ead08fdf   
   XPost: can.general, can.politics, ott.general   
   From: Canuck57@nospam.com   
      
   On 15/11/2011 7:45 AM, Alan Baggett wrote:   
      
   > Canada Revenue Agency Rights Their Wrong! : CRA SOTW   
      
   Not really their wrong.   
   >   
   > A local woman has had a $19,500 burden lifted off her shoulders.   
      
   You mean she had money owed forgiven on compassionate grounds.   
      
   Hey, while a liberal politically correct type means bullshitting, in   
   this case CRA did no wrong.  They actually showed some compassion, but   
   did no wrong.   
      
   Technically, she likely owed the money and should have chosen better   
   quality male on who she opens her legs up to in breeding.   
      
   > On Saturday, the Times&  Transcript shared the story of a local woman   
   > we called Mary. Her real name and the names of her three children are   
   > protected by a publication ban.   
   > Mary suffered years of sexual and physical abuse at the hands of her   
   > partner. The man also assaulted her children. In February he was   
   > sentenced to four years in prison for sexual assault, assault with a   
   > weapon and two indictable accounts of assault.   
      
   And bet she will take him back on release.  Why did she stick with him?   
      
   > It seemed a new beginning for Mary and her children, but in March the   
   > Canada Revenue Agency told her it was reassessing her tax returns for   
   > 2008, 2009 and 2010.   
      
   Computers likely do this automatically.   
      
   > Mary had filed as single, but the man had been living with her during   
   > those years, which meant she should have filed common-law.   
      
   Should by itself make much difference unless he made lots of money.   
   Sucking welfare and getting unreported support, just blood sucking the   
   system.   
      
   > She was quick to admit she was wrong and told CRA to go ahead with the   
   > reassessment, knowing it wouldn't make a difference anyway as their   
   > combined income was so low.   
      
   People always underestimate their liabilities and debts.  Nothing new,   
   especially of the rationality index is low.   
      
   > But CRA came back with a bill for more than $19,500, money it said she   
   > owed because she was overpaid the child tax benefit.   
      
   Man, that is a lot of child support.  So lets see, she over collected   
   $19,500 while the abusive man was supporting her.  Sounds more like fraud.   
      
   > Mary had no idea how CRA came up with this figure. Her ex hadn't filed   
   > taxes for at least five years, so she didn't know what figure CRA was   
   > using as his income and they wouldn't tell her, citing privacy laws.   
      
   Here is where the CRA is dead assed wrong.  If someone else's income tax   
   is affecting yours, CRA had better disclose all the fracking details.   
   No one should have to blind trust the CRA.   
      
   My guess, the poor genetic choice of her boyfriend probably claimed her   
   as a dependent.   
      
   > Nor could they compel her abuser to file his taxes so she could prove   
   > their income really was low enough to entitle her to the full child   
   > tax benefit.   
   >   
   > CRA seized her 2010 tax refund and her child tax benefit. For five   
   > months she and her three children lived on her salary of about $1,100   
   > a month.   
      
   Which is the self pity part.  Hey, her utter stupidity got her here.   
      
   > For eight months she appealed to everyone she could think of for help   
   > and the best she could do was to negotiate with the government to   
   > receive half her child tax benefit. In eight months, she repaid nearly   
   > $9,000, but still owed more than $10,000.   
   >   
   > As a last resort, she told her story to the Times&  Transcript. When a   
   > reporter contacted the CRA they offered to put Mary in touch with   
   > someone from their problem resolution program.   
      
   Liberal feel good bullshit.   
      
   > On Monday afternoon Mary's phone rang.   
   >   
   > "The lady from the CRA said that the balance that I owe is zero," Mary   
   > says.   
   >   
   > Not only that, but when her next child tax benefit cheque is deposited   
   > in her account on Nov. 18, it will also include all of the money she   
   > has already paid toward the balance.   
      
   She won the lottery on the taxpayer.   
      
   > "I just was shocked," she says. "I was absolutely stunned. I wasn't   
   > expecting her to say this has been resolved and you owe zero."   
      
   Hardly, she was hoping for it all along.  I sure doubt the sincerity of   
   that statement.   
      
   > Mary says she also received a call from Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe MP   
   > Robert Goguen on Monday night. Goguen had also been working on her   
   > behalf and had helped her work out the deal to receive half her child   
   > tax benefit.   
      
   Pandering.   
      
   > "He said, 'I hear everything is resolved,' and said that was good and   
   > that he was sorry for what I went through," she says.   
   >   
   > After the hours and hours and hours she spent talking to countless   
   > people about her situation, she couldn't believe how quickly the whole   
   > ordeal came to an end.   
      
   Lets hope she is smart enough to capitalize on the opportunity -- to   
   keep her legs closed and raise the kids properly.   
      
   > "I find it quite amazing that it took them 24 hours to resolve it,"   
   > she says. "It is almost surreal. I just went through eight months of   
   > hell and they could resolve it in 24 hours. I'm kind of (angry), but   
   > relieved. I'm thinking, 'Oh my god, I can buy food. Plus Christmas is   
   > coming, so that is a relief too."   
      
   Is kind of amazing CRA shook their asses so fast.   
      
   > Mary says she'll be able to get her children the things they need that   
   > she just hasn't been able to buy, like new clothes and a bed for one   
   > of them.   
      
   Lets hope the kids do get hat thy need, and alcohol store excluded.   
      
   > She still doesn't know if her ex has filed his taxes or not and the   
   > CRA said they can't tell her that.   
      
   If it affects her taxes, she should have access.  CRA needs to change this.   
      
   > While Mary's problem seems to be largely resolved, she is just one   
   > person.   
      
   Don't worry, every welfare abuser in the country will look at it.   
      
   [ snip ]   
      
   Lets hope the kids do OK.   
      
      
   --   
   The reason government can't fix the economic problems as government is   
   the problem.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)