Thursday, July 24, 2008

Adrienne Oliver tax lawyer person


"From a government revenue perspective, if we are going into a global economic slowdown they're going to be looking to preserve their revenue base. Income trusts, as they previously existed, were a real threat to that." Tax lawyer Adrienne Oliver, (July 16, 2008)

Wow, this Adrienne Oliver tax lawyer person is a real winner. I think Diane Francis should interview her. Diane could start off by asking:


How does Adrienne’s totally presumptuous logic support evidence that any taxes are being lost in the first place? Proof would be more compelling than presumption.

How does Adrienne’s lame logic “explain away” Flaherty’s exemption for REITs?

How does Adrienne’s misguided logic “explain away” Flaherty’s exemptions for public trusts that become private trusts held by pension funds and not taxed?

How does Adrienne’s empty logic “explain away” Flaherty’s removal of the 15% withholding tax on leveraged buyout loans to facilitate the total loss of the tax revenue base to foreign private equity?

And finally, what taxes are paid by her employer Ogilvy Renault Tax Flow Through Entity LLC?

No point asking that question, since it’s purely rhetorical. They pay no taxes. They are an income trust. I guess Flaherty forgot to tell the world that he exempted REITs AND law firms.

12 comments:

Bruce Benson said...

Sounds like Adrienne Oliver took lessons from that good old boy Cliff (Hanger).

Anonymous said...

"From a government revenue perspective, if we are going into a global economic slowdown they're going to be looking to preserve their revenue base. Income trusts, as they previously existed, were a real threat to that." Tax lawyer Adrienne Oliver

Another brilliant analytical comment from yet another lawyer. I'll put my degree in mathematics up against her degree in geography or sociology any time she would like to do some calculations on preserving the revenue base!

Les

Anonymous said...

Also, how much tax will be collected from all those Canadian companies bought up by private equity, pension funds, and sovereign wealth funds?


GL

Anonymous said...

Guess?.. actually you don't have too, very little if any due to the way Flaherty has structured things. You see, Flaherty says one thing and does another! What is this kind of deception called? Subterfuge.

GL

Anonymous said...

The amazing thing about Ms. Oliver's statement is that appears that she’s trying to justify it (after the fact) based on conditions that didn’t even exist at the time.

Are we now to believe that both the GST cut AND the trust tax were measures that were put in place in anticipation of the economic slowdown? Puhlease. If that’s the case, Flaherty should get a job with Warren Buffett and start doing all his 20-20 forecasting and economic prognostications.

BF

Anonymous said...

Making tax changes because of a Global Slowdown expected prior to Oct. 31, 2006? Bull.

Many of us paid income tax on our trust distributions far in excess of what the Feds would have collected had they levied income taxes on the trusts involved, at normal corporate rates, with the trusts taking normal measures for corporations to minimize tax liability.

As a lawyer, Oliver is not even a competent liar unless her audience is made up of the clueless.

Alan

Anonymous said...

Folks:

Think about this for a moment. This woman is a tax lawyer. Her whole professional life is devoted to helping individuals and corporations pay:

(1) more taxes?
(2) fewer taxes?

The correct answer is (2) fewer taxes.

So it is blatantly hypocritical for her to claim that she is concerned about which direction Canada's tax base is going, especially given that her firm Ogilvy Renault advised BCE on its tax draining, tax revenue base draining LBO.

Meanwhile, what would be her professional bias insofar as income trusts are concerned. Let's consider an extreme case. Let's suppose every business in Canada became an income trust like Ogilvy Renault.

Would that mean:

(1)More need for her corporate tax advice?
(2)Less need for her corporate tax advice?

Again the correct answer is (2) Less need for her corporate tax advice.

Face it, this woman wants to preserve her line of work. She doesn't want all the taxes from business to be taxed at the higher rate of individuals.

Do you really think she wants to trade her fancy law degree and Vice Chair of Taxation role at Ogilvy Renault into a job at H&R Block filing out personal tax returns?

(1) Yes
(2) No

Again, the correct answer is (2) No.

Not Easily Fooled

Kephalos said...

Ms. Adrienne must be working in a Popperian state of subjectively verifiable truths; (same state as “Oooh that feels so good.”) In a Popperian state of objectively falsifiable what Adrienne is saying is nonsense. First, let me clarify the philosophical basis of what we have here. A datum which is always “not false” is a datum that will never be empirically verifiable. Such “always true” data belong in the realm of metaphysics and mythology. As between the two, mythology is more interesting. By the way, did you ever hear the myth of the young woman who fibbed that she could spin straw into gold...


Of course, that’s not why we’re here; sorry. I was reminded because the story of tax leakage is the converse use of the motif—how to turn real tax revenue from income trusts into corporate tax vapours whose only value is the legal and accounting fees earned by...


Alright, yes, I’ll get to the point. From the CRA statistical data (at www.gc.cra.ca) for corporations and/or the CAPP Statistical Handbook for any recent year, the actual amount of income tax paid by energy corporations is readily available. We must appreciate that Adrienne only deals with the energy industry one-client-at-a-time; and so, she may not know the industry statistics. Be that as it may, the publically available and objectively verifiable information for the year 2005 indicates that 30% of the tax paid on energy earnings came from trusts investors even though trusts were only 20% of the industry. In short, energy trusts are tax revenue accretive. Weird, eh?


Speaking of weird, did you hear about the Quantum Finance Minister? No? Well lemme tell. As you know, a quantum thingee can instantaneously jump between contradictory states. Two contradictory states are “evil” and “stupid.” By definition, evil knows what is does, but stupid does not. A Quantum Finance Minister can instantaneously jump between evil and stupid in the same sentence. Political scientists believe such behaviour has been observed in Canada but a Truth Accelerator must be built to investigate the phenomenon. An underground parking lot in Whitby is being considered as a possible site.


What do you mean “Myth?”

Dr Mike said...

My uncle is a criminal lawyer & he could not even balance his cheque book without help.

Of course he is not an ambulance chaser like Flaherty or a renowned tax grab lawyer like Adrienne Oliver.

As far as I can tell , I would not want any of them near my money.

The unfortunate thing is that Flaherty has his mitts in our wallets so far that there is no room left for any of us.

Lawyers phooey---who needs them.

Dr Mike Popovich.

rippedoffinontario said...

Let me see if I have this straight

BCE as an Income Trust ---> $$ to me, I send ---> $$ to Ottawa

BCE as LBO .. zip $$ to Ottawa

This government is a sham .. Libs get your act together and let's stop the country's slide into ruin.

And yesterday, Flaherty giving back some of the $$ we in Ontario already sent to Ottawa .. give me a break!

online backup said...

With a controversial statement like that you would think that she would provide some evidence to back up her claim.

Swedish holding companies said...

Swedish holding companies are supposed to be attractive for corporate tax planning purposes; do you know in which exact way they are favorable?