Coincidentally, two separate news items which have the potential to collide in a very strange way came out on the same day here in Hong Kong. The bad news first:
Hong Kong and US sign tax information agreement
The Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, Professor K C Chan, signed today (March 25) in Hong Kong on behalf of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government an agreement with the United States of America (US) for exchange of information (EoI) relating to taxes. The Consul-General of the US to Hong Kong and Macau, Mr Clifford A Hart, Jr, signed on behalf of his Government.
The South China Morning Post cuts through all the government euphemisms in its headline: “Hong Kong agrees to hand over financial details of Americans working in city to US tax authorities”. However, this is not as bad as it sounds, for reasons I’ll discuss after the jump; the very existence of this TIEA, rather than jumping straight ahead to a FATCA IGA, has some interesting implications for Hong Kong and Beijing’s larger strategy towards FATCA.
In addition, there’s another seed of hope for “U.S. Persons” here who have the crazy idea that they deserve the same rights as any other Hong Kong residents, even if the government doesn’t yet realise its implications:
問人「來自何地」或涉歧視 |
Asking people “where are you from” may become discrimination |
| 《星島日報》，2014年3月25日 | Sing Tao Daily, 25 March 2014 |
| 中港矛盾持續，港人辱罵內地人亦時有發生。平機會主席周一嶽昨表示，暫未收到有內地人在港受歧視的投訴，但有收到小量查詢，今年第三季檢討是否修訂四條歧視條例，專家正構思加入「個人的來源地」及「入境年份」等字眼，杜絕無理行為。 | With the ongoing conflicts between mainland China and Hong Kong, there have sometimes been incidents of Hong Kong people abusing mainland people. Equal Opportunities Commission Chairman York Chow stated, although the EOC has not yet received any complaints from mainland people about discrimination they have suffered in Hong Kong, it has received a small volume of enquiries. In the third quarter of this year, the EOC plans to review whether or not to amend the four discrimination ordinances, and experts are considering adding language such as “person’s place of origin” and “year of immigration” to eliminate unreasonable behaviour. |
The tax exchange information agreement
On the face of it, this TIEA looks like bad news for “U.S. Persons” in Hong Kong. The agreement signed by the Hong Kong government, available here on the Inland Revenue Department’s website, is far from containing “highly prudent safeguard measures to protect taxpayers’ privacy and the confidentiality of information exchanged”, as Secretary for Financial Services & the Treasury (and former U.S. Person) KC Chan so misleadingly described it. Instead, it’s a lightly-edited version of the OECD Model TIEA from 2002, right down to its removal of the requirement for double criminality for exchange of information, and its mention of words and structures like “Anstalten” which are foreign to both Hong Kong and Washington.
In Hong Kong, the legal framework for entering into stand-alone TIEAs (as opposed to information exchange under a comprehensive double-taxation treaty) is relatively new. Furthermore, as we pointed out last year, there is still no legal basis for the Hong Kong government to engage in automatic exchange of information of the type that the U.S. demands under FATCA. In a speech at the time, Starry Lee, a major pro-government legislator, expressed very negative attitudes about further broadening of information exchange, and also pointed out the obvious fact that any alleged “reciprocity” of a TIEA is in fact useless to Hong Kong:
As for the rationale behind this, everyone surely is quite clear, that Hong Kong has low taxes and few types of taxes, and under an information exchange framework, no doubt Hong Kong businesses will be continually requested to provide information, whereas the chances for Hong Kong to request others to provide information will be comparatively small.
Therefore, the DAB agrees with these suggested amendments proposed by the Government, and believes that they meet the minimum regulatory demands, including that they do not accept tax information demands relating to retrospective assessment of tax or overseas tax investigations. Aside from this, the Government should commit to disclosing relevant requested information only on the basis of international agreements and of Hong Kong law.
As the press release admits, the government needs the support of Lee and her fellow legislators in order to implement the new TIEA:
The TIEA will become effective after Hong Kong has completed the necessary legislative procedures for bringing the agreement into force. For this purpose, an order is required to be made by the Chief Executive in Council under the Inland Revenue Ordinance. The order is subject to negative vetting by the Legislative Council.
What’s more interesting about this agreement is what it reveals about Hong Kong’s future intentions towards FATCA. The government’s press release blandly states:
FATCA requires US persons, including those who live outside the US, to report to the US tax authorities their financial accounts held in other jurisdictions, and requires foreign financial institutions including those in Hong Kong to report the financial information in respect of their US clients. Subject to the completion of the ongoing discussions, Hong Kong intends to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the US to lay down the arrangements which help facilitate compliance by the financial institutions in Hong Kong. As a complementary measure, the signing of a TIEA with the US will allow the US tax authorities to file a request to the IRD for EoI under specified conditions.
The question no one has asked yet: why is Hong Kong even bothering to sign a TIEA? Aside from Switzerland which was under heavy pressure from the U.S. to provide information about the activities of a few banks, plus Mauritius for reasons I can’t discern (thanks to Just Me for the correction), no other jurisdiction has signed a new TIEA along the way to a FATCA treaty (though Brazil did finally ratify an old one they’d had sitting around for the better part of a decade); in particular, other small tax havens like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda just went ahead with non-reciprocal Model 1B or Model 2 IGAs which do not require a pre-existing TIEA. Even Mauritius’ TIEA was not signed in advance of its IGA, but rather at the same time.
However, a pre-existing TIEA does appear to be a precondition for any FATCA reciprocity, even the fake kind of “best effort” reciprocity the U.S. has offered to European countries under Model 1 IGAs. Our banker overlords would clearly prefer to jump straight ahead to a non-reciprocal FATCA IGA as soon as they can deal with outstanding issues like exemptions for Hong Kong retirement plans — their only goal is to get certainty ASAP that they will be able to dump as much as possible of the compliance costs onto the IRD and thus on Hong Kong taxpayers. So the fact that the Hong Kong government decided to spend its limited time and resources negotiating this seemingly-superfluous TIEA suggests quite strongly that the local banks are not the ones in control of Hong Kong’s policy towards FATCA, but that Beijing is.
I’ve previous expressed doubts that the Chinese government has any actual desire for tax & asset data which the U.S. might provide them under genuinely reciprocal automatic information exchange, and law firms like Dezan Shira have also voiced similar sentiments. Like Moscow, Beijing may be demanding more reciprocity than that provided by a Model 1 IGA simply as a matter of principle and equality of sovereign countries, or to put pressure on the U.S. government and force them to make commitments which will enrage domestic constituencies, or to use the U.S. government’s failure to meet those reciprocal commitments as justification for their own retaliatory actions.
Amending the anti-discrimination law
On a totally different topic, Hong Kong’s Race Discrimination Ordinance at present explicitly delineates citizenship as a permissible ground of discrimination:
(2) An act done on the ground of any matter specified in subsection (3) does not constitute an act done on the ground of the race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin of a person; and section 4(1)(b) does not apply to a requirement or condition as to any matter specified in subsection (3).
(3) The matters specified in this subsection are …
(c) the length of residence in Hong Kong of the person; or
(d) the nationality, citizenship or resident status of the person under the law of any country or place concerning nationality, citizenship, resident status or naturalization of or in that country or place.
Hong Kong banks have already taken advantage of this loophole to discriminate against Hong Kong residents of certain nationalities, providing an obvious template for how they’ll treat Hong Kongers with U.S. passports if FATCA really comes to our city. As this 2010 article in HK Magazine described:
It’s something most of us take for granted, but for Bibi and her mother, the simple task of opening a bank account has proved a frustrating struggle. Bibi was born and raised in Hong Kong and her mother has lived here for more than 20 years. They both have permanent residency, and both Pakistani and British National (Overseas) passports. Two months ago, her mother got a new job and wanted to open a Hang Seng Bank account, but unlike average Chinese Hong Kongers, who only need to submit their ID card, proof of address and the required sum of money, the teller at Hang Seng Bank asked whether she was Indian or Pakistani. “Then the teller asked if my mother still holds a Pakistani passport,” recalls Bibi. “When my mom said yes, the member of staff told her that she was being rejected because ‘Pakistan is a terrorist country’ and they have to prevent cases of money laundering for terrorists.”
On the bright side, some bank tellers apparently tried to show a bit of humanity and help her get around this ridiculous policy by putting some fake data on the account-opening form:
Bibi herself was once told to just put “Chinese” as her nationality in order to speed up the process when opening a bank account a few years before …
Now, the Equal Opportunities Commission, concerned by a rising wave of anger against mainland Chinese tourists and immigrants in our city, has proposed broadening the protections offered by the Race Discrimination Ordinance. Mainlanders are not protected under the existing RDO because they are not defined by traditional racial categories, but rather by place of birth and legal status outside of Hong Kong, meaning that any amendments to protect them may also end up protecting “U.S. Persons” who are also defined by similar criteria. Even if not, the review and public consultation process will provide opportunities for members of other groups affected by discrimination to voice their concerns:
| 現有《種族歧視條例》只保障不同種族間免歧視，平機會主席周一嶽表示，將在今年第三季檢討四條歧視條例，專家正研究考慮用適當的法律名詞去描述及概括問題，例如在加入「個人的來源地」及「入境年份」等字眼，保障內地人及新移民，再審視執行時實際影響，再作公眾諮詢。他指法例只是行為上的最低標準，最重要希望杜絕無理行為，教育整個社會的風氣，加強公民認識。 | The present Race Discrimination Ordinance only protects against discrimnation among different races, but Equal Opportunities Commission Chairman York Chow stated, in the third quarter of this year the EOC will review the four discrimination ordinances. Experts are presently conducting research on the appropriate legal terminology to describe and delineate the problem, such as adding language like “personal place of origin” and “year of immigration” to protect mainland people and new immigrants, and will again examine the practical impact of implementation, and then conduct public consulation. He also stated, the ordinance is only a minimum standard of behaviour, and more importantly he hopes to eliminate unreasonable behaviour and to improve the whole atmosphere of society and strengthen civic awareness. |
| 他又指出，平機會暫未收到有內地人在港受歧視的投訴，但收到少量查詢，而去年共收到九百六十八宗涉及兩性關係的投訴，當中三分一涉及性別歧視，主要涉及家庭崗位及僱傭關係，另有一成個案涉性騷擾，大部分是在工作間發生，以男性侵犯女性居多。 | He also pointed out that the EOC has not yet received any complaints from mainland people about discrimination they have suffered in Hong Kong, but it has received a small volume of enquiries. Last year, [the EOC] received a total of 968 complaints regarding gender relations, among which one-third concerned gender discrimination, primarily with regard to family status and employer-employee relations, while one-tenth of complaints concerned sexual harassment, the majority of which occurred in the workplace, and mostly consisting of men harassing women. |
| 執業大律師陸偉雄稱，贊成檢討四條歧視條例，但修訂條例要視乎有關投訴數字有否上升趨勢，現時則看不到修訂條例的逼切性。他又指修例保障內地人要非常小心，「如果內地客搶奶粉、搶貴樓價，行為如同蝗蟲掠奪田產，港人罵他們『蝗蟲』只是表述，這亦算歧視，就對港人非常不公平。」 | Barrister Luk Wai-hong said that he supports reviewing the four discrimination ordinances, but amending the ordinance should depend on whether or not there is a rising trend in related complaints, and he does not see any pressing need to amend the ordinance. He further pointed out, it is necessary to be quite careful when amending the ordinance to protect mainland people, [stating that] “when mainland tourists snatch up baby formula and luxury flats, their behaviour is like that of locusts plundering the land, and Hong Kong people cursing them as ‘locusts’ is just a form of expression, but even this would be considered discrimination, which would be extraordinarily unfair to Hong Kong people.” |
However, if you are not willing to rest your hopes on such a thin reed, or if you are politically uncomfortable with the idea that Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing camp is the source of all of these measures which might protect your right to lead a normal life as a U.S. citizen outside of the U.S. (while pan-Democratic camp members like Kenneth Leung — elected to a functional constituency seat by the votes of a few thousand accountants — raise their voices in support of every unreasonable demand by Washington), the safest course of action is simply to stop being a U.S. citizen, and then hope that the banks do not continue to discriminate against you based on your former citizenship status.
I should have known you were already aware of this when I saw the FSI post about the TIEA. I probably posted that on your last China post just as you were posting this.
Thanks for your analysis and insights…
Very good analysis on this. Thank you @Eric
By the way, does the US also claim this TIEA is not a treaty and does not need the Senate’s consent? I know Obama’s thugs are claiming the IGAs do not need Congressional approval (to hell with the Constitution) but now they claim the same thing for this TIEA?
Maybe that is why Hong Kong is doing this and Hong Kong/Beijing is more sophisticated than I would have guessed–because if the TIEA needs Congress’s approval, it will never happen, at least no time soon. So Hong Kong can show that Obama’s thugs are implementing an extralegal campaign, like the bombing of Cambodia.
@Eric
I don’t think this statement is correct…
“no other jurisdiction has signed a new TIEA along the way to a FATCA treaty;”
Actually, I think you will find that Mauritius just did, and it appears that is what South Africa is doing, supposedly, from my sources, sometime around April 20th. I think this is the preferred strategy now by Treasury, if they can. Do a TIEA first, and then the IGA.
The strategy as I understand it, with the help of Allison is this…
Here is something I posted back to an FCC member on a TIEA group I participate in who was puzzled by the TIEA with Mauritius which came first before the IGA.
I wrote:
First of all, you have to consider the dubious Legal pedigree of FATCA IGAs, and the way Treasury is twisting themselves into pretzels to justify their creation and avoid any Senate ‘Advice and Consent’ about what they are doing. The last thing they want to do, is bring this back to Congress for any approval process. They have gone rogue, so to speak.
I would suggest reading this on the dubious legal pedigree.
http://bit.ly/WZKphF
In general, one way to explain your puzzle, would be that to the extent the US is holding itself out for reciprocal info sharing under an IGA is because of the position Treasury took that US IGA undertakings are merely interpretive of existing agreements (so as to avoid the Senate tying up these agreements) and there needs to be a TIEA or DTT in place.
Not true, but never mind! The IGA was just a strategy employed by Treasury to make an impossible FATCA law work without a global financial melt down!
So if Mauritius was taking on a non reciprocal IGA, (model II) it wouldn’t need a TIEA. If Mauritius wants the so called ‘reciprocal,’ IGA model I, the U.S has to use the TIEA process to keep up the facade of the IGA as interpretive.
Note that extending TIEAs itself is somewhat dubious given the statutory language (by its terms limited) but the Senate has never challenged Treasury going far beyond the congressional authority in this point. (see link above)
So you have a two step.
Treasury interprets narrow statutory TIEA authority to be a global mandate.
Treasury claims IGA which “interprets” info sharing undertakings in TIEAs.
and then it gives Mauritius an IGA to sign that only provides reciprocity in aspirational tones. There is NOTHING really of substance in it. For providing A-Z to the U.S., you only get a C and D back. The rest, Treasury says they will ADVOCATE for legislation they fully know they WILL NOT GET, unless by some underhanded way it is slipped by Congress. Trust me, that is highly unlikely to happen. There are a lot of Congressman and aides watching for this Trojan. Reps are calling for Repeal of FATCA,so I don’t think it will get pass them like FATCA did, wrapped in a Hire Act stealth covering.
Also, if you have a copy of the TIEA, see how the U.S. interprets what a U.S. tax resident is. Probably just like the DTT. It is often referred to as a ‘savings clause’. It is probably the same as the IGA.
Basically a U.S. tax resident is a U.S. Person that the U.S. wishes to define that way. They can live anywhere on the planet, and the U.S. declares them to be a U.S. Tax Resident, even if they haven’t been resident in America for years and years! The signer of a TIEA and IGA has no input or say into that definition process. They concede the right of the U.S. to declare a Mauritius citizen with U.S.taint, as a U.S. Tax Resident and subject to all the Taxation filing requirements, all it complexity,all the forms, and all the types of taxes and penalties for failure!!!
Right now, it means that tax residents living in Mauritius can be considered U.S. tax residents by U.S. definition, and thus money is taken out of the GNP there, and transferred back to the U.S. Treasury. The only way I can explain why ANY GOVERNMENT would allow that, is the Extortion nature of the agreement where the Sanctions make folks lose sight of what is happening and capitulate sooo easily. It is a standard magician trick. “Look over here, (distraction) while I pick your pocket right under your nose”
Amazing that even with full knowledge, the Sanction stirs folks to sign agreements against their best interest and that of their citizens.
If you want a GLOBAL Reciprocity system (I don’t, BTW) then the OECD GATCA is the fairest way to do it, even for all its faults! At least it is based upon residency, not nationality or citizenship. Accept that, and reject FATCA.
@cindy73
TIEA is NOT a Treaty, it was a statutory authority that Treasury has stretched to meet its needs. This from Allison which was in my comment above..
“Note that extending TIEAs itself is somewhat dubious given the statutory language (by its terms limited) but the Senate has never challenged Treasury going far beyond the congressional authority in this point.”
@cindy73: thanks for the kind words & the point about TIEAs & the Senate’s advice & consent. My guess is that the U.S. will take the position that it’s an “Executive Agreement” and thus claim it doesn’t need to be laid before the Senate. For example, the old Brazil–U.S. TIEA signed back in 2007 doesn’t ever seem to have gone to the U.S. Senate either. (But it certainly had to go to the Brazilian Senate — it sat there for six years without them taking a vote on it!)
http://tribunavirtualibccrim.org.br/artigo/27-Brazil-U.S.-TIEA-Takes-Effect-and-Presages-Significant-New-Tax-Enforcement-Cooperation-between-the-Two-Countries
The U.S. seems to be taking the same position with regard to this TIEA. Article 10 of the TIEA talks about “necessary internal procedures” in Hong Kong, meaning the HK government publishing the agreement in the Government Gazette and putting it to a Legislative Council vote. But nothing at all is mentioned about the US government completing “necessary internal procedures”:
Which reminds me to ask: anyone know what’s the latest with Rand Paul’s filibuster of the new Switzerland–US treaty? I see from recent articles that the media are continuing to demonise his efforts by throwing around the usual “Tax Cheats” garbage, but I haven’t heard of any actual new developments.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rand-Paul-Swiss-taxes-banks/2014/03/03/id/555678/
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/rand-paul-tax-swiss-banks-104148.html
Not a stretch to imagine he would try blocking this TIEA too if it comes to his attention and he gets the chance. So I’d imagine the White House is very anxious to make sure he doesn’t get that chance.
@just me
I think @just me and @eric are both correct. Yes, Mauritius did sign a TIEA on the way to FATCA but seems Mauritius did the agreements at the same time. So that leaves open the question of why Hong Kong only went with the TIEA…
@Just Me: thanks for that. But that’s strange, why would South Africa need a new TIEA? They’ve already got a real tax treaty with the US since 1998 that has EoI provisions
http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-trty/safrica.pdf
Anyway, the HK/US agreement doesn’t bother with anything messy about “U.S. Persons” or saving clauses, it just says:
Incidentally this is very different than the approach they took in the Brazil TIEA, where they had to put in an explicit saving clause (Article VII, Section (2)(c)) stating that worldwide CBT is not “discriminat[ion] … against a national of the requested party”.
http://taxtopics.net/brazil.pdf
@eric and @just me
thanks for the link to Allisons and the commentary. Now i get the statutory (or lack of actually) authority for the TIEA
@Eric…
Regarding SA need for a TIEA. Not sure, but was told by the FCC guy this…
@ just me
If that is true about Sud Africa, then it reinforces @eric’s point that something is strange because Hong Kong is the only place that just does the TIEA, not FATCA together. Something does not add up with this Hong Kong TIEA, and it is not a bad thing…
I was reading the news on the BBC this morning (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-26731192). However it did bring about an idea. What about if a customer sued their bank for ‘damages’ of some sort as a result of the bank complying with FATCA / IGA.
Even frivolous lawsuits in small claims courts would make a statement.
This article demonstrates that the US is beginning to ‘push water up hill’ with regards to FATCA. In a perfect world what is the US going to do about banks that provide ‘crap’ data. The IRS is going to struggle with ‘data integrity’ or the poorly paid banking clerk taking a ‘bonus’ from a customer to change the place of birth on the system. The US will never be able to police this aspect.
What could the US do about it? Slap the 30% on a country providing crap data? Not to mention my ideas of using documents with the place of birth changed. As long as the local tax authorities get paid what do they really care? They don’t work for the US.
Very interesting. Lots of food for thought.
Thank you @Eric for this detailed account of the developments in Hong Kong, and for providing insight and commentary for those not familiar with the context (ex. who knew that Accountants were a distinct constituency in HK?). And thanks @Just Me for illuminating other aspects of it. I’ve learned so much from following both your comments and posts. I can’t pretend to understand all of it, but both your commentaries enlighten us here at the IBS FATCA/CBT school.
They’ll never make a ‘House of Cards’ based on FATCA, but seems to me to be plenty of fodder for it.
Someone’s going to outsmart the US at some point, or as in martial arts, use their own force against them.
On a somewhat related topic, in case anyone was wondering, a country signing a TIEA (or even a FATCA IGA) does not mean that dividends from non-public corporations in that country can be “qualified dividends”. It’s right there in 26 USC § 1(h)(11)(C)(i)(II):
In Congress’ logic, EoI under a TIEA is somehow different than EoI under a DTA, and if a country does not offer reduced tax rates to U.S. investors under a DTA, the proper response is to punish U.S. citizens who run businesses in that country by denying them U.S. tax breaks.
But hey, if you just took the required 18 hours to read & understand the Form 5471 instructions, you wouldn’t need to be worrying about non-U.S. dividends anyway. You would already have got the message from the US government loud and clear already: “do not start a business outside of the Homeland, it’s not like we need you to help promote exports or anything, our trade balance is totally fine!”
Does this agreement allow 30% withholding of US income for US persons?
Does this agreement allow shut down of recalcitrant accounts?
Does this agreement exclude green card holders?
Does this agreement exclude a bunch of registered plans?
Does this agreement require person with CLN certify they have done all the exits taxes?
if the answer to any of these question is yes, Canada has a better agreement. It should be noted that if there agreement is better than ours, the Canadian government can get the better deal.
There is probably more US person in Hong Kong than in China proper,
People who emigrate from China to USA stay in USA.
@GoergeIII
A TIEA does none of those things, as it is NOT an IGA….
George Sorry for jumping the gun Hong Kong will sign a FATCA.
From the article
“Hong Kong tax officials will soon be able to pass information about the finances of Americans working in Hong Kong to their US counterparts under an agreement signed yesterday as part of Washington’s global crackdown on tax evasion.”
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1457322/hong-kong-agrees-give-financial-data-americans-working-city-us-tax
The TIEA is a pre condition to FATCA. THE CRA will not collect taxes from Canadian (at the time of occurance) under 1995 agreement what is the deal in Hong Kong.
@George III
thanks for being “en pointe” on these international implications in and around FATCA….nice to see your postings….wish I were that knowledgeable and energetic…but i have u as ideal to aim for 🙂
The day of the Dollar will come to an end. By 2100 (I know most of us won’t be here), however, the route from Brazil, across Africa, and to the Far East will consist of 9.5 billion people out of a projected 11 billion. Over 85% of the world’s population will be there. In fact as we speak an Internet Cable is being built / planned for the BRICs to bypass the US.
How long will it be before they bypass the US dollar? It may be 2100, but they’re planning far in advance of that. Once China or someone else increases their financial market’s capacities, who will really need the US Dollar?
WSJ: For Americans in China, the Taxman Cometh
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/03/26/for-americans-in-china-the-taxman-cometh/
“The long arm of the American tax man has officially reached its way to Hong Kong. The question is, will it extend to the rest of China?”
“Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China, signed an agreement with the U.S. on Tuesday to share tax information about Americans who work or have assets in the southern Chinese city.”
“…. the agreement is a precursor to an expected inter-governmental deal that will see the enforcement of the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA, in Hong Kong. Under such an agreement, the U.S. government would require financial institutions to disclose details about American-held bank accounts to the U.S.”
Tax-News: Hong Kong, USA Work Toward FATCA IGA
http://www.tax-news.com/news/Hong_Kong_USA_Work_Toward_FATCA_IGA____64156.html
“On March 25, Hong Kong and the United States signed a tax information exchange agreement (TIEA), which will provide the necessary basis for Hong Kong to enter into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) to adhere to the United States’ Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).”
I don’t know where to post the following link, as I am not an author on this site, but from the Globe and Mail, here’s an article entitled “Canadians living abroad may be surprised to learn they owe Ottawa taxes….” from March 21.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/taxes/canadians-living-abroad-may-be-surprised-to-learn-they-owe-ottawa-taxes/article17592602
Notice there are complications, but we’re not anywhere near the evil empire to the south with their citizenship based taxation.
To put this news in perspective, none of the local Chinese-language media have done anything more than print excerpts from the government press release:
http://www.hkdailynews.com.hk/NewsDetail/Index/105587
http://www.hket.com/eti/inews/content/147646
http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20140326/-2-3223134/1.html
http://std.stheadline.com/breakingnews/20140325a175004.asp
FWIW, the main financial paper (Economic Journal) doesn’t even consider it worth reporting at all, apparently:
http://search.hkej.com/template/fulltextsearch/php/search.php?q=%E6%B8%AF%E7%BE%8E%E7%A8%85%E5%8B%99%E8%B3%87%E6%96%99%E5%8D%94%E5%AE%9A&upper_search_submit=
http://search.hkej.com/template/fulltextsearch/php/search.php?q=FATCA&upper_search_submit=
@FromTheWilderness
@Eric
I just sent a tweet to that reporter from Hong Kong for the WSJ
He seems to understand the TIEA to IGA strategy….so I sent him Allison’s dubious legal pedigree blog on FATCA IGA. http://bit.ly/WZKphF
–Jason Chow. Follow him on Twitter @jjasonchow
@Pierre D
The best place for new articles that might be of interest, but unrelated to the subject of the current thread, is to place them on the media thread here…
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/media-and-blog-articles-open-for-comments/