July 11, 2011 - Resident in Canada

Double-speak?
In the Income Tax Act, section 248 - Definitions - we find these two terms defined:

individualmeans a person other than a corporation

person”, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes any corporation, and any entity exempt, because of subsection 149(1), from tax under Part I on all or part of the entity’s taxable income and the heirs, executors, liquidators of a succession, administrators or other legal representatives of such a person, according to the law of that part of Canada to which the context extends" (emphasis mine).

If individual means a person but not a corporation— and person only means (review the meaning of includes) a corporation in this act—then doesn't that mean that an individual cannot mean a person in this act?

Per the Income Tax Act Section 2
This section says it all! Every illegible, confusing, ambiguous thing that follows is subject to section 2:

"Tax payable by persons resident in Canada
"2. (1) An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year." (emphasis mine).

Are you a person? Are you a resident in Canada? Have you learned what Canada is from the 
Interpretation Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21)? See the July 6th blog.

"Tax payable by non-resident persons
"(3) Where a person who is not taxable under subsection 2(1) for a taxation year (
a) was employed in Canada, (bcarried on a business in Canada, or (c) disposed of a taxable Canadian property, at any time in the year or a previous year, an income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the person’s taxable income earned in Canada for the year determined in accordance with Division D." (emphasis mine).

If you are a person, are you employed in Canada? In what lake, sea or ocean were you employed (review the definition of Canada in the July 6 blog)? The term carried on business is a legal expression; don't be fooled by it, look it up in Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edition. Did you dispose of Canadian property or was it your property?

The trick with all this is to convince the judge that as stupid as all this sounds it's what the crafters of this act really meant—but not what they hoped the courts would see. Judges and lawyers are as much programmed to think and see this a certain way as we are—or were.

It'll take a lot of very skillful and careful arguments to convince a judge that this has to be true otherwise we are just chattel—without choice. But that's only my thoughts on the matter—for your entertainment...

Use what you read here as a part of your research to establish your understanding.
Your actions remain your responsibility.
All natural rights reserved. © 2012 steven, a man. <><