daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,048
- Points
- 1,160
Britain's Conservatives planning to bring back compulsory national service.
- Thread starter gryphonv
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,285
- Points
- 1,160
National Resources Mobilization Act - Apr 42;
Aleutian Islands campaign - Jun to Aug 43.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,048
- Points
- 1,160
And it kicked off a real donnybrook...
Conscription, or compulsory military service, divided the nation in the Second World War and threatened the survival of political leaders. In 1939 Prime Minister Mackenzie King, conscious of the opposition of French-speaking Quebec to conscription in the First World War, promised that there would be no conscription for overseas service. By mid-1940, however, there was enormous pressure from English Canada for total mobilization of manpower. King introduced the National Resources Mobilization Act (NRMA), which called for a national registration of eligible men and authorized conscription for home defence. From April 1941 the young men called up were required to serve for the rest of the war on home defence duties.
WarMuseum.ca - Democracy at War - Conscription - Canada and the War
The Canadian War Museum's World War 2 Online Newspaper Archives - Conscription, or compulsory military service, divided the nation in the Second World War. In a plebiscite of April 1942, the Prime Minister asked Canadians to release him from his 1939 promise that there would be no conscription.
www.warmuseum.ca
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,048
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 1,773
- Points
- 1,160
Oh? They walked there from the coast?
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,387
- Points
- 1,040
It would make about as much sense as declaring Vancouver Island overseas service.
- Reaction score
- 26,626
- Points
- 1,090
Vancouver Island is quite foreign... Sort of like England without the Scottish providing a good influence.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,387
- Points
- 1,040
Sure, but depending on where a person sits in Canada, so are parts of the maritime provinces and NL. Of a different kind, so is QC.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 14,982
- Points
- 1,140
Naturally. Dollars over service as always.
- Reaction score
- 1,478
- Points
- 1,260
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 2,650
- Points
- 1,160
There was a tax case heard in the Exchequer Court of Canada in 1947 that refers (somewhat) to this, but does describe how Canadian soldiers, sailors and airmen were subject to income tax during the war. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/exch/doc/1947/1947canlii623/1947canlii623.html
It doesn't state explicitly that the individual served in the Aleutians, just that he was not in Canada but still in the Western Hemisphere, so it could have been Newfoundland (one of the major locations where Canadians served outside Canada but still in the Western Hemisphere) or elsewhere. The appellant in this case was a solicitor and served as his own counsel in the matter. Probably a tax lawyer before the war.
Justice O'Connor wrote:
Under the Act, in my opinion, there are four groups of members of the Canadian Naval, Military and Air Forces.
(1) The income, including service pay and allowances of those members of the Forces in Canada who are not in the Canadian Active Service, is subject to taxation.
(2) The income, including service pay and allowances of those members in the Canadian Active Service who are in Canada, is subject to taxation, but under Rule 2 the tax they pay is "reduced by a credit from the tax otherwise payable", ranging from "an amount equal to the tax payable on $1,600" of pay and allowances, on up.
(3) Under Rule 3 the income, including pay and allowances of all members of the Forces in the Western Hemisphere other than in Canada, is subject to taxation because they, under Rule 3, "shall be dealt with in the same manner as the persons referred to in Rule 2 of this section". And the persons under Rule 2 are given "a credit from the tax otherwise payable". They are then subject to the general taxation provision and receive a credit on their tax, depending on the amount of their pay and allowances as provided in Rule 2. But there is one exception under which they get additional relief. That is, that they "shall in respect of his service pay and allowances be subject to tax at one-half of the effective rate of tax applicable to his total income".
(4) Under Section 4(t) (i) the service pay and allowances of members of the Forces while in the Canadian Active Service Forces and Overseas on the strength of an Overseas Unit outside of the Western Hemisphere and certain others described in subsections (ii) and (iii) is not liable to taxation at all. Their income other than pay and allowances is taxable. A member of the Forces could be, and no doubt was, in all four groups in the course of one year. But as the Act does not provide otherwise, I come to the conclusion that each exemption would only be applicable to the pay and allowances during the time the member was in that particular group.
There might have be some unfairness in the tax treatment of members of the military under the Income War Tax Act, in that exemptions were based on location rather than risk. What else is 'new' . . . or should that be 'old'? Another tax appeal highlights another possible unfairness.
In this case, a YMCA Supervisor, who accompanied the Canadian Army overseas (like hundreds [thousands?]) of others in the Sally Ann, Red Cross, YMCA, KofC, etc), wore uniform, was fully integrated in the unit that he supported, and was actually wounded, unsuccessfully tried to make the case that he should have been treated, for income tax purposes, the same as members of the military (all pay and allowances while overseas exempt), rather than the limited exemption of only one fifth of his income not being subject to tax.
Similar threads
