DISASTERS NATURAL AND..

DISASTERS – NATURAL AND MAN MADE
In one regard Canadians are fortunate because natural disasters such as major earthquakes, major floods, and major tsunami wave destruction of our coastal cities and settlements seldom happens.

On the other hand losing your home, depleting your lifetime savings and living in
financial despair happen far too often in Canada and most of the time these local disasters are the result of the attitude held by our elected government authorities who are far more interested in demonstrating their concern for distressed citizens of foreign countries than correcting the distress they are creating and tolerating
abusing their own citizens right here in Canada.

Victor Drummond ©
March 17 2010

An honest, hard-working Canadian taxpayer – using the nom-de-plume “Billy” -- posted a very sincere series of comments to my previous blog titled: “Canada’s 2010 Budget – Deal or No Deal.”

Everyone should read Billy’s comments and decide for themselves if he is a victim of his own financial mismanagement -- as claimed by our tax authorities -- or the victim of an obscure tax trap in Canada’s defective taxable benefit legislation. Then visit www.reformamt.org and read the victims statements at the bottom of the web page.

Canada’s Prime Minister and Minister of Finance either stonewall all appeals for the “Fair Taxation for All Canadians” “Action Plan” promised in the federal Conservative Party 2006 pre-election brochure: “STAND UP FOR CANADA” or attempt to convince Canadians that promise has already been fulfilled.

These individuals, who were elected to serve the best interests of all Canadians, and who have publicized a “Canadian Taxpayers Bill of Rights” which they totally ignore, then tell Canadians that taxing employees -- who PURCHASED their employer corporation shares via an Employee Share Purchase Plan (ESPP) and/or an Employee Share Option (ESO) – on deemed “Earned Income” that was neither “Earned” nor “Income of any kind” is justified and fair.

Even before “Billy” provided the outrageous details of the tax treatment he received – after spending his last few dollars on a tax specialist lawyer – I was already aware of several similar man made disasters caused by Canada’s man made tax-grab legislation.

How can anyone approve a Tax Remission Order (TRO) -- such as the Gary Lunn TRO that provided real relief of the unjustified taxes levied on them on the basis of phantom income (money that never existed) -- which is a truly fair tax action -- and then deny thousands of other Canadian victims of the same tax trap the same level of fair tax treatment AND then with a straight face tell other Canadians the income tax treatment is “fair” for all Canadians?

It takes someone who has done a lot more than “Kiss the Blarney Stone” to give that level of performance. In my opinion our Minster of Finance has bitten off and swallowed a large chunk of that stone.

A tax system that favours a few taxpayers with full compensation of unjust taxation and denies the same consideration to thousands of similar victims can not even begin to be called “fair”.

Some defenders -- of the favouritism given the SDL Optics victims – attempt to justify their preferential tax treatment on the basis the victims were under greater stress than all other similar victims plus the SDL victims also lost their employment. There is nothing unique about them losing their employment. So did thousands of Nortel victimized employees and so did thousands of JDS Uniphase victimized employees.

Any excuse offered, by anyone, in an attempt to justify a different tax treatment for the Gary Lunn TRO victims -- as compared to all other Canadian victims taxed on phantom income -- is nothing but pure BS.

There is no excuse for denying any Canadians the same treatment given the Gary Lunn TRO victims and to treat any part of the Canadian taxpayer population victimized in the same way any differently than the treatment provided for the group that were protected by the Gary Lunn TRO – is a blatant violation of the updated Taxpayers Bill of Rights – which no one is enforcing.

Mr. Flaherty – throw away the English Language Dictionary you have been using – it obviously does not have the correct definition for the word “Fair”.

Billy is a typical victim of Canada’s defective taxable benefit legislation and our defective government authorities who are willing to allow our citizens to be financially devastated by our man made disastrous tax laws while committing billions of Canadian taxpayer dollars to help rebuild the homes of people who have been afflicted by natural disasters but who have never contributed one cent to Canada’s tax system.

Remember the golden rule: “Charity begins at home.”

See you at the voting polls for the coming federal election O’grady.
Happy Saint Patrick’s Day.

Victor Drummond ©

CANADA'S 2010 BUDGET..

CANADA’S 2010 BUDGET – DEAL OR NO DEAL

Couched in the usual assurances of providing Canadians with a
“Fair” and “Equitable” Income tax deal Canada’s “Banker”
Our Minister of Finance
is offering a short range of Tax Deals to Canada’s victims of
outrageous, unjustified taxes levied on purely phantom income.

A commentary by Victor Drummond ©
March 2010

Canada has a variety of taxpayers who have been levied outrageous, unjustified taxes on a pie-in-the-sky deemed “Earned Income” that was neither “Earned Income” nor “Real Income” of any kind.

The federal conservative party was elected in 2006 to form Canada’s government based --- at least in part – on the declared “Action Plan” to provide all Canadians with a “Fair and Equitable Income Tax system.”

Contestents No 1 to play Canada’s version of “Deal or No Deal?”

Shortly after forming Canada’s 39th Parliament the first Contestants to play Canada’s version of “Deal or No Deal” was a group of former employees of the now defunct SDL Optics Inc./JDS Uniphase Plant located in the riding of Conservative MP The Hon Gary Lunn – Saanich Gulf Islands British Columbia.

There are 37 tax victims in this group with taxes levied on phantom income for the years 1999 and 2000. Our Howie Mandel, (Harper), declared these taxes were unfair and unjustified by signing the Tax Remission Order (TRO) requested by the Hon. Gary Lunn and prepared at the request of the Hon. Carol Skelton, CP, MP.

By the time the TRO was signed into law by Canada’s governor general, Her Excellency Michele Jean the Hon Carol Skelton had been replaced by the Hon, Gordon O’Connor, as the Minister to provide the finished TRO format.

The banker offered the first players of Canada’s "Deal or No Deal" a full cancellation of the taxes and related penalties plus a rebate of the taxes, on phantom income, that had already been paid.

Contestents No 1 accepted the deal – which was indeed fair – and they went laughing all the way to the bank.

====================================

Shortly after the First Deal was implemented mandarins in the Bankers organization issued a warning to our Howie Mandel that giving Canadians a deal at this level of “Fairness” was setting a dangerous precedent. Consequently our Howie did an about face and declined to even mention the issue of taxation on phantom income – let alone take any further action to fulfill his commitment to “resolve” the issue for all Canadians by making the required changes to the tax code. The only code he changed was his code of ethics.

Although there were thousands of other Canadian Taxpayers -- caught in the same tax trap as those given a fair deal via the Gary Lunn TRO – all their appeals for the same deal were denied on the grounds they didn’t qualify.

This unfair state of affairs was maintained until March 4th 2010 when Canada’s Banker presented a new round of “Deal or No Deal” rules for Canadian victims to play by.

=======================================

Contestants No 2 now get an offer from the Banker.

To qualify as a contestant in the second round of Canada’s new tax game “Deal or no Deal” a victimized taxpayer must have been levied taxes on phantom income AND must have applied to have those taxes deferred as provided per form T1212.

The bankers offer to these contestants appears to be the conversion of taxes due to the level of the sale value of the ESPP/ESO equities the victim still holds. There will be no rebate given but any real loss the victim may experience between the cost paid for the equities and the money received at the time of sale may be carried forward, indefinitely, in the hopes there will be a capital gain someday to which this loss may be applied.

Does this offer by the banker compare -- in any way -- with the deal given the first set of contestants?
If you were a contestant in group no 2 would you accept this deal?

=========================================

What about victimized Canadian Taxpayers who paid the taxes levied on the phantom income of their ESPP/ESO equities up front and did not apply for a tax deferment?

Will they get an offer from the banker? Apparently not. They are not eligible to play this version of Canada’s "Deal or No Deal" tax game.

=========================================

How does Canada’s tax treatment of Canadian taxpayers caught in the tax trap that produces huge tax levies on phantom income compare with the U. S. A. government treatment of their taxpayers who were also levied horrendous taxes on phantom income?

The U.S. victimized taxpayers were given a full reprieve of taxed levied on phantom income plus given credit for taxes already paid on phantom income.
Ref: www.reformamt.org

The only group of Canadians to receive anything like this level of fair tax treatment are the SDL Optics employees who were covered by the Gary Lunn TRO.

We have been told – over and over again by our banker -- that Canada’s economy is in much better shape than the economy of the U.S.A. and yet the U.S.A. government places the fairness of their tax system high enough to take the economic hit of treating their victimized taxpayers truly fair.

Canada’s Banker on the other hand pays repeated lip service to Canada’s Fair system of income taxation while avoiding being fair whenever possible.

=====================================

Canadians should let our banker know in very definite terms – provide the fair and equitable tax system you promised – or “NO DEAL”

When the next federal election arrives be sure to have your curriculum vitae updated as no one needs or wants someone they can neither trust, nor believe a thing he says, minding our bank.

See you at the voting polls in the next federal election O’Grady.

Victor Drummond ©

HOW TO SUCK AND BLOW..

HOW TO SUCK AND BLOW CONCURRENTLY
A physically impossible feat easily accomplished by the Canada Revenue Agency.
Because the CRA is not bound by logic, decency, or man-made laws,and/or natural laws of physics.

A commentary by Victor Drummond ©
February 2010

Here is how the Canada Revenue Agency works their magic.

First they create a tax rationale that obliges one specific item to have two physical forms completely independent of each other. For example a share in an employer’s corporation can be both a taxable benefit and a Capital investment at the same time. Although there is only one physical item the two deemed forms are treated completely independent of each other.

Taxes are then levied on any theoretical gain the holder might have received if he, or she, disposed of their holdings while in the deemed taxable benefit physical form and these taxes are then said to be immune to any loss suffered by the holder due to their holdings not producing the imaginary gain already taxed on these holdings even when in fact they actually produced a loss.

A clear case of sucking the financial life out of a taxpayers pocket while simultaneously blowing off any appeal the victim may submit for fair tax treatment.

About the only human that considers this outrageous tax policy to be justified is Canada’s Minister of Finance the Hon. James M. Flaherty CP, MP. Not only does Mr. Flaherty consider this tax policy to be justified he even goes so far as to say it is actually “fair” because after the tax victim has been taxed, on money never seen, he or she is then treated the same as all other Canadian investors/speculators.

That is the equivalent of saying a citizen mugged and robbed is being treated fairly because they now receive the same police protection as all other Canadian citizens.

This legalized robbery rationale is based upon is a specific sequence of events between a corporate employer and their employees who happen to participate in an Employee Shares Purchase Plan (ESPP) or an Employee Shares Option (ESO) agreement.

The CRA claims that in spite of the fact the employer’s equities are “purchased” by an employee because they are acquired through an employer incentive program they somehow become a taxable award or gift. This takes a bit of logic stretching because if you pay for something it is neither an award nor a gift.

To illustrate just how idiotic this rationale is consider an identical situation using an item every household shopper is familiar with, i.e. iceberg lettuce will be our equity.

Following a truth in fiction.

Mr William Smith is an employee of the Evergreen Farms Produce Corporation (EFPC). He holds the position of the EFPC warehouse manager in Trenton Ontario and he has full operating authority to order farm produce from his employer corporation or any other farm produce marketer that he chooses. For purpose of this illustration he receives all profit and loss transactions as personal income.

Williams’s boss, Walter Windbag is located in the Canadian Headquarters of EFPC in Toronto Ontario and he periodically sends William contract offers to supply iceberg lettuce in fixed quantities of 1000 heads at six month intervals over the future 24 months at a premium cost compared to the Wholesale Fair Market Value, (WFMV).

William signs on to this Iceberg Lettuce Purchase Plan (ILPP) because he predicts he will want at least that many units and possibly more.

William also receives flyers from other wholesale vegetable market producers and decides he will back up his ILPP contract by placing an identical order with an outside supplier. William signs a second iceberg lettuce contract with the Farm Produce Broker (FPB) for the same delivery schedule at the same premium to the original WFMV as his EFPC/ILPP contract.

William pays both suppliers the full cost of these ILPP contracts at the agreed WFMV.

Six months later two tractor trailer trucks arrive at Williams EFPC warehouse each delivering 1000 heads of iceberg lettuce. By good fortune the WFMV, by that date, has skyrocketed and is now ten times the cost William paid for his ILPP lettuce heads.

Although William hasn’t sold one head of lettuce, to anyone, his employer reports to the CRA that William has received “Earned Income” ten times higher than the price he was charged by his employer EFPC and William is now deemed to have received an “earned income” inflated by a nonexistent “taxable benefit”.

By comparison the 1000 heads of iceberg lettuce William received – on the same date – from
his FPB supplier does not generate a tax action of any kind, at that time, even though the monetary events are identical.

Unfortunately the supply of iceberg lettuce soon exceeded the demand and the WFMV crashed. William took a huge loss on both his ILPP contracts, i.e. with his employer and his FPB outside supplier.

The CRA refused to allow William to offset the taxes levied on his nonexistent “earned income”
with the real losses he suffered which the CRA deems is a “capital loss”. They insist the loss is not related to the taxes levied on those same heads of lettuce at the time of delivery, i.e. “exercise date”.

This analogy should make it clear to everyone that basing a tax, of any kind, levied on a purely imaginary gain at the moment of exercise is totally outrageous, unjustified and grossly unfair.

There need be no distinction made between a person purchasing their employer’s corporation shares by way of an Employee Share Purchase Plan (ESPP), or an Employee Share Option (ESO) agreement and the same employee buying those same shares from their broker. A purchase is a purchase.

A purchase is not a gift or an award regardless of any premium the employee may receive at the time of purchase.

If an employee happens to pay a bit less, than the Fair Market Value for the employer corporation shares, at the time of purchase then it merely improves the prospect the investor employee will receive a profit at the time of sale. This gives the CRA a better prospect of the employee having a gain to be taxed and the tax would be justified and fair.

It is time to put an end to the CRA violating the laws of reason and the laws of physics and put them on the same limitations as the rest of us.

No more concurrent sucking the financial life out of honest, hard-working Canadians while blowing off their appeals for justice.

See you at the voting polls for the next federal election O’Grady.

Victor Drummond ©

CANADS PART TIME DEMOCRACY

CANADA’S PART TIME DEMOCRACY
A commentary on Canada’s hybrid federal government
which is in fact a dictatorship that masquerades as a democracy.
By Victor Drummond ©
February 2010

What would you call the leader of a country where the people voted him into power on the basis of pre-election promises that were either never fulfilled or at worst a mere token action was taken to pretend to fulfill one or two of the more important ones?

After approving the Gary Lunn Tax Remission Order revoking the taxes, and related penalties, for a mere 37 victims of “phantom income” taxation he stonewalled thousands of other similar victims.

Answer: The Right Honourable Stephen Harper.

What would you call a country where the members of government are elected, by a free vote, and are intended to have a free voice to fulfill their responsibilities to their constituents, and to the entire population of the country, but are cowed into silence on issues the cabinet, (Prime Minister and Mandarins), place on the restricted issue list?

Answer: A Dictatorship

What would you call a Minister of Finance who publicly declares his government has introduced an “Action Plan” to provide fair Taxation to all Canadians and then does an about face to defend his policy of levying outrageous taxes on Canadians “deemed” to have received a taxable benefit that never in fact existed in tangible form, i.e. “phantom income”?

Answer: The Hon. James M. Flaherty.

What would you call a political leader who conveniently forgets important details that he finds reveal his incompetence, (or worse), and unilaterally shuts down the entire government for two months while he gads all over the globe trying to cash-in on every possible photo-op?

Answer: - A worthless glory hound.

What would you call a nation of voters who would knowingly vote for candidates with the above characteristics?

Answer: They come in two types:

(1) Those that have a vested interest in this kind of dictatorship. They milk the system.

and

(2) People who are as gullible as the unscrupulous candidates believe them to be.
Promise them anything and they will vote for you even though you deliver on none of the promises.

The time is long past for Canadian voters to demand performance from the candidates they vote for.

Before the next federal election contact the federal party candidates in your riding and ask for their commitment to correct Canada’s defective Income Tax legislation to put an end to taxing phantom income. Remind them the U.S. Government has already amended their equivalent defective legislation the puts an end to taxing U.S. citizens on “phantom” income and also includes a system of fair compensation for those who have already been victimized by the old law. Ref: www.reformamt.org

This is a good first step toward restoring Canada to a full time democracy.

See you at the voting polls fir the next Federal Election O’Grady


Victor Drummond ©

THEY WHO PAY THE PIPER..

THEY WHO PAY THE PIPER CALL THE TUNES
Canadian Prime Ministers, especially from the days of Pierre Trudeau, have been controlling Canadians -- often to the national and/or personal disadvantage.
When it served their purpose they have denied Canadians their basic right to representation by forcing party MP’s to vote the “Party Line” disregarding the wishes of those who voted them into office.

A commentary by Victor Drummond ©
February 2010

The introduction of corporate Employee Share Purchase Plans (ESPP)’s) and Employee Share Option agreements (ESO’s) is a prime example of a situation where the original intent of a program was to benefit Canadian Corporations and their key employees – but was turned into a tax trap that penalized the very people it was supposed to benefit.

It is difficult to imagine the parliament that passed the original legislation -- empowering the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to tax equities acquired via an employer’s ESPP or ESO agreement as a taxable benefit at the moment of exercise of those equities -- ever intended honest, hard-working Canadians would be taxed, sometimes into poverty, on deemed income money that never actually existed, i.e. phantom income.

It took the crash in the shares of Hi-Tech corporations beginning in July 2000 to expose this obscure defect in the Canadian Income Tax Act dealing with ESPP/ESO acquired equities.

After fifteen years of Hi-Tech corporation shares enjoying boom time conditions suddenly thousands of unsuspecting Canadians were shocked to discover they were now being levied horrendous taxes on their ESPP/ESO Purchased equities that were essentially worthless by the time the taxes levied on them were revealed.

The Canadian Liberal government was immediately deluged with appeals for fair taxation when this travesty of justice was first revealed in 2001. The draft budget for 2001, prepared by the Hon. Paul Martin, appeared, at first, to be amending this flawed piece of legislation but by the time the final 2001 budget was read in parliament the only tax relief proposed was to introduce a tax deferral option in the way of a form T1212.

Even the introduction of the form T1212 tax deferral option was not clearly understood at first and many tax advisors, and victimized taxpayers believed they would only pay tax on the gain, (if any), that the employee actually realized at the time they sold their equities.

The government, however, wasn’t going to let loose of the millions of illicit tax dollars so easily extorted and the ruling came out that the victimized taxpayers would still be taxed on the temporary value their ESPP/ESO had at the moment of exercise regardless of the value actually received at the time those equities were sold.

Any real loss the tax victim may suffer -- at the time their ESPP/ESO equities are sold -- that loss is morphed from a taxable benefit to a Capital investment loss which the government will not allow the tax victim to use to offset the theoretical “benefit” that the victim might have received – but didn’t.

Of course if the victim was lucky enough to sell their equities at an additional gain over the deemed taxable benefit then that additional gain would also trigger a capital gains tax.

How about that for a “fair” system of taxation? A system where the government is guaranteed to win if the employee might have made a gain but the taxpayer is exposed to a potentially huge tax loss if they even might have made a gain – even when the gain was never realized. A win-win set up for the government and for the tax victim a potential financial disaster.

Although several MP’s in Canada’s 38th, 39th and 40th parliaments have written letters to Canadian government authorities -- ranging from the Prime Minister the way down to the back-bench MP’s – supporting their victimized constituents appeals for fair taxation those appeals have been ignored.

Even when the Right Honourable Stephen Harper acknowledged this tax system was unjust and unfair -- by signing the Gary Lunn Tax Remission Order” (TRO) thereby approving revoking of this outrageous tax for a mere 37 former employees of the SDL Optics/JDS Uniphase plant in the riding of Saanich Gulf-Islands British Columbia – all other victims of this legalized extortion have been denied this same tax treatment.

Somehow the current conservative government has succeeded in domineering our Members of Parliament -- who were democratically elected to represent the best interests of their constituents and the best interests of all Canadians – to the extent they remain silent on the abuse being heaped upon thousands of honest, hard-working Canadians.

Not only has the House of Commons been silenced on this outrageous issue but those fearless, outspoken watchdogs of the party in power – Her Majesty’s leaders of the Loyal Opposition Parties are equally cowed when it comes to declaring their position on this abuse of power.

Anyone who doubts the authenticity of my foregoing claims need only contact their riding MP’s (Conservative, Liberal, NDP, and/or Green Party) and ask them their party position on the phantom income tax issue. If you get a definitive answer let me know and be sure to vote for that candidate.

The thousands of requests for that information – issued by the group: “Canadians for Fair and Equitable Taxation” (CFET), have been ignored so far which is a violation of everyone’s right to know before they vote for anyone to represent their interests in Canada’s parliament.

Before you decide which candidate to vote for in the next federal election remember who is paying their above average salaries with above average perks and working conditions.

Make sure you are possibly going to get the service you are paying for before committing to vote for any candidate or any federal political party.

And one thing you must receive is a commitment to restore your right to equal treatment under Canada’s Tax Laws and that taxing Canadians on an income that never happened must be corrected.

Regardless of the claims made by our Hon. James Flaherty regarding the fairness of taxing phantom income – few, (if any), Canadians who have taken the time to really get the facts on this issue agree with him.

The U.S.A. congress doesn’t support Flaherty’s view as they have already amended their equivalent phantom income tax legislation and fairly compensated those U.S. taxpayers who had already been victimized by it. Ref: www.reformamt.org

As a Canadian taxpayer you are paying the salaries of every government employee – from the Prime Minister on down so do not hesitate to make your demands for service known to them.

Being one of those who are paying this band of politicians for service you have the right to name a few tunes.

See you at the voting polls for the next federal elction O’Grady.

Victor Drummond ©

THE FUTILE QUEST FOR JUSTICE..

THE FUTILE QUEST FOR JUSTICE IN CANADA

Canada as a nation -- where citizens are assured of “fair” and equal treatment under tax laws and justice when victimized by government criminal action -- no longer exists.

A Canadian robbed on the street, by hoodlums, may obtain justice through the courts but a Canadian victimized by those who administer Canada’s tax laws has little recourse – the victims must prove they can not afford to pay the tax, i.e. are “HARDSHIP” cases.
In what way does “hardship” justify tax relief when justice is denied all other similar victims?

A commentary by Victor Drummond ©
February 2010

A superficial glance at Canada would leave the observer fully convinced Canadians have the greatest system of government that anyone could possibly want.

Canadians have a constitution that guarantees them equal treatment under the laws of Canada.

We also have an updated “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” that again assures them of equal treatment under the tax laws of Canada.

On top of that we have a government publication bearing the title: “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice” which declares “fairness” is a primary purpose of Canada’s laws and legal system.
Ref: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/just/img/courten.pdf

Furthermore this document declares Canadians are assumed to be innocent, of any criminal charges, until proven guilty in a court of law.

To guarantee the above rights are readily available to all Canadians we have a Federal Minister of Justice, and a Supreme Court of Canada and a “Taxpayers Ombudsman”. What more could any person want in their land of opportunity?

In view of the foregoing assurances and guarantees none of the following events could ever happen in Canada.

(1) A plan to fight the “brain-drain” during the Hi-Tech boom years could never result in those who participated and remained loyal to their Canadian employers – and to Canada -- being taxed into financial ruin by the Canadian government. But it did happen and still does.

(2) No Canadian would ever be taxed on an unproven, one sided assumption, made by a Canadian government agency. i.e. The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). But it did happen and still does.

(3) Any Canadian who has been taxed on the same basis as the 37 former employees of the SDL Optics Inc/JDS Uniphase plant in Saanich British Columbia -- who had their taxes and related penalties revoked by way of a “Tax Remission Order” (TRO) – are automatically assured of the same “fair” tax treatment.

Nothing could be further from the truth. All other phantom income tax victims have been excluded from the tax treatment given the SDL Optics/JDS Uniphase victims.

(4) When our Prime Minister (PM) commits to “resolving” this unfair, unjust, tax issue you can rest assured it will be corrected. That is the way it should be – but it is not. Our PM reneged on this commitment.

The PM’s commitment was made two years ago and all that has happened since is the topic has been stonewalled by the PM and House of Commons in spite of a motion by the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance (FINA) to have the problem corrected.

(5)When such examples -- of injustice, and departures from the intent of “Canada’s System of Justice” document -- would be brought to the attention of Canada’s Minister of Justice he would automatically initiate corrective action.

That is the way any observer would expect the system to work – but it doesn’t work that way. This issue was sent to the attention of the Hon. Rob. Nicholson, CP, MP, Minister of Justice,over a year ago and absolutely nothing happened. Apparently the job of the Minister of Justice is not to assure Canadians actually receive justice.

(6) In order to have their appeal for justice reviewed, by the Supreme Court of Canada, a victim must first have their appeal for justice denied by a lower court. Several victims have tried hiring a tax lawyer and taken their quest for justice to a lower court.

Every such case, I have been made aware of, were denied on the basis that Canada’s tax laws have not been violated. And so far I have not been made aware of any of these denied cases being taken to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling.

Why?

Because (so far) taking an appeal to court has been a case of throwing good money after bad and those hit hardest by this tax trap do not have the monetary resources to have another go at the courts in their quest for justice.

A person would expect that when a few victimized Canadians have been granted fair treatment, by way of a TRO, that a precedent has been set that should guarantee the same treatment would be granted similar victims by a court of law.

According to Tax Court of Canada, Chief Justice Donald Bowman the court judges are not bound to observe any precedent that has been set by way of previous judgements.

Ref: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/just/img/courten.pdf

Following is the important text from this document: “taxpayers would probably be surprised to learn that Canadian courts have generally refused to recognize a duty of consistency on the part of the CRA in the course of administering and enforcing the Income Tax Act, and have expressly held that the CRA has no positive legal obligation to treat similarly situated taxpayers consistently As stated by now Chief Justice Bowman of the Tax Court.”

So first impressions of the justice guaranteed Canada’s citizens are purely a façade. The Prime Minister and his gang of mandarins have found a way to control the elected members of the House of Commons, and the leaders of Canada’s Loyal opposition Parties, rendering these two watchdogs of Canadian justice totally ineffective.

Every Canadian voter is entitled to know the position the political party -- they prefer to vote for – has on the phantom tax issue.

But that information has been denied, time after time, by the current MP’s and federal political party leaders.

Until I receive that information I won’t vote for any of them -- and you shouldn’t either.

Canadians have recently been receiving wake-up calls from newspaper journalists such as James Travers who had his article: “PM wakes a sleeping electorate” published in the Jan 28, 2010 on-line edition of the Toronto Star

The important message in this article being: “Imagine a confidential manual instructing chairs to manipulate, obstruct and, when necessary, sabotage committees. Imagine directly challenging the independence and objectivity of the chief electoral officer, sacking the nuclear safety watchdog for dutiful barking and then systematically choking counterparts probing issues as diverse and seminal as timely access to information.”

Some democracy Canada is becoming – it is beginning to make a dictatorship look good by comparison.

Canadian voters have tolerated far too much deception on the part of our federal political leaders and it is now time to take corrective action.

Notify your local riding MP you demand they honestly represent the best interests of their constituents, and all Canadians, by making a commitment to have the tax on phantom income revoked and all those already victimized, by it, to be fairly compensated.

The U.S.A. government has corrected their equivalent defective “Alternative Minimum Tax” (AMT) legislation Canada’s government has no excuse for continuing this travesty of justice including unequal treatment of Canadian victims.

See you at the voting polls for the next federal election O’Grady.

Victor Drummond ©

CANADA IS A DEMOCRACY ..

CANADA IS A DEMOCRACY IN NAME ONLY
It is the unelected senior bureaucrats in Canada’s Department of Finance and The Canada Revenue Agency that actually dictate the conduct of Canada’s Prime Minister and Members of the House of Commons.

Victor Drummond ©
January 2010

At long last a Canadian Newspaper has published an article that should be a wake-up call to all Canadians. On Wednesday, January 27, 2010 the on-line Toronto Star contained an editorial with the title: “Time to address democratic deficit.”
Ref: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/756262--time-to-address-democratic-deficit#article

This report came as a surprise to me because, until now, it seemed to me Canadian News Media were mainly cowed into conforming to Canadian government guidelines forbidding publishing comments or articles unfavourable to the government. A kind of censorship.

The information presented came as no surprise, however, as I had already observed the transition of Canada’s government from a democracy to a dictatorship during my lifetime.

And it is not our elected members in the House of Commons, or our Prime Minister that are calling the shots these days.

When Stephen Harper suddenly did an about face and went completely silent, on the outrageous phantom tax issue, following the warning: “JDS deal dangerous precedent.” issued in December 2007, by senior “bureaucrats” in the Department of Finance and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), it became painfully obvious who is really running Canada’s government.

Prior to this directive Prime Minister Harper was a participant in getting the Gary Lunn, Tax Remission Order, (TRO), approved in order to revoke the tax on phantom income for 37 former employees of the defunct SDL Optics Inc (JDS Uniphase) plant in Gary Lunn’s riding of Saanich Gulf Islands, British Columbia.

Harper would not have approved this TRO if he had the slightest doubt the tax was totally unjustified, unfair and abusive to those honest, hard-working Canadians who were being victimized by it.

At the time this TRO was announced, with plenty political fanfare, Harper was asked by a Victoria Times Colonist Newspaper, Columnist, (Cindy E. Harnett) if his government would extend the tax treatment, provided by the TRO, to other Canadian victims of the tax on phantom income?

Harper’s reply implied he would take action to extend the fair taxation provisions of the TRO to all Canadians victimized in this way when he answered: “we’ll get it resolved – it will take a change of code.”

But following a directive issued by those unelected “senior bureaucrats” Harper did a prompt about face and began to stonewall all appeals for the equal treatment under the laws of Canada that are guaranteed under provisions of the (May 2007) updated “Taxpayers Bill of Rights”.

Having Canada governed by unelected senior bureaucrats might not be such a bad thing if those bureaucrats displayed any qualities of compassion, honesty, decency or fairness. But it is obvious from the fact they warned the Prime Minister against fulfilling his commitment to “resolve” the phantom tax issue they do not concern themselves with none monetary items. They are strictly business oriented. Integrity, honesty, dependability, compassion fairness or justice have no place in their value system.

Their primary concern appears to be to collect all the tax money they can and if possible produce a federal budget surplus which would provide the government with excess funds, some of which may find its way into their pockets in the form of bonuses and/or pay raises.

How about the Prime Minister being held accountable by those MP’s who have been elected to the House of Commons to represent and protect the best interests of all Canadians – especially their constituents? That is the way it is supposed to work – but it no longer does.

The recent Prime Ministers of Canada have created committees to address the concerns of MP’s and rule on any action to be taken to correct an issue. By appointing personal mandarins to head up the committees they have created -- the Prime Minister effectively controls Parliament.

If you doubt the validity of the foregoing statements try getting anyone in Canada’s government to give you a position statement on the phantom income tax issue. Not even the leaders of Canada’s Loyal Opposition parties will so much as reply to a request for that information.

Why? What are they afraid of?

Every Canadian has a right to this information in order to make an informed decision when it comes time to vote for a representative in Parliament.

If Canadians do not pay attention to the changes going on in our system of government, and take action to restore true democracy, they may wake up one day in the same position as the group of German students who found a time has arrived “When Truth is Treason”.

In spite of the loudly proclaimed statements by our Honourable James M. Flaherty MP, CP, Minister of Finance, telling us that taxation of phantom income is “fair”, nearly everyone who takes the time to understand this outrageous tax concludes it is not fair, or even justified in any sense of the word.

If anyone claims it is OK to apply this tax because the victims are all well heeled executives that made bundles of money during the Hi-Tech stock market boom and are now trying to avoid pay a legitimate tax – don’t believe them.

For every fat cat executive that fits that description there are hundreds of ordinary, clerks and production line workers caught in the same tax trap.

Just examine the Gary Lunn TRO victims to see the proof of that statement.

Even the few fat cat executives that did exist are entitled to a fair tax levy.

The U.S.A. government corrected their equivalent, defective, phantom income tax legislation, last October, and Canada has no excuse for continuing this travesty of justice. Ref: www.reformamt.org

Contact your riding MP and inform them you want the tax on phantom income stopped immediately and those already victimized by it to be fairly compensated – just as the Americans have done, or “No Vote” in the coming federal election.

See you at the voting polls in the next federal election O’Grady.

Victor Drummond ©

STOP THE FINGER..

DO NOT POINT FINGERS – WHAT ARE YOU GOOD FOR
Federal Political Parties are very good at telling us the faults of their political opponents but very poor at telling why we should vote for them.

I am one Canadian voter that wants to know: "why I should vote for you?"
by Victor Drummond (c)
January 2010

The federal liberal party of Canada enjoyed one majority government after another until the financial scandals perpetrated under the Jean Chretien regime became public knowledge in the years 2004 and 2005.

Prime Minister Jean Chretien displayed arrogance and total distain for Canada’s Parliament when he was under investigation by the Gomery commission. Instead of giving straightforward answers to the questions he was asked he sat with his eyes lowered on a handful of golf balls and began to make wise cracks.

Chretien attempted to justify immoral mismanagement of taxpayers dollars, per the sponsorship scandal, on the grounds this timely action avoided splitting Canada into two nations. His rationale apparently being the end justified the means.

Perhaps the lack of ethics -- displayed by the federal liberal party at that time – was a determining factor in the Liberal government being defeated, by the federal Conservative party, in the 2006 federal election. A second important element contributing to their defeat was the fact the conservative party campaigned on a long list of promises they were going to implement if elected.

Instead of telling voters why they should vote against the Liberals – which was general knowledge anyway -- they focused on why the voters should vote for them.

Starting in 2005 the federal conservative party began a pre-election campaign that was couched in a slogan: “STAND UP FOR CANADA” with some very important “Action Plans” to entice voter support such as: a promise to enact legislation to tighten up the criminal code and keep repeat offenders in jail longer.

Another important promise was an “Action plan” to implement “Fair Taxation for all Canadians” a basic right to which every Canadian is entitled and one -- especially victims of taxation on “phantom” income -- would be sure to vote for.

Still another very important promise was to “Enact legislation to ensure that full and timely compensation will be paid to all persons who are deprived of personal or private property as a result of any federal government initiative, policy, process regulation or legislation.” This is another promise that every victim of taxation on “phantom” income would be certain to vote for.

There is no doubt the legislation -- which the Revenue Canada Agency currently uses as an excuse to extort money from honest, hard-working Canadians – has been, and still is depriving many of our citizens of considerable personal property ranging from their life’s savings to their very homes.

So although the conservative party did a bit of finger pointing -- at the scandalous conduct of the liberal government -- their main 2005 pre-election platform was a long list of things they were going to do to improve the quality of life for the average Canadian. They offered abused Canadian taxpayers something to vote for -- not something to vote against.

After the conservative party was elected, however, it turns out a few of the more important action plans they promoted were only half-way implemented and the “fair taxation for all Canadians” plan was abandoned after a token number (37) phantom income tax victims had been given the promised “fair” tax deal.
Reference: The Gary Lunn Tax Remission Order (TRO) which can be found with a Google Search.

The federal liberal party then attempted to regain public support by selecting a replacement party leader who they hoped would upgrade their credibility and public image. They thought they had found a suitable candidate in the person of Stephane Dion who had a scandal free record and was very likeable.

Stephane Dion became leader of the federal liberal party on December 2nd 2006. Not long afterward the conservative party finger pointing began. Unable to dig up any real dirt on Mr Dion the conservative party spin doctors began to issue attack ads claiming: “he lacked leadership qualities.”

By conservative party standards this claim was valid.

Stephane Dion is first and foremost a man of integrity. He is a person who values his personal and his government attributes such as: integrity, dependability, honesty, decency and fair play above a budget surplus.

I am willing to bet on Stephane Dion keeping his word if he made a commitment to correct (“resolve”) Canada’s outrageous policy of taxing honest, hard-working Canadians on money that never existed i.e. “phantom” income.

Eventually the federal Liberal Party realized Stephane Dion was indeed too much of a gentleman and no match for the perfidious conservative political machine. Mr. Dion would not stoop to the conservative party level of political-opposition and personal character assassination.

I have no doubt if Stephane Dion had become Canada’s Prime Minister he would have restored Canada’s image on the world stage as a truly democratic country where citizens are treated fairly and equally under Canadian law.

The Liberal party began looking for someone to become their leader who could match, and surpass, attacks of the federal conservative spin doctors. Again the Liberal Caucus found a person they hope can lead them back to forming the government of Canada – a man by the name of Michael Ignatieff.

Michael became leader of the federal liberal party on December 10 2008.

Shortly afterward the finger pointing by the federal conservative party spin doctors began with statements such as: “Michael Ignatieff is not a suitable candidate for the office of Prime Minister of Canada as he is only visiting.” the attack ads went on to say Micheal is a person devoted to world travel and has no real interest in the affairs of Canada.

What else could the conservative party do? They couldn’t regurgitate their “STAND UP FOR CANADA” action plans – especially the promise of “fair” taxation for all Canadians” as they had already defaulted on that promise. And the commitment to: “Enact legislati on to ensure that full and timely compensation will be paid to all persons who are deprived of personal or private property as a result of any federal government initiative, policy, process regulation or legislation.” never got off the drawing board.

Michael has made a few false starts since becoming leader of the federal liberal party. He quickly realized Canadians did not want Canada governed by a coalition of opposition parties and wisely backed out of that arrangement.

He has done a bit of finger pointing since but hopefully he will soon realize Canadians do not need, or want, regurgitation of the conservative government’s misdeeds – the news media does a fair job of keeping everyone informed about those items.

When Michael Ignatieff realizes Canadians are looking for an honest government that allows parliament to do the job they were elected to do AND commits to rectifying government abuses of honest, hard-working Canadian taxpayers THEN he can count on my support and the support of the many thousands of Canadians (from coast to coast to coast) victimized by the unjust, and outrageous tax on so called “Earned Income” that was neither “Earned” nor real “Income” of any kind – it was “phantom Income” for which only "phantom taxes" could be justified.

Give us something real to vote for Michael and minimize the finger pointing.

See you at the voting polls for the next Federal election – O’Grady.

Victor Drummond (c)

BTW:- Comments are now moderated before they are posted.

FROM TWO-O-ONE TO..

FROM TWO-O-ONE TO THREE HUNDRED

Canadians who have been legally robbed and financially devastated due to “Income” Taxes levied on nonexistent, (phantom), income,have been submitting comments to the “Canadians for Fair and Equitable Taxation”,
(CFET), Petition for the Canadian Government.

The Third one hundred submissions are presented here with comments
By Victor Drummond ©
January 2010

Below are the opening lines of the CFET petition.

To the Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, Minister of Revenue, Members of parliament of all parties We, the undersigned, are shocked to learn that the government is taxing people on paper income they never in reality made, a.k.a. phantom income.

(Note: Victor Drummond, definition of “phantom income”.
Phantom income is income that “might” have happened but did not happen but has been taxed as though it did happen. Unfairness personified.)

Visit: www.cfet.ca to read the full text.
=============================================

The third 100 entries on the Petition Sign-on page -- with space for comment -- are as follows:

Of the 100 individual entries only 28 posted a comment.
Not one comment, however, said anything good about the taxing of phantom income.

Of the 100 individual entries 29 preferred to sign in as “Anonymous”
Why?

The best explanation for some people to remain anonymous, when signing the CFET petition, was contained in an e-mail that arrived at the CFET via the web page -- inquiry@ link -- last March.

The authors of the letter explained why they supported CFET but are reluctant to actually join the group, as follows: “I wished to remain anonymous. I suspect cra folk read these and remember.”

That is our Canada – a place where many honest, hard-working, victimized taxpayers, and their supporters, are afraid to be identified with their honest opinion for fear of being persecuted.

Do you suppose there is any justification for this concern? It has never happened to me, yet.

Ask someone who lost their home, and/or life savings, to the taxman, what they think about possible reprisals for telling it the way they see it.

What a sad state of affairs for honest, hard-working, Canadians to find themselves living with.

Especially when the Canadian Government has produced a document titled:
“Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice”
Ref: www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/just/img/courten.pdf

Telling Canadians how Canadian laws are designed to assure equality and fairness.


The Third one hundred CFET Petition Entries
============================================
(201) Anonymous No comment
(202) S. H. No comment
(203) S. H. No comment
(204) Anonymous “This needs to be changed”
(205) M. N. No comment
(206) L. L. H No comment
(207) D. C. No comment

(208) O. L. “Concur wholeheartedly. Tax should be paid on cash, or realized gains not on paper gains which may never be realized, or materialize.”

(209) Anonymous No comment

(210) W. T. M. “When employed at JDS in Ottawa this affected many of the staff but particularly the lower salaried and less financially savvy technical support workers. These people are also the ones who are least able to cope with paying off the large tax bills.”

(211) Anonymous No comment
(212) G. N. No comment
(213) Anonymous No comment
(214) Anonymous No comment
(215) K. T. No comment
(216) H. W. No comment
(217) L. M. No comment
(218) Anonymous No comment
(219) Anonymous No comment
(220) Anonymous No comment

(221) Anonymous “I agree”

(222) G. B. No comment
(223) M. V. No comment
(224) K. N. No comment
(225) J. D. Z. No comment
(226) Anonymous No comment

(227) Anonymous “Absolutely unfair – paid taxes on stock purchase program for Nortel that are 700% under water.”

(228) N. S. No comment

(229) B. H. “This is an easy fix. The employees at SDL Optics have set the example.”

(230) J. R. M. No comment

(231) C. C. “I fully support this petition. The last I, as a Canadian taxpayer want to see is to tax people unfairly. Please fix the law.”

(232) L. B. No comment

(233) Anonymous “I was in the U.S. at the time, already retired from Nortel after 25 years of work and exercised some stock options with advice to retain them.” “On that basis I found out later that I had to pay about $165,000 in taxes on paper shares that I still have at a value less than $2,800.00.” “This is highly unfair and unequitable as I had to lose all my savings and some of my RRSP in order to cover the tax on fictitious gains.” “Only real gains (on actual sale of shares) should be taxable, not immaterial variations in price.”

(234) M. M. No comment
(235) L. No comment
(236) A. B. No comment
(237) T. C. No comment


(238) G. D. “This law is irrational and typical of the bully pulpit enjoyed by REVCAN.” “Please fix it.”

(239) Anonymous “I fought my income tax bill for two years and then gave up in despair.” “Had to declare bankruptcy.” “I never defaulted on a payment in my life but now my credit rating is mud.” “Even more infuriating considering the relief the CRA provided the JDS Uniphase employees:
http://www.gowlings.com/resources/enewsletters/taxationlaw/Htmfiles/V1N97_20070208.en.html

(240) Anonymous “It is time to address this.”

(241) M. J. K. No comment
(242) Anonymous No comment
(243) D. T. No comment
(244) C. J. No comment
(245) D. F. No comment
(246) D. G. No comment
(247) R. K. No comment

(248) M. Y. “It makes no sense to charge tax until a gain is realized.” “This is why we have capital gains taxes.” “Unrealized employee benefits should not be taxed or assessed until realized.” “If we treated capital gains this way it would kill investment in Canada due to burden of servicing the tax burden.”

(249) C. M. No comment
(250) D. C. No comment
(251) M. S. No comment
(252) C. G. No comment
(253) T. F. No comment

(254) R. M. “I have been taxed on a huge $ amount of employment benefit that was never realized.” “How can some people have this flaw corrected for them yet not all Canadians in the same situation can say this.”

(255) J. M. No comment
(256) W. T. No comment

(257) Anonymous “Best situation would be to allow capital loss on the shares to offset the paper employment benefit.” “Tax us on the money we actually receive.”

(258) C. M. “Faced with having to fill out the exact same ESO-tax deferral as part of my income tax return for the rest of my life I am happy to support any effort to get this loop-hole closed.”

(259) M. C. No comment
(260) S. H. No comment

(261) C. M. “My taxable stock option benefit is zero because the stock price went deep South.” “So mathematically 0 taxable benefit earned X 17% tax rate = 0 tax.”

(262) J. S. No comment
(263) Anonymous No comment

(264) D. M. “I wish us all luck on this one, but doubt that the government would ever rescind such an easy cash grab.” “Still if anyone was going to do it I suppose it is this current administration.”

(265) C. C. No comment
(266) A. L. No comment
(267) R. H. No comment

(268) Anonymous “I actually left my company 8 years ago to pursue other opportunities, and was a bit shocked this year when my accountant informed me that the shares I thought were an asset are actually a large liability due to the deferred stock option liability.” “ So, the shares sit there, without the possibility of ever being sold by me.” “ Why sell and trigger a tax liability when I can just put them under my bed and not ever trigger the liability.”

(269) D. R. No comment
(270) D. M. No comment
(271) Anonymous No comment

(272) B. M. “This not only requires action but the right kind of action. It requires thoughtful deliberation by people who are deliberately being fair, to end this mean and needless taxation.”

(273) K. M. No comment
(274) Anonymous No comment
(275) Anonymous No comment

(276) Anonymous “It is unfortunate that the Government of Canada continues to insist on benefiting from the Technology Boom when investors and employees have all lost or erased their gains.” “Many of the signatories on this petition continue to
provide significant tax revenues from income to Federal and Provincial governments, it is unjust to tax on income never realized and never realizable.” “Allowing offset of income gain with stock option losses would be fair and just.”

(277) Anonymous “Allowing those affected to offset the unrealized deferred income gain with the corresponding capital loss would seem to be a reasonable solution.”

(278) Y-T. L. No comment
(279) B. S. No comment
(280) K. T. No comment
(281) Anonymous No comment
(282) P. H. No comment
(283) Anonymous No comment

(284) P. J. “This cost me a significant amount of money that I never even saw.”

(285) C. C. No comment
(286) K. H. No comment
(287) J. M. No comment
(288) J. D. P. No comment
(289) A. No comment

(290) M. L. “I was impacted with an $80,000 tax bill which to pay I sold my house (at a loss) and cashed in much of my RRSP. I could have not sold stock and held off paying taxes - but that would have left the burden to my family in event of my death – so the decision was to bite it.... Tax was on options that cost me $0.20 for startup company which I exercises when over $60.00 USD. I exercised instead of losing stock as I had resigned my position at said company and would lose stock if not exercised. Problem is...I was in a lockout period - I could not sell stock for another almost 2 months. The first day I could sell stock, the telecommunications sector crashed and the stock was trading at sub $8.00 USD.”

(291) M. J. “In the name of justice!!!”

(292) Anonymous “How can they tax you on money you never even had They can and they do.... I petition for this to change as well.”

(293) Anonymous No comment

(294) R. T. G. “I was employed at Creo products from 1995-1999 and was effected by the tax system for employee stock options.”

(295) R. T. G. “The whole affair, involving people being taxed based on money that they never in fact received, is utterly stupid. Quite apart from the unfairness towards the people affected - involving, in some cases, people's lives being ruined - the tax laws involved clearly did not anticipate situations of the kind that have arisen.“

“Refusal by the authorities to change what is obviously defective/dysfunctional
legislation is just plain un-professional, quite apart from anything else.”

“To pretend that the law cannot be changed is simply a case of pretending that the AXIOM represented by the law is a REASON for not correcting the problem.

"It's like saying "...there's so much of it going on that you can't possibly do
anything about it...", or some such - a common form of muddled and incompetent "reasoning" frequently used for the purpose of obfuscation and fobbing people off.

In a May 2002 speech, Prime Minister Stephen Harper (as Leader of the Official Opposition, at that time) said that Canada was a "...nation of defeatists..." I have this documented. This should be brought to the attention of the Prime Minister. This problem is being caused by lawyers and bureaucrats trying to "look tough" in front of their peers or superiors, by being dictatorial and peremptory, over things they maintain "...can't be done..." , far beyond the point of merely being absurd.

Unsatisfactory; the people responsible should all be removed from their jobs without delay. It is not acceptable that a bunch of stupid lawyers and bureaucrats should be allowed to propagate the type of defeatism and defeatist attitudes that the Prime Minister himself disapproves of.

(296) D. W. No comment
(297) K. J. No comment
(298) F. No comment
(299) M. J. No comment

(300) Anonymous “You should not be taxed on any equity until there is a formal transaction of selling the equity. Then if you end up selling at a loss you should be able to claim a capitol loss as well.

===========================================
In the above listing only the initials of the CFET petition signers have been given.

If you found the above posted comments interesting you should visit the “Canadians for Fair and Equitable Taxation” web pages and follow the “Sign our Petition” and “Signatures” links to get an advanced reading of a planned future Victor Drummond blog titled: “FROM THREE-O-ONE TO FOUR HUNDRED”.

While catching up on this topic sign the CFET petition, and post a comment, to add incentive for the Canadian Government to take corrective action.

Also planned for future Victor Drummond postings, to this blog, are a series of letters, e-mails and snail mails to various Ministers and MP’s in Canada’s Governments, past and present, and the really intelligent replies those appellants, lucky enough to get a reply, received in response.

Names and dates of the letters to be posted may be altered, or omitted, to protect the identity of the VICTIMS.

If you would like to support the CFET mission to achieve the “fair taxation for all Canadians” promised by our conservative government in their pre-election brochure: “STAND UP FOR CANADA then contact you’re Member of Parliament and say so.

The contact information for members of Canada’s 40th Parliament may be found by following the web links posted at the end of this article.

Our current government has no excuse, or justification for continuing to extort after-tax money from Canadian Taxpayers on the basis of defective taxable benefit legislation and an unjustified taxable benefit rationale.

The U.S.A. government has already acknowledged such a tax policy is unfair and have amended their equivalent tax legislation to put an end to taxing U.S. citizens on “phantom income.”
Ref: www.fair-iso.org and www.reformAMT.org

Canadian Government document: “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice” misinforms Canadians that Canada’s Laws and Justice System are intended to provide “fair” and “equitable treatment” for all Canadians. (Yah Right). The intent of this document is being violated by the CRA regularly with impunity.

Canadians have been taxed on “money never seen” for about a decade now and assumed guilty of some undefined crime – punishable by horrendous tax levies -- when they failed to sell their ESPP/ESO equities at the time of exercise. And some 37 such victims have been granted tax relief via an exclusive Tax Remission Order (TRO) while the remaining thousands of similar victims are still excluded.

Our Right Honourable Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has been quoted in the Victoria Times Colonist Newspaper as committing to “resolve” the phantom tax issue – two years ago – and the victims are still waiting.

Do not tell me Canada’s laws are designed to provide equality and fairness while imposing real taxes on imaginary income – show me.

Correct the unfair taxable benefit legislation and fairly compensate those victimized by it. The U.S. government has made this correction and Canada has no excuse for denying our tax victims the same “fair” treatment.

Canadian voters are the last resort to achieving the “fair taxation for all Canadians” promised by this government but not yet delivered.

Contact every MP in your riding – opposition MP’s included – and inform them that in exchange for your vote you want their support to correct Canada’s defective taxable benefit legislation -- to put an end to taxing Canadians on “phantom income” and those already victimized by this outrageous tax practice to be fairly compensated in a way similar to the action already taken by the United States Government.

M.P. contact information is listed on the web page at:
http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

See you at the next federal election polls O’Grady.

Victor Drummond ©

SETTING A DANGEROUS...

SETTING A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
When a Canadian Federal Political Party Leader is trusted
by Canadian voters to represent them and to set the standards of
conduct for the entire nation what action(s) might the leader engage
in that would constitute setting a “Dangerous Precedent”?

By Victor Drummond ©
January 2010

Marie Antoinette lost her head (literally) over a trivial off-hand remark such as “then let them eat cake” when she was informed there were a significant number of French citizens who did not have so much as a loaf of bread to eat.

Marie’s reply revealed an arrogant and couldn’t care less attitude concerning the distress of her subjects.

Showing a lack of concern for the well being of those who have the power to make or break a political organization is definitely playing with fire and anything a political leader might do, or say, that can generate a negative impression regarding the politicians personal attributes – within the general population – may well turn out to be setting a dangerous precedent.

The average person does not want any representative they can not trust.
This rule also applies to voters who will not support leaders that ignore and/or fail to support them when they are abused.

Canadians have had a decade, or more, of governments that have fallen far short of acceptable performance.

Canadian Liberal governments -- under the leadership of the Right Honourable Jean Chretien followed by the Right Honourable Paul Martin -- left a trail of scandalous political conduct that made Canada the laughing stock among civilized nations and thousands of Canadian taxpayers financially ruined by taxes levied on money that never existed i.e. phantom income.

By the year 2005 Canadian citizens had taken enough abuse, and scandal, and began to listen to promises being made by the Federal Conservative Party who were offering wide ranging political reform -- in their pre-election: “STAND UP FOR CANADA” promotions – including a commitment to introduce a “PLAN OF FAIR TAXATION FOR ALL CANADIANS”.

Enough Canadian voters supported the Federal Conservatives in the 2006 election to give them sufficient House of Commons seats to form at least a minority government for Canada. The newly elected Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, got right to work on some of the more important “Action Plan” commitments made during the pre-election campaign.

Harper’s government introduced bills to tighten up the criminal code and keep repeat offenders in jail longer.
The gun registry was debated and changes recommended.

On January 30th 2007 the Honourable James M. Flaherty, Minister of Finance addressed the House of Commons (HOC) standing committee on finance (FINA)
and among other things addressed the governments plan to bring: “tax fairness” to all Canadians.

Flaherty began his address with the following statements:
“I insist on being the first witness to remind this committee directly of the critical importance of moving forward with our income trust policy AND OUR TAX FAIRNESS PLAN.”
“Make no mistake, the decision that was taken on October 31st is all about “FAIRNESS”.

“FAIRNESS FOR CANADIAN TAXPAYERS AND THEIR FAMILIES who would be asked to pay more and more.”

And in his concluding remarks the Honourable Mr. Flaherty stated as follows:

“We made our decision based not on political calculations, as did the previous government, but on principles of TAX FAIRNESS, balancing the needs of individual investors with the interests of TAXPAYERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.”
“And we acted responsibly and decisively.”

“IT IS NOT TAX FAIRNESS IF IT IS ONLY FOR A FEW.”

Although the above statements have been selected out of a much longer address text they are not “taken out of context”?

Could the above statements have any other meaning than the one they convey on their own? If the above statements do not mean exactly what they say then we are dealing with a “senior bureaucrat” that speaks with a forked tongue and that would be setting a dangerous precedent.

As soon as the Federal Conservative party was elected -- to form Canada’s government -- in 2006 the Honourable Gary Lunn, CP, MP, for the riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands British Columbia, began supporting a group of his constituents who had hired a lawyer to fight for the “fair Taxation” the Conservative Party had promised.

Gary succeeded in having the Honourable Carol Skelton, CP, MP, Minister of National Revenue request a “Tax Remission Order” (TRO) be prepared that would cancel the taxes and penalties levied on the victimized constituents against income money that never actually existed, i.e. “phantom income”.

True to his word, when the TRO was ready for signing the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, signed the TRO which was then passed into law when Canada’s Governor General, Her Excellency Micheal Jean also signed the document.

When the approved TRO was made public, with a grand ceremony in Victoria British Columbia, the Honourable Gary Lunn was quoted in the Victoria Times Colonist, newspaper as declaring:

“It took a change of government to get someone to listen, but the Prime Minister has come through and delivered tax relief on this issue.” “It is not in the interest of government to tax people on money they never saw.”

Around the same time the Right Honourable Stephen Harper was quoted, in the same newspaper, as replying to the question: -- “Will the same “fair tax treatment” be extended to other Canadian taxpayers who were also taxed on phantom income?” – Harper said: “We’ll get it resolved.” “It will take a change of code.”

What meaning would the average Canadian assign to the statement: “We’ll get it resolved.”?

That answer sounds like a “YES” the same “fair tax” treatment would be extended to all other Canadian taxpayers who have been, and are still being, taxed on phantom income.

Not long after that the Honourable James M. Flaherty in the company of the Honourable Carol Skelton, CP, MP, and Minister of National Revenue, made an historic announcement concerning the creation of a “Taxpayers Ombudsman” AND an updated “Bill of Taxpayers Rights”.

As it turned out, however, the “Taxpayers Ombudsman” has no power to enforce any of the “Taxpayers Bills Of Rights” beyond admonishing any member of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that doesn’t enforce CRA rulings in a polite manner.

You may still have your wages garnisheed, and/or your bank account seized but the wording used by the CRA agent(s) must now be polite.

Apparently the Honourable James M. Flaherty considers that is all the consideration that TRO excluded Canadian victims of phantom income taxation deserve or are entitled to.

Some Canadian journalists later remarked the creation of the “Taxpayers Ombudsman” together with a token “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” was nothing more, or less, than a huge public relations scam perpetrated on the Canadian taxpayers to create the false impression these changes would ensure the “fair” taxation promised in the Conservative Action Plan.

Nothing could be further from the truth and when Canadian voters eventually realize the insult to their intelligence our government has been, and still is, heaping upon them with such scams then the perpetrators should be voted out of office.

Government scam artists may just find out the Canadian population is not entirely made up of gullible individuals who can be so easily duped.

That scam may be one of the dangerous precedents that eventually bring down our current self-serving arrogant government leaders.

Another article (below) might explain why the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, decided to renege on his commitment to “resolve” the phantom income tax inequality created by the Gary Lunn TRO.

The December 7, 2007 issue of the Victoria Times Colonist Newspaper contained an article with the title: “JDS Deal Dangerous Precedent – Ottawa told.”

Some “Key statements” in that article are as follows:
(a)“The federal government has offered tax relief to several dozen former employees of high-tech company JDS Uniphase who made and lost millions on paper, in a special deal that could open the door for other taxpayers to demand the same treatment.”
(b) “The decision recently published as a “remission order” in the Canada Gazette, was approved by cabinet despite objections from officials at Finance and Canada Revenue Agency.”

and

(c) “Senior bureaucrats warned such a decision was UNFAIR to other taxpayers and set a dangerous precedent for employees of other high-tech companies who watched their fortunes rise and fall during the dot-com boom and subsequent crash.”

The above warning issued by “senior bureaucrats” in Canada’s Revenue Agency and Department of Finance makes it perfectly clear that “tax fairness” and observance of the terms of the updated “Taxpayers Bill of Rights”, are the very least of their concerns.

The “senior bureaucrats” who issued that warning have no more concern for the well-being of abused Canadians than Marie Antoinette displayed for her loyal subjects.

At that point Harper had two options:-

(1) Keep his word and “resolve” the issue of extending the “fair” tax treatment provided by the Gary Lunn TRO to all other victimized Canadian Taxpayers – facing the risk that retaining his credibility may incur.

or

(2) Turn tail and stonewall all appeals for the “fair taxation for all Canadians” and his commitment to “resolve” the phantom tax fiasco.

Harper chose option (2) thereby destroying what credibility he did have.

There are, however, two very relevant points established in the above warning.

The first, and most important point, being the Senior Bureaucrats stated very clearly that the exclusion of other victimized taxpayers from the treatment granted to Gary Lunn’s constituents per the TRO is “UNFAIR to other taxpayers”. (Reference (c) above.)

In light of this statement what is the Honourable James M. Flaherty doing when he publicly claims: “the tax treatment of taxpayers who hold their ESPP/ESO equities beyond the date of exercise is fair because they are treated the same as all other Canadian stock market investors/speculators.”

He is selling out his credibility, integrity, and constituents – that is what he is doing.

That alone could be setting a “dangerous situation” -- (can’t use the word “precedent” here as this isn’t his first time.) -- and that should cost him his seat in parliament.

The second important point contained in the above warning is: “a special deal that could open the door for other taxpayers to DEMAND the same treatment.” (Reference (a) above.)

In view of the fact that numerous Canadian taxpayers, victimized by the same phantom income tax trap, have tried: (1) the courts of justice, (2) have tried appeals to the CRA Chief of Tax Appeals, (3) have tried appeals to their riding MP, and (4) to all House of Commons Members from the Prime Minister all the way down to the furthest back back-bencher and (5) appeals to members of Canada’s Senate – all to little or no avail – just what can these “other victimized taxpayers do to DEMAND the same fair tax treatment?

The Canadian government would like the general population to believe tax victims will obtain justice and “fair treatment” by appealing to the Canada Revenue “Chief of Appeals” officers located in most Revenue Canada tax centers across Canada.

Rulings by these CRA Officers have been a crap shoot and at best merely compound the UNFAIRNESS of the phantom tax fiasco even more. The primary basis for granting relief to phantom tax victims, by a CRA Chief of Appeals Officer, has been on the basis of “hardship”.

This practice merely punishes victims who have been thrifty, but who do not deserve to lose their life’s savings, while rewarding spendthrifts who never saved a dime.

In addition the federal auditor reported in 2008 that obtaining a favourable decision, from a CRA Chief of Appeals Officer, depended as much, or more, upon the location where the appeal was submitted as it did upon the merits of the appellant’s case. A crap shoot to be sure.

Our esteemed Prime Minister has chosen to renege on his commitment(s) to provide “fair taxation” for all Canadians and especially reneged on his remark “we’ll get it resolved” in regard to extending the fair tax treatment provided by the Gary Lunn TRO to all Canadian Taxpayers caught in the same tax trap.

Adding to Harpers deficiencies, concerning his personal integrity, he has revealed he has no concern for Canadians financially devastated by a flawed tax policy or for the responsibility Canada has for people detained by the Canadian Military.

In his opinion Canadians have little or no concern what happens to Afghanistan detainees after the Canadian Military apprehends them.

Harper is not speaking for me on this issue and I believe he underestimates the decency level of most Canadians.

He may not have any concern, or recognize any responsibility, for the possible abuse of Afghan citizens detained and delivered to the Afghan prison authorities by the Canadian Military but that is not necessarily the attitude of the average Canadian.

No matter how one slices the issue -- Afghans detained by the Canadian Military become a Canadian responsibility the very moment they become our prisoners. That responsibility is not diminished by delivering our Afghan prisoners to the Afghanistan prison system.

If there was the slightest possibility our Afghan detainees would be at risk of interrogation practices not acceptable to our system of justice then Canadians are just as guilty as the Afghan authorities for the torture and abuse that occurs and that we do not find acceptable.

Harper has already displayed a total lack of concern for the distress imposed on his own citizens by way of taxing thousands of them on income that never existed.

So it is right in character for Harper to show the same indifference to Afghan prisoners taken by Canadian forces that are very likely to be tortured by their own prison authorities.

To add insult to injury our Prime Minister has chosen – for the second time in a year – to shut down parliament rather than deal with the truth.

That “run and hide” performance alone is setting a dangerous precedent – one that should give every Canadian cause to look for a more competent and more dependable replacement government.

See you at the voting polls in the next federal election O’Grady.

Victor Drummond ©