Fellow Canadians - Federal Tax is Illegal!!!

While debating taxes with friends we came across the amazing story of Gerry Hart and his 50 year war with Revenue Canada. Mr. Hart refused to pay federal tax based on the laws written in the B.N.A Act and a Supreme Court ruling made in 1950. Mr. Hart was taken to court 22 times by Revenue Canada and successfully defended himself each time culminating in the court warning Revenue Canada that if they ever brought him to court again they would be charged with contempt of court.

Thirst for Justice

Please fellow Canadians, take the time to read this story and spread the message. The B.N.A Act is our constitution and it cleary denies the Federal Government the right to levy taxes. The government bullied and harassed Mr. Hart but he never buckled under the pressure. If one man can win this fight, imagine what hundreds or thousands of us could do.

Thanks for this! I have been hearing about this from time to time, but the issue is usually dealt with in the usual Canadian manner... "oh well, sorry but what can I do".

My good friend is a CBC producer, I will take this clip to her and try to get a reaction. Although I doubt she would bite the hand that feeds her. Imagine the CBC running a story on this topic! That's even to liberal for them!

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

The Facts

This myth is based on the faulty argument that the Canadian Constitution gives the power of direct taxation exclusively to the provinces. Section 91 of the Constitution says the federal government can raise money "by any mode or system of taxation." Section 92 says the provinces can impose "direct taxes within a province" to raise revenue for provincial purposes. As a result, while federal and provincial taxing powers overlap, the federal government can levy both indirect and direct taxes, including income tax.

The courts have confirmed the power of the federal government to levy direct taxes including income tax. No court in Canada has ever agreed with the idea that the federal government cannot levy income taxes. The often-cited 1950 Supreme Court decision concerning the Lord Nelson Hotel in Nova Scotia dealt with the issue of whether the federal government and a provincial government could delegate authority to each other on specific issues of labour and taxation. The Court did not address the issue of imposing direct taxes or their constitutionality.

In Canada, if citizens feel a law is unconstitutional, they may ask the courts to declare it so. Until that happens, the law applies.

A number of individuals and groups are actively promoting claims that there are lawful ways to declare oneself exempt from tax. Relying on such "advice" could result in action from late-filing penalties and interest imposed by the CRA to fines and imprisonment imposed by the courts -- in addition to having to pay your taxes.

Before paying for such information or participating in such groups, seek advice from a trusted and knowledgeable tax professional or the CRA.

Canada Revenue Agency

reply to post by Whyhi

Not getting argumentitive, but just how did Gerry Hart avoid jail or paying his taxes for 50 years if what that Revenue Canada said is true? Revenue Canada almost has to deny this or admit the illegality of thier existance. I will dig into the BNA act soon to get a better understanding of this and will post my search results when I am done.

If you dig into Gerry Hart specifically, you can find the following

He has not ACTUALLY proved that Federal Tax is illegal..

______________


A) A charge of failing to file a Tax Deduction Information Return for employees was defeated by Hart's argument that he had no employees. All work for his companies was done on a piecework basis by self-employed agents.

B) At the same time, he pleaded "not guilty" to a charge of unlawfully refusing to file an income tax return. Hart told the court that he was not a bookkeeper, had no experience and couldn't afford to hire an accountant. The case was deferred to teach him accounting at government expense. He never heard from them again on that charge.

C) He was charged with failing to file an income tax return for Avtek Systems. He had, in fact, filed one. It contained no financial information, just a running commentary. The top of page three specified how the schedules should be attached: "indexed in the top right corner with the number as indicated under the Attachment Number column." Wrote in Hart, "Quite so, but all the same, up your posterior." ...The return was ruled valid in magistrate's court and upheld in the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

D) When compulsory hospital insurance was introduced in the 1950's, Hart declined to pay the $4 per month premiums. He called it "nothing but another form of tax, disguised in order to dupe the apathetic public." However, it wasn't until 1962 that he was finally charged with failing to register and failing to pay. ... Hart was convicted and sentenced to three months.

www.wclf.org...

____________
"No case has been published which involved the making, by Gerry Hart or his company (Hart Electronics Limited), of a successful argument that the federal Income Tax Act is unconstitutional. However, one Manitoba Court of Appeal decision was published involving a tax dispute by Hart Electronics Limited (though the case did not involve a constitutional argument). Here it is for your information and enjoyment: The Queen v. Hart Electronics Limited."

www.ownlife.com...

___________

Oh and I have to make this point...

From our Constitution.. Canadian Constitution

" VI. DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS
Powers of the Parliament

Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada

91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say, —

1. Repealed.(44)

1A. The Public Debt and Property.(45)

2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.

2A. Unemployment insurance.(46)

3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.

....
Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures
2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.

____________
My reason for pointing this out is the wording. It IS true that the Federal law is not allowed to interfere with the Provincial statutes. But it actually doesn't. That's why we have TWO different tax systems..

So, I say.. good luck with that.

Edit to add: Oh and the "System of Taxation" under the Federal statutes does not negate "direct taxation". The current system of taxation they have is direct. In 10 years, it could be something else..

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

Eldon Warman has a VERY informative website on how Income Taxes were MEANT to be filed & paid . . . amounting to NO income tax being payable.

Although it is a Canadian site, he does include information & instructions for the US.

Income Taxes apply to CORPORATIONS . . . not to you or me, the living human being.

Our governments created CORPORATE IDENTITIES by capitalizing our names when we were born.

Spelling one`s name in all CAPITAL LETTERS is called `CAPITIS DOMINUTION MAXIMA` . . . which means a maximum / highest / most comprehensive loss of status through the use of capitalization (JOHN DOE or DOE, JOHN). This occurs when a man's condition is changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he becomes a slave; it takes away all citizenship & family rights.

By registering our births, our parents . . . unknowingly . . . handed us over to the government, giving them the right to do this.

Have you ever noticed how your name is spelled this way on ALL government or business documents?

Eldon explains that this fictional CORPORATE IDENTITY, commonly known as a `STRAWMAN`, was created because CORPORATIONS cannot interface with living entities, therefore, the government, being a CORPORATION, cannot do business with a living human being . . . only another fictional, CORPORATE entity.

Thus, our STRAWMAN acts as a transmitting utility, our . . . AGENT IN COMMERCE.

Check out his website at DeTax Canada to learn more.