I watched four or so hours of debates on the floor of the house of commons yesturday. One member would make a glaring accusation, only for the other party to make a completely opposite accusation about figures and numbers in the same document. To a person with common sense its obvious someone (or both) HAD to be lying... but nobody demanded verification of the claims....
It reminded me once agian that its always best to drink water from upstream of the herd.
Well now that the Conservative budget was passed by the Liberals… no wait!..
The Liberal budget passed by the Conservatives…..................... no…
The Conservative budget passed by… NO NO NO!
It’s the Liberal budget passed by… no… ratified by…………… aw!
y7tu6hrigkjbn! j7tu6hrigkjbn! (Head banging on keyboard)
Forget it! I’m going to the nearest carnival to ride the zipper and tea cup to regain my equilibrium.
Let's get back to trucking shall we?
The critical qualification of using subsistence allowance is the Employer Employee Agreement (EEA). If the designers agree, it can become a very creative application. Let's compare how flexible it is to the current system.
Another controvercy over the lunch bag let down is the application of the TL2. "Qualification" for the 50-80% increase is restricted to drivers who travel more than 160KM from their municipality and also gone over night (24 hours). However, in an employer-employee agreement operators can ignor those type of restrictions because that has to do with forms that apply to another system. Travel status qualification can start immediately when an employee marks "on duty" in their log book. That means if they leave before breakfast... they qualify to be paid for it! I know its a novel appoach that hasn't been applied to the trucking industry for decades but I think it may just catch on... don't you think? So not only is the system fair and just in its numbers it can be just and fair in application as well.
EEA's are also customizable! An EEA can add or remove specific features applicable to a specific job. The most important thing to remember is that it must be "reasonable". Let's remember that the definition of "reasonsble" is defined and mandated by CRA not by the public.
The simplest way to determine what is reasonable is answering this question: Has CRA accepted the application before? For instance, when a government auditor leaves home before 8am they qualify for breakfast, otherwise they don't qualify for subsistence until noon. Therefore, according to the Charter of rights and freedoms (equality or non-descrimination), because CRA allows one group to define travel status this way all other agreements may be taylored with this type of detail.
I can't caution operators enough, it must be reasonable! The application of subsistence allowance is NOT, and should not be considered a blank check. All I am promoting is a fair, just and equality based tax system, nothing more... nothing less!
Decades ago most drivers received a meal allowance from their employors but for "closed door" reasons trucking companies stopped paying it.
So lets get back to it... literally!
About Me
Monday, January 26, 2009
The Employer-Employee Agreement
There is much more to huge tax savings than just incorporating. Too many operators and accountants stop short. When that happens accountants fill out a Corporate T2 using the exact same numbers as if the client was self employed. If this is your situation, don't bother incorporating.
The next step HAS TO BE an employer-employee agreement (EEA).
The EEA is a contract, a legally binding document that the courts and labor boards enforce. Historically EEA's have been made between unions and management or just by companies looking to recruit people. Some agreements are standard and applies to all employees while others are custom, provideing benefits to one group, individual or position over another.
An EEA that truckers regularly utilize is the "Cell phone requirement". Many companies require that a driver provide their own cell phone in order to perform their duties. CRA allows drivers to use their cell phone as a deduction provided that it was a written condition of employment. This "condition of employment" is actually an employer-employee agreement. It is a small simple agreement but operates under the exact same principle as a complex EEA inclusive of subsistence allowance.
The details of an EEA can be as varied as employees and positions. They can be as restrictive or liberal as creative minds produce. However, there are limitations as to what can be classified as a non-taxible benefit. For instance, subsistence allowance allowance can't be set at $500 per day (without defending the value). Whatever value is assigned as a "non-taxable benefit" must be deemed reasonable. CRA is mandated the responsibility to determine what is reasonable and what is not.
There are pipeline workers, for instance, that are apparently getting $95 per day living allowance (subsistence), even though the treasury board of Canada only has its numbers at $81.55 (as of October 1, 2008). If this is true, the extra $13.45 must be defendable in the tax courts (if CRA would contest). For the trucking industry, however, I am only interested in pegging subsistenace allowance at Treasury Board numbers.
I think I'll take another day to go a little more in detail about this topic. For right now, however, It would be prudent to state that the EEA is hammered out between the "President" (officer) of the corporation and the driver. If both roles are filled by the same person it can feel rather schizophrenic.
The next step HAS TO BE an employer-employee agreement (EEA).
The EEA is a contract, a legally binding document that the courts and labor boards enforce. Historically EEA's have been made between unions and management or just by companies looking to recruit people. Some agreements are standard and applies to all employees while others are custom, provideing benefits to one group, individual or position over another.
An EEA that truckers regularly utilize is the "Cell phone requirement". Many companies require that a driver provide their own cell phone in order to perform their duties. CRA allows drivers to use their cell phone as a deduction provided that it was a written condition of employment. This "condition of employment" is actually an employer-employee agreement. It is a small simple agreement but operates under the exact same principle as a complex EEA inclusive of subsistence allowance.
The details of an EEA can be as varied as employees and positions. They can be as restrictive or liberal as creative minds produce. However, there are limitations as to what can be classified as a non-taxible benefit. For instance, subsistence allowance allowance can't be set at $500 per day (without defending the value). Whatever value is assigned as a "non-taxable benefit" must be deemed reasonable. CRA is mandated the responsibility to determine what is reasonable and what is not.
There are pipeline workers, for instance, that are apparently getting $95 per day living allowance (subsistence), even though the treasury board of Canada only has its numbers at $81.55 (as of October 1, 2008). If this is true, the extra $13.45 must be defendable in the tax courts (if CRA would contest). For the trucking industry, however, I am only interested in pegging subsistenace allowance at Treasury Board numbers.
I think I'll take another day to go a little more in detail about this topic. For right now, however, It would be prudent to state that the EEA is hammered out between the "President" (officer) of the corporation and the driver. If both roles are filled by the same person it can feel rather schizophrenic.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Employees Only
If you have been reading this blog for an extended period of time you have somewhat of a history behind the opportunity for Canadian operators. So lets get down to some of the details for those who have been patient enough to keep tabs on this sight.
There are three steps to qualifying for subsistence allowance. The first qualification is that only employees can collect. The second is that the employee must have an employer-employee agreement. Then finally the agreement must be followed. It sounds obvious and simple but the steps are somewhat confusing at times and can appear schizophrenic to the seasoned self-employed operator.
Let’s look at the first step. Employees only can collect. Simply put, self employed people can never have an agreement “with themselves” that transfers estimated expenses into non-taxable benefits. Therefore the only way to have an employer-employee agreement is by incorporating. Based on over 125 years of corporate precedent, separation can be achieved by incorporation. The shareholder appoints a director, the director hires a president the assets would be sold to the corporation and the president interviews a driver for the position. Our legal system recognizes each role as a separate position even though each role can be occupied by the same person. The average person thinks the system is schizophrenic (and they may be right) but this is how its been done for over a century.
The employer employee agreement, what I’ll write about next week, is wrestled through between the president and the driver. Incidentally, if you hold the position of: shareholder, director, officer (president) and driver… you can still only use one log book.
There are three steps to qualifying for subsistence allowance. The first qualification is that only employees can collect. The second is that the employee must have an employer-employee agreement. Then finally the agreement must be followed. It sounds obvious and simple but the steps are somewhat confusing at times and can appear schizophrenic to the seasoned self-employed operator.
Let’s look at the first step. Employees only can collect. Simply put, self employed people can never have an agreement “with themselves” that transfers estimated expenses into non-taxable benefits. Therefore the only way to have an employer-employee agreement is by incorporating. Based on over 125 years of corporate precedent, separation can be achieved by incorporation. The shareholder appoints a director, the director hires a president the assets would be sold to the corporation and the president interviews a driver for the position. Our legal system recognizes each role as a separate position even though each role can be occupied by the same person. The average person thinks the system is schizophrenic (and they may be right) but this is how its been done for over a century.
The employer employee agreement, what I’ll write about next week, is wrestled through between the president and the driver. Incidentally, if you hold the position of: shareholder, director, officer (president) and driver… you can still only use one log book.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Canada's Inauguration
What greater illustration of new beginnings than an inauguration? The swearing in of a new President, even though it’s not Canadian it is still an exciting event. Starting a new government administration may not actually be the right wording. It probably should be described as a “DIFFERENT” administration rather than a “NEW” administration. There are still the same offices, roles and their respective responsibilities. Even taking a look at his “new” cabinet reflects recognizable faces. I’m not saying that’s good or bad but its not “NEW”… just different. The US government will still operate with the same general speed and restrictions as it has over the past 220+ years.
Changing an administration affects a change of perspective, tolerance or “policy” and generally not much more. The beurocracy will remain similar to what it has been in the past. If the leader of our southern ally wishes to change the beurocracy I suggest it'll take a time frame that exceeds the maximum allowable eight Presidential years. Bureaucracies run independent of administrations. They shouldn’t, but they do. Even Ancient Rome, the founder of democracy, had that problem. Regardless, I wish our neighbors the best. Their balance sheet needs all the encouragement it can get.
The global economy is truly amazing. The only real restriction to free world economy is government intervention. It’s the axe that hacks at Adam Smith’s invisible hand. It’s also what downgrades “NEW” to just “different”. They have taken on more than just national defense and enforcement of the law, they have assumed the care of our elderly all the way to the education of our young. They have taken our income and distributed it as they interpret the need. Unfortunately, society has placed their faith in government to solve all life’s ailments. To place faith and control in the hands of any government is to relinquish our personal rights and freedoms to a beurocratic system. Eventually we may vote away our own lives.
On this solemn yet jubilant occasion let us all remember individual rights and responsibilities are still inherent in each person. Justice and equality will never come from government but from the collective conscience of each person. Tyranny, oppression and injustice will always come from the collective complacency and cowardice of each citizen.
With that said I desire, in this year, to unite as many trucking industry readers as can be collected around a new “administrative system” that produces more justice and equality than Canada’s beurocratic tax system has ever distributed. There is a clear political window of opportunity that each trucker should understand and take advantage of. Now is the time for the Canadian tax system to be pushed back from its historic roots of prejudice and intolerance towards the hard working citizen. Subsistence allowance is here to stay!
Changing an administration affects a change of perspective, tolerance or “policy” and generally not much more. The beurocracy will remain similar to what it has been in the past. If the leader of our southern ally wishes to change the beurocracy I suggest it'll take a time frame that exceeds the maximum allowable eight Presidential years. Bureaucracies run independent of administrations. They shouldn’t, but they do. Even Ancient Rome, the founder of democracy, had that problem. Regardless, I wish our neighbors the best. Their balance sheet needs all the encouragement it can get.
The global economy is truly amazing. The only real restriction to free world economy is government intervention. It’s the axe that hacks at Adam Smith’s invisible hand. It’s also what downgrades “NEW” to just “different”. They have taken on more than just national defense and enforcement of the law, they have assumed the care of our elderly all the way to the education of our young. They have taken our income and distributed it as they interpret the need. Unfortunately, society has placed their faith in government to solve all life’s ailments. To place faith and control in the hands of any government is to relinquish our personal rights and freedoms to a beurocratic system. Eventually we may vote away our own lives.
On this solemn yet jubilant occasion let us all remember individual rights and responsibilities are still inherent in each person. Justice and equality will never come from government but from the collective conscience of each person. Tyranny, oppression and injustice will always come from the collective complacency and cowardice of each citizen.
With that said I desire, in this year, to unite as many trucking industry readers as can be collected around a new “administrative system” that produces more justice and equality than Canada’s beurocratic tax system has ever distributed. There is a clear political window of opportunity that each trucker should understand and take advantage of. Now is the time for the Canadian tax system to be pushed back from its historic roots of prejudice and intolerance towards the hard working citizen. Subsistence allowance is here to stay!
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The Busiest Day of the Year...
Welcome to the busiest day of the year for an accounting firm. If a firm deals with self-employed operators only the busiest day would be April 30th (for checks to be mailed for CRA) or June 15th (for returns to be mailed), but for those firms who work with operators with corporations (due to subsistence allowance) today is their day of “madness” (not really if one is organized and didn’t procrastinate).
An operator that is incorporated should send regular source deductions in for their salary. However, once the year end is completed, the income from the corporation should be transferred to the owner/president through what is called “management fees”. The source deductions for management fees claimed December 31 is due January 15th (hence the busy day).
As I stated in my book, the majority of operators who drive one truck (their own corporation’s truck) should almost always claim the income personally. The corporation should not be claiming any income (actually about 80% of all privately held Canadian corporations claim zero income). This is because the combination of corporate income tax and dividends tax is greater than if the operator claimed everything personally (unless the t4 would be more than $63-65,000 per year). If it is above that amount the new tax bracket would propel the operator into a tax range that it would make sense to pay corporate tax then dividend tax. Since the vast majority of all operators would not fall into that category (especially if the operator is collecting subsistence allowance and has a spouse who is a shareholder/director/officer and can receive a $63-65k t4 as well). One truck whose operator is collecting subsistence will rarely make more than $65K. National averages are $50-55K before subsistence (which knocks off an additional $15k).
If your accountant starts spouting off “dividends” when your t4 is less than $65K start asking questions!
An operator that is incorporated should send regular source deductions in for their salary. However, once the year end is completed, the income from the corporation should be transferred to the owner/president through what is called “management fees”. The source deductions for management fees claimed December 31 is due January 15th (hence the busy day).
As I stated in my book, the majority of operators who drive one truck (their own corporation’s truck) should almost always claim the income personally. The corporation should not be claiming any income (actually about 80% of all privately held Canadian corporations claim zero income). This is because the combination of corporate income tax and dividends tax is greater than if the operator claimed everything personally (unless the t4 would be more than $63-65,000 per year). If it is above that amount the new tax bracket would propel the operator into a tax range that it would make sense to pay corporate tax then dividend tax. Since the vast majority of all operators would not fall into that category (especially if the operator is collecting subsistence allowance and has a spouse who is a shareholder/director/officer and can receive a $63-65k t4 as well). One truck whose operator is collecting subsistence will rarely make more than $65K. National averages are $50-55K before subsistence (which knocks off an additional $15k).
If your accountant starts spouting off “dividends” when your t4 is less than $65K start asking questions!
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
CRA-GST-ITC and other four letter words
There is a section in chapter eight of my book called CRA-GST-ITC and other four letter words. It describes a potential liability issue hanging between Lease/Owner operators and Trucking companies. The example I used has the potential to affect up to 40% of operators. The chapter explains the instigators are hard to determine but the potential outcome may still be disastrous for operators. The liability to operators is completely at the mercy of the trucking companies. The book further emphasizes the critical need to trust the company you work for.
GST is a simple application. However, the application of the tax is still not consistent across Canada. For instance, most trucking companies deduct GST off operator’s settlements while some do not. As in this case the inconsistent application of GST can be hazardous to the company. The practice of not deducting GST off settlements is rare. I would put it at less than 1% and in this case the “potential liability” may rest on the company rather than the operator. It’s not that they are doing things unethical it’s just not how the GST ACT is (and has been) written, interpreted and applied.
If you are an operator with a company that does not deduct GST... DON”T WORRY! You are safe and well within your rights not to claim the GST ITC’s. Even though over 95% of other companies do deduct the GST, your “employer” did not set things up to shaft you.
After a close and careful look at the thought process to either apply GST or not, one must only conclude that the company chose not apply it for honest and ethical reasons. There is no sense in charging GST to someone who only goes out and claims it back immediately. That is a logical and prudent interpretation of business activity. However, as we know, CRA is neither logical nor prudent. The entire GST application is designed to apply tax to as many applications as possible.
There was a small example I used in my book where CRA tried to apply GST to a deduction that a company took off operators settlements. It was a “lump sum” wage for a driver(s). It would have sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to Revenue Canada, only for operators to fill out their pretty pink form and get it back three months later. I think the idea sprung from the “Department of redundancy department”. The trucking company shuffled their numbers around and just ended up paying less to operators who used company drivers, thus doing an end run around the application (smart guys!)
However, the question still remains, why does CRA apply GST to as many things as possible? Simple, so they can have the opportunity for operators to overlook rebates or for CRA to refuse ITC’s in an audit. Apply as much GST to everything, then see how much can be “dis-allowed”.
GST was never intended to be a burden on businesses… but its ending up that way.
GST is a simple application. However, the application of the tax is still not consistent across Canada. For instance, most trucking companies deduct GST off operator’s settlements while some do not. As in this case the inconsistent application of GST can be hazardous to the company. The practice of not deducting GST off settlements is rare. I would put it at less than 1% and in this case the “potential liability” may rest on the company rather than the operator. It’s not that they are doing things unethical it’s just not how the GST ACT is (and has been) written, interpreted and applied.
If you are an operator with a company that does not deduct GST... DON”T WORRY! You are safe and well within your rights not to claim the GST ITC’s. Even though over 95% of other companies do deduct the GST, your “employer” did not set things up to shaft you.
After a close and careful look at the thought process to either apply GST or not, one must only conclude that the company chose not apply it for honest and ethical reasons. There is no sense in charging GST to someone who only goes out and claims it back immediately. That is a logical and prudent interpretation of business activity. However, as we know, CRA is neither logical nor prudent. The entire GST application is designed to apply tax to as many applications as possible.
There was a small example I used in my book where CRA tried to apply GST to a deduction that a company took off operators settlements. It was a “lump sum” wage for a driver(s). It would have sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to Revenue Canada, only for operators to fill out their pretty pink form and get it back three months later. I think the idea sprung from the “Department of redundancy department”. The trucking company shuffled their numbers around and just ended up paying less to operators who used company drivers, thus doing an end run around the application (smart guys!)
However, the question still remains, why does CRA apply GST to as many things as possible? Simple, so they can have the opportunity for operators to overlook rebates or for CRA to refuse ITC’s in an audit. Apply as much GST to everything, then see how much can be “dis-allowed”.
GST was never intended to be a burden on businesses… but its ending up that way.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Origins of Truckers Subsistence Allowance
I have conducted hundreds of interviews and dozens of seminars. Many times in the process I have been confronted with the concept of “origins of subsistence allowance”. Many people ask a very good question “If it is such a great opportunity how come so few truckers are doing it?”.
First of all I’d like to say that CRA does not publish “tax tips” big or small. They generally only release information that reflects their internal policies, such as compliance, restrictions and general assistance on preparation (some exceptions apply).
The accounting industry then, is responsible for providing individual tax service for citizens. Companies like H&R Block, Liberty tax as well as a host of other franchises compete with T1 preparers coast to coast, most claiming the best value.
For the more complex returns, accounting firms also should be providing services on navigating the many options and opportunities. Professional preparers are responsible for finding and presenting the best tax opportunities available. With respect, the Tsunami like changes in the accounting industry has left professionals swamped with new regulations, restrictions and obstructions to service. An industry that “doesn’t like change” is overwhelmed with turmoil and backlog. However, that’s their excuse today but it provides no defense prior to approximately 2000-2002. Simply put, accountants (myself included) up until several years ago simply never thought outside the box.
The second thing I’d like to confirm is that I’m not working as a historian. Even in my book I resisted a detailed exposure of certain facts. So as to resist pointing the blame, I still prefer to restrict some information to the general public. I believe blame (sometimes) leads to retaliation and revenge. In history, revenge is the antithesis of justice and equality. In my opinion, it would be counter productive. However, the information I now share should not foster revenge but co-operation and collaboration.
Back in 1991 a trucking company was working for and with a pipeline company with varied contracts and results. They had a high GST return then low and visa versa. The fluctuation flagged an audit. The auditor (apparently a very helpful one) scoured through the books and found out why and was satisfied. The audit produced no re-assessments, all things were done well. The jolly (and apparently robust) auditor asked why the company wasn’t claiming the GST on the flat rate meal allowance and accommodation allowance provided the pipeline workers (ranging from $95 to $125 dollars per day). He conveniently calculated the amount to $143,000 (expensed at about $2 million). To state that the auditor was helpful is a six figure understatement.
One of the consultants who were working for the company at the time (Lucien Bleau) had a long chat with the auditor. In the end, the auditor informed Mr. Bleau that there is nothing stopping the trucking industry from providing the allowance to drivers, and collecting back the ITC (GST Memoranda 400-3-11 and 400-3-3). The resultant opportunity was exposed.
According to my limited research and knowledge this is the roots of the opportunity. However, tracking the initial exposure to present is like finding the tail end to a bowl of spaghetti. There appears to be a lot of start and stops. If I start to mention names and companies I run the risk of including or excluding a whole lot of people. Since I’m not interested in hurting anyone’s feelings I’ll keep it to one name… Lucien Bleau, the man many operators owe a cup of coffee or more. He was at the right place at the right time and asked the right questions. The CRA agent (who will truly remain anonymous) is owed a multi-million dollar thank you.
First of all I’d like to say that CRA does not publish “tax tips” big or small. They generally only release information that reflects their internal policies, such as compliance, restrictions and general assistance on preparation (some exceptions apply).
The accounting industry then, is responsible for providing individual tax service for citizens. Companies like H&R Block, Liberty tax as well as a host of other franchises compete with T1 preparers coast to coast, most claiming the best value.
For the more complex returns, accounting firms also should be providing services on navigating the many options and opportunities. Professional preparers are responsible for finding and presenting the best tax opportunities available. With respect, the Tsunami like changes in the accounting industry has left professionals swamped with new regulations, restrictions and obstructions to service. An industry that “doesn’t like change” is overwhelmed with turmoil and backlog. However, that’s their excuse today but it provides no defense prior to approximately 2000-2002. Simply put, accountants (myself included) up until several years ago simply never thought outside the box.
The second thing I’d like to confirm is that I’m not working as a historian. Even in my book I resisted a detailed exposure of certain facts. So as to resist pointing the blame, I still prefer to restrict some information to the general public. I believe blame (sometimes) leads to retaliation and revenge. In history, revenge is the antithesis of justice and equality. In my opinion, it would be counter productive. However, the information I now share should not foster revenge but co-operation and collaboration.
Back in 1991 a trucking company was working for and with a pipeline company with varied contracts and results. They had a high GST return then low and visa versa. The fluctuation flagged an audit. The auditor (apparently a very helpful one) scoured through the books and found out why and was satisfied. The audit produced no re-assessments, all things were done well. The jolly (and apparently robust) auditor asked why the company wasn’t claiming the GST on the flat rate meal allowance and accommodation allowance provided the pipeline workers (ranging from $95 to $125 dollars per day). He conveniently calculated the amount to $143,000 (expensed at about $2 million). To state that the auditor was helpful is a six figure understatement.
One of the consultants who were working for the company at the time (Lucien Bleau) had a long chat with the auditor. In the end, the auditor informed Mr. Bleau that there is nothing stopping the trucking industry from providing the allowance to drivers, and collecting back the ITC (GST Memoranda 400-3-11 and 400-3-3). The resultant opportunity was exposed.
According to my limited research and knowledge this is the roots of the opportunity. However, tracking the initial exposure to present is like finding the tail end to a bowl of spaghetti. There appears to be a lot of start and stops. If I start to mention names and companies I run the risk of including or excluding a whole lot of people. Since I’m not interested in hurting anyone’s feelings I’ll keep it to one name… Lucien Bleau, the man many operators owe a cup of coffee or more. He was at the right place at the right time and asked the right questions. The CRA agent (who will truly remain anonymous) is owed a multi-million dollar thank you.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
To Clear Muddy Intentions
After WWII the Pentagon was stuck in a mindset of potential nuclear destruction. Destroy or be destroyed. The philosophy initially came from the Allies desperate need to triumph over the evil Axes, which was followed by the desire to contain Russia’s launch to dominate the world with nuclear arsenals. It appeared the Pentagon had no choice but to adopt the “dam or be dammed”.
Then along came a man named Henry Kissinger, a man of exceptional understanding, countering the global philosophy with the concept of “limited nuclear war” (among other subsequent beliefs). It was a controversial yet brilliant change of global thinking (at least the pre-scandal portion was). Instead of seeking to destroy the opponent entirely, he proposed to place a series of options that restrict and direct, all the while trying to retain his opponents pride and dignity (even though force may be used). It was a concept of collaboration with your enemies rather than trying to obliterate them.
The West never (or rarely) compromised the notion of Freedom. The West tried to hold firm to the destiny that man was to walk in freedom. They would not tolerate domination, fear and oppression (at least publicly… not withstanding Cambodia-type ventures). This concept of collaboration without compromise appeared to be an oxymoron. Mr. Kissinger’s life work proved that belief to be at least partially wrong (there is nothing like a major controversy as an illustration to further muddy… muddy meanings).
To some who have read my book, and viewed this blog, I have appeared as “destroy or be destroyed”. However, I wish to continue the sliver of honorable intentions Mr. Kissinger proposed in his “collaboration without compromise”. I believe, and can see, the universal application of subsistence allowance as a great leap for the trucking industry, CRA, and maybe even Canada as a whole. Properly implemented it could affect the average citizen’s view of the entire Canadian income tax system (maybe even something that could moderate the national contempt for our government). It’s certainly not a cure all, but I believe it can follow in the noble footsteps of its predecessor “The Federal Accountability Act”.
My goal is not to annihilate, punish or even aggravate CRA, only to bring clarification on their mandate, and to expose their responsibility for integrity and justice.
Today, somewhere in the rage of 80-90% of operators are still self-employed. I believe within 3-5 years that amount should be 50-70% incorporated. I am also determined to ensure those who do incorporate for the benefit of subsistence allowance to do so with the clear intent of compliance to the rules.
I will continue with my mission to directly educate some 25-35,000 operators as well as some 300,000+ drivers nationally. Subsistence allowance is only the first rung on a very long ladder. Some time this summer I will be introducing my second major topic and subsequent book (to be released some time in 2010) so stay tuned.
Then along came a man named Henry Kissinger, a man of exceptional understanding, countering the global philosophy with the concept of “limited nuclear war” (among other subsequent beliefs). It was a controversial yet brilliant change of global thinking (at least the pre-scandal portion was). Instead of seeking to destroy the opponent entirely, he proposed to place a series of options that restrict and direct, all the while trying to retain his opponents pride and dignity (even though force may be used). It was a concept of collaboration with your enemies rather than trying to obliterate them.
The West never (or rarely) compromised the notion of Freedom. The West tried to hold firm to the destiny that man was to walk in freedom. They would not tolerate domination, fear and oppression (at least publicly… not withstanding Cambodia-type ventures). This concept of collaboration without compromise appeared to be an oxymoron. Mr. Kissinger’s life work proved that belief to be at least partially wrong (there is nothing like a major controversy as an illustration to further muddy… muddy meanings).
To some who have read my book, and viewed this blog, I have appeared as “destroy or be destroyed”. However, I wish to continue the sliver of honorable intentions Mr. Kissinger proposed in his “collaboration without compromise”. I believe, and can see, the universal application of subsistence allowance as a great leap for the trucking industry, CRA, and maybe even Canada as a whole. Properly implemented it could affect the average citizen’s view of the entire Canadian income tax system (maybe even something that could moderate the national contempt for our government). It’s certainly not a cure all, but I believe it can follow in the noble footsteps of its predecessor “The Federal Accountability Act”.
My goal is not to annihilate, punish or even aggravate CRA, only to bring clarification on their mandate, and to expose their responsibility for integrity and justice.
Today, somewhere in the rage of 80-90% of operators are still self-employed. I believe within 3-5 years that amount should be 50-70% incorporated. I am also determined to ensure those who do incorporate for the benefit of subsistence allowance to do so with the clear intent of compliance to the rules.
I will continue with my mission to directly educate some 25-35,000 operators as well as some 300,000+ drivers nationally. Subsistence allowance is only the first rung on a very long ladder. Some time this summer I will be introducing my second major topic and subsequent book (to be released some time in 2010) so stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)