We’re currently expecting 9 people — hope you can come, too! Please rsvp by posting a comment here or e-mail me at pacifica at isaacbrocksociety dot ca
THE INTENDED FOCUS OF THIS POST IS THE ALLIANCE FOR THE DEFENCE OF CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY (ADCS) FATCA IGA LEGISLATION TRIAL IN CANADA HELD ON JANUARY 28, 2019.
The reason for this trial is that Plaintiffs Gwen and Kazia want Canada’s FATCA IGA legislation, infringing on their privacy (Charter section 8) and equality (section 15) rights, declared unconstitutional by Canada’s Federal Court — and that a lawsuit is the way to achieve this specific objective.
The lawsuit began during the time of the Harper Conservative government. We had hoped that when the Liberals came to power, there would be no need to continue the lawsuit, because of statements made on June 25, 2015 by Justin Trudeau to ADCS (“The Government of Canada has a responsibility to stand up for its citizens when foreign governments are encroaching on their rights. We believe that the [FATCA] deal reached between Canada and the U.S. is insufficient to protect Canadians.”) — but this was not to be, and the lawsuit continues even with the change in government.
Readers will also find in this post many peripheral comments, irrelevant to the aim of our litigation, on other approaches Canadians might take when dealing with the FATCA turnover — but our Plaintiffs are taking the approach of DIRECTLY challenging the Government that refuses, out of fear of the U.S. bully, to protect them.
They simply want the Courts to kill the bad Canadian FATCA compliance law.
When reading the comments below please consider what Plaintiffs’ Gwen and Kazia want to achieve with their lawsuit.
More discussion of the lawsuit below:
[The critical Section 1 of Canada's Charter of Rights is mentioned below: Canada says in a lawsuit submission for our January 28 FATCA trial in Federal Court, that if compliance with the U.S. FATCA law is "found to limit any Charter right, any such limitation can be justified under s.1 of the Charter" [and that] In order to be justified the Impugned Provisions must have a pressing and substantial objective” …”.
— Canada argues that avoidance of economic “catastrophic effects” that will be inflicted on Canada if she does not comply with the U.S. FATCA demand is a “pressing and substantial objective”.
— But Plaintiffs point out in their submission that: “Kevin Shoom, Canada’s witness who participated in the negotiations with the United States that ultimately resulted in the IGA, agreed [in cross examination] that any consideration of what would transpire if any part of the Impugned Provisions were declared of no force or effect would be highly speculative. He agreed that it would depend on “a whole lot of considerations,” that Canada would negotiate with the United States to achieve the best possible outcome, and that “we don’t know how the US would respond.””.
More generally, Plaintiffs say: “Canada effectively maintains that it enacted the Impugned Provisions under duress from a foreign state. The Court should be very slow to accept this as a justification for infringements of the Charter. Canada is expected to defend the constitutional rights and freedoms of its citizens and not bargain them away or capitulate to threats from a foreign bully state.” and, what “if another state’s laws required a person residing in Canada to report to that state obviously private, personal details about their lives – such as their religious practices…”?
Canada is a Westminster Parliamentary democracy. Historically it has had a constitution (British North America Act) which defined how Canada was to be governed. In simple terms: the Federal Government has the jurisdiction to legislate in some areas (example criminal law). The Provincial Governments have the right to legislate in other areas (property and civil rights). These laws are made by democratically elected legislatures. Prior to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (April 17, 1982), the only limits on the legislative bodies were jurisdictional. Any law could be enacted. It was just a question of whether it was the Federal Government or the Provincial Government that could enact the law.
Before Obama FATCA and before FBAR, there was Caesar Augustus and the ROMAN Empire–with its capitol far away.
“Now it happened in those days, that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment made when Quirinius was governor. All went to enroll themselves….”
And so it was….an ancient FATCA. The capital of the government was far away….however each of the lands was governed by some puppet of Rome. The subjects had no benefit of census or taxation—-they were only subject to both.
From those times of oppression, was there a great birth which is celebrated today. For this, there are no parallels. Let us celebrate this day for what it is and separate the glory of this day from the tyranny of the kingdom.
The empire is not on our side. The pharisees of the media and congressional halls continually whip up propaganda against us. The empire digs us a hole and requires a “scoring” to be allowed to get us out of the hole.
The empire is led by men. If and when the earthly, human leaders of empire realizes their moral, constitutional, and godly responsibility to their population, the expats will rise from the tyranny.
We celebrate today. Tomorrow, we must remember our mortal code: God only helps those that help themselves. We must rise up and resist the government tyrannies of FATCA, the tyranny of discriminatory extra-territorial, person-based taxation, the tyrannies of GILTI and transition tax, and the tyranny of FBAR all emanating from the Empire.
Merry Christmas to all !
Congressman Holding has introduced the “Fair Taxation for Americans Abroad Act” in the United States House of Representatives.
“In 2019, Republicans Overseas will focus on getting the Tax Fairness for Americans Abroad Act passed….The TFFAAA will amend the Internal Revenue Code by offering overseas Americans a status similar to that enjoyed by corporations where foreign-sourced income is taxed in the country where it is earned. ” says Solomon Yue, of Republicans Overseas, who spearheaded this effort.
The direct link to the video (found in Embee’s comment) is HERE:
Here is John Richardson’s description of the Bill:
December 18, 2018 at 12:18 am (Edit)
@BB: “We need to get people coming back to Brock.”
First step: how lovely it would be if someone actually moderated the forums and simply culled the repetitive and incessant chatter on some of the (formerly) useful threads. Many of the most essential threads have turned into a free-for-all which veer way off topic, raking over the same-old-same-old coals that have been raked over in every one of the other popular threads. It’s become so that I don’t even come to IBS much anymore. I check for new top-level posts and anything new on the “Current Media and Articles” thread and skip the rest of the bla-bla-bla because I’ve read it all so many times before.
Sorry to be so negative. When I first joined IBS a couple years ago, it was a clean, mean source of wisdom. I wonder how I’d feel if I joined now, with so much of the useful discussion buried under so much steamy hot air. I wish there were a separate thread called “The IBS Pub” where all the windy conversations can cheerfully continue, while those who simply need clarity about renunciation, etc., don’t have to comb through page after page of blather to find the few nuggets.
I still very strongly support the principles here, and the actions of the brave souls who put their time, money and lives on the line for the rest of us, and therefore I am happy to offer financial support.
UPDATE: FATCA IGA litigation in Canada Federal Court: The guts of our Plaintiffs’ (Gwen and Kazia) arguments and those of the Government we oppose (for simplicity, “Canada”) can now be found in four court documents (that our supporters paid for) submitted between October 3 and December 13, 2018 (see below for some excerpts). The Court submissions can be found on our ADCS website.
The trial, which fleshes out the written arguments in orals in Federal Court, has been held the week of January 28, 2019 in Vancouver.
OUR TRIAL WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF BROCKERS. Somehow you found the monies to pay for this trial.
WE ARE SORRY BUT WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ASK YOU LATER FOR MORE DONATIONS TO KEEP OUR LAWSUIT ALIVE.
Reposted from the Renounce US Citizenship blog
This post was written in December 2014. It is being reposted in 2018 – the question is why
FATCA and the CRS (“Common Reporting Standard”) are mandatory information sharing schemes. They first define people in terms of their “tax residency” (each country defines who its tax residents are) and then shares people’s private information based on that “tax residency”. In other words (assuming you believe that there is a legitimate interest in privacy) both FATCA and the CRS should be viewed as “privacy overrides”.
Although the notion of privacy is dead in the United States (companies like Facebook and Google make a living off obtaining and using private information), the European GDPR suggests that privacy is valued by Europeans and that individuals should have some control over their data. In Europe the GDPR reflects a presumption that individual belongs to the individual. There is no such presumption in the United States. See:
31-year-old Austrian lawyer Max Schrems was the catalyst for new privacy protection regulations in Europe. He says your data belongs to you and you should have control over it. pic.twitter.com/OTV0reXDOg
— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) November 12, 2018
Automatic exchange of tax information and data privacy
cross-posted from citizenshipsolutions
Introduction – “Indifference being the worst form of abuse”
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) November 29, 2018
A quick summary of this post:
On November 26, 2018 the House Ways and Means Committee under the leadership of Chairman Brady announced a bi-partisan bill which contains a number of “Technical Fixes” to the December 22, 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. While specifically addressing the Sec. 965 transition tax, the bill contains neither mention nor relief for Americans Abroad who are at risk of having their retirement pensions confiscated by the U.S. Government. (While the transition tax may actually be beneficial for Homeland Americans, it is simply devastating for Americans abroad.)
In other words: The proposed legislation is NOT neutral. By specifically addressing the Sec. 965 transition tax and NOT providing relief for Americans abroad, it has exacerbated a difficult situation. My understanding is that many Americans abroad have requested filing extensions to December 15, 2018. The failure of this proposed bill to provide relief means that many Americans abroad with small businesses are in an impossible situation where compliance may well be impossible.
My analysis and discussion follows …
cross-posted from citizenshipsolutions
Part A is here
Part B is here
continued from Part B:
5. Why most Americans abroad are like most small business owners in America (and presumably should have similar tax treatment from a U.S. perspective)
It’s simple. The vast majority of Americans abroad who carry on business through Canadian Controlled Private Corporations (and similarly situated Americans living in other countries) are small business people. They are people who are simply trying to make a living. As described in a recent article from American Citizens Abroad:
“Treasury is not truly in touch with the reality of Americans abroad. Foreign corporations owned by Americans abroad exist in abundance. They are an everyday fact of life,” added Serrato.
ACA believes that it is fundamentally wrong for the Treasury Department to write regulations without knowing who is affected, and to what extent, as this goes against the fundamental requirements of the RFA.
The point is that small business people are the same inside the United States and outside the United States. The single most important characteristic is that from an economic perspective the corporation is a structure that is generally created to achieve limited liability or some other local benefit.