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]
At the risk of opening up an old can of worms, I just ran across this relevant to the claim in the appeal that FATCA and an IGA constitute putting “a Canadian glove on the hand enforcing American law” in Canada:
<< For all the groaning about FATCA, there is one “red herring” which should be given the lie right away, and that is the silly notion that FATCA is an attempt to force the application of U.S. law on foreign financial institutions. In fact it does nothing of the sort. The key to FATCA is the requirement of Internal Revenue Code section 1471(b)(1) which says that in order to avoid the 30% withholding tax, an FFI has to enter . . . >> (from http://mopsicktaxlaw.blogspot.com/2012/01/fatca-red-herring.html )
Ummmm, does “Internal Revenue Code section 1471(b)(1)” sound like a Canadian law . . . ?
@Jim, a wise man told me once why the Canadian Embassy in DC was so close to Capitol Hill.
Thanks, Jim Jatras and everyone else who so quickly handled this — while I shirked some responsibility and took care of getting ready for and attending my and my husband’s renunciation appointment.
I now have a lot to catch up on — you guys did a lot of work in the past couple of day. Wow.
Here is the list of who has received via Twitter:
ü@WatchCTVNews
ü@CTVNews
ü@CTVToronto
ü@CTVottawa
ü@GlobalNational
ü@globaltvnews
ü@globalnewsto
ü@GlobalBC
ü@Globalcalgary
ü@GlobalMaritimes
ü@CHBCnews
ü@GlobalEdmonton
ü@GlobalLeth
ü@GlobalSaskatoon
ü@GlobalRegina
ü@GlobalWinnipeg
ü@CBCNews
ü@CBCnewsbc
ü@CBCTheNational
ü@CBCToronto
ü @CBCNS (CBCNovaScotia)
ü@CBCSask
ü@CBCOttawa
ü@CBCNL (Newf & Lab)
ü@CBCEdmonton
ü@CBCManitoba
ü@CBCü@cbcrad
ü@CBCPEI
ü@CBCCalgary
ü@CBCWindsor
ü@CBCNorth
ü@CBCM
ü@CBCAlerts
ü@petermansbridge
ü@CBCSuhana
ü@cbc_WendyMesley
ü@ AmandaLang_CBC
ü@adriearsenault
ü@spaikin
ü@tvo
ü@CHCHTV
ü@city_tv (to)
ü@CityNews
ü@CP24
switched to Canadian newswire version
ü@Cash4TO
ü@oliviachow
ü@ThomasMulcair
ü@BrianMasseMP
ü@bobraeMP
ü@JustinTrudeau
ü@scottbrison
ü@johnbairdOWN
ü@jimflaherty
ü@FinanceCanada
ü@PatMartinMP
ü@dianeablonczymp
ü@pmharper
ü@frankkleesmpp
ü@nationalpost
ü@TorontoStar
üglobeandmail
ü@TheTorontoSun
ü@financialpost
ü@thecanadacom
ü@calgaryherald
(edmontonjournal not working)
ü@mtlgazette
ü@OttawaCitizen
ü@VancouverSun
ü@AtlanticBus
ü@BizReviewCANADA
ü@CdnBusinessMag
ü@CDN_Dimension
ü@calgarysun
ü@Edmontonsun
ü@ottawasuncom
ü@winnipegsun
ü@LFPress
ü@24hoursvan
üTheHillTimes
ü@LobbyMonitor
ü@EmbassyNews
ü@MacleansCanada
ü@MacleansMag
ü@MacleansBlog
ü@MacleansBiz
ü@MacleansN2K
ü@MacleansOpinion
ü@rabbleca
ü @SGNewswire
ü@walrusmagazine
ü@barriemckenna
ü@aradwanski
ü@JohnIbbitson
ü@rcarrick
ü@MargaretWente
*@Nobledreamer, WOW!! That’s great!!
Double-WOW. You’ve been a busy person, nobledreamer! Thanks for all your hard work in this. And, I still need to catch up.
@nobledreamer
Impressive. It reminds me of the time I sent every MP a copy of a letter I wrote about FATCA. Now that I’ve recovered from the associated repetitive strain injury, I may just do it again!
@Noble Dreamer- you have done a lot of work for which you are definitely to be commended. Well done.
@Saddened123, Calgary & Bubblebustin
Thanks but the thing is, there are a lot more that should get done. Like go back thru the major papers and go thru the columnists who write about related material.I had thought I’d try some letters to the editor today but just never got to it.
The other thing I feel a bit sad about is that this could have been done long ago, and persistently as well as targeting the idea that all Canadians will be affected unfairly by this. If this really is “the end” I will just kick myself for not having done it sooner. 🙁
I met an American while shopping today who indicated they’d come after their disgust that Bush was elected. Naturally, she had never heard of FBAR etc. Though she did realize she was supposed to file taxes. She’s having trouble getting permanent residency what to speak of citizenship. They aren’t rich so probably will be ok but just another huge hassle, eh?
@Recalcitrant Thanks, I never feel quite as eloquent and sophisticated as most of you when it comes to writing but I can tolerate druge work better than anyone I know. ;-P
What do you think – better to keep at Tweeting or switch to emails to editors, MP’s etc? Or maybe something else?
@NobleDreamer- you are welcome. Don’t ever downplay the importance of your presence here and in this world. We all have a role to play, whatever our talents may be. You may call what you are doing drudge work but you can rest assured that none of us see it that way. Sometimes writing can feel like drugery too. I have had the pleasure of reading your comments and I have always found them well thought out.
As for whether or not tweeting or emailing is best I guess that it all depends on who your contacts are in each of those areas. My own efforts have been more focused on emails but that is because I am more comfortable with using rhetoric. If you have good contacts on your tweet list then use that.
The important thing is make the best use of your material and find the best tools to deliver that matrial. Just always try to maximize your talents and contacts. Exposure is probably our best offense.
This one is generating some comments as it has become a top story in politics at Yahoo Canada:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/stop-impending-massive-handover-canadian-204800646.html;_ylt=Ar_F8LemU0ND9wMrBMc1uqjQtDMD
On Kijiji:
http://toronto.kijiji.ca/c-community-activities-groups-Canada-Must-Say-NO-to-the-US-on-FATCA-W0QQAdIdZ431686629
@nobledreamer
@Petros
@bubblebustin
@All
First, nobledreamer: I. Am. Im-Pressed!! That’s great!! Re “What do you think – better to keep at Tweeting or switch to emails to editors, MP’s etc? Or maybe something else?” Any and all of the above. Please make sure to ask (1) that the recipient POST the item (the more people who see it, the more are likely to write/call Harper, Flaherty, etc.); (2) that reporters and editors start asking the hard questions: why is the Harper government “finalizing” an IGA when they’ve only just started asking for comments? What is Canada preparing to surrender to the US? How do they answer the charges in “The IBS Appeal” (can we call it that?); and (3) for MPs: they need to voice their concerns to the Government and pledge they will NOT support an IGA if the Government agrees to one with the US.
Petros, bubblebustin: First, I am glad to see the lively comments on the the finance.yahoo pickup. I’ll look again, but I didn’t notice a single comment supportive of FATCA or critical of The IBS Appeal. I think this tells us something about a potential groundswell in the True North Strong and Free — if we can get The IBS Appeal in front of enough Canadians.
That said, the pickup so far has been miserable. I’m familiar with posting things on the US PRNewswire and get at least a few dozen pickups, sometimes hundreds. This is the first time using CNW (PRNW’s Canadian subsidiary — btw, not cheap, either), figuring better traction in Canada, as well as branding it in Canada, not the U.S. I’ve asked my media guy to ping CNW to ask what’s up, why the lean results. So maybe that will change. But that lends all the more importance to efforts like nobledreamers to send it out to as many Canadian opinionmakers as possible. Maybe best link to send people is http://finance.yahoo.com/news/stop-impending-massive-handover-canadian-204800646.html;_ylt=Ar_F8LemU0ND9wMrBMc1uqjQtDMD and pointing out the the comments and why this deserves wide attention.
Great job, everybody! At least somebody is Standing On Guard up there!
@Jim, I think part of the problem is actually the appearance of the press release. It seems perhaps partisan. If perhaps a press release was more like an news article, perhaps more news agencies would pick it up and repeat as their own “news”. But I’m just think aloud at this point. I want to thank you for posting this because I didn’t know about paying for a service like this. I think in the future, our donors may consider making special contributions to Petros Research to make future press releases. All we have to do is ask.
Still, look on the bright side. Kijiji is not the Toronto Star, but it is still a BIG DEAL. 🙂
@Petros
Well, it’s not “partisan” in the sense of pro- or anti-Conservatives vs. NDP, Liberals, etc. While it’s aimed at a policy being pursued by the Conservative government, it’s hopefull geared just as much to their reconsidering as spurring on the Opposition, which hasn’t much weighed in anyway on this as far as I can tell.
It is definitely “partisan” in terms of advocating a definite point of view. We can look at somewhat different presentation for future postings if we go that route.
“Kijiji” is big? That’s good to know. I didn’t see if they had a comments section. Note comments at Yahoo.financial, including a couple from “Repeal”. Seems like a good place to stir the pot a bit if others are interested.
*I am not sure the partisan nature is necessarily a “bad” thing because a lot of the Canadian media is biased toward the left anyways. It in fact is tame compared to a lot of the stuff the Council for Canadians et all put out. I will send more emails myself on the issue.
Where’s the NDP, off chasing rabbits somewhere?
@Jim, I was exaggerating maybe a little about Kijiji. I don’t see any hits coming from them at all yet. Only 16 so far from yahoo Canada news. That isn’t exactly viral either.
@ Jim
Regarding the Yahoo post ‘Stop an Impending Massive Handover of Canadian Sovereignty to the United States!’ and the efforts of people here at IBS to avoid using the word ‘US persons’, judging by this person’s comments below, some people will just NEVER get it! It is so exasperating trying to explain it. Is it really that hard to understand that these foreign accounts are not foreign to ‘US persons’ who LIVE IN CANADA?
Geoff says: I read the article and did a bit more digging, from the sounds of it the US is trying to prevent tax evasion. The only people affected are US Citizens, or people holding money on behalf of US Citizens, in foreign accounts.The only ammendment that needs to be done is that the US pays for the damn reports and not the financial institutes of the FACTA partners they’re dealing with. In that situation this wouldn’t be an issue. The only problem I see is forcing their FACTA partners to foot the bill, and that’s wrong. It’s their damn citizens that are evading taxes, they should be paying the costs of reigning them in. At the very least we should be allowed to do the same to them, force their financial institutes to report back account information and holdings to Revenue Canada so we can punish our tax evaders as well.
Congrats @nobledreamer for the tweets, and @all for all the other cumulative efforts – we’ll never really know what might be the tipping points.
Apologies if what is below is repeating what has already appeared here, but, just in case….
I’ve taken @calgary411’s helpful tip re using on-screen notes to assist with my submission, and cutting and pasting. And that would work for phone calls too (it’s hard to remember what you want to say on the spot sometimes – particularly when this is complicated and you don’t get much time to make your points).
I am hoping that people who have made e-mail or snail mail submissions to the Dept. of Finance, are also cc’ing and personally calling the shadow cabinets of the opposition parties – NDP and the Liberals, as well as Bloc Quebecois and Greens (see links below), to state that you are very very concerned that this new law – which is very very controversial worldwide, is being implemented without any real public notice or any real consultation. An obscure Dept. of Finance website notice does not count. Ask directly what they are doing to thwart this lack of substantive public notice and consultation? And to ask what they will commit to doing to stop this from flying under the radar and being a done deal rushed through by the end of this year – that will bind all Canadians and our financial system FOREVER?
If you are wondering who best to call, you could start with these first:
The Liberal Finance Critic Scott Brison – office 1-888-585-0550 or 613-995-8231
And,
Paul Dewar, Foreign Affairs, federal NDP 613-946-8682 as well as Peggy Nash 416-769-5072
You can always call the other MPs too, and tailor the message to their portfolio – for example, emphasize the Privacy aspect if their responsibility is privacy, or the discrimination aspect re RDSPs if their portfolio is disability rights, etc. Although this emanates from the Department of Finance notice – it touches so many portfolios and issues, that it is entirely legitimate to point that out to multiple MPs. They don’t have to be one from your specific area either.
If you are a member of any specific party, and you are speaking to an MP from your party you can state right up front that you are a supporter, or a member or voter, if this is the case. And if not a member, if you even voted for them, or have any relationship to their office – ex. voter in their riding, etc. proactively state that too. You can even note that it is not only you, but your whole family and household that is concerned – i.e for every one voter that writes and calls there are others.
One very important main point – made by others here already, is to underscore that the US is deliberately using the mere mention of Canada as a bargaining chip to all the other countries it is trying to bully into this – slyly implying that Canada is already in the bag. The rest of the world is watching to see if Canada falls, and may very well hold out if they see that Canada does. Canada should NOT enter into ANY IGA (intergovernmental agreement) – no compromises, cite the extensive reciprocal tax treaty we already have, cite the ‘savings clause’ , and the ways in which the US can and will use it’s own domestic laws to negate treaties (is that the ‘last in time’ rule?). In other words, an IGA is the top of a slippery slope forever – with the US reserving the right to change it, ignore it, etc. Plus, the US has NOT committed to exact ‘reciprocity’ and reserves the right to determine what it will offer back, as well as having already assured some of the FATCA opponents in the US that the US does not intend to provide the same to other countries as it demands (in order to appease US banks and politicians that oppose the costs and loss of investment that exact reciprocity would demand).
You can underscore that there is nothing in this to gain for Canada – and the final FATCA details aren’t even released yet (I’m wondering exactly what unspoken and non-FATCA item is being horse-traded to lure Minister Flaherty from plainspoken firm letters to us, and strong anti-FATCA statements in the newspapers, to only this small and obscure notice on the Dept. of Finance website?).
You can state that those here who would like to renounce unwanted US citizenship, many born dual in Canada via parentage only, and are facing almost insurmountable economic, legal fees and double tax and penalty challenges in ridding themselves of the US status. Mention that minors and those deemed incapable are also not allowed to renounce, nor can their parents or guardians renounce for them – so they must remain duals – and their parents must continue to report on their behalf. Effectively holding many many in Canada tax hostages against their will.
As an aside – be prepared to diplomatically counter any well-meaning suggestions that the kinder gentler IRS has now listened to the concerns of those in Canada, blah blah blah – as per news articles, Ambassador Jacobson, and recent statements by Minister Flaherty. We know that not only is that not really true re the very very restrictive and not guaranteed ‘new commonsense’ ‘streamlined compliance’ program – which may be time limited (IRS won’t say), but that it is too early to tell how many that even worked ‘successfully’ for. It may very well be that even those limited concessions were only finally offered as a bargaining chip by the US in order to induce Canada to work towards an agreement on FATCA – and to divert criticism of our federal Conservatives – because of the unreconciliable contradiction between the strong and laudable Anti-FATCA statements by Minister Flaherty in Canada’s public rebuke of the US and IRS in the last year – which they will now be hard put to justify why now we may be jumping into a new even deeper and more intimate embrace with them via FATCA.
Those who you contact may be aware of some of the events since last fall, (media coverage of IRS OVDI, ‘offshore’ enforcement etc.) and may cite the ‘streamlined’ program and Flaherty’s statements lauding the IRS’s recent actions, in the belief that all will be well – while we know the IRS has not committed to any such thing – in fact, we’ve been assured in all the continued public statements by the US that the IRS and Treasury is going to increase their enforcement of ‘foreign’ asset surveillance and confiscatory punishments – despite all the evidence that as residents outside the US, our local accounts are entirely legal and reported and taxed where we live. They have the power to exempt our everyday local accounts, or to exempt specific countries, or to exempt registered savings, or to offer a true amnesty and they have refused to do so. They said they would make NO specific country exceptions, even for Canada. Their willfull actions speak louder than any weasel words. Lawyers continue to say ‘the IRS has not issued any guidance’ in response to questions about numerous unclear aspects of the streamlined process.
The US IRS and Treasury and Congress refuse to take the advice of their own Taxpayer Advocate in her formal reports. It would be foolish of Canada to believe that there is any such thing as an IRS and Treasury that has ‘listened to Canadians‘.
Some other MPs may be involved with well meaning efforts to counter tax evasion by Canadians, and feel that FATCA can only be a good example of how to do that, – and every country is looking for ways to chase every revenue dollar out there. Tell them that actually the US is competing with Canada – on Canadian soil, to tax Canadian citizens and residents, and there are only so many taxpayer dollars to go around. Why would Canada invite a competitor to have new and more intimate access to Canadian made and held assets? You can point out that even inside the US this is considered imperial overreach: “The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act: Imperial Overreach” by Gary Clyde Hufbauer
| July 22nd, 2011 | 09:09 am
http://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime/?p=2276
Here is the Bloc Q info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois_Shadow_Cabinet_of_the_41st_Parliament_of_Canada
http://www.blocquebecois.org/horizon2015/accueil.php
Here is the Green party
http://www.greenparty.ca/contact/cabinet
Here is a complete list for federal Parliament (click on headings to re-order/resort by province, party etc.):
http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx
@kathleen
At this point I’ll take any kind of objection/outrage to FATCA by ‘regular’ Canadians. He doesn’t get it but that’s a matter of education, which comes with time. Good luck, Geoff in getting the US to foot the bill, or even get a real commitment of reciprocity, that’s a real knee slapper!
@kathleen
were did you read Geoff’s post?
@bubblebustin
NDP “off chasing rabbits”? Maybe they are the rabbits.
@badger
All of that is right on the money!
@kathleen
Re: ” I read the article and did a bit more digging, from the sounds of it the US is trying to prevent tax evasion. The only people affected are US Citizens, or people holding money on behalf of US Citizens, in foreign accounts. The only ammendment that needs to be done is that the US pays for the damn reports and not the financial institutes of the FACTA partners they’re dealing with. In that situation this wouldn’t be an issue. The only problem I see is forcing their FACTA partners to foot the bill, and that’s wrong. It’s their damn citizens that are evading taxes, they should be paying the costs of reigning them in.”
“Repeal” already answered Geoff on the Yahoo site. First, re “the US pays for the damn reports and not the financial institutes of the FACTA partners.” Well, that ain’t gonna happen, period, next issue. Second, “The only people affected are US Citizens, or people holding money on behalf of US Citizens” — No, I can’t emphasize that enough, that’s not the case for the institutions. The real cost is not the presence or absence of the accounts themselves, it’s the cost of culling through thousands of accounts — many of them who have not disclosed to the institutions that they are US persons (or seen as such by the IRS and some of them might not be aware of it) — and assure the IRS (or Canadian government acting on their behalf under an IGA). That’s just the financial costs that will be substantial and spread out to all Canadians. And IMHO that’s cheap compared to the loss of sovereingty that Canada has to do this at all.
@Bubblebustin and Kathleen.
So far in that comment stream, I haven’t seen any comments Yahoo comment stream like in the Summer of 2011, blowing it off to the effect “Aw, they’re American citizens, it’s not my problem.” At least they’re focused on Canada (even if Geoff doesn’t get it (yet!).