Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006

The Tax Amendments Act, 2006 is a Bill in the Canadian Legislature numbered as Bill C-10 of the second session of the 39th Parliament of Canada and containing a controversial clause that David Cronenberg and Sarah Polley have argued represents censorship of Canadian films. The long form title of the bill is "An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act". Among a 600-page list of minor changes to tax law, the bill contains a clause, Section 120(3)(b), that would give the government power to deny taxation benefits for films made in Canada if the government deems the content to be objectionable. Critics of the clause argue that it is equivalen

Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006

The Tax Amendments Act, 2006 is a Bill in the Canadian Legislature numbered as Bill C-10 of the second session of the 39th Parliament of Canada and containing a controversial clause that David Cronenberg and Sarah Polley have argued represents censorship of Canadian films. The long form title of the bill is "An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act". Among a 600-page list of minor changes to tax law, the bill contains a clause, Section 120(3)(b), that would give the government power to deny taxation benefits for films made in Canada if the government deems the content to be objectionable. Critics of the clause argue that it is equivalen