Manulife T4A For 2015

I think the lawyers should get sued

1. No tax on LTD;

2. 74% recovery for COLA loss? Crime isn't supposed to pay;

3. Pre-99 COLA continues to use "net SISIP" but post-99 gets "gross SISIP" COLA;

4. 1976-1992 vets got no interest;

5. Simple interest is wrong;

McInnes Cooper was incompetent

since they were negotiating with the GOC it would have made it very profitable for them to negotiate for a deemed tax wavier . but since they get paid pre tax ?????

what's the point no profit for them in that . get what they can get in a payout and sure some vets get fracked hard but they actually make a couple of extra bucks .

ya see what I'm saying .

propat

actually lawyers are representing the clients  and very much can sue for or staying in context negotiate for amounts  to offset any and all adverse effects of taxation that their clients would not have if it were not for the actions of the respondent eg; deemed tax .

in fact that is what the lawyers in this case did but only got 3.27 % on a flat calculation not even anywhere close to the number some of the long term clients were paying year for year not to mention that is calculated in a compounded nature .

now since the lawyers get paid before tax it didn't matter to them if they got ANY amount for this at all because they get paid about the same slightly more actually .

however if they got paid after tax I can sure as crap guarantee you that they would have got a crap load more than 3.27% because they are all about the money .

propat

Tax is a personal issue between an individual & the state so the lawyers have no say at all.

The SISIP case put a lot of effort into tax for nothing:

1. No tax required in law to be deducted as per ITA s. 200(2)(f);

2. No tax required as ITA s. 6(1)(f) requires the insurance payment to be made periodically & a lump sum isn't periodic, by definition;

3. Tax was assessed on interest paid! WTF? Interest on a consensual investment should be taxed but interest on damages in contract is not taxed as per IT365R2

ya not sure about your attention to detail buds I DID NOT say it was a tort suit AT ALL .

I SAID " I also believe its a structural tort issue."

two different things .perhaps you missed that detail ?????

as you may or may not realize the structure of tort as it pertains to how the lawyers get paid in class action suits ( the exact context of my post ) is used in many other facets of law like insurance law and such.

now back to my point IN CONTEXT and what I was ACTUALLY saying .

this should change . the lawyers should have just as much at steak over the tax issue as the class members themselves .

propat

Blame my attention to detail but SISIP was not a tort lawsuit. It was a contract lawsuit.

Tort doesn't require a relationship to exist beforehand but contract disputes are between people that are related in that they signed a deal.

SISIP should not be taxed, it is not income. Insurance repays for loss but the Compensation principle states there can be NO profit with insurance.

well I wish you luck buds and I'm with you . yes it is a general tax issue and not a veterans issue . I also believe its a structural tort issue . let me explain . as in this case many cases may see tax especially deemed tax issues as a big problem that can negatively effect the clients but not in the least bit the lawyers representing them .

I think this must be changed to the lawyers getting their cut post tax or net if you will . if this was in place for this lawsuit I guarantee you the settlement would have been different because the lawyers would have as much at steak as their clients on this issue .

propat

Nah, I'm working on getting media to notice as this is a systemic problem.

For example: Pay Equity QRLSP's

This is not a veteran issue, it is a general tax issue

ya buds thought this was going to be an issue long before the case was settled and knew for a fact it would be when I seen the proposed settlement especially when you consider the lawyers get their cut per tax not after tax so our concerns really are not theirs on this issue .

a lot of the problem comes down to the deemed tax . not for myself mind you the 3.27 % or whatever it was I'm sure made up for my deemed tax maybe more or less but close . however the long term guys would really get hurt by this loosing 10-60k or more just in deemed tax alone .

my letter to the judge was really all about this issue and how this would ensure that those that suffered the most by this illegal action would end up suffering the most again by this settlement .

apparently this didn't effect the judges decision so now I'm afraid its a done deal.

propat

Couldn't find the right thread so here it is:

SISIP class action vets got SCREWED ROYALLY on tax

1. Tom Anderson
Line 260: $144k taxable income
Line 435: $160k tax!

2. Rick
Line 260: $145k
Line 435: $150k!

3. Grant
Line 260: $57k
Line 435: $40k!

Everyone should get a copy of the career premiums & claim off Box 107 on the T4A form as per Inome Tax Act s. 6(1)(f)(v) which allows you to claim the amount. I estimate $1500 per year of service based on the figures available from the PSMIP plan. SISIP's figures are Top Secret, can;t get them easily. I do know the amount from 2009-now is $1700 per year. I used both the employer sahre, paid on your behalf + our share. The employer's share could have been paid to you but they chose to retain the employer's share for SISIP (Reference: Cunningham v Wheeler SCC 1994 where Ms. Cooper was paying 30% of the LTD premium but the SCC judges said no one gets anything for free so the cost must have been deducted from her wages. At the time, her cost per year was $3000 for her LTD)

OK good , you can go back for a total of ten years , and then every year after going forward.

I claim my yearly payments to the plan every year for the last 5 years since I though of it.

peep ,

Have you ever claimed your PSHP and Dental ?

Just got my letter. I payed $1718.74 to sisip, hope it does something