Should our politicians release their tax returns to public scrutiny?

[SpankyMcFarland]

All Cabinet Ministers should release their tax returns. We need to know if there are any potential conflicts of interest. These people have volunteered for a key job in the country and should be willing to surrender some privacy for it. After a few years, we'd barely notice it - no big deal.

I think their health records should be released as well but that's a fight for another day.

[Topaz]

Yes, it doesn't have anything to do with taxes BUT 9/11 had to do with ALL the people that died who came from Canada and other countries. One only has to go online and find how corrupt the Bush family is and that goes for Cheney too.

[cybercoma]

The only thing I could possibly care about when it comes to a politician's tax return is conflict of interest; however, our tax returns don't list the source by name. Releasing their tax returns won't disclose that information. Besides, we already have laws against conflict of interest. I don't care about what could possibly be revealed by a tax return beyond that.

[BC_chick]

It would be unimportant and petty to pour over a politician's tax return. The petty jealousy that people feel towards anyone who has what they don't have (like we see for the PM and his family) is sickening. We don't need more faux fodder for this forum.

Hmmm, I think you were just being petty and jealous whenenever you said boo about Harper.

See how that works both ways?

[The_Squid]

Hmmm, I think you were just being petty and jealous whenenever you said boo about Harper.

See how that works both ways?

Not at all. There are reasonable criticisms and there are petty criticisms. There are plenty of reasonable criticisms about Trudeau as well. But there is a huge amount of really petty nonsense about nannies,assistants and drama teacher stupidity.

[BC_chick]

Not at all. There are reasonable criticisms and there are petty criticisms. There are plenty of reasonable criticisms about Trudeau as well. But there is a huge amount of really petty nonsense about nannies,assistants and drama teacher stupidity.

To you they're petty, to others no they are justified. Likewise, to you Harper criticism was justified, to his supporters it was petty.

The point I'm making is that it's not jealousy to criticise Trudeau even if you find it petty. By that logic you were being jealous when others found your complaints petty.

[msj]

The only thing I could possibly care about when it comes to a politician's tax return is conflict of interest; however, our tax returns don't list the source by name. Releasing their tax returns won't disclose that information. Besides, we already have laws against conflict of interest. I don't care about what could possibly be revealed by a tax return beyond that.

Where do people get these ideas from?

1) If someone receives a tax slip, like a T4 for example, then yes, the CRA knows who the payer is. The CRA gets a copy of the slip. Often there is a business number on it identifying who the payer is.

2) On a corporate tax return there is a schedule where the shareholders are disclosed (for those who own shares of the company) and another for related/associated companies (with business numbers used so they know who they are).

3) For partnership returns there is, wait for it... schedules identifying who each partner is (by name, SIN/Business number) and also schedules to report related entities.

4) For trusts, wait for it.... well you know where this is going by now.

The point is that the CRA do not necessarily do a good job of properly accounting for this information as it is used, for example, to allow the small business deduction to be split between associated corporations or to trace PART IV tax through one corporation to another etc...

But if an agency was looking at specific tax returns of, say, Mr. Politician and then that agency would trace the relationships between those entities/living persons and trace it back to financial statements and other information.

[cybercoma]

That's a whole lot of tracing going on, which wouldn't be released in the politician's personal tax return itself. So we're going beyond them releasing their tax returns. People want a full forensic audit of their finances and have that released to the public? Come on now.

[msj]

Well the purpose is to root out potential conflicts of interest so why not?

It's not that hard to cross reference this stuff and if you make a system of disclosure much of it is just looking at information they already have on file but nobody is looking at with the mind to linking it to politicians and their business interests.

[cannuck]

We should care about conflicts of interest.

Ie: George W. Bush and his family had business dealings with the Bin Laden family and the upper echelons of the Saudi government and oil business elites prior to 9/11, then let a ton of them fly out the US immediately following 9/11, including members of the Bin Laden family. Should we care? Sometimes it's good to beat politicians with a stick depending on the reason.

Thing is, the information to which you (and most of the rest of the post) allude is NOT on a tax return. It is altogether the wrong document.

I agree we need a very high level of transparency from ANY elected OR APPOINTED public functionary. There should be a public interest oversight body that gets to review submitted financial statements, demand what is within their limits and release ONLY the condensed information that fits into being within the public interest. that would include where did any money and how much came in to ANY controlled or affiliated entity, as well as personally to the party in question. THAT is where conflicts of interest could be revealed, not in a tax filing.

[cannuck]

Religion and sexual orientation are certainly not the business of any employer.

We are not their employer. They are OUR representatives to the world and to the future law and regulations that we must support and obey.

[cannuck]

Where do people get these ideas from?

1) If someone receives a tax slip, like a T4 for example, then yes, the CRA knows who the payer is. The CRA gets a copy of the slip. Often there is a business number on it identifying who the payer is.

2) On a corporate tax return there is a schedule where the shareholders are disclosed (for those who own shares of the company) and another for related/associated companies (with business numbers used so they know who they are).

3) For partnership returns there is, wait for it... schedules identifying who each partner is (by name, SIN/Business number) and also schedules to report related entities.

4) For trusts, wait for it.... well you know where this is going by now.

The point is that the CRA do not necessarily do a good job of properly accounting for this information as it is used, for example, to allow the small business deduction to be split between associated corporations or to trace PART IV tax through one corporation to another etc...

But if an agency was looking at specific tax returns of, say, Mr. Politician and then that agency would trace the relationships between those entities/living persons and trace it back to financial statements and other information.

I know that YOU know that if someone wants to keep the record of how benefits are bestowed, they don't send it in form of personal payments that will trigger a T1, nor necessarily by becoming a visible shareholder in a related entity.

Conflict of interest is usually much more subtle, but extremely effective. That is why it needs to be explored and revealed under oath and by looking at the bank and GL, not just the balance sheet and P&L. THAT is what should trigger questions under oath.

[Moonlight Graham]

We are not their employer. They are OUR representatives to the world and to the future law and regulations that we must support and obey.

We hire them, we pay them, we fire them. We are the government, we are their employer.

[msj]

I know that YOU know that if someone wants to keep the record of how benefits are bestowed, they don't send it in form of personal payments that will trigger a T1, nor necessarily by becoming a visible shareholder in a related entity.

Conflict of interest is usually much more subtle, but extremely effective. That is why it needs to be explored and revealed under oath and by looking at the bank and GL, not just the balance sheet and P&L. THAT is what should trigger questions under oath.

When the next Panama Papers leak occurs, and if we had a system in place that allowed for disclosure of such information, then we would see Prime Ministers and cabinet ministers resign as the leaks are compared to those disclosures.

Of course people lie. That's why they use anonymous corporations.

But the leaks will allow us to compare the anonymous databases to the publicly disclosed databases resulting in political consequences.

[SpankyMcFarland]

I have yet to hear any reasonable argument AGAINST such disclosure, at least for Cabinet Ministers.

[PIK]

Lets give the PM a drug test.