UPDATE 2: This post has been upgraded to a press release at newswire.ca and digitjournal.com. Thanks go to Jim Jatras.
UPDATE: Jim Jatras has provided an revised Word Version of the text below for mass distribution.
The following is a message from Jim Jatras:
Friends
Please review that following and submit comments. I hope it’s more or less self-explanatory.
As indicated in a previous comment, it’s in effect a kind of ad or statement inviting people to contact Harper, Flaherty, MPs and oppose FATCA/IGA. Ideally, it’s the kind of thing that would be posted online or even in print publications as an ad, if there were money for that. (If Canadian industry weren’t spending money trying to get the “best deal possible” from the Americans under an IGA instead of fighting.) Certainly individual comment letters to the Finance Department should be sent, but let’s not kid ourselves they will pay much attention them. What we need is a groundswell of outraged Canadians to contact Harper, Flaherty, and MPs as soon as possible with a simple message: NO!
I realize that it’s always risky to hang a draft out where anyone can take a whack at it, but feel free. Also, any ideas on where and how it can be posted and distributed are welcome.
BTW, this is the kind of thing that routinely gets placed in DC in publications like Politico, The Hill, Roll Call, and other pubs aimed at Congress. Picture a similar message aimed at Congress but making an American argument against FATCA, as this makes a Canadian one. That’s how we get things done – if we had someone with money and willing to fight.
Best
Jim
Call or email Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty, and Your MP Today!
Call or email Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty, and Your MP Today!
STOP an Impending Massive Handover of Canadian Sovereignty to the United States!
Tell the Government: Canada Must Say NO
to the United States on ‘FATCA’
Recently the Department of Finance invited comments on what was characterized as “an agreement to improve cross-border tax compliance through . . . the provisions enacted by the United States commonly known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).” This eleventh-hour invitation came as sources in both Ottawa and Washington announced that they were close to finalizing an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) that would, in effect, deputize the Canadian government to enforce this American law in Canada.
The Department’s invitation is to “persons whose interests are affected by the provisions of FATCA” but does not spell out that each and every Canadian citizen would suffer from FATCA and from an IGA to implement it:
Canadian citizens have an interest in preserving Canada’s sovereignty against US encroachment. However it is disguised, FATCA is a unilateral U.S. initiative. The U.S. didn’t negotiate a global tax scheme with Canada and other countries but instead enacted an unprecedented extraterritorial law and demands that Canada comply and bear the costs. An IGA simply puts a Canadian glove on the hand enforcing American law.
Canadian taxpayers have an interest in a tax policy that benefits Canada’s needs, not America’s. Sold under the guise of “reciprocity” and “partnership,” an IGA in reality would be a costly one-way street imposed by the U.S. Given the differences between the two countries’ tax systems, FATCA would accelerate a zero-sum game that siphons wealth from Canada and robs the Canadian treasury.
Canadian consumers have an interest in avoiding foreign schemes that impose costly non-economic regulations on Canadian firms (banks, insurance companies, pension funds, stock and investment companies) – who will then pass those costs on to consumers. With or without an IGA, FATCA’s costs will be in the billions of dollars (for example, one major bank alone would pay an estimated $100 million in FATCA compliance!) These costs would be non-productive as regards the Canadian economy and a waste of human and material resources. Imposing these costs on Canadians supposedly is justified by the unproven hope that FATCA may trip up American “tax cheats,” even though FATCA does little specifically to catch such people.
Canadians as human beings have an interest in ensuring their rights are protected under sovereign Canadian law. FATCA demands extraordinary disclosure of private information of U.S. citizens in Canada in violation of Canadian laws, such as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, whose application Canada would be forced to alter under an IGA. Many of these resident Americans are Canadian dual citizens who would be denied protection of Canada’s laws to appease the U.S. Once it’s established a foreign government can demand abrogation of such rights, even of Canadian citizens, where’s the limit?
So why is the Government considering an IGA with the United States? Because of the very real fear that Washington otherwise would unilaterally impose FATCA on Canada at ruinous cost, especially a 30% withholding penalty on Canadian firms’ U.S.-derived revenue. Simply put, this is a threat of U.S. economic sanctions against Canada.
Finance Minister Flaherty and industry leaders publicly have talked a good fight on FATCA while in private negotiating Canada’s capitulation under an IGA. Canadians must not let that happen! Instead:
Contact Prime Minister Harper and tell him No on FATCA, and No on an IGA with Washington!
Contact Minister Flaherty and tell him No on FATCA, and No on an IGA with Washington!
Contact your Senators and MPs and tell them No on FATCA, and No on an IGA with Washington!
Get the FATCA facts! Find more information at [Isaac Brock Society and Repeal FATCA]
@petros
Exactly, and we appreciate everything you do to support us. I believe Mr Jatras has his eye on a bigger prize, and if we can help him get it by helping us, I’m in.
@petros
Would you consider Isaac Brock Society creating an online “cause” with http://www.causes.com/ ?
Thanks one and all.
I will shortly send [editor’s note: now available] a reformatted one-pager for stand-alone posting. In terms of revisions, I’ve seen suggestions replace “U.S. citizens in Canada”. Pacifica777 has suggested “”FATCA demands extraordinary disclosure of private information of US persons in Canada, including US-born Canadian citizens, in violation of Canadian laws ….” Is that alright for everyone?
I will also add the links to IBS and my repealfatca.com as Petros has on this page.
Again, special thanks for wide distribution. I am also considering sending this out as a release on PRNewswire (costs about $300) but should give it some pretty wide media pickup. That’s US-based but I think gets good pickup in Canada too. But maybe there’s a Canada-only distribution that would be better? Suggestions welcome.
@Jim Jatras:
I know that it is awkward re the phrasing identifying who is affected. Let’s underscore that it is Canadian citizens born and naturalized, and Canadian residents. If we put the “US-born” description first and foremost, it ignores the substantial number who were born inside Canada and only inherited the US status via a US parent/s. Those born dual on sovereign Canadian soil are the ones that are the most obvious living examples of the most unjust application of US extraterritorial taxation and FATCA. Emphasize those born here in Canada first – not to discount all the other equally persecuted categories, but to simplify it in this effort – for those here who will not understand the others on the spectrum at first glance or first thought. Offer the best example first.
The US continues to use US citizens, or US taxable persons, etc. – because it suits them to define us only by what justifies their system. But we are not in the US, we’re in Canada.
We must place the words Canadian first and foremost – as in “Canadian citizens, both those born on Canadian soil, or naturalized, and Canadian ‘permanent residents’ “.
We are NOT first and foremost US born or US citizens when we are on Canadian soil. We are first and foremost Canadian citizens and legal Canadian ‘permanent residents’ (which is a formal legal definition of our formal status in Canada). We are saying we do not recognize what the US says as being elevated above how the laws in Canada view us. It is Canada we are appealing to in this instance recognize and enforce it’s own sovereignty and laws and interests, no matter what the US says. The Charter cannot discriminate against us as US born persons. It must treat all those in Canada equally.
@Jim
Then there are the Canadian-born US citizens being targeted also.
Consider “FATCA demands extraordinary disclosure of private information of Canadian citizens and residents deemed US taxpayers by the IRS, in violation of Canadian laws”.
@bubblebustin
@badger
bubblebustin’s formulation (“FATCA demands extraordinary disclosure of private information of Canadian citizens and residents deemed US taxpayers by the IRS, in violation of Canadian laws.”) might imply that ALL Canadian citizens’ info is reportable under FATCA. But I do understand need to put “Canada” first everywhere.
How about: “FATCA demands extraordinary disclosure of private information of Canadian residents deemed U.S. taxpayers by the IRS“. Then, futher in the paragraph is notes that “”. So the full paragraph would read:
Canadians as human beings have an interest in ensuring their rights are protected under sovereign Canadian law. FATCA demands extraordinary disclosure of private information from Canadian residents deemed U.S. taxpayers by the IRS. Such disclosure would violate Canadian laws such as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, whose application Canada would be forced to alter under an IGA. Many of the people who rights would be abrogated are Canadian dual citizens who would be denied protection of Canada’s laws to appease the U.S. Once it’s established a foreign government can demand abridgment of such rights, even of Canadian citizens, where’s the limit?
Perhaps we could stick in “including Canadian citizens?” It’s hard to cover all bases. I do think it’s important people don’t get the impression it’s only the privacy of US citizens who are living here temporarily … or even permanently, but with one foot in the US.
FATCA demands extraordinary disclosure of private information from Canadian residents, including Canadian citizens, deemed U.S. taxpayers by the IRS.
or
FATCA demands extraordinary disclosure of private information from Canadian residents, including Canadian citizens (US-born or born in Canada to a US-born person), deemed U.S. taxpayers by the IRS.
I think “Canadian residents deemed U.S. taxpayers by the IRS” followed shortly thereafter by “Many of the people who rights would be abrogated are Canadian dual citizens” covers all that. If possible we want to avoid getting too technical.
It’s important we are as succint as possible, or eyes glaze over…
“FATCA demands extraordinary disclosure of private information of “any Canadian citizens and permanent residents deemed US taxpayers by the IRS”, in violation of Canadian laws”.
As Petros mentioned, I think this press release should also mention Canadian citizens who now live and work in the US. Actually, they might be the first victims of this madness, as it will be a lot easier for the IRS to go after them.
Does anyone has an estimate of how many people we’re talking about?
@ Jim,
Agreed, we can’t get too technical.
Just want to point out some background. According to the 2006 census, there are 117,000 US-born Canadians who believe they are not dual citizens, only Canadian — but we found out in 2011 that the US believes they are (due to retroactive DoS policy change in 1990).
Only in 2011, did we learn this and find out that we needed Certificates of Loss of Nationality (or that CLNs even existed). We are people who, even though we may like the US a lot, most definitely do not have one foot in it. Many, such as me, have no connections to the US at all. So, we were pretty outraged!
That’s why I don’t like limiting the wording to “dual citizens.” But I get your point.
@Christophe
I agree, but would Canadian law necessarily protect a Canadian residing in the US?
@pacifica777
that’s why I like the word “deemed” as it sounds like the IRS are being arbitrary.
@bubblebustin, I strongly feel that if foreign governments feel they don’t have a choice but to comply, then they should handle the taxes and penalties as well, to a level that is reasonable to them and send an anonymous aggregate amount to the IRS, instead of letting the IRS bankrupt its citizens with life alering fines.
I recall someone mentioning that something like that was implemented somewhere else.
@Christophe, Wayne Gretsky, William Shatner, Steve Nash, Avril Lavigne, Justin Bieber –that’s five that I can think of.
This may flow a little better (or not):
“FATCA demands extraordinary disclosure of private information of ”any Canadian citizens and permanent residents deemed by the IRS to be US taxpayers.”
@Christophe
Re: “I strongly feel that if foreign governments feel they don’t have a choice but to comply, then they should handle the taxes and penalties as well, to a level that is reasonable to them and send an anonymous aggregate amount to the IRS, instead of letting the IRS bankrupt its citizens with life alering fines. I recall someone mentioning that something like that was implemented somewhere else”
Yes, that was the gist of an agreement worked out in principle but never finalized between Germany and Switzerland, which the latter seemed willing to enter into with other European countries. As I understand now, that agreement is on the rocks, perhaps partly due to FATCA’s now being assumed to be the new gold standard for international tax enforcement. An excellent example of bad law driving out good. If the point here really were tax enforcement, the German-Swiss model makes more sense. This only reinforces my suspicion that FATCA is not primarily about tax enforcement but about people control via financial transparency.
@ Christophe,
Although I don’t want other Canadian taxpayers to pay for any of my costs incurred, I would hope that the Moodys proposal will have some bearing on the decision of the Canadian Government to JUST SAY NO to the US regarding FATCA and IGA compromise.
http://www.moodystax.com/moodystax-blog/21-us-taxation-services/206-moodys-tax-advisors-proposes-legislation-to-allow-canadians-to-deduct-professional-fees-paid-in-irss-voluntary-disclosure-programs.html
@Calgary411
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but this seems to address a different issue. What Christophe is referring to is a scheme to ensure any tax that may be owed is paid in the aggregate without turning the whole thing into a witch hunt. What you’re referring to appears to be a proposal to allow the targets of the witch hunt at least to deduct the costs. While that certainly would be a boon to those individuals looked at from the point of view of an ordinary Canadian it might seen yet another instance where the Canadian exchequer losed funds to faciliate tax payments to the U.S.
@Calgary411
Allowing US tax filing to be tax deductible is very controversial, and although it may be a welcome break to each and every one of us, it helps to facilitate citizenship based taxation and would potentially steal from the Canadian economy. Imagine using a cross-border tax specialist in the US, and using a Canadian tax break to help to inject money into the US economy. This idea sickens me and that’s why I will only use an accountant in Canada. They’ve taken enough. But if our government throws us under the bus, I may not feel so much allegiance anymore and may just think it’s ok to take a deduction or go to the US to do my taxes.
@Jim Jatras,
Even if it is not relevant to the question, I think something like this being asked of the Canadian Government is the more reason to have Canadian taxpayer funds not go to the US, this-a-way or that-a-way. We must emphasize the exit of large amounts of Canadian “treasure” transferred to the US treasury because of US citizenship-based tax policy, including each and every one of its unintended consequences and cost to ALL Canadians. And we’re not here even addressing transfer of Canada’s sovereignty and financial privacy laws to the US.
@bubblebusin,
I AGREE.
I agree with Bubblebustin’ that “deemed” is important.
I’m not saying this is right, but some Canadians have a negative view of dual citizenship, thinking that a dual citizen is trying to play it both ways, keep a citizenship in their pocket in case they need it (sour grapes?).
Also dual citizenship was a *very* hot button issue in Canada a few years ago when some people who had fled Lebanon years ago during war, came to Canada, got Cdn citizenship, moved back to Lebanon when that country was at peace, stayed there for years, and then demanded Cdn govt assistance to get them to Canada when war broke out again. That got a lot of media coverage and debate about dual citizenship.
People may have an erroneous view of dual citizenship if they think a person is a dual because they want to play both ends against the middle — but the fact remains they have that view. I’m thinking communication and optics — it affects duals but not only duals.
And I believe “deemed” is appropriate because the US keeps arbitrarily changing their definition of citizenship and, in fact, currently uses two contradictory definitions simultaneously..
Truly bizarre, one can be a US citizen — not “US person”, “US citizen” — for IRS purposes whilst all other government departments use the DoS definition, which says you’re not.
(I forget the exact cite — sorry, I’m at work, can’t look it up now — I think it’s 26 USC 877a(g)(1)(4) something like that)
I’m not suggesting we get into any of this in the statement, just pointing it out here.)
Happy “Albatross Removal Day”, Calgary!
The sun is shining in Calgary. Thanks, bubblebustin.