On July 2 2014 my understanding is that Canada’s banks will be asking (at least) new account holders questions and employing a variety of approaches to establish U.S. personhood. These questions will violate Canada’s Charter Of Rights and other laws. Many of us also wonder whether the Silent Majority out there feels that such questions have no consequence.
Coming to a Canadian bank near you?
We need to know the actual questions and approaches and are focusing first on questions about U.S. personhood that will be asked by Canada’s major banks when Canadians open a NEW PERSONAL CHEQUING account after July 1. I suspect that different banks may ask different questions.
When you have this information, please provide in your comments these questions to be asked and I will update the top of this post.
[Please also read the disturbing comments below from @Pollyanna, who reports that one Canadian bank actually used information provided in casual conversations with the account manager to help establish whether the account holder is a U.S. person.]
My local Canadian bank branches provide this information on U.S. questions asked or not asked when opening a new account (this info may all be incorrect; please correct):
SCOTIA BANK: “Are you a U.S. person for tax purposes?”
http://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/0,,6098,00.html
TD BANK CANADA TRUST: “Are you a U.S. citizen” AND “Where were you born?”
TD’s web information page: http://www.td.com/fatca/index.jsp
See: LM Correspondence with CustomerCare, TD for others to consider in relation to their own FFI’s web information and their relationship with their FIs.
HSBC CANADA: “Do you hold multiple citizenship” AND “What is your place of birth”
http://www.expat.hsbc.com/1/2/hsbc-expat/services/expat-tax/tax-matters/fatca?WT.ac=HBIB_14_5_29_home_small_pro_FATCA_Find_out_more
NEW HSBC information consent
CIBC: Local branch will receive info July 2.
Note: the link below is for CIBC World Markets, which deals with Wholesale Banking (Corporate & Institutional) as opposed to Retail Banking (Personal & Small Business). We have yet to see a CIBC FATCA page specifically written for Retail Banking clients. Perhaps as of July 2, once local CIBC branches receive info, there will be such as page on the CIBC website.
http://www.cibcwm.com/cibc-eportal-web/portal/wm?pageId=fatca&language=en_CA
BMO: “Do you have any other citizenships” (tentative per @Anne Boleyn)
http://www.bmo.com/home/about/banking/foreign-account-tax-compliance
RBC ROYAL BANK:
http://www.rbc.com/aboutus/fatca.html
I would be very skeptical of this information:
“If you open a new account and provide two pieces of ID that are not U.S. tainted and do NOT INCLUDE A CANADIAN PASSPORT (e.g., Canadian driver’s license and social insurance number are ok) and the bank has no other evidence to indicate that you are a US person (e.g., you never told the bank by mistake) no U.S. questions will be asked.
However, should you PRESENT A (TOXIC) CANADIAN PASSPORT at the time of opening an account, YOU WILL BE ASKED whether you do or do not have a U.S. place of birth.”
The way to stop the questions from being asked is to go to:
It’s time for Deckard’s comfy chair designed especially for those they suspect are US “persons”:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/11/26/td-vows-to-make-fatca-a-comfortable-experience-for-impacted-customers/
Here’s the report on the 74 year old B.C. woman who paid $93,000 to IRS with Roy Berg singing the American law hymn.
http://globalnews.ca/video/1549430/canadians-paying-additional-taxes-after-gov-shares-tax-info-with-u-s/
So what happened to Ambassador Jacobson’s IRS not after Canadian Grandmas promise? Oh wait. He is Vice Chairman of BMO American operations now.
The financial institution involved in my comment of June 6 is National Bank Financial (Canada). Their identification requirement did not seem particularly intrusive, since it did not involve inquiries into place of birth.
As someone born in Canada, but a dual citizen (U.S.), I would find their identification inquiries extremely intrusive. Asking if I am a “U.S. citizen” or a “U.S. person for tax purposes” is in my view discriminatory and not information they require to do business with a new client.
People don’t seem to remember/realize that thanks to the IGA signed by Canada, Canadian financial institutions are required under Canadian law to determine if new clients (and eventually existing clients, I believe) are US persons or not for FATCA purposes. The actual questions FIs must ask or are allowed to ask or are forbidden to ask are not laid out in the IGA. By refusing to cooperate, or lying, one is breaking Canadian law, not US law.
Yes, this is sickening to say the least. The IGA and ultimately FATCA and ultimately citizen-based taxation (the only real solution) must be defeated.
I’ve been with RBC for 45 years and TD for 35 years. I decided that I don’t blame them for what they are forced to do, but I’ve moved my money to a local-client-based credit union anyway. I also decided I don’t really blame the sitting government for being the victim of the US’s FATCA extortion. It was a lose-lose situation. Does anybody really believe that refusing FATCA would have been net better for all of Canada? IMO, any other Canadian government would have done the same and signed, even P.E.T. himself.
@WhatAmI
I can appreciate all of what you’re saying, but it’s one thing to be strong-armed into signing the IGA, but another to allow ANY Canadian citizen or resident’s private financial information leave Canada when the US has yet to live up to its side of the deal, that is to provide more than just the promise of reciprocity. Canada needs to grow some here and call the US on this.
@WhatAmI, “Does anybody really believe that refusing FATCA would have been net better for all of Canada?”
YES, refusing FATCA in particular for Canadian Citizens resident in Canada, it would have been far better.
The purpose of a government is to protect its people!!!
They could have said we play ball on US Citizens in Canada but not with our own Citizens.
What would the US have done?
Canada also had big cards to play, they could have had recipricol witholding on US assets located in Canada!!!
@whatAmI – this wimpy government of ours could easily have stood up to the USSA and agreed to implement FATCA in the way it was intended, which was for homeland Americans with overseas accounts. So all the Canadian government would have had to agree to was to have our banks agree to report on accounts of foreign US account holders who are not Canadian citizens or residents. All the rest of us would be left alone. And you can be sure that P.E.T. would have told Obama to Fuddle off and Congress to Duddle off for good measure!
@Gwevil. Bravo for stating the obvious.
Hello, Snub from CMF here. The bank I am dealing with is HSBC. I posted a copy of the letter that was sent to me, after THEY decided I was a “U.S. person”, at the Canadian Money Forum. It might help others find out what criteria the banks are using to rat us out . Apparently the USA doesn’t give a rats azz how much proof of Canadian Citizenship I have, they are saying I am one of them. So it’s me against The US of A, Good luck!
http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/45625-Help-Needed-Foreign-Account-Tax-Compliance-Act
@GwEvil, re: “this wimpy government of ours could easily have stood up to the USSA and agreed to implement FATCA in the way it was intended, which was for homeland Americans with overseas accounts. ”
Hmmmm….but was that the way it was intended?
@GwEvil,
You’re assuming that the US would have accepted an agreement with Canada that was less than “full” FATCA. I’m assuming that they would have NOT have accepted this, and they would have stuck to their guns and implemented the 30% withholding against all FIs in Canada.
Agreed, what you describe would have been great, and is on the surface what GATCA sounds like world wide: residence-based taxation. For all we know, Canada did try to push for this.
So assuming all or nothing with the IGA agreement, my question was meant to mean: Does anybody really believe that refusing FATCA and suffering the 30% withholding by the US would have been net better for all of Canada than signing the IGA?
Hi Snub! Welcome to Brock. We are a diverse group, but we also have a lot in common – we hate FATCA and CBT – pretty much everything you ever wanted to know or were afraid to find out about them can be found here. Just ask.
@George – I think that was a compliment…?
@Snub – Welcome! – too bad you didn’t know about us before all this so we could have helped you thwart those pricks at the bank before all this bullshit happened to you.
@WhiteKat – They said that’s what FATCA was intended for, so we could have said that’s what we’d give them, and not a whit more.
@WhiteKat,
I’m probably naiive, but I thought so. For example, previous IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said:
That doesn’t sound like it describes Accidental Americans with no ties other than birth.
I’d be easily convinced though that the IRS and even Congress eventuially realized the cash grab possibilities and now gleefully cast a wide net.
@Snub
I haven’t seen where anybody asked you about your possilities for a past relinquishment of US citizenship. Have you ever worked for the Canadian government (municiple, provincial or federal, including Crown Corporations), or served in the military?
@WhatAmI and GwEvil, I am not convinced that how it WAS sold was how it WAS intended, anymore than any of us are convinced now than how it IS BEING SOLD NOW (everyone hates tax cheats) reflects the reality of the situation.
If Canada had not signed the IGA OR if we win our case maybe this is how it will play out:
SomebodySmart commented on Lynne’s article in “The Hill”:
“Each Canadian bank would be free to comply or pay the U.S.A. tax. Without the IGA and IGA-enabling Canadian legislation, somebody would open a bank in Canada that would not comply with FATCA and would have no operations in the USA and that one bank would attract many depositors because it is not FATCA compliant and would be able to offer better rates without the FATCA compliance costs. Ginny, Gwen and a lot of Canadians would bank there for privacy, but many more persons would bank there because of the better rates. The big Canadian banks could continue doing business in U.S.A. and pay the FATCA compliance costs. Cheques drawn by one type of bank on the other type of bank would still clear through the Bank of Canada, which is exempt from FATCA.
Of course, Canadians investing in a FATCA non-compliant bank would not invest in USA. Let U.S.A. pass up the investments and the money these so-called U.S. citizens might have spent in the U.S.A. because many are afraid to set foot on U.S.A. soil for fear of being nabbed.”
Maybe ADCS should be notifying the Canadian banks that if we win our suit this is the scenario that might play out. They might want to think about divesting themselves of US assets now just incase. (This is also what we are doing by using local credit unions but the big banks needn’t know that).
@Snub – I still think you are not a US citizen since your father was a stationed foreign military person which would exempt you being given born citizenship like the child of a foreign diplomat.
@Snub
Welcome….
You are not alone in this situation… Best thing I can tell u is… do not rush to do anything until u understand as much as u can. Feel free to ask your questions… there are tons of people on this mb who are. helpful & full of good info for u.
Snub Welcome to IBS. Yoy will get better advice here.
Unfotunately, the exception for diplomats mentioned by GwEvil doesn’t apply to military personnel. (Although it has never been tested) The reason is that diplomats have immunity from US laws while military personnel do not.
In any case, the last thing you should do is admit to HSBC that they are correct. I.E. don’t sign a W9
You can continue to fight with HSBC or you can move everything to another bank or CU. Next time you will know better than to say where you were born and you can say you are not a US person.
As someone said on CMF, they have no right to freeze your accounts if you decide to move.
@Snub Another important point you should be aware of is CRA will not collect for IRS for any Canadian citizen. IRS has no jurisdiction in Canadian courts, Many US tax lawyers or accountants will not tell you that when they try to terrify you into complying. Go back several comments and read the story about how an elderly widow was terrorized by her bank and Price Waterhouse to spend a small fortune to the accountant to tell the IRS she owed them nothing.
@WhatAmI There is a lot Canada could have done. Canada could have said No upfront. Then they could have united with Mexico to challenge FATCA under NAFTA. Canada could have taken leadership among G7, G8, G20, APEC, Organization of American States, Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, Commonwealth and United Nations Countries to unite to say No. Canada is the only country in the world that belongs to all of those organizations.
Canada did none of that. So failing that Canada could have adopted the amendment that Anne Frank suggested here, that Schubert and I sent to NDP and Lib MPs on the Finance Committee, that I suggested in my testimony and that Murray Rankin proposed.
The Cons said No to that amendment to protect Canadians instead of saying No to the US. Instead, the Cons said
So, why do we need Parliament? It seems the US sets laws for Canada now–and not just with FATCA.
FATCA is chilling because of what it means for the future of Canada.
@ Snub
I just want to add my welcome to Brock. I hope you don’t mind that I quoted your initial CMF post here:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/06/26/please-provide-in-this-post-questions-big-canadian-banks-will-ask-new-account-holders-on-july-2-2014/comment-page-15/#comment-6159920
Snub. There were a series of posts here by Silver Birch. He is a Doc in Ottawa. When he went to make some banking arrangements with MD management (they have investment and trust arms), he was told he needed to show them a CLN. They argued back and forth and he explained the law to them. Eventually they saw that he was right. You aren’t supposed to need a CLN if you are Canadian and you have a ‘reasonable explanation’ why you don’t have one. His explanation was that he worked for the Ontario government and therefore relinquished and that at the time there was no obligation to inform the state dep’t. As far as I remember ,MD bought it. No telling if HSBC would.