Opinion
Taxpayers DO have the right to remain silent
A taxpayer-friendly unanimous Federal Court of Appeal ruling came out this week in MNR v Cameco [2019 FCA 67]. At issue was whether or not the Minister (through the CRA) has the authority to compel oral answers to oral questions from taxpayers or their employees.
In his ruling, Justice of Appeal Rennie stated “…the Minister does not have the power to compel a taxpayer to answer questions at the audit stage…”, however, it may be in the best interest of the taxpayer to provide reasonable answers to reasonable questions in order to expedite the process. The full entire ruling can be found and read here
This ruling simply re-confirms, that even in an audit, you (and your staff) have the right to remain silent, and that the Minister’s powers are limited to physical evidence.
An exception to this is you are required to provide assistance in locating and providing that physical evidence, which may need to be orally.
Personally, when dealing with a very large number of taxpayers on our own office, we want to be certain that the file that the CRA is talking about is the same file in front of us. As such, we are a firm believer in the Canadian Home Builders’ Association motto that is ironically supported by the Government of Canada: “Get it in Writing.”
I am not advocating answering no questions, as the Minister (CRA) still has the ability to issue reassessments, thereby shifting burden of proof to the taxpayer further to disprove the reassessment.
I am, however, advocating at a minimum to get those questions detailed, and in writing. This will help to provide clarity and allow for proper thought in your answers as opposed to stating something with unintended consequences.
Here is a little example of what happens when you don’t get it in writing: in my dark-side days as a field auditor with the (then called) CCRA, we used to ask prying questions that the taxpayer had no idea they were answering.
For example, in one particular circumstance I was reviewing a file where it was suggested that the taxpayer was doing under-the-table cash jobs. This meant I would have to be creative in figuring out the taxpayer’s cost of living, and ruling out other sources of income.
Meeting in a quiet restaurant in a small Saskatchewan town, I was eventually able to have the taxpayer relaxed enough to think that we were having a normal conversation. Just a couple of ‘Riders fans that aren’t a fan of Ottawa, but hey, I have a job to do. When the taxpayer started complaining about the government, I joined in:
“Hey, I hear you. I’m not some suit from Ottawa. I’m from Regina. I mean both the feds and the province already get enough out of me from tax on my smokes.”
I don’t smoke.
The taxpayer didn’t know that, but the anger was timely because the province had just raised up the cigarette tax the previous year so packs were well over $6 a pack.
“Yeah I know”, the taxpayer said, “I smoke a pack a day”.
Music to my ears as a tax auditor, the taxpayer just told me that they need ($6 x 365) = $2,190 of after-tax income just to feed their cigarette habit.
I continued, “That’s terrible! Between getting our money on that, and getting it at the casino, it’s just crazy how much they make it hard to enjoy our weekends.”
“Yeah, I don’t win nuthin’ at the casino either,” the taxpayer stated.
To me I heard ‘I didn’t have any non-taxable casino winnings. In fact, the taxpayer likely had lost money in the year. This means the taxpayer needed to have more disposable income to gamble.’
The conversation continued for a good 30 minutes. Once I was armed with more knowledge of the taxpayer’s lifestyle and spending habits, I went to work. Bank statements, receipts, mileage information, fuel costs, type of vehicle, etc.
We would use information tools not only from Statistics Canada for price of fuel in different regions, we would also use websites like www.fueleconomy.gov that provide different estimated fuel consumption based on type of use and mileage going back to cars from the 1980s. Then we work backwards to see if the numbers made sense with respect to the taxpayer’s vehicle and costs.
When it was all said and done, I used the results of our conversation against the taxpayer. When I was finished, I found over $30,000 in an income variance between the taxpayer’s living costs and change in net worth compared to what was reported. Not only that, but the taxpayer had already backed themselves into a corner because of the questions that were answered which I had documented.
My guess is that in conclusion, the taxpayer thought they should have got the questions in writing instead of meeting me at a restaurant.
—
Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr is the President & Founder of CGL Strategic Business & Tax Advisors; you can find out more about Cory’s biography at http://www.CGLtax.ca/Litzenberger-Cory.html
He exposed the lies at the heart of radical left-wing ideologies—and paid the ultimate price for telling the truth.
Like almost everyone in my circle, I have spent the better part of the last week in a stupor. The news of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination has left all of us who counted him as a friend or colleague in a state of shock and sadness.
I did not know Charlie Kirk well. But I had met him in various green rooms, appeared on his radio program, and worked with him to find capable staffers for the Department of Education. He was always genuine, idealistic, and dedicated to the cause. I’m still astonished by all that he accomplished in such a short period of time. He built an enormous organization, turned himself into a media star, advised the president of the United States, and built a beautiful family—all by age 31.
When we are in the fray of day-to-day politics, it is easy to get consumed by each new headline and triviality. But Kirk’s death marks a pivotal moment, requiring deeper reflection. His life, and tragically his death, reveal some profound truths about the man and about America.
First and foremost, Charlie Kirk did it all the right way. He was a conservative willing to wade into controversial territory. But he was always guided by the idea that debate is the great clarifier and that, in a democratic society, persuasion is the primary means of political change. He set up tables on campus. He debated his opponents. And he believed he could win through the ballot box.
Kirk’s death, and the subsequent reaction to it by the radical Left, underscored the arguments he had made during his time on the stage. For nearly ten years, Kirk had argued that transgender ideology, especially when paired with experimental medical procedures, would result in disaster. From the reports now emerging, it appears likely that the alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson, was radicalized online into anti-fascist and transgender politics. In their most extreme forms, both lines of thinking advocate a nihilistic embrace of violence—the antithesis of Kirk’s approach.
In fact, when he was murdered, Kirk was answering a question about the relationship between transgenderism and mass shootings, a phenomenon that seems to have accelerated in recent years. Kirk sought to engage his opponents in debate; his killer, quite possibly inspired by the trans-radical movement, sought to end that debate with a bullet.
The reaction to Kirk’s death by the mainstream Left has been equally troubling. Thousands of Americans, including students, professors, and even active-duty military members, have publicly cheered his assassination. Some have called for further violence against conservatives. Though I have covered left-wing radical movements for years, I was surprised by the number of people in the “helping professions,” including teachers and doctors, who embraced violent rhetoric.
How should conservatives respond? First, by drawing a line that Kirk himself exemplified: debate is healthy; violence is unacceptable. I’m glad to see that some institutions have terminated the employment of those who cheered on Kirk’s murder.
Contrary to the criticism that this represents a form of right-wing “cancel culture,” these firings were warranted. During the “woke” era, left-wing social media mobs sought the social annihilation of teenagers who sang rap lyrics and a Latino utility worker who cracked his knuckles the wrong way—examples of extreme and unjustified social policing. By contrast, a public school dismissing a teacher for applauding political assassination is a fair consequence.
All societies require boundaries. If there is no social sanction for celebrating violence, America will become a more dangerous place. Social trust, already fragile, will collapse.
On the question of transgender ideology, more information will emerge about Kirk’s alleged killer. But more than enough evidence already exists for federal law enforcement to consider radical transgender ideologues a threat to the civil order of the United States—much like white nationalists, neo-Nazis, militant “anti-fascists,” and other hateful groups. Some figures in the Trump administration, such as policy adviser Stephen Miller and Vice President J. D. Vance, have already indicated that they are ready to take action to enforce the law against violent movements.
Charlie Kirk sacrificed his life for truth. We should honor his legacy by standing firmly on principle, engaging in political debate, and, when necessary, enforcing the law against those who would organize violence in the name of politics.
This unsettling video explores the revelations of Dr. Robert Epstein, a Harvard-trained psychologist trained by B.F. Skinner and published in Nature. Once respected in academic circles, he drew the ire of powerful actors when he began asking difficult questions about freedom and technology. His research, whistleblower testimony, and leaked documents expose how Google evolved from a search engine into a system of mental manipulation: filtering results, harvesting DNA data, and quietly undermining free choice.
After publishing these findings, Dr. Epstein reported six incidents of threats and intimidation, a sign of just how dangerous his work had become to entrenched power.
The video above was produced by the channel Video Advice on YouTube: (Watch Original Here)
To learn practical ways to push back against the expanding surveillance grid, listen to my conversation with Hakeem Anwar, an expert in decentralized technology.
The Search Engine Manipulation Effect
In 2015, Dr. Epstein documented what he called the “search engine manipulation effect” (SEME). His experiments showed that simply reordering search results, placing favorable links higher and critical ones lower, could dramatically shift opinions. Among undecided voters, preferences moved by about 20%, with some controlled trials reaching 80%. The same effect appeared even on apolitical subjects, proving that it could influence judgment across a wide range of issues.
Nearly nine out of ten participants never realized their choices had been shaped. Replications across multiple countries confirmed the effect, demonstrating that whoever controls search rankings controls much of the political landscape. Later, Google whistleblower Zach Voorhies revealed that engineers had tools to apply or remove ranking bias with a single command, allowing the company immense control over the political landscape.
DNA, Listening Devices, and Data Harvesting
Dr. Epstein’s warnings extend beyond search manipulation. Google invested in the DNA testing company 23andMe and launched Project Baseline, a nationwide health data initiative. The system combined genetic information with behavioural patterns, while framing it as a service to improve health: mapping predispositions to illness, ancestry, and family ties. The darker side, however, is that whoever controls this data holds predictive power over entire populations.
A similar pattern appeared in consumer devices. In 2019, it was revealed that Google’s Nest products contained hidden microphones. These were never disclosed to buyers, yet the hardware sat silently in people’s homes, always on and always listening. When the discovery became public, Google insisted it was an oversight in their product specifications… merely an error in documentation.
Surveillance Origins and Blacklists
The roots of the google framework stretch back to the 1990s, when intelligence agencies like DARPA and the NSA funded early internet search tools. Their stated goal was tracking potential bomb-makers, as a matter of public safety, but it also laid the foundation for mass surveillance. Out of these early surveillance initiatives, Google’s PageRank algorithm was born. It was designed not only to rank websites by importance, but also to anticipate user intentions and predict what they were likely to click next.
In 2019, documents leaked by Zach Voorhies confirmed the existence of “blacklists,” “fringe ranking classifiers,” and other tools designed to control visibility. Instead of banning content outright, Google buries it—technically online but practically unseen. Employees are instructed to rely on their own “judgment” when deciding what content to suppress, with no clear standards or oversight. These individual choices are then used to train algorithms, embedding human bias and interests into systems that govern billions of searches.
Monitoring Google for Manipulation
Although Google faces antitrust lawsuits, Dr. Epstein argues that these cases are designed to distract from its deeper operations. Courts avoid confronting surveillance, psychological manipulation, and DNA profiling, leaving untouched the most consequential areas and the tools most likely to be used for control.
To address this oversight, or intentional deceit, Dr. Epstein created the “monitoring project.” It deploys a network of software agents that mimic human browsing, recording what Google displays in real time. The system generates verifiable evidence of bias as it happens, revealing whether certain viewpoints are promoted, buried, or erased.
He warns that Google’s influence is no longer limited to advertising or web browsers. Its true power lies in shaping thought itself. By determining what information people encounter first, or whether they encounter it at all, the company places itself directly inside the process of decision-making. The real struggle is over what he calls “consciousness dominance”: the power to guide how individuals form opinions, how societies make choices, and ultimately, how reality is perceived.
Awareness of the Mechanisms of Control
Dr. Epstein warns that what began as a search engine has evolved into a behavioural weapon. Google not only has the power to organize information but to engineer perception, quietly rewriting beliefs. His warnings remind us that freedom demands vigilance. If we do not question what we are shown, we will continue to see our political landscape, our health choices, and even our grasp of truth rewritten, unaware that it is even happening.
Related Material
 |
|
 |
|
Subscribe to Dr Trozzi.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
-
National2 days agoChrystia Freeland resigns from Mark Carney’s cabinet, asked to become Ukraine envoy
-
International2 days agoFrance records more deaths than births for the first time in 80 years
-
Business2 days agoOttawa’s so-called ‘Clean Fuel Standards’ cause more harm than good
-
Business2 days agoThe Truth Is Buried Under Sechelt’s Unproven Graves
-
Energy1 day agoA Breathtaking About-Face From The IEA On Oil Investments
-
Alberta2 days agoParents group blasts Alberta government for weakening sexually explicit school book ban
-
Health1 day agoCanadians diagnosed with cancer in ER struggle to receive treatment as Liberals keep pushing MAiD
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days agoBloodvein Blockade Puts Public Land Rights At Risk