October 3, 2009 by Dan White.

This is typical of our government attitude. We are quickly becoming a country where we elect our dictatiors. It is really quite disgusting.

Read on to see what Peter Hilier has to say about this issue.

Dan White

OPINION: What you don’t know about lawful access By:  Peter J. Hillier  On: 01 Oct 2009 For: Network World Canada Creator

The Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act creates too much opportunity for abuse by intelligence and security organizations.

Why telecom carriers are naïve about the Technical Assisatnce for Law Enformcent in the 21st Century Act

The Government of Canada has gone down the lawful access road on two previous occasions, prior to the introduction in June of Bills C46 and C47. The previous Liberal bills did not get past first reading due to impending elections and changes of government.

The crafters of the previous submissions had a tremendously difficult time getting the telecommunications providers on board given the investment they would be forced to make in order to provide the backbone for Big Brother without some compensation.

Bill C-46, the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act (IP21C) and Bill C-47, the Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act (TALEA) aim to give Canadian law enforcement, national security agencies and other “authorities” broader powers to acquire digital evidence to support their investigations. This includes provisions to allow police access, without a warrant, to the personal information of users including names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses and internet protocol addresses. Bill C-46 ensures police can obtain warrants for current and historical transmission data, but also allows police to remotely activate existing tracking devices on cellphones and cars. It also included requirements for the telecommunications providers to decrypt date for production of evidence if they have the ability to do so.

In its current form, the legislation is not balanced. It creates too much opportunity for abuse by intelligence and security organizations, let alone law enforcement agencies. Where is the evidence that expanded surveillance powers they contain are essential and that each of the new investigative powers is justified?

To this end, the Bill is more reflective of an intelligence gathering legislation than it is a piece of law enforcement law. The federal Privacy Commissioner, in conjunction with her provincial counterparts, has warned the crafters of the legislation to be cautious in moving forward with the legislation as is.

Now that the appropriation bill C-47 has been split from the legislative piece, C-46, the telecommunications providers see the opportunity for the federal government to foot the bill for the implementation of technology, as well as a per request fee to respond to requests from law enforcement agencies, etc. The telecommunications providers have seemingly acquiesced to the Crown and have the attitude that it will be introduced into law sooner or later; we may as well be prepared. Ironically, they are not.

They have not yet thought through the impacts past the routine requests by law enforcement agencies to gather evidence on child exploitation, because that, after all, is the basis for the entire legislation. With that, the telecommunications providers assume if they apply a fee to each request, the municipalities and Crown will not over burden them with requests for fear of cost overruns. Given the expanded powers of this legislation, this is a terribly naïve mindset.

Posted in Tax Topics | Print | No Comments »

October 3, 2009 by Dan White.

The article below was written by Jamie Golombec. You just have to respect him as a writer. He “gets” it when it comes to the unfairness of the tax system.

In this article he hits the nail on the head about the unfairness of the employment expenses.

It is clear that it makes more sense to be a business than an employee if you have to pay your own expenses. Of course qualifying as a business is complex and is the biggest target market for CRA.

Dan White

No way to ski by expenses rules

Ski instructors case shows that employees are treated unfairly

Jamie Golombek, Financial Post  Published: Saturday, October 03, 2009
Related Topics

If you’re an employee, you are no doubt well aware of the discrimination imposed on you by the Income Tax Act. Compared with your self-employed neighbour, the Act severely restricts your ability to write off myriad legitimate expenses.

This unfairness came to light yet again last week when the Canada Revenue Agency responded to a question posed by a taxpayer as to whether ski equipment is deductible as an employment expense by ski instructors who earn salaries and commissions.

Under the Tax Act, an employee may only deduct “the cost of supplies that were consumed directly in the performance of the duties of … employment and that the … employee was required by the contract of employment to supply and pay for.”

CRA’s Interpretation Bulletin IT-352R2 “Employee’s Expenses, Including Work Space in Home Expenses,” discusses employment expenses and states specifically that “supplies” will “not include special clothing … worn by employees in the performance of their duties …and any types of tools.”

Since ski equipment is not a supply “consumed directly in the performance” of the job, the cost of the skis were ruled not deductible.

There are additional deductions permitted for commissioned employees who may be required to pay their own expenses and work away from an employer’s place of business, but those specifically exclude capital expenses other than for automobiles and airplanes.

Even if the ski instructors were commissioned employees, the CRA views the cost of ski equipment as a capital expense and therefore not deductible.

This inequity is not new and even reached the Supreme Court of Canada in a 2004 decision, which concluded that a broker who paid $100,000 to purchase a client list from a departing broker was not permitted to deduct any of it as an employment expense. As the Court wrote: “That employees are treated differently than taxpayers earning income from business … is not novel nor readily seen as fair … This seemingly inequitable result … is the result of the structure of the [Income Tax] Act.”

The 2006 federal budget attempted to address this inequity by introducing the non-refundable Canada Employment Credit. As Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minster, said at the time: “This new tax credit gives Canadians a break on what it costs to work, recognizing expenses for things such as home computers, uniforms and supplies.”

To claim the credit, no expenditures need actually be made. Rather, this credit is available to anyone who reports employment income. The amount for 2009, on which the credit is based, is the lower of your 2009 employment income or $1,044.

Since it is a tax credit, the actual tax savings are calculated with reference to the federal credit rate for 2009, which is 15%, equating to a maximum credit of $157.

Considering that a decent pair of boots, bindings and skis can run well over a thousand bucks, the credit is small solace to these alpine workers.

Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com-Jamie Golombek, CA, CPA, CFP, CLU, TEP is the managing director, tax and estate planning, with CIBC Private Wealth Management in Toronto.

Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/personal-finance/story.html?id=2061608#ixzz0SsJfxvOr

Posted in Tax Topics | Print | No Comments »