THERE ARE NONE ...

THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND
As those who will not see.
A commentary on those who steer the affairs
of Canada – A sometimes land of opportunity,
integrity, fair treatment, justice.

There are rigid regulations governing the issuing of trade licenses, surgeons and physicians certification and even the issuing of personal drivers license.

Also apart from the proof of competence required of those who wish to practice medicine in Canada they must also declare they will avoid doing harm to their clients, e.g. according to the Hippocratic Oath.

Most of us would feel a bit apprehensive if scheduled for serious surgery with a surgeon who was recently declared legally blind.

We wouldn’t allow our children to board a bus driven by someone using a white cane, and we ourselves would not enter any conveyance operated by someone accompanied by a seeing-eye-dog.

Yet we collectively vote for parliamentary candidates -- to take the helm of our entire country – who have not been required to demonstrate any qualifications what-so-ever. Just how sensible is that?

It is only after some horrendous political scandal becomes public knowledge that Canadian voters might withdraw their support of the villain(s).

If a political culprit also happens to be an indecent comedian there are supporters who would overlook violations -- of fidelity, integrity, decency, justice, honesty and competence -- as being acceptable minor infractions. After all we are discussing politicians.

Their spin doctors work hard to pull the wool over our eyes regarding such things as blatant conflict of interest deals and misappropriation of hundreds of millions of tax dollars – excusing such things as being trivial – more of a joke than a crime. Unfortunately it usually turns out to be an expensive joke on every Canadian Taxpayer while the culprit(s), et al, laugh all the way to the bank.

One item of insidious regulation – left-over from the previous Canadian government – is the taxable benefit legislation which targets a minority of Canadian taxpayers to be levied horrendous taxes on “income” that never existed. No matter how you examine this situation you can not make it look, sound or smell decent.

When the Conservative party won the opportunity to form a minority government in 2006 Member of Parliament, Gary Lunn, made an announcement that suggested the new regime was aware of the taxable benefit atrocity and was taking prompt action to correct this injustice.

As it turned out someone in authority found a way to split a hair on this issue and declared that one of two types of taxpayers victimized by the ESPP/ESO swindle are entitled to have their taxes and related penalties revoked while the remaining majority are denied the same treatment.

No one in authority has offered a reasonable excuse for this blatantly unfair and discriminatory action. Why not? Because there is no reasonable excuse.

So far -- to date -- the only apparent explanation for this gross injustice is as follows:-

Part (1) Rationale used to justify revoking the tax and penalties.

Victims in the group granted tax remission were caught in a situation where they were prevented from selling their ESO equities during an interval while the original corporation, SDL Optics, was being taken over by the JDS Uniphase corporation.

In order to grant some degree of tax fairness to this tiny group it must be ASSUMED they would have sold their ESPP/ESO equities at the appropriate time -- if they could have. This assumption, however, is taken to be justification for revoking the tax and penalties imposed. An assumption which is pure conjecture and one that can not be validated.

Part (2) Rationale for not revoking the tax and penalties.

The individual circumstances of taxpayers -- not granted remission of taxes imposed on their ESPP/ESO potential gains – can not be validated either.

But these victims are denied equivalent treatment on three assumptions:- i.e.
(1) They had opportunity to sell their ESPP/ESO equities at the time of delivery.
(2) They would have actually realized the theoretical profit for which they are being taxed if they had
sold their equities at the time of delivery and
(3) They made a deliberate and conscious decision to play the markets in the hopes of making an even
greater profit.

Regardless of the probability factor -- associated with every one of the foregoing ASSUMPTIONS --they remain nothing more or less than pure conjecture – not confirmed facts.

Operating any form of accounting system on conjecture and assumption is asking for trouble.

If any business attempts to report assumed losses, (write-off of unpaid customer invoices etc.), and/or unsupported expenses against income -- in order to calculate taxes owed – there would be a CRA auditor on their doorstep within days of submitting the tax return.

But when the Canadian Revenue Agency levies horrendous taxes on an individual’s theoretical income, that never existed, and justifies this penalty on the basis of ASSUMPTION it falls on the victim to bear the cost of appealing the penalty and proving – if they can – the assumptions are invalid.

Why do our elected representatives -- in Canada’s Parliament -- not see the injustice, and unfairness of allowing the personal income tax system to continue operating in this way?

As they all appear to have normal vision in the physical senses the only logical explanation being – they just will not see. If so then they belong to the group of “None So Blind.”

If you are a Canadian citizen of voting age you hold the cure for this blindness.

First notify your local Member of Parliament, (MP), you support the objective of the group called:- “Canadians for Fair and Equitable Taxation”, (CFET), and need a commitment from him, or her, to also support their objective. This would be a real eye-opener for our blind representatives.

Second refer your MP to the CFET web page:- http://www.cfet.ca for further information.
Third request everyone you know to follow your lead. When our politicians begin to see the light on this issue – everybody wins.

See you at the voting polls during the coming federal election, Dr. O’Grady.

Victor Drummond ©