http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/72947/index.do 
Bertucci v. The Queen (July 17, 2014 – 2014 TCC 230 ) was another in the large number of recent cases dealing with forms of tax protest. The appellant argued that he was not subject to the provisions of the
Income Tax Act. He did not meet with a warm reception:
[6] Although the Appellant stated that he did not belong to a particular group, he used the concepts and terminology associated with the Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (“OPCA”) litigant who was described by J.D. Rooke A.C.J.Q.B. in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571. The Appellant relied on a plethora of legislation (none of which was relevant except the ITA); legal maxims; definitions from the Canadian Law Dictionary; forms and letters from the CRA; and forms from various departments in the Ontario government. He stated that the forms from the CRA were not clear whereas the forms from the Ontario government were unambiguous; he questioned whether the T1 form with the General Income Tax and Benefit Guide was “legitimate”; and, whether the CRA represents the Minister of National Revenue. It appeared to me that the essence of his argument was that the definition of “person” in the ITA did not clearly state that it applied to him as a “human being, a private individual” and an independent contractor.
[7] It is my view that the Appellant, like most litigants who use the tactics of saying that the ITA does not apply to them, did not really misunderstand the ITA. In the present case, the Appellant did not misunderstand the definition of “person” in the ITA. His actions and letters to the CRA indicated a “conscious intention to disobey”. See Meads (supra) at paragraph 561. The Appellant was not trying to minimize his taxes but was avoiding the payment of any taxes. There was absolutely no merit to any of his arguments.
[8] In conclusion, the Appellant was a “person” resident in Ontario, Canada in 2001 and 2002 and the income he received in those years is taxable. There was never a dispute that he received income of $16,221 and $31,764 in 2001 and 2002 respectively and that he did not file his income tax returns for those years. Late filing penalties were correctly assessed against the Appellant. The appeal is dismissed.