2,221 thoughts on “Canadian FATCA IGA lawsuit: November 1, 2014 legal bill will be paid on time! / Poursuite canadienne contre la FATCA et le gouvernement canadien : nos frais légaux du 1er novembre 2014 seront payés à temps !”

1. “–Am in Chicago to meet this week with Republicans Overseas friends to compare notes on respective FATCA lawsuits.”

   None of us are getting any younger. I hope the Republicans are serious and not all talk, but no action.

   The emancipation of expats is an idea whose time has come.

2. @Phil

   I notice that people seem to be avoiding the question of whether they personally are willing to resist US law. At least that is the sense I’m getting.

   But it is a question that cannot be avoided because Canadian courts cannot change U.S. law. They cannot change U.S. law with a Supreme Court ruling in five years; they cannot change U.S. law with an injunction tomorrow. If the U.S. doesn’t change its law (of course some are working to ensure the U.S. does change its law) these so-called “US persons” will still be tax evaders in the eyes of the U.S. And they will have to find the courage within themselves to personally, individually, resist U.S. law.

   Of course all things being equal an injunction would be better–why wait five years if you can do something tomorrow?

   I find the attitude that 99% are going to end up complying anyways a bit discouraging. The reason I find it discouraging is that I fear those 99% will comply whether the Canadian courts act tomorrow (through an injunction), act in five years (through a Supreme Court win), or never act (through a Supreme Court loss). Then what is the point? A court victory–whether it happens tomorrow or in five years–is completely hollow and doesn’t really defend Canadian sovereignty if in the end 99% simply end up dancing to Uncle Sam’s tune anyways.

3. @NativeCanadian

   “Until this is defeated in court, we are left to protect ourselves.”

   Agreed and that is why people need to resist at an individual level by refusing to let anyone call them a US person–in addition to supporting the lawsuit.

4. @Joe Blow

   “None of us are getting any younger. I hope the Republicans are serious and not all talk, but no action.”

   I’m growing concerned on this point as well. I’m hoping some tangible news will emerge out of this week’s discussions regarding the lawsuit on the US side. I did eventually get a reply last week from Solomon saying, among other things, that he needed plaintiffs. I immediately replied offering to be a plaintiff but have heard nothing more. Also their website is still not up. The last tangible thing regarding progress towards a US lawsuit is from back in April.

5. @Dash1729 please provide that website address so I may watch for it as well.

6. @JC

   Hi it is:

   https://www.fatcalegalaction.com/

   Over the last week it has changed from a stub blog site to a password protected site–so I hope that means that someone is actively working on it behind the password and it will soon be available to the general public. But I still think news on the US front is overdue at this point–plus fighting this on the US side might relieve some of the pressure in Canada to actively defy the IRS that I referred to in my earlier posts.

7. @Dash1729 We might get some ideas from https://www.fatcalegalaction.com/ for ADCS.

8. @Dash, “Agreed and that is why people need to resist at an individual level by refusing to let anyone call them a US person–in addition to supporting the lawsuit.”

   Pre-FATCA, I made it a point to never discuss my US Past. If someone even casually called me an American, I quickly told them I was no longer and that my nationality was equal to their own. I never used anything that had US Indica to open any accounts. In fact, even pre-fatca I suggested to anyone who referred to me as anything other than my resident nationality that they were being racist and asked if they said the same things to Asians or Africans.

   As a note, I opened a new account post July 1. I stated that the place of birth question was discriminatory and was told that I did not have to answer that but did have to answer citizenship which I did. I then proceeded to answer all other questions truthfully based on my understanding in my country of residence. They then made copies of non-indica ID and was welcomed as a new customer.

9. @Dash, here are some core questions which relate to your stance which I think is correct.

   1.) Is a naturalised Canadian Citizen resident in Canada who relinquished their US/Other Citizenship and ceased exercising any privilieges or responsabilities of being a US Citizen, a US Citizen whilst resident in the territory of Canada? The Canadian Government has never answered that question and their unsigning of the 1930 Nationality Convention muddied the waters.

   2.) Is a Canadian Citizen by descent that was born in the USA who is resident in Canada and exercises no privileges or benefits of US Citizenship, a US Citizen whilst resident in the territory of Canada?

   First, I do not believe that the opinion of the US Government applies to the above two questions. Only Canada can answer that question.

   Second, I would tend to say based on international norms that the above two cases solely represent Canadian Citizens. Why? The above two cases would be illegal migrants if they were US Citizens!!

   Third, I do think US Citizens who are landed immigrants in Canada are essentially screwed because they in fact ARE recognized as US Citizens in Canada.

10. George: Thank you for taking the time to do the calculation you reported in your Aug. 4 comment at 10:08. You have made a stunning analysis of the situation in Britain that can be extrapolated to the rest of world.

11. —Spoke to Republican Overseas (RO) today about their FATCA lawsuit.

    RO is still very serious about lawsuit, expects to have FATCA website up in a few weeks, and has already retained attorney Jim Bopp who is now sorting out plaintiff possibilities.

    RO has already raised some funds but soon will begin a major fundraising drive for monies to pay the litigation costs.

    —RO confirmed that it opposes global FATCA as well and and considers it “likely” that RNC will pass kill CBT resolution later this week.

12. @Stephen

    That is good news indeed!

    So now the question is, how to get ADCS-ADSC fundraising into high gear?

13. That is good news.

    As for ADCS-ADSC fundraising I personally have been trying to contact anyone I know,or know of, who may be affected by FATCA (including Canadians who live in the US and a US Person in the UK). I often have been met with perplexing silence. I have been able to get some family members and in-laws to donate but in general it’s been an uphill battle. With FATCA now an official reality and the initiation of the legal challenge hopefully awareness will increase.

    My attempts to get a personal essay type of article published in the Globe & Mail were not successful but I haven’t given up on the National Post yet.

14. @Stephen Thanks for the update. Let’s hope for RO CBT “kill” resolution passage this week.

    I am also hopeful about the Human Rights Complaint. And while I have not seen it I hope that it will have language enough to assist in implication of the Australian government in the matter. There is not any press here this year on the controversy of FATCA and CBT. Yet I hope the Human Rights Complaint will spark some interest.

    At some issue: Australia’s Privacy Act, which thwarts the discharge of personal information to foreign tax bodies, when complying with the new reporting obligations. The Racial Discrimination Act could be breached, as US account holders alone are being targeted.

    Then we have the Australia-US Tax treaty, which like most for other countries, does not shield from double taxation broadly defined. Any new US taxes get put on top such as the Obamacare investment tax.

    It is just wrong to get annual gains of my pension taxed at U.S. marginal rates – and for Australia to allow this contradiction to its policy to encourage savings for retirement, while also not allowing withdraws from the pension to pay the US tax liability, or allowing complete withdrawal to avoid the U.S. tax on the pension as the money would be better off in regular investments where there is some relief in terms of capital gains concessions and break on dividends.

    The tax treaties should be amended to shield from changing U.S. laws and taxes.

15. @George

    Agree with all your points.

    Here’s something that I find a little ominous:

    http://travel.gc.ca/travelling/publications/dual-citizenship

    It says “This publication is currently being updated. A new edition will be available soon.” And it was updated just before FATCA came in. I’m wondering if the new version–when it comes out–will significantly downgrade the status of “dual citizens” of Canada/US in Canada. In the past the whole concept of one country enforcing the laws of the country of dual citizenship over and above its own laws would have been ludicrous but I’m wondering what updates are being planned.

    It is ludicrous to suggest that the primary nationality of any Canadian citizen resident in Canada would be anything other than Canadian.

16. @All

    I apologize for making post #1040 in this thread. Likely not anyone’s favorite number although of course filing a 1040 is only one of the worries of a “US person” abroad.

17. @Dash, I saw that as well a couple weeks ago and my mind went into overdrive.

18. Joe,

    We may not be in high fundraising gear but we are moving into “higher” territory. See my revised post above mentioning a kind repeat donor who today has committed to paying 1% of $100k just prior to EACH of our quarterly due dates (Only 99 more and…).

    Anyone out there willing to pay for our auditing costs? We want to reserve every penny for litigation costs. We may have a donor willing to pay for our accounting fees, but need someone to fund the auditing. No takers today and I will ask again.

    The last month was spent entirely on legal strategy and plaintiff issues. The ADCS website has just been updated and revised somewhat. We welcome criticism but please be gentle.

    Mr. A, please keep trying to spread the word.

19. @Dash
    I have just the opposite sense regarding people willing to resist the law. I believe there are many more than seems readily apparent.

20. Native Canadian says:  Until this is defeated in court, we are left to protect ourselves. Unfortunately, that is the way it is for now …

    To phrase the notion more concisely:  Sauve qui peut!

    PS —  I’d emend “until” to read “unless” [ being a Jarndycian heretic within this sect ] … and even then …

21. @Stephen If ADCS is setup as an audited nonprofit corporation, this should be broadcast and clear and may help provide assurance for donors. (Yet better have to a non USP as signator).

22. @ Dash You are 100% correct. We are CANADIANS here. It doesn’t matter where we came from, we are looking to be treated as Canadians period. We will do nothing here. They will have to prove there is a US taxpayer in my family I will send in any and all donations to ADCS I can to see this government that committed TREASON be fried in court. My only wish is that we can get punitive damages paid as someone has to pay for the “terror” caused to my family because of this….

23. Description of the climate seems relevant to our Charter Challenge — and why, in my mind, the Charter Challenge is so important:

    CBC News, August 7, 2014: Analysis Harper government’s legal setbacks suggest strategy of confrontation — Legal conflicts reveal a clash of beliefs about how Canada should work

    A legal cold war

    “There’s something different about the Harper government,” says Emmett Macfarlane, who wrote Governing from the Bench, about the Supreme Court’s role in Canadian democracy. He says the top court has long been known to complement, not fight, Parliament.

    Edgar Schmidt agrees that something is wrong, and he would know — he was the general counsel for the legislative branch at the Department of Justice, until he became a whistleblower and was suspended without pay in late 2012.

    He filed documents in December of that year accusing the department of working under “faint hope” — approving legislation even if it has a “combined likelihood of five per cent or less” of being upheld by the courts.

    He argued that Ottawa has a duty to introduce charter-compliant legislation — or, at least, tell the public when legislation doesn’t pass the test.

    …
    At a constitutional conference in July, he (Canadian Bar Association past president, Simon Potter) argued that if Parliament continues to be “headstrong” instead of co-operative, “then the system eventually breaks. That’s where we’re headed if we don’t get this fixed.”

    Macfarlane says the insistence on grinding the branches of government against each other betrays not just the Conservatives’ long history of distrusting the Constitution, but also a will to pick populist fights.
    …
    Looming legal battles?

    Some other recent legislation that may face court challenges:

    Bill C-13: Cyberbullying: This reincarnation of an earlier “cyber-snooping” bill would reinforce sections of the law allowing police to get Canadians’ data without a warrant. The Supreme Court has ruled that unconstitutional, but MacKay has no intention to amend it.
    Bill C-24: Citizenship: Arguably the most controversial immigration change the Conservatives have introduced, this law gives the minister the power to strip dual citizens of citizenship if they’ve been convicted of certain crimes. The Canadian Bar Association was up in arms over the bill.
    Bill C-36: Prostitution: While government lawyers say the Supreme Court will rubber-stamp their effort to criminalize the purchasing of sex, some 220 lawyers say that the bill contradicts the Supreme Court’s logic in the Bedford case.
    Bill C-14: Not Criminally Responsible: Critics are confident they’ll defeat this law, which would create a designation of “high risk” for offenders found to be not criminally responsible. The bill could mean that offenders are held in detention indefinitely.

    I will comment on Bill C-31.

24. Thanks for posting this, Calgary411. My husband and I were just yesterday talking about Harper’s mental problems. It’s just a matter of time before the big cracks show up in his party.

    There was a big meeting in Squamish yesterday between government officials and business owners concerning the issues around changes to the Temporary Foreign Workers Permit. John Weston told the concerned parties to not be going to the press about what transpired at the meeting. Can you believe it? Seems Mr Weston wants to be thought of as the Fed’s “point man” for the TFW permit issue, just as he personally told me he was the “point man” for issues concerning USP’s in Canada and FATCA. We know where that went. These people are just plain creepy.

25. Bubblebustin,

    Creepy indeed!

    John Weston told the concerned parties to not be going to the press about what transpired at the meeting.

    My comments to this article (out of moderation):

    Looming legal battles? Part 1 of 2:

    Please include Omnibus Bill C-31, that was hidden in this Budget implementation bill and legislated implementation of the US FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) to waive rights (discrimination by national origin and loss of privacy rights, among other) for approximately one million “US Persons in Canada” and their spouse, their children, their business partners. Bill C-31 made Canada’s “foreign financial institutions” arms of the US IRS. Persons designated *US Persons in Canada* become second-class to any other Canadian no matter what their national origin or the national origin of their parent(s). US Persons in Canada include children born in Canada to US parent(s) and children born in the US to Canadian parents but who returned with their parents when they were infants or children. The US taxes on citizenship. The rest of the world (except Eritrea which both the US and Canada condemn for its CBT) taxes based on residence. This has more to do with penalties for not filing for persons ignorant of the regulation rather than actual taxes that would be owed to the US. For most this requires the hiring of expensive US tax and accounting professionals. (The persons sought *originally* with US legislation, FATCA, would be persons RESIDENT in the US but sent untaxed funds offshore.) For *US Persons in Canada*, our Canadian banks, credit unions, insurance companies are not “foreign financial institutions*. They are the financial institutions that we use for our daily living requirements, including rent, mortgages, groceries — and savings for education, disability and retirement.

    Looming legal battles? Part 2 of 2:

    http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/

    Our Constitutional litigator: In April of 2014 we announced our intention to proceed with litigation against the Government of Canada, challenging its right to enact the U.S. FATCA law on Canadian soil. As a result of your support, we are delivering on that promise.

    The Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty (ADCS-ADSC) has retained Vancouver B.C. constitutional litigator Mr. Joseph Arvay and his team at Farris Vaughan Wills & Murphy to represent us in the lawsuit.

    For anyone concerned about the loss of sovereignty of Canada and the over-territorial reach of the US into Canada, a cost to all Canadians, please become informed and help make this Charter Challenge happen.