photo from yesterday, day 1 of protest
PROTEST EVENING POSTMORTEM:
I know that this small protest did reach the FIsters attending the conference and put them on notice–because most refused to look us in the eye.
This protest happened because of the dedication of on-site protesters including Atticus, Marie, Northernstar, Peter, Tricia, and WhiteKat, those (including Blaze and James Jatras) who helped in preparation of the letter to the Canadian Bankers Association that was critical to the protest, and because of the others I am not certain that I can mention.
Amazing people, all.
On-site coverage from IRSCompliantForever :
15.54. A last goodbye from all of us to the banksters.
15:03. Banker from small bank who hates FATCA just signed petition.
14:24. AttIcus just explained FATCA to passerby. Response was “Well, the banks need a little (words deleted).”
14:14. Banksters we meet all express sympathy but insist that there is no way to prevent FATCA. So many passerbys wondering about this FATCA word.
13:18. Fellow from one of the major banks visited with us had a friendly chat and accepted the CBA letter. He asked that we not disclose the name of his bank. Banksters are also taking pictures of us.
12.55. Another passerby came up to us expressing concern that her daughter has a Green Card.
Reports and photos of earlier today and yesterday after the jump
12:53. A passerby just came up to us expressing concern that she was born to a US parent and asked whether FATCA applied. Atticus explained and the woman thanked us for being here.
11:23. Unexpectedly another protester arrived with signs. Someone we all know.
11:13. Police have arrived again.
10:51. Nice sunny day. One bankster inside gave us the thumbs up. We had a nice chat with two reps of a major FI who accepted the CBA letter.
***
Day 1 of Protest – Yesterday, 13 November
13:40. Stuck on a narrow curb.
13:07. New development. Head of security informed us that we had to move to the curb in which we must remain 18 inches from the street. I called the police to resolve. Three police officers came and tried to intervene with security, but security refused as walkway is technically on private property. Want to emphasize that police tried their very best to help us. We will try not to tip over on curb. Lots of interest from passerbys. Morale very high.
12:50
12:46
12:13. Above is a photo of four Brocker/Sandboxers taken by a sympathetic passerby. Note that the person holding the “Do not marry an American” sign is a guest Brocker who is a kindly non-US spouse of a US person. She strongly supports the message of the sign and wants to be known as @LauraSecord. Small group but morale is high.
11:09. Met a fellow working for a bank. He says FATCA is painful.
11:02. Tricia, Marie, NorthernStar and IRSCompliantForever just spoke to a very friendly and receptive journalist who will include mention of our protest in an article He also said that this is the first FATCA protest he is aware of. We cannot mention name of journalist. We are pointing signs at the conference room. Doors are closed now so that banksters cannot see us.
09:37. Peter is standing immediately in front of the conference meeting room. We can see them and they can see us. But we cannot enter.
07:33. Peter and I are on site. We were told us that we would be arrested if we entered building. Tried to leave CBA letters but conference organizer refused and noted that our comments on IBS about CBA were inflammatory.
***
The conference is “Canadian Institute’s 19th Annual REGULATORY COMPLIANCE for Financial Institutions” at the North Building of the Metro Convention Centre in Toronto which has been brought to our attention through the diligence of @Tricia. http://www.regulatorycomplianceforfis.com/
@ Schubert
Great news! PCs rock! First the forum and now the protest. I’m so pleased I voted PC in the last election, even though I knew that in Conservative Alberta my vote would only be one of a very few. This invitation was a very good idea! There, I did three exclamation marks too.
The FATCA speaker is a former senior IRS counsel
“….Staples, who previously served as the associate IRS counsel for international issues,…” see http://fatca.thomsonreuters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/USA-Former-U.S.-tax-official-urges-view-of-FATCA-as-a-compliance-problem-for-Canadian-firms1.pdf
Currently Staples is; …”a managing partner at Burt, Staples & Maner, LLP” ….
See: http://www.bsmlegal.com/
Good digging, Badger!
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
For certain, Brockers know what they want — NO CBT and NO FATCA.
In preparation for this event, it is worth reading this again, discussed on http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/09/12/fatca-the-end-of-financial-privacy/ :
See http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/as-automatic-exchange-of-information-proliferates-tensions-surface-on-adequate-taxpayer-protections/
REUTERS/Issei Kato
11 Sep 2013Remy Farag
“As jurisdictions continue to embrace the automatic exchange of information, concerns are being raised about the extent to which taxpayers lack adequate protections.”
“Does passing taxpayer information without his or her knowledge violate privacy right principles?” asked Prof. Jennifer Roeleveld of the University of Cape Town’s Faculty of Commerce on August 27, 2013 at the 67th Congress of the International Fiscal Association in Copenhagen.”
“………. taxpayers are not receiving sufficient notice regarding what information is being shared, when the exchange is occurring and with whom is their information being exchanged.”
“Manal Corwin of KPMG LLP (Washington) observed that with respect to treaty requests for information, the general rule has been that information was not exchanged unless specifically requested. In the context of automatic exchange, it is understood that information will be exchanged. Corwin, who was a chief architect in drafting the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) regulations in her previous capacity as Acting International Tax Counsel and Deputy International Tax Counsel in the Office of Tax Policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, opined that where a jurisdiction has entered into an automatic exchange of information agreement with another country, taxpayers should be promptly informed to put them on notice.”
“Roeleveld said that the right to be informed about an exchange of information should be a fundamental procedural right of all taxpayers. She also recommended that taxpayers be given the right to:
– contradiction, noting that taxpayers and tax authorities alike would be well-served by giving the taxpayer the chance to provide some context to the information;
– appeal (although in some contexts that right could come too late); and
– effective remedies where their basic rights have been violated.
…”…
…..”…another concern raised by the automatic exchange of information is whether certain immutable personal characteristics such as citizenship or place of birth is appropriate criteria for the basis of exchanging information. For example, under many FATCA intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) with U.S., financial institutions are required to review all of their accounts for U.S. indicia, including U.S. citizenship or place of birth. Such discriminatory criteria may violate some countries’ human rights principles. (See e.g. Where is the FATCA IGA with Canada? Model agreement could violate Canada’s Charter of Rights, International Taxes Weekly, 03/19/13)…”
So, here is an ex-IRS counsel and principal at KPMG Corwin (first of KPMG, then at IRS and worked to draft FATCA and then returned to KPMG http://www.internationaltaxreview.com/Article/3216174/Corporate-Tax-Archive/Corwin-returns-to-KPMG-after-stint-at-US-Treasury.html ), and a Commerce Prof. underscoring some of the very concerns that we have raised repeatedly. And, here is a Reuters blog raising the issue of the conflict with Canada’s Charter.
Does anyone have access to ‘Where is the FATCA IGA with Canada? Model agreement could violate Canada’s Charter of Rights’ , from International Taxes Weekly, 03/19/13 ? I really wonder what it contains and what references it cites.
@Badger,
Great detective work!
I just posted your discovery about the FATCA speaker on the main posting above.
Find out more of the thoughts of the FATCA speaker by going to his DC firm’s website:
http://bsmlegal.com/index.asp
From http://fatca.thomsonreuters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/USA-Former-U.S.-tax-official-urges-view-of-FATCA-as-a-compliance-problem-for-Canadian-firms1.pdf
Isn’t this incorrect? Doesn’t FATCA require that recalcitrant accounts be closed? This makes it sound like a USP or suspected USP could continue to bank and NOT have their financial info sent to the IRS as long as they’re willing to accept the 30% withholding.
Also, doesn’t FATCA affect all US sourced money transfers, not just “interest, dividend, and investment payments”?
@tdottt
I also had the impression that recalcitrant accounts are to be closed. I have the majority of my credit and my deposits with one major Big Five Bank.
I am purposefully rearranging my money such to draw my portfolio balance under $50,000 to avoid being reported. However, maybe the bank I am with decides to exceed expectations and report on all dual-citizen account holders, regardless of balance.
I thought about what the worst case scenario would be if my bank asked for my SSN and I refused to provide it. I concluded that I get to keep the credit products at my bank, but my bank will no longer accept deposits from me.
@tdott
That paragraph puzzled me too. It reads: An FFI will report the USP to the IRS or it will withhold and send the withholding to the IRS. Doesn’t make sense.
I never feel like I can figure this all out and I hate dealing with “IFs” because it puts me in the mindset that sanity will not prevail and FATCA will happen and I don’t want to go there. However, IF you are “recalcitrant”, in that you refuse to sign away your right to privacy (no W-8, no W-9), isn’t the bank’s only option to close your account? And IF it does that, will it be obliged to give you cash? Because IF you are “recalcitrant” it’s pretty obvious you will not be able to transfer your money to a new account somewhere else. And yes, I know, when you deposit your money into a bank account it becomes the bank’s money BUT I don’t have to like that concept.
@Em
I have worked in banking.
The bank would definitely prefer to give you your money in the form of a draft, as that is more secure for them and you. However, if you want your money in cash, they have to give it to you in cash. It may take some while to get together, and you will be required to sign a waiver that specifically states you could have taken your money in a more secure form, but it is doable!
Have a read through this:
http://www.bsmlegal.com/cl_10_29_2013.asp
BSM Legal Client Letter of October 29, 2013
re The FATCA IGAs;
“RE: Draft FFI Agreement Released; Regulation Changes Previewed
“Today the IRS released a draft FFI Agreement, designated as Notice 2013-69 (“Notice”). We have attached the Notice for your review. The draft FFI Agreement applies to participating FFIs and, as modified by a Model 2 IGA, FFIs and their branches located in Model 2 IGA countries.”
“The draft FFI Agreement appears to be largely consistent with the regulations and the Model 2 IGA. Although the agreement weighs in at 38 pages (out of the 50-page notice), there do not appear to be substantial new requirements at this stage.”
“The agreement will not literally be “signed” by financial institutions; rather participating FFIs and Model 2 FFIs will indicate their assent to the agreement in the registration process. The draft states that the FFI Agreement would not apply to Model 1 IGAs and branches located in Model 1 countries.”
“The agreement expires on December 31, 2016, and therefore would need to be renewed before 2017. The IRS reserves the right to modify the agreement unilaterally through guidance, but the agreement states that withholdable payments will not be expanded before 2017. ”
MY note, (and my emphasis in capitals below):
I haven’t read the IRS documents this refers to myself, and I am lost in the complexities, but the wording jumped out at me from the BMS client letter;
“……..The IRS reserves the right to MODIFY the agreement UNILATERALLY through guidance, but the agreement states that withholdable payments will not be EXPANDED before 2017….”
MY note: we have been saying all along that the US reserves the RIGHT to UNILATERALLY ‘modify’ treaties and ‘agreements’ – and now we see by this that they ‘reserve the right’ to change it ‘unilaterally’, and anticipate the possibility for ‘witholdable payments’ to be ‘expanded’.
I don’t know whether this differs from the Model 1 vs the Model 2 IGAs, but I think that we can expect that this indicates the general thinking and intent of the US re FATCA.
I think we can also expect that the definition of ‘witholdable payments’ can change unilaterally too. And the thresholds. All are within the power of the US to change, because this is NOT a mutual agreement. This is US HOMELAND law. And we know what the US does even in the US-Canada tax treaty – reserve and use what it states is its unilateral and extraterritorial ‘RIGHT’ to define persons as ‘taxable’ in the broadest sense, reserve the unilateral ‘right’ to add penalties, and unilaterally define reportable and taxable thresholds – without the agreement of the other signatory – no matter how much double taxation of our non-US assets and other egregious injustice results. What we experience already in the gaps to the Canada-US treaty is to be exponentially exceeded with a FATCA IGA.
There is also other IRS wording as relayed in this BSM client letter that speaks in general to the fact that the US will accept MORE reporting, and describes ‘backup’ withholding, and FATCA withholding (my emphasis in capitals):
From BSM client letter: “Choice of Backup Withholding or FATCA Withholding. A payor will be able to choose to impose either backup withholding (at 28%) or FATCA withholding (at 30%) IF BOTH might apply to the SAME payment. On the other hand, the Notice clarifies that a Model 2 FFI who knows that a non-consenting account holder is a U.S. person is required to backup withhold on reportable payments to that person, even if the IGA excuses withholding under FATCA.”
“Nonparticipating FFI Reporting Eased. Reporting on foreign reportable amounts paid to nonparticipating FFIs in 2015 and 2016 will be limited to payments through financial accounts. Payments on non-account relationships, such as swap contracts, would be outside the scope of nonparticipating FFI reporting. In addition, participating FFIs MAY CHOOSE to report ALL payments to the account RATHER THAN JUST the foreign reportable amounts if it does not want to categorize the payments. Finally, if a participating FFI is prohibited by local law from specific payee reporting and cannot obtain a waiver from its nonparticipating FFI customers, it will be able to report on an aggregate basis. Reporting would be done on Form 8966, rather than Form 1042-S as currently prescribed in the regulations.”
I ask anyone here at IBS to clarify what I am saying if I am wrong, because I am now lost in all these details, but I think that the language and intent of the US is clearly towards unilateral changes, more reporting and withholding rather than less, anticipates future changes, etc.
Thus, any discussion with the Banksters, our MPs and the general public must emphasize that a FATCA IGA does NOT protect Canada or accountholders from the current US crusade, AND opens the door to even more unlimited and unanticipated unilateral changes – which the US clearly intends.
I welcome correction if I am wrong about my interpretation of this.
Well, well, well. IRSCompliant asked me to have a look at the comments here.
I did and then went to CBA info on FATCA on their website. There is a change. There is no longer any mention of closing accounts. I know that as recently as when we were having the debate, CBA site said our banks may be required to close our accounts. Did anyone save that old version? As you know, the CBA rep would not tell us how they would do that legally.
CBA’s site now says: If you choose not to provide this additional documentation upon request, at a minimum, your financial institution may be required to withhold a tax of 30% on U.S. source payments that you receive and send this money to the IRS.
http://www.cba.ca/en/consumer-information/40-banking-basics/597-us-foreign-account-tax-compliance-act-fatca-information-for-clients
CBA doesn’t say they won’t close an account. They simply make no reference to it. So, something has happened that they are changing their tune from recently:
Is it: A. We are having an effect and they finally accept they cannot legally close our accounts or B. They have simply decided to omit that information from their information for legal and public relations reasons or C.They have inside information that they will not be able to close accounts under an IGA with Canada or D. Other.
I have checked FATCA information at all Big Five. None of them mention closing accounts. Most refer to CBA website. I found this information “Not For Distribution to Any US Person” on CIBC website. I have no idea what it means. https://www.cibc.com/ca/pdf/investor/prospectus-july5-2013.pdf
@Badger: I won’t even try to make an attempt at interpreting whatever that information you posted means except to say it is probably one more way for US to renege on whatever it is they agree to with other countries.
@ Cerium398
Thanks — so it’s doable but probably darn hard. As Badger says, the IRS writes its rules on an erasable slate and has new rules on the ready to do a write-over whenever it pleases.
The CBA and our banks don’t know what to do until an IGA is/is not signed.
Under the UK agreement, banks do not have to withhold 30% or close accounts because it is assumed the US will get the info. they desire through reports to HM Inland REvenue which do not require the account holder’s permission. In the UK agreement, if a financial institution shows ‘significant’t non-compliance’ (not otherwise defined), then 30% of payments to that FI can be withheld. That’s why most FI s will have to be compliant.
The Canadian IGA could conceivably have an exemption for Canadian citizens or residents altho the US desperately wants to avoid that.
The whole FATWA could implode if only a few more countries sign on.
In the absence of an IGA it would be wise to have no US investments, and to reduce any non registered accounts to less than $1 million. If you have US indicia on file it would be wise to get rid or to reduce any account to less than $50,000.
Let’s assume you forget to do this and you end up being reported. So what? If you live here and have no US assets, ain’t much going to happen.
Potential for signs, but needs boiling down to essence;
We say NO!
Made-in-US-law claims Made-in-Canada family savings: RESPs, TFSAs, RDSPs, PRPPs, life insurance, mutual funds, etc.
Canadian Banks + Financial Industry lobby for US FATCA.
CBA / IIAC lobby conspire to sign away Canadian private information and Charter Rights under Made-in-US data theft plan called FATCA!
CBA + IIAC + Uncle Sam say to ALL Canadian accountholders: prove you’re NOT a ‘US taxable person’!
Warning: Uncle Sam wants YOU! US crossborder tax grabs Canadians to pay US deficit. US imposes tax and penalties on accident of parentage/birthplace/origin. CBA and IIAC complicit.
Warning to snowbirds, expired + current greencarders with additional US contact information on Canadian bank records. FATCA wants you to help pay US deficit!
FATCA is unCanadian: violation of Charter Rights and Freedoms.
FATCA is data theft.
Further to KalC’s comments
Unless something has changed, all the wording I recall (and I confess I stopped following all the changes, because my eyes glaze over and also because they’re irrelevant to me and anyone else with a CLN) states clearly that the 30% withholding applies only to US-source income. They can’t possibly and legally withhold from Canadian-source income, I can’t believe any government of Canada would ever agree to that. So as KalC says, and I’ve been saying in various posts for about two years now, GET RID OF ANY US ASSETS NOW. Which I did more than two years ago in simple anger and solidarity with everyone else, even though in my case it wasn’t necessary. Besides which I don’t believe in lending money to a country whose government is in debt to the tune of more than ten times their annual revenue. I doubt I’d see consistent interest payments and I know I’d never see the principal again. I can’t believe anyone on the planet is still buying US T-bills and savings bonds, I know they still are, but obviously their minds don’t work anything like mine does.
My recollection from a post I can no longer track, on this website somewhere a couple of months ago, is that someone had access to a meeting or to some briefing notes from a Canadian FFI meeting about FATCA where they were given an outline of what the government was at that time thinking the IGA would look like, which said that accounts would not be closed for recalcitrance, however the account information would be reported to IRS. Under Canadian banking law they can’t close your account except for very specific criminal convictions or related matters, and I don’t see this government or any other changing that. If they did, there would be a Perfect Storm politically and probably economically and they know that.
Get a CLN if you can (preferably a relinquishment if you qualify); move all your holdings back into Canada and support our economy and not that basket case south of our border; if possible be prepared to arrange your life to stay outside the US and have nothing more to do with them if necessary; and get on with your life. I understand that isn’t ideal or maybe even feasible for some folks, but do consider these options carefully, if you haven’t already.
And continue to write your MPs, complain loud and long, and do support the demo mentioned at the head of this thread if you can get there. And look for as many other legal ways of protesting this outrage and do so; watch what our banks do (or don’t do), and what our government does (or doesn’t do), and invest and vote accordingly.
Hit the financial institutions where it matters to them, namely in their bottom line, and hit the government and politicians where it matters to them, namely in the ballot box.
… and donate to the political party of your choice, IF and ONLY IF it opposes FATCA and stands squarely for Canadian sovereignty, Charter, and banking/privacy laws. If it doesn’t, starve them of any and all future financial contributions, membership, or political support of any sort, and bad-mouth them among your friends, family and neighbours every chance you get.
schubert1975, I would so love to scrub any financial contact with the southland from my life but unfortunately, all of my working life was there, and none of my retirement savings is portable. Even after I have relinquished, I will still be stuck filing. However, I hear the non-resident alien form is easier though I don’t know how this will effect banking. Presumably it still paints a target on my back?
I am so far from legal retirement age anyway that I have my doubts that any of the money will still be there by the time I am given the economy’s unpredictable nature.
I used to fret about this a lot but anymore, I just shrug. Nothing I can do about it and no sense loses my sanity over it.
@schubert1975
“and hit the government and politicians where it matters to them, namely in the ballot box.”
That’s what really irks me about Democrats Abroad – they continue to enable the abuser!
As far as closing accounts goes that may be a change and if they won’t close accounts it may be a positive one. However, for me the issue also stinks on the data gathering score. Thomas Drake mentioned in his talk to the Press Club that “Obama now has a banking law in the works that will gather all your bank data too. What’s left?!” THAT’S what really bothers me most. You can see his excellent talk on this matter on You Tube where he mentions the bank data gathering apparatus.
They have gone too far with this data collection. If Thomas Drake and others have mentioned this as a huge data gathering mission that not only includes all your phone conversations, your snail mail information, your email information and now your banking data, then tell me how this is not frightening? The ways such data can be used and has always been used in the past by those who sought to gather it were never any good for the average citizen.
The fact that Canada would consider such a thing at all needs severe scrutiny and push back in our government. If the banks want to wiggle away around our laws they must be held accountable for trying to do so by our politicians.
Yoga girl, I am sorry to hear you will have to keep dealing with them. It’s so onerous and difficult to do as they wish year upon year.
@KalC
“In the absence of an IGA it would be wise to have no US investments, and to reduce any non registered accounts to less than $1 million. If you have US indicia on file it would be wise to get rid or to reduce any account to less than $50,000.
Let’s assume you forget to do this and you end up being reported. So what? If you live here and have no US assets, ain’t much going to happen..”
All these links are way over my head. You all can understand them so much better than me.
I don’t have any American assets or investments. Most o my money is in RRSPs.
I am waiting for my CLN….Even when I get I plan to ever go to the USA again.
..I should be able to have TFSAs, even without a CLN.. I pulled my TFSAs with all this fear drumming.
Guess I am lucky to be able to have the option of never going back to the USA or have any retirement investments there like Yoga Girl.
I am here till the end..sweet or bitter. I will write my MPs and let them know I want them to fight FATCA. and they get no money from me if they don’t….
My eyes were glazing over too read all those links…The” For NOT US Persons eyes” PDF report was so legalese and LONG…over 200 pages….I felt like taking it and putting it up for bulls eye practice .
@northernstar”I felt like taking it and putting it up for bullseye practice.”
Indeed! I tried to read it too. Hope your CLN arrives soon. I’m waiting on mine as well. However, I do plan to travel back there for family reasons but, never again anything else such as vacation or shopping.
A lot of the information reports that come out are written for professionals and compliance industry people. There’s not much out there that makes it simple and clear for the average person affected by all this. It does feel like you’re flying by the seat of your pants and hoping for the best most of the time. One more reason why this is unworkable. No one understands what they need to do. No one who it matters to and it looks as if they only way to get such advice is to pay for it.
I was told last year by our Canadian accountant that I needed to get some TFSA of my own. When I told him about FATCA he said “Oh, don’t worry go ahead and get the TFSA.” I knew better than to do that but, many will not know. I’ll get them after I’m out of the U.S. personhood clap trap.
@Atticus
I was told by my once FA “not to worry about FATCA” I left him and just canceled my TSFA accounts..
When I worked in a National Cdn corporation in Customer service I would ask supervisors questions.. Each one would give me a different answer..I found it confusing and not at all helpful.
I believe the long legalese is made that way to make anyone want to sign the darn thing and not think of it anymore.
When it comes to data collection, Obama’s been far worse, says Bill Binney, former Technical Director and crypto-mathematician at the National Security Agency in this interview with Bill Maher on Friday. Binney stepped down in October 2001 because he felt that he “could not stay after the NSA began purposefully violating the Constitution” and say they should have been impeached – Bush, Cheney, all of them. This interview is a ‘must listen to’, especially his remarks at the end about people when they say they don’t care about the NSA’s intrusion because they have nothing to hide…