Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RalphH]

It's done all the time. CRA and the PST branch has the authority to estimate revenues, taxable purchases and any other transaction where there is a reasonable basis to think taxes are being deliberately avoided and charge taxes thereon. There can also assess penalties in such cases where taxes they find are delinquent. Typical penalties can start at $10,000.

[SuperBobby]

It's done all the time. CRA and the PST branch has the authority to estimate revenues, taxable purchases and any other transaction where there is a reasonable basis to think taxes are being deliberately avoided and charge taxes thereon. There can also assess penalties in such cases where taxes they find are delinquent. Typical penalties can start at $10,000.

I'm not disagreeing with you that it's done all time, but nothing in your post proves that charging tax on estimations or assumed values is legal. Our governments are doing illegal things every day.
I decided to double check our tax laws online again. It clearly states that you can only charge tax on the amount that the goods or services are sold for.
It even gives an example for the mathematically challenged.

Here is another question for you.
My grade 12 son worked a part time job while finishing his last full time year of high school. He paid a decent amount of EI deductions while working. The fact is that if he got laid off while still in high school, he would have never been allowed to collect any EI because he is a full time student. There is no way around this. So what you have is a government that is forcing you to pay into an insurance policy that you are locked out of ever collecting. That is as corrupt as it gets and yet our government is doing it. He will never get back those EI premiums he paid.
Are you going to tell me that is legal to force someone to pay insurance for something they can never collect on?

You don't seem to understand that with both of these examples, the problem isn't about fixing an issue where something is being done illegally. The problem is that Canada is corrupt from the lawmakers right down to the judges, and because of that....it doesn't matter whether they do things that are illegal. Fact is, nobody can stop them. That's what you don't understand. If we had a government with ethics, these 2 examples would have been shut down in the courts immediately.

[clarki]

I decided to double check our tax laws online again. It clearly states that you can only charge tax on the amount that the goods or services are sold for.

You might want to triple check the tax laws online again.

The BC Provincial Sales Tax Act clearly states that "if the average wholesale value of a motor vehicle is greater than the designated purchase price, the purchase price of the motor vehicle is the average wholesale value."

https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/12035_01  Section 10.01

You throw out the term "illegal". Do you really think the province would try to collect a tax that crown lawyers hadn't first enshrined in the Act and Regulations?

It's in the Act. It's not illegal. You might not agree with it. And, yes, it may even be perceived as being corrupt. But it ain't illegal.

[RalphH]

I decided to double check our tax laws online again. It clearly states that you can only charge tax on the amount that the goods or services are sold for.

As I said previously  what section of the applicable legislation are you referring to? Without that there is no point in repeating yourself since what you keep insisting makes no sense.

I will give you an example. If a person or a business imports some goods from another country and those goods are subject to PST (they are not for resale or otherwise exempted) - they may pay for those goods, the agreed sales price, taxes in the country they originate from, shipping charges and duty charges. PST is liable to be paid on the entire amount; the agreed sales price plus taxes charged in that country plus the shipping charge and any duty paid to the Government of Canada!

[Phronesis]

Laws keep changing according to time and it does not make the law morally "right" .... I think thats what Bobby is trying to convey
When there is a law thats flawed through corruption or just a mistake, common people suffer....
With this example of used cars, they could implement an assessor paid for by the govt and collect the right amount of tax but instead they want us to pay for everything which I dont agree with or better dont tax private sale used cars, new cars paid off the tax then why milk it everytime it gets sold that too on a depreciating asset....
Rich guys get away with tax loopholes, lobby(fancy term for bribe) politicians, they want to keep it that way and get richer and squeeze every ounce of blood from commoners instead.... This applies worldwide

[SuperBobby]

Hey Ralph. Are you going to answer my EI question that I gave you or not?

You might want to triple check the tax laws online again.

The BC Provincial Sales Tax Act clearly states that "if the average wholesale value of a motor vehicle is greater than the designated purchase price, the purchase price of the motor vehicle is the average wholesale value."

https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/12035_01  Section 10.01

You throw out the term "illegal". Do you really think the province would try to collect a tax that crown lawyers hadn't first enshrined in the Act and Regulations?

It's in the Act. It's not illegal. You might not agree with it. And, yes, it may even be perceived as being corrupt. But it ain't illegal.

Well, I can't argue with that, but I really wish there were amendment dates in that document. There is NO way that document hasn't been amended recently to fit what the BC government wants.
Anyways....I can admit when I'm wrong. It seems that the new ICBC taxing process is currently NOT illegal....nonetheless it is still as corrupt as corrupt is. Like others have said. One book to tax the customer when they pay, and a different book to use when the customer collects.....absolutely corrupt beyond measure.

Laws keep changing according to time and it does not make the law morally "right" .... I think thats what Bobby is trying to convey

Exactly.

[clarki]

but I really wish there were amendment dates in that document. There is NO way that document hasn't been amended recently to fit what the BC government wants.

The amendment dates are available, just not in the Act itself. You need to click the Table of Legislative Changes at the top and then get into Act Point in Time.

You are correct: 10.01 and 10.1 d, e f were enacted Oct 1/22.

But isn't that the purpose of legislative changes: to fit what the government wants?

[Roderick]

Paying $5000 for a car (in cash) and then telling the taxman you only paid $1000 for tax purposes is the very definition of corrupt.  Happens all the time, or did.

[clarki]

Paying $5000 for a car (in cash) and then telling the taxman you only paid $1000 for tax purposes is the very definition of corrupt.  Happens all the time, or did.

So the provincial gov’t is fighting corruption with further corruption? That’s a head scratcher! 😀

[SuperBobby]

The amendment dates are available, just not in the Act itself. You need to click the Table of Legislative Changes at the top and then get into Act Point in Time.

You are correct: 10.01 and 10.1 d, e f were enacted Oct 1/22.

But isn't that the purpose of legislative changes: to fit what the government wants?

That says everything we need to know....

Paying $5000 for a car (in cash) and then telling the taxman you only paid $1000 for tax purposes is the very definition of corrupt.  Happens all the time, or did.

Really....when it comes right down to it, no one in their right mind thinks it's ok to charge tax on used items. The tax was paid. Again.....greed and corruption.

[dennisK]

Paying $5000 for a car (in cash) and then telling the taxman you only paid $1000 for tax purposes is the very definition of corrupt.  Happens all the time, or did.

And charging tax over and over and over for the same car sold is what exactly? Tax was paid for said vehicle when new. The gov't got it's cut.

Personally I'd like to see a referendum on the matter. And the way the gov't is dragging it's feet for online voting shows how terrified the govt is about genuine democracy.

If there was on online vote tomorrow on whether to eliminate the tax on used vehicles say...under $10,000.

How do you think the voice of the people would vote.

Maybe we should have one here on FWR just as a teaser. I believe that mechanism exists on the website...

[RalphH]

Hey Ralph. Are you going to answer my EI question that I gave you or not?

No.

I will note that very few people ever directly collect on their life insurance either. I've never collected on my fire insurance. I hope i never do. When someone broke into my house I installed dead bolts and an alarm system. No B&Es since then.

The concept of insurance isn't about collecting benefits. It's about reducing risk.

Much like taxes. Taxes are collected by government to do government business including providing people with services and building infrastructure. If the sources of taxation are reduced then either government raises tax from new sources or it has to reduce services, infrastructure etc.

I'd also note that sales taxes have long been criticized for putting a bigger burden on the less well off and easy on the well off. No one likes them but try finding a political party that wants to cut them in half or even eliminate them.

Paying $5000 for a car (in cash) and then telling the taxman you only paid $1000 for tax purposes is the very definition of corrupt.  Happens all the time, or did.

Bingo. When someone pays 1/5th of the average wholesale price for a pickup, something may be rotten in Denmark.

BTW in 2011 there was a referendum about the PST in this Province. We decided we liked it better than the alternative..

[clarki]

Hey Ralph. Are you going to answer my EI question that I gave you or not?

I'll take a crack at it.  I doubt my response will in any way sway your "the government is corrupt" mindset, but I have a few comments...

Your question was "Are you going to tell me that is legal to force someone to pay insurance for something they can never collect on?"

Yes, it's a 100% legal given the provisions in the Employment Insurance Act. Is it fair or right? That's a whole different conversation, but is is legal? Absolutely.

It's not entirely accurate to say that your son will never get those premiums back and he is locked out of collecting.
Presuming your son was working after 2016, he would need to work 420 insurable hours to be eligible for EI. Can a high school student accumulate 420 working hours during a 10 month school year. It's possible...

True, your son couldn't collect EI if he lost his job between Sept and June, but what happens if he lost the job in July. Then he could collect. Sure there is a 10 month period of ineligibility during the school year but those hours worked do count towards insurable hours in the 52 week eligibility period and he could put those insurable hours towards a future claim. Not entirely correct to say that he's locked out or could never collect. Given the circumstances, he could collect on those premiums.

There's a school of thought that making EI difficult/impossible for high school students to collect is a good thing as it reduces a learned dependence on the system. It think there is some value in that. Same reasoning why the province makes it so "difficult" for an underage person to receive income assistance/welfare.

 

And charging tax over and over and over for the same car sold is what exactly? Tax was paid for said vehicle when new. The gov't got it's cut.

Same goes for the property transfer tax. Every time a house/property is sold, the buyer pays the tax. Doesn't matter how old the home and property is, how many times it's been sold before, the gov't collects the tax.  The federal gov't also recently passed legislation that online sellers need to collect tax. So if you are flipping used goods on eBay, your buyers pay the tax. Doesn't matter how many times that item has been bought and re-sold over the course of its' life.

I'm not an expert in taxation by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's fair to say that you aren't paying tax on an item, you are paying tax on an activity (buying/selling). The item is just used to calculate the tax owed.

[RalphH]

is there nothing in the Provincial Sales Tax Act that says there is no sales on used goods?  I believe there isn't. I do know if I buy a used item from a business that has a PST account and has to both report sales and taxes collected I get charged PST on any taxable purchases I make. Best I recall it was always so. Most private sales are not taxed because it isn't worth the bother to try and collect. Unfortunately the vehicle registration system provides a mechanism for taxes to be collected on private sales as it does with real estate. 

BTW to both Superbooby and Clarki ... the answer to the EI question were pretty obvious.

[Roderick]

LOL dennisK, everyone hates taxes. 

As for a referendum... I got this from google. 

Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury."

And online voting would be great if it was secure and couldn't be hacked.  But it's not, so sticking to paper is only way.