No, this has never been raised as a relevant point in any of the cases I have seen. So if they hvae never had to prove this before in any other cases, why would it be relevant in your case?
EVERY case I have seen, the CRA submitted evidence usually letters addressed to the Defendants, with the SIN right on it. Responses they made were also submitted, with the SIN acknowledged. They do not have to prove things that are not contested, do they? When questioned they stated they searched the database for evidence of filing by searching the SIN. EVERY TIME.
So to clarify then a competant judge would make CRA prove that you voluntarily accept association with a SIN, while a corrupt judge would not?
Doubt I would even get there. If they send me something with a SIN on it, I know it is not for me, as I do not have one. If there is no SIN, there is no account. Sorry but that is how it works. Their accounts use the SINs as account numbers.
If this is your belief then would you say that every previous judge who ever dealt with a tax case was corrupt?
Why would I believe that? That is ludicrous, and makes no sense. They see people accepting the SIN's, and using them in their correspondence. They act upon the belief they are associated, as that is what the evidence shows.
I called CRA once, and asked if I owed money. They asked what my SIN was, I said I do not have one. They said "Well then you do not have an account with us. Would you like me to transfer you to HRC to apply for one?"
I said no thank you and hung up.
Like I said, having a SIN is a choice, and without one you have no account with CRA, and if that is the case, you have no obligation to them. I guess it is too easy eh?
