09:51:14 EDT Fri 26 Apr 2024
Enter Symbol
or Name
USA
CA



BCSC-banned Poonian cited for hefty tax bill

2019-01-02 11:14 ET - Street Wire

This item is part of Stockwatch's value added news feed and is only available to Stockwatch subscribers.

Here is a sample of this item:

by Mike Caswell

The Attorney-General of Canada has begun a case in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against Vancouver promoter Thal Poonian and his wife over tax debts totalling $4.31-million. The government claims that the Poonians have failed to pay their taxes over a period of at least 10 years. The Poonians are seeking release from those debts through bankruptcy.

The statements from the Attorney-General come in a brief notice that government lawyers filed on Thursday, Dec. 27, at the Vancouver courthouse. The case stems from a prior bankruptcy filing by Mr. Poonian and his wife through Grant Thornton Ltd. as trustee. As with most who file for bankruptcy, the Poonians are seeking to have their debts erased, or at least seriously reduced. The government is opposed to granting them a discharge from bankruptcy. It is asking that the courts order them to pay some or all of what they owe before they can be discharged.

According to Thursday's notice, the couple's debts include a hefty tax bill. The government says that the Poonians have failed or refused to pay their income taxes going all the way back to 2007 (in the case of Mr. Poonian) and 2008 (in the case of his wife). The amounts owing are significant. Mr. Poonian's debts, which are from the years 2007 through 2013, total $1.53-million. Those of his wife are slightly more recent, from 2008 to 2016, and total $2.78-million. The government does not say why it is only in court now to collect the money.

The remainder is available to Stockwatch subscribers.
Sign-up for a FREE 30-day Stockwatch subscription and SEE NO ADS

© 2024 Canjex Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.


Reader Comments - Comments are open to paying subscribers of Stockwatch and unmoderated, although libelous remarks, obscene language and impersonations may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Stockwatch.
For information regarding Canadian libel law, please view the University of Ottawa's FAQ regarding Defamation and SLAPPs.


The promoter and his wife avoided paying taxes for 10 years. Why isn't jail an option for them? I'm sure that they have no identifiable assets that the government can seize, so jail would be the best alternative.

Posted by Just Me at 2019-01-03 09:22

Mr Stockwatch you forgot to include in your article that BCSC intentionally with-held evidence. If you missed it here is the URL for the OIPC BC Order F15-08. https://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/1760

Is intentionally with-holding evidence normal due course business for the Canadian court system?

Posted by Unlimited at 2019-01-27 15:33

The bureaucrats at BCSC are over paid, fiefdom building individuals who have ruined the brokerage industry over the last 15 years in BC and have evolved to implementing a two-tier enforcement system in BC. Shouldn't Brenda Leong be behind bars for intentionally withholding evidence and anyone else associated with her at the time? Just because they get fired or quit does not make them immune to prosecution. The OIPC BC Order 1760 which clearly shows that they intentionally withheld evidence.

Posted by Unlimited at 2019-01-27 15:34

15 years ago there were 17 BC based investment firms (brokerage houses) and under policies started by Doug Hyndham and carried on by Brenda there are now 2. They have killed the entire brokerage industry and yet there are over 170 full time employees at bcsc at the present time. How is this good public policy? this has always been a two tiered system of enforcement and it has not changed much over the years.

Posted by Unlimited at 2019-01-27 15:35

Is BCSC a Sham? Copy and paste this url and be the judge yourself

http://bcsecuritiescommissionasham.blogspot.ca/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/burkechristopher/bc-securities-commission-a-sham-24wgw

BCSC has no clear direction anymore. Time to clear the swamp.

Posted by Unlimited at 2019-01-27 15:36

For any law abiding, tax paying Canadian, it is common sense that you cannot hold a third party accountable for one's actions. Why did BCSC go to this extent on this file? What is BCSC hiding? Truth always catches up Brenda and the gang.

Posted by Unlimited at 2019-01-27 15:36

Civil lawsuit against Brenda, Paul, Teresa, Paige, and the gang?????

Posted by Unlimited at 2019-01-27 15:37

To the new BC government: My advice to you get rid of all the dead wood at BCSC and start fresh with a mandate that is BC First. These bureaucrats have evolved into where their mandate is now job creation and job protection for themselves. From 2010 to 2015 BCSC paid Paul Bourque to fly in from Toronto to work as the Executive Director of BCSC. They could not find anyone local in BC? How is an individual from Ontario going to look after the BC Interest? The results speak for themselves, the brokerage industry has 2 BC based brokerage left. Let's see how long they last.

Posted by Unlimited at 2019-01-27 15:37

OIPC BC Order F14-24 stated that "The British Columbia Securities Commission applied for authorization to disregard the respondent’s request for records and any similar requests he may make in the future because they are frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the access request and any similar future requests are not frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(b). The application was dismissed." He is for sure Thal Poonian.

This is intentionally with-holding evidence. Here is the URL

https://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/1668

Posted by Unlimited at 2019-01-27 15:38

OIPC Order F15-08 states that "The applicant requested information regarding BCSC’s communications with government and private organizations regarding the applicant and four named companies. BCSC refused to disclose the requested information on the grounds that the information was protected by solicitor-client privilege and s. 14 of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator found that BCSC had proven that litigation privilege applied to some of the records and they could be withheld under s. 14. However, neither litigation privilege nor legal advice privilege applied to the rest of the records, so they could not be withheld under s. 14." The applicant is for sure Thal Poonian. BCSC was ordered to disclose over 700 records to Thal Poonian. Why did BCSC with-hold these records? Have they done a complete and full disclosure?

Here is the URL https://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/1760

Posted by Unlimited at 2019-01-27 15:39

Slovenly work by the overpaid, chronically under-achieving commission, or something more sinister? At this point no one knows. Although it would be for a court to decide whether withholding evidence due to ineptitude, slovenly practices, etc would be considered a valid defense. One would assume that with their vast resources and small army of second string amateurs, at least *one* of the nose-pickers could track the money and allocate who owes what. This amateurish blanket order regarding the disgorgement of proceeds shines a cruel and bright light on either a gang of incompetents or a corrupt and calculating group of rule-breakers who themselves deserve to be facing charges. Either way it is high time the commission were temporarily suspended pending a thorough investigation.

Posted by Unlimited at 2019-01-27 15:40

Read this website to see that BCSC staff Difonzo and Leon have international summons from the Federal courts of Chile to appear in the courts of Chile. If they don't then the summons are converted into International Warrants for their arrest.

https://tsxabxlibeled.wixsite.com/mysite

I guess the whole world is catching up to the BCSC's antics. According to the site Brenda Leong is next in line for the summons. Have a good one way trip to Chile.

Posted by Unlimited at 2019-01-27 15:41

For information in regards to the "actual truth" about how the BCSC really operates etc., http://bcsctruthmovement.com/ THIS IS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE BCSC.

Posted by Unlimited at 2019-01-27 15:50

Case File# in US District Court, Southern District of New York, 18-CV-00342

https://business.financialpost.com/news/fp-street/six-canada-banks-accused-of-manipulating-derivatives-benchmark

Q: Is this not fraud? So, why did OSC, IROC, and BCSC not investigate/prosecute for committing outright fraud? Do the Banks get preferred treatment in a "two tier enforcement" system?

Posted by Unlimited at 2019-01-27 16:33


Comments for this item are closed