Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Our politicized Auditor General, prefers fishing expeditions to tax leakage investigations




Auditor general wants to inspect MPs' expenses

Tim Naumetz
THE CANADIAN PRESS
May 20, 2009

What’s with Canada’s Auditor General? Clearly she is a political animal. Here she is jumping on the MP expense bandwagon, in the after math of the Speaker of the British Parliament resigning over irregular and unjustified expense reimbursement. So what becomes Sheila Fraser’s top priority of the day? MPs expenses.

And yet when asked A YEAR AGO by our paid elected members of Parliament, that sit on the Finance Committee to investigate the Government’s allegations that income trusts cause tax leakage, the sole premise for a policy that caused CANADIANS to lose $35 billion of their life savings, she gives these MPs the finger, in effect. Who needs and Auditor General that is so blatantly political. Meanwhile the premise of tax leakage turns on the fasle argument that deferred taxes paid on the 38% of trusts held in deferred savings accounts are worth ZERO. This treatment is YOTAL DEFIANCE of the Auditor Generals own directive, that was implemented in BUDGET 2004 to this very day, that all budgeting be done on an accrual accounting basis, which menas these deferred taxes MUST be included.

Why did Sheila Fraser defy the will of Parliament and the people’s representatives on this request? Who is she trying to protect? What is her excuse? What is her motive? What became of her mantra of “Parliamentarians need objective fact based information on how well the government raises it funds (taxes)”, as if to suggest she was the one to provide such information?

For Immediate Release
February 29, 2008
Liberal Finance Committee Members call on Auditor General to
Examine Government’s Claims of Income Trust Tax Leakage


OTTAWA – Liberal Members of the Standing Committee on Finance today called
on the Auditor General to investigate the tax leakage claims that the government
used as the basis for its October 31, 2006, decision to tax income trusts.

“I think that this government’s stonewalling has gone on long enough and it’s
time that Canadians got to see that the Government simply made up its story that
income trusts cause federal tax leakage,” said Liberal Finance Critic John
McCallum.

“Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to Canadians that he would never tax
income trusts. Then he went back on his word, costing Canadians billions
overnight and in the wake of his silence on the issue we feel that only the Auditor
General can shine some light into this matter.”

All four Liberal Members of the Finance Committee signed a letter to Auditor
General Sheila Fraser asking her to investigate the matter, particularly the
government’s unproven allegations about income trusts causing tax leakage.

“This has clearly become much more than just another instance of the
government not doing its homework before acting. It has become a full-blown
scandal and cover-up,” said John McKay, Member of Parliament for
Scarborough-Guildwood. “We have tried virtually every tool at our disposal to get
the government to show us how they came to their conclusions about tax
leakage and the Auditor General may be Canadians’ last resort.”

An Access to Information request asking for the Department of Finance’s
assumptions, data and methodology resulted in the release of only 23 pages of
documents that are almost entirely blacked out.

A direct request from the Finance Committee to see the data was met with two
thick binders of superfluous information that did not contain the data or
methodology originally requested.

A written question was placed on the Order Paper asking the government to
recalculate its estimate of tax leakage using the 15 per cent federal corporate tax
rate that will actually be in effect in 2012, the year after the income trust tax
begins, as opposed to the 21 per cent tax rate that was in effect at the time of the
announcement. The government’s response to the question indicated that that
this would be a hypothetical calculation and therefore impossible to do.
“That’s not a hypothetical, that’s what the federal tax rate will be,” said Garth
Turner, Member of Parliament for Halton. “If the government can’t manage to
run the new 2012 corporate tax rate through their calculators then I have no
reason to believe they ran the old one through their calculators in October of
2006.”

In 2006, Stephen Harper ran on a campaign commitment to never tax income
trusts. The Conservative election platform characterized any attempt to impose
such a tax as, “An attack on retirement savings.”

“That election commitment was obviously a falsehood. Unfortunately the voters
who believed it and invested even more money in income trusts lost a significant
portion of their nest eggs,” said Massimo Pacetti, Member of Parliament for MP
for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

“Even today, 15 months after they broke their election promise, Members of
Parliament still hear from the thousands of Canadians whose retirement plans
were shattered by this deception. Liberal Members of Parliament continue to
stand up for them.”

-30-

The full text of the letter sent to the Auditor General is attached.
To see the government response to written question 149 on the Order Paper
please visit: www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/080229_Q-149_en.pdf

Contact:
Office of Hon. John McCallum
(613) 996-3375

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

You fool, the Auditor General has been requesting this for months, its not something she suddenly dreamed up because of what happening in Britain.

"Sheila Fraser began preliminary talks with the House of Commons and Senate earlier this year, well before the expense-claim scandal erupted in Britain." - thestar.com

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/636640

If you can't even get the truth right about something as simple as that, how can we trust you telling the truth on income trusts? Maybe its time to close up shop and get your repetitive whiny trash off of Liblogs.

Dr Mike said...

Well that comment was enlightening from Anonymous.

You are just another chicken hearted soul too wussy to use your own name.

Must suck to be you I guess.

Dr Mike Popovich

Dr Mike said...

And one more thing---who cares when Sheila Fraser started to look at this issue of expense accounts--that has absolutely nothing to do with our issue.

It is the fact that she is probing it at all while refusing to look at the purely quantifiable trust tax that drives us nuts.

All we want is fair & equal treatment under the tax laws.

After all that is Jim Flaherty`s pet phrase "Tax Fairness".

We just want to know if it is really "fair" or if it is as fleeting as his claims of budgetary surpluses in Ontario.

Dr Mike

CAITI said...

Anonymous:

Groovy for her.

Meanwhile we have been requesting OF HER since November 1, 2006 in umpteen requests, letters and emails.

Where's the sense of interest on her part for the truth about tax leakage?

Answer: Non existent.

Overpaid useless loser.

Anonymous said...

Okay Anonymous ... looks like you are the same jackass I got into trouble on this forum last week. To think I actually felt bad for you when Dr. Mike and Brent more or less called you an idiot and generally had a field day with their assessment of you. Obviously I was the idiot last week - I thought they were harsh.


Hmm ToStar - you are the fool on that one. You can't believe anything coming from that paper without doing your homework very thoroughly. Reading anything from that paper becomes a huge "make work" project as you can never trust their sources. They brand themselves as Liberal but it is the most CON and dishonest paper in the GTA. Generally their staff, doesn't matter what division or which department, are the most unprofessional compared to their peers at competitors. Scary for everyone ... Hate to admit that, as I am part of the guilty and have done work for ToStar assholes. Took years to learn my lesson when it comes to ToSTar. Obviously a lesson you need to learn too.

I am going to go one step further than Brent and Dr. Mike last week ... one of them indicated you are an embarrassment to your parents. I say you are the reason for BIRTH CONTROL or why there is a need for planned parenthood. Your comments on Income Trusts are so uninformed, combined with your stupid endorsement of the ToStar when you aren't being paid to do it - that yes your parents should have thought twice before pro-creating and producing such a piece of hateful, stupid crap like you.
Although you do have the right to your stupidity and negativity, as we all respect democracy on this forum.
However if you are going to dish out such crap, be prepared to get it back twice as hard on this forum. I also suggest you get a life as have no interest in income trusts and your uninformed opinions are not welcome by anyone on this forum. I do and maybe others, wish you the very best with your investment portfolio. Based on your comments and stupidity - you need it.

From very low profile quasi GTA Liberal/Green, Trust Unit investor who unfortunately can not give out a name in this circumstance for legal reasons.

Anonymous said...

"And one more thing---who cares when Sheila Fraser started to look at this issue of expense accounts--that has absolutely nothing to do with our issue"

Obviously you and your people think it does judging by the opening lines of your post (which I so thoroughly debunked)

"What’s with Canada’s Auditor General? Clearly she is a political animal. Here she is jumping on the MP expense bandwagon, in the after math of the Speaker of the British Parliament resigning over irregular and unjustified expense reimbursement."

And I love how you question the accuracy of the article by jumping on the Star, when the article itself is from the Canadian Press and is currently running on The Star, CBC.ca, CTV.ca, Toronto Sun, etc. Are ALL of these unreputable news organizations out to get you poor, poor helpless income trust investers? My point is how can anyone trust the accuracy of your claims when you are so willing to lie and bend the truth with something like this. So again, I repeat my wish for you to stop bitching and whining and leave your annoying repetitve posts off Liblogs so we can read posts about things people actually give a damn about.

Dr Mike said...

Anonymous (still no name---must be a Loblaws brand??)

"I repeat my wish for you to stop bitching and whining and leave your annoying repetitve posts off Liblogs so we can read posts about things people actually give a damn about."

I actually give a damn for democracy in this country as it is going to hell in a hand basket with this present gov`t.

When you can only justify a tax by issuing blacked-out proof & telling us to just "trust" them , then it is curtains for all of us

I also give a damn so much so that I quit the Conservative party after 37 years.

So give me a break whoever you are.

Dr Mike Popovich

Anonymous said...

saw this written question on the parl site. would like to see the answer.

Q-2502 — May 14, 2009 — Ms. Ratansi (Don Valley East) — What is the total impact on government revenues due to the 2006 new tax on income trusts?

CAITI said...

Anonymous:

You are pathetic...reputable news sources?.....PUHLEASE.

hard to be reputable when your reputation is derived from printing blatant falsehoods about tax leakage?

I think I prefer my reputable sources to yours....namely the reputable source known as the truth.

Anonymous said...

Sorry but if there was a real story here the media (which contrary to your delusions are NOT all conspiring to withhold the truth) would have been on it long ago. The fact of the matter is its a non-issue. Nobody, not the media, not the Auditor General, and not the Canadian public cares. End of story.

CAITI said...

Anonymous:

You know not of what you speak when you say: "The fact of the matter is its a non-issue. Nobody, not the media, not the Auditor General, and not the Canadian public cares. End of story."

This is my reply:

Income trust fiasco should be reversed
Posted: April 25, 2009, 8:19 AM by Diane Francis
Financial Post
206 Comments

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/francis/archive/2009/04/25/income-trust-analysis-says-it-all-again.aspx

CAITI said...

Anonymous said:

saw this written question on the parl site. would like to see the answer.

Q-2502 — May 14, 2009 — Ms. Ratansi (Don Valley East) — What is the total impact on government revenues due to the 2006 new tax on income trusts?

WHERE DID YOU SEE THIS? I could not find it?

Anonymous said...

Wow, a whole 206 comments. Too bad 130 of those comments were made by the articles author Diane Francis, an additional 10 comments from Dr. Mike, and the rest were made by the same 8 people posting multiple times. A grand total of....ten people! WOW! *clap clap clap*. Next time find something a bit more convincing than an article has has its own author tooting her own horn 130 times in her own comment section.

Anonymous said...

There was more diversity of commenter's on an article about noisy sex at thestar.com than there was at that circle-jerk of a comment section.

CAITI said...

Anonymous:

You are a moron.

The comments that carried Diane's name were comments that were sent to her by email and posted by her on the site to save people the trouble of signing up to her blog to comment.

CAITI said...

Anonymous:

Those are quite the diverse interests that you have.....noisy sex...income trusts?

PS What are you hoping to accomplish with these inane comments of yours?

Anonymous said...

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2&DocId=3895961&File=11

Q-2502 — May 14, 2009 — Ms. Ratansi (Don Valley East) — What is the total impact on government revenues due to the 2006 new tax on income trusts?

2 Response requested within 45 days

Anonymous said...

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2&DocId=3895961&File=11

complete link

Anonymous said...

ile=11

needs to be added to end of link

CAITI said...

Anonymous:

Thanks for the links to the Ratansi question!

I quite like that woman!