>>>Now I understand why you are fighting this, they presented you with $30,000 bill for back taxes.
>>
>>That is one part of it. This has been triggered when they sent the ruling. Because of all the noise the ruling has created, which has been launched after a Canadian member complained about an undesired tax, which was really insulting for me because I knew it was ok to tax canadiens, the CRA decided to investigate. So, they then said that because a ruling is now effective, that this ruling should now be back related up to the time Level Extreme started to operate the service. So, they calculated that the first year of operation should have taxed international customers. So, not only did they calculate that I have to pay them money, but they also have retained several thousands that they owe me for the last quarter. Because, when you deal with 90% of your income from the international market, it means that, in most cases, you will have more tax paid on expenses than the tax you are collecting. In that case, the government reimburse you for the difference. So, that was extremely
>>frustrated. The second part is that from that point, the company was jeopardized because the tax is now applicable to international customers and we have to fight to drop that as well.
>
>Michel, I'm trying to understand the logic. Did anybody explain why the government feels that someone who buys your service in, say, Bulgaria, might use it in Canada and therefore must be taxed, while a Bulgarian who buys shoes by mail couldn't possibly ever use those shoes in Canada, so doesn't need to pay a taz? Or do I completely misunderstand what they mean when they say 'may be used in Canada'.

I think the logic, or lack of logic, is that for instance I may very well log into UT whenever I come to Canada. So, to make sure that the Canadian authoroties don't miss any tax money, they want everyone to pay this tax if there is only a tiny chance that they may ever come to Canada. Why the same logic does not apply in the shoe sample you provide, I don't think anyone can explain. Or maybe some bureaucrats or prliticians.

Reminds me of the teacher who asks her pupils what they will become when they grow up. One boy says "politician", and some of the other children asks him if he's stupid. The boy says "I didn't know that was a requirement".