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:
BC has always had a property transfer tax. What’s new is the additional 15% that is levied on residential property purchases by foreign nationals within the Greater Vancouver Regional District.
Now you may view this as confiscatory, but I view it as a small step in trying to bring some sanity to a ridiculous housing situation that has made it almost impossible for average residents to buy a house without massive difficulty. I say this as the owner of a home, but, more importantly, as a parent who would like to think that my, and other people’s, kids would be able to afford to live in the place they were raised.
As for the confiscatory part: how so? If a foreign national wants to avoid the tax, all he has to do is make his purchase outside of the GVRD. The vast, vast majority of foreign nationals buying residential property are doing so as investments, so it really doesn’t matter whether they buy a house in Vancouver or Abbotsford (or San Francisco or Paris or Frankfurt or …). All that matters to them is that they can get a return on their investment. And since I don’t consider facilitating ROIs to foreign nationals as anywhere near as important as facilitating the ability of residents to be able to purchase a home, my only complaint about the tax is that it should have been brought in much sooner.
Yes, this is somewhat off-topic, but likening in any way the 15% residential property tax for foreign nationals to, say, the immediate, full taxation of a renunciant’s defined contribution pension is IMO just way off base.
“I’m not concerned with theories and rumors as to who controls the IMF.”
Is that an apology for your previous posting? Which variety of apology?
“BC has always had a property transfer tax. What’s new is the additional 15% that is levied on residential property purchases by foreign nationals within the Greater Vancouver Regional District.
Now you may view this as confiscatory, but I view it as a small step in trying to bring some sanity to a ridiculous housing situation that has made it almost impossible for average residents to buy a house without massive difficulty.”
I agree. Some countries do the same thing at a national level and it always struck me as morally ambiguous.
Canada has an obvious way to take the high road. Every purchase of property by anyone other than a native Canadian should have a 15% tax levied. One well known Native Canadian is married to a foreign spouse, so they should pay a 7.5% tax.
@Norman Diamond:
RE: “I’m not concerned with theories and rumors as to who controls the IMF.”
Is that an apology for your previous posting? Which variety of apology?
Obviously not an apology. I posted that article to point out the possibility of confiscation by USA indebted government and IRS. I’ve no interest in Rothchilds and other wealthy families. And no idea if they have an involvement with this or not. As far as I’m concerned, end of discussion.
“Obviously not an apology.”
OK. You’re a racist.
“I posted that article to point out the possibility of confiscation”
and to propagate racism.
“I’ve no interest in Rothchilds and other wealthy families.”
Right, you propagate racism because of race/religion/nationality/colour/accent etc. not because of financial status.
“As far as I’m concerned, end of discussion.”
OK, you make your racism permanent. Done. If you weren’t racist, you would have ended the discussion before posting the garbage in the first place.
@Norman Diamond
Have you been drinking? The war is over. I’m not interested in this type of nonsense.
@DoD re: “Norman points out that the article you referred to is anti-semitic and claptrap. I agree with him. We are told to shut up. So much for free discussion at IBS.”
There never really was true free discussion at IBS. That was just an illusion. And in my opinion an excuse by the founder to just let everyone duke it out – no pun intended DoD. Meanwhile Petros disappears only to pop in occasionally to preach some principles or tell us that anyone who disagrees with him must therefore be an online troll.
Real free discussion does not evolve into name calling and character assassination of people who present thoughts, ideas and opinions that others do not like, or that the group which controls Brock (and ADCS and ADCT) does not want to discuss.
Free discussion does not just happen magically without at least some basic rules of engagement and fair play. There are none here. Pretty much anything goes. Wanna call someone a sociopath or a bigot because their words don’t support your agenda? No problem – you are FREE to bully and belittle.
We’re having free discussion here. I wondered if the racist had a change of mind, the answer was no, and the racist bullied me. I get enough bullying from a certain famous tax department, a falsely named department of “Justice”, and judges, so what’s one more bully?
Here’s a friendlier discussion of debt if anyone needs it:
https://i.chzbgr.com/full/8972270848/hCF13EDF0/
@NormandDiamond, please do not take offence to my comment. It was in no way directed at you. And trust me on this, Brock is not a place where true FREE discussion happens. FREE discussion is simply not possible in this type of ‘free for all’ environment, as paradoxical as that sounds.
@norman
Whatever is fueling your anger, I think you need to get some help. I’m not angry with you, I simply don’t agree with you. That’s OK in my world. We can agree to disagree. Your anger is way out of line. You are a person in need of assistance. Goodbye and good luck.
And in case you are wondering, it’s even possible to be at peace with the US DOJ. I know from experience.
“Whatever is fueling your anger, I think you need to get some help.”
That’s what homelanders think about all of us. There’s no way to teach them.
“We can agree to disagree.”
Yes we can. You’re a racist, I’m not, and you don’t even understand what you posted at the beginning of this sub-thread. I can’t teach you, we’re going to disagree, and that’s just how it is.
“You are a person in need of assistance.”
Yes I know, I filed requests for assignment of lawyers since I can’t afford one (do we agree that some of the IRS’s victims really can’t afford lawyers?) but courts refuse so I’m still pro se. I wish the IRS had prosecuted me criminally as one of their letters threatened. Then they’d have to appoint a lawyer and the facts would have come out in a few weeks instead of remaining hidden for years.
@norman:
I am not a homelander.
Whatever is fueling your anger, I think you need to get some help.
@Norman Diamond
So you are embroiled in a legal battle. I sympathize, but this is not my fault or responsibility. On the other hand, I am no racist and you should be ashamed of yourself for this lie.
As you have said, “Yes I know, I filed requests for assignment of lawyers since I can’t afford one (do we agree that some of the IRS’s victims really can’t afford lawyers?) but courts refuse so I’m still pro se. I wish the IRS had prosecuted me criminally as one of their letters threatened. Then they’d have to appoint a lawyer and the facts would have come out in a few weeks instead of remaining hidden for years.”
“I am no racist”
Great. Then why didn’t you apologize for what you posted … but actually, I already understood why you didn’t apologize. You still don’t understand what you posted even when you can go back and look at it.
That’s why I compared your lack of understanding to a homelander’s lack of understanding, even though the topics are different. No matter what you show them, they just won’t understand. Now we’re getting meta. No matter what I show you about not understanding what I show you, you just won’t understand. Yes I know, we’re not going to agree.
” Yes I know, we’re not going to agree.”
Well we agree about that. Good riddance Norman.
MY BANK MISTAKENLY REPORTED ME AS A RECALCITRANT ACCOUNT HOLDER.
Posted by Red Cabbage
I’m a retired expat in Asia with term deposits in several countries that I occasionally visit. All the money originated from my after-tax life savings that I transferred out of the US when I left the US almost two decades ago.
I don’t like it, but I have complied with all their annoying reporting requirements since I left the US. So in the case of this one particular bank where I have most of my money, I offered to fill out and sign the FATCA forms almost 3 years ago when I opened the accounts.
At that time, they said there was no need to complete the forms. Then this past summer, I deliberately routed a flight to stop in the city where this bank is located so that I could fill out the forms, as I didn’t want them to send them to my US mailing address, because I am never there.
I visited the bank and the banker, after consulting with another banker, told me that there was no need to sign the FATCA forms. I was surprised because I thought that the aggregate balance of my term deposits would be reportable by 2016. But I figured the bank must know better.
A month later I got an email from my sister, whose house is my US mailing address. She had received FATCA forms addressed to me from the bank. She said she assumed they are also sending these forms to me by email, and asked if she should post them to me. I said I hadn’t received them by email but would ask the bank to email them to me.
I emailed the bank asking them to email me the forms, and also asked why they didn’t allow me to sign them when I visited the bank a month earlier.
No response. I sent another email a week or two later. No response again. At that point I asked my sister to scan the documents and email them to me. I was shocked to find that the letter said that if I didn’t return the forms within 30 days they would report me as a non-consenting account holder, also known as a “recalcitrant” account holder. By the time my sister received the letter, there were only a few days left to return it. (She apparently didn’t notice that)
I later realized that the letter was sent about the same time that I visited the bank’s offices and was told there was no need to sign the forms.
My bank’s incompetence has now made me an object of suspicion to the US government even though I was perfectly willing to sign the forms and went out of my way to try to sign them. Also, I have reported these accounts on the FBAR every year since I opened them so I’m not trying to hide anything.
After the bank finally responded to my angry emails, they asked me to return the forms to them, even thought the deadline had passed, and they would see what they could do. So I sent the forms and after six weeks they said that they never received them. So I sent a second mailing which they finally received.
I have asked the bank to amend my FATCA filing and say it was a mistake, that I am not “non-consenting.” I have no idea whether amended filings by a bank or the country’s central FATCA authority are even possible.
When my term deposits mature in a few months, I will try to move them all to a different bank. The problem is, this bank was the ONLY bank in this particular city that was willing to open an account for me, a US person. So maybe I will buy gold or silver, but I haven’t even begun to research how to do that.
What fun, being a US person who can’t renounce (more on why that is so in a future post).
Red Cabbage, that sounds like the typical incompetent “left hand, right hand” banking scenario, which in this case is lethal to “US persons” rather than annoyingly inconvenient. I really hate banks!
Although I have no solution to the banking idiocy, I can suggest where to open a gold account. Check out https://www.goldmoney.com/. It’s based in Canada and it’s an easy way to buy gold at good rates and even use the gold to make purchases by transferring some of your balance to a credit card.
Thanks Gwen! I will check out Goldmoney. Hopefully I would not have to report my gold on the FBAR!
I just received a report from a friend (ex US citizen) who lives in Europe but maintains a bank account in the US to help his elderly parents with care/bills etc. He uses his European Address on his US account but he uses his US skype telephone number for ease of contact and cost saving for overseas calls.
His bank (B of A) now requires a special W8 BEN manufactured by them to be signed under the pain of perjury which also asks him to certify the number of days he has spend in the US in the last three years per the ‘substantial presence test’. They state this is because they have detected a US address and/or a US phone number connected to his account.
A letter stated that they needed to ascertain his residence status so they could continue pay his interest ‘tax free’, so it would not be reported to the IRS as taxable income.
I believe he made the grand sum of 5cents of interest on this checking account!
I guess Fatca is at last affecting US banks as the IRS are getting the banks to do their detective work for them. Snowbirds etc may now be facing substantial presence test questions from their US banks.
News re VanCity Credit Union in Canada.
Patricia Moon commented on another thread
PatCanadian replied that she will contact VanCity in person about this this week and will report back to us, and people have been discussing and sharing observations about this in the comments following the ones linked to above.
Meridian Credit Union had originally posted info very similar, if not the same as the CBA FATCA page after the IGA was signed and legislation enacted to enable it.
This is their latest version;
On their ‘Privacy & Security’ page, see FATCA headings, (and ironically and offensively to me) they include FATCA and FATCA FAQs on the same page, below the preceding headings for topics such as Phishing, Fraud, Financial Crime, etc.
https://www.meridiancu.ca/About-Meridian/Privacy-and-Security.aspx
As far as I can tell, since the beginnings of this they did not seek a local bank exception – though perhaps their overall holdings were too big?
What message does this send to me, if my credit union includes the FATCA info on the same page as the entries for fraud, phishing, financial crime, etc.? What message does that send to law abiding Canadian residents and citizens with the US taint who are merely attempting to commit the ‘crime’ of saving and paying for ordinary expenses of ordinary lives with their credit union locally and legally banking where they live and work and already pay taxes in full to Canada ? Just another way in which possessing (even involuntarily) US citizenship is being criminalized, with the cooperation of my home government of Canada and my local institutions. To me this sends the message that I am assumed to be tax cheats, evaders and criminals before the fact.
@badger
If course it sends that exact msg. There was an article in the last ten days or so where it was stated IRS or Treasury had said exactly that. Sorry no link but having trouble with modem and currently limited to fone. .
Back in 2011 around the same time as my OMG moment, I received most of my inheritance from my Dad. I knew I was going to renounce so wanted the $$ to be as safe as possible plus interest rates at the bank were so low it was pathetic. I looked online and found those wonderful online Manitoba credit unions- Accelerate, Achieve and Outlook. None of the CSRs had heard of FATCA. They did not have US accounts etc. But as it turned out, they were affiliated with a company that financed the mortgages etc and that company (think it began with a “C”) was forced to deal with FATCA. I would think Meridian would be far too large to qualify for the local based deemed-compliant designation.
That brings to mind another inconsistency regarding the IGAs. Wasn’t there a condition (overlooked by signing IGA) that credit unions are the domain of the provinces and should not have been able to be forced into this by the Feds acceptance if the FATCA IGA?
In light of the Vancity change, I’ll repeat my story that I’ve posted a couple times in the past. In early 2014 none of the high interest savings account online banks, mostly in Manitoba, knew anything about fatca. So I opened accounts in 9 or 10 of them and waited to see which ones were fatca free. It turned out to be a Achieva, Accelerate, and Implicity,. I haven’t checked back with those lately to see if they are still fatca free. Usually one can tell by filling out (without submitting) the online application form to see if they ask questions about us tax residency.
@pacifica777
@Patricia Moon
I’ll post this here as well. Not very good news.
Here’s my update on Vancity and FATCA. I met today with a manager whom I presented with the following from their old statement:
While Vancity must comply with the law, we are committed to protecting our members’ right to privacy. By registering as a Local Client Base financial institution, we believe we have significantly reduced the impact of FATCA on the majority of our members. As a result of our Local Client Base classification, Vancity only needs to collect FATCA information and report on member accounts held by non-Canadian residents.
Also brought the new material from their website:
https://www.vancity.com/PrivacyAndSecurity/YourPrivacy/FATCA/
https://www.vancity.com/PrivacyAndSecurity/YourPrivacy/CRS/
I inquired about my personal situation to confirm if my Vancity accounts were exempt from FATCA reporting. Also Vancity recently replaced its FATCA statement with the new statement which indicates they will be collecting FATCA related member information if one is considered to be a US person. So I inquired as to why the change and if there was a connection to CRS implementation on July 1, 2017.
We also discussed problems for Canadian citizens/residents who may still be considered US persons (CBT, FBAR, FINCEN, etc.). I indicated that the new Vancity FATCA statement was not very customer friendly. I also brought up that Local Client Base FI status was a better option.
As to my status, I was asked a long list of questions and asked to sign an updated form with declaration of Tax Residence. I also gave them my CLN to make a copy for their records. The manager confirmed I was exempt from FATCA reporting.
As to why the change, I was told there was a recent system upgrade at Vancity. This upgrade apparently has made data collection feasible for FATCA and CRS. So Vancity has joined the compliance club.
Perhaps at this point we need to consider purchasing gold and keeping our funds under the mattress.
@pacifica777
@Patricia Moon
Addition to previous comment:
Vancity would have done this sooner but didn’t have the necessary upgrades for FATCA and CRS reporting!