greg@sce.carleton.ca (Greg Franks) (03/27/89)
One thing about these stupid new forms has been bothering me. Revune
Canada has their nice big computer computing away. It's going to
compute how much they owe me, so why do I have to go through the
nonsense of computing 17% of this and 26% of that, fold mutliate and
spindle. I'm going to get it wrong anyway - their computer has said
that they owe me more than I thought they did for the last couple of
years running. So, why should I go throug the aggravation of filling
in the bottom line when they're going to ignore it?
Inquiring minds want to know...
--
Greg Franks Systems and Computer Engineering,
utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!sce!greg Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
uunet!mitel!sce!greg greg@sce.carleton.ca
from Ottawa Ont, where life in the fast lane is skating two inners!a283@mindlink.UUCP (Steve Miller) (03/27/89)
Yes I agree! Why don't we all just send in blank signed returns and let their
computer assess what is owed to whom. In the end it's up to them anyway and if
you disagree it doesn't matter since they can just take your money without a
court order.
Hardly seems worth all the hassle to try and figure it out for oneself.
Steve Miller
--
Steve_Miller@Mindlink.uucp
We come and go like comets
We are wanderers
Are you anymore...stacy@mcl.UUCP (Stacy L. Millions) (03/29/89)
In article <582@sce.carleton.ca>, greg@sce.carleton.ca (Greg Franks) writes: > .... So, why should I go throug the aggravation of filling > in the bottom line when they're going to ignore it? They want you to *work* for your money. If they just gave it to you it would be too easy. :-) -- "You should not drink and bake." - Arnold Schwarzenegger, _Raw Deal_ S. L. Millions ..!tmsoft!mcl!stacy
dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (03/29/89)
In article <582@sce.carleton.ca> greg@sce.UUCP (Greg Franks) writes: >It's going to >compute how much they owe me, so why do I have to go through the >nonsense of computing 17% of this and 26% of that, fold mutliate and >spindle. [ ... ] >So, why should I go throug the aggravation of filling >in the bottom line when they're going to ignore it? Note that this only applies to people who expect refunds. For those of us who owe the receiver general even more money, Revenue Canada is not going to be happy if you miscalculate and underpay them. And who wants to overpay?
kocic@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Miroslav Kocic) (03/29/89)
In article <144@mindlink.UUCP> a283@mindlink.UUCP (Steve Miller) writes: >Yes I agree! Why don't we all just send in blank signed returns and let their >computer assess what is owed to whom. In the end it's up to them anyway and if >you disagree it doesn't matter since they can just take your money without a >court order. >Hardly seems worth all the hassle to try and figure it out for oneself. >Steve Miller > The man raises a valid point. RevCan gets all documentation from other sources anyway -- ie. employers, financial institutions -- so filing a personal return seems to be a duplication of effort, and a wasteful one considering that most personal return filers aren't taxation experts. Why not just have the government do all calculations, mail you a bill/refund, and let you file an appeal if you disagree with their figures? Miki Kocic
mason@tmsoft.uucp (Dave Mason) (03/29/89)
In article <1989Mar29.002321.5939@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> kocic@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Miroslav Kocic) writes: >In article <144@mindlink.UUCP> a283@mindlink.UUCP (Steve Miller) writes: > >>Yes I agree! Why don't we all just send in blank signed returns and let their >>computer assess what is owed to whom. In the end it's up to them anyway and if > >The man raises a valid point. RevCan gets all documentation from other sources >anyway -- ie. employers, financial institutions -- so filing a personal return >seems to be a duplication of effort, and a wasteful one considering that most The idea behind having both sides of the transaction report is to provide a system of checks and balances so that (for example) if the bank keep witholding tax when they pay you some interest they can't just pocket it, because you'll send the government your T5 or whatever which will show a discrepancy. (Of course it also works the other way if YOU're the one trying to avoid tax). ../Dave
sph@apss.ab.ca (Shaun Hammond) (03/30/89)
In article <1989Mar29.002321.5939@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu>, kocic@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Miroslav Kocic) writes: > In article <144@mindlink.UUCP> a283@mindlink.UUCP (Steve Miller) writes: > > >Yes I agree! Why don't we all just send in blank signed returns and let their > >computer assess what is owed to whom. In the end it's up to them anyway and if > government do all calculations, mail you a bill/refund, and let you file an ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > appeal if you disagree with their figures? > > Miki Kocic Remarkably like the UK tax system of the early 80's (I haven't lived there since '81 so I can't comment on any "reforms" instituted since then.) Basically one filled out one form giving all your income (expectations) etc sent it off, and the Tax office did the rest. The only hassle I had was my mortgage interest payments (tax deductible) which varied (ususally upwards) during that time. However, the mortgage company did all the hard work. The form filling ocurred usually only at the start of employment and your employer kept the tax office updated on any changes. In this way they took only what they had to each month, never any more or less. At the end of the year (as I recall it) you got details of tax paid etc etc. I never filed a tax return in 4 years, but then again I really did not know anything about the tax system as the above probably shows. It was reputed that if you underreported, you paid, if they ( the tax office) screwed up, they paid. I'm guessing that I had a very simple "return" at that time. The system was great for the individual, and from the look of the UK budget surplus, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought so too. My feeling is that by going through the tax return in detail, you (sometimes) get an idea of how the system works. You may not agree with it, but at least you get an idea of how to formulate your own personal "tax strategy".
david@torsqnt.UUCP (David Haynes) (03/30/89)
In article <1989Mar29.002321.5939@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> kocic@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Miroslav Kocic) writes: >In article <144@mindlink.UUCP> a283@mindlink.UUCP (Steve Miller) writes: > >>Yes I agree! Why don't we all just send in blank signed returns and let their >>computer assess what is owed to whom. In the end it's up to them anyway and if > >The man raises a valid point. RevCan gets all documentation from other sources >anyway -- ie. employers, financial institutions -- so filing a personal return >seems to be a duplication of effort, and a wasteful one considering that most A great problem with this is that RevCan, in its infinite wisdom, will charge you late penalties (assuming that you owe them something). -david-
kocic@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Miroslav Kocic) (03/30/89)
In article <1107@apss.apss.ab.ca> sph@apss.ab.ca (Shaun Hammond) writes: > >My feeling is that by going through the tax return in detail, you (sometimes) >get an idea of how the system works. You may not agree with it, but >at least you get an idea of how to formulate your own personal "tax >strategy". Probably, but the formulation of tax strategies is what eventually enables loopholes and all sorts of other time- and resource-wasting nonsense. Unless the point of knowing tax laws is to cheat, or to protect yourself from a corrupt or klutzy government, I'm not sure why Joe Blow needs to know the Tax Laws at all, CONSIDERING HOW COMPLICATED THEY ARE. I'd think differently if they were simple. Please note that I'm largely a taxation ignoramus (although I help all my close relatives with their tax returns, being the only fully literate person among them). Any knowledgeable person who wants to enlighten me is warmly invited to do so. Miki Kocic
cebly@ai.toronto.edu (Craig Boutilier) (03/30/89)
>In article <1989Mar29.002321.5939@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> kocic@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Miroslav Kocic) writes: >>In article <144@mindlink.UUCP> a283@mindlink.UUCP (Steve Miller) writes: >> >>>Yes I agree! Why don't we all just send in blank signed returns and let their >>>computer assess what is owed to whom. In the end it's up to them anyway... >> >>The man raises a valid point. RevCan gets all documentation from other sources >>anyway -- ie. employers, financial institutions -- so filing a personal return >>seems to be a duplication of effort, and a wasteful one considering that most > Aside from all the good arguments already posted regarding the importance of the populace having some idea of what's going on (what deductions exist, how the system works, etc.), there is also the point that RevCanTax does NOT have all relevant documentation, nor can it obtain it. Consider things like moving expenses, medical expenses, charitable donations, and all the other things I know nothing about. How, for instance, are they going to estimate your moving expenses (or even know ...) if you are eligible for such a deduction? Craig Boutilier Dept. of Comp. Sci. Univ. of Toronto cebly@ai.toronto.edu
clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) (03/30/89)
In article <1989Mar29.212532.22054@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> kocic@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Miroslav Kocic) writes: >In article <1107@apss.apss.ab.ca> sph@apss.ab.ca (Shaun Hammond) writes: >> >>My feeling is that by going through the tax return in detail, you (sometimes) >>get an idea of how the system works. You may not agree with it, but >>at least you get an idea of how to formulate your own personal "tax >>strategy". > >Probably, but the formulation of tax strategies is what eventually enables >loopholes and all sorts of other time- and resource-wasting nonsense. Unless >the point of knowing tax laws is to cheat, or to protect yourself from a >corrupt or klutzy government, I'm not sure why Joe Blow needs to know the Tax >Laws at all, CONSIDERING HOW COMPLICATED THEY ARE. I'd think differently if >they were simple. Simple or not, I think Shaun's right. I worked in Britain for a year in 1976-77, and I agree with his impressions: it's easy to have the government calculate your taxes, but it doesn't give you the feeling you know what's going on. The tax return isn't *that* complicated, and working through it -- and reading about the deductions other people can use but you can't -- gives you a better idea about what's costing you and how you're doing relative to the rest of the world. It's not Joe Blow who uses loopholes; it's Joseph Bleaugh, Esq. (-- I just made that up! --) And do you imagine Joseph's British relatives don't find loopholes, just because Joe's don't see the tax calculation? -- Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 (416) 978-4058 clarke@csri.toronto.edu or clarke@csri.utoronto.ca or ...!{uunet, pyramid, watmath, ubc-cs}!utai!utcsri!clarke
ebspencer@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Bruce Spencer) (03/30/89)
I've just found a new twist that seems, well - I'll let you guess how
fair I think it is.
I pay tax by quarterly installments because I don't get enough deducted from
source. There are two ways to calculate the installment - go by last
year's earnings, or guess what you will be making. I'm a PhD student
whose funds are dwindling so that this year I expect to make less than last.
So I want to pay by my expected earnings for 1989. Ok so far.
Here's the twist. If I get really industrious, finish up, and start
earning real money, say, in September, I will end up not giving enough
for my first three installment. RevCan wants the installments to be
equal so I will owe interest, calculated at usurous rates, for the first
installments.
Or, in a few words, I'll owe income tax on income I hadn't earned yet!
Yep, sounds fair to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ebspencer@watdragon.waterloo.cdn Bruce Spencer
CS Dept, University of Waterloo,
(519) 885-1211, x3626 Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L-3G1.dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (03/31/89)
kocic@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Miroslav Kocic) writes: >The man raises a valid point. RevCan gets all documentation from other sources >anyway -- ie. employers, financial institutions -- so filing a personal return >seems to be a duplication of effort, and a wasteful one considering that most >personal return filers aren't taxation experts. Why not just have the >government do all calculations, mail you a bill/refund, and let you file an >appeal if you disagree with their figures? As other posters have pointed out, that's approximately what happens in some countries, such as the U.K. In Canada, we have a self-assessment system. That is, each taxpayer computes their own income and tax payable. Revenue Canada does not get documentation from other sources for the purpose of computing your tax payable. It gets that documentation for verification and audit purposes only. Your statements on your income tax return are the starting point. And, as has been pointed out, many tax items don't show up neatly on information slips. Some of them can't. Capital gains calculations, for example, can't possibly be calculated by a broker unless you deal with only one broker. David Sherman -- Moderator, mail.yiddish { uunet!attcan att utzoo }!lsuc!dave dave%lsuc@ai.toronto.edu
dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (03/31/89)
In article <144@mindlink.UUCP> a283@mindlink.UUCP (Steve Miller) writes: >Yes I agree! Why don't we all just send in blank signed returns and let their >computer assess what is owed to whom. In the end it's up to them anyway and if >you disagree it doesn't matter since they can just take your money without a >court order. This is utterly and fundamentally misleading. While it is true that garnishment of bank accounts by Revenue Canada requires no court order if an assessment has been issued and the time for filing a notice of objection has expired, there are many many steps you can take long before that stage is reached. 1. You can have your say (on paper) when filing your return. 2. You may send in additional information at any time. 3. You may meet with District Taxation Office representatives to discuss your return. 4. You will, as a matter of departmental policy, be contacted before a reassessment is issued and be given a chance to state your case. 5. You can file a Notice of Objection to any assessment or reassessment. 6. You can state your case to independent Appeals Officers who deal with every Notice of Objection filed. 7. You can take the case to the Tax Court of Canada, which has informal procedures that do not require a lawyer. 8. You can appeal further to the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. 9. You can appeal further to the Federal Court of Appeal. 10.You can appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, if leave to appeal is granted by either that Court or the Federal Court of Appeal. Rather a different picture than the one painted by Mr. Miller. It is not "up to them". David Sherman -- Moderator, mail.yiddish { uunet!attcan att utzoo }!lsuc!dave dave%lsuc@ai.toronto.edu
dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (03/31/89)
In article <296@torsqnt.UUCP> david@torsqnt.UUCP (David Haynes) writes: >A great problem with this is that RevCan, in its infinite wisdom, will charge >you late penalties (assuming that you owe them something). First of all, don't blame Revenue Canada for the rules. Parliament makes the rules, as proposed by the Minister of Finance. Revenue Canada enforces and administers the Income Tax Act, whose provisions were enacted by vote of your Member of Parliament. Second, what you are describing is not penalties. Penalties apply only in cases of fraud, misrepresentation or gross negligence. What you are referring to is interest, and it goes both ways. Interest is calculated at a rate which approximates the Bank of Canada rate and changes quarterly. It is compounded daily. It is paid either to you or by you at the same rate. When you get a refund, for example, interest is calculated from the later of April 30 and the date on which you actually filed your return. Similarly, if you miscalculate and end up owing more than you enclosed by cheque on April 30, interest will apply at the same rate. Hardly unfair. David Sherman -- Moderator, mail.yiddish { uunet!attcan att utzoo }!lsuc!dave dave%lsuc@ai.toronto.edu
dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (03/31/89)
In article <12872@watdragon.waterloo.edu> ebspencer@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Bruce Spencer) writes: >I pay tax by quarterly installments because I don't get enough deducted from >source. There are two ways to calculate the installment - go by last >year's earnings, or guess what you will be making. I'm a PhD student >whose funds are dwindling so that this year I expect to make less than last. >So I want to pay by my expected earnings for 1989. Ok so far. > >Here's the twist. If I get really industrious, finish up, and start >earning real money, say, in September, I will end up not giving enough >for my first three installment. RevCan wants the installments to be >equal so I will owe interest, calculated at usurious rates, for the first >installments. > >Or, in a few words, I'll owe income tax on income I hadn't earned yet! Offsetting interest within the year is allowed. So if you find in September that you haven't been paying enough, you can make up for it by paying your December instalment early. To take a simple example, if you pay 1/4 on March 31, skip June 30 entirely and pay the remaining 3/4 on September 30 you'll have no interest owing -- the prepayment of the last quarter offsets the interest which would apply on the late payment from the second quarter. Whether the system you describe is unfair is hard to say. Specifically, designing a system which doesn't penalize you in the example you give would be difficult, without opening up all sorts of tax avoidance possibilities. The problem is that income is fundamentally calculated on the year as a whole, so the concept of "hadn't earned yet" which you raise is nonexistent. There's no distinction between a dollar earned in January and a dollar earned in December. Then again, if the reason you have to pay instalments is that some or all of your income comes from self-employment, there are all kinds of other possibilities open to you. Consult a tax professional. David Sherman -- Moderator, mail.yiddish { uunet!attcan att utzoo }!lsuc!dave dave%lsuc@ai.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (04/01/89)
In article <12872@watdragon.waterloo.edu> ebspencer@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Bruce Spencer) writes: >Or, in a few words, I'll owe income tax on income I hadn't earned yet! > >Yep, sounds fair to me. Using the words "fair" and "tax" in the same article is inappropriate. The government is not interested in being fair, it is interested in extracting as much money as possible. It finds the *appearance* of fairness useful, in that this helps prevent the peasants from rising in revolt, but one should not be surprised if this facade breaks down in unusual situations. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
edhew@egvideo.UUCP (Ed Hew) (04/03/89)
In article <8903301453.AA07596@russell.csri.toronto.edu> clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) writes: > >The tax return isn't *that* complicated, and working through it >-- and reading about the deductions other people can use but you can't -- >gives you a better idea about what's costing you and how you're doing >relative to the rest of the world. I haven't had a problem going through the tax return myself for about 20 years now, both my own, my spouse's, my parent's .... What I again dread is that 3 weekend dead loss when I have to make about 47 phone calls to get the missing numbers, and wade through a minimum of 2 *feet* (oops, make that .5 meters!) of old bills and misc statements just so that I can *begin* that relatively simple 1/2 hour task of completing and verifying my return. Perhaps (since Revenue Canada is all powerful) they might compel all parties involved to simply email me the info automatically by the end of February, and I could then spend a couple of hours hacking a little script to shuffle it all for me. :-) [at least 'till I dig the paleozoic paper stack out!] --ed {edhew@egvideo.uucp} >Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 >clarke@csri.toronto.edu or clarke@csri.utoronto.ca Ed. A. Hew Technical Marketing Director Xeni/Con Corporation UUCP@bus: ..!{uunet!}utai!lsuc!xenicon!edhew Internet: edhew@xenicon.uucp UUCP@res: ..!{uunet!}watmath!egvideo!edhew Internet: edhew@egvideo.uucp