Subject: Negative Tax (was Re: Corporate taxes (was: ...))
From: [email-masked] (Bruce Elrick)
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 17:07:53 GMT
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ont.general,ut.general,soc.culture.canada,bc.general

In article <[email-masked]>,
Timothy Huyer <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Christopher B. Browne ([email-masked]) wrote:
>
>: I think you've misunderstood the scheme slightly.  The idea is to charge tax
>: at a flat rate on the income above that arbitrary line.
>
>This is an excellent post -- my comliments!  I have a couple things to 
>add, though:
>
>The proposal suggested by Christopher Browne is equivalent to the idea of 
>the Negative Income Tax, which had support from such lefty radicals as 
>Richard Nixon and Milton Friedman.  In the simplest form, it would work 
>that each person would earn:
>
>	a + t Y
>
[munch]
>	This does not suggest that all taxation, even all individual 
>(direct) taxation, should be put into a NIT scheme, nor does it suggest 
>that all transfers to individuals could be eliminated.

Let's analyze the 'Negative Tax' in its simplest form.

First, some definitions:

()_i is the value of some variable for person i
()_T is the sum over all people of ()_i, where i runs from 1 to P,
     the population 
G is the gross income
N is the net income (after 'taxes')
R is the revenue to the government, i.e. the net tax

Clearly R_i = G_i - N_i.

The simplest Negative tax is given by

N_i = M + (1-r) G_i

where M is the minimum net income and r is the tax rate.  This means
that net tax on an individual is

R_i = G_i - N_i = G_i - M - (1-r) G_i = r G_i - M

which can be negative.

The question of whether such a tax is feasible is whether the
government can generate enough revenue to operate, keeping in mind
that perhaps we'll do away with welfare under this system but perhaps
not Medicare, subsidized education, etc.

The total government revenue is given by:

R_T = sum_i R_i = sum_i (r G_i - M) = r (sum_i G_i) - M P = r G_T - M P

G_T should be some (large?) fraction of the GDP, Gross Domestic
Product.  The average gross income per person is

Gav = G_T/P

so we can express the total government revenue as

R_T = (r Gav - M) P

What do we learn from this?  We see that for the government have any
revenue, the guaranteed minimum net income must be less than the tax
rate times the average gross income.  The National Product per capita
is US$22200 (CIA World Fact Book, 1994 edition, data for year 1993)
which is CA$31000.  If we pick a rate r = 25% and assume that G_T =
.66 GDP (I don't know what the fraction is), then we could support a
minimum net income of M = 0.25 * 0.66 * 31000 ~= $5000, assuming the
government does not need any revenue.  If the fraction G_T/GDP is
closer to 1 then M ~= $7500.

Now let's relax our assumption that the government does not need
revenue.  The current federal expenditures are US$123 billion (ibid)
so let's say we'll balance the federal budget.  This is about $170
billion.  Dividing by a population of 28 million (ibid) that gives us
an average revenue Rav ~= $6000.  This will make M negative for the
0.66 fraction G_T/GDP and make it $1500 for the 1.0 fraction.

Go ahead an play with the numbers.

Other things to note:

M is for every person, including infants.  The population of Canada is
28 million with a workforce of about 13 million (ibid).

What is the crossover between being subsidized and paying, for an
individual?  Set N_i = G_i:

G_i = M + (1-r) G_i ==> G_i = M/r

Play with this parameter.

Comments?

Cheers...

-- 
Bruce Elrick ---- Physics ---- University of Toronto ---- M5S 1A7
[email-masked] -- Office:MP1022 -- Phone:416-978-5207

From [email-masked] Sun Mar  3 22:57:14 1996
Xref: elastic can.taxes:1666
Path: elastic!lethe!geac!gts!whome!infoshare!istar.net!news1.toronto.fonorola.net!news1.toronto.istar.net!news.toronto.istar.net!echo.the-wire.com!news
From: [email-masked] (Lloyd Lindsay)
Newsgroups: can.taxes
Subject: Re: Big check coming, how to avoid taxes.
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 96 21:37:44 GMT
Organization: Lloyd Lindsay - Chartered Accountant
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloydl.the-wire.com
X-Newsreader: Quarterdeck Message Center [1.1]

On Tues, Feb 27,96 Tasha Monaghan wrote:

> Although such a sale to an offshore corporation would generate a taxable 
> gain, why couldn't this person sell the software to Offsore Inc. for 
> $X.00 and then have Offshore Inc sell the software to the end user for 
> $10X.00.  Is this not similar to the approach that many companies use to 
> shelter part of their import/export revenues offshore?
> 

WOW!  Do you think you're the only one who has ever thought of this?  Canada 
has tax legislation that would cost you a fortune if you did this.

You have FOUR problems to deal with: Cross-border pricing, selling to a 
non-arm's length buyer at below market prices, GAAR (general anti-avoidance 
rules also known as the stink test), and non-disclosure rules.

1.  CROSS-BORDER PRICING:
-------------------------
Where Canada has a tax treaty with a country that has similar rates, your 
pricing must satisfy both countries' tax authorities.  And sometimes you may 
wind up in a situation where the vendor pay tax on $X of sales while the 
purchaser can deduct only a smaller amount.

2.  NON-ARM'S LENGTH SALES:
--------------------------
Where you sell your goods to a company you own, the transaction would be a 
non-arm's length sale.  And if the sale is for less than fair market value, our 
Income Tax Act deems the sale amount to be FAIR MARKET VALUE.  So, if you 
receive only $1,000 for your sales but the fair market value was $10,000, you 
would pay tax on the $10,000 amount.  Now where will you find money to pay the 
tax on the additional $9,000 ($10,000-$1,000) that you didn't receive?

3.  GAAR - THE STINK TEST:
--------------------------
If you miraculously escape the first two problems, Revenue Canada has an 
additional weapon in its arsenal - GAAR the stink test.  GAAR stands for the 
general anti-avoidance rules.

Where you set up an intermediary company or a series of transactions mainly to 
avoid paying Canadian taxes, GAAR will set aside what you reported and tax you 
on what really happened.

GAAR will not attack you for claiming a deduction for your RRSP contribution 
because the Government sanctions it.  But if you sell something for little or 
no profit to a tax haven company that then sells it for a profit, GAAR could 
shift the profits back to you.

4.  NON-DISCLOSURE RULES:
-------------------------
Of course you may decide not to report your off-shore activities.  But if you 
get caught, you go to JAIL.

A Canadian resident is taxable on his/her world income.  Usually, there are two 
sides to any transaction: shipping and delivery slips, bank deposits and 
transfers, custom clearances, etc..  If the transactions are repetitive, you 
inevitably will get caught.

It's nice to dream about not paying taxes.  But hey, our taxes are not the 
highest in the world.  Think positive!
     
----
Cheers,

LLOYD LINDSAY - Chartered Accountant
a.k.a. iceman or labish
e-mail: [email-masked]

*********************************************************
It's not what you know or who you know; it's both.
Iceman has spoken.
*********************************************************

From [email-masked] Sun Mar 17 13:35:41 1996
Xref: elastic can.politics:52271 ont.general:32584 soc.culture.canada:20547 tor.general:36839
Path: elastic!lethe!geac!onramp.ca!grumpy.insinc.net!news.bconnex.net!news
From: [email-masked] (Linus T. Guerre)
Newsgroups: can.politics,ont.general,tor.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: fascist Harris
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 02:11:56 GMT
Organization: Lets Go !!!
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: auto-186-100.bconnex.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Jen Thing,

You seem bitter, vicious, and angry. Your hatred for all things
"non-working stiff' is irrational. Calm down. Take a pill. Try and
take a deep breath before responding. The world isn't that bad is it ?

OK, are you ready - all calmed down...

I own a business. It was incorporated 14 years ago. My observations
are not theoretical but factual. They are as follows;

We pay taxes - lots of them. Two years ago we lost money. That is, we
spent more to operate our company than we earned by operating it.
Still, we paid taxes. We paid all the usual "value added" taxes on
everything we bought (which was plenty). We operate in Ontario so that
meant 8% on virtually every purchase our million dollar corporation
spent. We paid GST as well, but in all fairness, we get most of that
credited back to us. We have to figure it all out though, which costs
us money - we spend money to not have to pay tax in this example !

We have an office, and seven different locations throughout Ontario.
We paid real estate taxes to each municipality for each unit we
operate. We also paid a similar amount on the parking lots we share at
each location. We then paid a separate business tax, again, on both
each actual operation and the parking area. This all used to be at a
rate of 30% of the assessed value - but as punishment for growing,
this jumped to 50% when we added our sixth outlet.

We also had to buy a string of permits, licences, and other municipal
fees - along with enough paperwork and bureaucratic hassle to cause us
to hire another office worker to keep track of it all. A new job
created, fair enough, but I would rather have spent the money on a
productive employee rather than one to handle the red tape. Once agin,
money spent for compliance is a tax in itself.

Our payroll is just under 60% of our gross income - high for our
industry. For every $100.00 each employee was required to pay into the
CPP, we paid a matching "tax" of $100.00. For every $100.00 of UIC, we
paid a matching tax of $140.00. We also paid 100% of each persons OHIP
at a rate of just under 1% of our total payroll. We have to keep track
of all this - buy the software, the hardware, keep the records, employ
the people to do so. A cost of doing business true enough - but
another cost directly related to taxation rather than production.

We have to file complicated financial statements and taxation forms
every year. We can't run down to H&R Block though. We employ an
accountant to the tune of thousands of dollars just to figure out that
we lost money and still paid a wack of tax.

It's true, Jen Thing - I paid myself too. I was also the highest paid
person on the payroll - for the first time in 12 years. I use my truck
for business so I claimed it as a deduction. To keep the business
running I have to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, so I
have an office in our house. I claimed that as well. Since our
business is spread all over the province I travel - a lot!! When I
have to be away from my family I charge the cost of the hotel against
the business. I try to make the most of every trip and meet with our
managers over lunch or dinner, I write off half those meals as well.

Last year we were negotiating on a sizable new territory. It meant a
complicated set of meetings and "shmoozing" - I wanted concessions
from people who had things I needed to make the deal. It meant a great
deal of travel, correspondence, and long distance telecommunications.
We agreed that it would be cheaper and faster if we all met in a
neutral place. There was an upcoming industry conference in New
Orleans so we met there. I wrote the trip off against business income
( I had a great time and got the deal done ). Our next four stores,
with all the construction, employment, and taxes are a direct result
of the expense.

This year we actually turned a profit, for the first time in several
years. Our actual tax rate, the amount of tax we were required to pay
totalled 23% of our net income. We reduced this amount by the amount
of the loss from our previous year, but still, we had not made
provision for that much money. We had to pay in installments, and paid
penalties and interest far above private rates as a result.

I have a large boat, snow mobiles, a new truck every two years, a home
in the country, and all the latest gadgets. I pay taxes on all of it,
as well as a personal income tax rate of just under 50%, reduced that
is, by the amounts I personally spend to keep my business running as I
stated in the examples above. I have RRSP's, and some savings and the
equity in my possessions, but for the most part, the lions share of my
personal income returns to the economy in the form of personal
spending. I consume at the rate of several of our entry level
employees. It all attracts tax. It all is consumption which causes
employment.

Our current year will be our best ever. We are making tax provisions
far in excess of the 23% from last year. We are earning more, so we
are paying more tax. We are earning more so we are spending more, and
paying more tax. We are earning more so we are expanding faster,
adding new jobs and opportunities as we go - and paying more tax.
Since we are earning more, I assume I will be earning more, and
spending more, and paying more tax, and creating more jobs and
economic activity in my community.

Dear Jenn Thing, where is the injustice in any of this? How, exactly,
am I raping our country, or trampling the rights of the common man ?
What advantages do I have that others do not - what opportunities,
what boys club, what secret society do I benefit from at the expense
of the poor, downtrodden working stiff? I alone paid more tax last
year than you will in ten. I also created jobs, consumption,
opportunities and economic activity. I'm happy to pay the tax if it
mean's continued opportunity for me and my family and friends.

The difference is - I'm not bitter. I love this country and the
opportunities it has given to me. It's just that I, and others like
me, seize those opportunities and try and make something of them,
rather than rail furiously away at those who have what I do not.

Is it still your opinion that I, and all the other business owners,
entrepreneurs, corporations, and non-labourers be stripped of our
possessions and given shovels and tattooed numbers on our fore arms ?
Or maybe you might grudgingly admit that we all play an important role
in our society, however different those roles might be.

********************************
--------------------------------

" Everybody Just Calm Down... "
               
                 Linus T. Guerre
               [email-masked]

From elastic!lethe!geac!herboid!whome!infoshare!n2ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!news1.istar.ca!news Thu Oct 10 20:50:01 1996
Xref: elastic can.legal:11166 can.taxes:3284
Path: elastic!lethe!geac!herboid!whome!infoshare!n2ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!news1.istar.ca!news
From: [email-masked] (Michael I. Atlas)
Newsgroups: can.legal,can.taxes
Subject: Re: A SALESMAN
Date: 7 Oct 1996 13:30:51 GMT
Organization: Michael I. Atlas, Practice Retricted To Tax
Lines: 122
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts37-06.tor.istar.ca

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] wrote:

> Michael I. Atlas wrote:
> > 
> > In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] wrote:
> > 
> > > A taxpayer , an employee, has three employers. He is a salesman on
> > > salary plus commission; deductions are made at source (by the employer).
> > > The taxpayer did not reveal nor did the employers ask "are you working
> > > for anyone else?"
> > > This "creative" entrepreneur intends to file "three" tax returns and
> > > claim and deduct accordingly. Within a year his income will exceed
> > > $150,000.00. No conflict in sales positions; sells three separate
> > > services; neither employer knows of the other for which he is employed.
> > > The salesman works 24 hours a day....win fax pro 7.
> > > What are the employment problems, at law, if any?
> > > What are the tax problems, at law, if any?
> > >
> > > Bill
> > 
> > I cannot comment on the employment law issues.
> > 
> > However, how can he file THREE tax returns-are you serious? Does he have
> > three SIN/ Rev Can account numbers?
> 
> Yes..By filling out three tax returns....One SIN no. ( On the other hand
> maybe it's better to have 3 SIN nos?)
> > 
> > Even if he did, certainly no one could suggest that this was legal, since
> > a tax return should include ALL income, not just a part of it, and to file
> > on that basis would be, in my view, a type of fraud.
> 
> Where is the "fraud"? All income is reported and tax deducted at source.
> Each employer complies, allows basic exemptions (3 times etc). You have
> provided a theory only and no basis, in law, in support thereof. Where
> in the Act is this exercise prohibited? If it is not prohibited it can
> hardly be considered a fraud or illegal.
> 
> > How would this be any  different than any other taxpayer who has more
than one source >of income (eg. investment income, capital gains,
employment income) filing separate
> > returns for each source in order to pay a lower rate?
> 
> To pay a lower rate of tax is a benefit. The exercise, at this stage, is
> employment income only, source deductions and that which flows from
> employer obligations only.
> 
> 
> > If that could work,  why would we tax practioners have to worry about
tax planning  > > aimed at "income splitting"-a person could just do it
with himself. Get real!
>  
> "If that could work" That is the question! Very good. What is the
> answer? Well, as for tax practioners, they could get some sleep and not
> have to "worry"..true?
> 
> Bill

Bill-

After reading your highly astute and scholarly response to my (and Hugh
Neilson's) post, I have become convinced that you are absolutely correct!
I apologize for any initial skepticism I may have displayed. I suppose
that is something that all geniuses who come out with new and creative
ideas must experience when having to explain their ideas to the dimwitted
masses such as us. But now I have seen the light, and I feel truly humbled
and honoured to be corresponding with a thinker of your greatness.

I want to commend you for developing a revolutionary new concept in tax
planning which will do away with traditional approaches to "income
splitting" based tax planning. No more need to worry about attribution
rules and the like-just whip that extra income onto another tax return for
YOURSELF! In your honour, I am now publicly dubbing this technique "TAYLOR
TAXPAYER CLONING". Perhaps being identified as the one who so dubbed it
may secure for me some place in the history of the world's great ideas and
inventions-a modest place compared to yours, but still a place.

After having seen the light, I went out the first thing this morning to
the Post Office and sent in applications for four (4) spanking new sets of
Social Insurance Numbers. I would have sent in applications for more, but
I did not want to be greedy, and besides, my office/residence is not big
enough to house more than four additional Michael Atlases. Any more, and I
would have to move out, and let them live and work here alone.

My first challenge in applying your genius to my own situation was the
fact that, unlike the salesman in your question with his different T4s, I
only have one source of income (i.e. the income from my professional
practice). Then it came to me! (perhaps some of your genius has rubbed off
on me even though our contact has only been via cyberspace)-I will form a
PARTNERSHIP with the other four Michael Atlases to continue to conduct my
professional practice. As a matter of fact, I just finished filling out
the 97(2) election a minute ago to "roll" my business into that
partnership. Furthermore, since all of the other four Michael Atlases have
roughly the same skills and abilities as I do, we will split the income
from the partnership equally-how could Revenue Canada possibly quarrel
with that? I am happy to tell you that, so far, the partnership is working
out really well. Right after I finished the 97(2) election, we had our
first partnership meeting, and guess what? I was elected Managing Partner!

I have discussed with my partners all the benefits we are going to have,
and they go far beyond anything hinted at in your post. Think of the RRSP
implications! Each of us will be able to make our own contributions based
upon our own contribution limits. If only I could have thought of this
years earlier! (But then again, I did not even think of it now, and never
would have without your tutelage). My partners and I also discussed the
fact that we are going to have a fantastically secure retirement too. In
addition to all of our RRSPs, we will each be able to collect some CPP,
although the other four will not have full pensions because they are
starting late. On top of that, none of us will ever have our Old Age
Pensions "clawed back" since, even if I (oops!-I mean "we") keep working
after retirement, none of us will have incomes that would be high enough
to result in such bad stuff.

Again, I cannot thank you enough, Bill, for what you have done for me (and
my 4 partners)!

-- 
Michael I. Atlas
Practice Restricted To Tax
Toronto, Ontario
Voice: (416) 932-2211 Fax (416) 932-2214
E-Mail: [email-masked]

From elastic!lethe!gts!nypl!demon.uunet.ca!news.uunet.ca!world1.bellatlantic.net!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!noc.van.hookup.net!news Thu Oct 10 20:51:12 1996
Xref: elastic can.legal:11217 can.taxes:3301
Path: elastic!lethe!gts!nypl!demon.uunet.ca!news.uunet.ca!world1.bellatlantic.net!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!noc.van.hookup.net!news
From: [email-masked]
Newsgroups: can.legal,can.taxes
Subject: Re: A SALESMAN
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 09:35:01 GMT
Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, Vancouver, BC, CANADA
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pmeb14.access.awinc.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email-masked] (Dave Tsai) wrote:

>Michael I. Atlas ([email-masked]) wrote:
>> In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] wrote:

>> > Michael I. Atlas wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > > A taxpayer , an employee, has three employers. He is a salesman on

>  [snip, snip...]

>> I want to commend you for developing a revolutionary new concept in tax
>> planning which will do away with traditional approaches to "income
>> splitting" based tax planning. No more need to worry about attribution
>> rules and the like-just whip that extra income onto another tax return for
>> YOURSELF! In your honour, I am now publicly dubbing this technique "TAYLOR
>> TAXPAYER CLONING". Perhaps being identified as the one who so dubbed it
>> may secure for me some place in the history of the world's great ideas and
>> inventions-a modest place compared to yours, but still a place.

>> After having seen the light, I went out the first thing this morning to
>> the Post Office and sent in applications for four (4) spanking new sets of
>> Social Insurance Numbers. I would have sent in applications for more, but
>> I did not want to be greedy, and besides, my office/residence is not big
>> enough to house more than four additional Michael Atlases. Any more, and I
>> would have to move out, and let them live and work here alone.

>> My first challenge in applying your genius to my own situation was the
>> fact that, unlike the salesman in your question with his different T4s, I
>> only have one source of income (i.e. the income from my professional
>> practice). Then it came to me! (perhaps some of your genius has rubbed off
>> on me even though our contact has only been via cyberspace)-I will form a
>> PARTNERSHIP with the other four Michael Atlases to continue to conduct my
>> professional practice. As a matter of fact, I just finished filling out
>> the 97(2) election a minute ago to "roll" my business into that
>> partnership. Furthermore, since all of the other four Michael Atlases have
>> roughly the same skills and abilities as I do, we will split the income
>> from the partnership equally-how could Revenue Canada possibly quarrel
>> with that? I am happy to tell you that, so far, the partnership is working
>> out really well. Right after I finished the 97(2) election, we had our
>> first partnership meeting, and guess what? I was elected Managing Partner!

>  [more snips (to keep length down)]

>Har, ha, ha, ha...

>One of the best postings I have seen in a while.  For sure!

>David.

The real beauty of Michael's plan is the ability to keep future taxes
down by the admission of new partners.  By sleeping in shifts,
Michael's residence can surely support 10, perhaps 15, Michael
Atlas's. 

If the partnership's income were to double, who could argue against
the admission of 5 more partners to handle the increased workload?
You may wish to proceed carefully - Michaels 1 through 5 will have
worked hard to build the practice up, and should benefit.  Perhaps you
should hire Michaels 6 through 10 as employees, at least until you see
how well they fit in with the organization.

Hugh Neilson, CA
Gardiner Karbani Audy + Partners
The opinions expressed herein are those of the writer,
and not necessarily those of the firm.

From elastic!lethe!whome!ve3ied!loki.tor.hookup.net!news Thu Oct 10 20:53:03 1996
Xref: elastic can.legal:11222 can.taxes:3302
Path: elastic!lethe!whome!ve3ied!loki.tor.hookup.net!news
From: [email-masked] (Bateman MacKay Chartered Accountants)
Newsgroups: can.legal,can.taxes
Subject: Re: A SALESMAN
Date: 9 Oct 1996 13:57:57 GMT
Organization: Bateman MacKay Chartered Acccountants
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
NNTP-Posting-Host: bateman.tor.hookup.net
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.11a

First off, Michael: I enjoyed your idea of multiple Michael Atlas'.  This 
was the best planning idea ever.  Sure overshadowed the entire Ontario Tax 
Conference (held by the Canadian Tax Foundation on Oct 7 & 8) and most of 
the discussions we had on Income Splitting.

However, Bill asked for the basis in law that prohibited a person from 
filing 3 tax returns.

My initial reaction is in combination of Section 2 and 3 of the Income Tax 
Act (RSC 1985 c 1 (5th Supplement)...)

Subsection 2(1) reads as follows:

"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."

This subsection on the surface does not prohibit the 3 return approach.

Subsection 2(2) defines Taxable Income as "... the taxpayer's income for 
the year plus ... and minus ... Division C"

Section 3 further defines the income of a taxpayer as follows:

"The income of a taxpayer for a taxation year for the purposes of this part 
[I] is the taxpayer's income for the year determined by the following 
rules:
(a) determine the TOTAL OF ALL AMOUNTS each of which is the taxpayer's 
income for the the year (other than a taxable capital gain from the 
disposition of a property) from a source inside or outside Canada, 
including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the 
taxpayer's income for the year FROM EACH OFFICE, EMPLOYMENT, BUSINESS and 
property, 
(b) ...[capital gains in excess of capital losses]" [emphasis added]

Therefore, these sections state that each taxpayer will include all income 
from all sources in one calculation of taxable income, resulting in only 1 
tax return.

Bill:  I trust this is the basis in law you were looking for, that Mr. 
Atlas and Mr. Neilson knew intuitively.

Barry Doebecker		 [email-masked]
Staff Accountant
________________________________________________
Bateman MacKay Chartered Accountants
Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Focused on Research & Development Tax Credits
http://www.bateman-mackay.com 
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author and may not 
reflect those of Firm.

From elastic!lethe!gts!torfree!news1.io.org!newsfeed.direct.ca!van.istar!west.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!news1.istar.ca!news Thu Oct 10 20:54:22 1996
Xref: elastic can.legal:11194 can.taxes:3295
Path: elastic!lethe!gts!torfree!news1.io.org!newsfeed.direct.ca!van.istar!west.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!news1.istar.ca!news
From: [email-masked] (Michael I. Atlas)
Newsgroups: can.legal,can.taxes
Subject: Re: A SALESMAN
Date: 9 Oct 1996 14:34:03 GMT
Organization: Michael I. Atlas, Practice Retricted To Tax
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts63-04.tor.istar.ca

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
wrote:

> First off, Michael: I enjoyed your idea of multiple Michael Atlas'.  This 
> was the best planning idea ever.  Sure overshadowed the entire Ontario Tax 
> Conference (held by the Canadian Tax Foundation on Oct 7 & 8) and most of 
> the discussions we had on Income Splitting.
> 
> However, Bill asked for the basis in law that prohibited a person from 
> filing 3 tax returns.
> 

> 
> Bill:  I trust this is the basis in law you were looking for, that Mr. 
> Atlas and Mr. Neilson knew intuitively.
> 

Barry-

Thanks for your post. Obviously, what you are saying is correct, but I
believe that we are all wasting our time in trying to deal with Bill as a
rational human being. The basis you gave is quite similar, in many
respects, to the one that Hugh Neilson gave in his detailed post of
October 7, 1996. But in Bill's reply on that same date he stated

"I must complement you on your efforts; however, I found nothing of
substance to suggest the exercise may not be successful". 

Do you want to guess what Bill will say in response to your post?

-- 
Michael I. Atlas
Practice Restricted To Tax
Toronto, Ontario
Voice: (416) 932-2211 Fax (416) 932-2214
E-Mail: [email-masked]

From elastic!lethe!gts!whome!telly!problem!ve3tsx!news.interlog.com!news Thu Oct 10 20:55:37 1996
Xref: elastic can.legal:11192 can.taxes:3294
Path: elastic!lethe!gts!whome!telly!problem!ve3tsx!news.interlog.com!news
From: [email-masked] (Morton M. Goldmacher)
Newsgroups: can.legal,can.taxes
Subject: Re: A SALESMAN
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 18:39:15 GMT
Organization: Barrister and Solicitor
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
NNTP-Posting-Host: ip93-209.tor.interlog.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email-masked] (Michael I. Atlas) wrote:

>Do you want to guess what Bill will say in response to your post?

I'll take that one on.  Bill has a few stock replies to solid
statements that rent his nonsense.  Chose from these:

(a)	Nice try, think again.
(b)	That is theory, any proof?
(c)	That is nowhere in law...
(d)	an opinion only.  Can you prove?

Among his favorite non-replies is to characterize a cogent and
explicit legal fact as a mere opinion or a theory and then demand some
sort of further authority or  validation.

Rather than waste my time in discussions with Mr. Taylor, I've taken
up the task of teaching my goldfish to play the piano.  Its more
gratifying, less demanding, an on the whole a lot more rational.

Morton M. Goldmacher
Barrister and Solicitor
Piscetarian Tutor