The Tax Court of Canada recently released Hester v. The Queen, which addressed the issue of tax exemptions for Aboriginals working off the reserve for an employer located on a reserve.  The two Aboriginal appellants (Joseph Hester and Mildred Bondy) argued that:

(1) in interpreting the phrase “situated on a reserve” in subsection 87(1) of the Indian Act, employment income is situate where the employer is located.

(2) the “connecting factor” analysis (as laid out in Williams v. The Queen, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 877) was intended to have limited analysis and does not apply to employment income.

Continue reading →

Julie Pigeon, from Batchewana First Nation in Ontario was not successful in her attempt to avoid paying taxes to the Canadian government.

The case is here.

The Minister of National Revenue reassessed Pigeon’s tax liability for her income on the basis that her salary for the years in question was not the personal property of an Indian situated on a reserve (she lived off the reserve) within the meaning of section 87 of the Indian Act and — therefore — she was not exempt from income tax by any other enactment of Parliament within the meaning of paragraph 81(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act

Deputy Judge Rowe of the Tax Court of Canada noted that she hadn’t served the required notice on the Attorney General of Canada and on each Attorney General of the Provinces prior to her attack on the constitutional validity of the particular provision of the Act.

Interestingly, other than reading a written statement in court, Ms. Pigeon did not call any evidence.

Her statement is provided below, in its entirety.

Continue reading →