I received a phone call this afternoon from a concerned Brocker asking if I’d seen the discussion at Isaac Brock about whether it was ok to lie to the bank on the various self-certification forms. Specifically he asked my opinion about the ethics of lying. He said of course that the nuns at his parochial school said one should never lie, not even to save the world! But of course, as a theologian, the story of Rahab the Harlot came to my mind. She lied, and for that both Jews and Christians consider her a great heroine. Here is the main story of her boldfaced lie (Joshua 2.1-6; RSV):
1 And Joshua the son of Nun sent two men secretly from Shittim as spies, saying, “Go, view the land, especially Jericho.” And they went, and came into the house of a harlot whose name was Rahab, and lodged there. 2 And it was told the king of Jericho, “Behold, certain men of Israel have come here tonight to search out the land.” 3 Then the king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, “Bring forth the men that have come to you, who entered your house; for they have come to search out all the land.” 4 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them; and she said, “True, men came to me, but I did not know where they came from; 5 and when the gate was to be closed, at dark, the men went out; where the men went I do not know; pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them.” 6 But she had brought them up to the roof, and hid them with the stalks of flax which she had laid in order on the roof.
Now the New Testament remembers Rahab in Matt 1.5, as a great-great-great-great etc. granny of King David and Jesus; and as a woman of faith in Hebrews 11:31: “By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given friendly welcome to the spies.” James 2.25 also says, “And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?”
So it would seem that the Bible, as one the great foundational texts of both law and ethics in the Western world, has no problem with lying under certain circumstances. She lied to save the lives of two men who would soon become her new compatriots. Moreover, she’d seen that God was with the Israelites and Joshua, and she thus knew her city, Jericho, was doomed. So to protect herself and her family she decided to relinquish her Jericho citizenship under INS 349 (a) (7)–and become a daughter of Israel. She exercised her universal human right to change nationalities.
Yes, the King of Jericho would have severely punished her if he had found out her lie. And the homelanders of Jericho would have considered her a liar, traitor and tax cheat. But they didn’t write the history of the battle. Rahab had to do what was best for her family, and for that both Old and New Testaments praise her.
Hard times create unconventional heros.
I would go one step further with Petros comment, and add that to protect one’s self and one’s family, is a moral thing to do. Who can argue with that?
Thus in certain situations, lying can be a just and moral act. The trick of course is to discern the difference between a ‘good lie’ and a ‘bad lie’.
Has anyone considered not altering behaviour as the best, simplest, most prudent, moral course of action?
After all, “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”
– Abraham Lincoln
Whitekat
This section of scripture has two components
Did rahab commit sin before God. No
Did rahab lie before the civil law. Yes
Bubblebustin,
Sort of like turning over to the US through the CRA the private financial information of EVERY Canadian so as not to deem *US Persons* in Canada second-class to any other no matter their national origin or the national origin of their parents or even their grandparents? That way ALL Canadians would still have the same rights under Canadian laws and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Otherwise, our Canadian laws are all a sham?
Kudos George for enumerating the various scenarios. What do you think about those who fall into an amalgam of #2 and #3? I.e., naturalized as a Canadian with intent (#3) but still possess a valid US passport because they have not yet obtained a CLN (#2).
I believe one could truthfully answer no to “are you a US citizen” even though a valid US passport is sitting in a dresser drawer unused. Intent must necessarily trump the blue book. Even those who do obtain a CLN will possess a valid US passport for a period of time, yet they are clearly Canadian only for that period. The proof is that State department backdates their loss of US citizenship to the date they became a Canadian.
Apparently the US government agrees with my interpretation (at least at a very low level) because they allow me to travel to the US on a Canadian passport with US birthplace. Clearly, at that point in time, when I drive away from the customs booth heading South into the US I am considered by them to be a Canadian and only a Canadian.
When that US passport finally expires I will be scenario #3 only.
@George,
I don’t get your point, so do not know how to respond.
@George: not only did Rahab not sin, but her act of harbouring the spies and lying to the King of Jericho are hailed as an act of faith and heroism.
@bubblebustin, re: “Has anyone considered not altering behaviour as the best, simplest, most prudent, moral course of action?”
Yes, when I first found out about FATCA, I considered that, and quickly rejected it. FATCA and CBT are war. And it is a war that we are fighting whether we want to or not – we didn’t start it. In war, it is impossible NOT to alter behaviour, nor to compromise morals to some degree.
If we did as you are suggesting, and not altered our behaviour, there would be no Brock, no grassroots fight, no ACDC and no lawsuit. Whether we like it or not, we all have altered our behaviour in varying and personal ways to protect ourselves from an immoral attack.
I for one, could never have sat back and done nothing, imagining that the powers that be or someone else would come to their senses and ‘fix’ things. The people who have gone along, living their lives as they did pre-FATCA, either not perceiving or ignoring the threat, are the ones who are not behaving morally in my opinion.
@George,
What Petros said.
I recall that during Hitler’s reign of terror, when “Jewish persons” were instructed to visibly wear the “star of David” on their clothing, one Polish town / city decided that EVERYONE living there (including non-Jews) would wear a Star of David in order to protect their Jewish citizens. Consequently, the SS were unable to ferret out which were Jews and which were not. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Canada took a similar stand – ie, flooded the IRS with the names of ALL Canadian citizens, thereby making their witch hunt useless.
@Calgary
If my predictions come true, many whom the US considers to be USP’s will not be detected through the current screening for indicia. So yes, it would be best if all banking customers were handed over to the IRS for them to decide just who is one of their taxpayers.
@WhiteKat
I was careful not to say “do nothing” in my suggestion that we don’t alter our behaviours. I am suggesting that we behave in a manner that’s consistent with someone who doesn’t feel that they fall under US jurisdiction.
@ Bubblebustin
“So yes, it would be best if all banking customers were handed over to the IRS for them to decide just who is one of their taxpayers.”
Not a good idea. It isn’t just the person’s name that is handed over by the banks, it’s all the personal financial information of that person. You might think it would flood the US computers and make them shut down under that data load but they will not. The USA has a bottomless pit of data storage capability and powerful algorithms to analyze it. Think about it. This would be as much of an invasion of Canada as US troops marching over the border. If FATCA is scary, think about the consequences of it opening the data door to GATCA and then global taxation. Every heal that digs in against FATCA gives us a chance that we will not get forced into the tyranny of global taxation. Personally I do not care in what manner one digs in one’s heals. The US has declared war on our financial security and privacy.
@Petros, you sure managed to rile up the Brockers with this post! I get a sense that we are all in a fighting mood. God help any ‘Tom Hunter’ type who dares to show up here today!
I suggest we all put our money where our mouths are, and get the funding number required for the next phase of litigation down to $0.
@ WhiteKat
Hear! Here!
@Bubblebustin,
re: “I am suggesting that we behave in a manner that’s consistent with someone who doesn’t feel that they fall under US jurisdiction.”
In my opinion, lying to the IRS and/or the bank IS behaving in a manner that’s consistent with someone who doesn’t feel that they fall under US jurisdiction.
@maz57, there are going to be all sorts of permutations!!
Yes, I would agree that an individual with an unused US Passport gathering dust might not still be a US Citizen.
Why do I say that? Upon relinquishing, that US Passport is no longer valid. The passport may look valid, but the holder knows its not valid. Hence its in the back of a drawer.
The jist in my argument is that if you say NO to “Are you a US Citizen?” then you need to be able to defend why you say NO.
A CLN is absolutely not required to show loss of US Citizenship under US Nationality Law. This is supported by documents from the US Congress and the Canada IGA itself.
I would think that most Brockers in Canada would be able to say NO to the question and be able to defend it.
But there are some people who proudly call themselves dual and there are some US expats who are long term landed immigrants and those individuals are up the creek.
Regardless I firmly believe that an individual must avoid lying. If you need to lie then put yourself in a position so you do not need to lie. That could mean finding a new FI such as a credit union and/or obtaining a new nationality.
@Whitecat, good suggestion.
@Maz57, “Apparently the US government agrees with my interpretation (at least at a very low level) because they allow me to travel to the US on a Canadian passport with US birthplace. Clearly, at that point in time, when I drive away from the customs booth heading South into the US I am considered by them to be a Canadian and only a Canadian.”
Generally same experience but from different location.
@Whitekat “In my opinion, lying to the IRS and/or the bank IS behaving in a manner that’s consistent with someone who doesn’t feel that they fall under US jurisdiction.”
If there was no IGA, that could be true.
However, the FATCA requirement has been lawfully passed into Canadian Law. It is now the law of Canada and is not foreign law.
The law may be repulsive but it was lawfully passed by your elected government.
Lying to Scotia Bank so you can keep banking with Scotia is simply not worth it. If you have to lie to stay with Scotia, move to a credit union instead!!
Very good suggestion, WhiteKat. That’s the next phase — due February 1, 2015 I believe. This first critical deadline we should make just fine. We have to defend who we are and what OUR RIGHTS are in the countries in which we have chosen to be part of, having left the USA behind UNLESS it is OUR CHOICE to straddle the border.
@Whitekat, “In my opinion, lying to the IRS and/or the bank IS behaving in a manner that’s consistent with someone who doesn’t feel that they fall under US jurisdiction.”
A US Citizen who is a long standing landed immigrant in Canada based on their US Passport who votes in US Elections without fail, how can they feel they are NOT under US jurisdiction?
There is a price to carrying that blue book and having a vote in those elections.
I’ll give you this, WhiteKat. It’s true that misrepresenting the facts is not necessary evidence of guilt or wrongdoing when it comes to protecting your assets from what you feel are thieves, but be prepared to take that argument to those who’d accuse you of tax evasion or making false disclosures. What no one has mentioned here is the real possibility that your lie won’t work, or you’ll eventually be outed. What then? You’d better better be darn sure whatever lie you tell works, because the repercussions will be far worse that if you’d just stood your ground in the first place. Don’t get me wrong, I see the honour in what you are suggesting, and I’m sure that you of all people would put up a convincing argument as to why you had no choice to do what you did, but do you really want to put yourself and your family through that when you can move your assets completely out of harms way without lying?
@Bubbles……concur.
As someone said on these boards most brockers do not fit into the American Citizens Abroad organization because we are not abroad and while a foreign government may call us citizens we are not.
I would say that many brockers can reasonably respond that they are not a US Citizen for nationality purposes.
But the long term US Citizen expat who says they are not a US Citizen so they can keep banking with Scotia is a fool. Its not worth it, go find a local client base firm instead.
@George, the US tax laws applied to expats abroad is essentially a tax on the right to return. The right to return to you country is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, the “price” you mention is extortion, if the only way to avoid it is to relinquish US citizenship–it is a clear violation of one’s rights.
As I said, I have lied to the King of Jericho to protect my family from that King’s extraterritorial claims–even while closing my case through compliance. Yet I still fear the repercussions of my lies, as the King holds long grudges and lets his citizens off only with extreme reluctance.
Bubblebustin and Em,
I’m thinking of the banks having to hand over all private financial information of ALL Canadians to the CRA for the CRA to then determine what is to be sent on to the IRS. That would include all of the bankers’ information, our elected government representatives, including and especially our Conservative MPs, our Canadian employers’ information, our lawyers, our accountants, our school teachers, our clergy, our health care workers, our tradesmen — among ALL of the other Canadians. Perhaps someone would then get a clue as to the absurdity and wrong of extra-territorial override of ALL Canadians’ rights, the loss of security of data included, and there would be very real outrage because Canada would be losing all sovereignty — their information, as well as all of ours, the *US Persons*, would be subject to the same non-discriminatory Canadian laws and Charter and IGA implementing FATCA.