The Government has identified that there are a «
number of assumptions behind this question», including that:
Not exact matches
I know there is no science
behind these
numbers but I also know these
numbers are more likely to be correct than the
assumption that every lack
of response is your own fault.
Putting aside the problems in trying to measure teacher effectiveness with a test score, the widespread potential for cheating, and the drill - and - kill instruction
behind value - added measurements, Berliner and Glass argue that boosters
of competition are making a
number of damaging faulty
assumptions.
First
of all, the theory
behind man - made global warming was based on a
number of fundamental
assumptions which had never been tested.
These basic lessons are the «why»
behind these two columns: * Never accept the
numbers you receive from CRA as being correct; always make sure you understand and agree; * Always insist on the background calculations and
assumptions to the
numbers; there is no way anyone should pay a bill without understanding it; too many people just pay when it comes to CRA; * Never give up if you think you are right; having said this, I do not know yet if the company in this story will in fact file a second Notice
of Objection to recover the additional $ 1,000... cost benefit does enter into the equation at times; * There are a surprising
number of CRA staff in the various departments who are understanding and helpful; * As I have stated in earlier columns, there are mechanisms built into the system that protect and allow taxpayers to challenge CRA where it is appropriate.