www.kamloopschamber.ca/list/member/first-nations-tax-commission-kamloops-346#:~:text=The%20First%20Nations%20Tax%20Commission,property%20tax%20and%20local%20revenues. (accessed January 20, 2020 courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/chapter/nation-states-and-sovereignty/#:~:text=Westphalian%20system%3A%20A%20global%20system,matter%20how%20large%20or%20small). Retrieved 16 July 2020. When the sections of Chapter 16 above are considered in the tax treaty (and not a treaty or part of the final Nisga`a agreement), it is clear that for tax purposes, the Nisga`a Nation is considered a municipality and/or public entity performing a governmental function. By the way, while I am focusing on the Nisga`a Nation, they are not alone – other First Nations have followed a similar legal agreement. The following sections of the Nisga`a Tax Treaty are informative: For the avoidance of doubt, the above agreement is not part of the Final Nisga`a Agreement or the Nisga`a Tax Convention. This is a third agreement resulting from Chapter 16 [Taxation] of the Nisga`a Final Agreement. The obvious reason for such an agreement is economic in nature – “economies of scale”. Why would First Nations replicate the CRA when they can take advantage of this administrative capacity? Finally, with the exception of Quebec [for all taxes] and Albert [corporate tax], all provinces and territories have these agreements with the CRA, which collects their taxes free of charge. As with consumption and property taxes, Nisga`a citizens will no longer be exempt from income tax effective January 1, 2013. British Columbia and NLG are negotiating an agreement to share income tax revenues.

The parties expect British Columbia to receive 50% of british Columbia income tax paid by Nisga`a citizens living on Nisga`a lands in 2013. [11] The First Nations Tax Commission (NTC) is a First Nations public institution with shared governance that supports the taxation of First Nations under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and section 83 of the Indian Act. The FNTC`s goal goes far beyond property taxes and local revenues. The NNTC also aims to create the legal, administrative and infrastructural framework required for First Nation land markets, create a competitive investment climate in First Nations, and use economic growth as a catalyst for greater First Nations self-reliance. The NNTC ensures that the First Nations tax system functions effectively, is well coordinated, improves First Nations economic growth and meets the needs of taxpayers. We support First Nations in the preparation of laws and statutes and provide training and dispute resolution services. Is it desirable for First Nations to adopt Canada`s tax system in light of the CRA`s general complaints of administrative abuse or negligence? Is it reasonable to conclude that the sovereignty of the First Nation will be compromised if and when Canada`s tax system is integrated into the creation of surpluses of the First Nation and the CRA manages the “redistribution portion” of that system? Let`s consider some hypothetical questions. [7] According to the CRA: “As a result of the amendments to the Income Tax Act on 1. Effective January 2012, municipal and public entities wishing to perform a governmental function in Canada and be recognized as eligible recipients must apply for registration and be placed on a list maintained by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). As eligible recipients, they have the right to issue official donation receipts and receive donations from registered charities. “Here, the cliché `there is no free lunch` applies. First, the credit rating agency retains all penalties and interest it charges to non-compliant taxpayers.

It`s not a small amount of money, so in the worst case, the rating agency recovers its costs. Second, when defined as self-determination, self-government and the possession of legal jurisdiction over all of its affairs, including taxation, the “sovereign” of the First Nation is undermined. If this is really another “order” of government, they should incorporate some oversight and accountability authority into their agreements with the CRA. Is it possible to have a convention that recognizes your country`s inherent right to territory, self-determination and self-government, but ancillary “agreements”, the parts of the agreement (Chapter 16 Taxation) of the Crown and its agents (i.e., the CRA)? Can we say that the Nisga`a Nation and its citizens exist as “another order” of government? In terms of fiscal powers, the Nisga Nation clearly has no provincial status and certainly has nothing to do with the Westphalian notion[8] of state sovereignty. Canada`s “interference” or “displacement” in the creation of surpluses and wealth and the sharing and redistribution of customs, practices and laws inherent in a First Nation`s legal tradition seem undisputed. Since the previous questions have no definitive answers, the main thing is that the old colonial tax system prevails. Therefore, freeing up the Nisga`a Nation`s “fiscal leeway” is a discretionary power for the federal and provincial governments. So where is the legal jurisdiction of the sovereign Nisga`a nation, enshrined in its inherent right with respect to Article 35(1) of the 1982 Constitution? This question arises from sections 3 and 4 of Chapter 16[6].

Why even a chapter 16 of a comprehensive land claims agreement, which clearly requires a tax treaty between a First Nation and the Crown, but states that the agreement is not part of the “modern treaty”? If some First Nations are to be truly self-determined and self-reliant, how can they accept what appears to be a subordinate position, since their legal jurisdiction over the creation and sharing of surpluses is based on what the Crown is prepared to “liberate”? And these powers must be “harmonized” with Canada`s colonial tax system. Let`s see if there are any answers in chapter 16. Here are the sections that delimit fiscal authority as a delegated and non-inherent right of the Nisga`a Nation: [8] Westphalian system: A global system based on the principle of international law that each state has sovereignty over its territory and internal affairs, excluding all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of another country, and that every State (regardless of size) is the same in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years` War.3 The Final Nisga`a Agreement is a treaty and agreement on land claims within the meaning of §§ 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. [5] 1. The Nisga`a Lisims Government may enact laws regarding the direct taxation of Nisga`a citizens on Nisga`a lands to generate revenue for the nisga`a Nation or Nisga`a village. .

www.kamloopschamber.ca/list/member/first-nations-tax-commission-kamloops-346#:~:text=The%20First%20Nations%20Tax%20Commission,property%20tax%20and%20local%20revenues. (accessed January 20, 2020 courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/chapter/nation-states-and-sovereignty/#:~:text=Westphalian%20system%3A%20A%20global%20system,matter%20how%20large%20or%20small). Retrieved 16 July 2020. When the sections of Chapter 16 above are considered in the tax treaty (and not a treaty or part of the final Nisga`a agreement), it is clear that for tax purposes, the Nisga`a Nation is considered a municipality and/or public entity performing a governmental function. By the way, while I am focusing on the Nisga`a Nation, they are not alone – other First Nations have followed a similar legal agreement. The following sections of the Nisga`a Tax Treaty are informative: For the avoidance of doubt, the above agreement is not part of the Final Nisga`a Agreement or the Nisga`a Tax Convention. This is a third agreement resulting from Chapter 16 [Taxation] of the Nisga`a Final Agreement. The obvious reason for such an agreement is economic in nature – “economies of scale”. Why would First Nations replicate the CRA when they can take advantage of this administrative capacity? Finally, with the exception of Quebec [for all taxes] and Albert [corporate tax], all provinces and territories have these agreements with the CRA, which collects their taxes free of charge. As with consumption and property taxes, Nisga`a citizens will no longer be exempt from income tax effective January 1, 2013. British Columbia and NLG are negotiating an agreement to share income tax revenues.

The parties expect British Columbia to receive 50% of british Columbia income tax paid by Nisga`a citizens living on Nisga`a lands in 2013. [11] The First Nations Tax Commission (NTC) is a First Nations public institution with shared governance that supports the taxation of First Nations under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and section 83 of the Indian Act. The FNTC`s goal goes far beyond property taxes and local revenues. The NNTC also aims to create the legal, administrative and infrastructural framework required for First Nation land markets, create a competitive investment climate in First Nations, and use economic growth as a catalyst for greater First Nations self-reliance. The NNTC ensures that the First Nations tax system functions effectively, is well coordinated, improves First Nations economic growth and meets the needs of taxpayers. We support First Nations in the preparation of laws and statutes and provide training and dispute resolution services. Is it desirable for First Nations to adopt Canada`s tax system in light of the CRA`s general complaints of administrative abuse or negligence? Is it reasonable to conclude that the sovereignty of the First Nation will be compromised if and when Canada`s tax system is integrated into the creation of surpluses of the First Nation and the CRA manages the “redistribution portion” of that system? Let`s consider some hypothetical questions. [7] According to the CRA: “As a result of the amendments to the Income Tax Act on 1. Effective January 2012, municipal and public entities wishing to perform a governmental function in Canada and be recognized as eligible recipients must apply for registration and be placed on a list maintained by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). As eligible recipients, they have the right to issue official donation receipts and receive donations from registered charities. “Here, the cliché `there is no free lunch` applies. First, the credit rating agency retains all penalties and interest it charges to non-compliant taxpayers.

It`s not a small amount of money, so in the worst case, the rating agency recovers its costs. Second, when defined as self-determination, self-government and the possession of legal jurisdiction over all of its affairs, including taxation, the “sovereign” of the First Nation is undermined. If this is really another “order” of government, they should incorporate some oversight and accountability authority into their agreements with the CRA. Is it possible to have a convention that recognizes your country`s inherent right to territory, self-determination and self-government, but ancillary “agreements”, the parts of the agreement (Chapter 16 Taxation) of the Crown and its agents (i.e., the CRA)? Can we say that the Nisga`a Nation and its citizens exist as “another order” of government? In terms of fiscal powers, the Nisga Nation clearly has no provincial status and certainly has nothing to do with the Westphalian notion[8] of state sovereignty. Canada`s “interference” or “displacement” in the creation of surpluses and wealth and the sharing and redistribution of customs, practices and laws inherent in a First Nation`s legal tradition seem undisputed. Since the previous questions have no definitive answers, the main thing is that the old colonial tax system prevails. Therefore, freeing up the Nisga`a Nation`s “fiscal leeway” is a discretionary power for the federal and provincial governments. So where is the legal jurisdiction of the sovereign Nisga`a nation, enshrined in its inherent right with respect to Article 35(1) of the 1982 Constitution? This question arises from sections 3 and 4 of Chapter 16[6].

Why even a chapter 16 of a comprehensive land claims agreement, which clearly requires a tax treaty between a First Nation and the Crown, but states that the agreement is not part of the “modern treaty”? If some First Nations are to be truly self-determined and self-reliant, how can they accept what appears to be a subordinate position, since their legal jurisdiction over the creation and sharing of surpluses is based on what the Crown is prepared to “liberate”? And these powers must be “harmonized” with Canada`s colonial tax system. Let`s see if there are any answers in chapter 16. Here are the sections that delimit fiscal authority as a delegated and non-inherent right of the Nisga`a Nation: [8] Westphalian system: A global system based on the principle of international law that each state has sovereignty over its territory and internal affairs, excluding all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of another country, and that every State (regardless of size) is the same in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years` War.3 The Final Nisga`a Agreement is a treaty and agreement on land claims within the meaning of §§ 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. [5] 1. The Nisga`a Lisims Government may enact laws regarding the direct taxation of Nisga`a citizens on Nisga`a lands to generate revenue for the nisga`a Nation or Nisga`a village. .