Thursday, January 29, 2015
Responses to Questions on Canada’s Adoption of FATCA IGA
I note that there is a common answer to many of the questions: “Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old is considered a cabinet confidence and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.” Therefore, most of the answers are: you will find out in 20 years.Though the government continues to claim that it “followed the treaty tabling policy” and that it made procedural exceptions deliberately, according to stated procedures, and out of urgent need, the facts and the nonexistence of key documents declare otherwise.
Bottom line: if there is a treaty policy in Canada, it is that a sitting government can bind the nation to any agreement of any sort with no parliamentary oversight of any kind and with no transparency, and if that agreement violates existing laws and rights, then it will be up to those whose rights have been violated to mount legal action to assert those laws and get their rights restored. This is not just a matter of some arcane technical procedure. It is fundamentally a problem of access to justice. Law is not free. It is, in fact, quite expensive.
I note that all the answers below are from the Minister of Foreign Affairs except with respect to three answers from Finance, which are indicated in brackets.
ORDER/ADDRESS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
No. Q-816
By Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands)
Date November 24, 2014With regard to the Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America to Improve International Tax Compliance through Enhanced Exchange of Information under the Convention Between the United States of America and Canada with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital (the Agreement), the government’s Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament (the Policy), and the statement of Peter Van Loan, Government House Leader, in the House on Monday, April 28, 2014, that “in this case, the fact is that the government, the cabinet, actually did grant such an exemption to the tabling policy. As such, the very words of the policy, the
requirements of the policy, have been followed. The processes for obtaining the exemption were obtained. As a result, the requirement that it be tabled in the House 21 days in advance of the legislation being introduced is not necessary and the policy is fully complied with” (the Statement):(a)was an exemption to the government’s Policy granted with respect to the Agreement;
•Yes.
(b)what is the difference between an “exemption” and an “exception” in terms of the Policy;
• Either term could be used in the context of the Policy.
(c)if the word “exception” is substituted for “exemption” is the Statement accurate;
•Either term could be used in the context of the Policy.
(d)on what basis was the Statement made;
•The Statement was made because the Agreement was granted an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy.
(e)how was the Government House Leader informed of the exemption or exception being granted to the Policy;
•The Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (the “Department”) has no information on how the Government House Leader was informed,
(f)what documents or memos were created regarding this exemption or exception and what are their access or control numbers;
•Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act
(g) who was involved in this decision to grant an exemption or exception and at what stage were they involved;
•Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act
(h) what was the process, step-by-step, by which this Agreement was granted an exemption or exception;
•Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act
(i)who reviewed the decision to grant an exemption or exception, (i) when, (ii) why, (iii) how;
•Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(j) does the Policy apply to the Agreement, and how;
•Yes. The Agreement was granted an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy,
(k) between what departments does correspondence exist-regarding the tabling of the Agreement under the Policy and what are the file numbers for these documents;
•There is some correspondence between the Department, and the Department of Finance. There are no file numbers for the correspondence,
(l) on what date was the Agreement concluded;
•[Finance] The Agreement was signed and made public on February 5, 2014.
(m) on what date was the Agreement tabled in Parliament;
•In the context of the Policy, “If an exception is granted, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification.” (6.3b of the Policy), The Agreement was publicly tabled on September 15, 2014 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs as per Standing Order 32.2. That was the earliest opportunity for the Government to inform the House that Canada had agreed to be bound by the Agreement following its ratification – also the first sitting day of the House after the summer Parliamentary recess.
(n) on what date was the Agreement ratified;
•Canada ratified the Agreement on June 27, 2014.
(o) when was the House made aware of the text of the Agreement;
•In the context of the Policy, “If an exception is granted, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification.” (6.3b of the Policy)”. The Agreement was publicly tabled on September 15, 2014 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs as per Standing Order 32.2. That was the earliest opportunity for the Government to inform the House that Canada had agreed to be bound by the Agreement following its ratification – also the first sitting day of the House after the summer Parliamentary recess. Additionally, the text of the Agreement was set out in Schedule 3 to Bill C-31, the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which was introduced in the House of Commons on March 28, 2014.
(p) how was the House made aware of the text of the Agreement;
•[Finance] Legislative proposals to implement the Agreement with the U.S., including related amendments to the Income Tax Act, were set out in Part 5 of the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 (Bill C-31 ). The text of the Agreement was provided in Schedule 3 of Bill C-31. Bill C-31 was introduced in the House of Commons on March 28, 2014.
•In the context of the Policy, the text of the Agreement was publicly tabled in accordance with the Policy on September 15, 2014. Additionally, the text of the Agreement was set out in Schedule 3 to Bill C-31, the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which was introduced in the House of Commons on March 28, 2014.
(q) when was the House made aware of the granting of an exemption or exception to the Policy in the case of the Agreement;
•The House was first informed of the exemption through the Statement by the Government House Leader on April 28, 2014. In the context of the Policy, the House was made aware of the granting of an exemption when the Agreement was publicly tabled in accordance with the Policy on September 15, 2014.
(r) how was the House made aware of the granting of an exemption or exception to the Policy in the case of the Agreement;
•The House was first informed of the exemption through the Statement by the Government House Leader on March 28, 2014. In the context of the Policy, the House was made aware of the granting of an exemption in the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanied the Agreement when it was publicly tabled on September 15, 2014.
(s) when and by what means is the House usually informed that an exception has been granted to the Policy;
•In the context of the Policy, the House is usually made aware of the granting of an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy in the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanies the treaty when it is tabled publicly.
(t) in the absence of the point of order prompting the Government House Leader’s response, how and when would the House have been informed of the exemption;
•In the context of the Policy, the House would have been made aware of the granting of an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy in the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanies the treaty when it is tabled publicly.
(u) what steps and measures are in place to ensure that Parliament is informed of exceptions being granted to the Policy;
•The Policy states: “If an exception is granted, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification.”
(v) what steps are in place to ensure that Canadians are informed when exceptions have been granted;
•Informing Parliament publicly, as described under (u), is effective as a means of informing Canadians.
(w) what steps and measures are in place to ensure that Parliament is informed of exemptions being granted to the Policy;
•The Policy states: “If an exception is granted, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification.”
(x) what steps are in place to ensure that Canadians are informed when exemptions have been granted;
•Informing Parliament publicly, as described under (w), is effective as a means of informing Canadians.
(y) what does “urgent” mean in the context of the Policy;
•The term “urgent” is not defined in the Policy.
(z) how was the ratification of the Agreement determined to be urgent;
•The U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) was enacted by the U.S. in March 2010. FATCA requires non-U.S. financial institutions to report to the IRS accounts held by U.S. persons. Absent the Agreement, obligations for Canadian financial institutions to comply with FATCA would have been unilaterally and automatically imposed on them by the U.S. as of July 1, 2014. These obligations would have forced Canadian financial institutions to choose between (a) entering into an agreement with the IRS that would require them to report directly to the IRS on accounts held by U.S. residents and U.S. citizens, which would raise concerns about consistency with Canadian privacy laws; or (b) being subject to the 30 percent FATCA withholding tax on certain U.S.-source payments for not complying with FATCA.
The Agreement takes into account the objectives and provisions of the FATCA, while supporting Canada’s objectives for improving the integrity and fairness of the Canadian tax system. The Agreement addresses the Canadian concerns about FATCA described above, as well as others. It was realized that observing the Policy’s requirement of waiting 21 sitting days would have made meeting the U.S. FATCA deadline of July 1, 2014, unachievable. As a result, the ratification of the Agreement was determined to be urgent, and a request for an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy was granted.
(aa) who made the determination in (z), (i) how, (ii) on the basis of what information, (iii) with what authority, (iv) under what criteria;
•Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(bb) how was the decision in (z) reviewed, (i) by whom, (ii) how, (iii) when, (iv) by what criteria;
•Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(cc) who are or were the lead ministers with respect to the Agreement in terms of the Policy and how was this determined;
•The Minister of Finance is the lead Minister with respect to the Agreement. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is responsible for tabling treaties under the Policy.
(dd) when and how did the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the lead ministers seek approval from the Prime Minister for an exemption to the treaty tabling process;
•Approval from the Prime Minister was sought. Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(ee) when was the approval in (dd) granted and how;
•Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(ff) what correspondence is available -with file and control number- to corroborate the information provided in response to (dd) and (ee);
•Approval from the Prime Minister was sought. Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(gg) was a “joint-letter that clearly articulates the rationale to proceed with the ratification, without tabling in the House of Commons” created;
•No.
(hh) with respect to the letter in (gg), (i) who created this letter, (ii) when is it dated, (iii) how can it be obtained, (iv) who has access to it, (v) to whom is it addressed;
•No such letter was created.
(ii) was the letter drafted in consultation with the Treaty Section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the relevant Secretariat in the Privy Council Office;
•Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(jj) what documentation exists – with file or control number for each document – to corroborate the information provided in response to (ii);
•No such document exists.
(kk) who is responsible for retention and access of such joint letters;
•There are no special provisions for retention and access of such joint letters. Joint letters would be subject to the normal retention and access legislation, regulations, and guidelines for the Government of Canada.
(ll) with respect to the Agreement, were the responsible ministers and the Minister of Foreign Affairs aware early on of the need to request an exemption to the treaty process prior to obtaining Cabinet authority to sign a treaty;
•Yes.
(mm) how is “early on” defined for purposes of the Policy;
•The term “early on” is not defined in the Policy.
(nn) how is “aware” defined for purposes of this provision in the Policy;
•The term “aware” is not defined in the Policy.
(oo) was a request made in a Memorandum to Cabinet, seeking policy approval for the Agreement;
•Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(pp) what Memorandums to Cabinet exist relative to this agreement, (i) what are their dates, (ii) are they subject to privilege, (iii) who made them, (iv) what are their record or control numbers;
•The Department of Finance will respond to this question and sub-questions. Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act
•[Finance] Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old is considered a cabinet confidence and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(qq) which document in (pp) can be said to “clearly articulate the rationale for the exception to the treaty tabling process”;
•Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(rr) what is the rationale for the exception to the treaty tabling process with respect to the Agreement;
•The response in (z) outlines the rationale for requesting an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy.
(ss) who determines the rationale per the Policy;
•The rationale was prepared through consultations by officials on behalf of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of National Revenue.
(tt) what is an acceptable rationale per the Policy;
•There is no definition of “acceptable rationale” under the Policy.
(uu) how is rationale defined in terms of the Policy;
•The term “rationale” is not defined in the Policy.
(vv) is there a minimal level of sufficiency for a rationale per the Policy and if so what is it;
•There is no definition of a “minimal level of sufficiency” for a rationale under the Policy.
(ww) when was the exception granted;
•Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(xx) did the Minister of Foreign Affairs “inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification” per the Policy;
•Yes. The Agreement was publicly tabled on September 15, 2014 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs as per Standing Order 32.2.
(yy) when did the actions in (xx) occur and how;
•The Agreement was publicly tabled on September 15, 2014, which was the first sitting day of Parliament after the Agreement was ratified.
(zz) in 2014, how many exemptions or exceptions were granted under the Policy before the Agreement;
•In 2014, there were two exemptions granted under the Policy. The first was concerning the Agreement. The second was concerning the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement.
(aaa) in 2014, was the Agreement’s rationale for exception unique;
•Yes. The ratification of the Agreement was determined to be urgent, and a request for an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy was granted.
(bbb) in 2014, was the Agreement the only item determined to be urgent in terms of the Policy;
•In 2014, the Agreement was one of two items determined to be urgent in the context of the Policy.
(ccc) is the Government House Leader always informed of exceptions and exemptions under the Policy and, if so, how;
•The Department has no information on how the Government House Leader would be informed of exemptions to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy. There are no special provisions under the Policy to inform the Government House Leader of exemptions.
(ddd) is the House always informed of exceptions or exemptions under the Policy and, if so, how;
•In the context of the Policy, “If an exception is granted, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification.” (6.3b of the Policy).
(eee) how early could the Agreement have been tabled in Parliament;
•It was realized early on that observing the Policy’s requirement of waiting 21 sitting days would have made meeting the FATCA deadline of July 1, 2014, unachievable. As a result, the ratification of the Agreement was determined to be urgent, and a request for an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy was sought, and subsequently granted. Since an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy was granted, the Agreement was to be tabled at the earliest opportunity following ratification. This was done as early as it could have been when the Agreement was tabled, in accordance with the Policy on September 15, 2014. It should be noted that the text of the Agreement was also set out in Schedule 3 to Bill C-31, the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which was introduced in the House of Commons on March 28, 2014.
(fff) how was the date in (eee) determined;
•Since an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy was granted, the Agreement was to be tabled at the earliest opportunity following ratification. This was done as early as it could have been when the Agreement was tabled, in accordance with the Policy on September 15, 2014. It should be noted that the text of the Agreement was also set out in Schedule 3 to Bill C-31, the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which was introduced in the House of Commons on March 28, 2014.
(ggg) if the Agreement could have been tabled earlier in Parliament than the date in (o), (i) why was it not, (ii) what decisions were made in this regard, (iii) who made these decisions, (iv) how, (v) on what basis; and
•Since an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy was granted, the Agreement was to be tabled at the earliest opportunity following ratification. This was done as early as it could have been when the Agreement was tabled, in accordance with the Policy on September 15, 2014. It should be noted that the text of the Agreement was also set out in Schedule 3 to Bill C-31, the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which was introduced in the House of Commons on March 28, 2014.
(hhh) if the Statement could have been made sooner in the House than Monday, April 28, 2014, (i) why was it not, (ii) what decisions were made in this regard, (iii) who made these decisions, (iv) how, (v) on what basis?
•The Department has no information on this question.Reply by the Offices of the Prime Minister and the Privy Council
With regard to the Agreement, the Privy Council Office has no information in relation to part (ii) regarding a letter drafted in consultation with the Treaty Section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
This whole “dirty deal” that was created behind Canadians backs just might open the door to a revolution and complete rework of Canadian laws for our leaders. This whole deception of Canadians should never have happened.. It seems clear as how it was done. The leader in power simply hand picks his/her MP’s that are not seeking re-election and makes them the stooges. What do they have to lose? They will be paid for their services by their pensions. The fact that Canadians have no way to stand up to their government when their rights are violated, thanks to Harper removing funding for the people’s court and representation with removing the court challenges funding. This was clearly done to allow the government to do anything they want and never fear a court case. The average person cannot afford a legal challenge against the whole country’s taxpayers. I think there will be a huge problem for Canadians as this issue gets louder and louder even without the help of the mainstream media, who were silence by this government. The system has quietly changes and in a very bad way. The Fatca IGA is a clear example of how to get away with anything harmful to Canadians and not fear backlash. Thank you Allison Christians for all of your work and bringing these answers to the public eye. The people of Canada will decide once they learn what and how this happened.
Yes Minister !
This is an example of the failure of democracy. Citizens in the US and Canada need to get involved in the political process and become aware of the real forces at work with their implications towards human beings. If you have two to four hours to watch the “Stupid Bowl” coming up on Sunday, then you have a few hours per week to read, be informed and write your representatives. We must put the pressure on in volumes of letter, emails, faxes, phone calls!
Obviously the USA used Mafia intimidation tactics on Canada and all the other “sucker” countries who now have IGAs. This would explain much of what we see here in Allison’s writings here.
In the response to (z), the second part of this sentence sure has me baffled!
“The Agreement takes into account the objectives and provisions of the FATCA, while supporting Canada’s objectives for improving the integrity and fairness of the Canadian tax system.”
Its been awhile since I’ve emailed/mailed any government reps, but Stephen has re-inspired me tonight. I hope lots of you do the same! Yes, the lawsuit is important, but we cannot stop our bitching either!
Here is my latest to my MP John Baird:
I am writing to you about the FATCA IGA with the USA, that was signed by the Conservative government in Feb 2014.
I am very, very sad and totally disillusioned. I cannot believe I have lived in such an innocent state of unknowing for nearly 1/2 a century in that I thought Canada would protect ALL her citizens from foreign threats – not just a subset of them.
Apparently, I am a second class Canadian citizen. You really have no idea how horrible this feels unless it happens to you. It is a living nightmare that I stress about every single day. The last two Canada Days, I have found myself in tears. And if it can happen to me, it can happen to any Canadian.
I don’t remember the first 20 months or so of my life, which was spent in the USA while my Canadian parents lived there. I haven’t got an American bone in my body, but had the misfortune to be born on US soil. I’ve lived and worked only in Canada since moving back ‘home’ as a toddler.
Can you imagine the shock I went through just over two years ago, when I heard about FATCA and discovered that not only was I a delinquent US tax-filer, but was also required to report my Canadian accounts to the FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK every year? And worse, my own country was going to shine a light on me so that the IRS would have knowledge of my existence, along with the private details of my bank accounts, most of which are held jointly with my 100% pure Canadian husband. He was not too pleased to say the least, and this has caused big rifts in our marriage.
Please help Mr Baird. I have done nothing wrong, unless to be born on US soil is a crime. How was I to know all these years, that USA was unique in the world with its byzantine ‘place of birth’ taxation laws? I have paid all taxes ever owed to the Canadian government and have been a law abiding citizen and productive member of Canadian society for over 50 years.
I am seriously stressing out, and at age 52 this is not good for my health. I have NO IDEA what to do. I cannot afford the financial costs to get into good standing with the IRS (I estimate 15-20K as I have lots of low-value Passive Foreign Income Corporations (i.e. Canadian mutual funds), several RESPS (one for each of my 3 children), several small RRSPS, and a TFSA (all considered foreign trusts).
Although I thought I was being a responsible parent and adult, saving for my children’s education and my retirement, I have in fact caused nothing but huge problems for myself and family.
I am scared to death of the penalties that IRS will assess for my not reporting my and my husband’s so-called ‘foreign accounts’ to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which is what will happen when my financial institution reports me to the CRA under FATCA.
Did you know that the penalties for not filing FBARS (FOREIGN bank account reports) for my CANADIAN accounts are 50% of the value of the account for each of the last 6 years (i.e. 300% of the value of the account)?
Will the Canadian government take care of my husband and me after we hand over our life savings to the US government?
I would love to renounce US citizenship, but this does not relieve me of past compliance requirements for US tax reporting and FBARs, and in fact puts a red X on me for the IRS. Not only that, but renunciation is expensive! In 2008 it was free. In 2010 it was $450, and in 2014 it was raised to an unbelievable $2,350 (US collars). I believe Canada charges $100 to renounce Canadian citizenship and that it can be done by mail.
So basically, I am damned if I do, and damned if I don’t. There is NO painless way out of the mess I am in, yet I am just a decent person trying to live an average life. Why is this happening to me? Why is my government not protecting me? Why is it handing me over to the USA which will allow it to literally destroy me and my Canadian born spouse and children?
I don’t know which is worse – the threat of financial devastation from the USA simply for spending the first 20 months of my life there, or the horrible feeling that the ground I thought was beneath my feet all these decades was never really there! Sometimes, I think it is the latter – it is that soul destroying.
Please, is there someone in the Conservative party who actually cares about the millions of Canadians who are suffering like I and my family are, or is everyone just concerned about keeping their jobs and their pensions? I have truly lost faith in Canadian government.
Very sad second-class Canadian
Kxxxxxxx Pxxxx (name not withheld from Mr. Baird)
Nepean ON
Great letter, WhiteKat. You’re right, we should continue to show them we’re still here and still as angry with what the Conservative government has done to make us second-class Canadians!
MP John Baird — what kind of stuff is he made of / what will his response (if any) be — something decent or the Conservative party line?
@ WhiteKat
I’m speechless … it is that good … and sad.
@ WhiteKat Great letter. I just wish one MP would “get it” and educate the others. Mine did not respond to my letter, neither did Stephen Harper or Joe Oliver. We can only hope that they at least read them. What a sad situation so many of us are in. Who would have ever thought we could be “attacked” by a foreign country within our own country and that our country would not protect us.
@WhiteKat
Your letter says it all!
It’s free, so we should blitz them! All of them in every province, just not our MP!
WhiteKat, glad to be of inspiration, great letter, inspire everyone to continue writing your representatives, post, email, phone, go to their local offices! Have had many good experiences with much effort and the more people actively participating will send a clear message. Canadian Born Citizens, Dual Citizens living in Canada must be protected under law. Period.
And of course, the Government will have to answer the upcoming litigation RE: “Charter Challenge”!
Previous generations would have used pitchforks in response to this kind of stonewalling by our government. Shame on them.
Anyone…. Is there anyone who could produce an equivalent analysis for any EU country that could help drive any future EU-based legal challenge (equivalent to the ADCS)? This will be much more difficult to mobilise across a range of legal systems, cultures, and language barriers (in Canada, even French + English seems to have made the ADCS process more cumbersome). So sound preparation is even more important. Any ideas? Could Professor Christians advise? Prompt? Anyone with any contact with her?
@steven arvay
When it comes to football I could not agree more! We here in the USA and–dare I say it–in Seattle no less–will celebrate a second victory. But our minor happiness cannot compare with the Canadian joy of turning off the TV confident in sharing with @calgary411 true supremacy in the football universe in the form of the Calgary Stampeders.
@KingOfTheRoad
No way when it comes to Europe. Isaac Brock draws in close border energies. The only possible equivalents would be on the Mexican side…Tijuana etc.
@King of the road.
We’re pretty much f%cked here in Europe when it comes to organizing. For what it is worth, at least in Canada there is a solid legal front forming (thanks mainly to this website, bravo!). Meanwhile the countless US expats scattered about the EU are each fighting (or more likely surrendering) from scattered, isolated foxholes.
Here in Switzerland I’ve made contact with a Swiss fellow who is trying to set up an organization that will be able to put together a war chest to take on the banks in court. Swiss banks have absolutely given in to FATCA and almost seem to enjoy working for the IRS. I mentioned in a previous post how they are (illegally) locking accounts of so-called US persons until “compliance” has been demonstrated. This can be fought case by case in Swiss court but it needs lawyers, and lawyers cost big money.
Anyhow, the idea is to get this organization built up with paying membership and when adequate funds are available then go on the offensive. This could go fast, it could go slow, it could never get off the ground.
Meanwhile expats are feeling beat down and demoralized, and who can blame them. A great many have just given up and think the whole idea of organizing is hopeless. Just about every expat is thinking “if my own damn host country won’t fight the IRS/ US government then just how the hell am I supposed to take them on.”
Though FATCA has pretty much kicked us all into a whimpering pulp at this point I don’t believe the war is lost. This isn’t a rah-rah speech but I firmly believe it’s worth it to fight and especially attack the banks. The banks are the ones who sold the IGA’s to their respective governments and it’s the banks that should be attacked in the courts relentlessly. If it gets painful enough for the banks then maybe the banks will use their influence to get the politicians to rethink the wisdom of the IGA’s. Maybe I’m being naive with that theory but we can’t just lay down and lose everything without a fight. In every single way FATCA has become personal. America is waging a hideous, unjustified war on seven million of its’ own citizens. The saddest realisation for me is that I am not surprised.
The one area where the EU can match the US is in the World Trade Organization. CBT and much of international taxation in general has been, at times quite explicitly, about controlling the flow of U.S. money into Europe and not necessarily just the tax havens. Look at the original CFC laws which in the early 1960s treated all developed countries as if they were tax havens for no good reason. Maybe ex-US persons and spouses of U.S. persons in Europe could write to MEPs to have the EU check whether all the changes to U.S. taxation concerning U.S. individuals have conformed to the commitments the U.S. made under the WTO regarding financial services. O.K., it’s narrow, but I have read that the WTO has a dim view of the U.S.’s extraterritorial taxation regime and also that under the WTO the U.S. was not supposed to increase the barriers to foreign financial services after a particular date (sometime in the late 1990s, but couldn’t find the year), which I would think that the U.S. seems to have done. Didn’t they enormously increase the PFIC taxes to punitive levels? I would think that that would count.
@WhiteKat
Thank you for sharing your story and letter. It is very personal. It must be sent and herd. I hope the following will help it impact.
I am thinking that your MP gets lots of letters. So then how best to make it and key points stand out. Like a news item you might put a headline in there that would be memorable and sums it all up in a nutshell. Let me try a few:
The Terror of the FATCA IGA : The Canadian Government Does Not Care About Canadians
The Terror of the FATCA IGA: The Canadian Government Not There to Help Citizens
The Terror of The FATCA IGA: Canadian Government Full Ostrich
FATCA IGA : Canadian Government Acts as The 51st State and Ignores Terror of its Citizens
Canadian Government Supports Terrorism of its Own Citizens, via: FATCA IGA
These may be more memorable/impactive. You might use bold, bring up the font size, and add a bit of colour.
Your letter appears a bit long. You might bold a few key points.
You might consider bringing in a few legal points such as Canadian Charter.
Call to action: What action do you want?
How about asking for Please Help By: Publicly Supporting the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/
All the above may dilute the personal story appeal of your letter. Isaac Brockians will likely read the whole letter – yet the expectation may be a skimming speed reader in the MP’s office, and lets hope that that person gets lots of these letters and reports this fact to the MP.
You might add something about that you are so traumatized that you are highly likely to be single issue voter and vote for any party who champions Canadian Sovereignty and stands for Canadian citizens against the extraterritorial FATCA IGA.
To Expat Eric & Publius:
Here in the UK, duals seem to have accepted things with a sheeplike docility. I’ve met one who’s hopping mad and wants to do something. Expat Eric’s war chest at least gives some kind of lead, or centre for rally. I’d contribute, as I’ve contributed to ADCS. And Publius’ comments on getting to the WTO are terrific. I’d like to see at least a petition, but if you put your name to something you’re on the IRA’s (oops, meant the IRS) hit list. We EU duals must get our ducks in a row, i.e., a central lead like the Brockers.
Just how does this jive with the Harper government’s once promise of increased transparency and accountability?
Is a majority government that can answer questions like these were answered really part of any country’s democracy or has it crossed the line into tyranny, no longer accountable to the persons who they now rule?
Did the Harper Conservative government answer these questions independently or was the US the puppeteer pulling the strings on how Harper and his Con MPs must answer such questions?
@Expat Eric & Help
There are people beginning to try and tie their efforts together. You can email me at
nobledreamer16 at gmail dot com
Mr Hsu has invited all to go to his FB page and speak their minds. Some Brockers have already gotten into the discussion.
This is what he has to say about the government response:
Government “responds” to my FATCA question
Posted on January 28, 2014 by emily
Hi,
Sorry for the long post but I’m hoping someone here can answer a few questions about small business ownership for Canadians who are U.S Persons for Tax Purposes. I’m not self-employed but I’m trying to plan for retirement and won’t be able to live on pension alone. So thinking of doing something on the side.
Part 1:
If you’re a USPFTP and you start your own business, no sales or connections to the U.S-
Does your business have to pay US taxes?
Do you have to report all the business financial information to the IRS?
Does owning your own business put you in a more costly category of US tax payer even if you earn less than the $96k threshold (is it still that low)?
Or, is it all simply about complicated reporting issues and not so much about owing more taxes?
Part 2:
If a Canadian who is not a USPFTP invests in your business-
Does that investor now become a USPFTP?
Do you have to report that investor to the IRS as having an invested interest?
Must the investor report their investment to the IRS?
Sorry for so many questions but it seems like there are significant implications to all self-employed Canadians who are also American, and their investors. If it’s as bad as I think it is then I might try to contact organizations which represent small businesses in Canada and educate them.
Thanks for your time,
XLCH
Above my pay grade but…. the accounting costs and headaches for a USPFTP probably preclude starting a small business in Canada. my understanding is that the financials of the small business flow through to the owner.
The investor who is not a USPFTP would not become one.
Professional; advice recommended