The following email was sent to my MP, Scott Armstrong, signed with my real name:
Dear Mr. Armstrong;
In 1958, my Canadian parents crossed the US border and attended the nearest “maternity home” where I was born before we all returned home to Canada. Since that time, I have never lived, worked or voted in the US. I have always lived, worked, voted and paid taxes in Canada. I also bank here, where I continue to live.
As someone who has voted for you in the past, I would request that you answer the following questions, the answers to which will determine if I ever vote for you again:
1. Do you consider me to be a Canadian who was born in the US, or a “US person” who lives in Canada?
2. Based on the fact I am Canadian, have always lived and worked in Canada, and do all my banking here in Canada where I live, do you consider my bank accounts “offshore” and the business of any foreign government?
3. According to the Master Nationality Rule, a Canadian living in Canada is only Canadian. Do you believe this, or do you believe that a Canadian living in Canada can also be American or Eritrean, and thus be subject to the laws of those nations while in Canada?
4. Do you believe that might makes right (i.e. that the US can do what it wants inside Canada, because of its might, but Eritrea is not allowed to do the same thing) or that Canada should stand against all foreign marauders?
5. Do you support the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its guarantees to protect people from unlawful search and seizure and to not be discriminated against based on national origin?
6. Do you support the FATCA IGA, which assists the IRS in a fishing expedition which, while allegedly aimed at tax cheats, will actually result in a massive by-catch of honest, law-abiding Canadians (and we know what becomes of the by-catch on a fishing expedition)?
7. If you answered “yes” to 5 and 6 above, how do you reconcile that, considering that the IGA violates the protections guaranteed in the Charter?
8. Do you honestly believe that there will ever be reciprocity, when all the US is promising to do is “to pursue legislation to provide reciprocity” or do you accept that Canada will get nothing from this except to maintain the status quo (i.e. avoid economic sanctions)?
9. Do you believe that Canada is a sovereign country, and should not acquiesce to the extortionist demands of foreign powers?
10. Would the Conservative government be so quick to sign an IGA that violated the Charter rights of any other group except “US persons”, or is the political calculus that Americans are unpopular enough that trampling on their rights will have little political fallout?
11. When the enabling legislation for FATCA is tabled, do you intend to support it or to take a stand for Canadian sovereignty and the Charter rights of all Canadians?
Thanking you in advance for your prompt reply.
Canadian Cop
Questions for my MP is perhaps the most clear, concise and compelling post I have read to date. Thank you for that.
Great post @CanadianCop, and very helpful to those of us writing to lobby MPs not to vote for the legislation that will enable the application of the FATCA IGA in Canada.
Thank you.
Excellent.
Each one of us should get answers to each of these questions from our government representatives, especially the MPs who would like the favour of our vote in the next election. Each of us needs to well understand how our representative will REPRESENT US Persons in Canada.
Thank you, once again, Canadian Cop.
@ Canadian Cop
Your situation is identical to the “Border Baby” example case I plead in my FATCA IGA comments submission – a Canadian citizen harmed by FATCA due to medically necessary birth abroad.
Here that is – edited a bit:
SUMMARY
A claim against the proposed FATCA IGA legislation: a most egregious case (1) and an argument pleading that case (2).
1) The Egregious Example
“Border Baby” is Canadian citizen born in U.S. hospital because their Canadian mother was referred there for high-risk pregnancy (a common practice). Border Baby, born in a U.S. hospital to Canadian parents, is a Canadian citizen at birth under Canadian law. Now, the FATCA IGA victimizes this Canadian, even if they returned to Canada within days of being born, and have no U.S. economic activity or residential presence. This is because under the foreign law FATCA’s criteria, Border Baby is also a so-called “U.S. person” and life-long “U.S. tax resident.”
In ultimate effect, the FATCA IGA subjects this Canadian citizen to harmful discrimination and loss of financial privacy because they were born in a U.S. hospital due to medical need. Moreover, if they were born in ANY other foreign country they would NOT be subject to FATCA.
Why should Canadian citizen Border Baby be exempt from equality of treatment under Canadian law because their medically necessary foreign birth occurred in one particular foreign country?
2) FATCA IGA Violates “Border Baby’s” Rights as a Canadian Citizen
The FATCA IGA requires banks and other Canadian financial institutions to seek “unambiguous indication of a U.S. place of birth.” in account holders’ records and documentation to determine if an account holder is a so-called “U.S. person.” Thus the “Border Baby” cited above is a so-called “U.S. person” or “U.S. tax resident” under the FATCA IGA and suffers a discriminatory and irreparable loss of privacy, even if they never left Canada since returning from their singular birth event abroad.
The definition of so-called “U.S.-person” or “U.S. tax residency” based upon a U.S. place of birth is “fruit of a poisonous tree” under Section 15 of the Charter. And that poisonous tree is national origin discrimination.
It is remote and dubious to claim that a Canadian citizen who was born in the U.S. decades ago, and subsequently had no ties of residence or economic activity there, is somehow a “U.S. tax resident.” This is a remote, unusual, dubious, and harmful claim, imposed solely by the laws of foreign state.
– It is remote because the definition of so-called “U.S.’ person” is based solely on foreign law and imposes a foreign state’s discriminatory definition upon certain citizens of Canada;
– It is unusual in that it deviates from the tax resident definition of Canada and every other nation excepting Eritrea;
– It is dubious because the claim is discriminatory and based solely upon birthplace or ancestry, as opposed to actual economic activity or residency; and
– The claim is harmful in that it degrades the privacy and dignity of thousands of Canadians affected who have not violated any Canadian law, solely due to their having a U.S. national origin or place of birth.
CONCLUSION
The legislation enabling the FATCA IGA will violate the fundamental equality rights of thousands of law-abiding Canadians and their families, causing irreparable harm and distress across the social fabric of Canadian society. The potential for harm is significant, the claims of the foreign law FATCA are unusual and dubious, and the violation of the Charter equality protection is blatant. Any so-called reciprocal benefit to Canada is illusory and far out-weighed by the potential for harm.
@ Canadian Cop
Once again you have stated our case in a precise manner. This story could be mine other than the fact I am one year older and I am not a cop.
Ask your MPs how Canada and the CRA are going to protect those whose banking data is being mined via FATCA when the IRS cannot control its own employees and its own domestic data:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-03-18/irs-employee-took-home-data-on-20-000-workers-at-u-dot-s-dot-tax-agency
“A U.S. Internal Revenue Service employee took home a computer thumb drive containing unencrypted data on 20,000 fellow workers, the agency said in a statement today…. “…”The Social Security numbers, names and addresses of employees and contract workers were potentially accessible online because the thumb drive was plugged into the employee’s “unsecure home network,” Koskinen’s message said. …”
That is in addition to the insecurities formally identified in this GAO report:
http://www.informationweek.com/security/risk-management/irs-leaves-taxpayer-data-insecure-gao-finds/d/d-id/1109158?
http://www.informationweek.com/security/risk-management/gao-says-irs-data-security-problems-persist/d/d-id/1096695?
http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/irs-cybersecurity-flaws-put-taxpayers-at/224100011
http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/userfiles/file/2013FullReport/IDENTITY-THEFT-The-IRS-Should-Adopt-a-New-Approach-to-Identity-Theft-Victim-Assistance-that-Minimizes-Burden-and-Anxiety-for-Such-Taxpayers.pdf
And,
TIGTA also continues to chastize the IRS for its lack of data security:
http://www.accountingweb.com/article/tigta-reports-examine-irs-identity-theft-processes-services/222692
The TIGTA and GAO reports are available online.
US taxpayers resident in the US (and those abroad) already don’t have effective redress for problems with the IRS. No redress is available or even contemplate re the BSA FBAR from the US Treasury at all.
Now we have FATCA.
What are the odds that the CRA will help resolve the inevitable problems and data leaks that will infect FATCA as imposed on Canadians?
There are already so many problems with the IRS that the Taxpayer Advocate calls for a Taxpayer Bill of Rights to be enshrined in US law (to no avail).
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2383432
http://taxpol.blogspot.ca/2014/03/is-it-time-for-taxpayer-bill-of-rights.html
http://taxpol.blogspot.ca/2014/03/cockfield-on-taxpayer-privacy-and-fatca.html
These are important questions for the new Canadian Finance Minister, Joe Oliver! We must know his answers.
I’ve put these questions at Analysis: Joe Oliver’s replacement of Jim Flaherty reassures Bay Street OR With Flaherty gone from Finance, PM now has few who say no to him”, prefaced by “Questions for Canada’s new Finance Minister (crafted by an “accidental American” Canadian police officer on behalf of every so-called US Person in Canada).
Some good comments (not FATCA related), one of which is:
Thank you for that excellent letter Canadian Cop !
Awesome letter.
My serious suggestion: copy it to ALL MPs and Senators (addresses on parl.gc.ca). Maybe wait a couple of days to see if a response comes first if you like but very powerful and factual.
@canadiancop…..Great letter and thank you so much for posting it. I hope you don’t mind if I use this as a guide for a letter to my MP!
Just sent my version of Canadian Cop’s letter to my own MP and to Joe Oliver. I enoucourage all Brockers to email Oliver – let him know we are many and are VERY concerned about FATCA.
Great letter! I am also a “U.S person” born fifty two years ago in the States to Canadian parents. I returned home to Canada 28 days later. I am a “Canadian citizen born abroad”. I’ve spent my life in Canada and pay taxes in Canada. I’ve never considered myself American in any way.
Well, the U.S does!
This last year has been a living Hell. I’ve never filed U.S taxes, but I want to renounce. In order to renounce I have to be “up to date” with my filings. Not only did this mean hiring a U.S tax accountant which is not cheap by any means, and letting the IRS know all my bank account info as well, but now I”m informed I need to travel to the States to apply for a SSN. I can’t complete the process without it. More paper work as I also have to prove through official documents that I have indeed been living in Canada for the past five decades. One document for every decade. Who keeps their kindergarten report cards?????
This whole ordeal has been expensive and mentally draining. I just want it to be over. I just want to be Canadian!
What an awesome letter. This is similar to my wife`s story as well , though she spent four years in the U.S. while her Canadian father got his degree at a divinity school to become a minister. I am begging her to renounce but she says she is not worried, considers herself only a Canadian, and doesn`t think anything will happen to us as a result. She does not want to go through the hassle of getting a tax number and doing past returns to become compliant. But as a Canadian business owner I am in full panic mode, thinking of opening bank accounts in my name only and putting our savings in them. I have no respect for the U.S. anymore, in fact I hate Obama. But I hate our Canadian government even more for putting me in a position where I am scurrying around trying to hide money that has already been taxed to the nines, like I am some criminal when I have done NOTHING WRONG !!!
Jill. Don’t rush. You can renounce without being ‘up to date’.
You may have relinquished already if you ever worked for a government or government agency. There are many here who think that doing little or nothing is the right choice. Take time to explore all your options..
Rob,
You are put in a predicament as a Canadian business owner. Especially as a business owner, I agree, you need to do all you can to protect your financial assets.
Agreed, our Canadian government has compounded the problem in treating us like we are criminals when we have done nothing wrong. I hope your wife’s thinking as “I’m only a Canadian” work for her (I agree with her considerations but don’t have a whole lot of faith in such) — it is more difficult when one was born in the US. In the meantime, if I were you, I would protect all you have in your Canadian business and help if the Constitutional Challenge goes forward. Stay tuned.
Others, of course, may think differently.
Canadian Cop great letter. My wife is in the same position as you are. In the letter to Flaherty’s office, 2 weeks ago I wrote similar questions to yours. One point I made with Canada’s protection of it’s citizens was simple. As a child completely schooled in Canada, My wife sang our National Anthem every day of her school life here. “We stand on guard for thee” was part of that. How can you even begin to imagine that the country she and we all “Stand on guard for” has deceived her? At the very least, try to feel the betrayal when the laws of your own country can be “tweaked” to not include you as a Canadian? Disgusting! Thanks again Canadian Cop. You are with us and I’m glad you are here!
After a week in the Jamaican sun, trying to forget the stressors in my life (although anytime I got near a wireless connection I checked IBS, much to my wife’s chagrin), it is back to picking everything up where I dropped it. Back to work in thirty minutes. With trying to maintain a somewhat normal life, I find it difficult to respond individually to the posts here as I would like. I really appreciate what each of you has written and I learn more each day as I read what you have posted.
Before rushing out the door, I thought I had better update as best I can in the short time I have. Scott Armstrong called me after lunch. I have to give him credit for his prompt response both times I have written. I did not really expect a written response, as the direct questions leave little wiggle room. We had a spirited, rigorous debate over this and I was a little better informed than last time we spoke.
In a nutshell, here is what I concluded from our conversation. He will support the enabling legislation despite my protestations. He continues to describe it as a “good deal” while I called it “the lesser of two evils” for the government. He is under the impression Canada got a better deal than other countries – I told him that from my investigations the IGA was a standard one that was the same as signed by some other countries (I am not sure, though, if other countries got the carve outs for registered plans and the $50,000 threshold). He conceded that he is not a tax expert and is relying on what he has been told by bureaucrats. He has an immediate family member who is affected by this and assures that, with it hitting so close to home, he would not support it if it was not a good deal. I pointed out that my letter asked him specifically what he considered me (e.g. Canadian or US person, etc), not what the party line was. I pointed out that I wanted to know what his position was as we both knew (based on his predecessor and mentor, Bill Casey) about party discipline if you did not toe the line. He pointed out that during Question Period the opposition parties have not pursued this topic very much as proof that it is a good deal. There was a lot more, but time does not permit me to cover it all.
To summarize his position as I perceived it, he insists that this is a good deal for all of us who are not genuine tax cheats and the “proof will be in the pudding”. We agreed to disagree, but had to agree that in the period of time after July 1st we will have a better idea of the true consequences of this IGA if it comes into effect. It appears to me that it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that the conservatives will instill party discipline and pass this – I do not expect a free vote, but who knows.
@Canadian Cop – Good luck getting a real answer. I’m afraid this MP will give you a generic answer in coded language more or less saying it’s going to be left to the courts.
The Government and MPs are all up to their ears in this ‘silent agreement’ amongst themselves with FATCA.
Here’s my theory, they go to the G20, agree to screw each country’s privacy laws, and leave it to each country’s individual courts to deal with FATCA, and try to pass discriminatory legislation in the dead of the night if the courts strike the IGA down.
That’s what we dealing with and that’s why the Superfund needs to be much bigger than anyone can imagine.
Someone ought to do a Freedom of Information Request concerning G20 meetings in the last few years.
@Native Canadian
Please see my post on Michael Hektoen and read it very carefully. You can help. Maybe he would be a big donor?
http://www.nextgenmetalsinc.com/i/pdf/031314N.pdf
@ Canadian Cop
Thank you for this great template for my first e-mail to the new Finance Minister. I’ll give him a few days to get his new seat warmed up and then I will press SEND. As for your talk with your MP, well he has those “good deal” talking points embedded in his brain now and party discipline is such that he and all Con MPs will not stray. Our only hope is the opposition MPs, providing they truly understand the meaning of the word “opposition”. I hope your MP is wrong about their silence meaning consent to the Harper gov’t capitulation.
We have a tough row to hoe but we are right and they are wrong. I’m adding more cash to my Challenge Fund cache right now. BTW, my MP resigned too (a Con) which means I do not have riding representation at the moment so I’m informing Mr. Oliver that since he is now the Finance Minister of ALL of Canada I expect HIM to respond in a substantive manner to my concerns. (I know, I know — Good luck with that, Em!)
Thanks for the update, Canadian Cop. So did Mr. Armstrong tell you what he considers you to be — a “CANADIAN or a “US citizen” / US taxpayer / American residing in Canada? We’re waiting to hear that from Scott Armstrong and our other government representatives / MPs. Are we CANADIAN or are we second-class US Persons residing in Canada?
@Chears, thanks, I will send him some info and see what he thinks. We need all the help we can find from all areas. I’ll try to use some persuasion from my end on him. @Canadian Cop… It seems to always sound the same from some MP’s. They are really trying to say.. “because of money and our banks, we WILL make a sacrifice out of you and our laws” Is there any different answer??
@Cop
Perhaps you could consider referring Mr. Armstrong to Professors Christians & Cockfield’s submission ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2407264 ) and ask him if anyone could possibly conclude the IGA is some kind of a “good deal”. Any rational person reading that would conclude quite the opposite.