Searching for a particular person or topic?

Check the "Labels" list in the lower right hand corner. Recently the most often visited pages have been the ones on Divorce and Remarriage and the next has been the one on Income Tax. Two other pages which people are accessing frequently with specific searches are the pages on Albert Mc Shane and The Tabernacle. I hope whatever you read is helpful! You may also be interested to access my other blog and web sites by clicking on these links:

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Surprising Discoveries About Income Tax

The summer of ’99 (when our son, Rob, was diagnosed with cancer) was a time of fresh growth in our appreciation of the Lord, in our appreciation of our family members and also a time of radical changes in the Lord’s direction for my life. During the time that Rob was in the hospital that summer, a young friend of ours – Jason Van Londersele- gave Rob a set of seven videos on “Creation, Evolution and Dinosaurs”.

One of the most interesting videos of that series for me was video 5 which dealt with the effects of the evolutionary theory on the development of Nazism, Socialism, Communism and the New World Order. In one very brief section of that video, the speaker listed the Ten Planks of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto of 1846. The second of those ten is a heavy progressive income tax. He recounted that Ronald Reagan had once said in a speech that “The taxation system in America is based on Karl Marx’s idea!” But his next statement challenged everything I had always believed about Income Tax. He said that most Americans are not liable to pay Income Tax at all but that it is voluntary for most folks!

Extremely curious about these statements, I contacted the office of Creation Science Evangelism which produced the video series and asked for more information. They sent 14 pages of material and sources of information. In those pages I learned that while the speaker paid all taxes that were required of him, as the Lord Jesus taught us to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, he had not filed or paid Income Taxes for many years because he was not liable to pay such taxes and would not volunteer to do so!

If this was true in the United States, I wondered if the same was true here in Canada. So my research of Canadian Income Taxation began.

It didn’t take long to find a number of seminars being offered on the subject and I attended a number of such seminars in Toronto in the late summer of ’99. A number of organizations were offering “DeTax” programs with legal forms, documents and affidavits that one could use to stop filing Income Tax forms. But as I spoke personally with a number of “distributors” who were marketing these programs I could not find even one who had personally stopped filing! So I was determined I would not pay one red cent for a program which those who were selling it were not willing to apply personally!! I decided rather:
- to begin my own research of the Income Tax Act itself,then
- to interview Revenue Canada agents personally and finally,
- to write a letter to the (then) Minister of National Revenue , The Honourable Martin Cauchon.

My purpose from the start of this journey was to find out the truth and to put it into practice. If I was liable to pay Income Tax and had a legal obligation to do so, I wanted to fulfill my obligation under the law and in obedience to the teaching of the Lord Jesus. But if I was to discover that Income Tax really was a voluntary matter for me, I knew I could no longer continue to pay it.

I knew that neither the Lord Jesus nor the apostles were held morally accountable for the wicked use of tax revenue which they were required to pay to the Romans and neither would I be morally accountable for the wicked use of tax revenue that was required of me. But if I willingly, knowingly paid voluntary taxes, I could not escape moral accountability before God for the wicked use of such revenue which I had knowingly and voluntarily contributed! So I knew that I had to find out if I was liable under the law to file and pay Income Tax or if I had unknowingly “volunteered” to be part of the system when I had filed my first Income Tax forms as a teenager!

My initial study of the ITA (Income Tax Act) revealed some startling facts:
-Unlike other Canadian legislation, the ITA was never published in the Canada Gazette!
- Income Tax in Canada was first initiated as a voluntary measure to help fund the war effort in the First World War.
- I have been unable, as have many others, to locate or acquire a copy of the official version of the ITA nor has it ever been produced in a court of law when tax cases are being heard!
- Tax agents in the offices of Revenue Canada (now Canada Revenue Agency) and any member of the public must rely solely on an unofficial version of the ITA which is published not by government printers but rather by a private printing company!

Realizing that definitions of words are crucial when seeking to understand any legislation, I went to the “Definitions” section of the unofficial version of the ITA at a local library. The following were some of the surprising discoveries that I made:
-a “taxpayer” is defined in the ITA as: “Anyone, whether liable to pay tax or not.”

The acknowledged fact in this definition that one could be an Income Tax payer even if they were not liable to pay such taxes was the first clue that I had that paying income tax here in Canada just might be voluntary!

Then I looked for a definition of “Income”, but to my amazement although the Income Tax Act was comprised of hundreds of pages, I was unable to find a definition of that which it was designed to tax!!! In spite of this fact, every year that I had filled out income tax forms, I had been required to sign a solemn declaration that Ì had “fully disclosed all of my income.”

So on one trip to the Revenue Canada office in London, Ontario, I sat down with a Rev Can agent and asked what “Income” was. She got down her copy of the unofficial version of the ITA and began showing me various ways to compute income. But I told her I was not interested in learning how to compute such. I just needed to know what “Income” was, i.e. how it was defined in the ITA. Frustrated that she could not find such a crucial definition she called her supervisor to help. I sat there for 45 minutes while two Rev Can agents searched unsuccessfully for a definition of "Income".

While they were at it, I said, “Let me give you an illustration: My wife and I have a garden and our neighbour has a garden and we trade fresh garden produce. Do either of us have “income” from our gardens?” One agent responded, “Oh yes, both of you do!”

So I replied, “Well if that is true, I have a big problem! I have never declared garden produce on any income tax form so if such is actually “income” I have been lying every time I have signed such a form and declared that I had “fully disclosed all of my income.”

When both of those agents had finally given up and acknowledged that the ITA did not even define what “income” was, I told them, “I can no longer file income tax forms because I cannot in good conscience sign that declaration apart from knowing what is meant by “income”. If employees of Revenue Canada, whose responsibility it is to administer the ITA, cannot tell me what “income” is, how am I - a simple worker, to know what it is or whether I have fully disclosed all of mine??

Reading further in the ITA, I found that “returns of Income are to be filed in prescribed form.” Then “prescribed forms” were defined as those which have been authorized by the Minister of National Revenue. So on another trip to the Revenue Canada offices in London, I picked up a copy of every income tax form available as well as copies of every information bulletin that was made available to the public. Many of the information bulletins said that they were “authorized by the Minister” or Deputy Minister but I examined each and every Income Tax form with a magnifying glass and found that not even one had been so authorized! I have searched and inquired now for years for any evidence that such authorized forms have ever been printed and I have found none! So, as far as I know, it is a physical impossibility for me or anyone to file income tax forms in accordance with the provisions of the ITA!

But on that expedition to the Rev Can office I picked up a publication called “Revenue Canada, Our Programs and Services -1999” On page 8 of that publication I found these remarkable words: (emphasis mine)

"Voluntary Compliance

We have designed programs and services to encourage voluntary compliance---the cornerstone of Canada’s self-assessment system. We combine education and service to the public with a comprehensive program of responsible enforcement to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the system.

We encourage voluntary compliance by:

Providing information and help to clients to ensure they understand their rights and obligations, and are able to comply with the law.”

My observations:

-Here I found, in plain English in Revenue Canada’s own publication, that Canada’s self-assessment system of Income Tax is based on voluntary compliance! If something is mandatory, you have to do it! There is no such thing as “voluntarily compliance” to a mandatory law! If you don’t comply with a mandatory law, you face the penalties for breaking that law! Nor does government “encourage” voluntary compliance with any mandatory law…they simply enforce sanctions against those who do not comply!

But when co-operation with a voluntary system is necessary - “programs and services” are “designed” to “encourage voluntary compliance”! Catching fish with bait or lures is entirely based on the fish’s “voluntary compliance”. There is no law that requires that the fish MUST bite! But if the fish decides it wants the “bait”, it swallows the “hook” at the same time! So good fisherman are good at “encouraging” a fish’s “voluntary compliance”!

In like manner, Revenue Canada (now Canada Revenue Agency) is so good at this that almost everyone feels they “need” the programs and services which have been "designed to encourage voluntary compliance" with the Income tax system! Those programs and services include “social insurance”, “employment insurance”, “welfare programs”, “Workman’s Compensation”, “Canada Pension Plan”, “Child Tax Benefits”, “GST Rebates” and even “Income Tax Refunds” etc !

So armed with this information, I wrote a letter in September of ’99 to the Revenue Canada office in London, Ontario. I told them I was a Christian who wanted to fulfill all of my obligations under the law. I explained that I did not need or desire any of the above “programs or services” (which had been designed to encourage my voluntary compliance) and asked them if one in my situation was still liable to file income tax forms or to pay any income tax. I also asked 10 specific questions about the Income Tax Act, Income Tax forms etc. If they concluded that I was actually liable to pay such taxes, I requested that properly authorized forms be sent to me and I assured them that I would guide my affairs according to their response. That letter was sent to them by registered mail on Sept. 23rd,1999 and they received it the next day. But over ten years later, I am still waiting for a response from them or even an acknowledgment that they have received my letter!

After waiting in vain for over 90 days for a response (their own publication stated that they “provide information and help to clients to ensure they understand their rights and obligations, and are able to comply with the law”) I sent another registered letter to the Minister of National Revenue telling him of my inquiries to Rev Can and of their failure to provide the information which I had requested of them. I then informed him that I was no longer an “Income Taxpayer” and requested that no more income tax forms be mailed to me as had been mailed every year since I first “volunteered”. The Minister of National Revenue never replied to that letter, but neither has Revenue Canada or the Canada Revenue Agency sent me any more Income Tax forms as they had for many years previously!

I have not filed another “Income Tax Return” since the spring of 1999 nor have I paid a cent of Income Tax since that time. I simply learned the facts and asked if I was “liable”. In the absence of any evidence of such “liability” I simply decided not to voluntarily comply with the self-assessment system of Canadian Income Tax and clearly informed Revenue Canada and the Minister of National Revenue of my decision!

Over the years since then, I have received a number of “Requests to File” and “Demands to File” and “Assessments” alleging that I “owe” some outrageous sums as a result of not “filing”. But each such document I have promptly returned to the sender by registered mail marked "VOID, your offer of contract is hereby refused and rejected for fraud." I have also assured them that they need not “Demand” anything from me. All they need to do is (1) fulfill their own mandate by answering my questions in my letter of September ’99, and (2) send me the authorized forms which the ITA requires and I will be happy to “file”.

It has also been during these intervening years that I have learned how mandatory taxes are clearly distinguished from voluntary taxes -The first (such as PST, GST, gasoline taxes, property taxes etc) are simply charged and we pay them. But in order to pay any voluntary tax one first chooses to apply for a Social Insurance Number (although there is no law that requires anyone to have such a number), one then chooses to fill out forms (applications) to pay voluntary taxes (although there is no legal obligation for anyone to do so) , then one chooses to put their own signature and the SIN which has been assigned to them on those application forms (when there is no legal obligation upon anyone to do so!) Payment of mandatory taxes requires no number, no forms to be filled out and no signature. But payment of voluntary taxes requires all three!

In February, 2006 the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (now Canada Revenue Agency) sent me an alleged “Requirement to Pay” in the amount of some $115,000.00! But in the absence of any evidence that I was actually liable to pay such, I knew it was simply an attempt to scare me into volunteering back into the system again. I returned that “RTP” to the officer who sent it to me with a letter explaining why his document had failed to instill any fear in me to comply. From that time to the present (over three and a half years) I have had no further communications from the CRA.

I’m sure when our friend, Jason, gave those videos to Rob – he had no idea how they would challenge my thinking and the course of my life! But that was just one challenge to my thinking that took place in the summer of ’99. In my next post, I hope to share how my thinking was also challenged regarding service to the Lord and how it would radically affect my business.


Uncharted Thoughts said...

So how have things gone for you so far? Have they pretty much given up trying to threaten you into compliance?

Also, as the law now requires you to have a SIN #, I suspect it is no longer voluntary?

Great work, I hope you are on to something.

Bruce Woodford said...

Hi "Uncharted Thoughts",

I rally haven't even received any threats at all.

I'm really interested in your last remark about the law now requiring you to have a SIN....

What does it actually say? You can email me at if you like.

Grant Baudais said...

What Is “Income” For The Purposes Of The Income Tax Act?

Is it the popular meaning of the word, or could the word “income” actually have some specific meaning for the purpose of the Income Tax Act?

Apparently, the Supreme Court considers “income” to be
an amount received from a “source of income”, and a “source of income” is an activity carried on with an intent to profit.

Supreme Court of Canada:

Stewart v. Canada [2002] 2 S.C.R. 645 2002 SC 46
(See Para. 5 and 54)

So, is it really your intent to profit when receiving amounts for your time and labour (i.e. your property)?

Or …. are you simply being compensated for the loss of one form of property (i.e. your time and labour) with another of
equal value (i.e. money)?

If the latter is true, and you have no intent to profit from your time and labour, then do the amounts you receive represent “income” from a “source of income”?
Apparently not!

No intent to profit = No “source of income” = No “income”

…And if there is no “income”, then you might want to ask yourself…
“Why am I paying an “income” tax on the amounts I receive from providing my time and labour when I have no intent to profit?”

If you are having difficulty answering this question…then you might want to start your search for answers by reading the information on the other side of this page.

After all…”It is ignorance of the law when you do not know your rights!”

More to come

Grant Baudais said...

Income Tax Is As Certain As Death…Really?

Interestingly, the expression, “income”, is not defined in the Income Tax Act. However, it is clear that in order for there to be “income”, whatever that means, it stands to reason that there needs to be a “source of income”. That said, the Supreme Court (in Stewart v. Canada [2002] 2 S.C.R. 645 2002 SC 46) has stated that “in order to determine whether a particular activity constitutes a “source of income”, the taxpayer must show that he or she intends to carry on that activity in pursuit of profit and support that intention with evidence.” (The Supreme Court makes no reference to any requirement for an individual to provide evidence in support of a lack of intent to profit!) The Supreme Court went on to say that; “Equating ‘source of income’ with an activity undertaken ‘in pursuit of profit’ accords with the traditional common law definition of ‘business’; i.e. “anything which occupies the time and attention and labour of a man for the purpose of profit”. So, what if one was just simply earning a living, with no intent to profit?

According to section 3 of the Income Tax Act, there are only four “sources of income”, or “activities undertaken in pursuit of profit”; those being an “office”, “employment”, “business”, and “property”. So again, what if you carry on an activity as a “personal endeavour” with no intent to profit? Is there a “source of income”? According to the Supreme Court, no there is not!

That said, when you provide your time and labour for something, is it really your intention to profit, or are you simply being compensated for the loss of one thing (i.e. time and labour), with another thing of equal value (i.e. money)?

But what is meant by “intention”? In simple terms, intention is an amplified thought, going from the head to the heart. So what comes first, profit or intent? It seems obvious that one needs to establish their intent before all else, and it all starts with our basic right of freedom of thought. This basic principle is recognized within our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2, wherein it states; Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: …b) freedom of thought.

So considering what the Supreme Court had to say, ask yourself, what if one were to carry on an activity with no intent to profit? Or in other words, a “personal endeavour” for “the purpose of a livelihood”, a fundamental right we all have. Is there a “source of income” (i.e. an “office”, “employment”, “business” or “property”)? Apparently not, considering the Supreme Court has stated there first needs to be an intent to profit in order for there to be a “source of income”. Therefore, if one has no intent to profit, there is no “source of income”, and if there is no “source of income”, there is no “income”, and if there is no “income”, there is no “taxable income”, and therefore no “income” tax to pay. So why are you paying an “income” tax if you have no intent to profit from your personal endeavour?

In closing, I’ll leave you with what Albert Einstein once said; “Blind obedience to authority is the greatest enemy of truth”. So isn’t it time you acquaint yourself with the truth and your rights?

Should you feel the need to confirm or clarify this information, please contact the Canada Revenue Agency, General Enquiries, at 1.800.959.8281 (for individuals) or 1.800.959.5525 (for business enquiries). To assist the CRA, please remember to be very clear and specific with the words you use for the purpose of your enquiry.

For more information or assistance in making a general enquiry, e-mail:

Alain said...

you sound like another gullible victim of the tax protest movement.

Why not look at Cheek v. United States and similar cases instead of arguing over words?

Bruce Woodford said...

Hi Alain,

Just a couple of comments....First I'm not arguing, I'm stating facts which I have gleaned and put into practice for over 14 years now.

Secondly, I am not a gullible victim. I have informed the Canada Revenue Agency and the Minister of National Revenue of all that I have done in this matter and what I have learned from their own Income Tax Act. They have been unable to show me any section of that Act which I have violated, but I have shown them a number of sections in that Act which THEY are violating.

I have not filed an Income Tax form of any kind since 1999 because they have never published any "prescribed forms" which have been "authorized by the Minister of National Revenue" as the Income Tax Act requires!!!

The CRA has tried numerous tactics to entice me back "into their game" but I have never been charged nor taken to court over this matter.

If you have continued to file and pay Income Tax thinking it is a mandatory tax when, in fact, it is a voluntary one...YOU are the one who has been a "gullible victim" because you have not taken the time to investigate the facts for yourself, as I have.

Just go to your local library or access a copy of the Income Tax Act online and check out specific definitions such as "Taxpayer", "person", "Income" for starters. Then go over every Income Tax form which you have ever filed and see if such were ever "authorized by the Minister of National Revenue".

If they are not, you will have proof positive that YOU have been the "gullible victim"!

I sincerely hope that you will be willing to search out the truth for yourself rather than letting others do your thinking for you and allowing yourself to be intimidated by fear. The truth shall set you free.

Bruce Woodford
(you can email me personally at

Bruce Woodford said...

Hey Alain,

I received an email with another posted comment from you in response to the above. But it does not appear (yet) on the blog!

I do want to respond, but it would not make sense on the blog without your comment before it.

Would you repost that comment and hopefully it will show up this time.


Bruce Woodford said...

I received another email notification of a post you had made but which did not show up on the blog. For your information, I do not block any posts to this blog or "pre-approve" those which do appear. (unless some spam or inappropriate material gets posted.)

Nor do I post posts for others which don't show up on the blog.

So I don't know why your one post appeared but two others haven't! Please try again as you did the first time.


Fred Saberhagen said...

You wrote
"if I willingly, knowingly paid voluntary taxes, I could not escape moral accountability before God for the wicked use of such revenue which I had knowingly and voluntarily contributed!"

What verse are you basing this on? This God seems kind of mean.

I once voluntarily gave some pocket change to a homeless man who spent it on drugs, and then he died. Am I morally accountable?

Bruce Woodford said...

Hi Fred,

In response to my comment,"if I willingly, knowingly paid voluntary taxes, I could not escape moral accountability before God for the wicked use of such revenue which I had knowingly and voluntarily contributed!"..... you wrote the following....

"What verse are you basing this on? This God seems kind of mean.

I once voluntarily gave some pocket change to a homeless man who spent it on drugs, and then he died. Am I morally accountable?"

Great questions! Let me try to tackle them....
re your question as to what scripture I based my statement on...there are many but the main one is in Proverbs chapter 1 where Solomon warns his son (in verse 10 and following) not to allow sinners to entice him when they say, "Come, let us have one purse..."

Whjy was his son warned not to do so, because those whom he would have otherwise supported were involved in wickedness of which he would have been part had he gone with them or contributed to their cause.
The same is true if one knowingly and willingly goes with and helps another in the commission of a crime.

Secondly, re your donation to a homeless man who used that money for drugs and died.....I don't think such qualifies as "knowingly and willingly contributing to support wickedness", unless the man had actually said to you, "Hey mate, I really need some cash to get me more drugs!"

I sometimes illustrate it this way.... Many folks come to our door seeking donations for various causes. Some I will give to and others I will not. One of them is "United Way" for they very publicly support the "Planned Parenthood" organization which strongly advocates abortions, giving contraceptives to teenagers etc.

If I willingly contributed to support Planned Parenthood knowing something of their agenda, do you think I could avoid moral accountability for such a decision?

I hope this helps.


I hope this helps.

Fred Saberhagen said...

The passage that you mention is a warning against a life of crime.
and is specifically about those who are trying to get money the wrong way.
I think that it should also be noted that the common purse is only mentioned after the stealing because the only money shared is the stolen money.
Then solomon says that those bad people will eventually die and he never mentions moral accountability before God.
Do you have any scriptures that are actually about moral accountability and money?
Is there anything specifically about knowingly and willingly contributing to support wickedness? Like paying temple tax when you know that it is being used by immoral priests?
Or paying taxes to a horrible Caesar? Also how wicked is too wicked?

My dead homeless friend was in a really bad way. he was being torn apart by withdrawals. He was poor and suffering and he told me that he really needed to buy some drugs and I gave him some money. Am I morally accountable for my decision? Do you have any scriptures that are pertinent?

Is God going to hold this over my head?

Bruce Woodford said...

Hi Fred,
You and I and everyone else are morally accountable for EVERY decision we make!
"Every one of us shall give account of himself to God."

But the question I had to face was, "Am I morally accountable for the wicked use of tax revenue which I voluntarily contribute knowing that such is used for wickedness?"

There are clear distinctions between mandatory and voluntary taxes! The Lord taught His disciples to pay taxes which were demanded of them. Neither he nor they were morally acountable for the wicked use of mandatory taxes.
But when I pay a tax which I know is a voluntary one and one which I know is used to fund wickedness, I cannot avoid moral accountability for knowingly and willingly supporting such!

BTW, mandatory taxes are charged and we pay them (PERIOD!)
And if we don't there are clear penalties. No "benefits" are offered to "encourage voluntary compliance with MANDATORY laws!

But in order to pay voluntary taxes one must: (1)apply for government issued ID (birth certificate, Social insurance card etc. (2)fill out forms giving one's consent to pay such, (3)print one's name in all capital letters, last name first etc as it appears on a birth certificate, (4)use identifying numbers such as the SIN issued with the SIN card, and (5) give one's signature.

Then the government, in order to "encourage voluntary compliance" with voluntary taxes develops programs and services (such as GST refunds, Child Tax credits, Workmen's compensation, Employment Insurance, Canada Pension Plan and numerous welfare programs etc etc) to motivate people to pay a voluntary tax which no one would line up to pay if they actually knew it was voluntary!!!!

That is why, since I learned that Income Tax actually is a voluntary tax in Canada, I have stopped volunteering to file or to pay such a tax.

I hope this helps,

Fred Saberhagen said...

When did you first make this distinction between voluntary and mandatory?
Is there somewhere in the bible that you learned this secret?

Bruce Woodford said...

Hi Fred,

I first learned about voluntary taxation when I was studying the Income Tax Act and official publications of Revenue Canada (now Canada Revenue Agency)back in 1999. And that is when I quit volunteering to pay voluntary taxes. But I have always paid mandatory taxes such as sales taxes, goods ands services taxes, gasoline taxes,etc which are all charged and paid without any paper work at all.

The Bible doesn't specifically address voluntary taxation but clearly teaches about choices which we make, choices for which we are responsible and choices for which we are accountable to God.

It is because of such accountability that I cannot any longer pay voluntary taxes.


Fred Saberhagen said...

Revenue Canada says that one of the biggest myths that they hear from tax protesters is that the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance because the government knows tax laws are unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.
This sounds exactly like what you stated on your blog.

Revenue Canada goes on to say that
There is no question that voluntary compliance is the cornerstone of Canada's self-assessment taxation system. This simply means that the government expects you to respect the law and comply fully with your tax obligations.
This approach does not imply that the law cannot be enforced if necessary. The Income Tax Act and other laws provide a range of penalties for offenses such as tax evasion, failure to pay taxes, failure to disclose income, or refusing to file a tax return. These penalties can include fines, third-party claims, seizures, and criminal prosecution.

On the other hand the Voluntary Disclosures Program provides taxpayers with the opportunity to come forward and make a voluntary disclosure before they become aware of any compliance action being initiated against them. Taxpayers availing themselves of the VDP will have to pay the taxes owing, plus interest, but may avoid penalties or prosecution.

This means that what you wrote on your blog is not only untrue, but has also been addressed by Revenue Canada and you did not do any research.

I believe that you honestly wanted it to be true and so you only did enough research to make yourself feel good about you presumption. You were prejudiced from the beginning and did not look at the facts.
You also created your own definitions of certain words so that you could argue about their meanings.

Also you stated that the bible does not specifically address voluntary taxation (perhaps because you are working from a definition of your own fabrication) but in Matthew 17 we see that Jesus says that although he personally is exempt from the temple tax he finds that causing offense to be the real crime, so he pays it anyway.

I hope you seriously and prayerfully reconsider you position and teaching.

Bruce Woodford said...

Hi Fred,

I am very familiar with Rev Can/CRA's publication on "tax myths". Sending me a photocopy of those "myths" was their only response to my letter of Sept.'99 when I wrote and asked them about my liability to pay Income Tax.

I do not believe one of their "myths" and have not based any of my decisions on such foolishness!

Their own publications tell us that Incomew Tax in Canada us basewd on voluntary compliance but I have never claimed that the reason for that is because they cannot enforce the tax laws! They can enforce those laws on all who volunteer - just as the military has every right to enforce military law on all soldiers who volunteer to serve in the military! But such laws have no bearing on those who do not volunteer.

The explanation which they give of "voluntary compliance" is simply not true! They do not design programs and services to encourage voluntary compliance with mandatory laws such as speed limits, stopping at STOP signs etc! But their own publications clearly state such things regarding Income Tax!

Of course there are penalties and fines etc for those who volunteer and then don't file or fail to pay etc!

But when one asks specific questions about their own liability to pay Income Tax, makes clear that they do not need or want any of the "benefits" offered to "encoureage voluntary compliance", promises to guide their affairs according to CRA's response to one's questions and does not receive ANY RESPONSE AT ALL....then informs the Minister of National Revenue that CRA has failed to answer their questions, informs him that they are no longer an Income Taxpayer and requests that no more Income Tax forms be sent to them....the Minister complies with such a request!

I know from experience for this is exactly what I have done. In over 14 years I have not been charged with any wrong doing although I have not filed an income tax form or paid a cent of Income Tax in all that time.

I have offered to file and pay if they would simply send me the prescribed forms which the ITA requires that one use when they file a return of Income...i.e. forms which purport to be authourized by the Minister of National Revenue.

As far as I can tell, no such forms have ever been published! So every time you have filed an Income Tax return on forems which are not so authourized, you have actually been violating the Income Tax Act which requires you7to use such forms!!!!

(Apparently this post is too long and won't be accepted! So I
ll break it here and continue in another!

Bruce Woodford said...

Part two:
Fred, I did NOT fail to do my research....I am very familiar with all the statements you have quoted from Rev Can publications. And I have not lied about these things on my blog.

I would rather suggest that you do you own research into what the ITA actually says and then you will recognize the lies which RevCan/CRA publish on a regular basis when responding to those who question the whole Income Tax scam.

They are professionals at instilling fear in those who do not know the facts and are therefore unwilling to obey the law and actually challenge the lies which they are told.

Rev Can/CRa agents have written to me dozens of times attempting to scare me back into playing their game. I simply tell them that they have not shown me one section of the ITA which I am violating but rather show them the sections which they themselves are violating. I've not heard from them in over two years now!

So, Fred, please don't tell me that I have not done my research and that I am lying!

If you would do your own research, you would be convinced of the truth of which I speak and the truth which I have practiced the last 14 years.

You also claimed that the temple tax was voluntary. THat is far cxry from government taxation i.e. by the Romans! Similar systems of taxation are practiced in local churches today when the offering plate is passed! When I "go to church", I usually volunteer to contribuite to such collections too. BUt if I kinew that such were being used for wickedness, I could not contribute for then I would be morally accountable for voluntarily and knowingly contributing to wickedness.

BTW, I received an email about another brief post you made (yesterday?) But for some reason it did not show up on the blog! Would you please repost that comment here and I'll respond to it.


Fred Saberhagen said...

So, by your own admission you do not believe what revenue Canada says in plain english because you have created a divergent explanation based on your own definitions. You believe that their explanation is not true because it is different than the way you chose to understand them. Your own “facts” seem convoluted and unfocused. They are definitely difficult to make any sense out of.
Revenue Canada does not say that income tax is voluntary. It merely says that voluntary compliance is encouraged. This means that the taxes themselves are not voluntary but that there are different ways to comply and that the way that is encouraged is the voluntary way. That is not to say that it is the only way to comply. There is a world of difference for those who can understand this.
That is exactly the same as traffic laws. You are encouraged to comply with them, but if you chose not to, then you may face prosecution. Or you may get away with it. Either way, voluntary compliance is encouraged.
You seem to be waiting for a very specific form with specific words written in a specific font and size, and if something is not to your specific dimensions or order then you deem it invalid. Perhaps the fault is more with you and the expectations that you project on others than with the actual publications or system.
You say that you have not lied in your blog. Does this include lies of omissions? Are half truths the same as lies? Are unsupported guesses and emotionally laden fear mongering lies? Is redefining word meanings lies? I don’t doubt you did your version of research, I also see that you stopped doing any research as soon as you were able to manufacture the theory that you set out to prove. Biased research always results in supporting your prejudices.
Thank you for encouraging me to do my own research. I have and I am happy to say that the facts have led me to a different conclusion than you have come to. So either I got the facts wrong or you did. Or maybe my bias was different.
Do you also claim that the temple tax was merely a religious tax and had no civic function? Do you believe that the Roman tax was mandatory and the Hebrew tax was voluntary? What scripture do you support your claims with? Are there any?
Wasn’t Jesus also condemned by the religious leaders for associating with the wicked? Where is his moral accountability?
Were you able to find any more scriptures about moral accountability linked to finances (beyond the passage in proverbs that we have already discussed as being actually a warning against a life of crime and not financial morality). Is there anything specifically about knowingly and willingly contributing to support wickedness? Like paying temple tax when you know that it is being used by immoral priests?
Or paying taxes to a horrible Caesar? Also how wicked is too wicked?

Bruce Woodford said...

Hi Fred,
You spoke of voluntary compliance as if it applies to all laws. But it simply doesn’t! Where do you ever read of voluntary compliance with sales taxes, property taxes, traffic laws etc? Nor do you ever read of “programs and services which are designed to encourage voluntary compliance” with such taxes or laws! There is no such thing as “voluntary compliance with mandatory laws!

Re my statements regarding “forms authorized by the Minister”, you wrote, “You seem to be waiting for a very specific form with specific words written in a specific font and size, and if something is not to your specific dimensions or order then you deem it invalid. Perhaps the fault is more with you and the expectations that you project on others than with the actual publications or system.”

Not so! Many Rev Can publications and forms specifically state “This form authorized by the Minister”. But I have never found an Income Tax form which makes such a claim!

Fred, you also wrote, “You say that you have not lied in your blog. Does this include lies of omissions? Are half truths the same as lies? Are unsupported guesses and emotionally laden fear mongering lies? Is redefining word meanings lies?”

Please be specific…what “omissions” did I make? What “half truths” did I state? What unsupported guesses” did I make or what did I write which was “emotionally laden fear mongering”? I can’t respond to generalities like this!

You said, “Thank you for encouraging me to do my own research. I have and I am happy to say that the facts have led me to a different conclusion than you have come to.”

Very interesting! Please tell me about your “research”….what were your sources? Which CRA agents have you talked to? What did you ask them? What were their answers? Have you checked for definitions of words in the ITA itself? What definitions did you find there? And what conclusions did your research lead you to regarding your own liability to file and pay income tax IF YOU DID NOT WANT TO CLAIM ANY OF THE “BENEFITS” DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE YOUR VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE? I would be most interested to read your answers to these questions!

You asked a number of other questions and here are my answers:
Q. Wasn’t Jesus also condemned by the religious leaders for associating with the wicked? Where is his moral accountability?
A. He associated with all sorts of sinners but did NOT participate in or support or condone their sin!

Q. Were you able to find any more scriptures about moral accountability linked to finances (beyond the passage in proverbs that we have already discussed as being actually a warning against a life of crime and not financial morality).
A. Actually Proverbs 1:10 and onward IS about financial morality as Solomon warns his son not to have a common purse with the wicked which will be used to fund wickedness. All acts of wickedness are crimes against God and the men whom they harm! How can one knowingly, willingly and voluntarily contribute to such without bearing moral accountability to God for such a choice? When scripture tells us that we must all give account of ourselves to God (Romans 14:12), for what do you think we will all give account if not for choices we have made in everything?
In Luke 16:1-13, the Lord Jesus teaches about stewardship of finances. None of us are owners of anything but stewards of that with which God has entrusted us. The lesson which He taught from his story is found in verses 11-13.

Q.Is there anything specifically about knowingly and willingly contributing to support wickedness?
A. Very definitely! See II Chronicles 19:2, the condemnation of a king’s choice to help the ungodly!


Fred Saberhagen said...

Voluntary compliance does apply to all laws. You know that complying with the speed limit is encouraged. There are programs and services that are put in place to help guide you. There is the posted speed limit, the highway traffic act and the police services; all these are for your information among other things and to help you comply with the speed limit. All of these things encourage you to comply, but you have the ability to choose not to.
Complying with the controlled drug and substance act is also encouraged. There are drug programs, pharmaceutical guidelines, methadone services, drug treatment centers and many other programs and services to help encourage your compliance. You always have the choice to not comply but you are encouraged to.
You are encouraged to comply with the criminal code as well. As a Canadian you are encouraged to comply with all of the laws of the land. None of this means that these laws are voluntary, they are in fact all mandatory, it is just you are encouraged to comply. You always have the choice to comply or not comply. When you chose not to comply you find that you are no longer encouraged by the carrot, but beaten by the stick.

Fred Saberhagen said...

As for the lies, what I asked was, and am still asking is how do you know that you aren’t lying? Do you know everything? Do you think that you have covered every fact and every piece of evidence? Is your hubris so great that you believe that you cannot be wrong? Do you think that you are smarter and wiser than hundreds of Financiers, Lawyers and Senators that have spent decades in schooling, training and practice? Do you think that your keen grasp on Canadian history, finance, morality and politics has given you a superior edge to understand taxes? Does it not alarm you that those who most espouse your views are known crackpots? Look around you. Look at the company that you are in. Let that at least ring an alarm bell.
And about my research, do you think that I need to define my terms the same way that you do? What makes you think I would want to follow in your footsteps? Do you believe that the only evidence that I could believe would be the exact same set of facts you set out to prove? Do you think that I have to talk to the same CRA agents that you did, and check the ITA against my own word definitions? Why on earth would I retrace your research? If I thought that was satisfactory I would just listen to you.

Fred Saberhagen said...

What tax form would convince you? If there was a form that stated that it was authorized by the minister of national revenue of Canada and was signed by that minister and that explicitly stated that income tax was mandatory not voluntary and that you were legally liable to pay income tax and if the official Income Tax Act was published in the Canadian Gazette and then printed on government printers and the definition of taxpayer was amended to simply “anyone” and if the definition of income was clearly stated as “the sum of all the wages, salaries, profits, interests payments, rents and other forms of earnings received in a given period of time” and if the prime minister came to your front door and asked for your taxes … What then? Would you pay tax then? Or would you scour forms and dictionaries to find some other fault in the system?
Don’t you think that the people who make the laws could, would, and do make taxes mandatory? Do you imagine some mystical regulatory body that sits above them and tells them that they have to make sure that taxes remain voluntary? What do you believe prevents them from making taxes mandatory? An old wartime bill? Some arcane maritime law? The Magna Carta?
You said at the beginning of your blog that you started your research with the aim to find out if Canadian income tax was voluntary. And so, by selective research, you were able to convince yourself that what you already had decided must in fact be true.

Fred Saberhagen said...

This is simply a self fulfilling prophecy. It happens every day to people who are better than you and me. Why would you be exempt? Evolutionists take evidence and interpret it differently than creationists and they each come to very different conclusions. It is no surprise that with your objective in mind you were able to come to the conclusion that you did.
It is also no surprise that anyone who disagrees with you is either fear mongering or misinformed.
Anytime Jesus talks about taxes he always advocates full payment, and he never never suggests that there could be voluntary taxes or that there are some forms of taxes that should not be paid. Even when those taxes were being paid to a completely evil empire. Even when his taxes were being used to do very unrighteousness and completely immoral things.

Fred Saberhagen said...

I know that you read Proverbs 1:10 differently than most people, or perhaps you just believe what you want and then fit scripture to what you already believe. However I think that it should be obvious that when anyone else would read Proverbs 1:8-19 they would find that the idea of financial gain is not introduced until verse 13 and even then it is the wicked who have the money, not the son. Then in verse 14 it is the wicked who are asking the son to join their group (that is what “throw your lot in with us” means) and they are the ones who are offering to share their wealth with the son. At no point do the wicked ask for the son’s money to finance their schemes. To think or say that any of this passage is actually about the son’s financial morality is an example of eisegesis. It simply goes beyond what is in the text.
Romans 14:12 again has nothing to do about finances, but appropriately enough is about judging your brothers and looking down on them for what days they treat as holy, or what kind of food they eat, or for setting another brother up to fail. What is being judged is not where your money went, but the strict moral attitude that stops you from giving it.
We also find that Luke 16:1-13 is actually about dishonest bookkeeping. Not only does Jesus not condemn the dishonesty of the bookkeeper, but he holds him and his actions up as good examples of making friends! The bookkeeper is literally buying friends as he is cheating his master, and Jesus says that is the proper use of money. Jesus holds up even immoral use of money as a great way to make friends. The whole point of this parable is to say that withholding money is unrighteous.

Fred Saberhagen said...

If you read this entire story of 2 Chronicles 19:2 you will see that Jehoshaphat was a good king that tried to do exactly what God told him to do. In fact, he got rid of the idols, 17: 3. He sent missionaries to teach the bible to Judah, 17:7. He made peace treaties and alliances with all the surrounding countries 17:10. He built up the army 17:12. He asked Gods advice about alliances and war plan’s 18:4. He took part in God’s specific plan to kill Ahab, 18:19. We find also that God specifically assisted him during that battle, 18:31. And in all of this Jehoshaphat was at the very least attempting to reunite Gods divided kingdom. Then in 19:2 we have the seer Jehu saying that God’s wrath is on Jehoshaphat. But we know it isn’t because of any association with idolatry because Jehu goes on to say that Jehoshaphat has already done good for tearing down idols in verse 3. So what ungodly lord-haters was he helping? Likely it was Ahab, who Jehoshaphat had just hidden in battle with and had acted as a decoy for. We see a similar accusation from God against Saul in 1 Samuel 15 when Saul spared the amalekite king. Jehoshaphat tried to spare Ahab’s life when he knew God wanted him dead. The direction of this story is that we don’t try to subvert God’s Judgment. It does not mean that we should decide who now deserves Gods judgment.
And as a point of fact, Jesus told us to do the exact opposite of 2 Chronicles 19:2 in Matthew 5:43-44. And it is significant that while we were yet sinners, christ died for us. Jesus loves those who hate the lord. Jesus causes the rain to fall on the wicked and the good. And Jesus calls us out of this old way of acting as his agents of judgment and justice and calls us instead into Grace. Getting what we do not deserve. He calls us to be like him in this all-loving non-judgmental way. Putting aside judgment and deciding who is wicked and who must suffer Gods judgment. Removing ourselves from Gods judgment seat that only God is qualified to sit in.

Fred Saberhagen said...

The state has always been un-christlike. We don’t have the right or the ability to make the state act like Jesus. When we try to make the government more christian we are actually opposing what Jesus said when he told pilate that his kingdom is not of this world. God has given the job of that kind of judgment to the government and not the church. This world's government will always be in opposition with the kingdom of God because it will always be more concerned with protecting itself. Who are we to judge those who are outside the church? Who are we to cast moral judgment on anyone and say that their wickedness not only condemns them, but also anyone who has paid them? If that was the case, we would have to leave this world.
I understand that you are really grasping at straws here to hold onto your worldview or to your idea of associated moral accountability. But all of your moral accountability is taken out of context and from unrelated scriptures. This is a sure sign of having an un-christlike agenda, so at some point you may have to reexamine your stance and say that you need to make some changes if you want to be more like Jesus. It will be hard to do and you will resist it because you have invested so much in your life into it.

Bruce Woodford said...

A note to those who have followed the recent conversations here and noticed that a thread of comments has been deleted….
A recent contributor of comments made a series of public accusations but was unwilling to accept responsibility for those accusations. I gave her/him a number of opportunities to identify herself/himself so others could know who was really making these accusations. I give no credence to anonymous accusations nor do I give anonymous writers on this blog the liberty of a public platform to accuse others! That is why that thread has been deleted and comments to this blog are now subject to monitoring before publication.
So just a word to the wise.

Bruce Woodford said...

On April 15th above you wrote a post claiming that voluntary compliance applies to all laws (traffic laws, drug laws and criminal laws).
I had demonstrated before that Revenue Canada’s publication “Our Programs and Services 1999” clearly stated under the heading: “VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE”…”We have designed programs and services to encourage voluntary compliance—the cornerstone of Canada’s self-assessment system.”
(I will send a PDF file of that booklet to anyone who wishes to email me at and request it.)
So here is a challenge for you, Fred… Show us any government issued statement regarding (1)“voluntary compliance” with traffic laws, drug laws or the Criminal Code and (2) and a statement in the same context stating that they have designed programs and services to encourage voluntary compliance with those same traffic, drug or Criminal laws and I will acknowledge you have made your point!
I will eagerly await your evidence.

Bruce Woodford said...

On April 28th you really got worked up and posted a 6 part comment which I am going to do my best to answer very briefly but pointedly… (Please try to keep future comments brief.) If you wish to write at length on these subjects, you could start your own blog and I could follow and comment on your blog.
Q. “What form and what circumstances would convince you to pay (income)taxes?” A. An Income Tax form with the statement (that appears on many Rev Can/CRA bulletins, pamphlets and Demands To File) with these very words: “Form Authorized by the Minister of National Revenue” would satisfy the demand of Sections 150 and 244(16). To my knowledge it is a physical impossibility for any Canadian to comply with these sections of the ITA for no “Returns of Income” have ever been printed which purport (claim) to be so authorized! Check every one you have ever filed with a fine-toothed comb and a magnifying glass to see if it has been so authorized! If it is not, you have been violating the Income Tax Act yourself!
And a letter signed by an authorized CRA agent informing me of the sections of the ITA which show that I , who have renounced and refused any CPP, Workman’s Comp, EI, CTB, HST refunds and any other such “benefit” issued to those with a Social Insurance Number (that too I returned, renounced and refused) am yet liable to pay Income Tax. I have been asking for such for the last 14 years to no avail!
Re. your return to the subject of Proverbs 1…. Solomon’s son is warned not to get involved with any “one purse” scheme with sinners from which he might hope to benefit but which “purse” is used to fund wickedness and shedding of innocent blood. A similar warning is found in the NT in II Cor.6:14-17. An “unequal yoke” is any partnership yoking a believer faithful to God with an unbeliever . The two different kinds have two different masters, destinies and allegiances that don’t mix!
Your comments on II Chronicles 19:2 carry on this very same subject! King Jehoshaphat (a righteous king) was helping/joining forces with a wicked King, King Ahab (chapter18:1-3) and this is what the prophet reproved him for.
You claim that the Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:43,44 tells us to do the exact opposite! Not so! WE ARE to love our enemies but NOT TO HELP AND ASSIST THEM IN THEIR WICKEDNESS! Jesus ate with and associated with unjust tax collectors and even harlots. But he did not participate in their schemes of fraud and immorality!!!
Fred, if I have somehow communicated that I think the state should behave like Jesus, I have communicated VERY poorly! Such was never on my mind! But they do get their authority from Him and that requires them to punish the evil and praise those who do well. (Romans 13:1-8 and I Peter 2:13-17)
And it requires of me that I be subject unto every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake. That Is why I asked them to show me the ordinance that requires one who does not wish the “benefits” which have been provided to encourage voluntary compliance to pay income tax. I don’t know of any such law do you? You are right that His kingdom is not of this world, if it were He’d call His servants to fight! I am not called to fight anyone or any system. Just to STAND.
Bruce Woodford
Norwich, Ontario

Fred Saberhagen said...

Bruce, All of my answers were in response to questions you asked. If you want a brief answer, then keep your questions to a minimum.

Re: your interpretation of scripture, I prefer to follow what scripture actually says instead of wisdom that man gives.

Carol Knox said...

Most edifying, sir! I found you through a Kent Hovind video on the subject and had to contact you right away!
I'm curious why no one has yet to ask you here, what exactly were the "10 specific questions about the Income Tax Act, Income Tax forms etc" that you posed to Revenue Canada?
I would also be delighted to know if there's a prescribed way to abandon all ties to 'the corporation' with regard to my birth certificate, social insurance number, driver's licence/registration, etc.
Any information you could guide me to would be appreciated greatly.
Looking forward to hearing from you and perusing your site in the interim...
God bless you richly in 2015!

Bruce Woodford said...

Hi Carol,
That first letter that I sent to Rev Can was a rather lengthy one. If you'd like to email me at I'd be happy to send you a copy.

Re a "prescribed way" to abandon ties to the various forms of gov't ID... they don't want anyone to do so so have not prescribed any way to do it!

After writing to the various gov't agencies which issue such and requesting those cards with my given name in proper order and in upper and lower case letters (and being denied!), I simply cut those cards up and mailed them back to the offices which issued them and revoked and rejected all"benefits" associated with them and have not used such since. I am a man created by God who is known and may be introduced to others by the God-given features of my body, soul and spirit. I am not a "thing" which has been given personality by the law and must be identified by a legal name, a legal number and a legal document!

There is much to learn but I'd be glad to walk with you through the process that I followed 15 years ago and also how I respond whenever CRA contacts me with Requests and Demands to file and other threats in vain attempts to get me back into their "game".

Yours in the service of the very Best of masters,