21st July 2008. Section 165.55 of the Tax Act.
“For the purposes of making a declaration under this subdivision, the Commissioner may treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened, and treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and if appropriate treat the event as; having happened at a particular time and having involved particular action by a particular entity; and treat a particular event that actually happened as having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or having involved particular action by a particular entity(whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity
WTF does this mean?Only a Retarded Lawyer could understand this and a Judge to misinterpret it.The person who drafted this was on LSD at the time I think.
It’s rather sad to think somebody made money from writing that horse shit. The way I would have put it: The commissioner is denying that one thing happened. He has decided that something different happened when it didn’t. End.
Fuck law.
It’s rather sad to think somebody made money from writing that horse shit. The way I would have put it: The commissioner is denying that one thing happened. He has decided that something different happened when it didn’t. End.
Fuck law.