ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 105
Watts’s claim to be an ex-CRA employee was a
fabrication he was a former computer programmer
turned financial planner (R v Watts, 2016 ONSC
4843, para. 7). Surprisingly, the CRA employee claim
is true for Branch, who reportedly worked for the
CRA between 1976-1980 (R v Branch, [2020] OJ No
2628 (QL) (Ont Ct J), para. 14 “Tax Preparer,” 2020).
Branch admitted during his criminal proceedings that
he knew the Fiscal Arbitrators Strawman “business”
claims were false and fraud (R v Branch, [2020] OJ No
2628 (QL) (Ont Ct J), para. 15).
The degree to which other Fiscal Arbitrators’ promoters
believed their scheme was valid is difficult to evaluate.
That said, Watts personally appeared, as a witness,
in the Tax Court of Canada appeal by Yongwoo Kim
(Kim v The Queen, 2017 TCC 246, paras. 22-26), and
testified that the Canadian income tax returns Watts
had prepared for Kim contained no false statements
or omissions, and “that the returns were accurate.”
Watts at this hearing also admitted to being found
guilty of fraud and sentenced for his preparing Fiscal
Arbitrators tax returns. Smith J concluded: “[i]t follows
that this Court must conclude that [Watts’s] testimony
is inherently unreliable.”
In the years that followed the collapse of the Fiscal
Arbitrators scheme, criminal prosecutions were
successfully conducted by the Public Prosecution
Service of Canada against Fiscal Arbitrators promoters.
No evidence indicates that taxpayers who had
subscribed to Fiscal Arbitrators were also the target of
criminal proceedings.
Watts vigorously but unsuccessfully resisted criminal
prosecution for preparing fraudulent income tax
returns for himself and Fiscal Arbitrators clients. Watts’s
defence included classic Detaxer arguments, such as
there is no valid Income Tax Act (R v Watts, 2015 ONSC
5597, paras. 6-9), and Strawman Theory claims about
governments and “persons” (R v Watts, 2015 ONSC
5600). A jury convicted Watts on all counts, and Watts
received a six-year sentence (R v Watts, 2016 ONSC
4843). Interestingly, during sentencing Watts claimed
he was not motivated by “pure greed,” but, instead,
“distrust of authority” and “anti-establishment views of
the economic and social principles of our society” (R v
Watts, 2016 ONSC 4843, para. 29), typical pseudolaw
adherent perspectives. Watts’s conviction and sentence
were confirmed on appeal (R v Watts, 2018 ONCA
148), and the Supreme Court of Canada denied Watts
leave to appeal (R v Watts (27 September 2018), Ottawa
38141 (SCC)).
After his arrest in 2012, Branch absconded from
Canada. Branch in 2017 was located in Costa Rica,
detained, and in 2019 was extradited to Canada after
unsuccessful attempts to avoid that transfer (Canada
Revenue Agency, 2019 R v Branch, [2020] OJ No 2628
(QL) (Ont Ct J), paras. 21-36). Branch pled guilty
to fraud and was sentenced to 4.5 years (R v Branch,
[2020] OJ No 2628 (QL) (Ont Ct J) “Tax Preparer,”
2020). Promoter Christian Lachapelle in 2015 was
sentenced to four years after pleading guilty to fraud
charges (Brathwaite v The Queen, 2016 TCC 29, para.
59). Charges against Rasool were stayed on June 2,
2016, probably in light of pre-trial detention.
II. Methodology
This study draws its data from two interrelated sources:
1. reported court judgments identified primarily
via the public Canadian Legal Information Institute
[CanLII] online website database,3
1
and
2. Tax Court of Canada, Federal Court of
Canada, and Federal Court of Appeal docket records,
as viewed using each Court’s online search engine.4
The CanLII database contains the large majority
of court judgments issued in Canada, where court
decision-making results in a written--“reported”--court
judgment. As will be subsequently discussed, only a
portion of court decision-making results in reported
court judgments. Many Canadian courts have an oral
decision-making tradition, so in those jurisdictions the
information obtained from CanLII searches almost
certainly represents only part of the relevant court
activity. The Tax Court of Canada is one such “oral
tradition” Court.
The author on an ongoing basis locates reported
pseudolaw-related litigation via a variety of means
(Netolitzky, 2017, pp. 964-965 reviews search
3 Website: https://www.canlii.org/.
4 Websites: https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/
court-files https://www.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/pages/find-a-court-file.
Watts’s claim to be an ex-CRA employee was a
fabrication he was a former computer programmer
turned financial planner (R v Watts, 2016 ONSC
4843, para. 7). Surprisingly, the CRA employee claim
is true for Branch, who reportedly worked for the
CRA between 1976-1980 (R v Branch, [2020] OJ No
2628 (QL) (Ont Ct J), para. 14 “Tax Preparer,” 2020).
Branch admitted during his criminal proceedings that
he knew the Fiscal Arbitrators Strawman “business”
claims were false and fraud (R v Branch, [2020] OJ No
2628 (QL) (Ont Ct J), para. 15).
The degree to which other Fiscal Arbitrators’ promoters
believed their scheme was valid is difficult to evaluate.
That said, Watts personally appeared, as a witness,
in the Tax Court of Canada appeal by Yongwoo Kim
(Kim v The Queen, 2017 TCC 246, paras. 22-26), and
testified that the Canadian income tax returns Watts
had prepared for Kim contained no false statements
or omissions, and “that the returns were accurate.”
Watts at this hearing also admitted to being found
guilty of fraud and sentenced for his preparing Fiscal
Arbitrators tax returns. Smith J concluded: “[i]t follows
that this Court must conclude that [Watts’s] testimony
is inherently unreliable.”
In the years that followed the collapse of the Fiscal
Arbitrators scheme, criminal prosecutions were
successfully conducted by the Public Prosecution
Service of Canada against Fiscal Arbitrators promoters.
No evidence indicates that taxpayers who had
subscribed to Fiscal Arbitrators were also the target of
criminal proceedings.
Watts vigorously but unsuccessfully resisted criminal
prosecution for preparing fraudulent income tax
returns for himself and Fiscal Arbitrators clients. Watts’s
defence included classic Detaxer arguments, such as
there is no valid Income Tax Act (R v Watts, 2015 ONSC
5597, paras. 6-9), and Strawman Theory claims about
governments and “persons” (R v Watts, 2015 ONSC
5600). A jury convicted Watts on all counts, and Watts
received a six-year sentence (R v Watts, 2016 ONSC
4843). Interestingly, during sentencing Watts claimed
he was not motivated by “pure greed,” but, instead,
“distrust of authority” and “anti-establishment views of
the economic and social principles of our society” (R v
Watts, 2016 ONSC 4843, para. 29), typical pseudolaw
adherent perspectives. Watts’s conviction and sentence
were confirmed on appeal (R v Watts, 2018 ONCA
148), and the Supreme Court of Canada denied Watts
leave to appeal (R v Watts (27 September 2018), Ottawa
38141 (SCC)).
After his arrest in 2012, Branch absconded from
Canada. Branch in 2017 was located in Costa Rica,
detained, and in 2019 was extradited to Canada after
unsuccessful attempts to avoid that transfer (Canada
Revenue Agency, 2019 R v Branch, [2020] OJ No 2628
(QL) (Ont Ct J), paras. 21-36). Branch pled guilty
to fraud and was sentenced to 4.5 years (R v Branch,
[2020] OJ No 2628 (QL) (Ont Ct J) “Tax Preparer,”
2020). Promoter Christian Lachapelle in 2015 was
sentenced to four years after pleading guilty to fraud
charges (Brathwaite v The Queen, 2016 TCC 29, para.
59). Charges against Rasool were stayed on June 2,
2016, probably in light of pre-trial detention.
II. Methodology
This study draws its data from two interrelated sources:
1. reported court judgments identified primarily
via the public Canadian Legal Information Institute
[CanLII] online website database,3
1
and
2. Tax Court of Canada, Federal Court of
Canada, and Federal Court of Appeal docket records,
as viewed using each Court’s online search engine.4
The CanLII database contains the large majority
of court judgments issued in Canada, where court
decision-making results in a written--“reported”--court
judgment. As will be subsequently discussed, only a
portion of court decision-making results in reported
court judgments. Many Canadian courts have an oral
decision-making tradition, so in those jurisdictions the
information obtained from CanLII searches almost
certainly represents only part of the relevant court
activity. The Tax Court of Canada is one such “oral
tradition” Court.
The author on an ongoing basis locates reported
pseudolaw-related litigation via a variety of means
(Netolitzky, 2017, pp. 964-965 reviews search
3 Website: https://www.canlii.org/.
4 Websites: https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/
court-files https://www.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/pages/find-a-court-file.
