Originally, my understanding was that existing customers would not be signaled under FATCA regulations unless their accounts were over $50,000. Yesterday, I spoke with a woman whose accounts never exceed $10,000 in aggregate. Furthermore, she is a young mother who hasn’t worked much in the last few years since coming to Canada, and so she has never had an IRS tax liability, as her income would be well below the Foreign Earned Income Exemption. She holds her accounts jointly with her Canadian-only husband. This case highlights why we need the legal action of ADSC.
Yesterday she received the following correspondence from her bank. It shows that they have determined that she has US indicia. They have threatened her with reporting her accounts to the CRA in violation of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights, which would require the CRA to obtain a warrant before seizing her account information. But now the TD Bank has threatened to transfer her account information to the CRA. But what crime has she committed that the TD has threatened this action? None at all.
I have recommended that she do nothing–not fill out the self-certification form. But I’d like to hear what others think. Please discuss.
Here is the self-certification form. Please note the date at the bottom: June 9, 2014.
Much has been made about the BRICs pushing forward with de-dollarization. However there appears to be a second de-dollarization trend – BitCoin.
The Isle of Man is pushing ahead to become a new hub for BitCoin trading.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/11109256/Creating-a-Bitcoin-Island-just-off-the-English-coast.html
For me it’s appears to be the case, the harder the US Government pushes making the US dollar one of the most punitive, overly regulated and tracked currencies in the world, at it’s creating lots of incentives to create alternatives.
When faced with losing 30% just because you didn’t comply with FATCA or some other US government regulation, are people really going to continue with the ride forever?
Senators Levin and Schumer live in 1960 when the US had the world wrapped up.
No longer all these twats are doing is accelerating the decline of the US dollar as a settlement currency.
What are they going to say if central banks of countries start holding BitCoin in their reserves?
These two Harvard grads think they have all the answers.
Belated reply @ Joe Smith, re his comment (3rd from the very top, in response to my 1st comment)
Joe has found a very interesting document of which I wasn’t aware (I’m repeating the link below to simplify for readers of my response)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CPRT-JCS-2-03/pdf/GPO-CPRT-JCS-2-03-7-2.pdf
That document does in fact state clearly that there is no requirement to get a CLN if you relinquished your USC (I presume you still need to get one for a renunciation) under one of the 6 non-renouncing actions that potentially qualify as a relinquishing act. Interesting.
Drilling up a couple of slashes into the link, one discovers the title page for this document. The title page says this document is a publication by the staff of the Joint (US Congress) Committee on Taxation, dated February 2003. There is a stamp at the bottom of the page saying “authenticated US Government information.” This is on a US government website. I leave it to the lawyers to argue how much force this might have in a court of law, on either side of the border; I don’t know.
But I think I now see Joe’s point. If one doesn’t have a CLN but believes that one is NOT a US person, certainly based on one of the six criteria listed in that document but MAYBE stretching the point to extend for example to duals-at-birth who have never as adults lived in the US nor acted as US citizens, one might take a stab at signing THE BANK’S version of a self-certificationn form (I don’t recommend this with an IRS form) and taking with you to the bank that form, with a printout of the relevant page in the linked document (that says there is no requirement for you to get a CLN), and claiming your self-certification coupled with that photocopy constitutes a reasonable explanation why you don’t have a CLN. There is perhaps a chance, I won’t speculate as to how great a chance, the bank will buy this argument and put it to file. If in fact the self-certification and documentation is NOT routinely forwarded to CRA never mind IRS (that is unsubstantiated speculation at this point), and the bank doesn’t forward your account information, maybe that gets you off the IGA hook. I very much doubt this would ever cut any water at the US border if they ever start asking for CLNs to go with Canadian passports showing a US birthplace, but perhaps that’s a separate issue for our friend or anyone else in a comparable situation.
I stress that I am NOT a lawyer, this is NOT legal advice, and taking this approach could be a risk for a criminal charge of uttering a false document down the road. Personally I would NOT take this approach without getting very good and thorough legal advice from a competent lawyer under lawyer-client privilege. But it is an interesting point.
Certainly that document seems to indicate that even US officialdom believed as recently as February 2003, if not later (who knows about today), that certainly if you committed one of the six expatriating acts before February 2003, don’t have a CLN, and have never in truth behaved as a US citizen or made any claim to that effect of any sort (e.g. applied for a US passport, voted in a US election, etc) after committing that act, one can legitimately raise the question of how can the IGA and FATCA require you to present a CLN to have your account deemed not-reportable, in light of what this document says on an official US government website. Though I suspect at least some lawyers would suggest that the IGA and the act Parliament passing the enabling legislation trump this 2003 document, for purposes of self-certification.
I suspect a pricey lawyer could have an interesting time with all this in a courtroom, if anyone wanted to spend the time and money chasing this …
However, I’m not a risk-taker when it comes to possible criminal charges, so I stand by my original concurrence with Petros’ recommendation that this particular individual (whom I doubt on the basis of what I’ve seen so far has a legitimate claim to a relinquishing act in the past) NOT sign the self-certification. And I don’t recommend anyone else try this either. If you do, be aware you’re doing so at your own risk, and get legal advice first, is my advice.
@Schubert1975
I dont want to claim credit for this. Others on this site have mentioned it before me and so has Alison Christians.
—
I refuse to live my life subject to the whims of a foreign government.
“It’s sad to watch variations of the ostrich maneuver now scrabble away at perceived exit gates: tell a lie, foot-drag, willfully misconstrue, grab a different citizenship, flip financial institution, take a name off an account, etc.”
So you’re saying, “Better to throw yourself into the lion’s den and hope the lion isn’t hungry?”
http://www.capdale.com/files/13798_Questions%20Surround%20Standards%20of%20Willful%20Path%20Conduct%20Under%20Streamlined%20Version%20of%20OVDP.pdf
Good try. usx. “Sauve qui peut”, eh. With friends like you…who needs enemies? ~dripping sarcasm~
Animal –
All I said was don’t grab at a feeble straw, plummet downward like a stone, and wish that the panic of half-assed haste hadn’t led straight down to a bath of piranhas.
Here are a few feeble straws: a lie, a willful misconstruction, a closed account.
I’ve never said anyone should leap into the water.
Do the drudgery. Assess the options. Develop a plan. Before the letter arrives. Do not dither any longer. (This stuff has been going on for three years now.)
Catalogue all the wild dreams of could-ness that have floated through a long stretch of ostrichy head-down time. The US could shift to residence-based taxation. Canada etc could act as something other than a servile client state (remember all that enthusiasm about Flaherty popping off a letter – a letter that none of the addressees would publish?). Republicans could reverse what Democrats have implemented. A human rights complaint could cause some authority to conclude that a fait accompli action has violated a human right. Procrastination could buy time without sliding the waiter into the willful category. Some expat org could make a convincing case in Washington. Harper could lose a 2015 election. Some new provision could provide simple resolution for US persons who have been extraterritorial for such a long time (my favorite for a few days way back when). All that data could be too dirty for the US to make any real use of. The IRS could have too few workers to do anything effective. Only the truly rich could have anything to fear from IRS pursuit. The IRS could have no way to enforce anything on individuals who are outside US borders. The banks could have no indicia on file and never discover any. The banks could start off by examining only high-value accounts. The mass media could tell the world the truth. All those Canadians could start to understand that it isn’t just those dominating imported Americans who will suffer from the fallout. A protracted and expensive lawsuit could kill FATCA.
Redwhite&blue star wearers could be taking a compulsory train ride but find only a pleasant resort at the end.
The ominous sign of the newest of times: 7 FAM 1200 vanishes as the renunciation fee quintuples. Yet even these times may still prove “semi-good.”
No magic bullet will emerge from a Brock laboratory to effect a mass cure from the plague of US indicia. Epidemiology rules.
Watch and rewatch George A. Romero’s Dawn of the Dead (1978).
Sauve qui peut.
Completing a W-9 form exempts you from FATCA. Amazon made my 19 yr old son complete one. I suggest you complete it rather than have your accounts seized.
I think Animals rusty pipe approach is looking better and better all the time. We all want to “trust” our elected officials and the law. Yes we want to do what is right and legal. But, what if what is right is illegal under constitutional and the charter? The government is simply “not” protecting Canadians period. You need to protect yourself and know your enemies. This government answered NONE of my questions and concerns. The decision to impose AMERICAN laws in Canada and allow them to override Canadian laws designed to protect Canadians is a pure textbook case of treason in the first degree. Those involved should be executed! The law abiding Canadian citizen has has no representation as this decision to allow Fatca into Canada was done in typical communist fashion. Now, we need to protect ourselves from our own corrupt government who seems to have “nothing” to say to us when given questions and concerns regarding this life changing decision. Now, we must protect ourselves any way we can in order to live a normal law abiding life. Canada is a clear dictatorship. You might as well use a copy of the Charter as toilet paper as there is NO way to enforce it or use it to protect yourselves. Do you personally have more money than the government? This is how the cards are stacked against you and there isn’t a god dam thing you can do! Welcome to Canada and do as you are told, you have no choice. protect yourself people and give them Animals rusty pipe!!
USX, I’ll tell you this much, there are people out there who have to make the hard choice between a) putting food on the table and b) complying with the IRS’ demands. I know my wife has had to do the same (non-compliance) and it’s a footrace to see whether she gets her Canadian citizenship before the IRS tracks her down. We still have to feed our children and our family comes first over anything else. So it gets my back up when I see someone turning around and saying “sauve qui peut”. I’d rather be non-compliant than let my kids go hungry. And to that effect; those who advocate complying and saying “let those who save themselves do so.” ~rough translation of that French phrase~ can go take a high dive off a platform onto cement.
My “compliance” response is a straight-up middle-finger.
Not all those who are affected are middle-class and those people are the ones who get shafted. Some don’t have the ready financial resources to renounce or even take steps to protect themselves. They are the ones living from paycheck to paycheck. Even though they may not have the +$10K monetary assets to come under the scrutiny of the banks. What happens when they attempt to come into compliance? They get hit by the FBAR fines (for wilful non-disclosure). It’s not the $+10K accounts that get hit with FBAR fines. It’s damned well everybody. And from what I can see from the IRS – everybody is getting hit with the wilful brush.
Because: They are fundraising to pay down the debt and they don’t give a flying FUCK who the hell they hurt in the process. Simple thing really to comprehend. It’s not a matter of the fact that “the law is the law”…it’s the fact that the USG and Congress are fundraising for money to pay down the national debt. PERIOD. Nothing else.
I’d like to see my wife renounce formally, but we don’t have the $2350.00 that it now costs. And how soon before they close the option to “relinquish” (by perhaps not giving out a CLN; or tabling a legislative act that tells everybody that you go the renunciation route or you haven’t legitimately given up your US citizenship)? Relinquishment is a very “uncertain step”. And it’s going to get worse from here.
Do I trust the Democrats to do the right thing and repeal the legislation? No. All they’re out for is money. Hence the reason why they’ve brainwashed the homelander masses into thinking that anyone who is an expat is absolutely filthy rich and on top of that, an unpatriotic traitor to boot. Whoever thinks that there is a benefit to this US citizenship is deluding themselves.
Do I trust the Republicans to do the right thing and repeal the legislation. ABSOLUTELY NOT! To them all this issue is is a springboard to power. Placate the expatriate masses and let them hope that the right thing will be done. Solomon Yue, head of RA, is an expat, he’s one of us. But the homelander Republicans who are the ones who will be tabling this argument are not. One of the strongest voices advocating the tracking down and punishing of expat “tax cheats” is a Republican, Senator John McCain III. Those of you who pass him off as a senile idiot; may be underestimating his ability to sway the masses of homelander Republican chicken-hawks who think of him as a war-hero.
The only way to stand up to these idiots south of the border is by standing our ground and telling them that they can “fuck themselves”. And I say that with all seriousness. And we wonder why America is hated throughout the entire world. There is anti-American sentiment in Canada; it’s just well concealed against the “America is our neighbour” mentality which appears to be prevalent ever since John F. Kennedy said: “Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder. What unites us is far greater than what divides us.”
Two years ago we celebrated our two-hundredth anniversary of the War of 1812; a struggle by a young nation trying to exert it’s independence from a nation that sought to territorially expand by annexing Canada. IF we do not stand up for our sovereignty by resisting this subtle attack against our sovereignty, we trample on the memory of those who laid down their lives to protect a fledgling Canada.
Thanks for finding the original report. Good enough for me.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CPRT-JCS-2-03
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CPRT-JCS-2-03/pdf/GPO-CPRT-JCS-2-03-7-2.pdf
@Animal, @NativeCanadian,
Speaking of the war of 1812, there will soon be an unveiling of a WAR OF 1812 monument on parliament hill but I am not sure of the exact date (I think in October). It would be an awesome venue to raise a little hell.
Two clips of FATCA debate from the French Assembly for IBS’ French speakers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p8JCNwRd-4
This is perhaps slightly off-topic, but on the subject of informing yourself and making appropriate preparations for your own (and your families’) situations, I just noticed this morning that CRA published an updated (and more detailed, as far as I recall) FAQ page on FATCA, at the end of this July.
The link is here.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/nhncdrprtng/fq-eng.html#q2-15
In particular, I recommend close perusal of the paragraphs pertaining to exemption of Canadian-resident accounts held by financial institutions that are not members of a multinational financial group and have 98% or more of their accounts held by Canadian residents. AFAIK that would describe all Canadian credit unions, regardless of size, at least all the ones I’m personally aware of here in Ontario. Another reason not to do business with Canadian chartered banks. the major ones of which I think now have branches in the US and hence AFAIK wouldn’t fall under this umbrella.
And yes, after three years of growing media coverage of this story (especially this year in Canada, finally), if you’re still waiting and dithering, why are you dithering? This situation isn’t going to go away for a couple of years at least, no matter what happens in the Canadian court challenge or in US politics. Even under the most optimistic hopes re those activities. I share many folks’ skepticism that the situation is ever going away. Do what you need to do, but think it through very carefully before doing anything.
Here’s the Google translation of the first link. The guy is NO fan of the US or FATCA.
http://www.pierre-lellouche.fr/
I believe he’s member of the opposition party which Nicholas Sarkozy is once again seeking to lead again.
My speech to the National Assembly on the “FATCA”
September 18, 2014
“Act FATCA” No 2179
Speech by Pierre Lellouche
During the discussion in the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the bill to ratify the agreement – and I quote because its title is very long “between the Government of the French Republic and the Government of the United States to improve the tax compliance internationally and implement the law on tax compliance for foreign accounts (the “Act FATCA”), “I expressed the real feeling of unease in my eyes the adoption of a text as unbalanced.
This agreement, and now this law is nothing but the transposition into French law of disposions an American law passed in 2010, making de facto and even de jure, our Ministry of Finance, a surrogate for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
The stated objective is happening of course any discussion: it is to work for fiscal transparency, ending with the cooperation of States, and the automatic exchange of information, the massive cross-border tax evasion that knows the world: 6.000 billion, which escape taxation altogether (!). From this point of view, no one can be against anything that moves forward in transparency. As the Americans say, transparency is like apple pie or country (“Apple pie and Motherhood”), everyone is for.
Except that this text comes first in a movement that I extremely concerned for a number of years of extra-territorialisation of American law. This is a deliberate strategy that one of my former professors at Harvard, Joseph Nye, had also conceptualized a term that was coined: the “soft power”. Through a series of internal laws, American standards imposed with or without such agreements, foreign governments, the United States, the American industry, the American economy, and advance their pawns to systematically internationally.
A recent example, the BNP case shows that by applying an ancient law dating back to the Cuban missile crisis of the 60s, the “Trading with the Enemy Act,” it is now possible for American justice and still is -there a single court of the State of New York, heavily penalize a french bank, present in the United States, as long as it engages in transactions denominated in dollars, on behalf of customers based in territories under embargo by the Government of the United States – even as we, French Republic does not recognize such embargoes.
We do not recognize nor indeed the American embargo on Cuba, and in the Sudan. As for Iran, the constraints that have been taken by Europeans including France, had been under sanctions adopted at the international level on the nuclear issue. These were not affected by this issue. In other words, even when the result of the embargo will of Congress alone the United States, foreign operators, including French, so come to be hit with fines of up to several billion dollars, simply by the application of American law.
Incidentally, I do not hide my dismay at the deafening silence of the French authorities in the BNP case, even though the fundamental principle of reciprocity in international law was raised vividly! I know that the National Assembly has no power to prosecute through the French courts yet American companies based in Europe, earning billions of euros here, and who do not pay a penny in taxes ! And I pass on our means of retaliation, non-existent, with respect to those we might consider that they are engaging in activities contrary to the interests of our country …
Another example of this American tendency toward unilateralism, some might call imperialism, by the bais of extra territoriality of laws and standards of the country, said FCPA.
As FATCA before us today, the anti-corruption law known FCPA (Foreign Corruption Practice Act) seeks to prohibit, on behalf of the moralization of business and better governance, corruption, detestable practice of course, but often practiced in large civil and military procurement and a variety of vendors on every continent … including American elsewhere.
This law ensures that non-American companies in some of its subsidiaries in the territory of the United States, who were able to use the commissions paid to foreign makers to secure contracts in third countries – outside the United States – can be prosecuted in the United States by the Department of Justice (Department of Justice), or by other bodies such as the SEC (Security exchange Commission). The investigations or obligingly revealed by the care “services” specialist, and then taken by American courts, and can result in heavy fines and even the arrest of leaders of foreign companies as long as they are are, even in transit or on vacation (!) in the United States.
The fines amounted again to hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, not to mention prison sentences for executives of companies involved in American jails. Coincidentally, these actions are not entirely foreign, or competition from American groups in the same markets or to bid more or less hostile to American groups on the same foreign companies, especially in Europe, in the latter environment marked time by an increasing number of takeovers of American companies in Europe. For example attempted hostile takeovers triggered by American groups in 2014 amounted to 426.3 billion dollars against 72.2 billion in reverse for European firms … When these fines amounted to several hundred of millions of dollars, if not billions, as procedures are long and damage the reputation of companies, the efficiency of such methods is measured when it comes to taking control of a competitor, via the procedure known as due diligence, or in the competition for some major public procurement, civil or military.
The American law firms are also one of the drivers of this strategy, often including among their employees, alumni specialized in this type of proceedings against prosecutors target companies. Just refer to some recent acquisitions in France pure be convinced, which I unfortunately do not have the time to expand today. For those who know the hardness of competition in some of these markets, it is not clear that moral rigor advocated by American law to foreign competitors, is applied with the same intensity to American exporters …
FACTA legislation before us today, makes exactly the same philosophy. This real “compressor roll normative” in the words of a good French connoisseur of these American practices: it is neither more nor less, on behalf of the fight against tax evasion, require financial institutions Foreign and automatically communicate annually to the IRS, any information on the accounts held abroad by entities or American citizens. The punishment is extremely severe, since in case of recalcitrant institutions or “uncooperative” recalcitrant clients, withholding imposed by the United States is 30%.
The device passed in 2010 included in this Franco-American agreement is perfectly and totally unilateral extraterritorial “cavalier” method of strong diplomatic expression Draftsman of the Finance Committee, our colleague Yann Galut, the anti-globalization course framework wrong with deference and shown toward the American imperium.
Specifically, the agreement, which will now be the law of the Republic, will force our financial institutions including insurance companies, investment institutions, brokers, to report all accounts held by American citizens or entities in France, from during the balance of their account exceeds $ 50,000. And these statements will then obligingly and automatically transmitted by the French tax authorities to the IRS. This applies to almost all of our financial institutions, almost all of the products available on the French market except very local products such as passbooks or plan of Home Savings, which are exempt from the American surveillance. Included are 100,000 American citizens residing in France. Cumbersome procedures and sanctions has already led to several consequences: first, the cost to our financial institutions, estimated between 200 and 300 million euros; and cumbersome procedures, which led some schools to close outright accounts of their American clients in France.
What is perfectly shocking in this case, it is not only the exchange of technical data information is not included in the agreement, but they will be subject to a separate agreement between the tax authorities, which will not be subject to ratification … not just the consideration of this meeting.
Above all, reciprocity between commitments by both parties, the United States and France, however, I repeat, a fundamental principle of international law, simply does not exist in this case. The agreement merely translates literally American law in the French law, without giving the France access to the same information on accounts held by some 130,000 French citizens living in the United States, nearly half of which are bi .
Besides that the penalty of 30% is not mutual, under the Agreement, the United States does not provide for France, despite the provisions of Article 6 of the Declaration of intent attached, a series information, which they leave in the opposite direction, ie among others, the account balance, the cash surrender value of the life insurance contract, the amount of life insurance contract, the amount of dividends, or proceeds from the sale of property credited to the account.
All things indeed expressly recognizes the Secretary of State for the Budget, in a letter dated 16 September 2014 addressed to the President of the Foreign Affairs Committee, our colleague Elisabeth Guigou, which was good enough to grab my request. In response to questions about reciprocity, Christian Eckert wrote: “the United States are currently not able to provide information to France, also covered by the agreement on account balances or cash value life insurance contracts. “However, the minister added that with regard to the rest of the information, France can always ask relying on a case by case basis and by specific request of the French-US Tax Convention 1994.
In his great goodness, the American Treasury co-signer of the agreement, will commit to further enhance the “transparency” and to “strengthen the trading relationship with France,” I always quote in “continuing to adopt measures regulatory nature and by promoting and supporting the adoption of appropriate legislation to achieve these automatic levels reciprocal exchange of information. ”
This convoluted writing, is to know that American institutions a broad farce, reminiscent of the old adage in politics promises only bind those who listen. The problem in fact is that the Congress does not naturally mean it that way and he considers even such an exchange of information unconstitutional. But under the American Constitution, the executive can not commit on behalf of Congress. Our negotiators Quai d’Orsay and Bercy would they have forgotten the Treaty of Versailles?
It is therefore a capitulation in open country that has accepted the French Government by agreeing to sign an agreement on the balance point, which in the context of current negotiations between the European Union and the United States trade liberalization, the famous TTIP (Transatlantic trade and Investment Partnership) is hardly reassuring.
I know, and they will retort that even with such an imbalance, extra-regionalization of FACTA law had a salutary impact on the progression of transparency internationally, including in Europe. An OECD Convention even in process draws heavily on the principles of FATCA. I am of course in favor of such a device and supports the Convention scheduled for 2017, which will bring together 47 States advance.
But then why not have preferred the multilateral approach of the OECD, which by nature is much more balanced than the “bilateral agreement” we are discussing today, which it is not.
On the merits, it is clear that FATCA or even transposed into French law does not do much, if anything, to end the scandal of tax havens in Europe, which operate not only from Switzerland , but full members of the European Union such as Luxembourg, Austria and the UK through non-cooperative jurisdictions like Jersey USA, Bermuda or the British Virgin islands.
On all these points, Europe barely moved forward. Neither the Savings Directive of 2003, neither the Directive on administrative cooperation in 2011 will establish a satisfactory exchange of automatic information system, either because their scope is too limited or because they cover not “offshore” accounts.
But taxation is an area in which unanimity within the EU, Luxembourg, Austria, among others, refused the extension guidelines in question by aligning with Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Monaco and San Marino.
As for Switzerland, she managed to sign an agreement called “FACTA 2” with the United States providing data transmission directly by banks, but subject to the express consent of the account holder.
In other words, the Swiss have managed to avoid reporting their uncooperative clients, while avoiding punitive tax of 30%. Whether to be pleased that the Commission has proposed, there is more than one year in June 2013, an extension of the cooperation between European, it should be noted that paradoxically, the exchange of information between the tax authorities and French European states will be much less effective and transparent than that will benefit, through this agreement, Americans for surveillance of their citizens residing in France.
Priority was well transparency among Europeans themselves much more than meet American requirements with the conditions, I mean imposed, Washington
I want to show and I guess you will enjoy this example with FATCA, the Swiss account of Mr. CAHUZAC would not have been discovered; However it might have been if transparency had been established on our own continent. In the same vein, the most opaque countries that practice banking secrecy extensively as Singapore and Hong Kong still escape, of course, this fine effort of transparency; it is the same as done for China.
Under these conditions, the reservations inspires me ratification of the text, even if you can recognize it under some “sting” in the direction of fiscal transparency has more Americans than French is better understood , which still must be non-cooperative behavior of European neighbors yet members of the EU. Not to mention of course Switzerland, with which major progress, and that’s saying something (!) Remains to be done.
Rather than give in to American pressure in this text, and reach an agreement so unbalanced that it is shocking, the services of the Ministry of Finance and the Foreign Ministry were probably more inspired to push the cause of transparency first with our European partners, and of course in the framework of the OECD. Yet would it have taken that inspiration falls within a different foreign policy, a foreign policy that makes another thing to stick permanently to the goodwill moreover often erratic our American friends.
These are the reasons why, sir, I bow in my group to vote against the text, both because its effectiveness is highly questionable in view of the objective of transparency sought, and because it is itself shocking to the principle of reciprocity should always inspire our diplomacy in all areas of international cooperation
@Don….
Thanx for that. Did you mean to say “he is NO fan of FATCA or USA. If I read this correctly he supports the so called “ideal” of transparency and the OECD GATCA but NOT the unilateral USA FATCA. But his was the minority vote against the IGA…so doesn’t matter. As Victoria said on her blog it is now the law of the land in France.
As an amusing aside. I see the french farmers are burning tax offices. Now that is a protest. 🙂
BBC News – French farmers torch tax office in Brittany protest http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29294096
@Just me says – Definitely NO Fan – the perils of rushed typing on a table in a coffee shop on Sunday!
I especially love the incredulity of this:
…so why would you think that Canada is turning you over to the US IRS so you will now have to pay US taxes — if you haven’t been following US unjust citizenship-based taxation law that you never had any idea about, that is YOUR problem.
Schubert1975, for the sake of repetition: I’m going to say this again:
There are people out there who have to make the hard choice between a) putting food on the table and b) complying with the IRS’ demands.
And, the gap for these very people to ever be able to renounce, widens with each punitive USA stroke of the pen. May The Animal’s wife and others one day soon be able to gain US citizenship and be able to claim that as relinquishment! Even that comes at a cost to reckon with in a family’s budget.
On the CRA FAQ, notice the following at the end;
“It is the responsibility of the account holder to determine whether he or she is a U.S. citizen.”
Hmm, NO mention of CLN.
To be brutally honest, thats what we all want not this witch hunt and proving you are something you are not.
In the UK and some other countries, you can renounce then regain your prior citizenship.
That regaining should be a relinquishment, does Canada have anything like that?
If not, you should write the NDP for Goverenment to create an expedited renouncing and regaining that could be done at some Canadian office in one visit, the could even charge $500 for it and witness a statement that says you are intending to relinquish our US citizenship.
A partial exemption is available for a Canadian financial institution if it is not part of a multinational group (i.e., it is not related to any entities organized outside of Canada) and at least 98 percent of its financial accounts are held by Canadian residents. These financial institutions will not be obliged to apply due diligence or report on accounts held by individuals who are Canadian residents.
If you would like to know the status and obligations of a particular financial institution under the Agreement, please contact the financial institution directly.
For Vancouverites, VanCity credit union specifically state they will not report on Canadian residents. They also specify that accounts less than 50 k are exempt. Blue shore financial ( formerly NSCCU) has nothing to say.
@Duke and others: Are other Canadian credit unions being as responsible about FATCA as Vancity?
http://maplesandbox.ca/2014/are-other-canadian-credit-unions-being-as-responsible-about-fatca-as-vancity/
I don’t understand why all credit unions are not taking the local client base approach.
Animal –
Let’s spell it out. I’d say sauve qui peut is what you advocate. In my phrase lexicon it means do what you have to do.
Polite curbside protest, incessant letter writing, unending appeals to media, lawsuits on the authorities’ tennis courts, etc are one dismissible type of begging for respect.
A direct action — say destroying property (prime familiar historical example: a valuable tea shipment ruined by immersion in Boston harbor salt water) etc — can change history.
Trying to hide that redwhite&blue star required on the sleeve while the FATCA transport train rolls into the station is not a strategy that brings useful results for the individual.
Go down individually or revolt en masse. Still no worldwide coordinated die-ins outside US consulates. No flags in flames. Etc etc. Not enough suffering yet. Not enough OMG people.