I`m sure if you were to call them at 1-800-959-8281, they will tell you.

Powered by

I moved to canad from the states back in october 2009. i opened a bank account completely separate from my husband. he owes about $25,000 in taxes to revenue canada. he was making payments until last summer when he lost his job. since he couldn't find work, he was living off his credit cards. revenue canada contacted him when he stopped making payments and he let them know about the situation. they sent him some paperwork he filled out and out of good faith he made a $100 payment and told them he would pay more when he could. when i moved here we didn't think i would have any problems finding work, but even after almost 6 months i was only able to get a month seasonal job during christmas, otherwise no one will even give me an interview. in the meantime my husband has started a small business that just barely covers our monthly living expenses (this was back in december). at the same time he received a letter from revenue canada stating if he didn't fill out this form that authorized them to pry into every nook and cranny of our lives for the past 10 years, they would proceed with legal action. since it was christmas we couldn't get an appointment to see an attorney to find out what our options were so he sent a letter to revenue canada asking them for an additional 30 days to consult a lawyer and he would get back to them. after talking to the lawyer, my husband make several attempts to contact revenue canada. never hearing back or being able to get a hold of the person he was dealing with. before we knew it, they seized his bank account and took what little money that was in it. miraculously when he called revenue canada to find out what happened he got a hold of the guy and he told him basically any money that goes in revenue canada will take and they were proceeding with legal actions. when he told him he kept trying to get in contact with him, the guy played dumb like he never got any of his messages. so my questions are 1) what are our options? we can negotiate a payment plan but there is no way we can pay off all the debt in 2 years like they want especially since i can't get anyone to hire me. and 2) can revenue canada seize my bank accounts as well even though it is solely my account and not a joint account? thanks ahead of time!

If your name was on those tax returns then yes. If you did not file joint then no

Powered by

I am doing my taxs (which seemed like a good idea at the time, but now my head hurts) i'm using quick tax and it is at the part where it asks about the ucc at the start of the year. i know from reading online that i cannot claim the land, but in our move i cannot find the flipping appraisal sheet, so how do i know what the building is worth and what the land is worth. we didn't have it last year and our tax lady did it.... thoughts?? anyone??

The property tax assessment details land versus value of "improvements";, which is everything but land.

Powered by

At my address, it has been known for mail to be 'lost'. when i moved in sept. i notifications were sent out advising of my new address. i was told by visa that they had a code on file, something about 'address could not be found". several weeks ago, my investment firm sent me a form to sign, in a two week period it hadn't arrived, so they sent me another. suddenly the original envelope arrived. where it was is a mystery. what makes me very nervous is tax time when the t4's are issued. i can't really check with my employer because i retired jan. 1, & don't have access to the building. the payroll dept. is notorious for not answering their phones, & i highly doubt they would make a long distance call to return my call. if my t4 goes astray, will revenue canada have a copy on file, & would they send me a copy? "fred" said that revenue canada would not send me a copy, then he says if i don't have my t4 by march 15, to call revenue canada & they would send me a copy. i'd assume from what fred says..that revenue canada will send me a copy only if i don't have one by march 15.

That's right. They'll make you wait until the one the employer should have sent has had time to get there before they'll mail you one. Not all employers send the slips in right away, so it may be a little while before they do get the info from them.

Powered by

I am a 41 yr old women who owns her own home. i work professionally and have an older teenager living at home with me. three years ago i met this gentleman who is apx 10 years older than me. he has an older child as well. they moved in with me. he has no property as he leases everything. he hsa a home/office that he leases and has to maintain. he has little money to contribute to our life at home. he periodically pays for wine and gives my daughter a few dollars every now and then. i find it very upsetting. if him and his offspring were not there, i would have the money to give to my child and buy my own wine. in all other ways, this man is wonderful. he is sweet, kind and caring but in ways i resent him because i am paying for all the food he eats, the heat he uses and so on. i feel angry and frustrated. he is also in debt. he has a credit card that he owes over 15, 000 on at a rate of 18% interest. and he owes revenue canada for 2 years of taxes. should i dump him?

I would...but thats just me. Remember your kid comes first. If you do love him just ask him move out and support himself. Tell him you want to do things 50/50.

Powered by

Americans are obsessed with rights. we always have been. but the concept of rights our forefathers laid out in the declaration of independence has changed dramatically. those rights – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – were acknowledged to come from the almighty, given equally to all people. today’s rights come from almighty government. health care is the newest “right.” from presidential candidates’ universal plans to the return of hillarycare to michael moore’s movie “sicko,” it’s all over the media. calling it a “right” is an emotional argument advanced by those who want others to pay for their health care. they bring out the children and ask whether anyone can deny them the “basic human right” of health care – but don’t bother with the evidence showing how health care in this country would be harmed by government control. a look at other modern “rights” might give us a clue about how well a new system would work. these rights started out as privileges, among them education and a paid retirement. now education is not only considered a right, it’s a mandate. how well has it worked? american students attend school at least until their teen years, but 15-year-olds ranked 24th out of 29 countries in aptitude for “real-life math problems,” according to the washington post. literacy surveys suggest one in five american adults is functionally illiterate. and taxpayers keep shelling out money to fund the system. americans also cherish the right to retire – but we expect to be supported in our old age. younger workers and employers are forced to support retirees, funding another right. and how well has that worked? the poorly designed, outdated social security system is disintegrating rapidly as the number of retirees balloons. but once you’ve established a right, it’s difficult to take it away. the government, which promises such rights, must go to its sugar daddy – taxpayers – to keep the rights coming. we’re already well on our way toward the health care right/mandate. want to be more like canada? it’s not that far off. cato’s michael cannon has pointed out that third parties in america pay 86 cents of every dollar of our health care – about the same as canada’s socialized system. what we – or rather, those third parties – pay for health care is already determined by the government as well. emory university medical professor robert swerlick has noted that “the pricing of medical care in this country is either directly or indirectly dictated by medicare.” this market meddling even causes doctor shortages, he says, in needed areas of specialty. prescription drugs are already considered a right, thanks to political moves like the medicare drug benefit and massive media support. a business & media institute study found broadcast journalists treating prescription drugs as though they grew on trees. overall, the coverage supported the idea that medications should magically be available to everyone at far lower costs. of course, the magic behind new “rights” is your money. cannon and fellow cato expert michael tanner explained problems with tax-funded care in their book “healthy competition: what’s holding back health care and how to free it.” if health care is guaranteed to everyone, how much does everyone get? who decides who receives what, and how would the care be administered? what happens if everyone wants the most expensive treatment available? “with the wide variety of medical tests and treatments that consumers may claim as their right, someone at some point must decide where the right to health care ends, lest the nation be bankrupted,” they wrote. we’re well on our way toward that as well. our “rights” to social security and medicare devour about 40 percent of the federal budget. state and local property tax revenue, which normally funds education, mushroomed about 35 percent between 2000 and 2005, according to the tax foundation. we can’t afford any more “rights” like that. but the left says tax-funded care is right for the children. meanwhile, what becomes of them? they’re growing up in an america where the “rights” mentality is deeply ingrained, and the media continue to feed them with it. when the children come of age, perhaps they’ll want the right to a job. they won’t remember that france already tested that idea for us, and it led to high unemployment and rioting. perhaps they’ll guarantee disney vacations for all families and force childless americans to pay for it. “the pursuit of” will conveniently fade away as they look to government to guarantee happiness. they will know less and less of a true right – liberty – and have no idea where it comes from.

Health care isn't a right; it's an entitlement. Health care isn't this service that exists in a vacuum - it requires the hard work, dedication, and excellence of doctors, as well as technological and medical advances that are painstakingly researched by our most brilliant minds, not to mention all the funding that goes into research projects. Rights are those things that stem from your self-ownership. You own yourself, therefore you have the right to liberty. You own yourself, and you have the right to liberty, so you own the product of your time and labor. How can health care be a right if health care depends on other people being able to provide that service to you? Are people saying that doctors owe them? Since we're "owed" health care because it is our right, why should we have to pay? I guess that as generous as we all are, we pay taxes and ask the government to compensate doctors, nurses and hospitals what we deem 'fair.' The doctor owns his life, his liberty, and his labor. He should be able to set his own terms. You do not have the RIGHT to his services, no more than anyone else has the right to demand that you provide a service for whatever he or she is willing to pay you.

Powered by

With last nights pre-season game in quebec city there is renewed talk of bring back the nordiques and of building a new $400m arena in quebec with government funding. i for one have an issue with government funding of sports complexes because where do you draw the line, major sports? what about the new cfl team that wants a stadium? or if i want to move a chl team to flin flon- can i have an arena too? from a purely economic sense i think the arena is probably a moneymaker for the federal and provincial governments. the critical assumption i am making here is that nhl hockey is viable in quebec or winnipeg, of that i am less certain. assume a new team earns the league average of about $100m a year in hockey related revenue- that's $13m in sales tax (gst/hst/qst) annually. now assume that they spend to the cap of about $56m in salaries. that represents an additional $25.2 m in income tax gpoing to the federal and prov gov't coffers. so in total we have an additional $38.2 m a year going to the federal and provincial government. assuming the government can borrow the initial $400m investment at 4% (fair assumption because if you can find a gov't bond that yeilds more than 4% today- let me know i'm in) how long is the payback? 38.2m annually discounted at 4% yields a payback of the initial 400 million in 14 years. after 14 years the gov't makes money to the tune of $38m a year. the actual numbers would be better than this as the true cost will be less than $400 m after we consider the income tax on the construction workers salary to build the thing. we also have excluded the income tax benefits of non hockey salaries ( coaches gm, trainers scouts, zamboni drivers and all the value of the economic spinoffs. those players will spend a fair chunk of their money in canada creating additional economic activity. thoughts? there is a flaw in my reasoning btw. tom, i am not saying i support the idea. i am saying that gov'ts look at the political side not the economic side. maybe they should look at the economic side. the profit of the team is not relevant to this example except for the measely corp tax revenue that the gov't will collect on that profit. the gov'ts return comes from consumption taxes (gst/hst) on the gross revenue. either way the federal and provincial gov'ts share in 13% of the gross revenues represented by the sales tax that you and i pony up when we buy a ticket, merchandise or beer at the game. that revenue is dependent on revenue- not profits so it doesn't matter if the team makes a bundle as long as they survive. the second revenue, income tax on players salary is again independent of the team turning a profit. do you get your income taxes back if your employer does not show a profit? the fatal flaw in my reasoning is that the 13m of gst is not really new money. the 100m spent on hockey will be diverted from other entertainment spending. movie theatre revenue may suffer etc causing an offsetting loss in gst revenue. as bob points out, the real benefit is in the economic spin-offs of having that money circulate creating more economic activity and thus more tax revenues. if gov'ts made more decision based on real economics and not what is politacally expedient we would be in better shape. so yes the gov't should be there to make money- how else can we pay for the services we demand. i use quebec as an example but the same arguement can be made for kitchener waterloo or any other area that can support a nhl team. the payoffs will be the same now that we have hst in ontario. conventions and convention centers are real money makers for an area since they bring in new money by way of out of town attendees. bob i have been following that center in halifax, seems like a great idea as the uniquesness of the locale should add to the draw.

I thought Harper shot that notion down. My notion is always been that if it could gain that money back in leasing and taxes then I support it. You throw out some numbers but there are other numbers/factors to consider- restaurant and hotel industry thrives, creating even more tax revenue. Then there is stuff like the entertainment value for people......you can draw better concerts (more tax revenue), sports teams etc. IMO, sport is important for families. I might be the wrong person to ask.....there is a talk of a new convention center here and it gets all this red tape. Also, I think we need a stadium here....and maybe we could get a CFL team and some decent concerts. I support it 100%..........not at the risk of schools or hospitals closing is one caveat. Another is that the tenants, say an NHL team, pay FAIR rent......these billionaire owners shouldn't get a free pass.