What is your definition of "Indy"?

[CaptRenault]

There is nothing more adorable than reading men discust their knowledge of sex work, so charming, I love it!
Your gullibility is beyond shocking.

This comment seems a bit condescending towards male clients. While we may not have intimate knowledge of the business side of the escort industry, we do have some knowledge of how the business works, especially from the viewpoint of the client. While guys may have misperceptions about your experience as an escort, it's also true that you may have misperceptions about our experience as clients.

 

[BookerL]

Hello all


The working status of a escort Indy or in agency ?
The SCC has already ruled on how to determine if a person is a independent contractor or employee ,here is a list and the link http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/rc4110/rc4110-e.html


Indicators showing that the worker is an employee

The relationship is one of subordination. The payer will often direct, scrutinize, and effectively control many elements of how and when the work is performed.
The payer controls the worker with respect to both the results of the work and the method used to do the work.
The payer determines and controls the method and amount of pay. Salary negotiations may still take place in an employer-employee relationship.
The worker requires permission to work for other payers while working for this payer.
Where the schedule is irregular, priority on the worker's time is an indication of control over the worker.
The payer determines what jobs the worker will do.
The worker receives training or direction from the payer on how to do the work. The overall work environment between the worker and the payer is one of subordination.
The payer chooses to listen to the worker's suggestions but has the final word.
Indicators showing that the worker is a self-employed individual

A self-employed individual usually works independently within a defined framework.
The worker does not have anyone overseeing his or her activities.
The worker is usually free to work when and for whom he or she chooses and may provide his or her services to different payers at the same time.
The worker can accept or refuse work from the payer.
The working relationship between the payer and the worker does not present a degree of continuity, loyalty, security, subordination, or integration, all of which are generally associated with an employer-employee relationship.

Having read many of the comments in this thread some have used Criminal court rulings to justify that a escort working in agency is a employee ,well that was funny ,since it is not of the competence of a criminal court to establish those perimeters .



Has for the level of understanding of a client in a business in which he is not involve or seeing Indy escort explaining how agencies are managed both situation are funny .

Hopefully a General in the army has a better understanding of the military then the Private ,A Police chief a Better understanding of policing then a Constable and in the same line a "Booker " of a big agency (15 girls and more at once ) then the person working alone




Cheers




Booker

 

[Marie Montreal]

Orange Julep, in my view, agency and strip clubs are not special. They are lucrative businesses that work within the same structure as any other businesses.

These businesses are taking advantage of the facts that they are considered illegit businesses in the eye of the law (before and after the new bill) and of the necessity/fear shared by many escorts and strippers of being outed, arrested or publicly shame for their job which keep most of them from fighting for their workers rights. The working conditions in strip club are pathetic and the fact that SOME of the strippers do lots of money should not be an excuse to take away their rights or tolerate the fact that their workers rights are violated.

I am not condecending towards clients, I am reacting to 6yrs of reading certain "hobbyist expert" view on sex workers, sex work and how we manage our business.

Yes Booker, these are the criterias used by the courts, you are just adding details to what I had wrote using the hairdresser case as an exemple for people to understand and put an image on the criterias. So now we all have the criterias to determine who is an independant workers which makes it clear that indies, like the one on indy companion, all are. If some women do false representation, that's another story but the fact that some use a booker has no impact on their worker status. An independant escort is a contractor and the most persons she is contracting with are her clients. If we would be working within a system where decriminalization was an asset, we could make those contracts very clear leaving less room for ambiguity and more for recourses, and that goes both ways.

We are not special businesses, we are just stuck in gray zones created by bad laws.

 

[Orange_Julep]

The working status of a escort Indy or in agency ?
The SCC has already ruled on how to determine if a person is a independent contractor or employee ,here is a list and the link http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/rc4110/rc4110-e.html

This is an ARC document, not an SCC decision. Not very different from the ARQ document I've already posted, except much less detailed.

Having read many of the comments in this thread some have used Criminal court rulings to justify that a escort working in agency is a employee ,well that was funny ,since it is not of the competence of a criminal court to establish those perimeters .

Who was this?

Interestingly, by searching through the Cour du Quebec database, I've found it has indeed rendered many rulings on matters related to the employed v. self-employed debate (though I was not able to locate the case Lou Simone speaks of).

Here's one relevant example: http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?ID=C30F94F22EB8CA93451D1A980E8E5141&page=1.

The case regards allegedly self-employed nurses and a nurse "placement agency" - one of those private companies that sends nurses that cost 3 times the price of a public nurse to public hospitals who have trouble finding nurses. The case is very interesting because of the similarities between a placement agency and escort agencies (hey, they're just furnishing escorts to clients, like nurses to hospitals, right?). The ruling is not nearly as long as an SCC ruling so it should take you about 10 minutes to breeze through it.

TLDR: the nurses were found to be employees. How? By going through a very similar point by point analysis of the ARQ criteria of employed v. self-employed as the one I've already provided, as well as an analysis of other jurisprudence and law.

Not convinced? Neither was the placement agency :smile: which decided to appeal. As you can see here, the Cour d'Appel du Québec also found that, sorry, your nurses are employees: http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?ID=2C936B1340FCBDB93556D945EB6F7562&page=1.

Does the "Booker" having a good understanding of how to run an agency make him a legal expert? Jury's out.

(BTW, the Cour du Québec tries both criminal and civil cases.)

 

[Orange_Julep]

Orange Julep, in my view, agency and strip clubs are not special.

Agreed. I was just poking fun at the general (booker) opinion.

 

[Siocnarf]

As a client, the distinction between an employee and a contractor is something I leave between the worker and her third parties. This affects her work conditions and benefits, etc, but whether a worker would prefer to be an employee or independant contractor is a matter of personnal taste and not my business.

I prefer indies, because I like to exchange with the lady and work out the details of the encounter with her. To me an indie is someone who controls her own schedule, rates and chooses her clients herself. Whether she has some help for security, screening or advertising doesn't matter in this definition, so long as she is the one in control.

 

[BookerL]

This is an ARC document, not an SCC decision. Not very different from the ARQ document I've already posted, except much less detailed.

Hello all and Orange_Julep
The document itself is from CRA but based on prior deccisions applied by the SCC http://www.alpertlawfirm.ca/pdfs/newsletters/employee_vs_independent_contractor_2011.pdf
But anyone good at searching could a found that info

Who was this?

I was wondering who would noticed the inaccurate statement and how it would be used after .Hummmmm

Interestingly, by searching through the Cour du Quebec database, I've found it has indeed rendered many rulings on matters related to the employed v. self-employed debate (though I was not able to locate the case Lou Simone speaks of).

Maybe you did not search enough ,because in this case I would say where did I say it was Lou Simone ?

Here's one relevant example: http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?ID=C30F94F22EB8CA93451D1A980E8E5141&page=1.

The case regards allegedly self-employed nurses and a nurse "placement agency" - one of those private companies that sends nurses that cost 3 times the price of a public nurse to public hospitals who have trouble finding nurses. The case is very interesting because of the similarities between a placement agency and escort agencies (hey, they're just furnishing escorts to clients, like nurses to hospitals, right?). The ruling is not nearly as long as an SCC ruling so it should take you about 10 minutes to breeze through it.

TLDR: the nurses were found to be employees. How? By going through a very similar point by point analysis of the ARQ criteria of employed v. self-employed as the one I've already provided, as well as an analysis of other jurisprudence and law.

Not convinced? Neither was the placement agency :smile: which decided to appeal. As you can see here, the Cour d'Appel du Québec also found that, sorry, your nurses are employees: http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?ID=2C936B1340FCBDB93556D945EB6F7562&page=1.

Does the "Booker" having a good understanding of how to run an agency make him a legal expert? Jury's out.

Where did I mention that I was legal expert exactly ?
But I am definitely interested in the interpretation of the law

(BTW, the Cour du Québec tries both criminal and civil cases.)

Euh Deuh !:lol:

In the escort industry the SCC will never rule a agency escort a employee or a self employed contractor since it is not a legal business
But I am happy to learn that ..,..


The relationship is one of subordination. The payer will often direct, scrutinize, and effectively control many elements of how and when the work is performed. The owner "Booker" controls the service of the agency escort ?
The payer controls the worker with respect to both the results of the work and the method used to do the work. That the "Booker" owner control the methods used by the agency escort ?
Where the schedule is irregular, priority on the worker's time is an indication of control over the worker.A agency escort not deciding of her schedule ?
The payer determines what jobs the worker will do. A agency escort not able authorized to refuse a client ?
The worker receives training or direction from the payer on how to do the work. The overall work environment between the worker and the payer is one of subordination The agency escort receiving a training ?
The payer chooses to listen to the worker's suggestions but has the final word.Who has the final word in the service the "Booker " or escort providing the service ?
A self-employed individual usually works independently within a defined framework.
The worker does not have anyone overseeing his or her activities.In the room the agency escort doesn't have final word ?
The worker is usually free to work when and for whom he or she chooses and may provide his or her services to different payers at the same time.In this case the payer being the client not the agency she would qualify ,the Indy receiving payment exactly from the same place as the agency escort
The worker can accept or refuse work from the payer.A agency escort refusing a client ?


The agency escort qualifies under many criteria's generally accepted to determine if she is a employee or independent contractor ,to be self employed



Cheers



Booker

 

[BookerL]

Salut a tous

Pour ceux qui sont intéresser
http://www.lavery.ca/publications/n...ome-la-cour-dappel-du-quebec-se-prononce.html
ASPECTS FISCAUX
La Cour d’appel du Québec suit donc une tendance jurisprudentielle émanant de la Cour canadienne de l’impôt et de la Cour d’appel fédérale au cours des dernières années. Les tribunaux ont permis l’intégration des critères de common law12 dans l’analyse plus large du test de contrôle québécois13. Ainsi, il est permis de prendre en compte les critères du contrôle, la propriété des outils, l’expectative de profits et les risques de pertes et l’intégration dans l’entreprise dans la détermination du statut de travailleur autonome par opposition à celui d’employé.

Cette détermination a des répercussions importantes sur le traitement fiscal, tant du côté du donneur d’ouvrage que du travailleur.

Un employeur doit retenir à la source sur le salaire de ses employés l’impôt provincial et fédéral et remettre les sommes ainsi retenues dans les délais réglementaires. L’employeur doit également retenir sur le salaire de l’employé les cotisations salariales de l’employé au Régime de pensions du Canada (« RPC »), à l’Assurance-emploi (« AE »), au Régime des rentes du Québec (« RRQ ») et au Régime québécois d’assurance parentale (« RQAP »).

Enfin, l’employeur doit payer des cotisations à titre d’employeur, lesquelles sont généralement influencées par sa masse salariale totale. Les cotisations à titre d’employeur comprennent celles au RPC, à l’AE, au RRQ, au RQAP, au Fonds des services de santé, à la Commission sur la santé et la sécurité au travail, à la Commission des normes du travail et au Fonds de développement et de reconnaissance des compétences de la main-d’oeuvre.

L’employeur est généralement responsable des cotisations salariales qui auraient dû être perçues sur le salaire de l’employé, mais pas de l’impôt non retenu, sauf dans le cas d’employés non résidents du Canada.

De plus, l’employeur peut se voir appliquer des pénalités pour les sommes non retenues ou les cotisations non effectuées. Au fédéral, la pénalité est de 10 %, qui peut être augmentée à 20 % en cas de récidive, lorsque le défaut a été commis sciemment ou dans des circonstances équivalant à faute lourde. Au provincial, la pénalité est de 15 %.

Enfin, l’employeur sera tenu de verser des intérêts au taux prescrit sur ces montants (le taux d’intérêt prescrit est actuellement de 6 % au fédéral et au provincial).

À l’inverse, dans le cas d’un travailleur autonome, le donneur d’ouvrage co-contractant n’est pas tenu de faire de telles retenues à la source. C’est le travailleur autonome qui a la seule responsabilité de faire les paiements de ses acomptes provisionnels selon les exigences de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu.

Toutefois, si le travailleur autonome est un non-résident du Canada, des retenues à la source doivent être faites par le donneur d’ouvrage. Un défaut à cet égard peut donner lieu à des pénalités et des intérêts.

Par ailleurs, un travailleur autonome doit normalement prélever la TPS et la TVQ sur les services qu’il rend au donneur d’ouvrage. Un travailleur autonome qui aurait erronément été qualifié d’employé pourrait se retrouver en défaut s’il n’a pas fait le paiement de ces taxes et serait alors passible de pénalités équivalent à 5 % des sommes dues, plus 1 % par mois jusqu’à un maximum de 10 %.

Les autorités fiscales disposent normalement d’un délai de trois (3) ans pour procéder à une nouvelle cotisation d’un contribuable. Ce délai passe à quatre (4) ans dans le cas de sociétés autres qu’une société privée sous contrôle canadien, comme une société publique ou une société contrôlée par des personnes non résidentes. Toutefois, cette période ne s’applique plus dans le cas où la société a fait une déclaration erronée ou fausse. Il n’y aurait alors plus de délai qui aurait pour effet d’empêcher les autorités fiscales de procéder à une nouvelle cotisation. Une telle levée de la prescription peut être envisagée dans le cas où la détermination du statut du travailleur serait inexacte.

Dans un cas où un employeur constate son erreur avant que les autorités fiscales n’interviennent, il aurait la possibilité de pallier son défaut quant aux retenues à la source qu’il aurait dû effectuer en procédant à une divulgation volontaire. Si la divulgation volontaire est acceptée, elle devrait permettre de limiter les sommes payables aux montants qui auraient dû être retenus ou cotisés et à l’intérêt applicable; les pénalités ne sont alors pas réclamées.

Il faut également noter que les pouvoirs d’enquête de Revenu Québec et de l’Agence du revenu du Canada leur permettent de procéder à la vérification de l’ensemble du registre du personnel d’une entreprise si une erreur est découverte dans le traitement d’un travailleur.

Ainsi, le choix de la qualification du statut d’un travailleur de l’entreprise devrait être effectué en tenant compte de la situation de l’ensemble des travailleurs, puisqu’une vérification élargie pourrait avoir un impact beaucoup plus important sur l’entreprise vérifiée.

CONCLUSION
La Cour d’appel reconnaît qu’il y a lieu de retenir une conception large du lien de subordination. Plus précisément, elle nous enseigne qu’il est possible d’analyser et de considérer le lien d’intégration d’une personne dans les activités d’une entreprise pour déterminer son statut véritable.

Le critère du « lien d’intégration » est surtout utile dans le cas de cadres supérieurs, de professionnels ou de travailleurs hautement spécialisés, puisque le critère classique de la subordination est souvent absent en pareille situation.

Rappelons qu’une qualification erronée du contrat de travail peut avoir des impacts financiers et juridiques importants tant pour l’entreprise que pour la personne concernée, tant au plan fiscal qu’en matière de droit du travail. Il est donc essentiel de procéder à une bonne analyse du statut réel de la personne en cause.



Salutation




Booker

 

[gugu]

We are not special businesses, we are just stuck in gray zones created by bad laws.

Nicely said!

The distinction between the two statuses is not so clear in my mind, however, for two reasons: 1 Revenu Québec would most probably accept that any sex worker declare their earnings as “travailleurs autonomes”; 2 with the accepted normal deductibles, it would be fiscally advantageous for just about all sex workers to declare themselves as such.

Suppose a stripper or an agency escort wanted to declare her revenue as an employee, does that mean the owners would have to emit a statement of earning, a T4? If so, how would the strip club owner know what the earnings are? As you showed when describing the degraded conditions in strip clubs, the cash circulating between them go reverse way, from the stripper to the owner.

The case you refer to is in the USA I believe, and I fully understand the interest for the strippers to legally establish that there is a line of authority because as employers, the strip club owners have more responsibility, because of the labour laws, than what they would have in a contractual relation with an independent provider. When you sign a contract, you are bound to what you sign. When you submit to the authority of an employer, he has to compensate you. The strippers, if I remember well (but did not check) in this case wanted to get minimum compensations. They need some when the club does not attract enough customers for them to make money.

In a hypothetical perfect transparency of knowledge, I doubt that Revenu Québec would refuse to treat a stripper as a travailleurs autonome if she declares she is. It is by far the easiest way for Revenu Québec to treat most sex workers : escorts, masseuses, strippers and all the others. It would also necessitate a lot of red tape for the “employers” who, furthermore, are often considered pimps, thus criminals. They do not want to officially declare themselves as such. Renting space, charging for services (security, phone operator, receptionist, ect.), providing a stage and booths, in a contractual relation with the providers is so simpler and less suspect.

I don’t think we have jurisprudence on labour disputes in escort agencies and massage parlours in Canada (but I may be wrong). It’s a bit of a legal void. In a massage parlour, for example, I would consider the relation as contracted between two independent parties. Of course, there are basic considerations: they do not polish nails, they provide erotic massages. The parties, basically, have the obligation to respect what they signed. The consequences are not that important because the contracts rarely include penalties. The relation ends whenever one of the two decides so.

Whether you consider masseuses as employees or indies, this is nothing else then a very free labour market in the massage market. If you don’t like to do business with someone, you simply try to do better business with someone else. Economically, I would call the masseuses free agents, indies. Not at all comparable to you, but never the less indies. You can't do shit all the time as an owner. You will not recruit successfully otherwise. The market seems to do it's job for parlours.

But it does not in the stripping market. I would suggest two possible explanations: 1 it is a shrinking market, losing customers, thus with less profit opportunities 2 a bigger role of criminal organizations, including in the labour agencies (the biggest agency controlled by the Hells for a long time if not today yet but I don't know). They became important brokers able to influence the labour market.


If they decide for themselves that they are exploited by the other party, in this case the strip club owners, and want to bring the issue to the court, the strippers have all the advantages (and my full support) to establish the authority line.

Those are questions as much as an uneducated opinion, Lou. Fell free to comment or object.

 

[BookerL]

The distinction between the two statuses is not so clear in my mind, however, for two reasons: 1 Revenu Québec would most probably accept that any sex worker declare their earnings as “travailleurs autonomes”; 2 with the accepted normal deductibles, it would be fiscally advantageous for just about all sex workers to declare themselves as such.

Suppose a stripper or an agency escort wanted to declare her revenue as an employee, does that mean the owners would have to emit a statement of earning, a T4? If so, how would the strip club owner know what the earnings are? As you showed when describing the degraded conditions in strip clubs, the cash circulating between them go reverse way, from the stripper to the owner.

Hello all and gugu

Have a question for you ,in your scenario of self employed

“travailleurs autonomes”

would they declare more then $30,000 or less ?
Another question would a popular escort really argue that she makes less then $30,000 a year ?


Cheers


Booker

 

[Marie Montreal]

GUGU

No worker of any field can chose weither he declares himself as a independent worker or an employee. That's not up to the worker to decide. You have to follow the law but the strip club owners don't. They were severly punished for that in the USA - if the women would organized here, I am pretty sure it would be the case two. Not more than 15 yrs ago in Québec, lots of strip clubs were giving a hr/salary to the strippers. The extra money was tip, just like a restaurant waiter. Now that's all gone and but they are still treated as employee and bar owners go way further with their restrictions and obligations imposed on the strippers as any boss is legally allowed to do. Many conditions imposed by owners don't respect at all "les normes du travail" (labor work laws).


Why would escorts and strippers be deshonest with their revenu more than any other person? Any smart person knows the benefit of declaring its income. Hinting that we would not because we are in the sex industry sort of imply that we are untrusty because we are in this business. Mayny of us declare our incomes and find all sort of ways to do so without cleary saying we are escorts because of the stigma and the laws.

Stop trying to put us in a different category of workers. Maybe that's a way for most hobbyists to forget that we are working and that they are paying to fullfill a sexual need and, sometimes, a social need, don't know, but it is surely hiding something.

 

[BookerL]

Hello all

One very important element is often forgotten ,how does the escorts collects the GSP and PST and then send to Revenue Quebec ?
Many cases of this where heard by the Courts
http://argent.canoe.ca/nouvelles/lex-reine-des-escortes-deshabillee-par-le-fisc-5022015
L'ex-reine des escortes déshabillée par le fisc
Le 5 février 2015 à 4h00 | Jean-François Cloutier / Bureau d'enquêteMise à jour le 5 février 2015 à 4h00
Même si elle a réussi à échapper à la prison, les temps sont durs pour l’ex-reine des escortes, Joëlle Chelala, qui va déclarer faillite après avoir vendu des maisons le jour et des femmes la nuit.

Celle qu’on surnommait Sabrina du temps où elle contrôlait une quarantaine d’agences d’escortes à Montréal, depuis un bureau de la rue Sainte-Catherine Ouest, tout en étant agente d’immeubles pour une bannière bien connue, avoue ne plus rouler sur l’or.

«Ça ne sert à rien de dépenser de l’argent pour se défendre [contre Revenu Québec]. Même mon avocat ne comprend pas comment ils font leurs calculs», dit-elle, en entrevue au téléphone.

Elle fait référence à des avis de cotisation que lui a fait parvenir dernièrement le fisc.

Selon des documents consultés, Revenu Québec a obtenu contre Chelala un jugement à la fin avril qui la force à payer la somme de 1,1 million $.

Le fisc veut sa part

Le jugement est tombé quelques jours seulement après qu’elle eut reçu une «absolution inconditionnelle» de la Cour relativement à des accusations de proxénétisme.

Selon le fisc, Joëlle Chelala n’a pas payé tous les montants requis de TPS et de TVQ à l’époque où elle contrôlait un réseau d’agences d’escortes dans la région de Montréal.

Revenu Québec invoque un article de la loi fiscale, selon lequel une entreprise doit «remettre au ministre un montant prévu [...] ou déduire, retenir ou percevoir un montant» dû.

«Je vais faire faillite. Ça va s’arrêter là», dit-elle.

Joëlle Chelala dit avoir tourné la page sur son ancienne vie. «Ça fait longtemps que je ne suis plus là-dedans [les escortes]. C’est du passé, j’ai essayé de tout oublier.»

Elle occupe maintenant un emploi d’agente d’immeuble à temps plein pour le groupe Sutton à L’Île-des-Sœurs. Pour éviter d’être reconnue, elle a d’ailleurs changé son nom sur certaines pancartes.

Bijoux

Pour se repayer, Revenu Québec a fait saisir au début mai un lot de bijoux que la police avait perquisitionné en 2011.

Un pendentif et une chaîne lapin Playboy, un pendentif Harley Davidson couleur or, un pendentif fusil couleur or, un pendentif piment fort rouge, une bague or 18 carats, une montre couleur or fond blanc Gucci, une montre couleur argent Rolex avec pierres et un diamant d’un centimètre de diamètre ne sont que quelques-uns des quelque 125 bijoux sur lesquels Revenu Québec a mis la main.

«Ils saisissent et ils te taxent après, c’est comme ça que ça marche au Revenu»,dit-elle.

L’agente d’immeuble s’était fait arrêter par la police à l’Hôtel Gouverneur de la Place Dupuis lors du week-end du Grand Prix en 2011.

La police avait mené 11 perquisitions où 700 000 $ en liquide et quatre lingots d’or, en plus d’un lot de bijoux, avaient été saisis.

Joëlle Chelala a dit n’entretenir aucun espoir de récupérer ses bijoux. «Ils veulent rien nous redonner», déplore-t-elle.

Son ex-conjoint et sa mère s’opposent toutefois à la saisie de certains bijoux devant les tribunaux, mais ils n’auraient pas les factures nécessaires, selon elle.

Son père, Georges Chelala, est aussi visé par le fisc, qui lui réclame 1,1 million$. Il aurait géré le réseau d’escortes pendant le jour et sa fille l’aurait fait pendant la nuit, selon le fisc. Sabrina a dit ne pas être au courant des problèmes fiscaux de son père.

Un Hells rachète ses bijoux

Des bijoux de Joëlle Chelala saisis par le fisc ont été rachetés personnellement par un très haut placé des Hells Angels lors d’une vente à l’encan cet été organisée par Revenu Québec, mais Joêlle Chelala dit ne pas le connaître.

Selon les documents, nul autre que Salvatore Cazzetta, considéré comme le numéro un des Hells Angels au Québec, s’est porté acquéreur de trois bijoux de Sabrina au début juillet.

La vente des bijoux a eu lieu lors du même encan où des biens du Loup de Montréal, John Babikian, dont une rutilante Bentley noire, ont été vendus.

Cazetta a acheté une paire de boucles d’oreille 4 pierres bleu pâle couleur or, une bague couleur or avec pierre rectangulaire bleue et un bracelet couleur or un pouce de large, pour un total de 1130$.

Interrogée par notre Bureau d’enquête, Joëlle Chelala a dit ne pas connaître Cazettea . «C’est qui, lui? C’est un bijoutier?» a-t-elle dit.

Selon des sources qui s’étaient confiées au Journal de Montréal en 2011, Chelala aurait eu des connaissances dans le milieu des gangs de rue, avec les Syndicates notamment liés aux Hells Angels.

Un autre cas recent




http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...operator-of-male-escort-agency-with-1-2m-bill

Prostitution revenue taxable, Quebec Court rules as it hits up operator of male-escort agency with $1.2M bill

Paul Delean, Postmedia News | March 6, 2015 12:07 PM ET
More from Postmedia News

Twitter Google+ Reddit Email Typo? More
Revenue generated from prostitution is taxable, a Quebec Court judge has reconfirmed in a judgment upholding $1.2 million in Revenue Quebec assessments against Michel Catudal, the former operator of local male-escort agency Hot Boys Enr.

Catudal, who actually worked on contract for Revenue Quebec in the 1980s doing tax verification, appealed the assessments, claiming responsibility for collecting the 15% sales tax fell on the prostitutes who worked for the agency, the tax department used erroneous figures that didn’t include business costs such as salary, automobile and “bad debts,” and the proceeds of crime aren’t taxable in any event.

Revenue Quebec said jurisprudence clearly establishes that the proceeds of crime are taxable, sales tax did apply and it was his job to collect it, and stiff penalties were justified because Catudal consciously omitted declaring all his income.

Court was told Catudal declared annual earnings that averaged $13,261 between 1995 and 2005 while actually receiving more than $600,000 as his cut from Hot Boys Enr., a business that collected more than $2.4 million over that period.


He was arrested by Montreal police in 2005 and they seized the company’s books and the client list, which had 2,900 names. Dates, services, preferences and transaction costs were listed for each name. Revenue Quebec said it arrived at its numbers by adding up those amounts, attributing a quarter of the gross revenue to Catudel.

How can the plaintiff seriously declare he didn’t believe revenue from illegal sources was taxable while at the same time affirming he couldn’t declare it for fear of being arrested or charged criminally?
It found he under-reported his business income by $470,860. Penalties and interest brought the total up to $1.2 million.

Convicted of procuring and sexual exploitation in 2006, Catudal received a 40-month sentence. He also surrendered to the government $224,700 in cash found in his sister’s safety-deposit box.

Quebec Court Judge Armando Aznar was not impressed by Catudal’s argument the money wasn’t taxable, particularly since he’d even worked for the tax department.

“How can the plaintiff seriously declare he didn’t believe revenue from illegal sources was taxable while at the same time affirming he couldn’t declare it for fear of being arrested or charged criminally?” Judge Aznar wrote.

“At the very least, he’s shown negligence and carelessness.”

Judge Aznar said the Canadian and Quebec tax systems put the onus on the citizen to voluntarily declare all revenue from all sources. And revenue from illegal activity has been included for decades, he said, citing a 1928 decision pertaining to illegal alcohol.


So even if the income would be declared ,and the GST and PST not aquited a serious problem would remain ?



Cheers




Booker

 

[johnybird]

I did not participate in that thread yet, and my philosophy is always to keep it simple…
An Independent lady, is a lady that is independent... simple
That means:
• She choose her business model;
• She choose her schedule;
• She choose her fare structure;
• She choose her advertisement policy, etc.. and etc...
The fact that you hire an assistant to manage some clerical and administrative tasks does not make you a non-independent lady.
Very often professionals are independent, but they have a secretary, they have an assistant for certain tasks...
My opinion...

:amen::thumb:

Can't believe there's 12 pages on this thread about this lol!
Although it has been an interesting read

 

[BookerL]

«Ça ne sert à rien de dépenser de l’argent pour se défendre [contre Revenu Québec]. Même mon avocat ne comprend pas comment ils font leurs calculs», dit-elle, en entrevue au téléphone.

Elle fait référence à des avis de cotisation que lui a fait parvenir dernièrement le fisc.

Selon des documents consultés, Revenu Québec a obtenu contre Chelala un jugement à la fin avril qui la force à payer la somme de 1,1 million $.

Le fisc veut sa part


Booker

Salut a tous


Déclaration intéressante ,même son avocat ne comprend pas les calculs ,pourtant Revenue Québec a obtenu un jugement contre elle ,c'est donc que quelqu'un les comprends .

L'histoire ce répète être représenter par un criminaliste dans un dossier fiscale pas la meilleure idée .
A chacun ca spécialité



Au Plaisir



Booker

 

[gugu]

in your scenario of self employed would they declare more then $30,000 or less ?
Another question would a popular escort really argue that she makes less then $30,000 a year ?Booker

Yes and yes.It's what some sex workers I know do. Do you know some way to declare sex work (sp, mp or stripper for instance) revenue as an employee? It is theoritically possible, provided that the operator of the business emits a T4. But they don't, and I don't see why a sex worker would prefer that solution, except, maybe, to contribute to the Régie des rentes's pension plan. I'd be glad to learn some are able to do so. I just don't see how they arrange things with the operators. Have you ever dealt with that, learn about emission of statements of earning for escorts working for agencies you booked for?

Maybe that's a way for most hobbyists to forget that we are working and that they are paying to fullfill a sexual need and, sometimes, a social need, don't know, but it is surely hiding something.

Please! We simply answer the question asked. We are not telling any of you guys how to deal with RQ. That's your business. You're trying to dig too much into hypothetical intentions here.

I understand very well that some sex workers would like to be able to declare their revenue as employees and that many are in fact employees in regards with the legal definition. IMHO, however, few sex workers would like to have the obligation to have such status. They can, technically, in Germany and New Zealand for instance, but not many are fighting for salary contracts with the operators. I see many reasons for it: they don't anticipate to work in that field for a long time, so it's not worth it; they prefer to control the amount they declare, etc.

I'm not telling what sex workers should fight for. I'm not a sex worker. I simply observe they don't fight for such status in countries where they could. Not enough sex workers prefer that fiscal solution, too many preferring to declare as indies.

 

[BookerL]

Yes and yes.It's what some sex workers I know do. Do you know some way to declare sex work (sp, mp or stripper for instance) revenue as an employee? It is theoritically possible, provided that the operator of the business emits a T4. But they don't, and I don't see why a sex worker would prefer that solution, except, maybe, to contribute to the Régie des rentes's pension plan. I'd be glad to learn some are able to do so. I just don't see how they arrange things with the operators. Have you ever dealt with that, learn about emission of statements of earning for escorts working for agencies you booked for?
.

Hello gugu


We have to admit that sometimes there no direct viable solutions ,when this happens the questions you need to ask yourself is ,what will have less consequenses ?

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...operator-of-male-escort-agency-with-1-2m-bill
Revenue Quebec said jurisprudence clearly establishes that the proceeds of crime are taxable, sales tax did apply and it was his job to collect it, and stiff penalties were justified because Catudal consciously omitted declaring all his income.

The consequences of false tax return are clear and well establish in Quebec and Canada jurisprudence .
The question is ,How do they detect it ?
It's called a" cost of living " in French "Cout de vie ",there is other ways but this one is common
When a person is caught in this scenario ,seizure of assets are common ,plus the criminal part .

Sex working does provide lots of money for successful escorts ,but the money that come from it has some pretty nasty taxation catches ,that most people does not understand .
A statement of Joelle Chelala about her lawyer

«Ça ne sert à rien de dépenser de l’argent pour se défendre [contre Revenu Québec]. Même mon avocat ne comprend pas comment ils font leurs calculs», dit-elle, en entrevue au téléphone.

Even her lawyer doesn't understand ,which is very revealing about the complexity of tax law .
Contrary to criminal law you are not presumed innocent ,the opus is on you !

Cheers




Booker

 

[Halloween Mike]

Indies but not indies, yet not an agency...

I would like to know your feeling on the "semi-indy" concept. I am speaking of the providers who advertise as indies, but are being "managed" by a booker behind the scene. Of course here we have Phil who advertise for Jezabelle and Gabrielle, but we all know Phil, and its clearly stated in the ads that Phil manage them and will answer the phone. My post is for the providers that want us to believe they are advertising themselves and that we speak to them personally when its actually not the case. Usually they will ask for "text only" and emails.

Its something you are more likely to see on backpage, and often you can check "other ads by this user" and see completely different names and ads for other girls.

Does it bother you that you think you are dealing with the person you will see when you are not? Does you think it make communication easier since the "booker" can reply to you faster , as for exemple if she is with a client.

I won't lie and say that this thread is inspired by the Maya Fox review thread, wich some people mentioned the booker had "cram" too much meeting in the same time frame, leading to waits and time where she was eating etc etc.

Do you feel that dealing with a booker somewhat cancel the concept of dealing with the provider herself and being able to tell her what you really expect?

I personally did some booking for a few months, wich consisted mostly on posting schedules here, answering PMs and emails. The provider also answered mails as well when she had time and overall i made sure before every email to say it was me that was answering.

I supose the concept of having a personal booker mean more money for the girl than in an agency, also more liberty, wich is why i understand why they do it. I also understand they can't always reply to phone especially if already busy with another client, so a dude may come in handy. But i think if its not clearly stated to who you talk to, it somewhat remove a personal connection with the provider, something as a client you may look for if you go for an indy instead of an agency.

As for me personaly, i am (mostly) an agency guy, so it does not matter as much for me, but i will admit than if i contact an indy, i expect to be able to talk to her directly and make things all clear on what type of meeting i am expecting

 

[EdaBlackwood]

Not everyone who says text only is being handled or managed. All of my ads say text only because I do not have a seperate phone to work with and for some reason my app that I use for my number does not work well for actual phone calls. I know this is the case with several independent girls. Just food for thought.

 

[chowzilla]

I don't mind dealing with a booker
I don't like when bookers pose as the girl herself
I prefer dealing with the girl herself

I believe your preference stems from what you want out of the conversation.
Someone who wants to make it quick and simple, won't mind dealing with a booker
Someone who wants to chat it up a bit, make special requests would probably like to speak with the girl

For me personally, what I really want, I want to deal with someone who is organized. I am more tired of being cancelled on, or double booked, pushed etc..

 

[Halloween Mike]

Not everyone who says text only is being handled or managed. All of my ads say text only because I do not have a seperate phone to work with and for some reason my app that I use for my number does not work well for actual phone calls. I know this is the case with several independent girls. Just food for thought.

I know, i am sure most providers use some kind of app or secondary phone, obviously for privacy reasons. I was just saying those ads often says text only as well, and speaking to the provider herself is not possible. While some may prefer a text for initial contact, i think its good for some guys down the road to be able to speak with the lady so they can make sure to "feel a bit" each other before the meeting.