[We now have a NEW POST taking us up to February 1, 2015. This post will be retired from service.]
THE AUTUMN 2014 UPDATE
Dear Donors,
Together, we reached our goal of $100,000 to pay the November 1 legal bill 11 days ahead of schedule!
Thank you Canadian donors from coast to coast and our friends from around the world for your generosity, support and determination — and especially for not being afraid.
The name of our non-profit corporation is the “Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty.”
We were very deliberate in including in our name the word “sovereignty”, which forms a cornerstone of our Claims against the Government of Canada.
Canada and dozens of other countries throughout the world gave into a bully because their “leaders” were afraid of harm caused by a trading “partner” — and they gave their sovereignties away.
Help us convince by example the Leaders and Governments of all countries worldwide that they should return their sovereignties back to their Peoples.
Please continue to support our lawsuit.
“Alone we can do so little. Together we can do so much.” (Helen Keller)
— Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen, and the ADCS-ADSC team
Chers donateurs,
Ensemble, nous avons atteint notre but d’amasser 100 000 $ pour payer notre facture légale du 1er novembre 11 jours d’avance !
Un gros merci à vous, donateurs canadiens, et à nos amis de tous les coins du monde pour votre grande générosité, soutien et détermination. Et surtout pour votre courage.
Le nom de notre organisme sans but lucratif est « l’Alliance pour la défense de la souveraineté canadienne ».
Nous avons choisi délibérément le mot « souveraineté » puisqu’il constitue la base fondamentale de nos revendications envers le gouvernement du Canada.
Le Canada et des dizaines d’autres pays se sont pliés devant l’intimidation des États-Unis parce que leurs « leaders » ont eu peur des menaces de notre « partenaire » commercial. Ils ont donc vendu leur souveraineté à rabais.
Aidez-nous à convaincre les dirigeants et les gouvernements de tous ces pays qu’ils se doivent de remettre leur souveraineté à leurs peuples.
S’il vous plaît, continuez à soutenir notre cause.
« Seuls, nous pouvons faire si peu. Ensemble, nous pouvons faire beaucoup. » (Helen Keller)
— Ginny, Gwen et toute l’équipe de l’ADCS-ADSC
DONATE to www.adcs-adsc.ca (ADSC en français).
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society | The slippery slope of Bill C-24: “…disclosure of information to verify the citizenship status or identity of any person” to enforce any Canadian law “or law of another country”
Today is the celebration of Bastille Day in France. The ancient regime was overthrown and it can be done again. Harper isn’t listening but one day he will!
Taxpayer Advocate requesting tax reform suggestions:
http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/Home/tax-reform-suggestions
Although the FBAR penalty is not part of the Tax Code, it may be worthwhile to continue bringing it up to the Advocate’s attention.
Residence-based taxation is obviously another topic to be addressed.
Another reason to donate right now;
The Harper government and his merry Conservative MPs profess deepest respect for the US ‘right’ to make and impose its own tax laws – even this newest one, which the current Canada US tax treaty doesn’t protect Canadian citizens and residents deemed by the US to be ‘US taxable serfs’ from, and which Canada won’t recognize as an offset on Canadian taxes:
http://benefitslink.com/articles/guests/2014_07_08_lurie.html#.U8Q2XEAzO8C
‘Obama’s Trojan Horse
A 3.8% Medicare Surtax? No.
A Free-Standing Second Income Tax? Yes.
A Well-Kept Secret? You Bet.’
by Alvin D. Lurie
July 8, 2014
THe FATCA IGA and enabling legislation the Harper government forced through in Canada will help the US enforce this newest layer of confiscatory extraterritorial tax on Canadians already paying in full where we live, earn, save and pay CANADIAN taxes – INSIDE CANADA – where we are citizens and legal permanent residents.
@ All
You may have recently received an e-mail from Thomas Mulcair listing all the accomplishments of the NDP during the last session of parliament. Guess what was not mentioned at all? Anyway here was my reply:
Dear Mr. Mulcair,
We are a one issue family — FATCA — and you haven’t even mentioned it in your e-mail. Please tell us you and the New Democratic Party have not given up on this because we haven’t. We have made the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty (http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/) the prime focus of our energy and the recipient of every spare penny we can cobble together. At the very least I hope the New Democratic Party will promote the ADCS in whatever manner they can. Canada’s sovereignty and the protection of the privacy and charter rights of Canadian citizens and residents is still worth fighting for, wouldn’t you say?
Sincerely,
Mrs. [EmBee]
Interesting, EmBee. We’re there any stated accomplishments that benefited fewer people than 1m Canadians and their families and business partners?
@CanCan
Done
EmBee,
Thank you for reminding Mr. Mulcair.
About 6,000,000 people have immigrated to Canada in the last 25 years. This represents about 20% of the current population of the country.
Since the current Conservative government wants to allow the government to share immigrant information with foreign governments and since it has not defined these rules, based on current experience, we can assume the worst The Conservative government does not say that immigrants are no longer immigrants if they become citizens with distinct rights, as seen by the tax agreement it has made with the US.
So, the Conservative government of OUR country wants the right to share information regarding over 20% of the people in this country with the governments of other foreign nations. What other country would do this?
EmBee, Good Job!
@ Bubblebustin
It’s hard for me to know how many people each issue affects but here is the “accomplishments” part of Thomas Mulcair’s e-mail:
“Here are some of the highlights of the real results our NDP team delivered:
• We protected your right to vote. We protested, filibustered and did everything possible to stop some of the worst aspects of the Conservatives’ Unfair Elections Act.
• We forced the Conservatives to put Canadian workers and jobs first. We secured a moratorium on the Temporary Foreign Worker Program for low-skilled workers and ensured the Conservatives re-evaluate the viability of their program.
• Improving railway safety. We ensured the government phased out the dangerous tank cars that contributed to the Lac-Mégantic tragedy and pushed them to fine rail companies for safety violations.
• Standing strong against Conservatives’ misguided cuts that hurt Canadians—cuts like axing Canada Post’s home delivery, callously offering diminished service to our veterans who sacrificed so much for our country, and relentlessly hacking away at the CBC.
• Prevented the shut-down of passenger rail in New Brunswick. NDP MPs joined together a train trip on Via Rail to show the importance of access to rail travel we successful pressured the Minister of Transport to save rail service in New Brunswick!
We’re the only real opposition to Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.
New Democrats challenged Stephen Harper at every turn. We held the Conservatives to account on their mismanagement of our economy and exposed their use of “Kijiji economics” to falsify job numbers; inflating their image and paving the way for more temporary foreign workers. We stood up against the Conservatives’ promise to spend $3 billion dollars on income splitting—a scheme that only benefits the wealthiest of Canadians. We fought them on their failure to properly fund our healthcare. We fiercely opposed the Northern Gateway Pipeline, and joined with First Nations and concerned Canadians to stop this project. We stood up for our democracy and fought flawed immigration and First Nations’ bills, filibustered anti-union bills and stood up to Harper’s attacks on the Supreme Court.
We’re hard at work proposing practical solutions to make like better for you.
We’ve put forward the most initiatives in the House of Commons. We introduced the most private member’s bills and motions and we were successful in finally achieving a National Palliative Care Strategy. We are laying out our plans for a National Aging Strategy, our Small Business Strategy-including a youth hiring and training tax credit, and our Pan-Canadian Food Strategy. We made moves to modernize Parliament by introducing e-petitioning. And we proposed simple solutions to help stretch the family budget—from calling for a cap to unfair bank charges like ATM fees and a no-frills credit card. We re-introduced Jack Layton’s historic Climate Change Accountability Act to help secure the future for you and for future generations. You can be sure that we’ll continue to put forward the most practical, sustainable proposals to make life better for all Canadians.”
The e-mail concluded with an invitation to “continue contributing to our vision with your front-line observations and concerns”.
Was away from post office box yesterday and I just picked up the letters this morning.
Sixteen donations with letters packed the little box — sent by people we know well and people we do not know at all.
Wish you all could read the letters.
Thank you everyone.
Stephen,
I’m glad that you get the satisfaction of opening a stuffed full ADCS-ADSC Canadian postal box.
Having had the opportunity to meet you in person (your persona shines through in these pages), I can see in my mind the smile on your face and feel the tug at your heart strings from reading what must be very moving letters that often accompany the donations being sent.
You’re doing the next best thing for us by sharing your experience. Thanks to all of those donors from me too!
Stephen – any update as to when we can expect the formal proceedings to begin? Are we just waiting on the last donations to push over the top on the target or is there an expected launch date? It being the dog days of summer, I don’t expect the suit will set any records for speed in jumping through the steps for the next 6 weeks anyway, but just sort of wondering. You may not be able to say anything at all – which of course is fine. We all know patience is required and this is going to take some time to get even the first level of decision, let alone appeals.
Personally, despite my child-like desire to see what lies under the Christmas tree as soon as possible, I think taking time to construct the most persuasive factual foundation will be time well spent here. This will very likely be going to appeal and possibly beyond, but the factual foundation established at first instance will not change and must truly be our “best foot forward”. The hundreds who frequent this site know this subject-matter all too well; the judge who hears it the first time will doubtless have almost no background or familiarity.
The “trick” here is going to be in constructing a complex yet simple tapestry that conveys to a judge all of the outrage, hurt feelings, pain, confusion, betrayal, and a few other feelings beside that trouble the sleep of so many here precisely because they are fundamentally law-abiding and law-respecting people who have awakened one day to have their self-worth and self-respect built over a lifetime called into question. It is this instinct of respect for the law that has led many into the clutches of a badly-designed OVDI only to get fleeced of tens of thousands (sometimes more) of retirement funds .
As I wrote a few days ago, prejudice arising from “simple information sharing” is going to be the key issue here – it will be argued “what’s the issue? The US has had CBT since 1913.” It will also be argued “why not renounce then?”. Both points need to be anticipated and thoroughly dealt with the stories our plaintiffs and witnesses will be able to tell.
The US may have had it since 1913, but it was like a rattlesnake in a cage sitting on a neighboring island: it never bothered anyone or even threatened them until someone had the bright idea of building the rattlesnake a bridge and opening the cage… Few knew it was there, almost none actually filed anything and its actual impact on people was attributable more to unintentional or negligent design more than anything else (eg. PFIC’s – there was method to their madness, they just didn’t spend any time trying to figure out the simplest way of solving it). With FATCA, a poorly-designed and, for non-homelanders, potentially lethal CBT system on to which has been grafted a bunch of anti-drug lord bells and whistles (eg. FBAR) is being set loose to wreak unintended damage on a global scale to millions of people that were never on the radar screen to begin with.
As for renouncing, the perils of exit tax will need to dealt with as well. The straw man of comparison to Canada’s deemed realization of capital gains on departure will need to raised and knocked down. The signal difference is this: in Canada, a departing resident is deemed to sell all capital goods and to pay the resulting capital gains on the property. Note – since it is an RBT system, by definition the capital gains will be almost exclusively on property acquired while a resident and, with minor exceptions, will be gains accrued in Canada which, under all of Canada’s tax treaties, Canada has the FIRST RIGHT to tax. The US departure tax is quite the opposite when applied to non-residents. They are deemed to dispose of property the bulk of which will be OUTSIDE the United States and will have accrued primarily in countries where the United States has agreed another country (in our case, Canada) has the first right to tax. Under the US-Canada tax treaty, if a Canadian capital asset were actually disposed of, it would generate a gain and any tax paid to Canada on that gain would normally give rise to a credit in the US preventing double-taxation (yes, I know there are exceptions). On a DEEMED sale, there is no Canadian tax payable because there is no actual sale – just a sale deemed by the US. The accrued gain is paid in the US without benefit of an off-setting treaty deduction. As and when the property is actually sold some years down the road, Canada will still tax the ACTUAL gain and no credit for the payment to the US will be allowed. Result: the same asset will be FULLY taxed TWICE, all treaty-protections against double-taxation are stripped from the treasonous expatriating knave and they are lucky to escape with their shirt on their back. While there is some possibility of double-tax on deemed disposition of foreign capital assets on leaving Canada, this can be avoided by simply posting security for the tax on the assets and electing to pay tax only on actual disposition. The US system was designed primarily to dissuade and punish – the Canadian system to be comprehensive and logical. They are not true parallels at all.
We all know the tale – the judge will not until it is told in terms able to be grasped quickly.
PS – I know the US exit tax has a deferral option. I probably shouldn’t have attempted a summary comparison. The short difference is: US tax applies to ALL assets; Canadian tax only applies to specific categories of assets (excludes Canadian real estate since the proceeds can’t leave the country anyway until the resulting tax is settled). Our tax simply completes the capital gains tax system – the US tax is designed to be punitive and operates as such.
@Blaze
Agree we don’t need to debate the ‘anger’ issue further.
Government gone wild. Parliamentary Banditry.
From the Daily Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10970681/UN-emergency-data-laws-difficult-to-justify.html
“It is difficult to justify the speed at which emergency data retention laws are being driven through Parliament, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said today.”
Another quote is:
“The House of Lords will look at the Bill tomorrow and Thursday as ministers aim to have it sent for Royal Assent before the end of the week.
Tom Watson, the Labour MP, said the speed of the bill amounted to the “democratic banditry resonant of a rogue state.”
“Parliament has been insulted,” he said.
David Winnick, a Labour member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: “I consider this to be an outright abuse of parliamentary procedure.”
Theresa May, the Home Secretary, defended the Bill as a narrow set of proposals vital for national security and public safety in the wake of a European Court of Justice Ruling in April.”
@Anne Frank
Don’t forget what is arguably the most outrageous part of the US exit tax: retirement savings held in both US and non-US plans are immediately taxed as if paid out in full — that is, at your top marginal rate of income tax — on the day you expatriate. Even in the probable common case that you cannot actually withdraw them for perhaps decades. No deferral is possible, and double tax from your home country when you do finally take retirement account withdrawals is extremely likely.
For comparison, the Canadian exit tax leaves retirement savings alone entirely. As it should.
Maybe some smaller Canadian banks would donate to ADCS:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/07/16/ffis-begin-to-complain-about-fatca-compliance-burden/
If the Credit Union organizations like CUNA and WOCCU (World Council of Credit Unions) in the US can support opposition to FATCA inside the US http://www.cuna.org/Stay-Informed/News-Now/Washington/CUNA,-World-Council-letter-precedes-passage-of-FATCA-amendment/ , why can’t the Canadian ones come out to support the efforts of the ADCS and the official opposition against FATCA in Canada?
Interestingly, there has still been no official general member notifications of FATCA in newsletters and general communications to members of larger credit unions in Canada like Meridian and Alterna – except for the (webpages – undated) that magically appeared – (some only on or after July 1st) has there?
It doesn’t surprise me when the CBA Banksters abuse their accountholders and depositors re FATCA, but credit unions are supposed to be member owned and pride themselves on having a different relationship with accountholders – who are also member/shareholders. The least they could have done in that regard was to be transparent that FATCA was coming.
Further to my remarks about the Canadian credit unions, we still don’t know how the FATCA IGA overrules the operations of Credit unions which are provincially regulated. And where are the provinces on that impingement on an area of provincial regulation and powers?
Another source of funding for this challenge might be from small businesses and partnerships in Canada – who don’t know that they and their accounts and assets are affected via a partner/co-owner (or investors?) with a US reporting obligation. I found this site http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/5325-us-law-could-erase-privacy-protections-are-you-affected.html , but there are no updates on it and the site contents is mostly restricted to registered members. Someone who knows the small-medium business angle in-depth might better connect with them to see if the organization might be willing to get the word out about the challenge. Also an IBS thread dedicated to Canadian small business and partnerships might attract more readers and participants from that sector?
I don’t want to hijack this thread by this aside, but in relation to trying to get others interested in this legal challenge and funding it or spreading the word;
I was trying to describe this business partner and business accounts and assets (and proprietary information privacy) angle of FATCA in Canada, and didn’t know if there was some additional aspect of exposure for Canadian franchisee owners if the parent company was a US corporation? I also needed a simpler primer and materials to use as reliable references to explain how a Canadian owned business inside Canada is deemed a ‘controlled foreign corporation’ in the eyes of the US if one or more owner/partner was a US citizen, Canadian-US dual, greencard holder, and anyone else deemed a ‘US taxable person’. What if an ‘angel investor’ in Canada is also a deemed US taxable person and invests in an otherwise Canadian owned and operated business? This is an angle that I am not familiar with because I don’t have experience with business issues, but it seemed to pique the interest of my listener – and I hope it will result in support of some kind – even if only in principle.
My situation is of a small business owner (50% owner) and unfortunately a dual citizen. I did contact the CFIB (Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses – we are a member) a few months ago, via email,but they did not seem to be to interested. At first, I think they did not really “get” what was going to happen, though my second email I feel they understood that this could have significant issues with small business owners. It is on their radar screen but not sure if they would lobby on our behalf.
@Fran
Thanks for doing that. Right now… we need to raise funds for the lawsuit so the time to lobby in my mind is over… its time to slap the canadian gov’t upside the head to make them realize… no… congress did not speak… but the citizens of Canada have…. So please… donate… help raise the money needed for this… As said before… the gov’t will use our money to defend this & we have to raise additional money just to do this….
@US_Person_Foreigner @Fran
It continues to be time to lobby. How will those know they should donate to ADCS if they are unaware of the issue and unaware of ADCS. Plus ADCS is not a one off donation but will likely require funding for some time.
Fran, please take the initiative and write several letters to the board members of CFIB, maybe include copies of relevant articles on the issue. There are enough Americans in Canada that they should flag this issue and implications in their newsletter to members. Their information should include reference to the ADCS website and call for donations.
@JC
I read it a different way… trying to get them to do something at the gov’t level… they won’t listen… but your suggestions are correct… that is a good way to do it…