Saturday, January 16, 2010

Lies Mulcair may have told me


When I spoke with the NDPs Finace Critic Thoams Mulcair on Friday and he provided me with his incoherent reasons why income trusts must be killed, even though doing so would be to the detriment of losing $6 billion of annual tax revenue under the Marshall Savings Plan, which was the reason that I called him, I responded by saying that as a lawyer he is allowed to operate his law practice as an income trust, and so why can’t people saving for retirement do the same in their RRSPs, particularly when OMER retirees and other pensioners can?

At this point Thomas Mulcair became quite haughty as only he is able, and said that what I just said was not true as far as his being a lawyer in Quebec was concerned. But not wanting to point out that tax law in Canada is a federal matter on these issues and not provincial, instead I responded by saying that my point was valid in at least 9 of 10 Canadian provinces, including with Jim Flaherty’s law firm here in Ontario.

Now I learn that it is possible that my original point to Mulcair was valid in all 10 Canadian provinces as I suspected based on this comment on my blog:




Brent..is T. Mulcair lying to you???
http://www.hg.org/articles/article_744.html

"""Carrying on Professional Activities and Limited Liability
Published July 1, 2005 - Quebec, Canada

Amendments made to the Quebec Professional Code in 2001 authorize professional orders to allow their members to exercise their professional activities within the framework of a limited liability partnership, or a joint-stock company.

In 2002, the Ordre des comptables agréés (Order of Chartered Accountants) was the first professional order to adopt a regulation to this effect. The Quebec Bar and the Ordre des comptables généraux licenciés (Certified General Accountants) followed suit in 2004. Others, in particular the Chambre des notaires (Chamber of Notaries) and the Ordre des pharmaciens (Order of Pharmacists), plan to do the same.

Taxation

These legal entities, which may now be used by some professionals, offer attractive tax planning opportunities, including tax deferrals and savings related to the use of a joint-stock company or a family trust to hold the shares.

The members of Lavery, de Billy have closely studied the issues raised by the transformation of a professional firm into a limited liability partnership or a joint-stock company and the professional activities within such a framework and have provided advices on these subjects to both professional orders and professional firms on numerous occasions. Our firm members are therefore well-positioned to advise you and help you to implement appropriate and effective solutions to the problems that you may be facing.

This bulletin only provides general guidelines about practising in a limited liability partnership or a joint-stock company.""""

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mulcair is liar like all lawyers can be

Joey

CAITI said...

Joey:

That's good to know.

Since, in that case I will proceed to make mince meat of Mulcair along with his facile arguments of dogmatic nonsense.

Brent Fullard

Anonymous said...

Not only doesn't Mulcair not know how to use a calculator he doesn't understand the law either. Some Lawyer.

Railhound

Dr Mike said...

Did I just hear Tom say "ooops"??

I was in a group Dental Practice here in Ontario & we worked as a FTE & each member of the group paid tax on their particular monthly distribution (accrual method)---there was no squawking from the gov`t about that.

If the Marshall Plan is implemented , trusts at that point would operate in the same fashion with distributions unsheltered & thus not tax deferred.

No deferred tax , no possibility hint of leakage.

The gov`t wins & we win as trusts will continue to exist.

Dr Mike

PS--of course the gov`t must reverse the growth restrictions but that is a pick for another day.

Anonymous said...

I truly enjoy this blog.

Don't ever stop hounding these bastards from all parties on the truth.

Bill

Anonymous said...

Brent

why don't we ask him to exploreThe abudabi question he gave carney and got from you?

Why are these guys so hush on this issue Is it the a election is near and these guys love the hill. If they like the hill these buffoons should be exploited for what they are, which is they are welfare Golden pensioners


Joey

CAITI said...

Joey:

I have now come to the realization that that was just a ruse to get us off the NDPs back. They consulted me to ask the tough insightful question of Carney, knowing full well it would never get asked. Jjust another phony exercise by Mulcair to buy absolution from the NDP’s sins. I will no longer mention Flaherty and Harper without mentioning Mulacir and Layton, now that he has made his position clear.

Brent Fullard

Anonymous said...

It is interesting that he could only critique your point about lawyers as opposed to the trust tax.

Geoffrey

CAITI said...

Geoffrey:


Good point! Meanwhile his logic can only be described as being incoherent.

Brent

Anonymous said...

Another lawyer who knows diddley-squat about business, even his own profession.  And these guys run the governments of the world.  Is it any wonder we are in such terrible shape?

Les

CAITI said...

Les:

Mental and/or moral midgets, all of them

Brent