Author Topic: Declaring your income (lying) (Read 1556 times)

Thursday · « **on:** November 15, 2012, 07:34:23 AM »

Moving back to Canada next year possibly and I'm a bit concerned about income tax situation there. Or rather how does Catholic morality apply to filling out income tax and similar forms.

Let me give you a scenario.

If you have less than 24,000 net income on the previous year you are entitled to pretty nice child benefit checks every month for each child every month. Now suppose you make 23,000 at Wal-mart and that is the only traceable income that you have. However, you shovel a few driveways and teach a few guitar lessons on the weekend and make about 100 bucks a week totalling 5000.00 for the year.

If you declare the 5000.00 you will bump yourself up to a higher tax bracket and you loose the monthly child tax benefit. You don't declare it and you don't get taxed on the 5000, plus, you keep your child benefit supplements. But would that make you a liar and guilty of a mortal sin?

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #1 on:** November 15, 2012, 09:30:19 AM »

Yeah, it'd be lying plain and simple since you're telling an untruth.

It sucks, but it is simply a lie.

Depending on exactly how they ask the question you might be able to omit it if they ask in an overly specific way.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #2 on:** November 15, 2012, 11:14:14 AM »

Following your example, ask yourself whether it is more beneficial for your family to have $4,000 minus the tax you'd pay OR the child benefit checks.

If the benefit checks are a bigger aid to your family, then take your $4K and invest it back into whatever you're doing -- a nice guitar, sheet music, snow shovels, etc, thus eliminating the income.

Thursday · « **Reply #3 on:** November 15, 2012, 02:14:50 PM »

Quote from: Iuvenalis

Yeah, it'd be lying plain and simple since you're telling an untruth.

It sucks, but it is simply a lie.

Depending on exactly how they ask the question you might be able to omit it if they ask in an overly specific way.

Right, but a lot of the words phrases used in these docuмents have meanings different than what they have in everyday life. For example "income" may not mean exactly we think it means. And since money does not exist in the physical universe, ie it is usually 2 dimensional digits on a computer screen, there might be some leeway that way. A friend of mine who worked in the tax office said people who wrote 0.00 in every field of income had their forms go through the system without any problems. But yes, it comes down to how they word it, and how income is defined.

Thursday · « **Reply #4 on:** November 15, 2012, 02:23:16 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Following your example, ask yourself whether it is more beneficial for your family to have $4,000 minus the tax you'd pay OR the child benefit checks.

If the benefit checks are a bigger aid to your family, then take your $4K and invest it back into whatever you're doing -- a nice guitar, sheet music, snow shovels, etc, thus eliminating the income.

Yes, that would be option B. Find a way to reduce the net income, it's net income that they count.

I've just never heard of anyone declaring "under the table" money on their income tax before. At first glance I thought "well, only a fool would declare it" but now I need to resolve the issue.

GemmaGal · « **Reply #5 on:** November 15, 2012, 02:54:51 PM »

Its a tough one to sort out.

Ask a priest.

Thursday · « **Reply #6 on:** November 15, 2012, 05:00:12 PM »

Quote from: GemmaGal

Its a tough one to sort out.

Ask a priest.

sigh, I think I know what his answer would be. However his answer may not be sufficient as he does not completely understand the monetary or the or the taxation system, its far more complex than most people realize. In fact there are many people who have reached the conclusion that there is no money.

Tiffany · « **Reply #7 on:** November 15, 2012, 05:08:34 PM »

Quote from: Thursday

Quote from: MaterDominici
Following your example, ask yourself whether it is more beneficial for your family to have $4,000 minus the tax you'd pay OR the child benefit checks.

If the benefit checks are a bigger aid to your family, then take your $4K and invest it back into whatever you're doing -- a nice guitar, sheet music, snow shovels, etc, thus eliminating the income.

Yes, that would be option B. Find a way to reduce the net income, it's net income that they count.

I've just never heard of anyone declaring "under the table" money on their income tax before. At first glance I thought "well, only a fool would declare it" but now I need to resolve the issue.

It would be self employment income in the US. There is schedule C? not sure the name of the form for it here.

CathMomof7 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 18, 2012, 11:40:29 PM »

In the U.S. if you make over $400 due to self-employment then you have to pay Social Security and Medicare Taxes on your self-employment income.

But you would have to determine if what you are doing is actually self-employment.

Shoveling a few driveways each week in the winter may not necessarily be self-employment. If you are shoveling for some elderly people in your neighborhood and they slip you $40, I wouldn't consider that self-employment. Your being nice--they buy you dinner.

However, if you are out actively recruiting and you have a list of people all over town and fixed rates, then yea, I'd probably say that was a little business. And I would report that.

You could look at the guitar lessons in a similar manner. If you are giving a few here and there to friends and family, then I wouldn't worry much. But if you have a regular list with schedules, then yep, would report it.

Thursday · « **Reply #9 on:** November 21, 2012, 08:13:07 AM »

This is taken from "How I clobbered every wealth confiscating agency kown to man"

It's a pretty crazy docuмent but VERY interesting. According to her that real flesh and blood human beings are not required to pay income tax. Usually when we recieve "income" it actually a legal strawman who is recieving the income ie your name in allcaps (JOHN DOE as opposed to John Doe).

Another point she makes is that nobody has defined "income"

http://www.spiritualeconomicsnow.net/solutions/How_I_06.pdf

Income Tax Act, Canada, R.S.C. 1985, Chapter 1 (5th Supp.), updated to December 31, 2000
An Act respecting Income Taxes
SHORT TITLE
1. This Act may be cited as the income Tax Act. R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, s. 1.
PART I – INCOME TAX – DIVISION A – LIABILITY FOR TAX
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 residing in Canada at any time in the year.
This says it all. You are not a ‘person’. The definition of ‘person’ in Interpretive Laws of Canada and
under the 14th Amendment in the USA is: a corporation. Corporations receive ‘income’ and ‘reside at an
address’; Canada is a corporation which includes the territories, not the provinces. We are compensated with
40
remuneration, not income; we ‘inhabit’, not reside, we have a ‘postal location’, not an address, in a province,
not Canada.
Remember that your strawman is a corporate entity created by the government. If you are the surety then
you are liable for its taxes, however, if you are the secured party, the creditor to its debtor, then you have first
lien against it and the feds have zero control over it and hence no jurisdiction over you. YOU do NOT owe
‘income’ tax; besides, no one has even been able to define ‘income’.
Remember the spluttering IRS agent who couldn’t find in the IR Manual where it is written that I am
required to pay a tax on my ‘income’. Go to H&R Block and pull the same stunt – it makes them crazy.
Only if you’re bored that day, though, because you don’t really want to waste much time on their tax fraud
stuff – knowing it is a joke might be enough for you. However, if you’re like me and you like to annoy the
bureaucrats, trust me that it is very good entertainment. Or ring up CRA, ask them, and listen to them squirm.
I now have in my possession ‘Confirmation of Agreement’ evidencing that IRS Commissioner, Mark W.
Everson, Commissioner of CRA, Alan Nymark, and Minister of National Revenue Canada, John McCallum,
all agree that we are not required to pay income tax, or any of the other taxes I listed above – unless we agree
to the terms of their contract. Who would do that?
Most people pay taxes on ‘income’ even though it is not their ‘income’ – it belongs to the Strawman.
How can we have a tax liability on ‘income’ we never received? Even if it were we who received it there is no
law requiring anyone to pay any tax, never mind an ‘income’ tax, but Canadians, in particular, justify the
confiscation of their earnings by saying that there is a law, which is not true – not even in Canada. They
complain about paying taxes yet they defend it. This conflict of emotions is tantamount to the Stockholm
Syndrome – the behaviour of kidnap victims who, over time, become sympathetic to their captors (named
after a 1973 hostage incident in Stockholm. After six days of captivity in a bank, several kidnap victims
actually resisted rescue attempts and later even refused to testify against their captors).