Demolishing Assumptions:

Defending A Taxpayer’s Right to Taxable and Exempt Incomes

Session #1 webinar is available to view below without donation (to members only). You will see the webinar below when you are logged into the website. (Not a member yet click here.)

NOTE: this webinar deals with in-the-box taxpayer defensive processes – if you wish to act as the representative of a taxpayer you can fight and win, sometimes…

***** FREE MEMBER LEVEL ONLY CONTENT! You can sign up as Free Member to get access! *****

To view Session #2 + #3 webinar recordings there is a requested donation.


If you have donated, the next 2 sessions are visible below…

MEMBERS ONLY CONTENT! Please sign up to see it!

This discussion is ideal for those who want to assert their taxpayer’s intent to income from a source (taxable income) , or not from a source (exempt income), or a combination of both. This stops them from buttonholing you with the so-called “natural person argument”. Ideally you should be aware of this knowledge before being under audit or investigation.

Discussion Led by: Eric X

  • Having problems getting your taxpayer’s costs accepted as expenses?
  • Stressed out over being prosecuted in court for paying too much tax?
  • Feeling down and unpatriotic because you’re not paying your fair share?

We will discuss:

  • Convincing others that your taxable income is not exempt income
  • Demolishing their assumptions that you have no taxable income
  • What is the standard of proof in tax law
  • How onus of proof shifts in tax law – and how to reverse that onus
  • Why is the tax system self-assessing
  • Why most taxpayers focus on the wrong issue when prosecuted
  • The reason you use to put a trial into abeyance – at the beginning
  • What are statements of fact, statements of law, and of mixed fact and law – and why it is important to know the difference
  • What court case says that accounting records is not reality
  • When to lay in your evidence of having taxable income
  • When the assessment process is really over

Discussion will be by power-point slides and will be illustrated with Canadian case law. It will be recorded and accessible online at after the discussion dates so that if you are unable to attend you can review it anytime later at your leisure.

Email Eric directly knosin (at) with questions and regarding the course or your donation.

Suggested Donation: $300

Accept cash, gas cards, prepaid visa or MasterCard


In Week 2 we go over case law that backs up what was outlined in Week 1.

In Week 3  we will go over actual paperwork, as well as paperwork that had them abandon a proposal.

I’m trying to make the concepts simpler and am trying to make it SHORTER, not longer!

I’m also going to show a few strategies that Crown has up its sleeves – and how to (hopefully) address them.

For example: if you appeal, it gives life to the re-assessment, thus allowing Crown to make new assumptions all over again. How should we deal with that?

Another example: Crown can plead assumptions in the alternative. I found only 8 cases in all of Canada on this, but it’s a tactic that they do pull out of the hat from time to time, so we should address that also.

Spread the info...

This article has 5 comments

  1. admin

    can’t give advice and anyone would need far more info to even understand the full picture. any claim being made by anyone one might want to get clear on why they are claiming what they are claiming, facts, presumptions and evidence they are using would be a good start. what to do next is far more complex as circumstances vary greatly

  2. JD

    I could be in trouble, I had a 36,000.00 tax rebate, and now I have been re assessed as now owing cra 54, 000.00.

    Any advice would be helpfull

  3. admin

    hey thanks for the feedback – that is how things should work – if you care to share more of the story and the specifics feel free to send us an email and we can follow-up. We love to have success stories to report and share – properly explained and supported to provide more understanding and support.

  4. Bobby

    My brother stopped filing in 1989 – 90 and the IRS sent a “10 day letter” asking him why he did not file, or was not required to file for those years. In short, he beat them with two (2) letters. Using their own Code (Title 26) to show why he was not subject to their Code.

  5. james

    l tell people that you do not have to use the sin it is not your number it the government all you have to do is ask is the cra asking me to comment a fraud look at the back of the sin card (not to be use for identification) who own it not you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!