Woman Waives Her Right to Be Recognized as a Person Under Law; Demands CRA Pay Back All Taxes Collected From Her Over Previous 10 Years

In a recent case, Heather Sinclair-McDonald, Human Being, asserted that she had waived her rights as a person under the law and therefore the Income Tax Act did not apply to her. She sought an order requiring CRA to pay back all taxes collected from her over the last ten years.

The CRA was able to have the lawsuit dismissed at the outset on the basis that Ms. Sinclair-McDonald’s claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court noted that argument made by the plaintiff, that she is a human being and not a person recognized under the law, has (astonishingly) been extensively considered and rejected by Canadian Courts.

Retweet information »

Comments

  1. The court noted that argument made by the plaintiff, that she is a human being and not a person recognized under the law, has (astonishingly) been extensively considered and rejected by Canadian Courts.

    As a tax lawyer, I assure you, there are far stranger arguments that lurk deep in the weeds of Tax Court (and before that Tax Appeal Board) decisions. And of course, anti-tax hysteria is amongst us to such a degree that in a way I am surprised that more such cases don’t seem to come despite their universal lack of success. There’s certainly a robust cottage industry of “de-taxers” looking to swindle people with bozotic ideas about how to fight CRA in court. Meads v. Meads, cited in your decision, has a wonderfully entertaining roundup of the de-taxer jurisprudence.

  2. Yay for another Meads cite! It’s great to see it being adopted by courts across the country (and in other countries in a few case). Probably once a month I pull up the CanLii noteup for it to see who’s else has picked it up.

    As another tax practitioner, I am thrilled to see the courts are starting to put an end to this nonsense so they can focus on cases that actually need their attention.

  3. The action was Ontario. The motion judge could have pointed out to her that in order to have status to sue in Ontario, she had to be a legal person. Hoist, etc.

  4. Just finished reading Meads v. Meads and can confirm that it is wonderfully entertaining indeed. Thanks for sharing Craig!

Leave a Reply

(Your email address will not be published or distributed)