[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).
@ADCS: Great news! My warmest thanks to ‘anonymous donor and @Laura Secord’ for this initiative in the US to help the “accidentals”. I wish them much success.
And ongoing thanks to Stephen and all who make ADCS happen, for your extraordinary work, courage, and leadership. You inspire hope where there had been so little before. Bless you all!
Another “twig” will soon be on its way from me, to add to the ADCS dam so vividly described by Embee….
Surgite!
@Bullwinkle, The definition of “Accidental American” that we used in the press release was only general. The criteria that will be used in our legal approach are to be determined and will be very specific.
@EmBee, My thoughts on the treaty: The U.S. overrides the “treaty” whenever it wants by simply passing domestic legislation. When it does so, it routinely violates a treaty provision by not even informing Canada, as a courtesy, that it has passed legislation contradicting the treaty. CRA will not now collect taxes for the IRS if the person was a Canadian citizen etc…. Let’s say that the U.S. threatens another sanction (this time a whopper of a sanction) on Canada if CRA does not begin to collect taxes AND not filing penalties for the IRS. How do you think our Government of Canada will respond?
The definition of accidental Americans should be as wide as possible because nobody has the ability to choose the nationality of their parents or the country where they are born.
The only non-accidental (purposeful) Americans are those who naturalize and take an oath to become a US citizen.
@ Stephen Kish
Sadly the PCs have already shown us how they will respond. That’s a cold thought to wake up to, not to mention the 3 inches of snow we got overnight. It doesn’t help that yesterday I listened to a podcast discussion about what form WW3 might take (it could be more economic than nuclear) and read more about the strong possibility that we are entering a mini ice age era. Brrrr! ADCS and the other legal challenges must be successful or I will find myself wondering if they will be able to heat prisons during an ice age and the economic hardships of a world war. Not to put pressure on Misters Arvay, Butera and Bopp … not much anyway.
If you are from PEI and willing to speak to CBC about FATCA let me know at:
http://www.adcs-adsc.ca
@Stephen Kish Needless to say, I did not receive a response.
The Honourable Kerry-Lynne Findlay Mar. 3, 2014
607 Confederation Building, House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Dear Ms Findlay,
In announcing the Feb. 5, 2014, signing of the Canada-U.S. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) on FATCA on the Department of Finance website, you are quoted as saying,
“This is strictly a tax information-sharing agreement. This agreement will not impose any U.S. taxes or penalties on U.S. citizens or U.S. residents holding accounts in Canada. The CRA does not collect the U.S. tax liability of a Canadian citizen if the individual was a Canadian citizen at the time the liability arose. This includes dual Canada-U.S. citizens. That will not change under this agreement.” – Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, Minister of National Revenue
Your quote is true only so long as Article 26A of the Canada-US Tax treaty remains effective.
Tax Law Professors Allison Christians (McGill University) and Arthur Cockfield (Queen’s University) in their Mar. 10, 2014, submission to Finance demonstrate that the current IGA constitutes a treaty override accomplished by unwarrented threat of economic sanctions.
In other words, acceptance of this IGA has shown the US how easily they can accomplish a treaty override against Canada’s government by coercion.
The TC in FATCA stands for “Tax Compliance”, not “information-sharing” as your quote might mislead yourself to believe. Information-sharing sets up the obvious Step Two in the US Tax Compliance program.
The US isn’t after “information” for information’s sake. Information is their key to a massive wealth transfer out of Canada when we capitulate yet again.
I am writing to ask what your government will do when (not if) the US confronts Canada with a bigger gun to our head (say, 50% withholding) demanding an override of treaty Article 26A, making the CRA a collection agency for the IRS?
Your considered response would be appreciated.
Your standing up for Canada now against this IGA would be even more appreciated.
Sincerely, Shovel
Thank you, Shovel.
I will / we all should keep these points in the forefront in our discussions with any candidates wanting our vote for government office.
What adequate response to any of our correspondence have any of us received from the Conservatives. These MPs DO NOT at all represent so-called *US Persons* Canadians. Their arrogance will never garner another vote from me.
@Shovel
I’ve written to Minister Findlay on two occasions and received a response from her on both, but that was earlier on and before the commencement of legal proceedings. Could be she’s being inundated with letters from PO’d constituents.
Don’t you think that the Canadian government, among other despicable things, is being disingenuous with both the US and Canadians by agreeing to hand Canadians over to the IRS, while telling Canadians ‘not really’? Isn’t this referred to as ‘playing both sides against the middle’?
@calgary411
What adequate response have we received from the Liberal Party? I’ve recently written to my Liberal MP advising him that I want to know how the Liberal Party plans to deal with the FATCA IGA if the get into power in the next election. I wrote that I have not heard anything about their stand, though I’ve seen some minor support from two MPs.
I explained that though I don’t want to see the Conservatives in power again, I refuse to vote for any party that does not take a stand against FATCA and support the Charter of Rights and Canadian sovereignty.
Has anybody received any response from the Liberal Party?
@Bullwinkle
“The only non-accidental (purposeful) Americans are those who naturalize and take an oath to become a US citizen.”
As a naturalized US citizen myself, I strongly disagree with this characterization of naturalized US citizens–at least when it comes to the topics typically discussed on IBS.
Becoming a naturalized US citizen has no–zero–effect on someone’s status as a “US person” for tax and FBAR purposes. The reason is that anyone who becomes a US citizen has already been a green card holder for many years–and hence fully subject to all the provisions of FBAR, FATCA, and CBT. Moreover, in most cases before becoming a green card holder, they have likely lived in the US and are already considered a “US person” for tax purposes. It is true that at the present time there is a $450/$2350 fee to renounce US citizenship, but as yet (AFAIK) no fee to check out of green card status. However a green card holder is considered a “US person” and the USG could introduce a fee to check out of that status at any time–and I suspect they will if current trends are allowed to continue.
In many cases people who are now naturalizing as US citizens moved to the USA years ago before FATCA existed and before CBT and FBAR’s were well known–and they didn’t know what they were signing up for any more than people leaving the US necessarily knew that the US would still claim them as citizens.
Becoming a US citizen affects certain things–especially the ability to vote–but it has no bearing on alleged tax obligations as a “US person” which are already long established by the time they become a citizen.
I myself was a “US person” for tax purposes for 21 years before becoming a US citizen. During most of that time, I had no idea of what the full implications of “US personhood” under FATCA would eventually mean–although I did hear about CBT relatively early in my time as a “US person”.
I became a US citizen by choice, but “US personhood” for tax purposes was a status that was imposed on me through no choice of my own.
@Kathy
A bit of good news is that the Liberal candidate in my riding has asked me for a few words the Liberal Party can use as a policy statement. I’ve been working on it with a few other people and we have now submitted it to the Liberal Party. Stand by!
@Bubblebustin
That is wonderful….. I hope it will be a great help to get the LIberals on our side.
Kathy,
I haven’t seen or heard an adequate response from the Liberal Party. I am told “they are working on it” — not good enough for me. I appreciate that they are “working on it” but that shows me no commitment that will give me confidence. I have not seen anything regarding FATCA, the IGA that implemented it in Canada or how so-called *US Person* Canadians will be protected in this, their own country.
I understand that the funds to retain Mr. Buterra were somehow separate. I also understand how unfair the new Berlin Wall is. Perhaps we should call it the Homeland Wall.
However, if he were to recommend another lawsuit, in the US, it would be incredibly expensive and would take resources away from the primary fight here in Canada. Ask Jim Jatras how successful he has been at raising money. He has been trying for several years but we don’t hear too much from him.
‘FATCA/CBT: See You in Court ‘
http://thefranco-americanflophouse.blogspot.ca/2014/09/fatcacbt-see-you-in-court.html
New from Victoria.
Victoria,
Thanks for posting the ADCS-ADSC press release in our two official languages!
@Bubblebustin
That game works for the Conservatives only until the US (having the information) makes its move to collect.
Harper sees that day as distant enough for himself. It won’t be him capitulating to hand over the money.
Not sure where to post this one, but an ex-pat bank closure posted over at bogleheads.org.
http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=146568&p=2185624#p2185624
Thank you so much Badger for putting up the Flophouse link.
Stephen, You have NO idea how much pleasure I took in putting your press release up on the Flophouse. It was the BEST news and I am just thrilled, delighted and filled with appreciation that this is happening.
Bon courage, mes amis!
Tell Congress you will ask the Kenyan government to pass a law imposing an income tax on every Kenyan citizen regardless of residence, and another law declaring everybody born outside Kenya to a Kenyan parent to be a citizen of Kenya and thus subject to the law.
How will they like it when President Obama has to tell Air Force One pilots to be careful not to fly over Kenya so he doesn’t get arrested for tax evasion? The Hawaii birth certificate he released says his father was born in Kenya.
What if the Kenyan government won’t give him permission to renounce Kenyan citizenship?
@Tom Alciere
Not a nice thing to do to Ethiopia, which would then have two neighbours practicing CBT. If Canadians think it is bad enough having one neighbour practicing CBT, imagine what two such neighbours would be like?
I just noted the following comment at the Flophouse link:
Anonymous said…
Great post, Victoria.
I think another “victory” that should be highlighted is that win in court from that Swedish or Danish citizen who took his bank in court for closing his account.
I can’t find the link, but that is great jurisprudence. It should be more publicized.
September 10, 2014 at 12:35 AM
If this is true this seems like a very important development and one that should be getting more attention than just a single comment. Can anyone confirm this comment?
@Dash1729
>I became a US citizen by choice
When confronted by the fact you would be subject to lifelong taxation because of holding a green card too long, that if you give it up you face the exit tax and that when you die a limited marital exclusion would take away a bunch of your money. Is it still a choice?
@Dash
The comment on Victoria’s blog was probably referring to the Dutch case brought against Binckbank.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/04/14/dutch-board-for-the-protection-of-human-rights-rules-against-fatca-nationality-discrimination/
Dash1729,
“As a naturalized US citizen myself, I strongly disagree with this characterization of naturalized US citizens–at least when it comes to the topics typically discussed on IBS.”
Point taken. I strongly disagree with any kind of special carve out for so-called “accidental Americans,” whatever the term means.
We are all in this mess together, that is, everyone with US taint who lives outside the Homeland.