Mediaboss Marketing

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, here arriving for the funeral of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, will set off a brutal campaign over his successor if he retires this spring.(Photo: Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images)

WASHINGTON There is no vacancy atthe Supreme Court, but liberal and conservative activists are ready to do battle overone.

The potential retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy the deciding vote on dozens of controversial cases over a 30-year careerhas energized both sides for what likely would be the most divisive confirmation battle in decades.

Strategy sessions are being held with increasingfrequency. Commercial messages are being crafted in favor and against any potential nominee. Moderate senators on both sides of the political aisle whose votes will be critical already have targets on their backs.

Unlike last year, when Justice Neil Gorsuch of Colorado was confirmed to the seat of the late JusticeAntonin Scalia, a fellow conservative, any nominee chosen by President Trump would push the court further to the right. That has liberal interest groups on high alert.

"Its hard to fathom something more important to our rights and freedoms,and especially at this critical time for our democracy," says Kristine Lucius, executive vice president for policy at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200organizations. "I think you would see engagement larger than you've seen in recent memory."

Conservative groups that came together in the $17 million campaign leading to Gorsuch's confirmation a year ago are prepared for a similar effort to unify Republicans around the next nominee.

We have a policy of always being ready," says Carrie Severino, chief counsel at the Judicial Crisis Network, which ran television ads in key states aimed at pressuring wavering Republicans and Democrats. "We are prepared for a vacancy, whenever that might be.

Both sides are ready for a reason. The last justices to retire, David Souter and John Paul Stevens, announced their plans in April 2009 and 2010. Their successors, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, were nominated in May, confirmed in August and hearing cases byOctober.

The court concluded the term's oral arguments Wednesday with another high-profile case towhich Kennedy likely holds the key Trump's immigration travel ban on five predominantly Muslim countries. Kennedy's wife, Mary, watched from a special guest seat.

The preparation, however, may be for naught. Kennedy, 81, has been tight-lipped about his plans, and his cloutas the court's swing vote is at its zenith. With Senate Republicans holding only a 51-49 edge and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., seriously ill with brain cancer, Kennedy nominated to the court in 1987by President Reagan maydecide now is not the time to drop the legal equivalent of a nuclear bomb.

If he calls it quits, attention swiftly will turn to those believed to be atopTrump's list of 25 potential replacements. They include federal appeals court judges Brett Kavanaugh of the District of Columbia, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan,Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana and Amul Thapar of Kentucky.

"Our goalwill be to humanize that person by telling their story right away," says Ron Bonjean, a former top adviser to House and Senate Republican leaders who helped with Gorsuch's confirmation. "And television advertising is going to be a big part of that.

A conservative nominee could create what Supreme Court expert Lee Epstein at Washington University School of Law has saidwould be the most conservative court in 80 years. For that reason, liberals would do their best to defeat the nomination.

Says Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice:It would be malpractice on our part not to be ready.

President Barack Obama's nomination of federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland was doomed in 2016.(Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP)

Trump's opportunity to replace Kennedy, if it comes, would motivate Democrats in much the same way that President Obama's attempt to replace Scalia in 2016 moved Republicans. That's because Kennedy, while conservative on business cases and others, has been a liberal and decisive voiceon social issues such as abortion andgay rights.

It will make everything that has happened previously look small, says Anita Dunn, a senior partner at SKDKnickerbocker, the strategic communications firm at the fulcrumof opposition to Gorsuch last year.

While that ended in defeat, liberals hope improved planning, marketing and particularly fundraising will be more effective the second time around. They planto model the effort on the successful "Protect Our Care" campaign to stop Republicans in Congress from repealing Obamacare.

Expect to hear a lot about abortion rights, which Kennedy helped to protect in a 2016 case from Texas, and gay rights, three years after Kennedy wrote the 5-4 opinion legalizing same-sex marriage. Pro-choice Republican senators such as Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska would be prime targets.

"The easiest way to lose one of them is abortion," says Curt Levey, president of the conservative Committee for Justice.

Liberals also hope to use public support for gun control, as well asthe court's potential role in cases involving Trump as president, candidate or businessman, as reasons to oppose his nominee.

Their effort would be concentrated in places such as Maine, Alaska,Arizona and Tennessee, focusing on moderateas well as retiring senators. Indiana, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia, where Democratic senators are running for re-election in Trump strongholds, also would be targets.

To succeed, liberals may need to catch up to conservatives financially. They are hoping to collect donations from groups such as George Soros's Open Society Foundations to match what conservatives expect from the likes of Charles and David Koch. But they also wouldtap supporters of gay rights, women's rights, environmental protection and other popular left-wing causes.

We have fewer billionaires than they do, and we have fewer millionaires than they do," says Ian Millhiser, a legal analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress. "We have less money to go around.

Any battle to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy will focus on key senators such as Maine's Susan Collins, here with high court nominee Neil Gorsuch before his confirmation last year.(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

Conservative groups had to defend Scalia's seatin 2016-17 by opposing Obama's nominee, federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland, and championing Gorsuch. This time, they wouldbe on offense, seeking to pick up a fifth solidly conservative justice.

Fortunately for Republicans, they control the White House and Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to consider Garland in 2016, then cleared the way for Gorsuch by abolishing the 60-vote requirement needed to bring Supreme Court nominations to the floor.

"Success follows success," Bonjean says. "I think donors are going to be more emboldened to provide the necessaryresources for television advertising and for grass-roots.

White House counsel Don McGahn and outside adviser Leonard Leo,executive vice president of the Federalist Society, wouldplay key roles along with the Judicial Crisis Network and the Kochs' grass-roots organization, fronted by Americans for Prosperity.

If and when there is an announcement about the Supreme Court, our activists will understand the significance, says Rebecca Coffman, spokeswoman for the Koch network, which is heavily involved in the effort to name conservatives to lower federal courts."This is an issue that were going to permanently engage on, and were going to scale up our efforts.

Other outside groups, such as the National Rifle Association, Family Research Counciland Heritage Actionalso wouldbe active in the effort.

Its more of a federation, a loosely connected coalition," says Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "Everybody doing their own thing, but in a coordinated fashion.

For now, both sides are waiting for Kennedy to tip his hand and possibly tip the balance on the Supreme Court for years to come.

Were playing for a generation," Aron says. "Whoever his successor is could well cement the right half on the court and the country for the next 40 years.

Gorsuch: Justice Gorsuch confirms conservatives' hopes, liberals' fears in first year on Supreme Court

Ginsburg: 'Feeling fine' at 85: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fends off retirement

Roberts: Chief Justice Roberts: Will he be Trump's friend or foe?

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2HEG04V

Originally posted here:
Liberals, conservatives prepare for possible Supreme Court ...

By requiring applicants for federal summer jobs grants to attest that their core mandate respects abortion rights, Justin Trudeaus Liberals may have hoped to lead by example.

Instead they have opened a new front in a culture war they may yet come to regret.

Earlier this year, the Halton Catholic District School board passed a motion that bans funds raised through its schools from being donated to charities and organizations that publicly support, either directly or indirectly, abortion, contraception, sterilization, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research.

Read more:

Faith-based groups in limbo after Trudeau governments changes to summer-job funding applications

Part of the impetus for the policy is the quest for a tit-for-tat response to the federal decision to attach an abortion rights clause to summer job funding applications.

But discomfort over the Liberals attestation extends beyond faith-based groups and the anti-abortion lobby.

On Monday in the House of Commons, veteran NDP MP David Christopherson broke ranks with his caucus to support a Conservative motion denouncing the attestation. He believes it is an affront to the right to lawful dissent. Green Party Leader Elizabeth May also feels the government overreached.

When it comes to issues such as reproductive rights and same-sex marriage, Christopherson needs no lessons from the Liberals.

He was an advocate for both causes long before the Liberals developed their recent passion for proactively championing them.

As a member of Bob Raes NDP government at Queens Park in the mid-1990s, Christopherson supported a bill that would have extended the same rights to same-sex couples as those enjoyed by heterosexual ones. All but a handful of Ontarios Liberal MPPs voted against that bill.

A few years later, in 1999, a majority of Jean Chrtiens Liberal caucus joined the Reform party in adopting a motion that reaffirmed that marriage was a union between a man and a woman.

Christopherson had moved on to the House of Commons by the time a group of Liberals joined with the Conservatives to defeat a 2010 motion designed to ensure that Stephen Harpers maternal health care initiative did not exclude from funding, organizations that help third-world women procure safe abortions.

The current Liberal militancy in affirming both abortion and same-sex marriage rights stands in stark contrast with that partys past reluctance in government as in opposition to embrace either fully.

But in their zeal to showcase the depth of their conversion, the Liberals are missing a major point. Public opinion is quite capable of evolving without the intervention of an overbearing government.

The sea change in societal attitudes towards same-sex marriage is a token of that.

For the record, that sea change took place over the tenure of a federal government that was not ideologically predisposed to support a more inclusive marriage institution.

If anything, government efforts to force-march the electorate to a pre-ordained vision of society have a high potential of achieving the opposite.

On Wednesday, Radio-Canada revealed that Service Canada employees had been instructed to stop using terms like mother or father and to avoid using gender-based honorifics such as Mr. or Mrs. in their interaction with the public.

The immediate reaction was overwhelmingly derisive, including from people otherwise supportive of efforts to normalize gender diversity. Some program hosts took to calling each other comrade. The Quebec government quickly shot down the notion that it might follow the federal example.

On a more substantial front, the Trudeau government plans to soon hold national consultations on systemic racism.

If the Quebec experience with a commission on the reasonable accommodation of religious minorities has shown anything it is that when governments come up with a solution in search of a problem they risk aggravating whatever they are attempting to fix.

Based on the still unresolved Quebec debate on the securalism issue, attempts at codifying the day-to-day interactions of a society are at least as likely to further polarize it as to make more people feel at home under a government-built inclusive tent.

In closing, many of the voters who supported the Liberals in the last election did so in the belief that they were getting rid of a Conservative government that let its ideological compass dictate its every move.

Almost three years into the Trudeau mandate, more than a few of them are starting to wonder whether they have actually traded up to an even more ideologically driven government.

Correction - March 22, 2018: This article was edited from a previous version that misstated the day on which Radio-Canada revealed that Service Canada employees had been instructed to avoid using gender-based honorifics in their interactions with the public.

Chantal Hbert is a columnist based in Ottawa covering politics. Follow her on Twitter: @ChantalHbert

See the rest here:
By linking abortion rights to jobs funding the Liberals ...

Ive stumbled upon the formula that liberals based primarily in New York City use to attack those that go against their narrative. I want to discuss their methods and suggest a possible counterattack.

Their attack begins with a low-level staff writer, often a woman, on one of the many blogs that are primary headquartered in NYC, such as Gawker, Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, Atlantic, Salon, Slate, and Wonkette. She writes about the latest man who is a misogynist, racist, or bigot of some sort. Even though all the sites I mentioned are owned by different entities, the hate piece quickly cascades through their network, often within a day. This is no surprise when you consider that staff members at all these sites know each other in real life and have both friendly and sexual relations. Or perhaps they are just lazy and rather copy/paste a news item that someone else wrote instead of finding an original story themselves.

The articles, full of snark and liberal talking points, greatly anger their liberal audience. Now, understand that todays liberal doesnt attack through the courts or policethey go after a mans livelihood using the internet. The articles all contain the victims employment, sometimes even contact information of his boss or CEO (if the victim owns his own company, they will list his advertisers or customers). They are sure to include the source of the victims income.

All those angry readers now channel their anger on Twitter. They form a huge bot army that engages the victims source of income through a deluge of angry tweets, along the lines of Did you know that you employ a man who does so and so? No company can withstand this type of negative publicity, so within a day or two, the victim in question loses his employment. Because all of the sites have huge audiences, the bot army is quite large and impressive.

Their attack depends on four factors:

Their system is quite effective at reaching the desired end, but like all systems, there is a weakness. Can you spot it?

The weakness lies in the original writer of the hit piece. Once the story goes viral, she is often forgotten, but its her where the counterattack can be successfully executed. There really is no point engaging the bot army because their numbers are more than 10,000 times ours. Any attempt to fight them on Twitter will result in defeat, especially when you consider that they have tons of soldiers with over 50,000 followers (I have less than 6,000).

There is also no point in attacking companies like Gawker, who earn millions of dollars a year and can withstand any criticism we throw at them. But the blogger making $30,000 a year, trying to eke out a living in New York City, with hopes of climbing up the career ladder once its clear shes not talented enough to be a real writer, is very vulnerable to being even slightly attacked. Anything that damages her future employment chances will cause her grief, pain, and a decrease in income.

Twitter is a medium that is short and fleeting. Unless we can raise a huge rage army at short notice, which we cant, there is little point using this medium to fight back. But there is a medium which lasts forever, and where numbers dont matter as much. That medium is Google.

I have been successfully destroyed on Google. My name is linked to all sorts of negative material that ensures I will never get a corporate job again in my life. Thats fine with me since I make my living via other means, but thats not fine for blog writers who still need to depend on corporate America. Little Susie is writing for Jezebel today, but she will have to change jobs at some point, meaning a Human Resources airheadwill search for her name to make sure she is a proper fit for the company. What would be HRs reaction if they google their promising applicant and find this?

They wouldnt hire her. Unless shes applying for a position at Jezebel, no respectable company will touch a toxic individual who has been linked to racism. They dont want anyone who may cause controversy for them, and behind rape, nothing says controversy like race. If you dig into these writers work and background, you can easily find cases where they spew anti-white or misandrist views. All thats left is getting that on the first page of Google.

Its a slow-burn attack that will effectively punish these writers and scare their co-workers, whose income is low enough that they need to depend on corporate employment indefinitely, unless one day they get an original thought and can stay away from their iPhone long enough to write a book. It wont work on the big liberal writers like Jessica Valenti or Naomi Wolf, since any attention they get just helps them sell more books, but it does work on the young girl out of college trying to win feminist brownie points by denouncing a man for being creepy based on a bad joke.

If youre still skeptical on whether this will work, simply take a look at Nitasha Tiku, whose anti-white racism I highlighted recently. Within half a day, that post shot to the first page of Google when searching for her name. Whereas one day before Nitasha was gleefully retweeting my hate against her to rally her supporters, the following day she went completely silent. When one of her NYC media friends posted a link to my article, she took only 8 minutes tobeg him to take it down(like an obedient puppy dog, he did).

Does that sound like a girl who doesnt care what anyone says about her? One thing she was wrong about is that the traffic doesnt matterits about page rank. The more people that link to it or retweet it, the higher it will go in a Google result for her name. And this will stay thereforever. She can easily dodge any Twitter attack we send her, but she cant run from Google. No one can.

Not long ago, Buzzfeed insinuated I was a rapist. If I was a lowly staff writer who had to stroke Nick Dentons gay balls every day, Id shake in my boots. Id never get hired in a corporation again. But it actually had four benefits for me:

An attack that would devastate a person like Nitasha put money in my pocket. The reason they dont go after me anymore, even though all of them read me, is because they know that even mentioning me makes me stronger. I lost count how many times it happened where one of them tweeted me (usually a hack from The Atlantic), but then deleted the tweet not an hour later. I am on some type of blacklist, and to me thats fine, because I have enough seed traffic to create agitation in their gender-neutral souls. I also have the power to shoot anyones name to at least the second page of Google within a day. And theres not a damn thing they can do about it.

I scared Nitasha with almost no workit was just one blog post. Now imagine if there was just minor coordination within this part of the masculine sphere to attack one lowly staff writer who can barely make rent the following month. What if the first page of Google has several hits highlighting her anti-white or anti-male behavior? How many sleepless nights do you think she will have? A lot, and do you know how I know? Because several years ago I had those same sleepless nights.

Having your name destroyed on Google is the internet version of getting raped. I know this will hurt them because it hurt me, as right now Im stuck in some backwater European city, waking up at noon every day, banging thin women who bake me cakes and wear heels like theyre sneakers. At the same time I make love to foreign women without condoms, I have immunity from liberal attacks, and have decided to use this immunity for the good of men from my birth country. Its as if I have been blessed with a superpower.

There will be another Pax in the near future. All we have to do is follow these steps:

Our attack is slower and doesnt have the explosiveness of their Twitter bot army, but it works. In time, we will have our own bot army, but until then, Google is the equalizer that will put the brakes on their hatred of men and traditional masculinity. They have money, they have dozens of high-profile sites, and they have millions of readers, but we have the first page of the most popular search engine in the world.

Previously:Are Nitasha Tiku & Anil Dash Racist Against White Men?

More:
How To Defeat New York City Media Liberals Return Of Kings

No, dont go anywhere.

We need to talk. Ill keep it brief.

Below is a fake news article I wrote around six years ago as a joke, trying to show a friend how easy it is to come up with an article that looks plausible and officialAt the bottom of the page, there is a message saying that this is bullshit, clearly and blatantly, just to make sure nobody took this seriously.

And yet, despite this article being the most poorly written piece of shit and probably the worst joke I have ever made, it has been taken so seriously that I have 256 comments awaitingapproval, snopes has had to debunk it by noting the last paragraph, and Ive had NUMEROUS cases of people sending this link to me as an argument.

This is a microcosm ofa very serious problem.

We have a serious problem with fake newsin this country, and if you have come across this page, you probably googled something to the effect of IQ and political views.

Please, stop.If you keep googling things like this, youre going to find what youre looking for. Youre going to find one of those fake/fictitious news websites run by think tanks or fringe political groups, and youre going to read what you want to hear.

Except, next time, you wont come across this message. You wont come across the disclaimer at the bottom saying this bullshit.

Because while I was just a kid trying to make a point, the other news sources are not. They are political groups who want more than anything to tell you what you want to hear and gull you to join their ranks.

You need to do better. You need to check sources, you need to confirm what people are saying is true, even when you agree with them.

Especially when you agree with them.

If you believe what people say because they look like theyre telling the truth, because you agree with them and you assume that they know what theyre talking about, then you are going to be brainwashed, you are going to be gulled, you are going to be fooled. Theyll lie to you more and more.

Save yourself, and help save everyone else from this epidemic. Dont get gulled. Dont become some liars follower.

Check sources, especially when you want the story to be right. If you see something you agree with, dont be a fool and nod your head then move on like so many have with this page.

Stop, look at the source, follow the numbers, read some abstracts, figure out how they came to that conclusion and why. That way, if what someone says is true, you wont just think its true, youll know its true. And if its not, you will have discovered a liar, and no matter how much you wish what they said were true, call them out because the only thing worse than ignorance is willful ignorance.

Ask questions, think critically. We do not want a future run by liars and their followers.

Thats all.

And now, back to this.

A new study conducted at Harvard University shows that in America, Liberals have a significantly lower IQ than Conservatives. The study was conducted on 100,000 registered voters in 40 different states over the last twelve years, and has concluded its results.The first part of the study lists the correlation between political beliefs and intelligence. Subjects of the study were chosen at random and requested to come to an unmarked van to take a test and answer some questions for a reasonable amount of money.Of the 100,000 people, there were people from many doctrines, from conservative to liberal to marxist to fascist. Socialists came out on bottom, with an average IQ of 87. The second worst were Liberals and then Marxists, with 88 and 89 respectively. Conservatives received an average score of 110, which is significantly above average. However, the conservatives did not score the highest. The holder of second place were Communists with an average I.Q of 115, and the first place was apolitical people who did not follow any specific doctrine, who received a whopping score on average of 135.

IAHYM News attempted to interview President Barack Obama on the new find, but he refused to speak directly. Instead, while walking down the strange hallway, he told correspondent Joseph Ducreux that the studywas ridiculous and false, but failed to provide any reason as to why or how the science of the study is at fault.

Hilary Rodham Clinton was also contacted, but she immediately hung upthe phone when she figured out that the study was being mentioned at all.

Other parts of the study included the daily activities of the various people based on their doctrines. Apparently, Liberals are five times more likely to commit a crime, steal or cheat on a test than anybody else except for Socialists, 52% of which have committed a major felony while being watched. Conservatives not only did not commit any crimes, but they actually prevented them, as the few events where a Conservative was threatened by a thief or mugger was hindered by a concealed handgun. Also, Communists are the most likely to commit rape or sexual assault, second to socialists.

The study was conducted in other countries as well, where 81% of Muslim Extremists admitted to following the Liberal doctrine and idolizing President Barack Obama. The study was conducted by a group of roughly 900 different scientists across the country over the past twelve years, each one taking on a little over a hundred people per person.

Reporting from New York City, this is John Bowling. IAHYM News Network, 2011

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Oh yeah, and everything in that bullshit you just read is completely and totally false. There has been no such conclusive study, and all of the Finds are based on public paranoia.If you, even for a second, thought this find might be true, you are probably an idiot.

Like Loading...

Original post:
New Study shows Liberals have a lower average IQ than ...

Posted September 3, 2015

Heres a new, not so nice tax called the Estate Administration Tax (EAT) that the Wynne Liberals slipped through effective Jan. 1, 2015 and no one is talking about it!

Basically, your survivors and executors have to report the value of all your stuff, valuables, cars and trucks, second homes, boats, RVs, right down to the exercise bicycle in the basement.

It is yet another roadblock to discourage real growth in Ontario joining the other job killers and evaporating prosperity. Here are some examples of how the Ontario Liberals have mismanaged the Ontario economy: We have the most expensive electricity rates in North America; a new job- killing Ontario pension plan; the most expensive alcoholic beverages in North America; sky high gasoline taxes; supply management agriculture boards that have driven basic food prices to excessive levels; an integrated sales tax of 13 per cent on all goods and services with minor exceptions.

Yes the province even charges the HST on the cost of your funeral.

The province charges the HST on the electricity you use.

The HST is charged on a number of consumables including vehicles, non-prescription drugs, clothing, and items that most people would describe a food or a derivative.

When does the premier stop her relentless quest to bail out a province she and her predecessor created that is now carrying an $8 billion deficit? Her finance minister claims the Ontario budget will be balanced by 2017.

That runs counter to what her federal Liberal leader is saying. He wants to remove the Harper governments balanced budget legislation and go to deficit financing to fix the countrys infrastructure.

These two leaders who are currently working together to elect federal Liberals in Ontario, but dont seem to be playing from the same page.

For all the details of this new tax grab, go to the link below where the government explains it or you can read the comments from funeral directors printed out below in laymans terms, or both. But be forewarned, its scary stuff.

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/tax/eat/

Our Wynne Liberal Governmentpresumably has to find a way to repay the billion dollars they gave the construction companies not to build the gas-fired hydro plants and subsidizing wind/solar power projects, the Orange air ambulance fiasco, the E-health record keeping program that cost millions, and other boondoggles they created. The aptly named EAT even has local Funeral Directors seeing red.

Heres the skinny of Kathleen Wynnes latest play to extract more money from taxpayers, even after theyre dead.

The current EAT tax rates

Note: There is no estate administration tax payable if the value of the estate is $1,000 or less.

The estate administration tax is calculated on the total value of the estate. For example, for an estate valued at $240,000 the tax would be calculated as follows:

In order to comply with this new death tax, the estate appointed representatives are forced to consult with the following professionals: Financial advisor, registered appraiser, lawyer, funeral director, insurance broker, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, the estate banker. Most of who charge a fee for service in preparing the Estate Administration Tax returns. Those fees along, depending on the size of the estate, could run into the thousands.

Yes, and the return, when filed, must be accompanied with payment in full.

Licensed Funeral Directors Tim Baragar and Jeff Neuman are sounding the alarm bells over a tax program that they say will make life difficult for estate representatives in Ontario. Baragar makes it clear that his service does not end at the cemetery.

He and Jeff Neuman do their best to help families obtain pertinent documents and ensure that a loved ones affairs are in order.

Sounding the Alarm

And thats why Baragar and Neuman are sounding the alarm bells over the newly changed tax that took effect on Jan. 1. Its timelines and penalties are something these Funeral Directors think everyone needs to be aware of.

The newly changed tax program that Baragar finds frightening requires an executor to assess, appraise and value any and all property owned at the time of death on a tight timeline. This EAT appraisal includes anything that is not passed directly to a spouse or passed through joint ownership. Assets that are being gifted to charities also need to be included in the valuation. The tax is then calculated and needs to be paid immediately to the Province of Ontario as a deposit.

Baragar explains it this way when a loved one dies and you are named as the executor of the estate, you apply for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee and then you have only 90 days to file your Estate Information Return. As soon as you file you have to pay the tax as a deposit. And if you dont file, there are serious consequences.

According to the Ministry of Finance, estate representatives who fail to file an Estate Information return as required, or who make false or misleading statements on the return, may be found guilty of an offense and, on conviction, are liable to a fine of at least $1,000 and up to twice the tax payable by the estate or, imprisonment of not more than two years or both.

Has Ontario become a police state?

This is concerning to Baragar. It is completely unreasonable for the Ministry of Finance to expect this reporting within 90 days of the trustee beginning their role, Baragar says. Just getting print outs and information from banks and investment companies takes a lot of time. My biggest concern is that quite typically the trustees are often family members or close friends of the person who has died. So this simply isnt a matter of completing a task that the Ministry of Finance merely views as a new source of income, it is a very emotionally demanding and time-consuming job. Couple that with the added stress of dealing with the loss as a family member or close friend, and it can make this role very upsetting and emotionally draining.

And to be clear the valuation cant be a guess. The Province requires that you be able to back-up what youre filing so if youre not sure what the current market value is of a home, for example, its up to the executor to hire someone to do an appraisal. There is even a link on the Ministrys website to the Appraisal Institute of Canada.

And once you appraise, value and file you still have to be sure that nothing changes. If you made a mistake or if you missed something you have to immediately contact the Ministry (within 30 calendar days) and make all the necessary corrections.

For our Government to threaten these individuals with charges and penalties is absurd, Baragar says. We pay tax when we earn our living. We pay tax when it generates income within an investment. We pay tax when we pull it from that investment, so this same money certainly shouldnt be taxed again within the boundaries of someones estate.

Enough is enough.

Like Loading...

Related

Continued here:
Ontario Liberals now tax your stuff after you die | Guelph ...