Court: Dodging taxes isn’t ‘natural’

A B.C. couple lose its unlikely fight to make taxes optional


Henry David Thoreau would be proud. For five years, a Chilliwack, B.C., couple refused to pay taxes while operating a school where they urged adult students to do the same, teaching that taxation amounts to slavery. But Elaine Gould and Russell Porisky will be lucky to get off as lightly as the 19th-century American writer, who famously withheld his taxes and paid for his disobedience with a single night in jail.

Gould and Porisky may spend years behind bars for failing to pay tax on more than $1 million of income generated by their school, Paradigm Education Group, plus $66,113 in unremitted GST. Last week, a B.C. Supreme Court judge found the pair guilty of tax evasion, and Porisky guilty of counselling their students to commit fraud. They’ve not yet been sentenced, but for evasion alone, the Income Tax Act allows for sentences of up to 12 months per count.

In his Paradigm seminars, Porisky taught that people are two separate entities in law—the “natural” person and “legal” person. Only the legal person is required to pay taxes, he claimed, and since the income flows to the natural person, taxes are essentially optional. Kooky as the theory sounds, it has been circulating long enough among tax resisters that the Canada Revenue Agency issued a release last fall advising Canadians to ignore anyone espousing it. One of Porisky’s students, a dentist named Eva Sydel, tried the “natural person” defence in vain in 2007, and received 18 months in jail. The judge in Porisky’s case was no less dismissive. “It is a failed attempt at word magic,” said Justice Elliott Myers of the theory, “and has no validity.”


Court: Dodging taxes isn’t ‘natural’

  1. Even if you were correct about a “natural” and “legal” person as two entities, they are undoubtedly housed in the same physical body, which is going to get thrown into jail.

  2. http://www.strawman.com

    The site to go to find out what they refer to.  It makes a lot of sense.  However, the government wouldn’t get any of my money if we could live this way.

  3.  Queensoapbox- paying taxes is not fun, but it is necessary. How do you expect to have paved roads, police, firefighters, education, health care (FREE HEALTH CARE)?? Where do you think the money comes from? Do you think you can take care of everything all by yourself? Don’t be stupid.

    • I’d like to know where the money comes from to pay interest on bank loans – considering that it is also illegal to produce money. So where does it come from? Sounds like musical chairs to me. A system designed to make the borrowers fight among each other to pay back an impossible demand. A demand that if everyone met would necessitate breaking the law. So shouldn’t the banking scheme be ended? The bank puts 10 chairs into the game, but holds debt on 11 chairs. The people can not win.

    • Interesting points to be sure.  I’m all for roads (if they didn’t wreck my car due to poor construction and take 5 guys, 8 hours to fill in 3 potholes), police (they need to start following their own laws), firefighters (MAN are they ever hot!), education (my kids get a better education from me), health care (Free???  Yeah, ok, whatever you say.  No one I know has to pay 800$ a month for drugs to stay alive.  I, personally, can’t find health care in my area.  The doctors are muslim and male and I get discriminated against and told to find a female doctor).  Believe me, I know where the money comes from, all my hard work so that government electives can wear Armani suits.  You are the one who needs to open your eyes and get a clue as to what is really happening to your money.  Eyes wide shut = stupid!!  I think that every Canadian should be entitled to a quarterly audit report showing exactly what has been done with the money.  Right down to the very last red cent!!  It’s not stupid to want to know what is being done with the money, it is, however, stupid to blindly give it over, thinking that it is necessary to life.  Armani suits are NOT necessary to life.

  4. You know what the real crime is?  The fact that 40% of a Canadian’s annual income goes towards taxes.  THAT is a crime.

  5. In December 1921, the American industrialist Henry Ford and the inventor Thomas Edison visited the Muscle Shoals nitrate and water power projects near Florence, Alabama. They used the opportunity to articulate at length upon their alternative money theories, which were published in 2 reports which appeared in The New York Times on December 4, 1921 and December 6, 1921. Objecting to the fact that the Government planned, as usual, to raise the money by issuing bonds which would be bought by the banking and non-banking sector — which would then have to be paid back with money raised from taxes, and with interest added — they proposed instead that the Government simply create the currency it required and spend it into society through this public project. Thomas Edison made it plain in the following excerpt from The New York Times, December 6, 1921 issue (“Ford Sees Wealth In Muscle Shoals”).

    Edison (genius): “That is to say, under the old way any time we wish to add to the national wealth we are compelled to add to the national debt… Now, that is what Henry Ford wants to prevent. He thinks it is stupid, and so do I, that for the loan of $30,000,000 of their own money the people of the United States should be compelled to pay $66,000,000 — that is what it amounts to, with interest. People who will not turn a shovelful of dirt nor contribute a pound of material will collect more money from the United States than will the people who supply the material and do the work. That is the terrible thing about interest. In all our great bond issues the interest is always greater than the principal. All of the great public works cost more than twice the actual cost, on that account. Under the present system of doing business we simply add 120 to 150 per cent, to the stated cost… But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way… if the Government issues currency, it provides itself with enough money to increase the national wealth at Muscles Shoals without disturbing the business of the rest of the country. And in doing this it increases its income without adding a penny to its debt… It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer, and the other helps the people. If the currency issued by the Government were no good, then the bonds issued would be no good either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to increase the national wealth, must go into debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious values of gold…  Look at it another way. If the Government issues bonds, the brokers will sell them. The bonds will be negotiable; they will be considered as gilt edged paper. Why? Because the government is behind them, but who is behind the Government? The people. Therefore it is the people who constitute the basis of Government credit. Why then cannot the people have the benefit of their own gilt-edged credit by receiving non-interest bearing currency on Muscle Shoals, instead of the bankers receiving the benefit of the people’s credit in interest-bearing bonds?”

    Government keeps taxing us in an attempt to repay a mathematically impossible to repay debt.  Politicians are corrupt because they won’t illegalize usury and institute a mathematically sound monetary system where issued currency is backed by real goods and services produced by the people (not gold or other supposed precious metals or stones with ridiculously inflated value).

Sign in to comment.