FATCA compliant foreign financial institutions (FFIs), including Canadian banks and investment houses, are required to close “recalictrant” accounts or collect 30 percent Withholdable Payments made to Recalcitrant Account Holders or noncompliant FFIs.
Closing accounts would entail freezing them until arrangements are made for the disposition of the account, be it transfer or whatever, at which point 30 percent of the assets would be withheld and given to the IRS.
Now, I make the observation that FATCA is US, not Canadian, law, and that FATCA compliance is voluntary. In effect the FATCA compliant Canadian bank or other institution is purchasing access to US financial markets with the assets of account holders.
On the face of it, this appears to me actionable and would lead to perhaps the largest class-action law suits in Canadian history.
I wonder whether anyone has any thoughts on this.
This is too important to get buried in this thread, so I’m cross-posting it in the relinquish/renounce thread (where I guess it’s also going to get buried, but possibly more folks will be monitoring that other thread).
Usxcanada very helpfully pointed out (March 4 post at 9:52pm) the importance of the 1986 date for those claiming relinquishment by having become Canadian (or any other non-US) citizens prior to 1986.
The State Department Consular Affairs Manual chapter at this link
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/109065.pdf
says on page 7-8 (under 7 FAM 1214 b(4)) that Section 349(a) of 8 USC 1481 was amended in 1986 to add the words “voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality:” after “shall lose his nationality by”
What this means is that, prior to 1986, Section 349 (a) began by saying “A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by
1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state …”
In other words, under the law prior to 1986, you did in fact automatically lose your US nationality by becoming a foreign citizen on your own application after attaining the age of 18 years. Prior to 1986, volition and intent to relinquish wasn’t mentioned in the law at all – you did this, you lost your US citizenship. Though State did send out letters (if they found out you’d become a foreign citizen, however they might have found that out) to give you a chance to argue your way out of losing your US citizenship if you wanted to take that chance, the letters made it clear the argument would have to be pretty compelling and supported by evidence. If you didn’t reply to the letter within a specified period of time, they issued you a CLN.
Quite apart from the letter that Ladybug kindly provided to us on this website (see July 25 1980 letter thread), this reference in State’s own procedures manual confirms that loss of US citizenship was automatic if you took out foreign citizenship before 1986, unless you provided to State a compelling argument against losing your nationality. Though obviously before 1986, and even today, taking out foreign citizenship voluntarily and with intent to relinquish US citizenship will always cause you to get a CLN. However, today you need to swear volition and intent and provide some sort of substantiating argument. Then, you didn’t, and I believe legally that if you took out foreign citizenship before 1986 they pretty-much have to issue you a CLN if you ask for it, as long as you’ve done nothing since then to exercise or assert US citizenship (get a US passport, vote in US election, FILE TAX RETURNS TO THE IRS, etc.) You shouldn’t even have to argue volition and intent, though it won’t hurt to do so and you might as well do so.
This reference is important, because on the internet you won’t find the pre-1986 law posted, what you’ll find is the current version. At least I haven’t been able to find a posting of the pre-1986 law. So don’t lose this reference, if you did become Canadian (or other nationality) before 1986, and State gives you any grief at all when you apply for a CLN today. They have absolutely no choice but to issue you a CLN if you ask for it, and it has to be dated from the day you took out foreign citizenship.
@Schubert and Everyone
I have a .pdf copy of the pre-1986 INA laws which I am currently cleaning-up in Word since it was imperfectly scanned with OCR (Optical Character Recognition) software. I will post this for reference as soon as I’m finished. I think it’s worth the wait since it will be much easier to copy/paste pertinent segments from it.
OK, here it is. We can post a proper version of this as a downloadable Word document, but for now this will have to do. Here is a link to the same document in its scanned .pdf form (as I mentioned previously, you will discover many OCR errors if you try to copy/paste directly from this version):
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/1952_Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_66Statxx_TitleIII_Chapter3.pdf
You will also notice sections highlighted in yellow. Whoever did the original scan was apparently looking for the same age-25 references that many of us have sought. We aren’t the first to have perused these ancient scrolls…
INA 349 to 358 – ORIGINAL, PRE-1986 VERSION:
p.267
66 STAT.] PUBLIC LAW 414 – JUNE 27, 1952
Chapter 3 – Loss of Nationality
LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN
SEC. 349. (a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by-
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: And provided further, That a person who shall have lost nationality prior to January 1, 1948, through the naturalization in a foreign state of a parent or parents, may, within one year from the effective date of this Act, apply for a visa and for admission to the United States as a nonquota immigrant under the provisions of section 101 (a) (27) (E) ; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political sub-division thereof; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state unless, prior to such entry or service, such entry or service is specifically authorized in writing by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense : Provided, That the entry into such service by a person prior to the attainment of his eighteenth birthday shall
p.268
66 STAT.] PUBLIC LAW 414 – JUNE 27, 1952
serve to expatriate such person only if there exists an option to secure a release from such service and such person fails to exercise such option at the attainment of his eighteenth birthday; or
(4) (A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) voting in a political election in a foreign state or participating in an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory; or
(6) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(7) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(8) deserting the military, air, or naval forces of the United States in time of war, if and when he is convicted thereof by court martial and as the result of such conviction is dismissed or dishonorably discharged from the service of such military, air, or naval forces : Provided, That notwithstanding loss of nationality or citizenship under the terms of this or previous laws by reason of desertion committed in time of war, restoration to active duty with such military, air, or naval forces in time of war or the reenlistment or induction of such a person in time of war with permission of competent military, air, or naval authority shall be deemed to have the immediate effect of restoring such nationality or citizenship heretofore or hereafter so lost; or
(9) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction; or
(10) departing from or remaining outside of the jurisdiction of the United States in time of war or during a period declared by the President to be a period of national emergency for the purpose of evading or avoiding training and service in the military, air, or naval forces of the United States. For the purposes of this paragraph failure to comply with any provision of any compulsory service laws of the United States shall raise the presumption that the departure from or absence from the United States was for the purpose of evading or avoiding training and service in the military, air, or naval forces of the United States.
(b) Any person who commits or performs any act specified in subsection (a) shall be conclusively presumed to have done so voluntarily and without having been subjected to duress of any kind, if such person at the time of the act was a national of the state in which the act was performed and had been physically present in such state for a period or periods totaling ten years or more immediately prior to such act.
p.269
66 STAT.] PUBLIC LAW 414 – JUNE 27, 1952
DUAL NATIONALS; DIVESTITURE OF NATIONALITY
SEC. 350. A person who acquired at birth the nationality of the United States and of a foreign state and who has voluntarily sought or claimed benefits of the nationality of any foreign state shall lose his United States nationality by hereafter having a continuous residence for three years in the foreign state of which he is a national by birth at any time after attaining the age of twenty-two years unless he shall-
(1) prior to the expiration of such three-year period, take an oath of allegiance to the United States before a United States diplomatic or consular officer in a manner prescribed by the Secretary of State ;and
(2) have his residence outside of the United States solely for one of the reasons set forth in paragraph (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), or (8) of section 353, or paragraph (1) or (2) of section 354 of this title : Provided, however, That nothing contained in this section shall deprive any person of his United States nationality if his foreign residence shall begin after he shall have attained the age of sixty years and shall have had his residence in the United States for twenty-five years after having attained the age of eighteen years.
RESTRICTIONS ON EXPATRIATION
SEC. 351. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (7), (8), and (9) of section 349 of this title, no national of the United States can expatriate himself, or be expatriated, under this Act while within the United States or any of its outlying possessions, but expatriation shall result from the performance within the United States or any of its outlying possessions of any of the acts or the fulfillment of any of the conditions specified in this chapter if and when the national thereafter takes up a residence outside the United States and its outlying possessions.
(b) A national who within six months after attaining the age of eighteen years asserts his claim to United States nationality, in such manner as the Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe, shall not be deemed to have expatriated himself by the commission, prior to his eighteenth birthday, of any of the acts specified in paragraphs (2), (4), (5), and (6) of section 349 (a) of this title.
LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATURALIZED NATIONAL
SEC. 352. (a) A person who has become a national by naturalization shall lose his nationality by-
(1) having a continuous residence for three years in the territory of a foreign state of which he was formerly a national or in which the place of his birth is situated, except as provided in section 353 of this title, whether such residence commenced before or after the effective date of this Act;
(2) having a continuous residence for five years in any other foreign state or states, except as provided in sections 353 and 354 of this title, whether such residence commenced before or after the effective date of this Act.
(b) (1) For the purpose of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section, the time during which the person had his residence abroad solely or principally for a reason or purpose within the scope of any provision of section 353 shall not be counted in computing quantum of residence.
p.270
66 STAT.] PUBLIC LAW 414 – JUNE 27, 1952
(2) For the purpose of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this section, the time during which the person had his residence abroad solely or principally for a reason or purpose within the scope of any provision of sections 353 and 354 shall not be counted in computing quantum of residence.
SECTION 352 NOT EFFECTIVE AS TO CERTAIN PERSONS
SEC. 353. Section 352 (a) shall have no application to a national who-
(1) has his residence abroad in the employment of the Government of the United States; or
(2) is receiving compensation from the Government of the United States and has his residence abroad on account of disability incurred in its service; or
(3) shall have had his residence in the United States for not less than twenty-five years subsequent to his naturalization and shall have attained the age of sixty years when the foreign residence is established; or
(4) had his residence abroad on October 14, 1940, and temporarily has his residence abroad, or who thereafter has gone or goes abroad and temporarily has his residence abroad, solely or principally to represent a bona fide American educational, scientific, philanthropic, commercial, financial, or business organization, having its principal office or place of business in the United States, or a bona fide religious organization having an office and representative in the United States, or an international agency of an official character in which the United States participates, for which he receives a substantial compensation; or
(5) has his residence abroad and is prevented from returning to the United States exclusively (A) by his own ill health; or (B) by the ill health of his parent, spouse, or child who cannot be brought to the United States, whose condition requires his personal care and attendance: Provided, That in such case the person having his residence abroad shall, at least every six months, register at the appropriate Foreign Service office and submit evidence satisfactory to the Secretary of State that his case continues to meet the requirements of this subparagraph; or (C) by reason of the death of his parent, spouse, or child: Provided, That in the case of the death of such parent, spouse, or child the person having his residence abroad shall return to the United States within six months after the death of such relative; or
(6) has his residence abroad for the purpose of pursuing a full course of study of a specialized character or attending full-time an institution of learning of a grade above that of a preparatory school: Provided, That such residence does not exceed five years; or
(7) is the spouse or child of an American citizen, and who has his residence abroad for the purpose of being with his American citizen spouse or parent who has his residence abroad for one of the objects or causes specified in paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) of this section, or paragraph (2) of section 354 of this title; or
(8) is the spouse or child of an American national by birth who while under the age of twenty-one years had his residence in the United States for a period of periods totaling ten years, and has his residence abroad for the purpose of being with said spouse or parent; or
(9) was born in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, who originally had American nationality and who, after
p.271
66 STAT.] PUBLIC LAW 414 – JUNE 27, 1952
having lost such nationality through marriage to an alien, reacquired it; or
(10) has, by Act of Congress or by treaty, United States nationality solely by reason of former nationality and birth or residence in an area outside the continental United States: Provided, That subsections (b) and (c) of section 404 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended (8 U. S. C. 804 (b) and (c)), shall not be held to be or to have been applicable to persons defined in this paragraph.
SECTION 352 (A) (2) NOT APPLICABLE AS TO CERTAIN PERSONS
SEC. 354. Section 352(a) (2) of this title shall have no application to a national-
(1) who is a veteran of the Spanish-American War, World War I, or World War II, and the spouse, children, and dependent parents of such veteran whether such residence in the territory of a foreign state or states commenced before or after the effective date of this Act: Provided, That any such veteran who upon the date of the enactment of this Act has had his residence continuously in the territory of a foreign state of which he was formerly a national or in which the place of his birth is situated for three years or more, and who has retained his United States nationality solely by reason of the provisions of section 406 (h) of the Nationality Act of 1940, shall not be subject to the provisions or requirements of section 352 (a) (1) of this title: Provided further, That the provisions of section 404 (c) of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, shall not be held to be or to have been applicable to veterans of World War II;
(2) who has established to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State, as evidenced by possession of a valid unexpired United States passport or other valid document issued by the Secretary of State, that his residence is temporarily outside of the United States for the purpose of (A) carrying on a commercial enterprise which in the opinion of the Secretary of State will directly and substantially benefit American trade or commerce; or (B) carrying on scientific research on behalf of an institution accredited by the Secretary of State and engaged in research which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is directly and substantially beneficial to the interests of the United States; or (C) engaging in such work or activities, under such unique or unusual circumstances, as may be determined by the Secretary of State to be directly and substantially beneficial to the interests of the United States;
(3) who is the widow or widower of a citizen of the United States and who has attained the age of sixty years, and who has had a residence outside of the United States and its outlying possessions for a period of not less than ten years during all of which period a marriage relationship has existed with a spouse who has had a residence outside of the United States and its outlying possessions in an occupation or capacity of the type designated in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) (A) of section 353, or paragraphs (1), (2), or (4) of this section;
(4) who has attained the age of sixty years, and has had a residence outside of the United States and its outlying possessions for not less than ten years, during all of which period he has been engaged in an occupation of the type designated in paragraphs (1), (2), or (4) of section 353, or paragraph (2) of this section, and who is in bona fide retirement from such occupation; or
p.272
66 STAT.] PUBLIC LAW 414 – JUNE 27, 1952
(5) who shall have had his residence in the United States for not less than twenty-five years subsequent to his naturalization and prior to the establishment of his foreign residence.
LOSS OF AMERICAN NATIONALITY THROUGH PARENT’S EXPATRIATION; NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL PERSON ATTAINS AGE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS
SEC. 355. A person having United States nationality, who is under the age of twenty-one and whose residence is in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who hereafter loses United States nationality under section 350 or 352 of this title, shall also lose his United States nationality if such person has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, United States nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of United States nationality by the parent unless and until the person attains the age of twenty-five years without having established his residence in the United States.
NATIONALITY LOST SOLELY FROM PERFORMANCE OF ACTS OR FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS
SEC. 356. The loss of nationality under this chapter shall result solely from the performance by a national of the acts or fulfillment of the conditions specified in this chapter.
APPLICATION OF TREATIES; EXCEPTIONS
SEC. 357. Nothing in this title shall be applied in contravention of the provisions of any treaty or convention to which the United States is a party and which has been ratified by the Senate upon the effective date of this title: Provided, however, That no woman who was a national of the United States shall be deemed to have lost her nationality solely by reason of her marriage to an alien on or after September 22, 1922, or to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship on or after March 3, 1931, or, in the case of a woman who was a United States citizen at birth, through residence abroad following such marriage, notwithstanding the provisions of any existing treaty or convention.
Chapter 4 – Miscellaneous
CERTIFICATE OF DIPLOMATIC OR CONSULAR OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES AS TO LOSS OF AMERICAN NATIONALITY UNDER CHAPTER IV, NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, OR UNDER CHAPTER 3 OF THIS TITLE
SEC. 358. Whenever a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States has reason to believe that a person while in a foreign state has lost his United States nationality under any provision of chapter 3 of this title, or under any provision of chapter IV of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, he shall certify the facts upon which such belief is based to the Department of State, in writing, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of State. If the report of the diplomatic or consular officer is approved by the Secretary of State, a copy of the certificate shall be forwarded to the Attorney General, for his information, and the diplomatic or consular office in which the report was made shall be directed to forward a copy of the certificate to the person to whom it relates.
Deckard1138: Thank you very much. I plan to have a copy of that handy when my wife has her relinquishing appointment in two weeks time. Nice to see that word “shall” in the statute instead of the later word “may.” I’m guessing a good lawyer can hit a home run with that one if necessary.
News article today from Sweden:
“Americans in Sweden suffer US tax crackdown”
http://www.thelocal.se/39522/20120306/
@Expat4ever,ALL, I am so sickened by this crap, what the hell are we suppose to do?? I keep hoping to hear good news, but it is all bad, everyday,everyday, everyday!!! I just can’t believe that American’s Abroad are really paying these fines.I am a senior US Citizen and cannot afford to lose retirement. I feel like I am going to have a heart attack or nervous breakdown or both. Suicide maybe the best thing.. then I guess they would tax the coffin they put me in..or the Urn. I will have my husband sprinkle my ashes on US Congress, Shulman’s desk and tell them this is what you are causing. Of course they don’t give a FLYING —-!!!
Can you imagine such words out of a Seniors mouth! Well I didn’t really say it, but you know what I mean!
@saddened123, it’s obvious you’re very upset and perhaps not able to cope anymore without outside help.
I went through something very similar about a year ago (totally unrelated to FATCA) and reached out to my family doctor who put me in touch with a really good therapist (ok, he’s not a therapist he’s a psychiatrist). He’s put me on some medications which have made life so much easier to cope with. He’s a psychiatrist working inside a hospital so he’s covered under OHIP. I believe psychologists are not covered by OHIP.
Perhaps you don’t need the kind of help I did but I just wanted to put it out there just in case you wanted to reach out to someone.
My issues had to do with panic attacks where all of a sudden I felt I couldn’t breath and this would happen even on weekends. The feeling was so awful I wanted to die just so I wouldn’t have to feel that way. I don’t have these panic attacks anymore.
@saddened123 Dear Saddened, I think we have all been in the space you describe. Try not to lose courage! In my heart of hearts, I cannot believe that at the end of the day we will actually lose our pensions, life savings, and such. Unfortunately, we are forced into a life-and-death stuggle not of our choice. A very likely outcome, in my opinion, and not at all a good one, is living with neither losing our savings nor having the issue go away, of living the rest of our lives in a condition of uncertainty, of forced hiding, and US terrorism.
@saddened: Never mess with Granny! Seniors can swear with the best of them!
Your comment about suicide alarm me. I’m hoping you have said it in anger, not in desperation. Are you OK–despite the stress of all of this?
This is a perfect example of why this needs to get resolved now. Flaherty needs to make it clear Canadian banks must adhere to Canadian laws and that the law will not be changed to accommodate a foreign government which is bankrupt both financially and morally. He needs to tell the US that loud and clear.
This issue is placing far too great a toll on people of all ages–on their finances, jobs, careers, families, spouses, relationships, retirements, health and adopted countries. Enough!
Ambassador Jacobsen: Where is the protection for the Canadian grandmas you promised months ago?!?. Why have you been so silent since then? Get this resolved. NOW!
@ Everyone — Ambassador Jacobson is a CLOWN — a pompous figurehead with no regard for ‘US persons in Canada’.and he should take responsibility for any health problems resulting from his PROMISE TO CANADIANS — hang tight, my “derrière”.
And, these health concerns should also be reported to the TAS Office of Systemic Advocacy and in any class-action lawsuit.
Does anyone in the US IRS not see the danger in their actions?
@saddened, we are here for you and others feeling desperation!!!
I think “hang tight” is code for HIDE because the US government is insane and there’s nothing the Ambassador can do about it.
I believe in justice and the US will eventually pay for all the suffering they’re causing to so many seniors in Canada and elsewhere that take nothing from the US government.
US politicians are a bunch of heartless robots who can’t even empathize with seniors.
Please, put your RRSPs and investments in a Credit Union and do not visit the US and you are absolutely safe. Its all under control.
@saddened123
Dear Saddened;
You are not alone in this.
We care, and we are all here trying to help each other. We need you.
We will tell everyone we are speaking with how stressful this is and the effect it is having on health and wellbeing. Several of us – (maybe more?), in despair about the effects on ourselves and families may have felt the something similar. Finding you and the others on this have been one of the best antidotes I have had in dealing with this. Stay with us, and together we will do our best to work on this situation however we can. I am certain that there are also ‘silent’ readers who may also be distressed, but who don’t/can’t post.
take care,
@Joe: Unfortunately, it is not all safe with credit unions. I spoke with the President and CEO of my credit union, which has US investments. Like the banks. he expects my credit union and other credit unions with any US investments to eventually have to comply with FATCA in order to protect all of their members.
The only credit unions I’ve found locally who do not have investments in US also do not offer RRSPs.
@All
I think that the time to consider credit unions or storing money under the mattress has, unfortunately, come and gone. FATCA has been pushed through the most important EU member states and most of the other countries in the world are lining up to comply, even Russia and China. Canadian banks are too intertwined with the US to not comply and worldwide opposition to FATCA peaked last year and is now on the decline. I think that the only way to protect your privacy and financial freedom is to now renounce citizenship. Or hope for the US to collapse in the next 9 months.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to have any legal connection whatsoever in a year’s time since I think that the FEIE will be gone and the US is at risk of hyperinflation the moment that the US dollar is no longer used as the world’s reserve currency. I have heard some hearsay that the real reason for calls on Iran is to ensure that the US dollar remains the choice of trading in oil and not an alternative like the Yuan…
Alterna.
http://isaacbrocksociety.com/2012/02/01/scotia-bank-december-31-letter-to-clients-from-scotiabank-for-review/
schubert1975
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 AT 12:59 PM
In Ontario try Alterna Savings, a credit union that was formerly called “Civil Service Co-op” but now accepts depositors who aren’t present or retired federal employees. They have no US investments, and in answer to my email query I got a reply informing me their legal advice is they don’t have to comply with FATCA (and won’t) because they have no US holdings (I’m not sure any credit unions do, under their charter I’m not even sure they’re allowed to invest or hold outside Canada but I may be wrong).
If in doubt, contact your credit unions in your area. And remember, credit unions have MEMBERS not mere depositors. You own the credit union, and you have a vote for their directors and can probably precipitate a board meeting (you may need X number of petitioners to do this, not sure, check the specifics of your credit union) where you could force a debate and a vote on FATCA compliance if it becomes an issue. Good luck trying to do that with any chartered bank in Canada! Depositors in charter banks don’t have votes, only people who own shares in the bank have votes (credit unions also have shares, one share per depositor and that’s all you’re entitled to buy) and those folks can live outside the country, not be depositors, and hold as many shares as they can afford and hence can steamroller any individual depositor or group of depositors.
Credit unions are much more democratic than are chartered banks, quite apart from FATCA, and they invest in local businesses not in dodgy morgages and overseas ponzi schemes. There are many reasons to put your money in a credit union, and those reasons apply to all Canadians not just US-born or US-parented Canadians.
Likely ditto in other countries, which I assume have similar institutions.
I haven’t had an account with a chartered bank since moving to Ottawa in 1976. Nor will I ever again, especially now that our chartered banks are so invested in the US they have little choice but to try to comply with FATCA, subject to Canadian banking and privacy laws however, which could get very interesting and messy …
@Joe: I can check it out, but I was told by another member of IBS who is also a member of Alterna that they do not offer RRSPs (which is the vast amount of my savings). Their closest location is two hours away from me.
I have more invested in RRSPS — through Alterna’s subsidiary investment agencies — than I care to disclose.
@All, Thank you for all your support, but I do have days were I just want it too end so bad.. My husbands does not want to hear it, and walks away if I mention it.. It is very hard to cope without family support.. I know I have all of you and I appreciate it so much..I want to Renounce so bad, but have yet to get my Canadian Citizenship and it will probably be another 16 months, Yes 16 months believe me I am counting the days.. My biggest worry is my Accidental American Son, he did not ask for this Bullshit, he was born in Canada.
I wish we could all email each other so that we would not have to put too much info on here. I feel like I can’t say what I want too.. This site is a blessing for us all…
Thanks again for all your concern, I REALLY DO APPRECIATE IT.. It is really a shame that our health and life has to be at risk over this..
https://www.alterna.ca/AlternaSavings/Personal/Investments/RRSPsAndRRIFs/RRSPQandA/
Petros, Calgary or someone who has my e-mail: Can you give my e-mail address to saddened? I want to be able to reach out to her and try to support her, even if it is from a distance.
Thanks.
@Blaze
Done for her to contact either or both of us offline.
@Saddened, please hang in. It’s so hard to see getting our lives back, I have felt the same way, up and down, (down and downer really a lot of the time), lately feeling less pessimistic.
The worst thing that ever happened to me before this was a fire 30 years ago. When this US mess started, I felt that it was “fifty or a hundred times worse” than the fire. As it drags on, I now feel that being trapped in a burning building was “a picnic in the park” compared to this US mess. And another thing, the US gov knows there’s a problem and they could help straighten out this mess … unlike the arsonist who was insane. I actually bore the arsonist no ill will, which turned out to be the best way to get on with my life. I would like to move on from this crisis the same way, but the US isn’t making it easy.
Also with fires, illness, natural disasters, we all have some idea of what they are and that they can happen, unlike this unprecedented situation. This US mess is unprecedented, therefore very hard to straighten out … and very hard to explain to people who one would rely on in a normal crisis. People, though well-meaning, can’t understand it like they would, say, a tsunami, which is unfamiliar but not unprecedented, we know about them from tv at least. This US mess is unprecedented.
It’s even hard for us to find a lawyer or accountant because this is such a new sub-area of law, and even those qualified professionals can’t be sure what to do because the rules are not clear. It is driving us all crazy.
The US gov can’t turn back time and erase the suffering they have caused us. But they could alleviate the situation. IRS should revise their policy; at the least, IRS should operate like Revenue Canada, which has clear, simple instructions and forms, and is not based on fear and the assumption that everyone is a criminal. Likewise every DOS consulate should deal properly and professionally with all former citizens and soon-to-be former citizens.
People stuck in this crisis are trying to straighten it out, but opacity and capriciousness are driving people even more crazy.
Literally, the stress is causing both mental and physical problems to people and to their families, just because someone was born in the US. I got high blood pressure, insomnia and depression for the first time in my life because of this.
There’s differences in all our situations, but we’re pooling our knowledge here and we’re learning together, which is a big help. I think the hardest thing sometimes is feeling alone in this and Brock has also been a big help in the sense of feeling less isolated. I’ve actually wondered if we should set up some sort of support network, where people, in urban areas at least, could meet once a week, and/or exchange phone numbers so people could talk when they feel a need for person-to-person contact.
Wow, Saddened, your posting really go me going, I was on a break at work, read it, and just had to start typing a reply and couldn’t stop. Hang in there, sometimes it’s hard to see life returning to normal, but I think with the practical advice and moral support we are all giving each other that we will get our lives back.
@pacifica
That was beautifully put to saddened. If each of us could put it into words properly, it would be what you have said. Thanks very much.
Blaze said Never mess with Granny! and that lit a fuse.
An important part of effective protest is creating a media bomb by converging wit and flair with timing and with target. Think of the Yippie shower of dollar bills at the NYSE. [24 Aug 1967 – Led by Abbie Hoffman, the Youth International Party temporarily disrupts trading at the NYSE by throwing dollar bills from the viewing gallery, causing trading to cease as brokers scramble to grab them.] Think of the Greenpeace voyage to Amchitka.
Perhaps a branch of the Raging Grannies could ally with a few directly affected Grannies to mount an Ottawa offensive on the office of David Jacobson? Heart-rending statements could be collected from Calgary411, Saddened123, etc The story of the Prairie farmer sisters could be retold.
Jacobson created the hook. Time to go fishing?