

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Brian Mulroney will surely be best remembered for the suitcase full of thousand dollar bills he received in a New York hotel room.
The riveting image of the former prime minister accepting wads of cash from a notorious lobbyist -- admitted by Mulroney under cross-examination at a 2009 public inquiry -- was so eye-popping that it completely eclipsed another fascinating aspect of the story: the sweetheart tax deal Mulroney got from the Canada Revenue Agency after he failed to report the cash.
Although Mulroney had hidden the cash payments (totalling $225,000) from tax authorities for six years, his lawyers managed to cut a deal that allowed the former PM to avoid any fines or penalties, and only required him to pay half the taxes he would have paid if he'd obeyed the tax laws -- laws that chumps like you and me are legally obliged to obey.
It certainly looked like favouritism to a former PM. But another possibility is now emerging: that's just the CRA's standard kid-glove treatment for the wealthy and powerful.
That conclusion is harder to avoid in light of recent revelations that 26 wealthy Canadians were offered full amnesty from prosecution or penalty after they were caught hiding at least $130 million in offshore tax schemes set up by the giant accounting firm KPMG.
We only know about this sweetheart amnesty offer due to intrepid reporting by the CBC's Harvey Cashore.
Intriguingly, CRA officials insisted the 26 wealthy tax dodgers keep the sugar-coated deal secret, indicating they realized it would annoy ordinary Canadians who think of tax haven countries mostly as exotic places to vacation, if only they had the money.
KPMG also appears to have gotten off scot-free, even though internal memos show that the firm planned to collect 15 per cent of all taxes dodged.
The KPMG amnesty case -- currently being studied by a House of Commons committee -- is emerging as a test of whether Justin Trudeau's team really is a new-style, transparent government or just another bunch of cronies with cosy ties to Bay St.
The KPMG amnesty was put in place under the Harper government. So this would seem like a perfect opportunity for Trudeau to show a new toughness against rich tax dodgers by using the government's full investigative powers to unmask this and other shady offshore scams.
But, so far at least, the Liberal-dominated committee has failed to show any such toughness, or interest in aggressively probing the booming tax-avoidance industry -- even after revelations earlier this week that KPMG advised clients to use its tax haven schemes to hide money from ex-spouses during contentious divorce battles.
Its tameness stands in stark contrast to the aggressive probing of the tax avoidance industry by a parliamentary committee in Britain and a congressional committee in the U.S.
The KPMG scam is undoubtedly just the tip of a gigantic tax-avoidance iceberg. Canadians for Tax Fairness, a labour-sponsored group, calculates Canada loses more than $7 billion a year in revenue due to wealthy individuals and corporations using tax havens.
Under the Harper government, this sort of tax avoidance by the rich tended to be viewed as a benign activity, a victimless crime, part of the notion that taxes are inherently bad. But, of course, that's only true if you're willing to go without schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, pensions and other public goods that require tax revenue.
The flourishing, highly lucrative tax avoidance business can also be blamed for the complexity of the tax system, so frequently bemoaned by right-wingers.
Our tax laws wouldn't need to be nearly so complicated if it weren't for an industry of hyper-clever sharks constantly devising ways to drive a truck through them on behalf of their wealthy clients.
Ultimately, it boils down to a question of fairness. Why should Brian Mulroney and his ilk manage to avoid the heavy hand of our tax laws?
I guess CRA has some good reasons for being lenient with the wealthy and the powerful. And no doubt they'd be just as understanding with other Canadians.
Hell, at the end of April, I calculated how much tax I owed, and then sent the CRA a cheque -- for exactly half that amount. I haven't heard back yet, but I'm sure they'll be fine with that.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Brian Mulroney will surely be best remembered for the suitcase full of thousand dollar bills he received in a New York hotel room.
The riveting image of the former prime minister accepting wads of cash from a notorious lobbyist -- admitted by Mulroney under cross-examination at a 2009 public inquiry -- was so eye-popping that it completely eclipsed another fascinating aspect of the story: the sweetheart tax deal Mulroney got from the Canada Revenue Agency after he failed to report the cash.
Although Mulroney had hidden the cash payments (totalling $225,000) from tax authorities for six years, his lawyers managed to cut a deal that allowed the former PM to avoid any fines or penalties, and only required him to pay half the taxes he would have paid if he'd obeyed the tax laws -- laws that chumps like you and me are legally obliged to obey.
It certainly looked like favouritism to a former PM. But another possibility is now emerging: that's just the CRA's standard kid-glove treatment for the wealthy and powerful.
That conclusion is harder to avoid in light of recent revelations that 26 wealthy Canadians were offered full amnesty from prosecution or penalty after they were caught hiding at least $130 million in offshore tax schemes set up by the giant accounting firm KPMG.
We only know about this sweetheart amnesty offer due to intrepid reporting by the CBC's Harvey Cashore.
Intriguingly, CRA officials insisted the 26 wealthy tax dodgers keep the sugar-coated deal secret, indicating they realized it would annoy ordinary Canadians who think of tax haven countries mostly as exotic places to vacation, if only they had the money.
KPMG also appears to have gotten off scot-free, even though internal memos show that the firm planned to collect 15 per cent of all taxes dodged.
The KPMG amnesty case -- currently being studied by a House of Commons committee -- is emerging as a test of whether Justin Trudeau's team really is a new-style, transparent government or just another bunch of cronies with cosy ties to Bay St.
The KPMG amnesty was put in place under the Harper government. So this would seem like a perfect opportunity for Trudeau to show a new toughness against rich tax dodgers by using the government's full investigative powers to unmask this and other shady offshore scams.
But, so far at least, the Liberal-dominated committee has failed to show any such toughness, or interest in aggressively probing the booming tax-avoidance industry -- even after revelations earlier this week that KPMG advised clients to use its tax haven schemes to hide money from ex-spouses during contentious divorce battles.
Its tameness stands in stark contrast to the aggressive probing of the tax avoidance industry by a parliamentary committee in Britain and a congressional committee in the U.S.
The KPMG scam is undoubtedly just the tip of a gigantic tax-avoidance iceberg. Canadians for Tax Fairness, a labour-sponsored group, calculates Canada loses more than $7 billion a year in revenue due to wealthy individuals and corporations using tax havens.
Under the Harper government, this sort of tax avoidance by the rich tended to be viewed as a benign activity, a victimless crime, part of the notion that taxes are inherently bad. But, of course, that's only true if you're willing to go without schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, pensions and other public goods that require tax revenue.
The flourishing, highly lucrative tax avoidance business can also be blamed for the complexity of the tax system, so frequently bemoaned by right-wingers.
Our tax laws wouldn't need to be nearly so complicated if it weren't for an industry of hyper-clever sharks constantly devising ways to drive a truck through them on behalf of their wealthy clients.
Ultimately, it boils down to a question of fairness. Why should Brian Mulroney and his ilk manage to avoid the heavy hand of our tax laws?
I guess CRA has some good reasons for being lenient with the wealthy and the powerful. And no doubt they'd be just as understanding with other Canadians.
Hell, at the end of April, I calculated how much tax I owed, and then sent the CRA a cheque -- for exactly half that amount. I haven't heard back yet, but I'm sure they'll be fine with that.
Brian Mulroney will surely be best remembered for the suitcase full of thousand dollar bills he received in a New York hotel room.
The riveting image of the former prime minister accepting wads of cash from a notorious lobbyist -- admitted by Mulroney under cross-examination at a 2009 public inquiry -- was so eye-popping that it completely eclipsed another fascinating aspect of the story: the sweetheart tax deal Mulroney got from the Canada Revenue Agency after he failed to report the cash.
Although Mulroney had hidden the cash payments (totalling $225,000) from tax authorities for six years, his lawyers managed to cut a deal that allowed the former PM to avoid any fines or penalties, and only required him to pay half the taxes he would have paid if he'd obeyed the tax laws -- laws that chumps like you and me are legally obliged to obey.
It certainly looked like favouritism to a former PM. But another possibility is now emerging: that's just the CRA's standard kid-glove treatment for the wealthy and powerful.
That conclusion is harder to avoid in light of recent revelations that 26 wealthy Canadians were offered full amnesty from prosecution or penalty after they were caught hiding at least $130 million in offshore tax schemes set up by the giant accounting firm KPMG.
We only know about this sweetheart amnesty offer due to intrepid reporting by the CBC's Harvey Cashore.
Intriguingly, CRA officials insisted the 26 wealthy tax dodgers keep the sugar-coated deal secret, indicating they realized it would annoy ordinary Canadians who think of tax haven countries mostly as exotic places to vacation, if only they had the money.
KPMG also appears to have gotten off scot-free, even though internal memos show that the firm planned to collect 15 per cent of all taxes dodged.
The KPMG amnesty case -- currently being studied by a House of Commons committee -- is emerging as a test of whether Justin Trudeau's team really is a new-style, transparent government or just another bunch of cronies with cosy ties to Bay St.
The KPMG amnesty was put in place under the Harper government. So this would seem like a perfect opportunity for Trudeau to show a new toughness against rich tax dodgers by using the government's full investigative powers to unmask this and other shady offshore scams.
But, so far at least, the Liberal-dominated committee has failed to show any such toughness, or interest in aggressively probing the booming tax-avoidance industry -- even after revelations earlier this week that KPMG advised clients to use its tax haven schemes to hide money from ex-spouses during contentious divorce battles.
Its tameness stands in stark contrast to the aggressive probing of the tax avoidance industry by a parliamentary committee in Britain and a congressional committee in the U.S.
The KPMG scam is undoubtedly just the tip of a gigantic tax-avoidance iceberg. Canadians for Tax Fairness, a labour-sponsored group, calculates Canada loses more than $7 billion a year in revenue due to wealthy individuals and corporations using tax havens.
Under the Harper government, this sort of tax avoidance by the rich tended to be viewed as a benign activity, a victimless crime, part of the notion that taxes are inherently bad. But, of course, that's only true if you're willing to go without schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, pensions and other public goods that require tax revenue.
The flourishing, highly lucrative tax avoidance business can also be blamed for the complexity of the tax system, so frequently bemoaned by right-wingers.
Our tax laws wouldn't need to be nearly so complicated if it weren't for an industry of hyper-clever sharks constantly devising ways to drive a truck through them on behalf of their wealthy clients.
Ultimately, it boils down to a question of fairness. Why should Brian Mulroney and his ilk manage to avoid the heavy hand of our tax laws?
I guess CRA has some good reasons for being lenient with the wealthy and the powerful. And no doubt they'd be just as understanding with other Canadians.
Hell, at the end of April, I calculated how much tax I owed, and then sent the CRA a cheque -- for exactly half that amount. I haven't heard back yet, but I'm sure they'll be fine with that.