Federal Income Tax unconstitutional

[onlythetruth]

The British North America (B.N.A.) Act (1867) was written in order to establish the legal basis for this country. All laws enacted in Canada, whether by municipal, provincial, or federal government, must comply with the terms of the B.N.A. Act. If they do not, they are then unconstitutional, or in legal terms "ultra vires," and can be disallowed as law. The document belongs to the people of Canada, and not to the parliamentarians or the courts, or to the Prime Minister and the Premiers... It belongs to the people.

There are two specific sections of the B.N.A. Act that deal with the delegation of authority between the Federal and Provincial Governments. Sections 91 and 92 deal with authority for various types of taxation, who has authority to levy which taxes, and various other areas of jurisdiction.

The Act is very specific in its direction. The right to tax income, known as "direct" tax, was delegated to the provinces; and it was clearly indicated that any monies so raised must be raised provincially, and used for provincial purposes. The Federal Government was denied the right to levy income tax.

But the Supreme Court of Canada goes further. It states that no level or government is allowed to transfer its authority to another level of government, and if transfer were attempted by one level, it could not legally be accepted by another.

On October 3, 1950, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down a decision in the case involving the Lord Nelson Hotel of Halifax, Nova Scotia, against the Attorneys-General of Nova Scotia and Canada. The case involved the transfer of powers from the Provincial to the Federal Government, and was directly related to the income Tax Act. In a seven-judge unanimous decision, the highest court in our land ruled that power transfers cannot legally take place. The Federal Government was given until 1962 to remove itself from all such power-transfer agreements, including the Income tax business, and scrap the Income Tax Act...

Clearly, the Federal Government has no constitutional right to engage in the Income Tax business, or any other type of direct taxation, whether on behalf of itself or on behalf of the provinces. Therefore, the Income Tax Act is, in itself, unconstitutional, and need not to be obeyed...

So what is your excuse for still paying income tax?

[fracan]

That's some very interesting history there... But it doesn't surprise me the feds aren't obeying our constitution. Just another example of the sad state of this country.

[Bakunin]

On paper we are a confederation, in reality we are a federation.....

[seabee]

On paper we are a confederation, in reality we are a federation..

This is what the BNA Act of 1867 has to say about it:

WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:

From memory, the original 1864 plan was for a confederation, but that was dropped by 1867, which would be why Newfoundland and P.E.I. dropped out.

Canada is the land of confusion.

[August1991]

This thread is complete nonsense:

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,--

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

IOW, the federal government has the right to impose any tax it wants to.

But if that's not enough, there is this (also from Section 91):

And any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this section shall not be deemed to come within the Class of Matters of a local or private Nature comprised in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces

IOW, the federal government gets so-called "residual powers". Any power not specifically given to the provinces, belongs to the federal government.

BNA Act

BTW: The US Consitution states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

(I have always admired the US Constitution's remarkable intelligence. It was truly the result of an exceptional moment in history. The new EU Constitution is bureaucratic - reflecting our age.)

----

This thread nonetheless raises a bigger issue: In a civilized democracy, we truly vote when we pay "voluntary" taxes.

Most Canadians pay their taxes as deductions at income source, GST or fees for services. Elsewhere in the world, that is not the case.

In France for example, citizens meet a tax inspector who makes an assessment and presents a tax bill. The citizen pays. IOW, the French tax system treats all taxpayers the same way Revenue Canada treats self-employed people. Imagine!

I think a much better measure of citizen involvement in society (and democracy) is tax compliance, not voter turn-out.

About 60% of eligible Canadians vote in federal elections. Outside of Quebec, this percentage is lower in other provinces. For municipal elections, the percentage falls below 30%. The Left frequently deplores this "voter indifference". Why?

It seems to me that people genuinely "vote" when they put money on the table and pay taxes. Implicitly, they have accepted the social contract - or fear the consequences of its breach.

[Guest eureka]

It is neither the time or the place for it, August, but I cannot let you "admore the intelligence" of the US Constitution without comment.

It is a flawed and undemocratic document from beginning to end and the source of the oppression of minorities and the greatest degree of inequality of citizens that has no match in the democratic world.

The intelligence is a malevolent one that quite deliberately forged an elitist state.

[August1991]

eureka, this is not the place, true. We should start another thread. But until we do:

The US Constitution, written in the 1780s, was a direct result of the "French Enlightenment". The BNA Act (cited above), written in 1866, was a direct result of the US Civil War.

Other than history, it is also a question of style. Have you ever read the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens? Now try this.

----

But again I ask: Do Canadians pay taxes because:

1) they fear the consequences of non-payment

2) the money is taken from them before they can object

3) they agree with the social contract of a civilized society

if I have missed another possible answer, I'm sorry. Please post.

OTOH, Canadians seem to pay their taxes. This is the best measure of Canada's democracy, not voter turn-out.

[Newfie Canadian]

But again I ask: Do Canadians pay taxes because:

1) they fear the consequences of non-payment

Yes

2) the money is taken from them before they can object

Maybe

3) they agree with the social contract of a civilized society

Partly

if I have missed another possible answer, I'm sorry. Please post.

We don't know any better, or now we just accept it as a part of life.

It's like the old saying, "All I've got to do is die and pay taxes."

[Guest eureka]

The American Constitution was a product of 17th. century thinking allied to 18th. century greed. Our Constitution was, indeed, and in part a product of the Civil War. However, it was more the fruit of centuries of Civil Law. The American Constitution was the pasting together of disparate territories for defensive purposes: the Canadian was thought to be the uniting in every way of groups of British citizens.

It is the misapplication of law in both cases that has produced an opposite result.

Having said that, I think No. three is the closest reason for the acceptance of income tax and, aprt from some small influence of the other points, I cannot see any reason for objection to the tax. The pull of the Social Contract may be weaker for those "Rugged Individualists" who call themselves Conservatives, but even they have common concerns that require money.

Most people would consider the tax as the most progressive form of taxation.

[onlythetruth]

Most of you probably have filed already so are you gonna do it next year again?

Did you contact your member of parliament yet to confront them?

They don't care you pay taxes. Just tell them you won't pay anymore.

[The Terrible Sweal]

There are two specific sections of the B.N.A. Act that deal with the delegation of authority between the Federal and Provincial Governments. Sections 91 and 92 deal with authority for various types of taxation, who has authority to levy which taxes, and various other areas of jurisdiction.

The Act is very specific in its direction. The right to tax income, known as "direct" tax, was delegated to the provinces; ... The Federal Government was denied the right to levy income tax.

You are simply and totally wrong. The fed gov. was empowered to levy any kind of tax, direct or indirect. The provinces were confined to only direct taxation.

You should read up before you blab off.