I have a legal question

[geoffrey]

The ways and means motion on the reduction of income taxes was only adopted on first reading by the house and apparently did not get senate approval or royal assent.

Does that mean it is not law?

Why was the tax rate already reduced then?

From: http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus.../status1-e.html

C-80 -- The Minister of Finance -- An Act to implement certain income tax reductions

Ways and Means motion No. 10 (Sessional Paper No. 8570-381-12) -- Adopted -- November 23, 2005

Read the first time -- November 23, 2005

Never got past that... does it need to for it to become law?

[Harare]

Must have been passed when our illustrious Senate was working on their hidden agenda late one night.

[geoffrey]

Must have been passed when our illustrious Senate was working on their hidden agenda late one night.

It wasn't passed by the Senate... does it need to be?

[August1991]

The ways and means motion on the reduction of income taxes was only adopted on first reading by the house and apparently did not get senate approval or royal assent.

Does that mean it is not law?

Why was the tax rate already reduced then?

It's not law, but if the Liberals are re-elected, the law will presumably pass and then it will be effective from 1 January 2006. (Keep in mind that ordinary taxpayers will not be liable until 30 April 2007.)

I think the point here is credibility. Politicians face a difficult task in being believed. This Liberal gambit was a way to show that they were serious about the tax reduction. OTOH, it's a good political ploy too.

[geoffrey]

The ways and means motion on the reduction of income taxes was only adopted on first reading by the house and apparently did not get senate approval or royal assent.

Does that mean it is not law?

Why was the tax rate already reduced then?

It's not law, but if the Liberals are re-elected, the law will presumably pass and then it will be effective from 1 January 2006. (Keep in mind that ordinary taxpayers will not be liable until 30 April 2007.)

I think the point here is credibility. Politicians face a difficult task in being believed. This Liberal gambit was a way to show that they were serious about the tax reduction. OTOH, it's a good political ploy too.

Actually August, CRA is printing new forms with the 15% to send out. This 15% cut is apparently retroactive to January 2005. So when all these people find out they owe an extra couple hundred bucks, they'll hate the Tories? Thats trouble. I don't really understand how the Revenue Canada folks could change this without parliment though, really troubling.

From the CRA website @ http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/5000-g/5000-g-01-05e.html:

On November 14, 2005, the Minister of Finance announced the following proposed income tax measures that are effective as of January 1, 2005:

Federal tax rate – The lowest personal tax rate has been reduced from 16% to 15%.

Basic personal amount (line 300) – The amount has increased to $8,648.

[August1991]

Actually August, CRA is printing new forms with the 15% to send out. This 15% cut is apparently retroactive to January 2005. So when all these people find out they owe an extra couple hundred bucks, they'll hate the Tories? Thats trouble. I don't really understand how the Revenue Canada folks could change this without parliment though, really troubling.

Geoff, you're right, I'm wrong. The tax rate reduction and change in personal deduction were to be effective from 1 January 2005. (I was thinking of payroll deductions for 2006 tax year in my post above.)

Well, it'll be a mess for the bureaucrats in CRA who may have to add inserts to the forms if the Tories get in and the bill doesn't pass.

The tax liability for ordinary taxpayers occurs on 30 April 2006. For most people, the money has already been deducted so it's not as if they'll be hit with a tax payment.

----

Is this legal? When it comes to taxes, pretty much anything is legal.

Incidentally, I think that if the Tories were smart, they would do both the GST cut and the income tax cut, particularly, if they form a minority government. But that's just my opinion.

[Guest eureka]

Newspapers have already covered that and the possibility of having to amebd forms. Forms had to be prepared well in advance and I imgine that CRA could not conceive of the possibility that the Bill would not pass. Blame Harper.

[geoffrey]

Newspapers have already covered that and the possibility of having to amebd forms. Forms had to be prepared well in advance and I imgine that CRA could not conceive of the possibility that the Bill would not pass. Blame Harper.

Actually the first forms that those stuck in the stone age (the non-efilers) got said 16%... now they are getting 15% forms rushed to them (the CBC ran this story).

I thought all bills were quashed at the fall of parliment?