This is a print version of part of a November 19 CBC radio interview in which a representative of the Canadian Bankers Association as well as Allison Christians (Chair of Tax Law at McGill University) and a U.S. person in Canada were interviewed.
The title of this November 25 CBC update “Canadian banks to be compelled to share clients’ info with U.S” is incorrect as the banks are aware that they have the option to resist FATCA and lobby seriously for its repeal.
It might be significant that the CBC/CBC reporter selected the pointed phrase that our financial institutions are being “deputized by the IRS.”
@Em notes below that there are 650 comments already (7:45 pm) on this CBC site– with most anti-FATCA (and not from the usual Brocker/Sandboxer crowd)
Some commenters do not understand FATCA and ask: “What are people so afraid of if they have nothing to hide?”
See the CBC link:
What’s really great are the comments. Overwhelmingly hostile to FATCA compliance. There’s little mistake as to where real Canadians are when it comes to any sellout to the US Treasury Department.
@Jim
As a Brocker mentioned here lately: anti-Americanism is never too far under the surface in Canada. I just hope it doesn’t become aimed at the victims here at some point.
To CBA and Jim Flaherty:
Can you say, “US doormat?”
Let’s hope the voters in today’s by-elections read this story before going to the polls. I know a lot of real-conservative Conservatives who will be outraged at the idea that our government and banks will roll over for the US and IRS on this. For all the excellent reasons mentioned in the story.
No to mention the libertarians and Canadian nationalists of all political stripes (of whom I number myself).
Every non-US-origin Canadian with whom I’ve discussed this issue is equally outraged at the US and our government and banks over this.
Don’t worry, TD Bank assures us they will do everything to make the victims of FATCA “comfortable” once it becomes law in Canada: …..”TD is committed to providing impacted customers with support and information to ensure they receive a comfortable experience once the law comes into effect.” COMFORTABLE?
That is no joke – it is the direct wording and quote from the current version of their FATCA webpage (which I saved a screencapture of for posterity):
…#5. “Will TD participate?
While considerable uncertainty still exists regarding the obligations that Canadian Banks will face under FATCA, TD will comply with all applicable laws and regulations in the jurisdictions where TD operates.
TD is committed to providing impacted customers with support and information to ensure they receive a comfortable experience once the law comes into effect.”
from http://www.tdcanadatrust.com/customer-service/overview/fatca.jsp
There is NOTHING they can do to sugarcoat what FATCA imposed on Canadians on Canadian soil will do to ALL taxpayers, citizens and legal residents of Canada. The effort just tells me that they will do and say anything on this matter – no matter how absurd. Insulting that they would even offer such disingenuous nonsense.
When I hit the streets and talked one on one with my fellow citizens here in this city I did not run into even one person who thought this was a good idea. Indeed, most all were outraged they hadn’t heard of it and outraged that Canada would go along with something like this. People don’t know about it in full if at all!
Some even said “Oh, Canada will never go along with that.” and laughed at first…I then explained about the secret talks and said that’s the reason you haven’t heard of what this is and what it means for Canada. Every single person I spoke with signed the petition.
Canadians do not want this. Political stripes really didn’t matter. I didn’t even ask anyone what party or affiliation they had when talking about this. I am very, very liberal. This law is so bad that there’s no way any Canadian with any idea of what they means can think this is a good thing for Canada to cave into. Not now, not ever.
Pingback: Some progress at last?!? | outragedcanadian.ca
“Canada: …..”TD is committed to providing impacted customers with support and information to ensure they receive a comfortable experience once the law comes into effect.”
“a comfortable experience”
“capitalism with Chinese characteristics”
Can you say propaganda? Something to sell you on the idea that all is okay with this? What it comes down to is that your banking privacy was sold out. My relationship with my bank will never, ever be the same. Whereas I trusted my advisor before, I no longer do. I give just enough info to keep going even though as I am no longer American this won’t affect me. It deeply disturbs me that my family was going under some gun put in place by the U.S. in violation of the so called “relationship” I thought we had with our bank. This is a serious breech of trust. Let’s not sugar coat, propagandize or do anything else with the truth here. The banks say they had to do it upon threat of with holding. While that may be true the outcome for customers is still the same. And if an IGA is signed ALL that will do is protect the bankers while throwing customers right under the bus. There’s no sugar coating that. It’s ugly, it’s wrong for Canada and it’s wrong if you want an honest and trusting relationship with your bank. You can’t have FATCA and have a relationship with customers where they trust your word or advice.
The comments are awesome (currently around 650). My rough guess would be that 98% are anti-FATCA. When presented with a well crafted article, Canadians really do seem to “get it”. How I wish we could channel those who “get it” into a concerted front to actually try to do something about keeping FATCA out of Canada. (That does not mean Brockers because we “got it” ages ago and are doing our best to actively oppose FATCA.) I included this article in a PS to an e-mail I sent Minister Flaherty today.
…and now, the same CBC article is on Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/25/canadian-banks-share-info-us_n_4336239.html.
Thanks for the link, Calgary411. I like this response in particular:
tippisheadrum:
We should all stampede our banks and declare American citizenship – just f*** with them a bit…
25 NOV 9:03 AM
Now that’s the spirit!
Dual Citizenship Disadvantages by the Government of Canada
http://travel.gc.ca/travelling/publications/dual-citizenship
Hope this info be useful
bubblebustin,
To dream!
Very useful, Dual Citizen.
I especially like this statement at travel.gc.ca:
(in our case, the US)
and, http://canada.usembassy.gov/consular_services/dual-citizenship.html
I choose the Canadian version.
Yes, good advice from travel.gc.ca…
” You could have tax obligations not only in Canada but also in the country of your second citizenship. Taxation arrangements between countries are complex, and you should discuss these obligations with your financial and/or legal advisers.
You might be subject to increased scrutiny by immigration and security officials if you travel with more than one passport. You could be questioned about missing entry or exit stamps, as well as your reason for having two travel documents. In some countries, possession of a second passport could result in its confiscation or a fine. You may even be prevented from leaving the country.
[Example]:
Lucia lived in Canada for more than 30 years before returning to Uruguay. As a dual citizen, it never occurred to her that she was liable to pay taxes in Uruguay for income earned in Canada and that she was considered a tax evader in the land of her birth.”
———-
Didn’t know Uruguay has (had?) some kind of CBT system? But anyway, sound advice:
[How to Prevent Problems]
” Consider formally renouncing your second citizenship, if you are able do so and if it will eliminate certain risks. Citizenship cannot be renounced simply by making a personal declaration. You need to apply to the appropriate authorities of the country concerned and obtain formal approval. The necessary procedures can be lengthy and complex. Contact the country’s embassy or consulate in Canada for information.”
@Michael Putman
Uruguay? Not being a Uruguay tax expert (or any country’s tax expert for that matter) I wouldn’t know if there’s any truth to this, but why not use a more glaring example like “United States of America”??? How many Canadians have Uruguay as a second citizenship compared to those who have the US’s?
@Bubblebusting
The point remains sound and clear: keeping dual citizenship has advantages and disadvantages. It has always be that way. It is a fact. Indeed, there is good advice as Michael Putman highlights
@Dual Citizen
Of course, but having the US’s is clearly more disadvantageous than any other because of CBT and FBAR. Why not mention theirs instead of Uruguay’s?
@bubblebustin
Being citizen of the US, the most powerful country in the world, sure carries great advantages and disadvantages. No doubt..
Canada is a multicultural country, in which dual citizens from all over the world are welcome. Every dual citizen is equally valuable because they are Canadians. As such, the example about Uruguay is legitimate. Besides, even changing the example the bottom line remains unchanged
@Dual Citizen
Is Uruguay a legitimate example? As far as I know they don’t have CBT. Even if they did, using the USA as their example, it would be MORE legitimate, imo 🙂
@dual citizen
I hope you aren’t implying that we or the Canadian government should cut the US some slack or shouldn’t put their feet to the fire by drawing attention to the extraterritorial taxation of their citizens because their citizenship carries “great advantages”.
@Dual Citizen
There are undoubtedly *far* more Canada-US duals than there are Canada-Uruguay duals resident in Canada.
As stated by bubblebustin, it is not clear Uruguay even has CBT.
The proximity of the US makes it particularly relevant, as a simple same-day car trip into the US to do some cross-border shopping could result in negative ramifications for the unwary Canada-US dual (if not now, perhaps at some point in the future).
As such, I’d argue that although the use of Uruguay as an example *may* (CBT?) be legitimate, a far more relevant example would be the US.
@tdott
Maybe those poor overworked folks in the Canadian government meant to write “United States” but hit too many wrong keys after “U” and it spell corrected to “Uruguay”. 😉
Nuts! I missed it. The United States changed its name to Uruguay. Isn’t that plagiarism or something? OR, is it possible that the US Shadow Government is operating out of Uruguay now because things are getting too “hot” in North America?
@bubblestein It may be that, being diplomatic and all, they are using Uruguay as a code word for US, our bestest friend and “#1 Trading Partner” in the whole wide world. [SMILE BIG FOR CAMERAS HERE].
But then, I have heard that the IRS does have a few offices (and informants) in places like Panama, Costa Rica etc., so who knows….