http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/109180/index.do 
Fong v. Canada (April 21, 2015 – 2015 FCA 102, Stratas (author), Ryer, Near JJA).
Précis: This was a decision on appeals from four interlocutory orders of the Tax Court. One was dismissed as moot. The remaining appeals dealing with discretionary matters such as scheduling were dismissed as not disclosing any palpable and overriding error. The appeals dealing with constitutional arguments such as the ability of the federal Crown to share tax revenues with the provinces and the “natural person” argument were dismissed as being entirely without merit. The Crown was awarded $2,000 costs, all inclusive.
Decision: This was an appeal from four unreported decisions of the Tax Court on interlocutory matters. All appeals were dismissed from the bench. One appeal, dealing with a scheduling issue, was dismissed as moot. The remaining appeals fell in two categories:
[4] In the three remaining orders under appeal, the Tax Court dealt with a number of matters. These fall within two categories:
• Requests for discretionary relief, such as a production order against the Canada Revenue Agency, an amendment to an earlier order, scheduling issues concerning a motion to strike and other matters; and
• Requests for legal relief on the grounds that the Minister does not have authority to make the assessments in issue, the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) is constitutionally invalid because, among other things, the federal government cannot share its tax revenues with the provinces, and the non-distinction between a flesh and blood living man and a legal person is constitutionally invalid.
The former category of appeals were dismissed as not disclosing any palpable and overriding error on the part of the Tax Court. The latter category were similarly dismissed:
[7] In the second category, the Tax Court did not err in law. It identified subsection 152(4) of the Income Tax Act as the statutory source for the Minister’s authority to issue the assessments. The appellant has supplied no viable constitutional basis for invalidating the section or the Act. In particular, the federal government may share its tax revenues with provinces: Guillemette v. The Queen (1999), 240 N.R. 384, 63 C.R.R. (2d) 364 at paragraph 3 (Fed. C.A.). The constitutional argument about the non-distinction between a flesh and blood living man and a legal person has been rejected repeatedly by this Court and has no basis whatsoever.
The Crown was awarded costs of $2,000, all inclusive.