» FLDS Blackmore v. Revenue
Jared Facebooked me the following, a Globe story about the Canadian government going after an FLDS elder for polygamy and tax evasion.
In adding up Mr. Blackmore’s income and benefits, the federal government identifies numerous expenses that tax officials say were for personal benefit or the benefit of his polygamous community, and not for business reasons. The list of items include payments for rental housing and for hockey game tickets, expenses related to the use of a Cessna aircraft and paying off personal credit cards.
Expenses which aren’t undertaken to earn business income are allocated to an account, usually called something like “Loans to Shareholders”. At the end of the fiscal period this account is closed against shareholder compensation to minimize taxes.
Pretend you put a personal-use G6 on your corporate black card. Here are the journal entries:
dr. Shareholder Loan (jet) $60 million
cr. Account Payable (Amex) $60 million
Then at tax prep time:
dr. Shareholder Compensation $60 million
cr. Shareholder Loan (jet) $60 million
Simplifying the entries (canceling the loan cr/dr):
dr. Shareholder Compensation $60 million
cr. Account Payable (Amex) $60 million
You’re essentially appropriating value from the company. The problem is when the government asks you to pay taxes on that $60 million — you can’t remit 50% of a private jet.
This also applies to family members of shareholders, which leads to an odd situation. Blackmore is accused of polygamy, and has asked the government to pay for his defense. The CRA audit of his accounts apparently included Blackmore corporate disbursements to his poly-wives and poly-kids in Blackmore’s income, as above.
The tax department also challenges the payment of $40,953.87 in 2003 to Ruth Lane, who is identified in the court document as Mr. Blackmore’s spouse. A woman named Ruth Ann Lane is one of 19 woman allegedly in a polygamous relationship with Mr. Blackmore. “Lane did not perform any work for the company during the 2003 taxation year,” the federal government states. The amount paid to Ms. Lane was “unreported employment remuneration” for Mr. Blackmore, the government says.
Because they’ve deemed his non-cash income to be so high, they’re saying he should pay for his own defense.
Canada assumed Blackmore’s guilt, and is using that assumption to financially short-circuit his defense against the accusation. This doesn’t seem very fair. I know there’s a privacy firewall between the CRA and law enforcement — you’re supposed to report and pay taxes on income from illegal activities — but surely if the tax court says he’s a polygamist for tax purposes that will bias the criminal court’s decision on whether he’s a polygamist for jail purposes? Any IANALs in da house?
A quick note on polygamy: It shouldn’t be illegal — government out of the bedroom! Remember that result in sociology, that people lump “sexual deviants” together? It’s why people used to be paranoid that gay men shouldn’t teach children, because they’re “obviously” paedophiles. Same thing here.
“Polygamy” is, let’s be honest, another cultural shorthand for paedophilia. Rather than confusing the issue with moralizing and religion we should enforce existing age of consent and human trafficking rules. There is no good reason that consenting adults blah blah blah, you can take it from here.
How is it shorthand for paedophilia? Is it simply because the polygamist (in most cases, a polygynist) has other sex partners? If an adult man marries someone of 14 years of age and has no other wives and chooses to have an affair with someone, say 40 years old, does that make him a paedophile?
Hugh McBryde
15 Jun 09 at 12:32 pm
IANAL, but: Yes, that does make him a paedophile. The consummation of the marriage though, not the affair.
My point is that polygamy is incorrectly used as a cultural shorthand for paedophilia. If the authorities want to go after child-brides we have laws for prosecuting that.
The number of people a person is married to is their business.
Jack
15 Jun 09 at 12:41 pm
If that’s your point, then I would agree.
Hugh McBryde
15 Jun 09 at 12:53 pm
You raise the question over who has control over marriage. Is it controlled by the government or by religion? Can this fight for polygamy have some analogy to the gay rights movement?
If you’re leaving it up to people to choose their own fates, is there any responsibility for the government to ensure that children are exposed to what the average Canadian would consider ‘normal’ so that they have a frame of reference in which to make their choices?
I know of a few polygamists. Of the people I know, they are married to only one person and the third person ends up being the girlfriend/boyfriend. There have been some questions over the self esteem of the third individual, but they have all been over the age or consent. This is a very different view of polygamy that of the FLDS, which we hear about. With the potential to marry an extra person, this may change how these polygamist relationships are formed, but if I had to guess, I wouldn’t expect to change the relationships that I know of.
Fred
16 Jun 09 at 12:56 pm
No, the government has to change the definition of ‘normal’. Otherwise they wouldn’t have ever allowed, say, interracial marriages. Canada decided to be a multicultural society — a broad definition of ‘normal’ is how you do that.
In those consenting three-party relationships you’re talking about the third party deserves spousal benefits, etc. Same as with gay marriage, yes. If the third party does have a self esteem problem, which requires evidence to not be a prejudiced viewpoint, then the government telling them they’re a criminal freak won’t help.
Jack
16 Jun 09 at 1:51 pm
Sorry, the reason for the quotes on the ‘normal’ was mainly because I didn’t think it was quite the correct word. What I really should have said “… exposed to the options available to a Canadian, so that they have a better frame of ….”. This relates to my scepticism that the children in these groups aren’t being exposed to what there options are for a relationship and are being married before they even know what else is available to them.
Fred
16 Jun 09 at 2:50 pm
Oh, yeah, fair enough. I guess my point wrt the FLDS thing is that we should be prosecuting them for human trafficking and sex crimes, as appropriate, not freaking out about their culture.
Why is polygamy illegal? Prosecuting polygamists for having different marriage practices feels… heteronormative, I suppose.
Jack
16 Jun 09 at 3:01 pm
A quick note on polygamy: It shouldn’t be illegal — government out of the bedroom!
I’m actually kind of curious about HOW you make polygamy illegal. On the very first day in criminal law, you learn that in order for there to be a crime, there has to be an act.
But “polygamy” isn’t a specific action. All the associated acts I can think of (cohabitation, sex, children w/ multiple women) are legal. I suppose there are bigamy laws, but I was under the impression that the charge here was a separate one for polygamy. Anyone have the answer to this?
RA
16 Jun 09 at 4:59 pm