Friday, July 4, 2014
I saw the letter referenced below on Jack Townsend’s site and included Professor Christians in a tweet questioning the validity of the IRS’arguments regarding IGA’s. I am delighted to see she has taken this further and posted the following today on her blog.
Over at federal tax crimes blog Jack Townsend has posted a letter from the IRS to Congressman Bill Posey, in response to an inquiry the Congressman apparently made about the intergovernmental agreements (“IGAs”) to implement FATCA by other governments (instead of directly by foreign financial institutions, per the law Congress enacted in 2010). Treasury says:
“Your letter also asks about statutory authority to enter into and implement the IGAs. The United States relies, among other things, on the following authorities to enter into and implement the IGAs: 22 USC Section 2656; Internal Revenue Code Sections 1471, 1474(f), 6011, and 6103(k)(4) and Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, Part III, Subpart B (Information Concerning Transactions with Other Persons).”
None of these sources of law contain any authorization to enter into or implement the IGAs. It is patently clear that no such authorization has been made by Congress, and that the IGAs are sole executive agreements entered into by the executive branch on its own under its “plenary executive authority”. As such the agreements are constitutionally suspect because they do not accord with the delineated treaty power set forth in Article II. As Michael Ramsey wrote in a 1998 article, the danger is that if the president seeks to reach agreements outside of his plenary constitutional powers, the agreement lacks domestic legal effect.
Just to be clear, the fact that a document signed by an individual might or might not bind the United States as a matter of constitutional law does not mean that the United States will not honor whatever commitments the individual makes under such an agreement. The contrary is likely the case especially given the predicament Treasury found itself in, coupled with the pitiable small promises undertaken by the US in these “agreements.”
But we should be clear that the analytical terrain we should be traversing is whether the scope of the plenary executive authority can suffice to support as a matter of law the promises made in some 80 or so IGAs (many of which are currently agreements in principle only). We should not be wasting anyone’s time pretending that Congress has authorized Treasury or the Secretary of State to enter into the IGAs. It has not.
So let’s take a look at what these sources actually say.
22 USC 2656 is about the power of the secretary of state. It says:
The Secretary of State shall perform such duties as shall from time to time be enjoined on or intrusted to him by the President relative to correspondences, commissions, or instructions to or with public ministers or consuls from the United States, or to negotiations with public ministers from foreign states or princes, or to memorials or other applications from foreign public ministers or other foreigners, or to such other matters respecting foreign affairs as the President of the United States shall assign to the Department, and he shall conduct the business of the Department in such manner as the President shall direct.
If that is an authorization for the IGAs, it is a vague one at best. Does an IGA constitute “correspondences, commissions, or instructions,” “negotiations”, “memorials or other applications,” or “such other matters respecting foreign affairs”? Under what interpretation of such relevant provisions? Also there is nothing here about the content or scope of the treaty power hereby implicitly authorized. Is IRS saying that with this power the Secretary of State can bind the nation at will on any matter, without the need for the President to seek advice and consent from the Senate prior to ratification? If so this is an extraordinary claim that does not scan with either historical practice or constitutional theory.
26 U.S. Code § 1471 is, of course, part of FATCA. It is entitled “Withholdable payments to foreign financial institutions”. It sets out the reporting obligations imposed on foreign financial institutions and states that the Secretary is authorized to treat a foreign financial institution as “meeting the requirements” of 1471 if the institutions complies with procedures or requirements set forth by the Secretary or is “a member of a class of institutions” identified by the Secretary.
There is explicit authorization in 1471 for the Secretary to engage in agreements with FFIs to implement FATCA. However where is the authorization in 1471 for the Secretary to engage in agreements with other countries to implement FATCA? It is not in the text, certainly.
Therefore to what specific provision of 1471 could IRS possibly refer when it suggests this statute authorizes individuals to sign agreements altering the reach of FATCA on behalf of the United States? There is clearly no explicit authority. Is it implied? If so, by what?
Moreover, many or most of the IGAs have been signed by officers of the Secretary of State, ambassadors, consulates general and others, and not by Treasury. Does s1471 also impliedly delegate its implied treaty power authority to those outside of Treasury who have signed on behalf of the United States? Certainly there is no explicit delegation here.
26 U.S. Code §1474(f), also part of FATCA, is the statutory authorization for the Secretary of the Treasury to
“prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of, and prevent the avoidance of, this chapter.”
There is no authority expressed in this provision for the Secretary to enter into agreements with other governments. Does IRS suggest that an IGA constitutes “regulations” or “other guidance”? Under what interpretation of that characterization does the Treasury interpret the promulgation of either regulations or other guidance as an authorization to negotiate an agreement with a foreign government?
26 U.S. Code § 6011 is entitled “General requirement of return, statement, or list,” and it states the parameters under which a person must make a return “[w]hen required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary.” There is authorization in 6011 for the Secretary to require taxpayers to fulfill various reporting requirements, including electronic reporting. There is no authorization in 6011 for the Secretary to engage in agreements with other countries to implement 6011.
What provision of 6011 is IRS suggesting confers the authority to negotiate agreements with other governments without Senate advice and consent? Does IRS mean to imply that each and every authorization that Congress gives Treasury for the prescription of regulations is an implicit authorization for Treasury (or its implied designees in other departments) to conclude agreements with other governments? If so, this is a surprising claim of executive power that is inconsistent with the treaty power described in Article II of the constitution. I would think Congress would like to know under what interpretation of Congressional direction to the Secretary to issue guidance, IRS or Treasury would conclude that it now holds the power to make treaties on behalf of the United States.
In other words, if IRS stands by this authorization it is suggesting that any tax code section that authorizes Treasury to regulate implicitly contains both a treaty making power as well as the power to delegate authority to departments other than that specifically charged with implementing the statute. That is not a plausible claim.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 is entitled “Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information” and it provides that “returns and return information shall be confidential,” with exceptions provided by statute. There is authorization in 6103 for the Secretary to engage in agreements with taxpayers to implement 6103 (for example in the case of advance pricing agreements). There is no authorization in 6103 for the Secretary to engage in agreements with other countries to implement 6103. Therefore, as with 1471 and 6011, to what specific provision of 6103 does IRS refer, and under what interpretation of the authority given by Congress in 6103 to enter into agreements with taxpayers does IRS find the authority for anyone to enter into agreements with other countries?
26 U.S. Code Part III, Subpart B is entitled “Information Concerning Transactions With Other Persons” and it contains 26 US Code §§ 6041 through 6050W—a very broad set of statutes involving information reporting, none of which explicitly grant anyone the power to bind the nation to anything. Certainly nowhere in the subpart appears any express authorization for Treasury to enter into agreements with other governments in respect of s1471 or otherwise. Therefore the same questions I have raised with respect to 1471, 1474, 6011, and 6103 would seem to arise here.
In short I see no express authorization anywhere in any of these authorities for the Treasury to enter into the intergovernmental agreements. Moreover there is no precedent for such agreements, and they are being signed by US officials who are not members of the Treasury. Does it not seem at least noteworthy that an enormous network of bilateral tax agreements has been established, a network that dwarfs the existing tax treaty network in size and scope, all without any explicit Congressional authorization, and without any regard to the Treaty power clearly laid out in Article II of the Constitution?
And why not cite the TIEA power?
I would add that is not at all clear why any list of authorizations for an individual to enter into agreements with other governments on behalf of the United States would not include 26 US Code § 274(h)(6)(C)(f), which has long been relied upon to by Treasury to find the authority to enter into tax information exchange agreements (“TIEAs”) that were not expressly authorized by the statute (because they are not listed in Section 274 as beneficiary Caribbean Basin countries). This statute has clearly been abused by Treasury in extending it way beyond what Congress intended. However, the fact that Congress has not complained suggests that it has acquiesced to the overreach.
That makes the TIEAs good precedent for those who want to defend the IGAs as a matter of law. In omitting this, the only plausible source of support for the authority to bind the nation without the advice and consent of Senate, does IRS suggest that Treasury now backs away from this authority? If so, why would they do that? The answer is of course that IRS believes that if necessary the TIEAs can also be considered sole executive agreements, and as such a TIEA “does not need Senate or other congressional approval.” This is an official claim that the IRS doesn’t think Treasury or anyone needs even s.274 as a cover: the executive can simply act alone to achieve its tax goals through international agreements.
At the end of the day, it is clear that Treasury saw a real and serious need to work with other governments to make FATCA work. There is no disputing that fact, and indeed it is a step toward multilateral cooperation which should be celebrated if only it weren’t so lopsided, and if only it weren’t being accomplished via the threat of economic sanctions for all the world’s tax havens except the United States itself. But no amount of need or want can sidestep the constitutional delegation of powers among the branches, and the treaty power is no exception: nor should it be. At least one Treasury official has already conceded that the explanation for the IGAs is that they are “executive agreements”, not Article II treaties.
IRS and Treasury should therefore just admit that the IGAs are simply “sole” executive agreements—not authorized by Congress but entered into by the executive branch under its sole discretion.
This is a tenuous position and it ought to fail constitutional scrutiny but for the fact that in the past, Congress has acquiesced to this exercise of power by the executive and it is likely to do so again, especially given how little has been undertaken by the United States in these IGAs. As Lee Sheppard pointed out in a Tax Notes article two years ago, “An executive agreement depends on the good will of the parties to enforce it.” And as Susie Morse also pointed out in Tax Notes last year, Treasury is very likely to try to enforce their part of the IGAs.
Since the US side of the IGAs is to deliver very modest undertakings that Treasury also believes can be done without congressional approval (namely, extending the longstanding s. 6049-based information exchange with Canada to other countries), this is probably true; all IGA promises to alter the law in the future should be seen as what they are, unenforceable promises that are beyond Treasury’s control and so won’t be delivered.
Therefore honesty is still the best policy for Treasury. Instead of citing non-existent statutory authority that is easily refuted by simple reading, Treasury should own what it is doing outright. These are sole executive agreements, they lack statutory approval, they undertake very little on the part of the United States, but they are an effective way of pretending to be cooperative so that other countries can save face as they submit to the threat of economic sanctions that is FATCA. There isn’t really any reason why Treasury shouldn’t acknowledge this reality, since it is, strictly speaking, of Congress’ own making.
Posted by Allison Christians at 8:34 PM
cross-posted with permission
oops… Forgot to insert the link to that Frank Luntz piece..
Here it is on its own…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
@Don
U are so correct… if u get brushed with the US taint… it will be a nightmare to get the heck out… Now that the banks are spying for the US…. if u go into the bank & buy US $ for holidays or whatever…. that can also trigger a response of hmmm… they could decide to take a better look to see if u have the US taint… it don’t take much at all…
@Just Me,
Great suggestions re choosing language that will stick.
A good start is Lynne’s wonderful rejoinder that Finance Canada should go back to the US and say that “Parliament has spoken” http://data.parl.gc.ca/widgets/v1/en/intervention/8360164 which she of nimble mind stated very clearly and firmly in rebuke to the Conservative MP Mike Allen who sought to rationalize the Harper government’s imposition of FATCA IGA implementing US law in Canada; “Congress has spoken”.
http://data.parl.gc.ca/widgets/v1/en/intervention/8359757
I want tshirts that say something along the lines of:
Made-in-the-US FATCA = Harper Conservatives tell Canadians that “the US Congress has spoken”.
Canadian citizens, taxpayers and voters say; go back and tell the US that; “Parliament has spoken”.
We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it lying down.
Support the Alliance for the Defense of Canadian Sovereignty.
@ Just Me
IMHO Frank Luntz exemplifies so much of that’s wrong in the world. Flash and no substance. Spin and no honesty. Hide what you’re really doing in something boring. That’s how we all got into this mess and continue to be here.
@Kathy…
I respect your POV. You maybe right, BUT there is NO denying what works.
And you have to fight fire with fire as they say.
You can remain a purist in thought and action, but still get nowhere in the narrative game.
The ‘Tax Evader’ language of the FATCAnatics and the ‘coming clean’ meme out SHOUT (drown out) your/our counter message.
So, the point remains, you have to get better at manipulating the language to your advantage to reach a mass audience.
You may not like it, (I don’t either) but that is the reality of the human experience.
We react emotionally, NOT logically, and the better we manipulate the language to find expressions that are short and sweet to illicit an emotional response to the non listening or bored masses, the better our chance of getting our POV considered.
Otherwise, we can be as right and holy as we want, and still be slaughtered in the FATCA Fratricide.
Sometimes “the Enemy” has a better communication strategy or narrative, and you have to adopt their techniques for a better counter propaganda response.
My point remains, we are too scattered in our messaging and don’t have a common and simple repetitive message that can get picked up easily by the media and repeated for us.
That is how memes spread, like it or NOT. Luntz created or NOT. Spin or NOT. Honest or NOT.
If you have one that meets your “Honest, non spin” standard, let us know what it is.
However, like the word “Fair” in relation to Taxes, it is all in the eyes of the beholder. What is honest to you, might be spin to me. There is more ‘subjective’ in this communication game than ‘absolutes’, and you have to able to use the subjective to get the response you want.
‘Fair’ as a descriptive, depending on how it is used, is neither honest and dishonest, but is used because it works… Doesnt’ everyone want a “fair” outcome?
An ‘inheritance’ Tax is a ‘Death’ tax. Both are honest, but one works better in eliciting opposition, if that is your goal.
We need to find the language hooks for FATCA that work to our advantage.
IMHO, After years of opposition, we continue to lose at this communication game.
@ Just Me
I understand your point, but I don’t like taking that direction. I’m not happy or comfortable purposely misdirecting or spinning things to make them more palatable.
I’m not saying that a catchy line or funny phrase shouldn’t be used to draw attention where you want it. I just don’t think that anything we want to say needs spin put on it.
I’ve come to realize in discussing this with people that there’s more than one single thing that’s wrong with what is happening and I think that’s part of the problem getting our message out. There are SO MANY issues here which are intertwined that it becomes problematic explaining just one without switching to all the others. Look at some of the main issues which we have been addressing:
-The violation of Canadian citizens’ right to banking privacy.
-Charter of rights violation (discrimination based on national origin).
-US law taking precedence over Canadian laws in Canada.
-American system of CBT.
-Governments hiding laws in omnibus bills.
-Extortion by US through economic sanction of 30% withholding on transactions.
-The hypocrisy of our government supporting the US for taxing their diaspora and condemning Eritrea for the same thing.
-Canadian banking customers and Canadian taxpayers paying for the cost of implementing a US law in Canada with little to no benefit.
-The difficulty, cost and time it takes to renounce/relinquish US citizenship.
-Being labeled a tax cheat while fully paying all taxes due in your country of residence.
And these are only some of the issues. It’s difficult enough to just focus on one issue let alone come up with a single, catchy phrase to describe it all.
Personally, I would want to put my focus on one thing – the violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No Canadian citizen resident in Canada should have to state their place of birth to open or keep a bank account in Canada. And nobody’s banking privacy should be violated due to their national origin.
Is there a catchy phrase that could bring attention to that? That second class citizen thing hasn’t gone over too well. It’s always been difficult to explain.
I’ve had an idea for a cartoon, but put it aside. Maybe I should give it another shot. One picture is worth a thousand words?
I’ve never been a believer in the ends justifying the means and I don’t think that speaking to people like they’re idiots will accomplish much in the long run. Yes, we’re emotional creatures, but we’re capable of so much more and that’s the direction I would want to take.
@Kathy…
Capable yes, but in reality in action, well that is something else…
The point is, and maybe we are talking past each other…
I am not saying that you have to “purposely misdirecting or spinning”. That is your characterization. And I bet you Frank Luntz would say exactly the same thing.
But remember, Characterizations are subjective.
What is spin to you, may be truth to me, and so you have every right to try and put the most positive and honest characterization on something to give it emotional appeal to another.
Find the right language.
Calling something ‘FAIR’ is spin, but I don’t doubt the honesty of the person making the claim. It is how they see it, and they are lucky, as ‘FAIR’ resonates with the masses, except to cynics like me! LOL
We just need to work harder on finding the right language that meets the objective which is to get more on our side of the equation by creating memes that get repeated over and over.
And yes, ONE picture is worth a thousand words. This one was good.
http://bit.ly/ZttWog
But, and not to be pedantic here, this is spin as far as the FATCAnatics are concerned, and they would very much disagree with the characterization it represents.
We clearly have developed a fourth Branch of Government. They stay from administration to administration, making their own rules that have little or no basis in laws passes by congress. Citizens dislike it as well as non citizens. Many of these hangers on are descendants of the sleepers sent by the Soviets in the early 1900’s to subvert the world to Marxism. One of the old Soviet Leaders, Nikita Khrushchev, complained about it in a speech calling them the Apparatchik (probably spelled wrong), but you understand that when a group takes power not given to them, there is little one person can do. We developed ours when the democrats, wanting to have permanent power, established the ”civil service” during a democrat administration and the fourth branch was born. they may not have meant it that way but the unintended consequences always trump intentions.
@Kathy…
One other point…
Lets take your example…”the violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ”
That is important to you… I get that. Was it important to you last year, or is it a relatively new found concern that you hadn’t considered before FATCA?
What if you did 10 focus groups and you found out that “Charter Rights’ did NOT resonant with them. They either don’t know what it is or don’t care?
Now, how do you get them to care about it?
Right now, we don’t know what their opinion is. We have NO idea if something speaking to a “violation” of a Charter Right means a damn thing to anyone? Anyone seen any polls? I am not talking about polls of the IBS crowd, but the average man in the street?
Now, you could hammer away on “Stop the Violation of our Charter Rights” all day long, but if that message does NOT connect with anyone, or get picked up endless by the media, then what do you do? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. For you Canadians, I really do NOT know. I am just asking.
If it does GREAT, then you have found your message. But, if it doesn’t, then what do you do? Give up? Mantra away anyway?.. or change the language of the message?
Call it spin if you want, or call it redefining the message. But, you need the emotional hook, and I am not sure that “Charter Rights” or “violation” is the hook. You Canadians will have to tell me if it is. I have no doubt that it is to many Brockers, but outside that group, I am not sure that I know. The next Canadian I meet on my hikes in the Cascades, (I meet a lot of them) I will ask, and report back… My own informal focus group inquiry.
@Wilton Jere Tidwell
Regarding the civil service, I fear you may be right…
The hook has to be simple.
1. Banks need to be defined as an agents of the IRS.
2. It’s easy to get your account flagged as a ‘US Account.’ (forget the concept of ‘US Person’ anyone on earth could be defined as a ‘US Person’ if the USG moves the goalposts so this concept is not as important as it may seem for PR purposes).
3. Once you’re flagged as a ‘US Account’ then you’re at risk of IRS abuse.
Describe the process in a simple ABC way for everyone to understand.
1. FFIs are on a witch hunt for accounts with ‘US Connections.’ These connections are established by where, when, who, why, and how you’ve been using your bank account.
2. Once the bank flags your account, then your consent is covertly obtained by small print, ticking off ‘going through the process’ boxes on the internet banking, or by silence (if you don’t respond you’re accepting the bank’s suspicions are correct – then you’re deemed a ‘US Account’)
3. Once the consent is obtained, the bank sends your data to the local tax authority who in turn sends it across the border to the IRS in Washington, DC.
4. If the bank has made an error, there is no recourse, the IRS will have your data forever.
It’s important to note step 3 may not even be necessary in many jurisdictions. Then it’s only the FATCA 1-2-3 punch.
Forget about the jargon, FFIs, USP, USG, FEIE, regulations, etc etc etc.
All the public needs to know is it’s very easy to get your account flagged, consented, and defined as a ‘US Account’ with no recourse whosoever.
Then the argument can turn to what that means to the ‘man in the street.’
What will the USG do with that data?
Who will the USG share it with?
What 3rd parties are involved in the process and security?
What happens when I visit the US and a local cop has my banking data?
I cross the US border and the border guard is peering at my banking data?
I never even visited the US, how on earth did my private banking data end up with the IRS?
Etc Etc Etc
Once people accept the real danger of being tagged a US Account and believe it can and will affect them, then their ear will be more open to the ramifications of FATCA.
Once a growing populous becomes aware of FATCA, then the burden of justifying FATCA is put on the Government who will in turn find itself trying to find its own simplified answer that everyone will believe.
Good luck to the Government trying to justify FATCA it’ll be difficult to sell this poison. Otherwise they wouldn’t have taken the approach to hide FATCA in a 500 page bill in the hope that nobody will read it. Also let’s not forget all the MPs who don’t return emails, telephone calls, in the hope silence will let FATCA become ‘normalised’ and public opposition will eventually blow over.
Yes it’s simplified message but anything more complicated isn’t going to work. The FATCA ABCs to get a simplified message is the only way to go to gain traction on this issue.
@Just me, Dittos on what you wrote about concerning language,
Thats why early on I discontinued using the term dual citizenship because that term evokes envy like you have something important, wanted and valued.
Hence, instead we have “clinging nationality” that we can not easily get rid of in a manner consistent with most of the english speaking western world. The USA is the most difficult compared to the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ.
@George
That is an excellent example. “Clinging nationality” has much better negative resonant with me. Of course I am not your average member of a focus group, but I think you are onto the right idea…
I am going to have to use that more…
@Don, very interesting.
Along the lines of…
“Are you at risk of being considered a US Person and not even aware of it?”
People used to consider it a joke when some tin pot communist country considered you “its national” by descent. We laughed at such insistence.
Today we have “US Citizenship Without Consent.”
@George
Unless the argument is framed as the FATCA 1-2-3 Punch or FATCA ABCs the wider public will not believe it affects ALL Canadians, not just US citizens.
The power in this argument is even if the Canadian Government says ‘ it’s not so,’ the counter argument is the US Government writes all the rules with no permission from Ottawa.
Simple message health warning message, US writes all the rules to expose the Canadian Government’s weakness, and FATCA’s ramifications to the ‘man on the street.’
That’s it simple. No jargon, no legalese, just a simple message.
Here are some more…
#youknowyoureamericanwhen #IRS pub 54 Tax Guide for U.S. Citizens & Resident Aliens Abroad is on ur bedside table.http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p54.pdf
#youknowyoureamericanwhen You feel the need to warn new immigrants about #IRS pub 54 Tax Guide http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p54.pdf
#youknowyoureamericanwhen all three of your internet browsers have IRS.gov has their homepage. 🙂
@Just Me @Brockers.. I think there are is another parallel campaign that need to be started in Canada and a further one in the USA.
1.) You are all aware of the Master Nationality Rule. This is based on the “Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws 1930.” Not every country has signed it, the US has not signed it and Canada withdrew from it in May 1996.
It appears that Nationals in countries that have signed it, who have clinging US nationality may have a basis for some protection against the US.
It may be a good idea to get your NDP friends/allies to lobby for Canada to resign the agreement.
Why? A current signing of that document should mean that whilst in Canada anyone with clinging nationality from any country will be absolutely and solely recognized as Canadian and only Canadian. That would go a long way to neutering FATCA.
2.) In the USA I think a campaign needs to be started that somehow gets us back to the days before the Supreme Court did us such a “great favour.” Since they hate people who put US nationality in second place anyway they need to throw us out. Was voting in a foreign election struck down by SCOTUS or was it simply removed by Carter? We need the US to find some action that will absolutely get us thrown out of the plantation where the Courts will not “save us.”
…especially when you relate it to gum on the bottom of your shoe, Just Me. That came from George as well — or Em.
@Don @Just Me, an advert/you tube…….
Seventy five year old grandma looking distraught holding an envelope from the IRS.
“I am seventy five years old and thought I was only Canadian, that was until PM Harper signed FATCA and now the IRS wants my pension.”
I like to say that ‘the Harper government’s made discrimination legal in Canada’. I don’t know if that resonates, but it sounds a lot more catchy than ‘violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’.
You know you’re American when a letter arrives from your bank and you break out in a sweat.
@George – That video is fine for educating people about the FATCA ramifications, but the trick is to get that grandmother aware of the “FATCA 1-2-3 Punch” before the IRS letter arrives.
It gives her time to spread the word.
First they came for the Americans… and then they came for everybody and they did it very quickly…
One:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/17990-obama-budget-supersizes-u-s-funding-for-un-global-military
Two:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/17987-a-new-world-tax-regime
Three:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/item/18619-establishment-pushing-cashless-society-to-control-humanity
In a nutshell: FATCA then GATCA and all the while Agenda 21 as well as TPP and NAFTA three country merging into North America. No more Canada. No more Mexico. ONLY North America run by GATCA and Agenda 21.
As Brigitte Gabriel said in her book: They Must Be Stopped speaking of muderous Al Queda and other named jihadis:
THEY MUST BE STOPPED!
From her recent appearance:
With the US Admin funding the UN agenda, as in the links in the previous post, with billions of dollars paid by the US taxpayer and now with FATCA paid by Canadian taxpayers, all unwilling and in most cases unknowing: THEY MUST BE STOPPED!
Take note of the driving force of the OECD’s tax regime agenda : The G20, of which Canada is a full participating member. With funding from the US taxpayer.
And just what happens when they realize their aim of North America?
NO sovereignty for Mexico and no sovereignty for Canada ONLY sovereignty for the US.
but that is a moot point when the entire country is being destroyed from within.