"These cases [and others] indicate that the abuses in Roberts & Viccars are not limited to a particular office. It remains to be seen whether there will be widespread changes in the conduct of SI investigations": Thomas Boddez, Esq.; Canadian Tax Highlights, 1999, Vol. 7, ? 3, Canadian Tax Foundation.
Since R. v. Norway Insulation Inc., (1995), 23 O.R. (3d) 432 (Gen. Div.), there was a growing (but not unanimous) condemnation in the case law of investigative techniques employed by [CRA] Investiga-tions: "The End Determines the Means", Canadian Tax Highlights, 1997, Vol. 5, ? 7, Canadian Tax Foundation. The issue was settled in favour of taxpayer rights under 7 of the Charter in R. v. Jarvis, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 757 (S.C.C.) Iacobucci and Major, JJ. at 96.
So the sixth myth of taxation is that CRA is there to help you; they are there to collect taxes for Parliament, any help they give will be incidental to that larger purpose.
What About Your Rights?
If you believe you have a problem with CRA, or if you believe its officers have broken your rights (e.g., 7, 8, 10(b) or 11(d) of the Charter) to whom, should you complaint?
Unlike most federal government departments CRA doesn't have an Ombudsman, so you cannot go there.
In another abuse case (in which the court excluded the evidence under 24(2) of the Charter), defence attempts to go to supervisors, local TSO directors, national directors, national director-generals, the Commissioner and even the Minister of National Revenue all proved to be ineffective.
CRA publishes Your Rights, but declarations without accountability are meaningless. CRA says that it requires its officers to adhere to a Code of Ethics and Conduct, but then refuses to release a copy so compliance with the Code can be tested.
Natural justice requires that both sides be heard - audi alteram partem; but what if one side isn't listening? CRA may police the ITA, but "who polices the police?"
In the cases above, only the courts were able to restrain CRA in, what a senior CRA officer characterized as "rebels out there deciding policy" when the indications were that this was an entire SI office that was "out of control" (Roberts & Viccars, above).
While the courts have indicated a willingness to protect Charter rights (R. v. Clayton and Farmer, (2005) Docket No.s C37990; C36722 (Ont. C.A.) per Doherty, J.A. at 95) they are not the optimal venue for seeking redress for these wrongs; the expense and time involved in such litigation limits access for many. Even an award of costs against the Crown (cf., Saplys, above) would prove to be adequate compensation.
CRA's failure to recognize the dichotomy between their policies and their application is creating a crisis of confidence for many Canadians who believe themselves to have been a victim of a process, which CRA labels as "fair."
If this applies to you then email your Member of Parliament ("MP") and ask them for an Inquiry to establish an Ombudsman for CRA. Your MP's contact information may be found in the Parliamentary directory (http://www.parl.gc.ca/). When you write, please copy the Honourable Paul DeVillers, at DeVillers.P@parl.gc.ca. Mr. DeVillers is Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and he has expressed an interest in taxpayer equity and rights.
Staff Writer
For Tax Evasion Resources
http://www.taxevasionresources.com
收藏至：
