Income Taxes - To Pay Or Not To Pay ??

by Tom J. Kennedy

On October 3,1950 the Supreme Court Of Canada ruled that the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments CANNOT LEGALLY exchange their legislative powers. (source - The Vancouver Daily Province, October 3,1950)

The Supreme Court Of Canada concluded that the judgement would have no effect on the EXISTING Federal-Provincial agreements, however it was recognized that the Existing agreements would expire on March 31st, 1962. Seven of the nine judges who heard the arguments in may of 1950 were UNANIMOUS in the decision.

They also predicted that the decision would in the future have far-reaching effects on Federal-Provincial relations. Chief Justice Thibodeau Rinfret is on record for saying: "The Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures of the several Provinces are sovereign within their sphere defined by the British North America Act, but none of them has the unlimited capacity of an individual." He clarified the above statement by adding: "They can exercise ONLY the legislative powers respectively given to them by Sections 91 and 92 of the British North American Act , and those powers MUST be found in either of those Sections."

Chief Justice Rinfret summed up the details of the decision with the following words of wisdom: " The Constitution of Canada (Note viz. B.N.A. Act) does NOT belong to the Parliament or to the Legislatures: it belongs to the COUNTRY, and it is THERE that the CITIZENS of the country will find their protection of the RIGHTS to which THEY ARE
ENTITLED."

In order to provide some background to better understand what Chief Justice Thibodeau Rinfret was referring to one must examine closely Sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act.

(a) Section 91, The British North America Act, 1867, states: "It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the consent of the SENATE and HOUSE OF COMMONS, to make Laws for the peace, Order, and Good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters NOT coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned EXCLUSIVELY to the Legislatures of the Provinces etc...."

(b) Section 92, The British North America Act, 1867, states: "In each province the legislatures may EXCLUSIVELY make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say - DIRECT TAXATION within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for PROVINCIAL purposes
etc..."

I have therefore determined that any DIRECT TAXATION such as the oppressive Personal Income Tax, Corporation Tax, GST etc... are the EXCLUSIVE right of the respective Provincial legislatures a and that the Parliament of Canada has NO right to make and collect such taxes within any province.

Further, it follows that the Federal Government and the Legislatures of the Provinces CANNOT LEGALLY exchange their legislative powers according to the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 3,1950.

Therefore, under the Constitution Of Canada, the Provinces CANNOT LEGALLY "farm out" the oppressive and deceptive Personal Income Tax, Corporation Tax and GST etc... to the Federal Government , and that accordingly the collection under the Federal Income Tax Act of these taxes by the Federal Government has been (and is) UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and therefore ILLEGAL"

Since the Agreements, EXISTING on October 3,1950 expired on March 31,1962, it would appear the the Supreme Court of Canada will be bound to honour the decision of October 3,1950 and consequently when challenged will make the levy and collection of DIRECT taxation by the Federal Government Ultra Vires, and ILLEGAL. In fact, such a levy and collection has been ILLEGAL since April 1st, 1962 and each and every
Canadian taxpayer has the right to be reimbursed for all Personal Income Tax levied and collected by the Federal Government during the past thirty five years.

Further, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker displayed an element of "brutal honesty" and "political acumen" when he stated in a T.V. broadcast at the close of the Dominion-Provincial Conference in the Spring of 1961 that Canada must RETURN to her Constitution, (viz B.N.A. Act) and hand back to the Provinces their sole right to
DIRECT TAXATION as authorized under Section 92, Paragraph 2 under the British North American Act 1867.

On closely examining the statement of Chief Justice Thibodeau Rinfret one can therefore determine that it appears to mean that CITIZENS of Canada should obtain "The Protection of the RIGHTS to which they are ENTITLED" by challenging these UNCONSTITUTIONAL and therefore ILLEGAL, taxes and ultimately taking action to have them removed from the Statute Books.

In his "Communist Manifesto" Karl Marx stated that the Capitalistic nations could be destroyed through the imposition of a GRADUATED Income tax which would kill the initiative of the workers, and thus destroy their economies. After learning about this "hidden agenda" of the Income Tax Act I made a decision to inform myself of the "truth" about Personal Income Tax and become a leading UNTAX Crusader.

Since September 1967, not only has a GRADUATED INCOME TAX been ILLEGALLY imposed on my meagre, monthly earnings but also my Income Tax returns for the years 1979 and 1980 (the first two years that I was active in the SDI - Self Directed Incomes - industry as an Amway Distributor) were unfairly re-assessed and my wages unfairly garnisheed. The bungling bureaucrats at Revenue Canada taxation (either by design or by accident) inflicted undue economic hardship and constant stress on myself and my family by claiming that my part-time enterprise(s) of 1979 & 1980 had NO reasonable expectation of profit.

The Appeals Department of Revenue Canada Taxation later withdrew the intimidating NO reasonable expectation of profit approach and agreed to again review the expenses which had been previously disallowed. After a lengthy battle, I was fully reimbursed by Revenue Canada Taxation - but only because I dared to challenge their bluff. Many of my Amway associates were likewise harassed by Revenue Canada Taxation in the mid -1980's and unfortunately they chose to pay the re-assessment rather than taking the time and energy to challenge their bluff.

I now continue to research the Income Tax Act and Revenue Canada Taxation as I am preparing to collect the multiple thousands of dollars that Revenue Canada Taxation bureaucrats in cahoots with my respective employers have levied and stolen from my various sources of income since I received my first pay cheque in September 1967.

I am seeking a lawyer who will re-educate him/herself and lead the challenge against Revenue Canada Taxation and to date I have not found one willing to take the risk for fear of intimidation. I have found an ally (a fellow-citizen) from Burnaby, British Columbia who is willing to act as an agent on behalf of Canadians who want to challenge our federal Governments's ILLEGAL actions. His name is David Butterfield, Founder of "Shareholder's Of Canada Educational Initiative". Contact The Cyberclass Network for more details.

I have purported to rescind my TD-1 Form which I filed with my present employer when I was ignorant of the "truth" about Personal Income Tax. Since my employer is NOT yet prepared to honour my rescission it will be necessary for a competent Court to make a decision in due course.

I have also assumed my duty to become a re-educated Canadian citizen so I keep learning about the Constitution of Canada through my self-imposed course of study so that I may know how to ask for and receive the RIGHTS to which I am entitled. Forthwith, I insist that all elected representatives familiarize themselves with the Constitution of Canada and then commit to adhering to it or resign.

As so astutely stated by the Chief Justice of Canada, the Constitution of Canada does NOT belong to either Parliament nor to the Legislatures of the Provinces, but belongs to the COUNTRY. Under it, the WILL of the CITIZENS is superior: NOT the will of Parliament nor the Provincial Legislatures.

Let me encourage you to remind your local member of Parliament that if ANY members of Parliament are deemed to be NOT governing the country in a CONSTITUTIONAL manner the voters who elected any such members may CONSTITUTIONALLY call upon such members to carry out the Provisions of the B.N.A. Act or resign.

You should be well aware that the voters, in the case of a resignation of any member of Parliament, may elect other members to represent them who have AGREED to insist that the Provisions of the B.N.A. Act be carried out. Be herewith advised that it is NOT necessary to wait for a federal election as such action may be taken at any time by the MAJORITY of the voters in any Constituency to ensure that they obtain "the RIGHTS" to which they are ENTITLED under the B.N.A. Act.

During the ongoing quiet revolution the "obtuse voters" will exercise their "acute political acumen" and shed their collective political and economic ignorance and apathy. In the future a politically maturing electorate will elect only members who will AGREE to insist that the Provisions of the B.N.A. Act be carried out.

Absent any advice from informed Canadian taxpayers during future election campaigns candidates who seek to become elected Members of Parliament will face defeat. I trust all candidates for elected office will be motivated to govern themselves accordingly.

A growing number of Canadians are willfully choosing to follow self-imposed courses of study to better inform themselves with "truth". We do NOT wish to be ruled DESPOTICALLY and together many of us are presently organizing "learning cells" in all federal constituencies. Armed with "truth" we will INSIST that our respective Members of Parliament take action to free us from the "oppressive and ILLEGAL taxation" and return to the CONSTITUTIONAL Provisions of the B.N.A. Act which the "Father's Of Confederation" placed there for us and under which we CAN obtain the "RIGHTS to which we are ENTITLED".

You Are Visitor