Poll: Is Revenue Canada ripping you off? Read this-

Court File No.: T-262-09

Between: GLEN P. ROBBINS PLAINTIFF

And HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN DEFENDANT

OVERVIEW

1. The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant’s application is a gross waste of time, and taxpayer money, which would have been better served properly dealing with the issues at hand, which the Plaintiff asserts any reasonable person, if given an opportunity to do so, would readily conclude that the Defendant, Her Majesty has conducted themselves in a disgraceful and depraved manner against the Plaintiff, better serving the public interest by ‘coming clean’ and resolving the egregious mistakes made against the Plaintiff, rather than running from these realities with producing instead wasteful, ridiculous, and often untruthful information under the guise of a legal operation, to the extreme detriment of the Plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff further submits the actions of the Defendant, continue to cause severe economic and emotional damage, and that any affirmation of this continued debase conduct of Her Majesty’s legal representative will bring the Federal Court into disrepute.

3. With respect to paragraph 6 (page 2) of the Respondent Penner’s Affidavit, the Plaintiff’s company Calvary Publishing Corp., was in fact assessed for G.S.T. in the amount of $80,000 later reduced to zero.

4. With respect to paragraph 7 (page 2) of the Respondent Penner’s Affidavit, the Plaintiff asserts that his company Calvary Publishing was in fact assessed for source deductions as the Defendant’s affidavit asserts, however the T4 slips described were not duplicates, one set of slips was from an entirely different legal entity Tannis Printing Ltd. unrelated to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff Glen P. Robbins was a consultant with Tannis Printing Ltd. which principals Mitchell and Nadine Tannis were petitioned into bankruptcy leaving a financial debt with CRA of over $500,000.00.

5. With respect to matters of the Plaintiff’s Calvary Publishing Corp., the Plaintiff asserts that he has requested all of the documentation from the Defendant and specifically CRA relating to Calvary Publishing Corp., including outcomes from income tax filings for that company pursuant to an Audit performed by CRA, but was told that there is no longer information on file for Calvary Publishing Corp. The Plaintiff points to Penner’s affidavit and specifically page 1 wherein paragraph 1 Penner says she has “knowledge of the facts”, in paragraph 2 claims she “makes this affidavit on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue”, and paragraph 3 “I currently have charge of the collection records”. The Plaintiff asserts that if the Defendant has the information it indicates it has with respect to Calvary Publishing Corp., for purposes of making an affidavit for the Queen, it should also make this information available to the Plaintiff as well.

6. With respect to paragraph 9 (page 2) of the Respondent Penner’s Affidavit, the Plaintiff asserts the information contained therein is false. The Plaintiff asserts that he was late in terms of filing, but was assessed as owing zero, and than reassessed.

7. The Plaintiff asserts that any of the information relating to his taxation year 1989 is not relevant as monies owed, if any, must be distinguished, and predicated on the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal decision with respect to Markevich vs. The Queen.

8. With respect to paragraph 20 (page 4) of the Defendant Penner’s affidavit, the Plaintiff asserts that he his Taxation Year 2000 personal income tax filings were not assessed in timely fashion pursuant to section 152. (1) Of the Income Tax Act by the Defendant.

9. With respect to the Plaintiff’s Taxation Year 2000 personal income tax filings were reassessed on August 15, 2003 with Federal tax confirmed at zero, with no other taxes or penalties. The Plaintiff asserts that pursuant to subsection 245(2), “the Minister (a) shall, in the case of a determination pursuant to subsection 245(8), or may, in any other case, determine any amount that is relevant for the purposes of computing the income, taxable income or taxable income earned in Canada of, tax or other amount payable by, or amount refundable to, the taxpayer under this Act and, where such a determination is made, the Minister shall send to the taxpayer, with all due dispatch, a notice of determination stating the amount so determined.”

10. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s Auditor Brenda Cairns was “New” to the Auditing Division, and thus inexperienced. With respect to the Plaintiff’s Taxation Year 2000 personal income tax filings under the heading Penalty Recommendation Report and subsection (4) indicates that the basis on which to initiate a further reassessment of the Plaintiff’s income tax filings for Taxation Year 2000, depicted as “Source of Lead” “Income Filed Inconsistent with Lifestyle”. The Plaintiff asserts that after being assessed and reassessed for Taxation Year 2000 14 months after the initial assessment, that proper evidence of “Income Filed Inconsistent with Lifestyle”, was never provided.

11. The Plaintiff asserts that in the Defendant’s and specifically CRA’s Penalty Recommendation Report dated and signed by CRA Auditor Brenda Cairns July 28, 2004 included total cash flow from companies, including a company unrelated to the Plaintiff, and income paid to third parties, unrelated to the Plaintiff, as income to the Plaintiff, which the Plaintiff asserts as “patently absurd on it’s face”, and certainly unfair to him as this relates to Personal taxation Years 2000 and 2001.

12. The Plaintiff asserts that in the Defendants’ and specifically CRA’s Penalty Recommendation Report dated and signed by CRA Auditor Brenda Cairns July 28, 2004 under section (5) “Nature and Explanation of Adjustment(s) for Penalty Considerations, companies “Showco Holdings Inc.” and “Citizen’s Community News”, that the information provided by the Defendant and specifically CRA to the Plaintiff, that these were not the names of the companies actually Audited, which the Plaintiff asserts is further evidence of the Defendant and specifically CRA’s “slip-shod” and unprofessional conduct relating to the Plaintiff and to his rights under the Income Tax Act.

13. The Plaintiff asserts that under the Defendant’s and specifically CRA’s Penalty Recommendation Report under section (5) dated and signed by CRA Auditor Brenda Cairns July 28, 2004 that “According to Better Business Bureau (BBB) unsolicited invoices were being sent to businesses for advertising in a variety of publications.” The Plaintiff asserts that the Better Business Bureau information is predominantly an unpaid volunteer organization, whose information is often not correct, and ought not to be the source of a lead for the government in terms of assessing or reassessing or making a Determination with respect to a taxpayer’s income.

14. The Plaintiff asserts that under the Defendant’s and specifically CRA’s Penalty Recommendation Report under section (5) dated and signed by CRA Auditor Brenda Cairns July 28, 2004 that “Mr. Robbins appears to be moving the same business from corporation to corporation. It would appear that Calvary Publishing Ltd., (which is not the correct legal name of the legally registered company (Calvary Publishing Corp.) was first, followed by ST Productions Ltd., Citizens Community News Inc. and finally Showco Holdings Inc. The Plaintiff further asserts that he had no legal ownership or control of Citizens Community News Inc. The Plaintiff further asserts that ST Productions Ltd., was not a factor in any determination as evidenced of the Defendant and specifically CRA Auditor Brenda Cairns “Penalty Recommendation Report”, as evidenced by Ms. Cairns Penalty Recommendation Report as “Citizens Community News Inc. BOM ACCT# 0004-1739-960 (299,642.55 “2000”), and “Showco Holdings Inc. BOM ACCT# 0004-1553-322 and further asserts that the names of the companies on Bank Accounts do not match the names provided for under the Report.

15. The Plaintiff asserts that there is no consistently with the Defendant and specifically CRA’s rationale for Auditing the Plaintiff, “Income Filed Inconsistent with Lifestyle” under Section (5) of the Defendant and specifically CRA’s; Penalty Recommendation Report and the underlying methodology for commencing the Audit in the first instance. The evidence the Defendant and specifically CRA’s Auditor Brenda Cairns choose for support the “Source of Lead” for Taxation Years 2000 and 2001 of the Plaintiff is cash flows from two legal entities, namely Citizens Community News Inc. and Showco Holdings Inc., both of which are different and distinct legal entities from the tax filer, the Plaintiff who under the Income Tax Act is only responsible his own personal declaration of income supported by section 151 “Estimate of Tax” under the provisions for the Income Tax Act which states that “Every person required by section 150 to file a return of income shall in the return estimate the amount of tax payable”, and that sections and subsections of the Income Tax Act exist and apply specifically to non living legal persons such as legally registered corporations.

16. The Plaintiff asserts that the lawfully registered bank accounts Audited by the Defendant and specifically CRA, and used to support the reassessment which commenced for a second time for Taxation Year 2000 in early 2005 and for Taxation Year 2001 in early 2005 are materially different from those featured in the Defendant and specifically CRA’s “Penalty Recommendations Report.”

17. The Plaintiff asserts that the basis under which the Defendant and specifically CRA undertook and from which a reassessment was produced predicated on the Penalty Recommendation Report of rookie Auditor “Brenda Cairns” of the Defendant and specifically CRA dated July 28, 2004 is entirely flawed both as to rationale, methodology, and evidence and should be deemed as such by the Federal Court, which if such Determination is made by that Court, would naturally preclude the use of any evidence or other position by the Defendant and specifically CRA as this related to either of the Plaintiff’s tax filing years, including Taxation Years of the Plaintiff, 2000 and 2001.

18. The Plaintiff asserts that if Audit is thrown own, so are the reassessments, and thus so are any amounts of reassessed federal tax, provincial tax, interest, penalties or other for those years, featured as amounts owed, which the Plaintiff asserts as not owed whatsoever by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

19. The Plaintiff asserts that the approach of the Defendant and specifically CRA in terms of its complete lack of scientific or lawful objectivity, or fairness, or natural justice, is further supported by the Plaintiff’s assertions relating to the Statements of Account provided to the Plaintiff as alleged evidence as amounts owed, and elements of that account, including but not limited to, the assessment and reassessment of Taxation Years of the Plaintiff, and specifically year 2000, taxable income, penalties, interest, , late filing fees and other. The Plaintiff further asserts that in February 08, 2005 (2000 Reassessment) charge of Provincial Tax $16,977.05; Federal Tax of $28,321.29; Negligence Penalty of $1,208.51; Late filing Penalty of $7,247.74; and Arrears interest charged of $17,170.08;// was adjusted on February 01, 2008 for provincial tax for Taxation Year 2000 from $16,977.05 to $1,887.52, a reduction of provincial tax of (88.88%), for federal tax from $28,321.29 to $3,871.98, a reduction of (86.33%), for Late-filing penalty from $7,247.74 to $921.52, a reduction of (87%), and arrears interest reduced $24,838.39 from $17.170.08. The Plaintiff further asserts the confused nature of account management of the Defendant and specifically CRA is further and inexplicably evidenced by a Negligence Penalty of $1,208.51 in 2005 INCREASED to $6,326.22 and increase of (523.47%) in the face of reductions in other categories of the Statement of Account for the Plaintiff’s Taxation Year 2000 of over (87%).

20. The Plaintiff asserts that the initial reassessment of the Plaintiff’s income for Taxation Year 2000 based upon the July 28, 2004 Penalty Recommendation Report of the Defendant and specifically CRA’s rookie Auditor Brenda Cairns reflects Federal and Provincial taxes and interest based on $299,642.55 of income. The adjustment made in the 2008 ‘adjustment’ of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Account reflects combined federal and provincial taxes owing of $5,759.50 more in keeping with someone making Net Income before other deductions of annual income estimated at $30,000 or approximately (10%) of the amount used in the Penalty Recommendation Report of the Defendant and specifically CRA’s rookie Auditor Brenda Cairns in her July 29, 2004 Report which does not feature a signature or acknowledgement of “Approval” by the Defendant and specifically CRA’s “Team Leader” of Auditing, Nancy Griffin.

21. The Plaintiff asserts that the approach of the Defendant and specifically CRA in terms of its complete lack of scientific or lawful objectivity, or fairness, or natural justice, is further supported by the Plaintiff’s assertions relating to the Statements of Account provided to the Plaintiff as alleged evidence as amounts owed, and elements of that account, including but not limited to, the assessment and reassessment of Taxation Years of the Plaintiff, and specifically year 2001 which features Provincial tax as at February 08, 2005 of $9,014.36, Federal tax of $17,511.99, negligence penalty of $188.29, Late-filing penalty of $1,857.75 and arrears interest charged of $6,055.07, later adjusted February 01, 2008 by the Defendant and specifically CRA to Provincial taxes owing of $3,392.98, federal taxes adjusted to $7,346.45, late filing penalty of reduced to $752.66 and Negligence Penalty from $188.29 to $6,067.87.

22. The Plaintiff asserts that the initial reassessment of the Plaintiff’s income for Taxation Year 2001 based upon the July 28, 2004 Penalty Recommendation Report of the Defendant and specifically CRA’s rookie Auditor Brenda Cairns reflects Federal and Provincial taxes and interest based on $127,575.24 including $15,430.34 - from a company unrelated to the Plaintiff - of income. The adjustment made in the 2008 ‘adjustment’ of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Account reflects combined federal and provincial taxes owing of $10,739.43 more in keeping with someone making an estimated $55,000. before applicable general deductions, an amount not supported by the evidence of cancelled cheques which the Plaintiff asserts is more appropriately assessed at $30,000 before deductions.

23. The Plaintiff further asserts that the evidence provided by the Defendant and specifically CRA in its Statement of Account of the Plaintiff and most specifically amounts detailed on page 4 of that Statement of Account wherein an adjustment featuring substantial credits to the Plaintiff, features combined federal and provincial income taxes owing by the Plaintiff for his Taxation Years 2000 and 2001 which the Plaintiff asserts totals $16,498.93 in taxes owed, which the Plaintiff further asserts represents less than (40%) of the amount of non-capital losses guaranteed to the Plaintiff by the Revenue Minister’s Confirmation in total of and estimated $45,000 in total non-capital losses -, which the Plaintiff asserts had the Defendant and specifically CRA been applying ‘fairness’ to the Plaintiff would have impacted only on a reduction in non-capital losses to the Plaintiff leaving a residual of approximately $25,000 in estimated non-capital losses which the Plaintiff could have applied to subsequent taxation years.

24. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant and specifically CRA by the facts asserted under this Rule 365 Response to the Motion and the evidence provided under Affidavit of the Plaintiff – that the Defendant and specifically CRA went to extraordinary lengths to complete ignore all reasonable attempts to treat the Plaintiff fairly and took purposeful steps to deny him any reasonable rights as this related to amounts of taxes owed under the Income Tax Act, based upon the evidence provided by the Defendant and specifically CRA’s own accounting reflected and asserted in paragraphs 17-22 herein – notwithstanding the assertion of the Plaintiff that the underlying evidence in reality (cancelled cheques) in and of itself does not support the adjusted amount of $16,498.93 in taxes owed in any event, and more likely supports a total amount owed of between zero to $5,000 easily covered by the Ministerial Confirmation of the Plaintiff’s non-capital losses.

25. The Plaintiff asserts that additional non-capital losses for loans provided to his mother in the amount of an estimated $50,000, would if properly designated as valid to the Plaintiff would have provided the Plaintiff with an estimated $95,000 in non-capital losses from both Ministerial Confirmed non-capital losses and non-capital losses under Appeal, or for hearing by the Tax Court or Federal Court, which amount would easily cover either of the two proposed amounts owing of either $16,498.93 or zero to $5,000, and proves that the Defendant CRA has purposefully circumvented the law, and the Plaintiff’s rights in order to place the Plaintiff in the present circumstance he is in, which the Plaintiff asserts clearly makes the Defendant motion without merit, and would if supported by decision of the Federal Court place that court if a position of disrepute.

26. The Plaintiff affirms that under the Section of the Income Tax Act referred to as “Assessment” and specifically section 152 (1.1) “Where the Minister ascertains the amount of a taxpayer’s non-capital loss, net capital loss, restricted farm loss, farm loss or limited partnership loss for a taxation year and the taxpayer has not reported that amount as such a loss in the taxpayer’s return of income for that year, the Minister shall, at the request of the taxpayer, determine, with all due dispatch, the amount of the loss and shall send a notice of determination to the person by whom the return was filed”, and asserts that the Defendant and specifically CRA knew or ought to have known, and by virtue of providing the Ministerial Confirmation did now that the Plaintiff possessed significant non-capital losses, and took steps including conducting what the Plaintiff asserts any reasonable person residing in the country of Canada would conclude were illegal, fraudulent, malicious, and grossly prejudicial to the rights of the tax filer the Plaintiff.

27. The Plaintiff asserts that the former Minister of Revenue (O’Connor) directed that the adjustments featured in the Plaintiff’s Statement of Account and specifically page 4, Reference 533007720 be considered a material change to the process of “Assessment” of the Plaintiff’s Taxation Years 2000 and 2001 and that the Plaintiff was entitled to an Appeal of what was determined to be a reassessment for 2007, which the Plaintiff asserts is legally technically a new reassessment, a legal “fresh step”, which the Plaintiff asserts is outside the 3 year statute of limitations for reassessment based on the first assessment date of October 16, 2001 for Taxation Year 2000 and May 29, 2002 for Taxation Year 2001, based on Section 152, subsections (3.1), (b) of the Income Tax Act, and Section 152 (4.3) of the Income Tax Act.

28. The Plaintiff seeks an Order to dismiss the application of the Defendant, Her Majesty as vexatious, and a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the realities of the true circumstances, which are that the Defendant and specifically CRA went to tremendous lengths to mislead, lie and defraud the Plaintiff, by way of conscious action, deliberate in intent, and extreme in damage, and asks that the Rule 221(1) action be dismissed with multiple costs to the Plaintiff; and:

a. The Court exercise its authority based on clear and unequivocal evidence provided under this Response, to reduce amounts owing by the Plaintiff for taxation years 1989, 2000, and 2001 to zero, and to apply Ministerial Confirmed non-capital losses, if any, to any outstanding amounts owed by the Plaintiff, or in the alternative, provide repayment from any credit position to the Plaintiff.

b. The Court exercises its authority and directs an investigation into the tax matters of the Plaintiff, by the Minister of Revenue AND the Federal Attorney General’s office, for a formal apology to the Plaintiff, compensation, and criminal charges to the Defendant’s employees, where any criminal laws have been broken, or in the alternative, or in combination, immediately dismiss those CRA employees who took part in this nefarious scheme to defraud and cause serious harm to the Plaintiff, a law abiding citizens of the country.

c. Such further and other relief as this Court deems appropriate.

Glen P. Robbins Affidavit in support

I, Glen P. Robbins, Plaintiff, of 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, in the city of Coquitlam, in the Province of British Columbia, MAKE AN OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am a Plaintiff in this action, and as such have personal knowledge of the facts and matters deposed to in this affidavit save and except where they are stated to be on information and belief and as to those facts and matters, I believe them to be true.

2. The Plaintiff affirms that the Defendant initiated and conducted an Audit of the Plaintiff based on the Penalty Report Recommendation cited by Ms. Brenda Cairns, rookie Auditor of the Defendant, and specifically CRA on July 28, 2004. As referenced in the Plaintiff’s Overview Response, the CRA Report cites the rationale for initiated the Audit as “Income Filed Inconsistent with Lifestyle and bases explanations for this in large measure on information derived from the Better Business Bureau, a non-profit, predominantly volunteer organization, yet cites evidence of total cash flows in large part from companies not owned or controlled by the Plaintiff. (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”)

3. With respect to paragraph #2 herein, the Plaintiff affirms that under the Audit of rookie Auditor, Ms. Brenda Cairns, and based in large measure on information provided by the Better Business Bureau, the Defendant cites in her Report information derived from Showco Holdings Inc (2001), and Citizens Community News Inc. (2000, 2001), when in fact the information was obtained from bank accounts lawfully registered with the Bank of Montreal as “Citizens Community News Inc formerly known as Star Entertaineers Inc. and Showco Holdings Inc. DBA Ask BC Communications. The Plaintiff cites that he never had any legal interest or control in “Citizens Community News Inc., owned Showco Holdings Inc., but not Ask BC Communications. (attached hereto as Exhibit “B”)

4. The Plaintiff cites that on its face there is no continuity between the Penalty Recommendation Report from the Audit, and specifically, the rationale for conducting the Audit, and the methodology of the Audit relative to the Plaintiff, and no lawful connection between the Companies Audited and the lawful names of the bank accounts Audited.

5. The Plaintiff cites that in Cameron J. in Chernenkoff vs. Minister of National Revenue (1949), 4. D.T.C. 680 (con. Ex. Ct.) at 683 – “In the absence of records, the alternative course open to the appellant was to prove that even on a proper and complete “net worth” basis the assessments were wrong.” The Plaintiff asserts that from 2002 to 2005, a period covering the Audit period, his family of four persons possessed one vehicle on loan from family, a Ford Focus station wagon.

6. The Plaintiff cites in Dominic Bigayan v. Her Majesty the Queen… “The net worth basis, as observed in Ramey v. Regina (1993), 93 D.T.C. 791…which says in part “The Net Worth method..is a blunt instrument, accurate within a range of indeterminate magnitude, a range which the Plaintiff asserts, the Defendant has taken to stratospheric levels of lack of objectivity resulting in unfathomable abuse to the Plaintiff.

7. The Plaintiff cites his personal Statement of Account with the Defendant and specifically CRA (Reference # 53300720) including a June 24, 2002, Taxation Year 2000 assessment: an October 22, 2002, Taxation Year 2001 Assessment: an August 15, 2003 Taxation Year 2000 Reassessment: a February 08, 2005, Taxation Year 2000 Reassessment, a February 08, 2005, Taxation Year 2001 Reassessment; a February 01, 2008, Taxation Year 2000 Reassessment, a February 01, 2008, Taxation Year 2001 Reassessment (Attached hereto as Exhibit “C”).

8. The Plaintiff cites the personal Statement of Account of his wife Ita Robbins, with the Defendant and specifically CRA (Reference # 53615654), October 16, 2001, Taxation Year 2000 Assessment; May 28, 2002, Taxation Year 2001 Assessment; December 21, 2004, Taxation Year 2000 Reassessment; December 21, 2004, Taxation Year 2001 Reassessment; March 23, 2007, Taxation Year 2000 Reassessment; March 23, 2007, 2001 Reassessment – (Attached hereto as Exhibit “D”).

SWORN as an Oath by the Plaintiff, in the City of Coquitlam,in the Province of British Columbia, on this 13th day of October, 2009.