>Today I received a reply on an e-mail I have sent to: marlene.poirier@ccra-adrc.gc.ca
>The text of my e-mail can be read at: Non-resident paying Canadian taxes???? Thread #997675 Message #997675
>Marlene Poirier is the (or a) Senior Technical Interpretations Analyst of Canada with regard to GST/HST Rulings and the one who forced Level Extreme Inc. to collect the 15% HST.
>
>I don't think that she will regard it as a violation of privacy if I publish a part here:
>
>"Generally supplies of goods and services when made to non-residents are zero-rated (0% tax charged) under specific conditions. The supply of intangible personal property i.e. the right to access and view information, is not covered under of the zero rating provisions of Schedule VI of the Excise Tax Act. Therefore, GST at the rate of 7%, or HST at the rate of 15% will apply on the supply. When this supply is made in a participating province (New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia) the supply is taxable at 15%.
>This information can be found in our Technical Bulletin B-090 GST/HST and Electronic Commerce. The website link to this bulletin is http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/gm/b-090/b-090-01-e.html"
>
>I have also tried to read http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/E-15/56396.html (especcially Part V Exports). Several things come to my mind.
>As I read it, the whole thing mentions all kinds of 'intangible personal property' that are zero-rated. So, why does she claim that intangible personal property is not covered under these zero rating provisions? Or does she intend to say that 'the right to access and view information' is not covered? From what (internal) document did she pick up that definition?
>'The right to access and view information' sounds like she regards Level Extreme as the intellectual owner of all content and the subscribers as customers who can only view that information. But that is not the real situation at all, of course. The international community is the intellectual originator of the content and has the ability to download and modify it. If there is an owner, then it is the international community and it's not simply a matter of a right to view. It's not like listening to a commercial Canadian radio station, as covered by example 2 of http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/gm/b-090/b-090-04-e.html#P22_93.
>
>I have asked Michel what else I can do. He has made clear to me that he has decided to contact 'the news', because he is kind of desperate (okay, that's my wording :).
>
>I think we all here can help Michel a lot by making clear what we think of this act of the Canadian Tax Department. Michel hardly has a case if he can't back it up with stories from complaining customers.
>
>So, dear members of this community, please respond seriously to this thread and give your opinion and arguments!!
>
>Please, also give your name, profession and country.
>
>And last, but not least, if you have to renew your PUTM one the weeks to come, don't make life harder for Michel, especcially now that he has to invest extra in order to cope with this threat. Renew, even though that means that you have to pay the 15% HST. I'm sure that Michel will think of something if (no, WHEN) he finally wins this case. Personally, I will renew it tomorrow, for sure.

Good morning Peter;

Taxes are one of the reasons business move. Find an environment that has a favorable tax base and establish your business there. People living in California incorporate in the state of Nevada, which costs little, and has many tax benefits. American corporations move off shore to avoid taxes and restrictions at home.

Perhaps Michel should consider moving his business to a new location?

Tom