padpowell@wateng.UUCP (PAD Powell [Admin]) (02/05/84)
Well, we have all been reading/hearing about our glorious ghouls
(after all, they go after estates too), the Revenue Canada bureaucrats.
After discussion, we have decided that they have written their own laws,
having decided that the Criminal Code is too silly for words.
1. You can't win. So don't even try.
2. You can't break even. We never lose.
3. You can't quit the game. Sorry, if you owe taxes, we seize your
passport. Oh yeah, don't think about dying. We get you there too.
Who do you think runs Hell?
4. You cannot be told the rules. After all, if you knew them,
you might be able to figure them out.
5. If you do win, the rules are changed retroactively.
I have been involved for 12 years with the guilty-of-incestuous-relations-
with-a-log bureacrats (how about that for calling them block-heads?),
and only once was I given a clear, understandable, and non-technical
explanation about a difficult matter. It was along the lines of,
"Look, Mr. Powell, You made it, it was not an expense, and we want our cut."
Also, I have been convinced that the statements made by the various ministers,
deputy dogs, etc., have been deliberate untruths, "lies", or deceptions.
Since they have set the precedent in truthfulness, I suppose we
should follow it. Also, having set a precedent for disclosures
of correspondence, re correspondence of Mulrooney (sp?),
I think that we should not place any faith in their confidentiality.
After all, the last thing I need to have right now is a public disclosure
of their interest in my Kewpie Doll ("really, now, Mr. Powell, $5,000 for
'et cetera' is a little much.") ("Oh, yeah, have you gone out and priced
'et cetera' lately?").
Perhaps it is time for a good, old-fashioned, tax revolt. I think that if
all the individual tax returns were simply not filed next year, the entire
tax system would collapse. Perhaps.
Patrick ("Gotta Go. There is a Queen's Cowboy at the Door") Powelldave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (02/09/84)
Since most people have tax deducted at source and get a refund when they
file, Patrick's suggested tax revolt wouldn't accomplish all that much anyway.
The vast majority of individual taxpayers are employees.
Dave Sherman
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davepadpowell@wateng.UUCP (PAD Powell [Admin]) (02/12/84)
I beg to differ. If everybody simply did not file, includeing most small
(under 20 employees), then effectively 2/3 of all the taxes in Canada would
go astray. Think about it.
By the way, I have noticed that the scummy tax wimps do not even know what
their legal powers are. In a widely publicized incident, they siezed a kis's
$37.00 account. In the ensuing publicity they returned it, and a spokesperson
said 1. "It was a mistake, we should never have seized it", and
2. "The bank made the mistake."
Well, it just so happens that both are outright lies. Firstly, funds in
childrens bank accounts are subject to siezure, and are one of the first
things that are checked for. Secondly, the bank has to report any funds
held in accounts in minors names. So there.
Patrick ("I sit corrected, 'incompetent scummy tax wimps'")
Powellperelgut@utcsrgv.UUCP (Stephen Perelgut) (02/13/84)
Patrick,
I beg to differ. (No, not about the incompetent scummy tax wimps).
It is possible for the tax people to seize children's accounts UNLESS
said account is held in trust for the child. In fact, if you are
careful and document the monies in each account, it would be illegal
for RC to seize a spouses account for your own tax arrears. However,
you must keep the money strictly accountable and declare any gifts as
taxable income and stuff.
On the other hand, this just makes it more obvious why the RC are
such scummy bastards
P.S. RC = Revenue Canada for all you paranoid types out there.
--
Stephen Perelgut
Computer Systems Research Group University of Toronto
Usenet: {linus, ihnp4, allegra, decvax, floyd}!utcsrgv!perelgut
CSNET: perelgut@Torontopadpowell@wateng.UUCP (PAD Powell [Admin]) (02/15/84)
Yes, that is true. However- the tax people "must" seize it first,
and then they can return it. Not that the "return" can be only after you
have satisfied them that it is the dependents.
Let's see: Currently it takes
1. appeal of the siezure. Response: up to 1 year.
If they decide not to return:
2. District level appeal. Response: up to 3 years.
If they support lower level:
3. Federal Tax Court. Response: a minimum of 3 years, up to 12 years
(and counting on this one).
4. Cabinet. Response: Forever unless you are a Liberal Party Hack
So, it is possible to wait up to 7 years.
Patrick ("I personally suggest buying gold and hiding it a hole in the ground")
Powelldave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (02/16/84)
Good news in yesterday's budget. Among other things:
- if you put up security, you won't have to pay the tax before the
appeal is resolved
- if a court (e.g., Tax Court) awards in your favour, you get back
any overpaid tax immediately, even if Revenue Canada appeals
the ruling.
That will solve some of the complaints people have.
Dave Sherman
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave