|
February 22, 2005 Notice Of Intent and Understanding Re: Urgent Request for a Ruling
from: Revenue Canada and Elections Canada Establishment of Facts and Presentation of our Notice of Intent: This letter is being sent in response to events that happened
yesterday, when I brought in a document that was date stamped February
21, 2005, and received by the Vancouver Tax Services, for which I offered
in good faith, the minimum amount of $107.Cdn, to start the process. Upon
submitting this document, I was given an internal circular 'IC706R5
02/05/17 - Advance Income Tax Rulings. Section #4 This request for a ruling from a political party /EDA should not be private matters. A positive ruling will benefit society far more than it will benefit myself personally. A negative ruling to this ruling hurts society far more than it will hurt me. Under no circumstances should a political party /EDA's decision be confidential or private. It's contrary to the benefit of the Public Trust to suppress information that affects the Public Trust. I agree with the statement in #5 - Fee for advance income tax rulings: 'The cost of providing this service is born by those taxpayers who benefit from it.' But a candidate of a recognized party made this request for a ruling, on a political party platform position, and this ruling is, first and foremost, intended to benefit society, by providing a recognized platform for administering to the abused Charteright needs of disadvantaged people. I challenge that since the effects of this ruling is an insignificant personal benefit, when compared to the benefit to society that it's unconscionable, to have me pay for this. It's my duty to ask difficult questions. My ruling will make it possible for there being one compassion club per riding, and heal a nation. Our Courts just shamelessly ruled that politicians could lie to get elected. An unfavourable ruling on this issue will mean a politician cannot support its party /EDA political platform, if its platform is opposed by the position of the ruling majority party. If those who govern want no political interference then we have a totalitarian government. As I read it this whole circular is written for everyone but politicians, and many provisions don't apply to me, as it is structured to allow you to delay and obstruct a decision till after an election, which may be just around the corner. The Longley decision protects society from this abuse. I stand under the Longley decision. This is the first letter of several more that will come down the pike on this issue. Placing the burden of paying for bureaucratic delays is unconscionable, when a political party representative of an official party is seeking a ruling that effects social justice and our ability to be effective as a party.
The reason for this letter is to avoid a conflict. I'm blazing new trails. It's inevitable that I will have lots of questions, especially if I have to grind answers out of you. I have no idea whether you will co-operate or not. Wanting me to recognize a structure that does not recognize the Longley decision is unacceptable. *Notice of Understanding: We don't want to be confrontational or adversarial, but your Ministry may want to drag this issue out, for political reasons, which at prima facia are not this department's concerns. In light of the fact that it took Blair Longley, our party leader, 17-years to get an answer to his politically sensitive ruling, we need to stress that we are working with the understanding that 'under the Longley decision', we can dictate a reasonable timeframe to respond. It's our duty to ask difficult political questions. *Please respectfully recognize that nonfeasance to respond in 10- working days to this notice means compliance with prima facia recognition that such a venture is possible. Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity,
Marc Boyer. |