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 ©

MERRY CHRISTMAS ..

MERRY CHRISTMAS – HOUSE OF COMMONS
A commentary on the puppet performance of those elected to serve the best interests of their constituents and all Canadians and regardless of their failure to fulfill their duties I wish them each and every one a very Merry Christmas and an enlightening New Year.

by Victor Drummond ©
December 2009

December 2009 marks the third year anniversary of the exceptional early Christmas gift bestowed upon 37 Canadians victimized by Canada’s tax on money that never existed.

The Hon. Gary Lunn, CP, MP, for the riding of Saanich – Gulf Islands, British Columbia set an example of the kind of representation every Member of Canada’s House of Commons is expected to provide to their constituents.

Gary had the support of the recently elected Prime Minister – The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, CP, MP, PM who approved the Tax Remission Order (TRO), requested by Gary, to provide the “fair taxation” promised by the federal Conservative Party in their pre-election campaign: “STAND UP FOR CANADA”.

The Hon, Carol Skelton, CP, MP, Minister of Natural Resources, requested the Gary Lunn TRO be prepared but by the time the TRO was ready for signing Carol had been replaced by the Hon Gordon O’Connor, CP, MP, as Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources.

In spite of warnings -- issued by senior bureaucrats in the Department of Finance -- that granting “fair taxation” to a few Canadian taxpayers -- via the Gary Lunn TRO – is unfair to the thousands of other Canadian excluded taxpayers victimized in the same way and was setting a dangerous precedent – the Hon, Gordon O’Connor and the Right Hon, Stephen Harper both signed the Gary Lunn TRO.

Canada’s Governor General, Her Excellency Micheal Jean then signed the TRO, giving it the force of law while declaring she does so: “in the best interests of all Canadians.”

The December 20 edition of the Vancouver Sun Newspaper carried a report on this tax remission under the title: “Tories Kill Tax on profit never made.”

On Tuesday, December 19 2006, Gary Lunn announced: “his government is offering immediate tax relief to the employees of the defunct JDS Uniphase plant in Saanich, who had been taxed on the phantom profits.”

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

The Victoria Times Colonist Newspaper also carried a report of this momentous event and in addition the journalist, Cindy E. Harnett, interviewed the Right Honourable Stephen Harper and asked him if the tax relief granted the SDL Optics Inc./JDS Uniphase phantom income tax victims might be extended to all Canadian Taxpayers caught in the same tax trap? The Right Hon. Stephen Harper is quoted as replying to that question: “we’ll get it resolved – it will take a change of code.”

Apparently the means of getting this unjust, unfair, violation of item 8 of the updated “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” and a gross violation of the government document: “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice” “resolved” is to change the governments “code of ethics” and leave the defective income tax legislation -- that is used as an excuse to legally rob thousands of honest, hard-working Canadian taxpayers -- still in place.

Instead of extending the “fair” tax treatment -- provided a paltry 37 victimized Canadian Taxpayers via the Gary Lunn TRO – to all honest, hard-working Canadian taxpayers caught in the same tax trap the Harper Government has slammed the door shut and has implemented a policy of stonewalling all appeals for fair treatment by victims and by the grass-roots organization “Canadian for Fair and Equitable Taxation” (CFET).

Even the leaders of Canada’s federal Loyal Opposition party’s are close-mouthed on this issue.

Why? Are they not the watchdogs of the government just waiting to find a legitimate misdeed on the part of the party in power? Do the leaders and members of the opposition party in the House of Commons really believe the taxation of Canadians on phantom income is fair, justified and proper?

Even if they buy into the ridiculous claim by the Hon James M. Flaherty, Canada’s Minister of Finance, that the taxation of phantom income is “fair” because those taxed in this way are treated the same as all other Canadian stock market Investors/speculators – then reply to victims/CFET appeals and tell everyone what they believe to be true.

Silence on the other hand implies they can not convince themselves – let alone anyone else – that they believe the taxing of some and the revoking of this same tax for others – is fair, justified or ethical
and so our watchdogs are muzzled.

When you can not trust those who seek our support to be elected as our servants and representatives in government then it is time to “demand any candidate soliciting your vote – earn it by committing to support correction of Canada’s defective income tax act to provide the same tax treatment for all victimized Canadian Taxpayers.”

In closing I wish every member of Canada’s House of Commons the best Christmas ever and may they each receive the reward they so richly deserve.

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

Victor Drummond ©

KEEPING THEIR EYE ON THE BALL..

KEEPING THEIR EYE ON THE BALL – BALL? -- WHAT BALL?
A commentary on the conservative government’s lack of concern for truth and their lack of concern for their abuse of their own citizens –
never mind any concern regarding the torture of Afghans by Afghans.

By Victor Drummond ©
December 2009

Don’t shoot the messenger.

But that is exactly what the conservative government did when Richard Colvin reported multiple times, in 2006 through 2007, there was reason to believe Afghans detained by the Canadian military as suspected dissidents, or possibly even terrorists, were being tortured after being turned over to Afghan authorities.

Although it is well known that interrogation methods, in countries such as Afghanistan, are far different than in Canada, or the United States, it apparently was not politically correct for the Canadian military or the Canadian government to officially, and publicly investigate Colvin’s reports.

Instead it was much less likely to offend our Afghanistan allies to deny any knowledge or suspicion what Richard Colvin was reporting had any validity what-so-ever and if the Canadian Military in Afghanistan was in fact delivering suspected terrorists to the Afghanistan prisons to be tortured then so be it. We don’t want to know about it. In fact we are more than willing to throw our own citizens and public servants under the bus to maintain our official stance of ignorance of the issue.

After all is said and done who knows better than the Afghan prison guards, and prison officials, how to deal with their own citizens. A forced confession is apparently as good as any other confession when it comes to obtaining an acceptable conviction record in places like Afghanistan.

And what about failing to supply the international Red Cross with accurate details of the detainees turned over to the Afghan authorities? Who dropped the ball on that important function? Was it a duty the military should perform? It would seem it should be as they are the first level people involved in the prisoner transfer process. If it was left for this important function to be performed by Canada’s Minister of Defence then it is no wonder the Red Cross was left out of the loop. He claims he never heard of Canadian detainees being tortured after being turned over to the Afghan authorities.

Then what about the high ranking Canadian Military Officers who initially testified they had no knowledge of any Afghans held by the Canadian Military that were tortured after being turned over to the Afghan Prison authorities? Three of those high ranking Canadian Military Officers testified they had no knowledge of such events taking place and there was no evidence – to their knowledge – that any such events had ever taken place.

Was it a burning conscience or the threat of exposure that inspired one of those high level officers to do an about face and admit there was evidence of at least one Afghan citizen detained by the Canadian military being tortured after the Canadians turned this detainee over to the Afghan authorities and the Canadian Military then took the prisoner back into Canadian custody?

What in hell is going on in the Canadian government? If in fact the Minster of Defence didn’t receive Richard Colvin’s reports then there is a serious breakdown in Canada’s internal system of communication.

Not many Canadians believe the Hon. Peter MacKay when he says he did not know of the warnings issued by Richard Colvin.

Even fewer Canadians believe our Right Honourable Stephen Harper was unaware of Colvin’s reports and that our PM really believed there were no incidents of prisoners -- delivered to the Afghanistan prisons by the Canadian Military -- being tortured.

There was a time when I would have defended the title of “Honourable” and “Right Honourable” that precedes the names of our Members of Parliament that hold a portfolio – but unfortunately I am overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary.

When our government leader made a promise to implement an “Action Plan” -- to provide “Fair Taxation” for “All Canadians” and at the time of the Gary Lunn “Tax Remission Order” (TRO)was quoted as saying “We’ll get it resolved” and “it will take a change of code.” in response to the question: “Will the fair tax deal granted by the Gary Lunn TRO be applied to all similar victims of taxes on money never seen?” – and then turned his back on the rest of the victimized Canadians – his credibility went down the tubes. From now on I take everything Stephen Harper says with more than a grain of salt.

When the Hon. James Flaherty, Minister of Finance declared publicly: “the taxing of honest, hard-working Canadians on phantom income is “fair” because they are treated the same as all other Canadian investors and stock market speculators” -- then his credibility also went down the tubes.

No other Canadian stock market investor and/or speculator are taxed on money that never existed and the Hon? Mr Flaherty should be fully aware of that fact.

It may not be a case of deliberate treachery, however, when the Right Hon Stephen Harper turned his back on those he had promised to provide fair taxation. It may be a case of defective comprehension.

If Harper really believes he has kept his promise of “fair taxation for all Canadians” then he is not deliberately telling a falsehood – he is merely stating something he believes to be the truth but is factually incorrect.

If that is the case then it leaves a person to wonder what other hallucinations does our PM hold to be true?

He may have just lost sight of the ball he was supposed to score with.

And what about the seemingly perfidious Minister of finance. He may have also merely taken his eyes off the ball he was expected to play and then in his mind his promise of “fair taxation for all Canadians” was now a reality.

How else can you explain his outrageous claim that victims of taxation on phantom income are treated the same as all other Canadian investors? You couldn’t get further from the truth if you tried.

When our government leaders can not even find the ball -- they are supposed to be watching --then they may not be competent to make decisions that could, and often do, impact negatively on the country as a whole and upon Canadians collectively or individually.

It is time for Canadians to inform their riding MP’s, including opposition MP’s, that they demand the representation our citizens have a right to expect by the person they elected to the House of Commons.

For starters inform them you demand the Canadian government fulfill their promises of: “fair taxation for all Canadians” and that our defective taxable benefit legislation be amended to put an end to taxing honest, hard-working, Canadians on “Earned Income” money that never existed..

Remind them the U.S.A. government has already corrected their comparable “Alternative Minimum Tax” (AMT) legislation and put in place a program to fairly compensate those U.S. taxpayers who had already been victimized under the old legislation.

Canada has no excuse for continuing this abuse of our taxpayers so demand a commitment to correct this problem in Canada -- or no support in the next Federal Election.

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

Victor Drummond ©

JUST WHAT WOULD YOU DO...

JUST WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT
When you find yourself facing an income tax levy
that is 200% larger than your gross income that year:
(1) what would you do? And (2) what would you expect?

A commentary by Victor Drummond ©
December 2009

Gainfully employed Canadians soon become familiar with the Income Tax System used in this country. The process is simple. As the deadline to pay your income tax approaches your employer provides you with a statement of your previous year’s gross income – on a T4 slip – which also contains a list of payroll deductions and your net income for the year.

Employees who receive taxable gifts or awards from their employer will find their T4 slip also contains dollar values, in additional panels, which the employee is instructed to report on specified lines of their T1 General Tax Return. Depending upon the nature of the taxable benefit the employee receives -- the tax levied and deductions applied will vary.

For example the use of company car for both business and personal use will generate a taxable benefit that is based on the percent split of personal versus business of the total distance travelled during the year. The operating and maintenance cost would be split along the same percentage.

Regardless -- of the personal percent use of the car -- the tax generated would never equal or exceed the employees real earned income.

The first time your income tax levy exceeds your gross income you might think there has been an error made somewhere so you visit your nearest Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) tax office to speak with an appeals officer.

After checking your employment records the appeals officer explains your reported “earned” income for the previous year includes a “DEEMED” taxable benefit derived when the shares you received from your employer -- per an Employee Shares Purchase Plan (ESPP) -- were delivered to you.

“What about those shares you ask?” I signed up to purchase 2000 shares a year ago at an employee cost of $2.50 per share.” “I paid for those shares, in cash, out of my savings account.” “In July last year my employer notified me that my shares had been delivered and would be held in my employee account until I decided what to do with them.” “So what’s the problem?”

The appeals officer explains that on the day your shares were transferred to your account they were trading at $250.00 per share which gave you a DEEMED gain of: ((250x2000) – (2.50x2000)) = (500,000 – 5,000) = $450,000.00

This $450,000 gain is “DEEMED”, by the CRA, to be a “taxable benefit” and is added to your “earned” income at the “Capital Gains” inclusion rate of 50% for last year. i.e. $225,000.00 plus your normal $40,500.00 annual salary.

This brought your gross earned income for the year to $265,500 which after the usual exemptions and deductions left you a taxable income of $238,200.00 Your bottom line tax rate, provincial and federal works out to 36% which produced a tax of $85,752.00

You are shocked. You say to the appeals officer: “I never received one red cent – so far – from those shares – they are still sitting in the account with my employer.” “And for your information I would be lucky to be able to sell them today for the money I paid for them.”

The appeals officer informs you of the good news: “As you paid less than a total of $100,000 for your ESPP shares you don’t have to pay the tax immediately.” “You may apply for a tax deferment now, and every year, until you sell your shares, or you move out of Canada, or your employer corporation goes out of business.”

That is good news you say! “So I won’t pay tax on the deemed gain of $450,000 I will only pay tax on the money I receive when I sell my shares.” “That’s fair enough.”

The tax appeals officer replies: “That is not quite the way it works – You pay tax on the deemed gain as of the date of exercise regardless of whether or not you lose or gain at the time of sale.”

You think this over for a moment then say: “What’s good about that arrangement?” “As long as I have that tax hanging over my head I won’t have a worry free moment.”

“So what happens if I sell my shares now for the $5,000.00 I paid for them and declare a zero taxable benefit?”

Again the appeals officer informs you: “that is not the way it works.” “The taxable benefit legislation “ASSUMES” you have received a taxable benefit at the moment you take possession of equities acquired via an ESPP or ESO. If you sell your ESPP shares now it will generate an immediate payment demand of the taxes levied even though you have actually have a zero gain situation.

“That is outrageous”, you reply, “How can anyone in their right mind expect people to pay “income tax” on money that never existed?” “I’m going straight to my Member of Parliament about this ridiculous tax and we will see about this tax on zero income.”

So you make an appointment to meet with your MP and when you arrive you are treated with courtesy and made welcome. After explaining your phantom income tax situation and your discussion with the CRA Tax Appeals Officer you MP appears shocked.

Your MP assures you he will send a letter immediately to the Hon Minister of Finance (MOF) informing him of this ridiculous tax situation and he also assures you the Minister of Finance will take prompt action to address the problem.

Now that is the kind of representation you have a right to expect from your MP.

A few months pass by and you begin to receive notice letters from the CRA reminding you your tax return has not been received and that penalties are pending if you do not submit your tax return promptly.

Confident your MP will take care of this problem you wait to hear that your tax assessment has been amended at the request of the MOF.

A month or so later you receive the following reply directly from the office of the MOF.

It reads as follows:- “Thank you for bringing your tax concerns to my attention.” “Your income tax assessment for the year 2001 has been carefully reviewed and found to be in full compliance with the terms of Canada’s income tax legislation.” “Therefore you are advised to submit taxes levied in accordance with your present tax assessment to avoid incurring additional penalty.”
“You may apply for deferment of taxes levied on the taxable benefit portion of your tax assessment by completing form T1212 and submitting the form with your tax return.”

“Should you have other concerns in this regard I would welcome your further communication.”

Sincerely

(signed) John Bull, No. 1 Executive Assistant to the Minister of Finance.

So you bite the bullet, clean out your savings account and pay the taxes demanded.

A few years later you begin to see pre-election brochures and TV ads proclaiming: “STAND UP FOR CANADA” and that if elected the federal Conservative Party will introduce legislation to provide “Fair Taxation for All Canadians.”

So you “STAND UP FOR CANADA” and vote for the Conservative party in the 2006 federal election.

True to their pre-election promise the Conservatives delivered “Fair” taxation for 37 Canadians victimized by taxes -- levied on phantom income -- just the way you were.

Furthermore when asked by a journalist from the Victoria Times Colonist Newspaper if this “fair tax” action would be extended to other victimized taxpayers the Right Honourable Stephen Harper is quoted as saying: “We’ll get it resolved – it will take a change of code.”

When nothing happened by the year 2008 you decide to take your appeal -- for the promised “fair taxation” and justice -- to the “Tax Court of Canada” (TCC). And -- as advised in the TCC client information pages –- you hire a tax lawyer to present your appeal to the court.

In due course your case comes up and your lawyer does an outstanding job of describing the details of your past efforts to obtain fair taxation and he highlights the case of the 37 similar victims who had their taxes on phantom income, penalties and all cancelled by way of a Tax Remission Order (TRO).

The TCC justice hearing your appeal defers issuing his ruling for a few weeks and sets a future date at which time he will render his decision.

You have every right to expect your taxes levied on phantom income will also be cancelled and your money refunded in view of the fact the Conservative party has made a promise of “Fair” taxation for All Canadians and has set a precedent by already delivering on this promise to 37 victimized, honest, hard-working Canadains.

Finally the day of decision arrives. Accompanied by your lawyer you return to the Tax Court of Canada to receive the courts decision. You have already purchased a bottle of vintage Champaign to celebrate the end of your tax nightmare. Your lawyer assures you a favourable decision is almost a guaranteed certainty. The bottle of champagne may be all you have left to show for your efforts, after paying your legal fees, but you feel it is worth it to finally obtain justice and fair treatment.

The court justice begins handing down his decision with the words: “After careful review of the details of your appeal and consultation of similar rulings in similar cases I find that the Canada Revenue Agency has acted in full conformance of the law and therefore your appeal is denied.” “Case Closed.”

You and your lawyer stare in disbelief. How can you lose this appeal in view of the promises made by your elected government and the tax relief they have already delivered to other similar victims?

The answer is provided in the following report by Taxation Law@Gowlings, which can be viewed at:

http://www.gowlings.com/resources/enewsletters/taxationlaw/Htmfiles/V1N97_20070208.en.html

The following statements were made by TCC Chief Justice The Hon. Donald Bowman.

"In the wake of political pressure, the CRA has apparently relented from its initial refusal to grant relief to the affected JDS workers, and agreed to refund all taxes and interest paid. The natural reaction to this is, of course, "what about the rest of us?". A spokesperson for CRA has indicated that the CRA will not be granting such relief to other taxpayers who may find themselves in similar circumstances.
Most taxpayers would consider the CRA's stance on this issue to be patently unfair. However, absent further political pressure, or legislative amendment, 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.1 As stated by now Chief Justice Bowman of the Tax Court in Harvey v. The Queen:
The Minister's obligation is to assess in accordance with the law. It would throw the administration of taxation in this country into chaos if the Minister were bound by every private deal he made, whether in accordance with the law or not.2

Is immunity to the laws of Canada and freedom from personal attribute such as Honesty, Decency, Fairness, Integrity, Compassion, Dependability etc what you expect from your government?

If you are not happy to be lied to, deceived, and/or exposed to legalized extortion then you must take action.

Contact every Member of Parliament in your riding, including opposition MP’s and notify them in definite terms: “Commit to correcting Canada’s defective taxable benefit legislation to put an end to taxing honest, hard-working Canadians on money that never existed.” “And include provision to fairly compensate Canadians who have already been victimized in this way.” “The U.S.A. government has already corrected their defective “Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) legislation and included provision to treat those victimized fairly.” Ref: www.reformamt.org

If the U.S.A. can take corrective “phantom income tax” action at this time – when their economy is much worse than Canada’s -- then what excuse does Canada have to perpetuate this unfair, unjust, outrageous tax policy?

Who needs a government staffed by elected individuals who have no sense of responsibility to their constituents and who blindly follow party policy that grossly abuses those who elected them?

I do not – and neither do you.

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

Victor Drummond ©

CANADIAN VICTIMS..

CANADIAN-- PHANTOM INCOME TAX VICTIMS – NEED NOT APPLY

The Federal Conservative Party has made great promises to all Canadian citizens –
telling them many times and in many ways of the party’s “Action Plan” to provide “fair” and “equal” treatment under Canadian “Income Tax” laws.

In 2005, when the Federal Conservative Party (FCP) was still the “opposition” party in Canada’s House of Commons they spent a small fortune on media ads telling Canadian citizens how corrupt the Federal Liberal Party (FLP) was and how if elected to form Canada’s government they would make everything better.

They were going to crack down on Canada’s loose system of justice and get tough on repeat offenders.

They were going to introduce amendments to Canada’s personal and business taxation system – to bring fair and equal treatment – under Canada’s tax laws – to all honest, hard working Canadians.

They were going to: “enact legislation to ensure that full, just, 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.” Reference “Conservative Party of Canada Federal Election Platform 2006” – “STAND UP FOR CANADA BROCHURE” page 43. “The Plan.”

On January 30, 2007, The Honourable James M. Flaherty, Minister of Finance, made the following statements while addressing the House of Commons, Standing Committee on Finance (FINA).

The Title of this address is:
“MINISTER OF FINANCE STANDS FIRM ON TAX FAIRNESS FOR ALL CANADIANS”
Ref: url: http://www.fin.gc.ca/n07/07-007-eng.asp

“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.”

“Fairness within the corporate sector, where the current rules give income trusts a tax advantage and distort investment decisions.”

Fairness for Canadian taxpayers, who are seeing tax dollars sent out of the country to foreign investors; and
Fairness for all Canadian governments, federal and provincial, who are experiencing a significant loss of tax revenue.”

And in his concluding remarks Flaherty said:

It is not tax fairness if it is only for a few.” “And it is not strengthening the economy if the playing field is not level for all businesses.”

So what about “Tax Fairness for all Canadians”?

The events -- surrounding and following the Tax Remission Order (TRO) requested by the Honourable Gary Lunn, CP, MP, for the riding of Saanich – Gulf Islands, British Columbia, prepared at the request of the Honourable Carol Skelton, CP, MP for the riding of Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, Saskatchewan, and approved by The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada and also signed by Her Excellency Michaelle Jean, Canada’s governor General -- tell it the way it really is.

When signing this TRO her Excellency said: “I do so in the best interests of all Canadians.”

Many Canadians who were fortunate enough to have been employed in the communications field -- during the years of the Hi-Tech boom, i.e. 1985 to 1999 – were also unfortunate enough to have participated in the government sponsored “Fight the Brain-Drain” projects which supported corporations implementing “Incentive Share Option” (ISO), “ Employee Share Option” (ESO) and “Employee Share Purchase Plan” (ESPP) plans.

Both Canada and the United States of America (USA) enacted legislation to capture the taxes that would be generated by these ISO, programs while the shares of communications corporations were increasing in value on the worlds stock exchanges.

All went well until the Hi-Tech Stock Market Boom went BUST in mid year 2000. Then the defects in the USA “Alternative Minimum Tax” (AMT) legislation and the Canadian Taxable Benefits legislation (CTB) were triggered.

Honest, hard-working, taxpayers suddenly found they were being levied taxes on purely theoretical , might-have-been, money which generated tax levies that often exceeded the taxpayers gross annual income by as much as 1000 percent.

Individual victimized taxpayers in both Canada and the USA appealed for tax relief for years between the year 2001 and 2009 without success and grass-roots lobby groups sprang up in both country’s and began making organized appeals for tax fairness.

In Canada the Gary Lunn TRO was enacted and gave the promised “Fair” taxation relief to a total of 37 victimized Canadians. Our Prime Minister, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, was quoted as saying: “we’ll get it resolved – it will take a change of code” when asked if the same tax relief would be extended to “All Canadians victimized in the same way.”

In October 2009 the USA government amended their defective AMT – revoked all related outstanding taxes and penalties and provided a means of fairly compensating American victims who had already paid taxes and/or penalties.

As of today Canadian victims -- of taxes levied on phantom income -- are still waiting for their tax on phantom income to be “resolved” and the promised “fair taxation for all Canadians” to be fulfilled.

Why?

After so much rhetoric on the issue of “Fair Taxation for all Canadians” by the government now in power?

What happened after our Honourable James M. Flaherty made the grand announcement of an “Updated Bill of Taxpayers Rights” in May 2007.

Nothing happened as far as Canadian victims of phantom income tax is concerned.

Why not?

Perhaps the answer to that question is to be found in the statements made by his Honour Judge Donald Bowman, a chief justice in “The Tax Court of Canada”, when asked about the Gary Lunn TRO.

Reference: http://www.gowlings.com/resources/enewsletters/taxationlaw/Htmfiles/V1N97_20070208.en.html

Justice Bowman is quoted in the Feb. 2007, issue 97, Taxation Law @ Gowlings, as saying:

“In the wake of political pressure, the CRA has apparently relented from its initial refusal to grant relief to the affected JDS workers, and agreed to refund all taxes and interest paid. The natural reaction to this is, of course, "what about the rest of us?". A spokesperson for CRA has indicated that the CRA will not be granting such relief to other taxpayers who may find themselves in similar circumstances.”

“Most taxpayers would consider the CRA's stance on this issue to be patently unfair. However, absent further political pressure, or legislative amendment, 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.1 As stated by now Chief Justice Bowman of the Tax Court in Harvey v. The Queen:”

“The Minister's obligation is to assess in accordance with the law. It would throw the administration of taxation in this country into chaos if the Minister were bound by every private deal he made, whether in accordance with the law or not.2”

Is this the same Justice Donald Bowman who declared in his ruling in the case of: “The executive that hates golf.” that: “where no benefit has actually been conveyed to the employee it does not matter what cost the employer expended to confer a benefit to the employee there is no benefit to tax.”?

There is a government document with the title: “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice”

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

If Justice Donald Bowman is correct in saying: “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.” then the document: “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice” is null and void and the Conservative Party Action Plan to provide “Fair and Equitable Taxation for All Canadians”, is a farce.

For Canadians -- who have been financially decimated by horrendous taxes on money never seen – to attempt to use Canada’s courts or the newly created “Taxpayers Ombudsman” to obtain “fair” tax treatment is a crap shoot.

When it comes to obtaining the promised: “Fair and equal treatment” under the tax laws of Canada" – victims of taxation on money never seen – NEED NOT APPLY.”

If Canadians really want the Government we all deserve then let your riding Member of Parliament know that you demand -- the victimization of fellow Canadians on the pretext of phantom income being a taxable benefit – be stopped NOW and our defective taxable benefit legislation be corrected to exclude equities “purchased” within an ISO, or ESO or ESPP be treated as a conventional stock purchase -- not as a taxable gift or award – which it never was and never will be.

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

Victor Drummond ©