> > Despite the CP article. Though maybe a little more hush hush.
>
> > So then, is such a breach a prosecutable offense? Yes. In theory it is
> > if the "breacher" is an official or authorized person.
>
> > But it seems a tough case to win if all they did was talk.
>
> > Why?
>
> > Well, in the most likely event, they would have to use the tax records
> > of the individual or business whose confidentiality was breached in the
> > prosecution. The tax returns. The assessments. Statement(s) of Account.
> > Diary Entries. Dockets. And so forth. They might even need to get bank
> > records. And more.
>
> > They would have to prove that the breach was a breach - that what was
> > said coincided with the facts.
>
> > And if the breach is just a discussion. The statements, though
> > accurate, are a tad vague. Nothing more than a name and an undated
> > reference. What could be done?
>
> > Court.
>
> > But they would HAVE to make all the breached personal and private
> > information available to the defense in order that the accused get a
> > fair hearing.
>
> > The Canada Revenue Agency would be loathe to do that on two accounts.
> > Sharing P&C info AND giving someone a fair shake. That would just be
> > torture for them.
>
> > So nothing is done despite the widespread knowledge of a multitude of
> > crimes. And, more than likely, nothing will be done. It will all be
> > swept under the rug and this whole todo will turn out to be nothing
> > more than much ado about nothing.
>
> > Clearly a confidentiality breach is not considered a breach when it is
> > committed against a rank and file Canadian. Just ask Lil Schneidman or
> > visit newsgroup thread
> >http://groups.google.ca/group/can.taxes/browse_frm/thread/70bc5caaa84...
> > for the lowdown. Or check out this tax tale dated 1 August 2005 and
> > titled "Why Did My ex-Husband's Girlfriend Snoop on my Tax File?"
> >http://groups.google.ca/group/can.taxes/browse_frm/thread/e857ccd5bf3...
>
> > So if a regular Canadian's tax files are breached it means nothing to
> > the CRA. But when a famous person (such as Ken Dryden) may have had
> > their confidentiality accessed then it is a breach.
>
> > And why is that?
>
> > Because famous people matter and average Canadians (YOU) do not.
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--------------------------
> > Miss a Tax Tale Miss a lot!
> > Click the link for the new, updated and revised CCRA SOTW index!
>
> >http://groups.google.ca/group/can.taxes/browse_frm/thread/faffad0b99d...
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------------------------- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -