The Canadian government would not facilitate collection of either of those taxes from Canadians in Canada. Payment of US tax bills by Canadians without US assets is voluntary, not compelled.
I assume that you are introducing the Canada U.S. Tax Treaty into this discussion.
In the interests of staying on topic, the Canada U.S. Tax Treaty is yet another example of how the USA uses treaties to effectively “plant flags” in Canada – in some cases without reciprocity and in other cases – “citizenship-based taxation” (for example) actually results in “flag planting”.
Here is at least one example …
Pursuant to the “saving clause” Canada (and the rest of the world) has agreed to allow the United States to claim Canadian residents (regardless of citizenship) as U.S. tax subjects. All that is required is that the unfortunate individual be defined by the USA as a U.S. tax resident. It really is that easy. (The FATCA IGA also make clear that Canada has agreed to allow the USA to define any Canadian resident as a U.S. tax resident.) Here is what the saving clause in Article XXIX actually says:
2. Except as provided in paragraph 3, nothing in the Convention shall be construed as preventing a Contracting State from taxing its residents (as determined under Article IV (Residence)) and, in the case of the United States, its citizens (including a former citizen whose loss of citizenship had as one of its principal purposes the avoidance of tax, but only for a period of ten years following such loss) and companies electing to be treated as domestic corporations, as if there were no convention between the United States and Canada with respect to taxes on income and on capital.
So it’s clear that the treaty gives the U.S. the right to tax its citizens and Canada does not have that right. In that respect this is another example of an unequal treaty.
Your comment:
The Canadian government would not facilitate collection of either of those taxes from Canadians in Canada.
Actually, there is no doubt that Canada WILL “facilitate” the collection of U.S. taxes on Canadians in Canada. This is made clear in Article XXVII the “Exchange of Information” provision which specifically states:
Article XXVII
Exchange of Information
1. The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall exchange such information as is relevant for carrying out the provisions of this Convention or of the domestic laws of the Contracting States concerning taxes to which the Convention applies insofar as the taxation thereunder is not contrary to the Convention. …
BB in the comment above refers to Transition Tax, GILTI, etc. The treaty clearly obligates Canada to disclose the this information to the USA. How does that not “facilitate” the collection of taxes? It’s the first step toward the creation of a U.S. tax debt. Without a U.S. tax debt there is nothing to collect. There is no doubt that Canada will assist the USA in creating a U.S. tax debt on Canadian residents. Again, Canada absolutely will facilitate the creation of a U.S. tax debt through the exchange of information.
To put it simply, when it comes to U.S. tax debts on Canadian residents:
Canada will load the gun, but it may not pull the trigger.
_______________________________________________
This leaves the question of actual collection (pulling the trigger) – to which your comment presumably is directed.
In relation to collection, you presumably are referring to Article XXVIA of the Treaty which provides for assistance in collection of tax debts AFTER they have been created (with the help of Canada) which says:
8. No assistance shall be provided under this Article for a revenue claim in respect of a taxpayer to the extent that the taxpayer can demonstrate that
(a) where the taxpayer is an individual, the revenue claim relates to a taxable period in which the taxpayer was a citizen of the requested State, and …
This means (supposedly) that the Canada Revenue Agency would not assist the IRS in collecting a U.S. tax debt on a Canadian citizen who is a tax resident of Canada (after Canada has helped with the creation of the tax debt). It’s important to recognize that the collection is irrelevant to the existence of the tax debt.
Your comment suggests that all of this is just fine as long as the Canada Revenue Agency won’t directly assist the USA in the collection of the debt. It’s not fine.
Canada and other countries MUST NOT allow treaties that allow the U.S. to create these tax debts (with clear help from Canada in the first place). This could be done in various ways including: modifying the savings clause to exclude Canadian citizens who are resident in Canada or modifying the treaty to allow U.S. citizens in Canada to be exempt from the current savings clause. This is the work that needs to be done. It is neither sufficient nor advisable to pretend that there is no problem when Canada will assist the USA in the necessary condition for collection – the creation of the U.S. tax debt.
In addition, to imagine that Article XXVIA is somehow the solution ignores the fact that this (if it holds), would hold only as long as the individual is a tax resident of Canada and not of countries like France, Denmark, Sweden, etc. … In other words it creates clear mobility issues.
Given the U.S. propensity for the creation of unequal treaties I would NOT bet on this provision holding indefinitely. Hence, this problem must be eradicated at the sources which are: U.S. citizenship-based taxation, entrenched by unequal treaties, which sooner or later will be enforced through FATCA.
Payment of US tax bills by Canadians without US assets is voluntary, not compelled.
Finally, if “Payment of US tax bills by Canadians without US assets is voluntary, not compelled.” then Payment of US tax bills by Canadians WITH US assets is also voluntary, not compelled.
Payment of taxes is not compelled anywhere. It’s just that many people believe that it is in their interests to pay tax debts. Presumably you mean that if a Canadian citizen has U.S. assets, then the U.S. can satisfy the U.S. tax debt by seizing those U.S. assets. Maybe, but hey:
Don’t you think it would be better to not have the U.S. tax debt in the first place? Without a U.S. tax debt there would be no problem at all.
It’s more important to focus on getting these injustices remedied (which to return to the point of the post – is largely the result of unequal treaties) – than to pretend, that the United States claiming Canada residents as U.S. taxpayers, is not really a problem. It obviously is a problem. It’s a problem for all Canadians and for the Government of Canada.
For noncompliant individuals, well it’s not a problem until it becomes a problem.
There is no reason to assume that the circumstances today will be the circumstances a decade from now.
Question: On February 11, 2010 would you have imagined that you would be investing so much of your life in commenting about something that didn’t yet exist?
Personally, I’m not super concerned about debts that can’t be collected, but that’s just me. I would agree that the successive Canadian (and other) governments have, in general, been too lenient on the treaty front. I merely think that comparing the transition tax to extradition is a rather a long stretch.
In 2011 I was far more worried than I am now. Everything I’ve seen in the past five or more years suggests that this is a non-issue for any dual citizen in Canada who is suitably educated. If people weren’t still being scared into self-destructive behaviour, I’d have no reason to comment anywhere.
I merely think that comparing the transition tax to extradition is a rather a long stretch.
1. Let’s keep the focus on the point. The comparison is not one of comparing the transition tax to extradition. The comparison (to stay relevant to the treaty discussion) is of two treaties that impose unequal obligations.
2. Your level of worry? The comment (last few lines) above had nothing to do with being worried at any time including 2011 (see last paragraph). It was directed to unanticipated changing circumstances.
3. I see little evidence that anybody who reads Brock is being scared into compliance – actually no evidence. I doubt that there are many people (given the knowledge of what compliance means) who would come into compliance at this stage. At this stage Brock is basically an “echo chamber” of noncompliance for the noncompliant.
4. Suitably educated? Every reader of Brock (and there are very few) understands that one should not just respond to citizenship-based taxation by running out to an accountant and filing taxes.
5. Your comment includes: ” Everything I’ve seen in the past five or more years suggests that this is a non-issue for any dual citizen in Canada who is suitably educated.” So, your position is that something that is bad for Canada is not an issue for any dual citizen in Canada? (Maybe, you should run for Parliament – Under the current system individual MPs don’t care about the good of the country either.)
There is a clear “fault line” on Brock. The fault line is NOT (what you suggest) a discussion of compliance (a minority) vs. noncompliance (the majority). The “fault line” is between those who are willing to direct their efforts toward change and those who are not willing to direct their efforts toward change.
Here are the main purposes of tax treaties, according to the Canada Revenue Agency website.
Another main purpose for a treaty ought to be to prevent predatory tax practices by other jurisdictions. But to successfully get that idea into a certain treaty would require some backbone.
Maybe the lack of backbone explains why they haven’t stated prevention of predatory tax practices as a main treaty purpose.
Actually I think the fault line has more to do with the concern that attempts to effect change may actually worsen the day-to-day situation. But that is a different discussion.
There still remains steady trickle of individuals having their OMG moments and needing counsel, here and elsewhere, though relatively few are Canadian. It’s important to keep those discussions current for search engine purposes.
Actually I think the fault line has more to do with the concern that attempts to effect change may actually worsen the day-to-day situation. But that is a different discussion.
No. You are articulating the reason why SOME will not direct their efforts toward change. It would be a mistake to ascribe this perception to a majority of those who are silent/disinterested. Most of the people not actively supporting change are in one of two groups (I suspect mostly disinterested).
Group 1: Those (mostly disinterested) who are not inclined to spend the time doing it. For those people the following quote comes to mind:
The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing
Group 2: Those who are actively opposing any kind of positive change. I suppose that they must be actively opposing change because either:
A. They believe that FATCA, the FATCA IGAs and U.S. citizenship-based taxation must be for the common good (you do find these people from time to time); or
B. They are (as you suggest) afraid that taking any kind of stand against these things could result in a worse situation for all Canadians (further punishment, closure of bank accounts, the Canadian economy collapsing). Or maybe they just think that it’s in their personal interest for things to remain as they are (compliance condors and other groups).
It would indeed be ironic if Brock – a site that began to provide education and oppose FATCA and citizenship-based taxation – transitioned into a site that supported the FATCA IGAs. Now that would be something, wouldn’t it.
Indeed, some people seem to be moving toward the acceptance stage of grief
Indeed, some people seem to be moving toward the acceptance stage of grief
And some are very happy with the FATCA IGAs because they believe the current IGAs provide optimal conditions for the hiding of their “USNess”. Hence, their opposition to any attack on the “status quo”.
Actually it’s not the IGA – which as far as I can tell is very similar from country to country – but rather the implementation guidelines from CRA, and the way that Canadian FIs interpret them, that make it so easy to avoid FATCA in this country. Why Canada differs from other countries in this respect I do not know – it’s more than simply the lack of national ID with birthplace, because even identified US persons suffer no restrictions on services – but I’m certainly glad that things are so loose here.
So yes, it would be a bad thing if Canadian banks felt compelled to police their customers more strictly in a post-IGA world. Service restrictions would be a reason to renounce for those who could afford it, and a serious hardship for those who could not (as we see in Europe). Information reporting to the US would be reason to renounce for those who objected, and could afford it; others would just continue to ignore the IRS.
Of course I speak only of dual citizens with no US assets who are currently protected from collection under the tax treaty, for whom CBT is basically irrelevant. US expats are in a different and more difficult situation.
Of course I speak only of dual citizens with no US assets who are currently protected from collection under the tax treaty, for whom CBT is basically irrelevant. US expats are in a different and more difficult situation.
Indeed – you are speaking of a a part of the group NOT presently impacted.
What about dual citizens with U.S. assets who are not in the U.S. tax system?
What about dual citizens with no current U.S. assets who will receive inheritances from the United States?
What about dual citizens who are currently in the U.S. tax system with no U.S. assets who have been pressured into the U.S. tax system because of pressure from banks and will continue to be pressured?
What about dual citizens who were pressured into the U.S. tax system and are suffering the consequences of Subpart F, PFIC, transition tax, GILTI, etc?
What about (Oh My God – I feel embarrassed to suggest that this group matters) permanent residents of Canada who are in the U.S. tax system, have saved their whole lives in Canada and are encountering problems?
Do these people matter – or do only noncompliant dual citizens with no assets in the United States matter?
As you continually repeat (whether correctly or incorrectly – time will tell) Canada will not assist the IRS with collection of U.S. tax debts on Canadian citizens who are tax resident in Canada.
Why then should the focus be on hiding/protecting noncompliant Canadians who (according to you) don’t need protection anyway? Furthermore, because they are not in the U.S. tax system they are not suffering.
To ignore this problem does nothing for the very people who need help. With or without the IGAs people have been forced (in spite of the messaging on Brock and other sites) to enter the U.S. tax system with disastrous consequences. This is the direct result of FATCA and the IGAs.
Finally, you see to assume that if the IGAs were to go, that the U.S. Government would attempt to enforce FATCA as it is written in the Internal Revenue Code. U.S. Treasury can easily prevent that from happening through the FATCA regulations (irrespective of the IGAs). Of course, if other sovereign countries are happy to surrender their sovereignty – by entering into IGAs – without pressuring Treasury to change the regulations, then why should U.S. Treasury do anything? Maybe it’s time for the Government of Canada and the Government of the U.K. to understand that these lawsuits are sending a clear message. The message is that the scope of FATCA is far too wide and should not be impacting people who live in other countries regardless of their citizenship. These message can and should be taken back to the United States (as is currently happening in the cases of France and the Netherlands) with a view to creating a regulatory solution to this problem.
What you seem to fear most is a world without FATCA IGAs. Remember that even if Canada (or other countries become disobedient) there is a prescribed time period to sort all of this out before the bad things you are imagining could happen.
@US Citzen Abroad
If this site is an echo chamber for noncompliance , then I take it that you recommend more compliance. US tax collection is not enforceable in Canada ( am acquainted with the rare circumstances where it is .
accepted).
“Payment of taxes is not compelled anywhere. It’s just that many people believe that it is in their interests to pay tax debts. ”
Please telll me it ain’t so. If you can guarantee me that the CRA wont come aknockin’ at my door, I ‘ll immediately stop filing and stop paying donations annually to our federal government.
Do agree to the need to stay vigillant that it stays unenforceable with better igas ,etc Sadly , I feel in Canada,it is the courts or bust.
The Canadian government would not facilitate collection of either of those taxes from Canadians in Canada. Payment of US tax bills by Canadians without US assets is voluntary, not compelled.
I assume that you are introducing the Canada U.S. Tax Treaty into this discussion.
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/tax-policy/tax-treaties/country/united-states-america-convention-consolidated-1980-1983-1984-1995-1997.html
In the interests of staying on topic, the Canada U.S. Tax Treaty is yet another example of how the USA uses treaties to effectively “plant flags” in Canada – in some cases without reciprocity and in other cases – “citizenship-based taxation” (for example) actually results in “flag planting”.
Here is at least one example …
Pursuant to the “saving clause” Canada (and the rest of the world) has agreed to allow the United States to claim Canadian residents (regardless of citizenship) as U.S. tax subjects. All that is required is that the unfortunate individual be defined by the USA as a U.S. tax resident. It really is that easy. (The FATCA IGA also make clear that Canada has agreed to allow the USA to define any Canadian resident as a U.S. tax resident.) Here is what the saving clause in Article XXIX actually says:
So it’s clear that the treaty gives the U.S. the right to tax its citizens and Canada does not have that right. In that respect this is another example of an unequal treaty.
Your comment:
Actually, there is no doubt that Canada WILL “facilitate” the collection of U.S. taxes on Canadians in Canada. This is made clear in Article XXVII the “Exchange of Information” provision which specifically states:
BB in the comment above refers to Transition Tax, GILTI, etc. The treaty clearly obligates Canada to disclose the this information to the USA. How does that not “facilitate” the collection of taxes? It’s the first step toward the creation of a U.S. tax debt. Without a U.S. tax debt there is nothing to collect. There is no doubt that Canada will assist the USA in creating a U.S. tax debt on Canadian residents. Again, Canada absolutely will facilitate the creation of a U.S. tax debt through the exchange of information.
To put it simply, when it comes to U.S. tax debts on Canadian residents:
_______________________________________________
This leaves the question of actual collection (pulling the trigger) – to which your comment presumably is directed.
In relation to collection, you presumably are referring to Article XXVIA of the Treaty which provides for assistance in collection of tax debts AFTER they have been created (with the help of Canada) which says:
This means (supposedly) that the Canada Revenue Agency would not assist the IRS in collecting a U.S. tax debt on a Canadian citizen who is a tax resident of Canada (after Canada has helped with the creation of the tax debt). It’s important to recognize that the collection is irrelevant to the existence of the tax debt.
Your comment suggests that all of this is just fine as long as the Canada Revenue Agency won’t directly assist the USA in the collection of the debt. It’s not fine.
Canada and other countries MUST NOT allow treaties that allow the U.S. to create these tax debts (with clear help from Canada in the first place). This could be done in various ways including: modifying the savings clause to exclude Canadian citizens who are resident in Canada or modifying the treaty to allow U.S. citizens in Canada to be exempt from the current savings clause. This is the work that needs to be done. It is neither sufficient nor advisable to pretend that there is no problem when Canada will assist the USA in the necessary condition for collection – the creation of the U.S. tax debt.
In addition, to imagine that Article XXVIA is somehow the solution ignores the fact that this (if it holds), would hold only as long as the individual is a tax resident of Canada and not of countries like France, Denmark, Sweden, etc. … In other words it creates clear mobility issues.
Given the U.S. propensity for the creation of unequal treaties I would NOT bet on this provision holding indefinitely. Hence, this problem must be eradicated at the sources which are: U.S. citizenship-based taxation, entrenched by unequal treaties, which sooner or later will be enforced through FATCA.
Finally, if “Payment of US tax bills by Canadians without US assets is voluntary, not compelled.” then Payment of US tax bills by Canadians WITH US assets is also voluntary, not compelled.
Payment of taxes is not compelled anywhere. It’s just that many people believe that it is in their interests to pay tax debts. Presumably you mean that if a Canadian citizen has U.S. assets, then the U.S. can satisfy the U.S. tax debt by seizing those U.S. assets. Maybe, but hey:
Don’t you think it would be better to not have the U.S. tax debt in the first place? Without a U.S. tax debt there would be no problem at all.
It’s more important to focus on getting these injustices remedied (which to return to the point of the post – is largely the result of unequal treaties) – than to pretend, that the United States claiming Canada residents as U.S. taxpayers, is not really a problem. It obviously is a problem. It’s a problem for all Canadians and for the Government of Canada.
Personally, I’m not super concerned about debts that can’t be collected, but that’s just me. I would agree that the successive Canadian (and other) governments have, in general, been too lenient on the treaty front. I merely think that comparing the transition tax to extradition is a rather a long stretch.
In 2011 I was far more worried than I am now. Everything I’ve seen in the past five or more years suggests that this is a non-issue for any dual citizen in Canada who is suitably educated. If people weren’t still being scared into self-destructive behaviour, I’d have no reason to comment anywhere.
1. Let’s keep the focus on the point. The comparison is not one of comparing the transition tax to extradition. The comparison (to stay relevant to the treaty discussion) is of two treaties that impose unequal obligations.
2. Your level of worry? The comment (last few lines) above had nothing to do with being worried at any time including 2011 (see last paragraph). It was directed to unanticipated changing circumstances.
3. I see little evidence that anybody who reads Brock is being scared into compliance – actually no evidence. I doubt that there are many people (given the knowledge of what compliance means) who would come into compliance at this stage. At this stage Brock is basically an “echo chamber” of noncompliance for the noncompliant.
4. Suitably educated? Every reader of Brock (and there are very few) understands that one should not just respond to citizenship-based taxation by running out to an accountant and filing taxes.
5. Your comment includes: ” Everything I’ve seen in the past five or more years suggests that this is a non-issue for any dual citizen in Canada who is suitably educated.” So, your position is that something that is bad for Canada is not an issue for any dual citizen in Canada? (Maybe, you should run for Parliament – Under the current system individual MPs don’t care about the good of the country either.)
______________________________________________________________________
There is a clear “fault line” on Brock. The fault line is NOT (what you suggest) a discussion of compliance (a minority) vs. noncompliance (the majority). The “fault line” is between those who are willing to direct their efforts toward change and those who are not willing to direct their efforts toward change.
Here are the main purposes of tax treaties, according to the Canada Revenue Agency website.
“Canada has tax conventions or agreements — commonly known as tax treaties — with many countries. The main purposes of tax treaties are to avoid double taxation and to prevent tax evasion.”
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/international-non-residents/tax-treaties.html
Another main purpose for a treaty ought to be to prevent predatory tax practices by other jurisdictions. But to successfully get that idea into a certain treaty would require some backbone.
Maybe the lack of backbone explains why they haven’t stated prevention of predatory tax practices as a main treaty purpose.
Actually I think the fault line has more to do with the concern that attempts to effect change may actually worsen the day-to-day situation. But that is a different discussion.
There still remains steady trickle of individuals having their OMG moments and needing counsel, here and elsewhere, though relatively few are Canadian. It’s important to keep those discussions current for search engine purposes.
No. You are articulating the reason why SOME will not direct their efforts toward change. It would be a mistake to ascribe this perception to a majority of those who are silent/disinterested. Most of the people not actively supporting change are in one of two groups (I suspect mostly disinterested).
Group 1: Those (mostly disinterested) who are not inclined to spend the time doing it. For those people the following quote comes to mind:
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/12/04/good-men-do/
Group 2: Those who are actively opposing any kind of positive change. I suppose that they must be actively opposing change because either:
A. They believe that FATCA, the FATCA IGAs and U.S. citizenship-based taxation must be for the common good (you do find these people from time to time); or
B. They are (as you suggest) afraid that taking any kind of stand against these things could result in a worse situation for all Canadians (further punishment, closure of bank accounts, the Canadian economy collapsing). Or maybe they just think that it’s in their personal interest for things to remain as they are (compliance condors and other groups).
It would indeed be ironic if Brock – a site that began to provide education and oppose FATCA and citizenship-based taxation – transitioned into a site that supported the FATCA IGAs. Now that would be something, wouldn’t it.
Indeed, some people seem to be moving toward the acceptance stage of grief
And some are very happy with the FATCA IGAs because they believe the current IGAs provide optimal conditions for the hiding of their “USNess”. Hence, their opposition to any attack on the “status quo”.
Actually it’s not the IGA – which as far as I can tell is very similar from country to country – but rather the implementation guidelines from CRA, and the way that Canadian FIs interpret them, that make it so easy to avoid FATCA in this country. Why Canada differs from other countries in this respect I do not know – it’s more than simply the lack of national ID with birthplace, because even identified US persons suffer no restrictions on services – but I’m certainly glad that things are so loose here.
So yes, it would be a bad thing if Canadian banks felt compelled to police their customers more strictly in a post-IGA world. Service restrictions would be a reason to renounce for those who could afford it, and a serious hardship for those who could not (as we see in Europe). Information reporting to the US would be reason to renounce for those who objected, and could afford it; others would just continue to ignore the IRS.
Of course I speak only of dual citizens with no US assets who are currently protected from collection under the tax treaty, for whom CBT is basically irrelevant. US expats are in a different and more difficult situation.
Indeed – you are speaking of a a part of the group NOT presently impacted.
What about dual citizens with U.S. assets who are not in the U.S. tax system?
What about dual citizens with no current U.S. assets who will receive inheritances from the United States?
What about dual citizens who are currently in the U.S. tax system with no U.S. assets who have been pressured into the U.S. tax system because of pressure from banks and will continue to be pressured?
What about dual citizens who were pressured into the U.S. tax system and are suffering the consequences of Subpart F, PFIC, transition tax, GILTI, etc?
What about (Oh My God – I feel embarrassed to suggest that this group matters) permanent residents of Canada who are in the U.S. tax system, have saved their whole lives in Canada and are encountering problems?
Do these people matter – or do only noncompliant dual citizens with no assets in the United States matter?
As you continually repeat (whether correctly or incorrectly – time will tell) Canada will not assist the IRS with collection of U.S. tax debts on Canadian citizens who are tax resident in Canada.
Why then should the focus be on hiding/protecting noncompliant Canadians who (according to you) don’t need protection anyway? Furthermore, because they are not in the U.S. tax system they are not suffering.
To ignore this problem does nothing for the very people who need help. With or without the IGAs people have been forced (in spite of the messaging on Brock and other sites) to enter the U.S. tax system with disastrous consequences. This is the direct result of FATCA and the IGAs.
Finally, you see to assume that if the IGAs were to go, that the U.S. Government would attempt to enforce FATCA as it is written in the Internal Revenue Code. U.S. Treasury can easily prevent that from happening through the FATCA regulations (irrespective of the IGAs). Of course, if other sovereign countries are happy to surrender their sovereignty – by entering into IGAs – without pressuring Treasury to change the regulations, then why should U.S. Treasury do anything? Maybe it’s time for the Government of Canada and the Government of the U.K. to understand that these lawsuits are sending a clear message. The message is that the scope of FATCA is far too wide and should not be impacting people who live in other countries regardless of their citizenship. These message can and should be taken back to the United States (as is currently happening in the cases of France and the Netherlands) with a view to creating a regulatory solution to this problem.
What you seem to fear most is a world without FATCA IGAs. Remember that even if Canada (or other countries become disobedient) there is a prescribed time period to sort all of this out before the bad things you are imagining could happen.
@US Citzen Abroad
If this site is an echo chamber for noncompliance , then I take it that you recommend more compliance. US tax collection is not enforceable in Canada ( am acquainted with the rare circumstances where it is .
accepted).
“Payment of taxes is not compelled anywhere. It’s just that many people believe that it is in their interests to pay tax debts. ”
Please telll me it ain’t so. If you can guarantee me that the CRA wont come aknockin’ at my door, I ‘ll immediately stop filing and stop paying donations annually to our federal government.
Do agree to the need to stay vigillant that it stays unenforceable with better igas ,etc Sadly , I feel in Canada,it is the courts or bust.