The following response to the Isaac Brock Society appeared in a comment.
I am with the CBA and we have been following your discussion. We certainly understand the concerns that you have with FATCA. However, you seem to be under the impression that Canadian banks are planning to willingly go along with the FATCA requirements and this is certainly not the case. In fact, the Canadian banking industry agrees with your concerns and we have been and will continue to fight to change the extraterritorial reach of FATCA and lessen the impact it will have on Canadian banks and their customers.
We have information on our stance on FATCA on our website:
http://cba.ca/en/research-and-advocacy/47-regulatory-enviornment/598-foreign-account-tax-compliance-act–
For more than two years, the CBA and the Canadian banks have raised our concerns with the IRS and the US Treasury Department and have also done so through our membership in the International Banking Federation. We have also had discussions in Washington with IRS and US Treasury officials and Canadian Embassy officials. In May, the CBA made a presentation in Washington at public hearings before Treasury and the IRS and our president spoke out against FATCA in speeches in Calgary and Vancouver this spring. Here are the links:
http://cba.ca/contents/files/presentations/pre_20120515_irsfatca_en.pdf
Last week we also submitted an opinion piece with our concerns about FATCA to the Washington Post and we are waiting to hear back about whether it will be printed.
In Ottawa, we have raised concerns with officials from the Department of Finance, the Minister of Finance and the US Embassy. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has supported our position and expressed his own concerns publicly and we appreciate the support from the Minister and his officials. And we are not alone in fighting this legislation. Governments and banking groups from around the world share your concerns and ours. You can find more documents here:
If banks were required to identify US persons under FATCA, they would not be doing this willingly. However, they may have no choice as FATCA is currently written because the non-compliance would have a much larger impact on more of the financial institutions’ customers. The penalty for being unable to comply with these complex rules is very severe for both banks and their clients. The penalty includes a 30 per cent withholding tax on all U.S. source income flowing to the bank and its customers, and a 30 per cent withholding tax on the gross proceeds of the sale of U.S. securities by the bank and its customers, and withholding on some portion of so-called “foreign pass-thru” payments. According to Statistics Canada, as of 2010 Canadian direct investment in the United States totalled nearly $250 billion. As outlined on our website, banks would only provide information to US authorities with a customer’s consent (http://cba.ca/en/consumer-information/40-banking-basics/597-us-foreign-account-tax-compliance-act-fatca-information-for-clients).
There is nothing in the Canadian Bank Act or the Access to Basic Banking Services (ABBS) Regulations that prohibits a bank from closing an account. The ABBS regulations give reasons why a bank can refuse to open an account for someone, but they don’t give any restrictions on closing an account. You can find information here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2003-184/page-1.html
I hope this is helpful in explaining why Canadian banks would comply, however reluctantly, with FATCA if it became necessary and why Canada’s banking industry, with the support of the federal government, will continue to fight for changes to the FATCA legislation. As your concern seems to be the requirements under FATCA, you may wish to add your voice to the growing opposition to this legislation by raising these issues with the US Treasury, the IRS and the U.S. embassy in Ottawa.
Maura Drew-Lytle
Director, Media Relations and Communications
Canadian Bankers Association
The following comments were received:
Joe SmithDear CBA
Are your member banks prepared to give up close to 1,000,000 bank customers and terminate their businesses?
@ Joe Smith
We are working hard to get changes to FATCA to lessen the impact on bank customers in Canada. While we are still hopeful that some changes may be made, the banks and other financial institutions also have to start preparing for its implementation even though they are reluctant to do so.
@Joe Smith, thanks for posting this. I just saw that I received the same email.
Joe SmithDoes anybody have updates on Credit Unions planned approaches? This could be a tremendous windfall for the cooperative movement if they pick up 1,000,000+ accounts, mortgages, loans, RRSPS and RESPS as well as tax-free accounts..
Tim@Joe Smith
While she is technically correct on the application of ABBS(re closing vs opening) effectively over a large portion of the population ABBS blocks closure. If someone was closed out legitimately one institutions they could simply go to another and demand to opened under ABBS effectively negating the point of the FATCA regs. The Washington Post part of the story is news to me and a good sign. The foreign pass through payment issue is in total violation of Canadian law under several court rulings.
Blaze@Maura: It seems you are cofirming our worst fears that there is nothing to prevent a bank from closing an account. This to me says Canadian banks may very well (even if reluctanlty) demand to know place of birth, request permission to provide information to IRS if that place of birth is in US and be prepared to close an account if that permission is not given.
Despite your protestations, this says a foreign law will take precedence over the rights of Canadian citizens and residents when push comes to shove.
Your comments are also in conflict with the following comments in a letter from a Vice-President of TD to DOT and IRS.
“If an FFI closed an account because such information was not provided, the purpose of ABBS rules would be frustrated and, in addition, the FFI would be subject to fines. Each violation of the ABBS requirements would subject the financial institution to a penalty of up to 200,000. Even if an FFI could close the account of an uncooperative account holder, an FFI could not refuse to reopen an account for such an individual if adequate identification under ABBS were again provided.”
Would you please clarify for us the following:
1. Is the information you provided correct or is the information in the letter from TD correct?
2, Under what legal authority would a bank be able to ask it’s customers where they were born or if they hold citizenship of a foreign country?
As I I told you in my e-mail, I have been in contact with a prominent Canadian lawyer. My bank can expect legal action of they ask me my place of birth or make a request to transmit private financial information to a foreign government.
You may be assured we are making our views known to government officials on both sides of the border.
In the meantime, your response is making my employee credit union look better and better.
Tim*
@Joe Smith
The latest from the Credit Union movement is a letter from Central One to US Treasury.
http://bsmlegal.com/PDFs/Central1.pdf
Basically they call to exempted completely. They also indicate that a significant number of individual CU’s will refuse to comply and thus Central One will have major problems. Central One also seems to indicate that if a solution is not reached soon the Canadian Payments Association and the Bank of Canada will get involved.
badger@Maura Drew-Lytle;
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your interest in our concerns. As individuals, we have been speaking with our banks and credit unions and comparing notes. Some have also corresponded with some of your members. We have also written to Minister Flaherty, and other political representatives, as well as the Privacy Commissioner. Some have contacted US politicians, and the ACLU.
I appreciate the presentations that the banks have made – and I have read the presentations where available on the net, as have several others here. Opposition to FATCA in any form or origin is welcome. But, I’d quibble a bit about the nature/form/motivation of some of the opposition, since some of the CBA member’s investment affiliates have advocated not against FATCA itself, and the impact on clients, but in opposition to the ‘compliance burden’, and costs, thus are advocates for a government-to-government reporting approach to take the onus, costs and heat off themselves. It would help to deflect negative attention away from financial institutions and investment firms if they could point to government as the source of the implementation instead. If the Canadian government does agree to do that, there would of course be a cost – which would be paid for by all Canadian taxpayers. And since we all pay taxes to Canada, whether we also hold US taxable status as well, everyone in Canada will share in implementing the costs – with zero benefit. Whereas, banks, insurance companies, etc. will continue to have unimpeded access to US markets, with less direct cost borne by their shareholders. This is where our interests diverge quite a bit – I don’t want FATCA at all, and have no interest in settling for a less expensive version.
For example I don’t have the full article below, but I think this illustrates my point;
“FATCA Partners” agreement would limit compliance burdens, Canadian trade group says Feb 14 2012
by Emmanuel Olaoye
“Ian Russell, president of the Investment Industry Association of Canada (IIAC), said the changes would be a “very positive step” for Canadian firms if Canada signed on as a FATCA partner.
“It would resolve the problems of conflicts in privacy laws. We are obliged to provide information to foreign….” http://www.complinet.com/global/news/news/article.html?ref=152318 The IIAC has a member list here: http://www.iiac.ca/welcome-to-iiac/about-us/iiac-members , and you will see that there are members who have relationships with major Canadian banks.
I think I’d be more inclined to appreciate the efforts that banks have made, without as much criticism if they had tried to alert their customers in ways that would help marshall popular and political resistance against FATCA – rather than only post information on a website they would have no reason to look at. I note that banks aren’t alone in that. Pension plans have not followed up on the suggestions by affected account holders to notify their members of the pending crisis either. I haven’t seen any full page newspaper and media ads to that effect – unless I missed them. There has been surprisingly little coverage of FATCA domestically or in the US.
Re your comments:
“However, they may have no choice as FATCA is currently written because the non-compliance would have a much larger impact on more of the financial institutions’ customers. The penalty for being unable to comply with these complex rules is very severe for both banks and their clients.”
From the CBA site, this is the broad group of mostly Canadian citizens who will be affected:
The CBA site says the affected would include:
- A citizen of the U.S. (including an individual born in the U.S. but resident in Canada or another country, who has not renounced U.S. citizenship);
- A lawfulresident of the U.S. (including a U.S. green card holder);
- A person residing in the U.S.
- You also may be considered a U.S. person if you spend a considerable amount of time in the U.S. on a yearly basis. For example, some Canadian “snowbirds” may be considered U.S. persons for U.S. tax purposes. If you are unsure, contact your tax advisor.
- U.S. corporations, estates and trusts are also considered U.S. persons.”
Many of those above will also be dual Canadian/US citizens by birth or naturalization. Some may hold US only citizenship – but be decades-long permanent residents.
The CBA no doubt is working from its own estimated statistics of how many accounts would be affected – that would just be good business planning. I’d be interested in knowing what numbers you’re using. I think that it is at least an estimated million or more US taxable ‘persons’ in Canada (not just citizens, but duals, snowbirds, greencard holders, etc. Correct me if I’m wrong?
All the persons in the categories above would suffer directly from Canadian bank and financial institution collaboration with the FATCA regime. Those deemed by the US to be ‘taxable persons’ living in Canada, all have families, and many have single-citizenship Canadian spouses or other relatives who may hold joint accounts with them. Even if not jointly held, one member of the household – say a breadwinner – who is refused banking, has their account closed, or suffers a 30% witholding, will affect an entire Canadian family. Add to that all the Canadian business accounts that could be affected. And mortgages, and savings, pension, life insurance – and other types of accounts – since the list of what FATCA includes is longer than any small exclusions. That’s a lot of angry customers and a lot of affected accounts and assets.
Some FATCA compliance sites have advised their clients on ways of keeping this low key – so as not to alienate account holders during the process of implementation. I’ve been wondering if that is why when I look at the list of presenters at FATCA hearings in the US, we hear so little from them here at home. One pension plan opined that there was no need to get members upset – in the hopes that they’d be exempted from complying with FATCA. Problem is that people can’t make their objections known in a democracy unless they’re told what is brewing before it is too late. I would have thought that Canadian citizens and residents could be partners with their financial institutions in approaching our government with our concerns if we’d been alerted when this was first proposed.
How will joint account holders, and beneficiaries fare in this – when only one of them is a US taxable person with a FATCA obligation? How will banks treat this situation? I’m assuming that even the single-citizenship Canadians will have to prove that they are not American?
Account holders will have a choice? Won’t we be considered ‘recalcitrant’ then? What is the result of being recalcitrant? “If you do not complete IRS Form W-9 or provide your consent to disclose information to the IRS, your financial institution maybe required to withhold a tax of 30% on any U.S. source payments1 that you receive and send this money to the IRS. Also, your financial institution may refuse to open an account or may be required to close existing accounts.”
You say that banks will be forced to do this because of the impact on all their other clients. Well, who will be paying for the expensive systems to implement FATCA? Only those deemed US persons? Or will it be shared amongst all the other account holders – except that they won’t know that they’re paying for it will they?
Interesting comment you made re; no prohibition on banks closing an account.
“There is nothing in the Canadian Bank Act or the Access to Basic Banking Services (ABBS) Regulations that prohibits a bank from closing an account. The ABBS regulations give reasons why a bank can refuse to open an account for someone, but they don’t give any restrictions on closing an account“
That may be true, I don’t know. Does that make it any more palatable for the account holder – that it’s not actually prohibited? If the reason for closing an account hinges on identifying birthplace, US citizenship (for duals, placing US above Canadian citizenship held simultaneously – often through birth on Canadian soil), or merely US connections (ex. marriage to a US person – on joint accounts and investments). Could that be discrimination? We are in Canada. Shouldn’t Canadian law supercede US laws in our sovereign country?
It may be that the US will win, and FATCA will be imposed on us if our federal government gives in. Savings and assets are of paramount importance to most people – and that means we’re hardly likely to forget this episode in history. Neither will our non-US friends and family when we share with them what happened – even if it becomes legal to do.
If a million or more of us and our joint account holders and beneficiaries end up under the bus as a minor but unavoidable bump in the road, do you think that we will forgive and forget? I don’t think so. Some might be thinking that if and when credit unions – (who operate for and by their members), are also forced to cooperate, that we’ll have no alternatives, and thus we’ll have no choice. This may very well be the case. Perhaps we’ll have no good alternative other than a house full of piggy banks, but we’ll certainly remember who co-operated first, and who started to collaborate before it even became in force here in Canada.
We are fully compliant with the laws in Canada – our accounts are transparent, and are registered and reported with our SIN#s, post-tax earnings, we pay tax on any interest – the CRA already knows everything we have.
Canada is not a tax haven.
nobledreamerThe whole situation gets more depressing by the moment. I can’t imagine the IRS and/or Congress giving a hoot about the importance of Central 1′s ability to service the Canadian system, or whether the CBA wants to comply etc. They only care about what they want and since they can hold that 30% witholding threat over everybody’s heads, there seems to be nothing anyone can do. Unless all the governments were prepared to take the hit and tell them they wouldn’t comply. It is truly hard to fathom that one country can hold that much power over everyone else.
I wish my CLN would arrive. Among all the other negatives, I could not imagine being told I couldn’t have a bank account.
@Tim
perhaps I am missing something but I don’t see a section in the letter from Central One that indicates a significant number of individual CU’s will refuse to comply. Could you point this out to me? I would be thrilled, as all my $$ was moved to CU the minute I heard about FATCA.
Reposting this link that Just Me http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/01/13/ask-your-questions-about-fatca-discussion-thread/#comment-69568 found: http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/news/lawyers-cash-in-on-fatca
A quote from that article says; …”The total cost of implementation will likely far exceed the projected
$US8.7 billion the US government is hoping to recoup in lost tax
dollars, Granwell added. He pointed out that the Australian Tax Office
also faces “tremendous” administration costs as it moves towards a
system of automatic information exchange with the US Internal Revenue
Service.”…
So, Canadian banks and financial institutions are pushing for a ‘government to government’ arrangement for implementing FATCA, but the glaring omission is who will pay for that arrangement? The quote above demonstrates that in Australia, the Australian Tax Office is expected to pay ‘tremendous administration costs’, to assist the IRS. Canada would be the same – and has many more US ‘persons’ than Australia. All Canadians will then pay extra taxes to our federal government – in order to pay for the ‘tremendous administration costs’ that our Canada Revenue Agency and Ministry of Finance will face if they allow FATCA to be implemented in Canada. ALL Canadians will pay through our taxes to subsidize the US, IRS, US Treasury, and US banks – with no advantage to Canada or Canadian citizens.
I am hoping that the CBA continues to read this thread – any ‘government to government’ arrangement you support will cost ALL Canadian taxpayers – to subsidize this initiative that is skewed entirely to the interests of the US.
*@Badger – don’t forget to add in the $100 million – $300 million/bank setup costs plus whatever the on-going operational costs – which would translate to added and increased fees for all services to all bank customers (not just U.S. persons)
You’re right @CanadianExpat, there are also the increased fees for service to ALL bank customers in Canada – even those who are not US ‘taxable persons’, and who have absolutely NO taxable or other relationship with the US.
All Canadian will pay higher bank and investment fees – forever – to cover this, AND they will also pay higher Canadian taxes in order to pay for whatever additional and ongoing infrastructure, staff, and technology that the Canada Revenue Agency and Ministry of Finance will need to put in place in order to handle the complex and heavy burden of a FATCA intergovernmental reporting system between Canada and the US/IRS. Which is in addition to the reporting that already exists.
Given that FATCA plans forsee eventual automatic reporting of all account transactions of US ‘taxable persons’, that would far exceed any resources or systems to report merely highest balances or annual interest earned. My understanding is that eventually it is meant to include ALL financial activities – withdrawals, transfers and deposits for each ‘account’ for each US ‘person’ individual – though they are all legal, post-tax, and registered with the Canadian Revenue Agency with our SIN numbers. Once Canada signs on, the US will no doubt capriciously and arrogantly make additional demands.
How could the CRA put in place, and maintain an ongoing process that would automatically provide that level of detailed information for each and every one of the > 1 million Canadian US duals/’taxable persons’, and each and every separate ‘account’ – even those held jointly with non-US ‘persons’ (ex. Canadian spouses), in response to whatever the US demands, without sinking substantial federal tax revenues into FATCA collection and remittance of information? That is quite apart from what would be involved in any withholdings or dispute resolution.
Perhaps it is a good time for another question raised in Question period (and an answer enshrined in Hansard) – by MP Mai ? – forcing the Finance Minister and our government to identify a specific figure of the cost to ALL Canadian taxpayers in order to implement the US/IRS/Treasury demands – which constitute a direct Canadian subsidy to the IRS – assisting it in information gathering on Canadian owned and held assets.
Since FATCA and FBARs don’t directly identify US tax actually owed, Canada would be allowing the US to force all of us to pay for it’s extensive information collection – on millions of Canadian accounts that have not been demonstrated to be linked to any actual tax owed to or lost by the US.
This also includes all the ‘foreign’ accounts that don’t directly belong to or benefit the account signatory – including Canadian employer/workplace accounts, Power of Attorney accounts, joint accounts with a Canadian citizen, volunteer accounts (ex. treasurers/board members in church, community and voluntary organizations for charitable fundraising), etc.
*@Badger – and for the U.S. it will be a massive capital flight out of the U.S. due to selling of U.S. stocks and bonds by even non-U.S. persons because of the hassle and increased paperwork and also 30% withholding which could happen at any point between the exchange and the asset holder .. one example:
“To illustrate the potential effect of FATCA, let’s take an example of a foreign investor who buys $100,000 worth of Facebook stock on a U.S. stock exchange for $20 per share. The shares increase to $25 per share and his investment is now worth $125,000. The investor sells his shares, but his broker is not FATCA compliant, so the IRS withholds 30% of his $125,000, or $37,500. The investor takes home $87,500, which is $12,500 less than his original investment and $37,500 less than what he was entitled to.” .. The client must now file a US tax return and deal with the whole U.S. system and file lots of paperwork to get his money back.
http://thebilzerianreport.com/?p=2542
@CanadianExpat;
I mourn the amount of ‘Life Credit Units’ (as Just Me says), family savings, taxpayer dollars, and hours already wasted by individuals, and Canadian and other governments because of US arrogance. An arrogance paid for with our non-US tax dollars, and by the savings of families and private individuals paying life altering fees to expensive lawyers and accountants, trying to cope with the situation so far (ex. compliance costs, household savings gone, registered accounts dissolved or foregone, citizenship renunciation fees and time lost). All squandered, and wasted to generate absolutely nothing of any use to anyone.
No positive or constructive result for the US or all the rest of us. The only harvest to be reaped by the US is massive and lasting ill-will. And that extends to anyone who assists them to foist this burden onto the Canada and other country’s taxpayers and account holders – including any financial institution collaborators.
@CanadianExpat and @badger…
Well, you will have a chance to comment about the cost of LCUs tonight here
Don’t let this opportunity pass. 🙂
Thanks for alerting us to the opportunity, Just Me!
Ms Drew-Lytle, are you still there? I hope that if the CBA is lobbying the Canadian government for an Intergovernmental Agreement, that we Canadians aren’t going down without fighting for our fellow Canadians and the country we love:
Jim Jatras: STOP an Impending Massive Handover of Canadian Sovereignty to the United States!
*I just recommended to Blaze over at Maple Sandbox to give CC to Maura Drew Lytle. Keep her up to date for fun if anything is to what is going on.
@tim
good idea.
And now, a FATCA information bulletin from Scotiabank. Another financial institution to avoid – jumping the gun – before Canada’s federal Conservatives have even finished pretending to solicit input on that ‘pending’ agreement that the Federal government is close to ‘concluding’ without any meaningful public notice or input. What ever happened to Minister Flaherty’s strong stance on this? Is Canada and Canadian account holders really tax haven central? Are all duals and US persons holding legal Canadian savings really all criminals in need of bank collusion and the oversight of two governments (US and Canada) ?
http://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/0,,6098,00.html
Thanks, badger. I put the actual words of the notification into your comment as it looks as the link doesn’t work and I couldn’t make it do so.
I may be too sensitive on this topic, but seems to me Scotiabank’s wording could have been a better description than putting into the reader’s mind that they will report annually ON ALL SUCH ACCOUNTS (the ones aimed at preventing U.S. taxpayers from using offshore accounts TO EVADE TAXES).
Scotiabank confirms that it is a backstabbing traitor to Canadian citizen duals and permanent residents – and cites their business interests in other countries who are negotiating FATCA IGAs.
…”What does this mean to Scotiabank and our customers?
It is the Bank’s intention to meet our FATCA obligations across
our entire global network, where applicable and permitted. To that end,
Scotiabank has created a team of professionals committed to
implementing the operational changes required to meet those obligations.
Scotiabank operates in more than 55 countries. Fifteen of those
countries are in negotiations with the U.S., and two — the U.K. and
Mexico — have reached an agreement and are now FATCA Partners.
agreement with the U.S., we will do what is required to meet the
obligations imposed by that country’s FATCA agreement.
Partners, we intend to meet our FATCA obligations by, wherever possible,
entering into an agreement directly with the U.S. Treasury.“…
http://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/0,,6098,00.html
Why not boycott Scotiabank – and any other institutions jumping the FATCA gun instead of lobbying the Feds and Flaherty to refuse to sign an IGA?
@badger,
now you’ve given me an idea! We’ve decided to handle our finances differently and were at BNS last Tues-pulling out a large amount and the arrangements for future transfers are in place. When asked why, I couldn’t really give an explanation I was comfortable with. Now I have one!
I observed that it is still the case that most of the tellers, etc, do not know what FATCA is. I know I have posted before, even on old ExpatForum I think, that one of the managers did and was quite clear that the costs for implementing FATCA would be passed on to ALL customers in CDN banks. He also told me new accounts would simply be handed either a W8-BEN or a W9; what a subtle way to ask for one’s citizenship, eh?
I think that a link to the story about RBC deserves to be posted here as well:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/01/21/royal-bank-of-canada-fatca-webpage/comment-page-2/#comment-265938
One more reason to close your account with RBC or member of the CBA, and switch to a credit union.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/04/08/rbc-bank-foreign-workers.html
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/04/08/ottawa_admits_it_approved_request_for_migrant_workers_to_replace_rbc_employees.html
More good discussion going on at Maple Sandbox, CBA and Canadian bankers — on both sides of the Canadian / US border.
After re-acquainting yourself with this post and comments…
http://maplesandbox.ca/2013/whats-new/#comment-6899
Posted this at Maple Sandbox:
Here’s a little more from my banking source on the IGA talks — and it reinforces Tim’s take on all this:
Canada-US are still negotiating. There won’t be any more updates (for the bank types) for at least a couple of weeks.
Once officials reach an agreement (assuming they do),the IGA then has to work its way through a number of government channels, including the PMO.
It’s entirely possible that the bank folks won’t get another look until after that has happened. There is no sense among the bankers that anything is going to happen before summer recess.
Which raises the question — has Harper/Flaherty figured out a way to implement this w/o going through Parliament? Because if not, it will be late fall before anything could be introduced, read, debated, etc. and passed. For the banks, that will cause a lot of stress — which doesn’t bother me much I have to admit. They have to register with the IRS by Oct. 15 — and my guess is there won’t be an IGA in place by then.
Unless they have come up with a work-around.
Another bank to add to the list of those to avoid.
I posted this also on the FATCA thread, here is a FATCA notice from ING bank:
http://www.ingdirect.ca/en/legal/foreignaccounttaxcomplianceact/index.html
“…If you are a U.S. Person, we may ask you to complete an IRS W-9 form (Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification). We may also ask you for consent to provide personal and Account information to the IRS. The Canadian Federal Government is currently working towards an agreement with the IRS to determine exactly how Canadian financial institutions will need to report this information. We’ll be able to let you know more about the information required and how we will be reporting it as soon as this agreement is finalized…..”
More banking and financial institutional collaborators get ready to implement FATCA – before any IGA is even signed.
http://www.clhia.ca/domino/html/clhia/CLHIA_LP4W_LND_Webstation.nsf/page/AA9AAA94554C6C1C85257BE20067E722/$file/CLHIA%20Customer%20FATCA%20Q&A%20-%20July%2012.pdf
http://iiac.ca/events/upcoming-events/industry-am-fatca-the-latest-developments-for-the-investment-industry/
http://www.cba.ca/en/consumer-information/40-banking-basics/597-us-foreign-account-tax-compliance-act-fatca-information-for-clients
No full page Canadian or US newspaper ads and commercials against FATCA for the CBA, IIAC, CLHIA, and other Canadian members of the FATCA Industrial complex.
No Canadian banks, insurance companies, etc. are standing on guard for Canadian citizens, residents and account holders against US extraterritorial aggression? Any Canadian investment arms standing on guard for Canadian citizens, residents and account holders? Any Canadian insurance companies standing on guard for the best interests of their Canadian account holders?
Instead, behind the scenes, Canadian FFIs lobbied for Canada to sign an IGA, and are kept apprised of the state of FATCA negotiations by our federal government and the Finance department, as their account holders and Canadian citizens and residents are deliberately kept in the dark.
Will we forget that? Nope.
Interesting that the CBA and associated investment arms – who represent institutions where we might choose to park our hard earned legal and primarily post-tax assets stand back and generate FATCA compliance materials – some far in advance of the signing of an IGA they actively lobbied for, rather than stand with their Canadian citizen and resident account holders and families. http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/09/10/brockers-protest-and-raise-awareness-of-fatca-at-flaherty-press-conference/
Will we remember this in the future when those of us who are ‘compliant’ and who have renounced decide where to park our assets and take out loans and mortgages? Will we advise other would be account holders and family of our very negative experiences and the history of FATCA IGA implementation (if we haven’t already?)? You bet we will.
Those who don’t know about FATCA will be shocked to find their Canadian bank and other FFIs forcing them to sign away their rights and private birthplace and citizenship information – in breach of their Canadian Charter and the Canadian Constitution – to satisfy a foreign country – the US.
Interesting that those in the industry, with so many resources and lobbyists at their beck and call stand back and let individuals and account holders do the heavy lifting.
Will we remember which financial institutions actively lobbied against their fellow Canadians best interests and rights? Will we resent that and take our assets with us? Yep.
Very, very good points badger. We should start making a list, and consider demonstrating at any of their conventions, etc. And of course, we will have to make a list of “safe” places.
PS-ING was recently bought by BNS so it may be more BNS than ING. I was told back in December 2011 that BNS would require W9’s etc.
Ms. Drew-Lytle makes a fundamental error in her analysis in her original comments.
She argues that the 30% withholding is even worse than the disclosure of information on Canadian citizens to the IRS–so they must choose the lesser of the two evils. Possibly this is true; possibly not. But the problem here is that unless you take a stand, an even worse evil may come in a year or two down the road. In the future it might not be just 30% withholding OR disclosure. It will be 30% withholding AND disclosure. Or something still worse.
What about thinking in terms of a protest in Toronto aimed at the banking industry rather than government?
Here’s a possibility:
http://regulatorycomplianceforfis.com/
Hear from OSFI, FINTRAC, FCAC and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario
November 13-14 2013
Conference Venue: Metro Toronto Convention Centre, North Building
Address: 255 Front St W Toronto, ON M5V 2W6
Attend The Canadian Institute’s 19th Annual Regulatory Compliance for Financial Institutions conference and gain key strategies to manage the rapidly evolving global regulatory landscape by:
Establishing a plan to meet OSFI’s new corporate governance requirements
Preparing for regulatory changes to the Anti-Money Laundering regime
Understanding the risks of non-compliance with the Canadian Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL)
Implementing customized social media and Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies
Identifying risk mitigation strategies for seamless adoption of new technologies
Adopting compliance solutions to address challenges with emerging payments and new card systems
Navigating the hurdles preventing you from achieving compliance with FATCA
And much more
Hear from all 5 big banks in Canada and others including:
CIBC ● TD Bank ● Scotiabank ● AMEX Bank of Canada ● Travelers ● Manulife Financial ● ATB Financial ● RBC Law Group ● BMO Financial Group ● JPMorgan Chase Bank ● HSBC Financial Canada
(don’t think I can insert his picture in a comment)
David Goodis
Director of Legal Services
and General Counsel
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario
Trish what a great and creative idea!
@Trish, Great idea. I would drive to TO. As Kermitzii says on another post, multiple city protests are better.
How much of the rise in banking fees in Canada are actually methods of passing on and masking the cost of FATCA compliance by financial institutions such as the “Big Five”?
Think about it, the banks aren’t going to lay bare the cost of the “FATCA fee”, but we’re all paying for it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bank-fees-for-small-business-where-s-the-value-for-money-1.3045924
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-bank-fees-target-kids-accounts-and-allow-double-dipping-say-customers-1.3052637
http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/blog/poll-what-bank-fees-bugs-you-the-most