Offshore investments

[Bryan]

You think if it's well disguised and hidden from Revenue Canada, failure to report isn't a crime?

Is that what you're getting at?

.

I'm saying that there are Canadian Tax lawyers who openly advise ways to legally reduce how much of the assets you may have that need to be reported to CRA as "income". I was wondering if msj was aware of this. Apparently not.

[jacee]

I'm saying that there are Canadian Tax lawyers who openly advise ways to legally reduce how much of the assets you may have that need to be reported to CRA as "income". I was wondering if msj was aware of this. Apparently not.

It's you on the hook,

not your lawyer.

.

[msj]

I'm saying that there are Canadian Tax lawyers who openly advise ways to legally reduce how much of the assets you may have that need to be reported to CRA as "income". I was wondering if msj was aware of this. Apparently not.

I think you are misunderstanding the difference between assets and income.

You pay income tax on your income.

Your assets don't matter too much other than the $100,000+ limit for reporting foreign assets in more detail using the T1135 form.

Now, if these lawyers are openly advising as you say then one would think you could provide a link, no?

Put up or not.

[Bryan]

I think you are misunderstanding the difference between assets and income.

I said assets every single time I asked you. That there is a difference is the reason I asked if you understood that the way you kept phrasing your answer did not apply to what I was asking you. I asked you multiple times if you understood that other people look at the problem and structure their assets in a different way than what you were describing, and you either have a reading disability, or you did not understand.

[Bryan]

It's you on the hook,

not your lawyer.

.

I'd trust a lawyer far more than an accountant to go to bat for me over the legality of my financial situation. Wouldn't you?

[eyeball]

I'm saying that there are Canadian Tax lawyers who openly advise ways to legally reduce how much of the assets you may have that need to be reported to CRA as "income". I was wondering if msj was aware of this. Apparently not.

Is it just me or do the quotation marks only add to the dodginess on display here?

Does your lawyer wink at you when he says assets?

[jacee]

I'd trust a lawyer far more than an accountant to go to bat for me over the legality of my financial situation. Wouldn't you?

Your choice, your risk.

.

[msj]

I said assets every single time I asked you. That there is a difference is the reason I asked if you understood that the way you kept phrasing your answer did not apply to what I was asking you. I asked you multiple times if you understood that other people look at the problem and structure their assets in a different way than what you were describing, and you either have a reading disability, or you did not understand.

And I talked income when I responded since it is income that is taxed and not assets.

If you own a foreign affiliate (10%+ share ownership in an offshore company) then you personally pay tax on that $10,000 of income that it earned last fiscal year.

It does NOT matter if your asset/cost base is $1 or $1 billion. Irrelevant.

If you earn $500 in dividends from WalMart because you own shares in a non-registered account then you pay tax on the income.

If your cost of the shares is $100,000+ then you also report the ownership of those shares on a T1135.

If not, you STILL HAVE TO REPORT THE INCOME (this is not rocket science).

These are meant only to be examples and are not exhaustive as I do not have time to explain to a guy who doesn't even understand how tax installments work as to the many ways INCOME is taxed whether it is earned INSIDE or OUTSIDE of Canada.

Is it just me or do the quotation marks only add to the dodginess on display here?

Does your lawyer wink at you when he says assets?

Yes, I agree it is dodgy.

But people like to muddy the waters to make it appear deep.

[Bryan]

Is it just me or do the quotation marks only add to the dodginess on display here?

It's just to emphasize that just because money was generated, that does necessarily mean that it fits the definition of income for tax purposes.

And I talked income when I responded since it is income that is taxed and not assets.

You're still doing it. Talking about that same tiny little box you try to shoehorn every scenario into. I get it, you don't know anything else, that's OK. I'll take advice from smarter people than you.

[jacee]

/cbc-declines-to-turn-over-panama-papers-data-to-cra-

Names will be posted publicly in May ... but not data.

It's a start.

Names of people who may or may not be doing anything illegal.

.

[Bryan]

Your choice, your risk.

.

Less risk from a lawyer who specializes in it.

[jacee]

Less risk from a lawyer who specializes in it.

No risk to him

Only to you.

.

[eyeball]

It's just to emphasize that just because money was generated, that does necessarily mean that it fits the definition of income for tax purposes.

Money that is generated sure sounds like revenue.

DEFINITION of 'Revenue' The amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period, including discounts and deductions for returned merchandise. It is the "top line" or "gross income" figure from which costs are subtracted to determine net income.

Source

Revenue sure sounds a lot like income but what do I know, I just work for a living.

[msj]

You're still doing it. Talking about that same tiny little box you try to shoehorn every scenario into. I get it, you don't know anything else, that's OK. I'll take advice from smarter people than you.

Meanwhile you have told us nothing about how assets would impact taxation.

So, go ahead, tell us in what ways assets play in taxation.

[msj]

It's just to emphasize that just because money was generated, that does necessarily mean that it fits the definition of income for tax purposes

Ok, so tell us, specifically, how income is derived for income tax purposes?

Oh, and don't steal any of what I have already posted about this because that would be cheating.

It also will be helpful for you to reference your work by citing the Income Tax Act ( oh, there's that word "income" again).

[SpankyMcFarland]

Purely hypothetical scenario. You're a fifty year old high flyer at CRA interested in fattening up the pension pot. What better way to impress potential future employers at ABCD accountancy firm (and for them to justify their enormous fees to client Mr. Moneybags) than to convey some intelligence on a big case? If a judge went to work for the Bandidos, every relevant case in his career would be reviewed. The revolving door has to stop before public trust is gone completely.

[SpankyMcFarland]

This sort of thing makes a joke of the tax process:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/accounting-firms-recruited-cra-justice-staff-1.3526762

[eyeball]

Yep, I've seen this sort of thing in fisheries management especially as it pertains to allocation of opportunity. The Panama Papers are proof of what the 99% have been saying for years - the economy is as rigged as its rotten...right to the core.

I'd be happy to see the whole thing burn to the ground just for the pleasure of saying told you so.

[GostHacked]

It's you on the hook,

not your lawyer.

If your lawyer gives you bad legal advice, he/she is definitely on the hook for any legal matters after the fact.

[jacee]

If your lawyer gives you bad legal advice, he/she is definitely on the hook for any legal matters after the fact.

To a point ... but they know well how to cover their butts ... 'advise' their clients appropriately ... but they don't actually make the decision to 'fail to report' income to Revenue Canada: the client does, and the client is always the one liable for that choice.

BTW ... I've noticed something funny ... previously - maybe last year - I Google searched 'tax havens' and got tons of advertisements for major banks promoting such services.

Now they're gone.

It's nice to see them on the run.

?

Edited April 12, 2016 by jacee

[jacee]

Yep, I've seen this sort of thing in fisheries management especially as it pertains to allocation of opportunity. The Panama Papers are proof of what the 99% have been saying for years - the economy is as rigged as its rotten...right to the core.

And it's coming apart.

The 1% took a good run at us since the '80's, but they're on the run now. ?

I'd be happy to see the whole thing burn to the ground just for the pleasure of saying told you so.

It's happening fast.

The real big players are scrambling to grab everything from each other:

How many billionaires it takes to own as much wealth as half of the population:

http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2016/01/17/103311735-Billionaires_on_a_Bus-01.530x298.jpg?v=1453092640

Not sure where they think they're going with it. ?

.

Edited April 12, 2016 by jacee

[eyeball]

They're probably hoping Elon Musk, Richard Branson and now Stephen Hawking and Yuri Milner can build them an ark to the stars before the shit really starts hitting the fan. There's no way they'll make it in time, they'll have to resort to social welfare again.

Sucks to be the 1% alright.

[ironstone]

According to Brian Lilley,Bill Morneau also has some ties to Delaware and the Bahamas.I have only heard about it on Rebel Media so far.

[jacee]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/tax-evasion-crackdown-could-recoup-2-6b-minister-1.2853986

$2.6b over 5 years.

It's a start.

There's another issue too: Whose money is being stashed in Canada to avoid taxes elsewhere?

It's the money shuffle ... the rich avoiding taxes everywhere.

.

Edited April 12, 2016 by jacee

[eyeball]

$2.6b over 5 years.

Is that all?

It's a start.

.

So is a hundred tax lawyers on the bottom of the sea.