Top 20% of income earners fund majority of Ottawa's income tax revenue: report

[SpankyMcFarland]

56 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The rest of it basically said if they can find a CRA expert who can help them save money because he used to work there and knows the system then that's something they should be able to do. As long as that person doesn't break any laws helping out then it's entirely fair game to do whatever you can to avoid taxes.

No CRA official should be allowed to work for a major accounting firm afterwards. The conflict is obvious. They may be considering cases from one of those companies while they are still working for CRA or after they stop working for government they may divulge confidential strategies of CRA to the company. 

 

56 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I'm sure it does and it absolutely SHOULD be legal.  It's amusing that  you think the person trying to keep their own money they lawfully earned is the 'poacher' here.

I did not think that. I was referring to the CRA official joining an accounting firm there, not the taxpayer. 

 

56 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And of course nobody's advocating for it - no serious politician thinks there's a problem with people trying to avoid taxes within the law as you've suggested there is.

Politicians - I’d say they all consider themselves serious - have criticized some of the aggressive tax avoidance tactics of KPMG and Co.

 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

59 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

No CRA official should be allowed to work for a major accounting firm afterwards. The conflict is obvious.

There's no conflict in the slightest there. It's like saying someone who worked for the prosecution should never be allowed to practice law if they leave that office. It's crazy.

This is the way it is with every office - city planning people go to work as consultants for developers (along with retired mayors).  The PM very often works for a law firm to advise how to deal with the gov't.   etc etc

What precisely is the "conflict" you feel is 'obvious'? You should be able to articulate it clearly if it's that obvious.

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

did not think that. I was referring to the CRA official joining an accounting firm there not the taxpayer

Then you literally DID think that.  The taxpayer is who an accounting firm works for. They do the taxes.  Why else would they hire a CRA official?  and why would there be a conflict if he WASN"T involved with taxes?

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Politicians - I’d say they all consider themselves serious - have criticized some of the aggressive tax avoidance tactics of KPMG and Co.

Who? Which tactics? When was this? I follow politics pretty closely and i've not seen that.  Closest i've seen is people being mad that the gov't hired kpmg while they still work for oil companies.  That's right - the gov't uses them and has for decades.  Can't be TOO mad  about them  

[ExFlyer]

12 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Wait a second, you’re saying they’re available to everybody….but most people wouldn’t make a profit on them? That’s a rather lawyerly way of saying the same thing I said. They only make sense for a tiny segment of the population and should not be available to anybody. The sort of vehicles I referenced bring the whole tax system into disrepute. 
 

Something else that should not be allowed - accounting firms recruiting senior CRA officials. The potential for corruption should be obvious to any sentient human here. 

The fact still is that they are available to all taxpayers. Use them or not, that is your choice.

Are you somehow saying that as a worker, you cannot and should not sell your services, skills and talents and knowledge (which ifs already available to all anyway) to the highest bidder?

[ExFlyer]

6 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Does that address what I stated about CRA officials joining accounting firms? The story seems to have gone quiet for years now so I don’t know if it is still happening. Of course, it shouldn’t be allowed. Gamekeepers should not become poachers. 

No serious politician in Canada is advocating a flat tax. It’s a complete non-starter and in no way a solution to the problem. 

The comparison is wrong. Many public officials (and corporate persons) change careers after or even before retirement. Even Military personnel go on to civilian second careers.

They have skill sets that are valuable to companies and corporations.

They do not go from a legal occupation (Gameskeepers) to an illegal activity (poachers).

We have an incremental tax system, the richer pay more. Are you insinuating taxation is a problem?  If no taxation, how would we have what we do?

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Are you insinuating taxation is a problem?  If no taxation, how would we have what we do?

Where on earth did you read anything even remotely suggesting that?  ?

[ExFlyer]

48 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Where on earth did you read anything even remotely suggesting that?  ?

You asked me  "It’s a complete non-starter and in no way a solution to the problem. " insinuating there is a problem. So, what is the problem???

[SpankyMcFarland]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

What precisely is the "conflict" you feel is 'obvious'? You should be able to articulate it clearly if it's that obvious.

A person at CRA knows they may be in line for a job at a top accountancy firm. This may have been hinted at during their many wine and dine sessions together. They are also involved in cases involving that firm where the firm looks like it may have broken the law. There would a clear temptation to do the usual thing with very rich clients represented by the top firms - settle the case and keep the whole thing secret.

 

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Then you literally DID think that.  The taxpayer is who an accounting firm works for. They do the taxes.  Why else would they hire a CRA official?  and why would there be a conflict if he WASN"T involved with taxes.

No, I literally do not think that and I did not write that. You imagined I wrote that. At the end of the day, this is about the game, not the players. A person who avails themselves of existing rules is playing the game. My primary interest here is in changing the game and making it fairer and more transparent. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

The comparison is wrong. Many public officials (and corporate persons) change careers after or even before retirement. Even Military personnel go on to civilian second careers.

They have skill sets that are valuable to companies and corporations.

 

Unfortunately, the top accounting firms have so damaged this process that a clear line between the two sides has to be drawn in order to re-establish public confidence. 
 

 

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

They do not go from a legal occupation (Gameskeepers) to an illegal activity (poachers).

We have an incremental tax system, the richer pay more. Are you insinuating taxation is a problem?  If no taxation, how would we have what we do?

Aggressive tax avoidance has become a serious problem for governments across the world and is undermining the credibility of taxation. It’s not a simple matter to determine whether a complex tax ‘product’, as the jargon goes, is legal or not. One problem is that lobbyists for the wealthy can influence the drafting of laws so that something that was illegal and appears to be so can become ‘completely legal’ at the stroke of a pen. No poor person can dream of such a thing. Another is that CRA seems to consider the cost of cases when deciding its strategy. This means that the very wealthy with their armies of lawyers get preferential treatment while middle class taxpayers have their cases dragged out. This ‘low-hanging fruit’ strategy encourages cynicism and distrust of our taxation system. Imagine if the police did this when investigating crime? For goodness sake, at least give the CRA the people and financial resources needed to fight every case on its merits. 

 

Quote

The Canada Revenue Agency offered amnesty to multi-millionaire clients caught using what's been called an offshore tax "sham" on the Isle of Man — a reprieve that was supposed to remain secret and out of the public eye until it was uncovered by a CBC News/Radio-Canada investigation. 

 

Quote

Toronto tax lawyer Duane Milot, who represents middle-income Canadians in disputes with the CRA, says his clients are routinely dragged through the courts for years by Canada Revenue.

 

"It's outrageous," he told CBC News after reading the leaked document. "The CRA appears to be saying to Canadians, 'If you're rich and wealthy, you get a second chance, but if you're not, you're stuck.'"

 

Jonathan Garbutt, a veteran Bay Street tax lawyer says the CRA may be looking to avoid a long, costly court battle with KPMG's multi-millionaire investors as it lacks resources for these kinds of fights.

 

Quote

"These are much bigger names. These people have money. They can fight, they can afford to hire the best legal defence money can buy," Garbutt said.

 

"There's a lot more money at stake in these bigger cases, and it's going to cost them more to be able to fight them. So CRA will gladly say thank you very much for the money, and move on to the lower-hanging fruit," Garbutt said.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-revenue-kpmg-secret-amnesty-1.3479594

Edited August 6, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[ExFlyer]

32 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

 

Unfortunately, the top accounting firms have so damaged this process that a clear line between the two sides has to be drawn in order to re-establish public confidence. 
 

 

Aggressive tax avoidance has become a serious problem for governments across the world and is undermining the credibility of taxation. It’s not a simple matter to determine whether a complex tax ‘product’, as the jargon goes, is legal or not. One problem is that lobbyists for the wealthy can influence the drafting of laws so that something that was illegal and appears to be so can become ‘completely legal’ at the stroke of a pen. 

Your complaint was that "No CRA official should be allowed to work for a major accounting firm afterwards. The conflict is obvious". Insinuating it was like a "legal occupation (Gameskeepers) to an illegal activity (poachers). "

I am saying that you are  completely wrong.

A person that has special skills, any kind of skills can and should go to where the skills are compensated.

Now, if you have an issue with the taxation system, well, that is a different topic. There is no one that cannot take advantage of todays tax system, rich or poor. There needs to be the will to take advantage. Be it TFSA, RRSP, RESP or any of the others that are perfectly legal. If you think you know something that will be better for everyone, well, share it

 

EDIT: Your edit and addition after I responded to you do not help your case , if you have one.

The first quote is CRA providing amnesty. Well, I suspect the CRA did not have any or enough grounds to proceed with charges so they gave up.

Your second quote is from a Toronto tax lawyer "disputes with the CRA". OK, so what?? That same tax lawyer will and should fight for his clients be they rich or poor. He butters his bread on both sides LOL

Your third quote is a valid statement except, some people can and will afford a lawyer and go through the process and others will not bother. Nothing new about that. It happens every day in all litigation.

Edited August 6, 2023 by ExFlyer

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Your complaint was that "No CRA official should be allowed to work for a major accounting firm afterwards. The conflict is obvious". Insinuating it was like a "legal occupation (Gameskeepers) to an illegal activity (poachers). "

I am saying that you are  completely wrong.

A person that has special skills, any kind of skills can and should go to where the skills are compensated.

It’s not a complete free-for-all in Canada. There are already some limits, e.g. on what military and CSIS veterans can divulge under the Security of Information Act, for example. We must find some way of protecting CRA from improper influence by the megarich. If there are other solutions, let’s hear them. We do have a problem, though. 

 

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Now, if you have an issue with the taxation system, well, that is a different topic. There is no one that cannot take advantage of todays tax system, rich or poor. There needs to be the will to take advantage. Be it TFSA, RRSP, RESP or any of the others that are perfectly legal. If you think you know something that will be better for everyone, well, share it

We have a particular problem in Canada with high-ranking tax officials being way too cosy with their adversaries in the top accounting firms. Have you read the CBC articles about the Isle of Man saga? There was clear intent to conceal there. If you can suggest remedies for this that don’t involve either a complete ban or a much longer cooling-off period, especially at the most senior level, I’m all ears. 

And I have absolutely no problem with the standard tax-cutting tools we are given that you list. I use them myself and their legality does not need any qualifying adjectives like ‘completely’ that often alerts one to something dodgy out foreign. It’s the complex ‘vehicles’ I am talking about. The dust still hasn’t settled on KPMG’s Isle of Man caper regarding beneficial owners etc. 
 

Edited August 6, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[ExFlyer]

12 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

It’s not a complete free-for-all in Canada. There are already some limits, e.g. on what military and CSIS veterans can divulge under the Security of Information Act, for example. We must fund some way of protecting CRA from improper influence by the megarich. If there are other solutions, let’s hear them. We do have a problem, though. 

 

We have a particular problem in Canada with high-ranking tax officials being way too cosy with their adversaries in the top accounting firms. Have you read the CBC articles about the Isle of Man saga? There was clear intent to conceal there and it may still be going on. If you can suggest remedies for this that don’t involve either a complete ban or a much longer cooling-off period, especially at the most senior level, I’m all ears. 

And I have absolutely no problem with the standard tax-cutting tools we are given that you list. I use them myself. But that’s not what we are talking about here. 

If you think CRA officials can help mega rich, and more than average rich or mid rich or normal rich you really do not understand the tax laws and laws in general. Also, if you think CRA officials do illegal things with taxpayers, you again are fishing in the wrong lake.

The "Isle of Man saga" led to nothing. There was not enough to convict or to even to bring charges.

You mean the "standard tax-cutting tools we are given" to all taxpayers? I do not suggest any remedies and I do not see any need to remedy any taxpayers issues for any taxpayer as there are no differences between high earners and low earners except for tax brackets..

Yes, taxing the upper 20% is exactly what we are talking about. Read the topic headline.

Seems to me you are just one of those folks that are jealous of what other make.

 

Edited August 6, 2023 by ExFlyer

[SpankyMcFarland]

21 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

If you think CRA officials can help mega rich, and more than average rich or mid rich or normal rich you really do not understand the tax laws and laws in general. Also, if you think CRA officials do illegal things with taxpayers, you again are fishing in the wrong lake.

The "Isle of Man saga" led to nothing. There was not enough to convict or to even to bring charges.

So you approve of what KPMG did here and would like to see more of it? 
 

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You mean the "standard tax-cutting tools we are given" to all taxpayers? I do not suggest any remedies and I do not see any need to remedy any taxpayers issues for any taxpayer as there are no differences between high earners and low earners except for tax brackets..

Once again, the vehicles used by the seriously rich - I’m not talking about the upper 20% here, of course, but the top 1% - have a high entry cost. That means they can only used by a tiny elite of high net worth individuals. 

 

 

21 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Yes, taxing the upper 20% is exactly what we are talking about. Read the topic headline.

But I am not talking about that here. Obviously. Read my posts. Mother of God.

 

 

21 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Seems to me you are just one of those folks that are jealous of what other make.

Once more I have to suggest to you to play the ball, not the man. I hope envy is not what motivates me here but a desire for a more just system that holds all Canadians to a similar standard before the law. As numerous revelations from across the world have shown, the tax system is broken and is getting worse. The megarich have escaped from it.
 

For the record, I have paid way more tax than the average Canadian in my working life. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[I am Groot]

On 8/4/2023 at 1:14 PM, Moonbox said:

Yes, I'm saying they don't pay what they should.  My point isn't made invalid because the wealthiest people pay the lion's share of taxes.  They do so because they have the lion's share of disposable income, and they still have a million ways of paying less than they could.  We're an international money laundering haven for similar reasons.  

Warren Buffet famously said that he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary. We can, I suppose, praise him for paying such a large amount in tax, but it's still a smaller percent of what he makes than his secretary, and that's simply not fair.

When Trudeau started talking about 'tax the rich' he meant 'Well ,yeah, but not ME". He and Morneau, who was much richer, simply brought in increases to the income tax rate of those earning more than a quarter million or so. But the real 'rich' don't get most of their money in pure, taxable income so this doesn't really impact them. Trudeau and Morneau get money from a series of family trusts set up by very capable lawyers and accountants. Now to say anyone can do that is true but misleading. Most of us aren't going to have the money to make that economically viable.

Money earned through dividends and capital gains are taxed at a fraction of income. Why? Well, the idea was to encourage saving. But you could do that while still imposing a means test. Tax such income fully when it exceeds a certain level, say $100 -$200k or more.  That wouldn't impact any but the real rich, some of whom earn millions in dividends and interest on bonds every year.

Aside, it's not really the 1%. It's the 0.1% who need to pay more.

Also, every cabinet minister and party leader is in the 1%.

[I am Groot]

39 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

We have a particular problem in Canada with high-ranking tax officials being way too cosy with their adversaries in the top accounting firms.

A lot of tax expertise disappears from CRA every year as it is lured into accounting firms where people are paid much higher salaries for their knowledge and abilities.

In addition, there is a reluctance to engage with high earners because such people are known to have very pricey lawyers and accountants who will put up a long, complicated, expert fight that will be expensive to pursue. It's much easier to go after the low-hanging fruit. It might earn less individually, but you can get reams of people to comply with just a letter. Even if you're wrong about what they owe. People mostly don't feel they can fight CRA. And they're mostly right.

Unless you're rich, of course.

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

A lot of tax expertise disappears from CRA every year as it is lured into accounting firms where people are paid much higher salaries for their knowledge and abilities.

In addition, there is a reluctance to engage with high earners because such people are known to have very pricey lawyers and accountants who will put up a long, complicated, expert fight that will be expensive to pursue. It's much easier to go after the low-hanging fruit. It might earn less individually, but you can get reams of people to comply with just a letter. Even if you're wrong about what they owe. People mostly don't feel they can fight CRA. And they're mostly right.

Unless you're rich, of course.

I believe CRA should not be looking at cases on a profit or loss basis but on whether an honest effort has been made to pay taxes owing. When an individual has gone to great pains to conceal income, often abroad, that case should merit special attention irrespective of whether CRA loses money pursuing it. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

27 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

When Trudeau started talking about 'tax the rich' he meant 'Well ,yeah, but not ME". He and Morneau, who was much richer, simply brought in increases to the income tax rate of those earning more than a quarter million or so. But the real 'rich' don't get most of their money in pure, taxable income so this doesn't really impact them. Trudeau and Morneau get money from a series of family trusts set up by very capable lawyers and accountants. Now to say anyone can do that is true but misleading. Most of us aren't going to have the money to make that economically viable.

That foreign Trudeau trust is truly sickening. What’s a Canadian PM, and a Liberal one at that, doing with one of those? His father patriated the Constitution. Let’s see him repatriating his foreign family trust. 

 

27 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Money earned through dividends and capital gains are taxed at a fraction of income. Why? Well, the idea was to encourage saving. But you could do that while still imposing a means test. Tax such income fully when it exceeds a certain level, say $100 -$200k or more.  That wouldn't impact any but the real rich, some of whom earn millions in dividends and interest on bonds every year.

Aside, it's not really the 1%. It's the 0.1% who need to pay more.

Also, every cabinet minister and party leader is in the 1%.

That’s right. I guess one caveat is figuring out how much income people with massive assets make because they have so many ways of ‘camouflaging’ that income. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[ExFlyer]

33 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

So you approve of what KPMG did here and would like to see more of it? 
 

 

 

 

Once again, the vehicles used by the seriously rich - I’m not talking about the upper 20% here, of course, but the top 1% - have a high entry cost. That means they can only used by a tiny elite of high net worth individuals. 

 

 

But I am not talking about that here. Obviously. Read my posts. Mother of God.

 

 

Once more I have to suggest to you to play the ball, not the man. I hope envy is not what motivates me here but a desire for a more just system that holds all Canadians to a similar standard before the law. As numerous revelations from across the world have shown, the tax system is broken and is getting worse. The megarich have escaped from it.
 

For the record, I have paid way more tax than the average Canadian in my working life. 

KPMG and their clientsdid not break any laws but played ball by them.... Me approving or disapproving matters not.

Once again, the "the vehicles used by the seriously rich" are available for use by all.

I did and responded and come to the conclusion you are jealous of those that make more then you....Mother of God

I suggest to you everyone is playing the ball. As I said, envy does motivate your need for change.

If you paid more tax than average, that is your issue. I have also paid lots of taxes but never more than I had to.

Until you can show illegal activity and the consequences of them, you have nothing but bitterness because you are not where they are.

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

40 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

KPMG and their clientsdid not break any laws but played ball by them.... Me approving or disapproving matters not.

Once again, the "the vehicles used by the seriously rich" are available for use by all.

I did and responded and come to the conclusion you are jealous of those that make more then you....Mother of God

I think you mean envious there rather than jealous but no matter. The vehicles used by the seriously rich are not available to all because they are very expensive. You’re talking about a theoretical right that does not exist in the real world. 

 

 

40 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I suggest to you everyone is playing the ball. As I said, envy does motivate your need for change.

If you paid more tax than average, that is your issue. I have also paid lots of taxes but never more than I had to.

Until you can show illegal activity and the consequences of them, you have nothing but bitterness because you are not where they are.

I prefer to live in the world as it is. The megarich and their minions make some of the rules in this area. They’re hardly going to make what they do illegal, are they? 

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

When Trudeau started talking about 'tax the rich' he meant 'Well ,yeah, but not ME". He and Morneau, who was much richer, simply brought in increases to the income tax rate of those earning more than a quarter million or so. But the real 'rich' don't get most of their money in pure, taxable income so this doesn't really impact them. Trudeau and Morneau get money from a series of family trusts set up by very capable lawyers and accountants.

Which is very much what I'm driving at when I say that focusing on the top 20% smoke and mirrors.  The focus should be on the very top of the ladder.  

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Now to say anyone can do that is true but misleading. Most of us aren't going to have the money to make that economically viable.

Not even remotely.  It's like saying anyone can own a Lamborghini.  

 

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I believe CRA should not be looking at cases on a profit or loss basis but on whether an honest effort has been made to pay taxes owing. When an individual has gone to great pains to conceal income, often abroad, that case should merit special attention irrespective of whether CRA loses money pursuing it. 

I don't disagree. But they are a bureaucracy. It costs a lot of money to pursue such people and successfully prosecute, and with no guarantees. And if they're successful the money goes to the Treasury, not back into CRA's budget.

[SpankyMcFarland]

I’ll finish with a positive area of Canadian taxation - rules on residency. Many countries have deeply opaque rules on whether one is liable for taxation there even involving the incredibly complex matter of domicile and some have a ludicrous number of days rule where you can be present in your previous country of tax residency for a certain number of days and not be liable for tax there. In Ireland, for example, this led to most of the very rich Irish business people (Micheal O’Leary, the cartoon villain of Ryanair fame being an honourable exception) claiming to live in a very low tax foreign country for tax purposes despite continuing to really live in Ireland. They were deemed non-resident for tax if they jetted out before exceeding their maximum allowed number of days. Because of EU treaties this rule has become more common in Europe. 

By contrast, Canada relies on a strength of ties system. If somebody claims to have left Canada they will be asked common sense questions to see if this true like, where is your primary residence, do you own any property here, where does your wife live and where do your kids go to school? The list continues in an impressively granular fashion.
 

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/international-non-residents/information-been-moved/determining-your-residency-status.html

 

Here is the form:

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/cra-arc/formspubs/pbg/nr73/nr73-17e.pdf

I’m sure the system is by no means foolproof but at least it starts at the right place. If you want to leave us, fine, do so. But don’t pretend to do so. 

 

Edited August 6, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

13 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I don't disagree. But they are a bureaucracy. It costs a lot of money to pursue such people and successfully prosecute, and with no guarantees. And if they're successful the money goes to the Treasury, not back into CRA's budget.

It’s a systems problem. CRA are not exactly the most popular people in the country and expanding their activities makes us all feel a little nervous. I would argue that pursuing expensive cases has a deterrent value. The medical insurers CMPA defend any case they think has merit regardless of cost. Over time, rightly or wrongly, this has had a powerful inhibitory effect on medicolegal litigation in Canada. 

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

It’s a systems problem. CRA are not exactly the most popular people in the country and expanding their activities makes us all feel a little nervous. I would argue that pursuing expensive cases has a deterrent value. The medical insurers CMPA defend any case they think has merit regardless of cost. Over time, rightly or wrongly, this has had a powerful inhibitory effect on medicolegal litigation in Canada. 

I can add to that and say the internal revenue or taxation  people throughout the world are not the most popular department in any government.

As for CRA "expanding their activities", that is conspiracy theory and wrong. The CRA has processes and procedures to work from and they do, to all taxpayers. Any changes are from the politicians by way of Bills and/or changes to the present legislation.

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/technical-information/income-tax-audit-manual-domestic-compliance-programs-branch-dcpb-01.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/technical-information/income-tax-audit-manual-domestic-compliance-programs-branch-dcpb-01.html

[ExFlyer]

On 8/6/2023 at 12:09 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

A person at CRA knows they may be in line for a job at a top accountancy firm. This may have been hinted at during their many wine and dine sessions together. They are also involved in cases involving that firm where the firm looks like it may have broken the law. There would a clear temptation to do the usual thing with very rich clients represented by the top firms - settle the case and keep the whole thing secret.

 

No, I literally do not think that and I did not write that. You imagined I wrote that. At the end of the day, this is about the game, not the players. A person who avails themselves of existing rules is playing the game. My primary interest here is in changing the game and making it fairer and more transparent. 

No person is in line for anything anywhere anytime. If you are thinking that a person cannot change jobs or have a second career anywhere any time, you live in a sheltered place. Can we say you personally  are never allowed to leave your job for a better paying one after 25 or 30 years  (or less) of service? Are you saying that your skill set is not for sale to the highest bidder?

Are you saying that a CRA person goes on wining and dining sessions? You are aware that that is completely illegal IAW Public Service directives?

May have broken the law??? Are you insinuating that they did or did not break the law? If they did, I am quite sure they would pay the consequences and have even more reason to hire specialists.

You are making it about the person, the CRA specialist and not the "game". There is no game, there is using the existing rules to evade as much tax as anyone can.

Change what game? Make what more transparent? The tax rules and tax brackets are all available for anyone to see and absorb. How much more transparent can that get.