[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).
Thank you for the guidance Pacifica777 …. wonderful statement.
Thanks for the post ADCS, Maryanne!
I can’t share Murray’s FB post on mine for some reason. Too bad.
I cannot get it to come out like it looks on his FB page but this is the text:
Facebook © 2014
News Feed
Murray Rankin
5 hrs ·
Some exciting news to share about FATCA!
Long before the Conservative government agreed to implement the American Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) in Canada, I heard from Canadians concerned about how the implementation of the law could hurt their pocketbook and their privacy rights. Regrettably, the Conservatives used an omnibus budget bill to push the implementation of this US tax law through Parliament.
I’m pleased to now be able to share the news that my former law partner, Joe Arvay, has launched a constitutional challenge to this law in the Federal Court of Canada. The many Canadians affected by this Conservative tax snooping law now have an able defender of their Charter rights and freedoms on their side in court.
As Official Opposition, New Democrats have worked hard in Parliament to try to block this controversial law, protect privacy rights and uphold our sovereignty. We knew that this law would harm the privacy of a million Canadians and was likely unconstitutional. But the Conservatives ignored expert warnings, forcing through bad legislation and triggering this constitutional challenge.
Are you concerned about how the Conservative tax snooping law could affect you and your family? Learn more about the citizens’ group that launched the initiative and how you can get involved at http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/.
https://www.facebook.com/MurrayRankinMP/posts/348097192006908
Anyone in Victoria.. Murry is having a coffee clutch tomorrow! Go shake that mans hand!
Murry Rankin
Official Opposition Critic for National Revenue
Official Opposition Critic for Pensions
Does Murray Rankin know that according to U.S. tax law that the United States considers Canadian pensions as “unqualified pension funds” and wants to tax these funds the same way they tax unqualified pensions in the U.S. > as if Canada is part of U.S. Territory! Why can’t he get Canadian pensions exempt from U.S. taxation in amendment to the Canadian-US tax treaty?
@JC – it’s because he’s the official opposition from a minority NDP party, against a majority Tory party in power (for now). Meaning he’s got no real say (for now).
Thank you Tricia Moon. I think that that will also advertise Rankin vs the Harper gang.
Fantastic interview, Gwen! Great job!
And fantastic articles! We’re finally on the editorial page of a major newspaper! About time!
Moderator: Feel Free to Move This (I don’t know where to put it)
Call me crazy, but for some reason I decided to hunt down what the bloody jurisdiction of the US to demand FBAR’s is anyway as these are at least 50% or more of the source of the threats of pain and suffering inflicted on Canadians and others with American connections.
The Act (31 USC c53 subchapter II) is the “Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act”. As with everything else in this stupid saga, it’s primary object is something completely different:
Purpose: “It is the purpose of this subchapter (except section 5315) to require certain reports or records where they have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings, or in the conduct of intelligence or counterintelligence activities, including analysis, to protect against international terrorism.”
Lest you should think s. 5315 hides some evidence of a higher or more specific intent directed at treasonous expats:
“(a) Congress finds that—
(1) moving mobile capital can have a significant impact on the proper functioning of the international monetary system;
(2) it is important to have the most feasible current and complete information on the kind and source of capital flows, including transactions by large United States businesses and their foreign affiliates; and
(3) additional authority should be provided to collect information on capital flows under section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 App. U.S.C. 5 (b)) andsection 8 of the Bretton Woods Agreement Act (22 U.S.C. 286f).
(b) In this section, “United States person” and “foreign person controlled by a United States person” have the same meanings given those terms in section 7(f)(2)(A) and (C), respectively, of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78g (f)(2)(A), (C)).
(c) The Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe regulations consistent with subsection (a) of this section requiring reports on foreign currency transactions conducted by a United States person or a foreign person controlled by a United States person. The regulations shall require that a report contain information and be submitted at the time and in the way, with reasonable exceptions and classifications, necessary to carry out this section.”
Obviously, one would have to be a contortionist to conclude that Congress had any intent to require reports of long-term non-resident alleged US citizens depositing their pay or pension cheques in Canada lest the fabric of Breton Woods or the global monetary system be undone!
Of note, however, is that the Secretary of the Treasury is granted authority to make regulations including making exceptions to carry out this section. So if the FBAR is founded on s. 5315, it clearly was not intended to catch routine banking of long-term non-residents and the Secretary of the Treasury had every invitation from Congress to draft regulations to ensure that their intent was carried out with out accidental by-catch.
I think the more likely authority for FBAR reports is found in s. 5314 however which reads:
“(a) Considering the need to avoid impeding or controlling the export or import of monetary instruments and the need to avoid burdening unreasonably a person making a transaction with a foreign financial agency, the Secretary of the Treasury shall require a resident or citizen of the United States or a person in, and doing business in, the United States, to keep records, file reports, or keep records and file reports, when the resident, citizen, or person makes a transaction or maintains a relation for any person with a foreign financial agency. The records and reports shall contain the following information in the way and to the extent the Secretary prescribes:
(1) the identity and address of participants in a transaction or relationship.
(2) the legal capacity in which a participant is acting.
(3) the identity of real parties in interest.
(4) a description of the transaction.
(b) The Secretary may prescribe—
(1) a reasonable classification of persons subject to or exempt from a requirement under this section or a regulation under this section;
(2) a foreign country to which a requirement or a regulation under this section applies if the Secretary decides applying the requirement or regulation to all foreign countries is unnecessary or undesirable;
(3) the magnitude of transactions subject to a requirement or a regulation under this section;
(4) the kind of transaction subject to or exempt from a requirement or a regulation under this section; and
(5) other matters the Secretary considers necessary to carry out this section or a regulation under this section.”
Note once again the purpose is a million miles from getting Gwen’s or anyone else’s personal routine banking data from their home jurisdiction. Indeed, given the mandate “to avoid burdening unreasonably a person making a transaction with a foreign financial agency” (i.e. any Canadian bank is a foreign financial agency), the Secretary of the Treasury had/has a positive DUTY to enact regulations to achieve Congress’ intent. Under that authority, the Secretary could exempt Canada outright, could have exempted citizens resident in Canada or any other treaty jurisdiction outright or any number of other simple devices to avoid over-reach and over-burdening US citizens resident abroad.
The Secretary chose not to do so in arguable violation of a pretty clear (to me) statutory duty. I would think it justifiable to classify this as another example of the hostile and malevolent attitude of that government to those who have declined the privilege of living within their blessed border. At what point does one elevate an inference of indifference and negligence as regards US citizens abroad to an an outright accusation of malevolence and misfeasance? When the matter is brought loudly to your attention (by the Taxpayer Advocate and ACA, for example) and you do nothing? When the statute imposes an explicit duty and purpose upon you and you ignore it? If the US Supreme Court justified CBT by reference to the mutual rights and obligations tying a citizen and government to each other, has that been severed by a hostile government going out of its way to impose harm? Just saying.
Important articles here, touches on many of the nuances and author has really tried to understand and convey situation for CANADIANS:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Douglas+Todd+persons+Canada+express+fear+loathing+crackdown/10118795/story.html#ixzz3ATKtAgu2
http://www.leaderpost.com/news/persons+living+Canada+fear+FATCA/10120360/story.html
RE: the two articles that Badger noted (both very good, BTW)
Ms. Matheson attempted to clarify her comments contained within those articles in the Vancouver Sun comment section where she wrote:
This may help to discredit the FATCA IGA, and the automatic ongoing reporting that the CRA is to deliver to the IRS, on grounds that the US cannot and does not sufficiently safeguard taxpayer information. This is related to an argument already made by Prof. Arthur Cockfield http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2433198 ‘FATCA and the Erosion of Canadian Taxpayer Privacy’
Queen’s University – Faculty of Law, April 1, 2014, Report to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Lack of privacy and data protection also noted here http://michaelpower.ca/2014/02/fatca-charter-challenge/ .
Certainly interesting to hear Conservative MPs explain away their unqualified ‘respect’ for the US ‘right to tax Canadians, and their support of the FATCA IGA terms when the US TIGTA continues to report that the IRS cannot even safeguard the taxpayer information they already have http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2014reports/201410037fr.pdf (and by the way, these contractors themselves owe substantial sums to the US IRS that have not been collected http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310082fr.pdf Some IRS Contractor Employees Owe Millions of Dollars in Federal Tax Debts http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/press/press_tigta-2013-34.htm
And Allison Christians writes that; ‘FBAR e-filing: violates Taxpayer Bill of Rights, challengeable under Haar’ Tuesday, August 12, 2014) http://taxpol.blogspot.ca/2014/08/fbar-e-filing-violates-taxpayer-bill-of.html
Then there are the continuing scams http://www.accountingweb.com/article/telephone-tax-scam-continues-rear-its-ugly-head/223741
“….The IRS and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) said on Wednesday that they are continuing to hear from taxpayers who have received calls from individuals participating in the sophisticated phone scam, in which the fraudsters claim to be from the IRS and demand money.
To date, based on the 90,000 complaints that TIGTA has received through its telephone hotline, the Treasury inspector general’s office determined that 1,100 victims have lost an estimated $5 million due to the phone scam….” http://www.accountingweb.com/article/telephone-tax-scam-continues-rear-its-ugly-head/223741
The case for the CRA sending info to the IRS and how that will definitely get screwed up is absolutely frightening. The CRA has caused nightmares to my Canadian friend who pays HST on a timely base. The CRA has lost his cheque 3 times. The CRA then charges interest on the cheque that has been lost in their mail for months. It is a common back and forth letter writing/mailing and frustrating encounter. Just imagine the mistakes they will make between Canada and the IRS. I cringe at their inability to conduct any sort of financial transaction. If they can’t get simple transactions what then?
@ badger
Awesome, as always, compilation there. I think people today have trouble grasping the enormous danger of large bundles of sensitive information passing through the internets. It’s bad when the information from one taxpayer’s paper form goes astray, maybe even gets into the wrong hands, but when an incomprehensibly huge block of data about thousands of taxpayers’ bank accounts goes astray in the process of being passed from bank to CRA to IRS to ???, then it’s a DISASTER. There is no fixing that kind of flustercuck.
@Embee, Arthur Cockfield made crystal clear at the CCLA Pathways to Privacy event in Toronto – funded by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, that already – even before the FATCA IGA, any data sent over the border into the US was subject to and vulnerable to the provisions of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security laws of the US. That means that already there was no recourse, no consent, no notice, no control, etc.
Now however, the Government of Canada has lent its official assent, and agreed to the automatic mass ongoing collection and forwarding of millions of Canadian citizen accountholder information forever and ever under FATCA – knowing what Prof. Cockfield knows – that the IGA does NOT provide any limits to what the US can do with the information. And the Harper government and CRA are not and cannot ensure that the FATCA or any other information they transfer to the US IRS is used ‘only’ for tax purposes. They can’t monitor it, they aren’t interested in doing so, and even if they were, the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and FATCA override everything. There is NO control over our data once the US gets it.
I am still interested in the comments of Privacy Commissioner Chantal Bernier in those Bill C-31 hearings re the FATCA section THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 13, 2014http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/412%5CNFFN/51431-E.HTM . I think it was significant. Reread it. For example, it is important to read what she does say as well as what she doesn’t. Her answers are very circumscribed and deliberate.
…….”Ms. Bernier: It is important to say with resignation that we have no jurisdiction when it comes to American policies. The United States is a sovereign nation and can therefore require people who stay in the United States to provide certain information.
I am counting on our Canadian negotiators to oppose any information request that would be abusive in the sense that it does not correspond to a demonstrated need. However, if despite all the efforts of Canadian negotiators, the American negotiators persisted in requiring certain information to enter or stay in the United States — the United States is a sovereign nation and as with any other requirement of any other sovereign nation with respect to visas and the personal information required to enter or stay there — Canada would unfortunately have to abide by it.”….
..”I would like the assurance, on the one hand, as I was telling the chair a minute ago, that all of the measures required to avoid the excessive collection of information will be implemented, as well as all of the measures required to protect the security of the information once it has been collected…”….
“….Ms. Bernier: What I’m trying to tell you is that there is a tremendous increase in surveillance capacity as well as appetite. This increase must remain faithful to the fundamental right of privacy, which means that as we adopt new measures that may be more intrusive to privacy, we must make sure they meet that legitimacy test. We must make sure that we have a demonstrated need, it is proportionate to that demonstrative need, it is likely to be effective and that there’s no less intrusive alternative.
We must never lose sight of that legitimacy test to make sure that we have a society that, through all its evolutions in relation to threats, remains both safe and private.
Senator Eaton: I’m sure you can explain something to me, Ms. Bernier, in following up on my colleague’s question. With FINTRAC, information is turned over to the IRS, but it seems that it goes through the CRA. I don’t quite understand how the CRA protects our privacy. Wouldn’t it be more efficient for banks and financial institutions to pass that to the IRS without going through CRA? What is the role of CRA in that?”
Ms. Bernier: The CRA is a Canadian institution.
Senator Eaton: Yes.
Ms. Bernier: Obviously I see the role of the CRA as an assertion of Canada’s sovereignty over the personal information of its nationals.
Senator Eaton: Will it edit or look at the information? What will its role be, apart from being Canadian? Is its role any more than symbolic or flag flying? Do they have a role?
Ms. Bernier: First of all, I think CRA should be asked exactly how they intend to play that role. What I understand from the analysis of FATCA is that the CRA will indeed give the information to the IRS. But we believe introducing the presence of CRA in that process, in fact, consolidates protection of the personal information of Canadians. ”
See also;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8NjUpngfxE
Standing Committee on Finance Meeting 35 re FATCA – May 14, 2014
@ badger
Ms. Bernier: … “What I understand from the analysis of FATCA is that the CRA will indeed give the information to the IRS. But we believe introducing the presence of CRA in that process, in fact, consolidates protection of the personal information of Canadians.”
When a farmer spreads manure over a field he doesn’t think for one minute it is less stinky simply because it is dispersed. Sending sensitive data through additional hands, in this case the CRA, does not make it more “secure”. It simply increases the chances for something to go wrong. The only reason the CRA was introduced into the FATCA data extortion ring was to falsely give it the slight scent of Canadian legality. Well it doesn’t. It stinks.
I agree @Em. Having the CRA involved lends the APPEARANCE of adhering to some kind of privacy and data control and thus lends the APPEARANCE of legitimacy to the FATCA IGA. And frees them up to deliver information that the FIs as private entities would be legally liable for, and perhaps legally prevented from delivering. It does NOT however do anything to control overreporting by the FIs (which Bernier already noted was a significant and pressing pre-existing problem) and doesn’t solve the problem of third party contractors the FIs can hire to provide FATCA compliance functions, and it also does NOTHING to protect the data once it crosses into the US and becomes subject to US laws and control. Bernier knows that.
What was and is really needed is a dedicated public grilling of the Privacy Commissioner on this issue, and detailed skilled questioning by experts in privacy issues and law. Then I believe much more would be revealed to the light.
As just published in Forbes:
8/15/2014
‘Dear Mr. President, Why I’m Leaving America’
Letter from a Canadian renouncing;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/08/15/dear-mr-president-why-im-leaving-america/
@ badger
I’d like to see more than just the Privacy Commissioner expertly grilled but that would certainly be a good start. You made a very good point about third party contractors. Those who offer the banks their newly acquired FATCA expertise and their newly developed FATCA software do not keep the data secure They simply enable the data transfer system or dys-system to operate. They drain the assets of the banks while the banks are forced to get fee infusions from their clients to compensate. Meanwhile all the little fledglings of the compliance condors are assured a high priced college education and substantial inheritances. I guess its obvious I don’t like FATCA enactors, FATCA enablers or FATCA enforcers very much.
@Embee,
re; “..I guess its obvious I don’t like FATCA enactors, FATCA enablers or FATCA enforcers very much.”
All predators set to picking at the flesh of ordinary law abiding people and families with US clinging status, courtesy of the US and the FATCA IGA signatory enablers. Like for instance this US transplanted vulture who had the gall to say to Parliamentarians; “…… The committee is likely going to be aware of rather jingoistic hyperbolic rhetoric admonishing Finance for ceding Canadian power, ceding sovereignty, and also encouraging Canada to stand up to FATCA..” http://data.parl.gc.ca/widgets/v1/en/intervention/8358745
I found an example of a significant counter to the FATCApologist Conservative MPs like Mike Allen, Mark Adler and the Conservative hecklers heard here http://youtu.be/ANqVaEpRi_4
Conservative MP Keddy tried to mischaracterize US extraterritorial tax obligations as well known and obvious to Canadian citizens and residents in Canada:
“……….Finally, I want to say there’s really some misleading information being put out here. U.S. citizens have always been applicable to paying taxes in the U.S. if they were following the tax regime of the U.S. Most of us have some U.S. relatives or U.S. family members or U.S. connection, especially if you live in Atlantic Canada. The reality is the difference here is no different from U.S. tax law. The difference is they’re enforcing the rules that have always been in place. If you’re a U.S. citizen, you have to comply with U.S. tax rules and you have to file income tax. It doesn’t mean that you’re going to pay income tax, but you’ve always been responsible to file. That comes with the duty of citizenship. We can like it or not, but it’s not up to us to make that judgment.” In defense of the FATCA IGA, Gerald Keddy pretends that the complexities of US extraterritorial CBT should have been well known to all affected http://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/41-2/39/gerald-keddy-1/
Well, let us compare that to the numbers of Canadians who the CRA has found don’t even know or understand the rules that govern the restrictions for using TFSAs – a common tax related issue;
This article http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/08/11/tfsa-withdrawal-rule_n_5667227.html shows that many Canadians don’t even understand the rules of their own domestic tax agency – for ex. the rules for TFSAs. So, how credible is it that Conservative MPs like Adler, Keddy and Allen should claim that those Canadians born dual, or who emigrated as minors, or who naturalized in Canada and lived here longterm should know US tax rules in general, or about FBARs or that Canadian registered accounts are considered by the US to be taxable or that Canadian mutual funds are treated as PFICs by the US, etc. etc.?
The TFSA article says of Canadians investing in TFSAs:
“….. this year 11,260 of them got the same warning package from the Canada Revenue Agency last year as well, figures provided by CRA show.
As of the end of last month, the agency had waived penalties for more than 17,000 Canadians who broke the rule in 2012. The average penalty waived was $516, or a total of almost $9 million.
And for the 2013 taxation year, more than 20,000 Canadians have already paid their penalties.
Taxpayers who received a TFSA warning package in the mail this summer were given 60 days to respond. Those who don’t respond get a notice of assessment, imposing a penalty.
A spokesman for the agency said the onus is on Canada’s banks and other financial institutions to make sure their customers know the rules.
“As with any financial or investment product, financial institutions have a responsibility to inform their clients of the details and restrictions relating to TFSAs,” said Philippe Brideau.
“The CRA continues to work very closely with the financial institutions to ensure that CRA information related to TFSA is well understood and known by the Canadian financial sector.”………….
So, when Conservative MPs like Gerald Keddy try to pretend that those in Canada should have known all about their ‘obligation’ to the US, it is clear that the average Canadian taxpayer doesn’t even have good knowledge about the Canadian tax rules, much less that of a ‘foreign’ country – which is what the US is to Canadian residents.
Any IBS readers who are also ACA members who could see if ACA will publicize the legal challenge and the international Human Rights complaint? I don’t see anything on their site.
badger,
I certainly hope ACA, FAWCO and AARO will publicize these efforts that will / should / can , hopefully, encourage other countries as well! Our Canadian efforts have other *US Persons Abroad* in mind no matter where they live outside the US.
Anyone else want to write a letter to Obama?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/08/15/dear-mr-president-why-im-leaving-america/
Wow, Badger. Thank you for posting that letter to “Mr. President” published in Forbes. That would have been a fantastic letter to add to our references in the United Nations Complaint! What a powerful statement.