This article on our ADCS-ADSC Canadian FATCA IGA lawsuit came out on August 20, 2015.
I have now received permission from Bloomberg BNA to post it on Brock:
“Reproduced with permission from Daily Tax Report, 161 DTR I-1 (Aug. 20, 2015). Copyright 2015 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com.”
This article is interesting as it largely takes our lawsuit seriously. Unfortunately, none of “us” (Ginny and Gwen, our supporters harmed by the Canada-U.S. FATCA IGA) were interviewed.
THE BLOOMBERG ARTICLE:
“Canada Court Ruling Could Put Brakes on FATCA
2015-08-19 23:53:39.983 GMT
BNA SnapshotDevelopment: Federal Court of Canada due to rule on the validity of Canada’s intergovernmental agreement to facilitate FATCA financial reporting.
Takeaway: Practitioners predict a ruling for the plaintiffs would spur challenges around the world.
Next: Ruling expected by Sept. 30 [Hopefully before September 13; SK].
By Peter Menyasz
June 19 — Tax authorities and practitioners around the world are awaiting a Canadian court’s ruling on the legality of Canada’s legislation to comply with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (Hillis v. Attorney Gen. of Canada, Federal Court of Canada, No. T-1734-14, oral arguments, 8/5/15).
The Federal Court of Canada is due to issue by Sept. 30 a ruling on the validity of the intergovernmental agreement on FATCA between Canada and the U.S., which mirrors more than 100 IGAs the U.S. has reached with other jurisdictions (221 DTR I-3, 11/17/14).
The ruling will address the preliminary issue, addressed in oral arguments Aug. 4-5, of whether information exchanges authorized by Canadian legislation to implement the IGA are consistent with the Canada-U.S. Income Tax Convention. The court will rule later on the constitutional validity of Canada’s legislation to implement the IGA, which is the lawsuit’s main thrust.
Storm Ahead?
If the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, the Canadian government will undoubtedly file an appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal, but in the interim, the ruling will “throw the brakes” on FATCA’s application in Canada, Roy Berg, director of U.S. tax law with Moodys Gartner Tax Law LLP, told Bloomberg BNA in an Aug. 18 interview.
The court could also find the IGA partially inconsistent with the tax treaty, leaving the door open to appeals by both sides. Even if the court supports the government’s position, an appeal is likely, Berg said.
In addition, the court has indicated it will likely issue only a bare order, with reasons to follow later, leaving uncertainty over the details of its finding, and regardless of this ruling, the constitutional challenge will remain to be heard, he said.
The Canadian challenge is being watched carefully in the other jurisdictions with IGAs in place, and success by the Canadian plaintiffs could lead to a string of challenges, particularly as the treaty-based arguments would apply in a number of jurisdictions, he said.
Additionally, Berg said that if the Canadian lawsuit is successful, it could put at risk Canada’s ability to participate fully in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s common reporting standard. The Canadian government committed in its budget for fiscal 2015-2016 to implementing the OECD standard in July 2017, with draft legislation to be introduced during 2015 (77 DTR I-3, 4/22/15) .
“Potentially, the storm is coming,” Berg said.
Practitioners Awaiting Outcome
Alexander Demner, a partner in the Toronto office of Thorsteinssons LLP, agreed Aug. 19 that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would be “extremely significant,” effectively striking down the IGA and forcing Canadian financial institutions to choose between reporting directly to the IRS and paying the full 30 percent withholding tax on payments received from U.S. payors.
That would also mean that Canadian taxpayers’ other accounts, including registered retirement savings plan accounts and tax-free savings accounts, would lose the exemptions provided in the IGA and would be reportable to the IRS, Demner told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“The result could potentially be disastrous,” he said. “Canadian banks could find themselves in an untenable position, and one which could have serious economic repercussions.”
Roanne C. Bratz, a partner in the Montreal office of Stikeman Elliott LLP, agreed Aug. 19 that a ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor could be seen as support for similar legal challenges in other jurisdictions. “Of course, the basis for the Canadian judgment would be key in determining the extent of such jurisprudential support,” Bratz told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
In any event, there will be significant uncertainty regardless of the outcome of this first ruling in the Canadian lawsuit, she said. “Whichever side is victorious at first instance, it is certain that appeals will be filed, so a realistic final determination is not imminent,” she said.
Bratz also noted the lawsuit in the U.S. filed by Republican presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) that challenges the validity of FATCA-related IGAs signed by the U.S. with Canada, the Czech Republic, Israel and Switzerland (135 DTR K-4, 7/15/15).
Veronika Chang, head of the U.S. law practice group with Toronto law firm Morris Kepes Winters LLP, suggested Aug. 19 that while a ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor would invalidate Canada’s IGA, it would not affect the underlying requirements imposed by FATCA.
The ruling could inconvenience Canadian financial institutions and potentially spur similar court challenges in other jurisdictions, but that won’t help Canadian taxpayers, Chang told Bloomberg BNA in a telephone interview. “At the end of the day, I don’t see it changing much,” she said.
Details of Tax Treaty Implications
The first portion of the lawsuit addresses the arguments by plaintiffs Virginia Hillis and Gwendolyn Deegan, dual citizens who were born in the United States, that the requirements in the IGA for provision of account holder information to the IRS is more extensive than permitted by Articles XXVI-A, XXVII and XXV of the bilateral income tax treaty.
They argued that only a tiny subset of the information collected by the Canada Revenue Agency from Canadian financial institutions would be legally disclosable under the treaty and that the information would not provide any benefit to the IRS, demonstrating that coverage of Canada under FATCA was unnecessary.
It is impossible to guess on which side of the case the ruling will land, but there is a reasonable chance that the court could “bite” on the plaintiffs’ arguments, Berg said.
“Taken at face value, the plaintiff’s position would greatly limit the exchange of information contemplated by FATCA, which the defendants argued could not reasonably be what Canada and the U.S. intended when they entered into the IGA. The defendants proffered the counter-argument that under Canadian law interpreting a tax treaty is different than interpreting a statute,” Berg said.
The main portion of the lawsuit argues that the Canada-U.S. IGA, signed Feb. 5, 2014, violates basic freedoms guaranteed by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the unwritten constitutional principle against forfeiting sovereignty to a foreign state.
Federal lawyers countered that the IGA’s provisions are constitutional because they don’t cede sovereignty, and if they do violate Charter rights, the infringements are justified to relieve Canadian financial institutions and their clients from the “crippling” consequences of non-compliance with FATCA.
Canada’s Model 1 IGA relieves Canadian financial institutions from having to file reports directly to the IRS, instead reporting to the CRA, which would then provide the information to its U.S. counterpart. That eliminates concerns about compliance with Canadian privacy laws and protecting the exchanged information under Article XXVII of the bilateral tax treaty.
The IGA also clarifies that Canadian institutions aren’t required to report on certain classes of accounts, exempts smaller deposit-taking institutions from FATCA reporting requirements, exempts Canadian institutions from mandating closure of client accounts and provides simpler rules than those in FATCA.
To contact the reporter on this story: Peter Menyasz in Ottawa at correspondents@bna.com
To contact the editor on this story: Rita McWilliams at rmcwilliams@bna.com
The above story appeared in:
Daily Report for Executives
Daily Tax Report”
— HERE IS COMMENTARY ON THE ARTICLE BY USCitizenAbroad:
@Stephen Kish
Thanks for posting this article and I agree with your statement that:
This article is interesting as it largely takes our lawsuit seriously. Unfortunately, none of “us” (Ginny and Gwen, our supporters harmed by the Canada-U.S. FATCA IGA) were interviewed.
The article reveals a “FATCAnatic Tax Practitioner” perspective of the situation. The article and comments reported are a testament to how far the @ADCSSovereighty FATCA lawsuit has achieved. The FATCAnatics are VERY CLEARLY taking the lawsuit seriously.
This important piece of wisdom comes to mind:
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi
First they ignored us – no question about that …
Think back to the early days. Think back to the protests. Think back to the Bill C-31 Committee hearings.
Then, they laughed at us …
As I recall, in May 2014, certain Conservative MPs (in the final stages of the Bill C-31 hearings) were actually laughing at the harm inflicted on certain Canadian citizens.
In August of 2014 when the lawsuit was filed, various tax practitioners and MPs (and others) took the position that they lawsuit was ridiculous and laughable. I remember comments to the effect that … “What the plaintiffs don’t see” or “What the plaintiffs don’t understand is …” Some even suggested that the plaintiffs were admitting to CRIMINAL Acts. Imagine, Canadian citizens and residents are criminals because they are not filing forms to the United States Government. Right …
Now, the are clearly fighting us …
Oh yes, the Government is fighting tooth and nail. I believe it was also posted on Brock that various U.S. tax practitioners were actually in the courtroom in Vancouver (what were they doing there anyway?) Even the “tax practitioner” quotations in the above article seem to allow for the possibility that we will win. To quote from the article:
It is impossible to guess on which side of the case the ruling will land, but there is a reasonable chance that the court could “bite” on the plaintiffs’ arguments, …
And then we win! Yes, its true
The tax practitioners quoted NOW recognize that the true impact of this lawsuit extends way beyond Canada. Think of it! This lawsuit providing the road to 100 countries who have signed Model 1 IGAs being shown the road to freedom. Yes, this is serious indeed. To quote:
The Canadian challenge is being watched carefully in the other jurisdictions with IGAs in place, and success by the Canadian plaintiffs could lead to a string of challenges, particularly as the treaty-based arguments would apply in a number of jurisdictions, he said.
Actually, we may have already won. It’s just that we have to wait a bit longer for a formal notification of our victory. That notification will come. I don’t know the date or the context but it will come.
Thanks again for posting this:
“The world according to the FATCAnatic Tax Practitioner” article.
@usxcanada I point out that Bopp won the case on campaign finance in front of the Supreme Court. Right or wrong, high powered legal with successful track record is always good to have on one’s side. That victory has allowed super PACs in the US to raise truck loads of money for Republican candidates to the point where the Republicans will be able to majorly outspend the Democrats in the upcoming election.
A bit of bluff and chutzpah is helpful for the ADCS cause. Agreed a David v. Goliath endeavor. Yet the rebel group overcoming the odds and the “powers that be” is quite an attractive theme in Hollywood – and has an appeal to the populace. So the story is good as well as the cause just.
Yes, it can happen. The “little guy” can win against the banks and we know the Harper government does not have a great win record at the Supreme Court of Canada.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/supreme-court-rules-against-banks-in-highly-watched-class-action-case/article20687980/
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/scoc-harper-gov-scorecard-741324
@BG, “When reading the actual document my understanding is it would allow the US to collect TAXES, PENALITIES and INTEREST from US citizens abroad through local tax agencies?
Does anyone know about this issue and how it works?”
The US Congress knows how it works and prepared a report on your exact question dated Feb 21, 2014.
Link is here;
https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4550
Go to DOCUMENT (not pdf) Page 3.
Essentially, the USA lodged a reservation that they would do all kinds of things in support of this!!! The USA will/shall allow foreign powers to use the US Mail to serve documents on tax matters.
To revoke that reservation would clearly require the 2/3 of the US Senate.
Conclusion? Other than the FIVE countries in which the USA has a collection treaty with, they are unable to collect other than sending nasty letters and if that does not work, they shall send another one!!
I agree with @Deckard that the 30% is an empty threat vis a vis Canada/US, Germany/US, UK/US and many others.
@Barbara, shutting an Andoran bank out of swift is not going to cause a blip in global financial markets.
Our friend Deckard and others are absolutely correct that the 30% would cause a disruption on financial flows back to the USA in the form of interest payments and dividends.
@JC, your government does have many tools. They could finally demand mirror reciprocity requiring all USA FIs to ask place of birth, maybe even parents place of birth, citizenship, dual citizenship and a perjury statement that you are not a Canadian Citizen. THEN the Republican of Ireland needs to insist on the same with their forms!! AND Greece needs to demand the same thing…………………….all on their own forms.
I want to see Billy Bobb be given a form in Greek and have to sign under threats of perjury.
Also your government could require that the IGA be passed in the US Senate so that they have assurance it has the force of US Law.
And lastly the information exchange itself….you get our DVD when we get yours…..
@BG, “I mentioned the Canada lawsuit and they said the knew about it and feel that the Canadian Government will win.”
Seriously, what do you expect them to say?
The rational of NZ Treasury to pass the IGA was the same as Canada!!
If they had told you they felt Canada was going to lose they would have admitted that their own logic was flawed and likely illegal!!
All these Governments “took legal advice” and the reality is that the legal advice was built on a house of cards. All subsequent government legal advice was based in principal on the prior government that signed.
Once a single IGA falls, then they ALL fall. I think Berg senses that and though you might not like him, he is a smart man. He is wed to the IGA solely because he can make money off it, not that he believes in it. Once you have a guy like that admit the “judge might bite” he smells smoke and where there is smoke there is fire.
I now believe that there will be a FATCA 2, but version 2.0 will be to correct the problems in version 1.0 and it will require Senate confirmation as a treaty.
Right now I have little doubt that Moodys (Berg) are working behind the scenes with the Government to determine if there is a plausible Plan B based on what may happen, can you make a purse out of a sows ear. There may also be talks at higher levels with US Treasury people on IGA amendments.
@USCitizenAbroad, “My prediction is that FATCA is going to force a complete revaluation of what “citizenship” is. FATCA and CBT are making it clear that “U.S. citizens” are actually the property of the United States. ”
I was along that path when I relinquished a decade ago but much farther along that path now.
It should also force governments to revaluate citizenship as well and bring the Master Nationality Rule front and center.
Case in point, if the IGAs had referenced the Master Nationality Rule, this litigation would not have moved forward.
@George
You mention “FIVE countries in which the USA has a collection treaty”. Which 5 are those? For the benefit of readers in those 5 countries, what is your outline view of the effects on them (with regard to the possible/probable practical impacts of FATCA) versus those expected to hit readers living in the other ~195 non-US countries.
(If anyone else has knowledge on this matter, please pitch in!)
@All
Part of the OECD model which many countries have signed has the following ”Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters” which allows power of collection between countries through local tax authorities.
Quoting from the web page “The amended Convention provides for all possible forms of administrative co-operation between states in the assessment and collection of taxes”.
http://www.oecd.org/ctp/exchange-of-tax-information/conventiononmutualadministrativeassistanceintaxmatters.htm
When reading the actual document my understanding is it would allow the US to collect TAXES, PENALITIES and INTEREST from US citizens abroad through their resident country tax agencies?
Has anyone else looked into this and do you have a better understanding?
@bg, YOUR QUESTION WAS CLEARLY ANSWERED.
@KingOfTheRoad:
andy05 wrote this on 21 August 2015: “Last I looked there were reciprocal tax collection clauses in the U.S. treaties with Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Sweden and in estate tax treaties with France and South Africa. But only the one with Canada was operational.”
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/08/18/with-such-an-amazing-group-its-simply-not-possible-to-not-succeed-thanks-from-adcsovereignty/comment-page-2/#comment-6406288
@King of the Road, the countries are France, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands.
IBS has clearly exhausted the ins and out vis a vis Canada.
I have not looked at the other four as they do not impact me at all.
I would suggest to anyone that the read the JCT document in full as there are interesting bits and bobs in there. Essentially the USA has done nothing in regard to it since the original ratification. They “sign” updates which simply gather dust never being ratified by the Senate.
Whats the Texas expression “All hat and no cattle.”
“the countries are France, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands”
UNITED STATES – JAPAN INCOME TAX CONVENTION
ARTICLE 27
(Mutual Assistance)
(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this article, each of the Contracting States shall endeavor to collect such taxes imposed by the other Contracting State as will ensure that any exemption or reduced rate of tax granted under this Convention by that other Contracting State shall not be enjoyed by persons not entitled to such benefits. The Contracting State making such collections shall be responsible to the other Contracting State for the sums thus collected. The competent authorities of the Contracting States may consult together for the purpose of giving effect to this article.
(2) In no case shall this article be construed so as to impose upon a Contracting State the obligation to carry out administrative measures at variance with the regulations and practices of either Contracting State or which would be contrary to the first-mentioned Contracting State’s sovereignty, security, or public policy.
@Norman tthat standard clause is not what we are talking about
You should read the 2014 jct. Report
Will the media NOW start to understand how abusive FATCA / CBT / CRS are …. and that they are not merely looking for “tax cheats”.
The misguided imposition of FATCA is something that in years past would have resulted in a shooting war. Such violence is not acceptable today yet FATCA is still an act of war on the entire world. The world needs to state publicly to the US that such action is not acceptable.
@Norman quoted:
UNITED STATES – JAPAN INCOME TAX CONVENTION
ARTICLE 27
(Mutual Assistance)
(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this article, each of the Contracting States shall endeavor to collect such taxes imposed by the other Contracting State as will ensure that any exemption or reduced rate of tax granted under this Convention by that other Contracting State shall not be enjoyed by persons not entitled to such benefits. The Contracting State making such collections shall be responsible to the other Contracting State for the sums thus collected. The competent authorities of the Contracting States may consult together for the purpose of giving effect to this article.
Norman, that is emphatically not a reciprocal (or mutual) collection of tax clause. It’s a typical tax treaty “limitation of benefit” clause.
The list I provided (as I think I said) is some years old. The guru on this subject, and on extradition for tax crimes, is Bruce Zagaris but much of his writing is in the proprietary media rather than law reviews so it’s not always easy to get access.
In any event, last I looked only the US-Canada clause was operative. France has a number of agreements within the former French Community but the courts blocked enforcement out of concern over corrupt foreign courts — something the European Union should think about.
Come to think of it, maybe Canada should too, but it won’t. I have seen so many judgments where the court has refused even to entertain the thought that some other judge might be corrupted or influenced. Yet every litigator has come up against the risk that a Wall Street law firm might intimidate a judge by suggesting that he might, or might not, get a profitable sinecure after retirement. The easiest way for a judge to accommodate such a threat is procedurally, especially when the target (losing) client lacks the funds for an appeal.
Watch the film “Woman in Gold”. A good lesson in that, and also in a successful workaround. Nobody but nobody thought the Supreme Court would rule in Altmann’s favour: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-13.ZS.html But it did, as did the lower courts, and that despite the Legal Advisor of the State Department arguing against. By the way, the ruling related to retroactive application of law, in this case the FSIA. Nobody thought that arbitration in Vienna would yield a decision for the claimant but it did, unanimously. $330,000,000 worth.
Maybe grounds for hope over FATCA in the Canadian courts.
Coming in late to the party, so haven’t digested all the very very good comments and observations. Only have had time to skim.
I thought at least to repeat prior observations made about the privacy issue – for example, at the CCLA Pathways 2 Privacy Symposium 2014 (scroll down to listen to the talk given by Arthur Cockfield, Queens University, “The Privacy Implications of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).” Panel Four (audio) at https://ccla.org/pathways2privacy/
It is already well known (and can be proven in the public record) that our Parliament and the Cons and the CRA have been told, and know very well that the US Patriot Act will apply to any of the information that crosses into the US. They have been told by fellow MPs, Prof. Cockfield, etc. ( ex. https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/41-2/34/prof-arthur-cockfield-1/ and https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/41-2/39/nathan-cullen-11/ ). The fact that the reporting FIs and NON-FIs pass the personal and financial data to the CRA – and THEN to the IRS does NOT protect the data from the US Patriot Act – and dissemination and use of the data without notice or recourse. NOR does the IGA do anything robust to ensure that the data is used ‘only’ in congruence with the provisions of the Canada US tax treaty, as the CRA’s tepid assurances acknowledge https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/41-2/39/brian-ernewein-15/ https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/41-2/39/brian-ernewein-15/ , despite the Cons trying to sell it to us ( ex. MP Mike Allen https://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/6/11/mike-allen-4/ and countered by Liberal MP Dubourg https://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/6/11/emmanuel-dubourg-3/ ). Read ALL the exchanges during that debate to see how the Cons and the CRA made assurances to Parliamentarians as to the end uses and control of our Canadian data which at best were ‘aspirational’, and at worst were willfully false.
AND, as we know, the US uses the ‘last in time’ clause to overrule any agreements it has previously made. So when reference is made to the end use of the information for ‘tax purposes’ only, the US can define that however they want to, and change it whenever they want to, without notice to Canada. We have already seen how the Obamacare tax on investments was applied to expats, and how we narrowly missed being subject to the Obamacare tax itself, despite it having no usefullness to the healthcare of those outside the US. The Canadian government has not even done anything to counter that or the application of US extraterritorial taxation to our registered savings (TFSA, RDSP, RESP), or to capital gains tax on the sale of our family home, or the punitive treatment of Canadian mutual funds, etc. – obvious evidence that the current Canada US tax treaty is full of gaps that allow the US to significantly harm Canadian citizens and residents – but which the Cons have chosen to use our own taxpayer revenues and public institutions (CRA, Justice dept., Parliament) to maintain at all costs the pretense that it ‘protects’ us – a fiction that they now extend to the IGA. As a projection of how they ‘protect’ Canadian citizens and taxpayers, that does not bode well for how they intend to act re the OECD CRS.
So, the FATCAnatic compliancers AND our Canadian government and the CRA know full well that there is effectively NO control over our Canadian source data once it crosses into the US – no matter what the tax treaty and supporters of the IGA pretend. And FATCA as designed and legislated by the US never contemplated limits to how the data could be used and shared did it? Nor did it contemplate any recourse or notice.
That the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the federal government (and the US compliancers in Canada) know and have been told about the privacy issues is clearly in evidence here:
“……As previously noted by Canadian policy reports from the Office of the Privacy Commission of British Columbia and other privacy commissions, any personal information about Canadians that is sent over the U.S. border may be accessed by U.S. authorities under the Patriot Act, without a warrant or notice.27 Tax information provides another source of information that the U.S. government could use for anti-terrorist or anti-crime purposes even if no crime has been committed in Canada…..”
Footnote 27 reads; “27 See David Loukedelis, “Privacy and the USA Patriot Act: Implications for British Columbia Public Sector Outsourcing” (October 2004), online: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/special-reports/1271.”
from;
Cockfield, Arthur J., FATCA and the Erosion of Canadian Taxpayer Privacy (April 1, 2014). Report to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, April 2014. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2433198
If you haven’t already, I urge all of you to read the whole paper it comes from, as well as this one co-authored with Allison Christians;
Christians, Allison and Cockfield, Arthur J., Submission to Finance Department on Implementation of FATCA in Canada (March 10, 2014). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2407264 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2407264
The issues raised by Cockfield will have implications for future issues raised by the ADCS lawsuit re constitutional rights, and also, as basis for similar complaints if brought in other jurisdictions like the EU where IGAs have been signed, but who may have greater privacy protections than Canada does (ex. see MEP in’t Veld re SWIFT http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/ttip-documents-could-be-made-public-after-eu-court-ruling-303288 and US attempts to gag the EU https://euobserver.com/justice/127142).
Thank you for the valuable links and insights, Badger.
@andy05, “The list I provided (as I think I said) is some years old. ”
Your list is fully confirmed as of February 2014 by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) report of which a link was provided.
Cheers,
@Badger:
Thanks for your post and links. VERY important information which we all need , if it is not already burned into our brains when we witnessed it first hand as it happened.
For those who are unaware, it is vital fundamental information destined to have profound ramifications as we move through to the Charter challenge.
I think that with each inch that is won with FATCA, the next inch to conquer will become easier. With each new rule, the extension of that rule will become easier. So if for now taxes are not collected, then sometimes in the future the next step to collect taxes will become easier to implement. We can just extrapolate from there to complete transparency which I think is that governments want. Somebody who lives says in Berlin and is hiding an account in the Caymans will then please the german government by having the Caymans collect for them. There will be nomore hiding. Of course- those are countries with RBT. CBT is what is unjust to the core, along with the draconian penalties.
CBT is unjust to the core, no doubt about that.
Every other country except Eritrea has RBT.
Complete transparency IS what governments want, in particular the UN who through their G’s ( G8 now G7, G20, etc) intend just that. Their use of RBT is only to simplify their methods of confiscation.
While we fight FATCA and IGAs they work very hard to implement step by step the mechanisms that will move beyond the control of sovereign nations and their courts and Constitutions and Charter of Rights to their own mechanism for world reporting and confiscating of assets. This is NOT about taxes. That is the excuse. It is about all the knowledge necessary to implement wealth confiscation on a deliberate and all encompassing scale. The looting of the Nazi’s have nothing on this OECD scheme. Coupled with that is the banking cartels, intent on looting countries assets in the name of debt reduction.
Then we have the TPP which will seal the deal for corporations worldwide to operate in any venue on the planet and if countries complain or seek restitution through the courts, they will be taken to a world tribunal made up of lawyers to determine what a country will pay a corporation for upsetting or interfering with their profit margin. Real or perceived. And the tribunal’s rulings CANNOT be appealed!
So, they are coming at us from all sides.
Giants of underhanded and stealth measures to enslave innocent individuals and families because they just have not got enough or deem they ever need to curtail their insatiable thirst for money and power.
Yet, it IS the lawsuit that has the potential of hitting this Goliath right square between the eyes.
And once down the giant is much easier to kill just as David knew and did.
@Furious
A truly Orwellian future….
@Polly : ” A truly Orwellian future”
ONLY if we let them get away with it.
Our lawsuit IS the shot heard round the world for FATCA and IGAs.
Especially if we win!!
Did ANYONE consider that the colonies had a snowball’s chance when THAT shot was heard around the world?
No. But they DID recognize that there are times and places and people who , having had QUITE enough, fearing for their families safety and security and a life without the shackles of The King or government MUST take action. They did. We just did.
They did not fathom the outcome. Nor do we.
They did what they thought was right and needed for their survival. So have we.
This is so insidious an evil we need all the resources we can muster including prayer and steadfast resolution.
We pray for our leaders in this effort and for ourselves to continue the fight until we have victory over any and all forms of oppression and attempts to enslave nations and people for their own nefarious ends.
Did we not fight enough wars in the last century to finally get that killing wars as well as financial wars are all about evil greed,confiscation and the suppression of the free individual ?
Our Moms and Dads and Grandparents went through Hell to secure our future and freedom.
Often when little more than children themselves. ( Audie Murphy comes to mind as well as Nathan Hale)
Can we , in our own time, no matter the forces aligned against us, do any less?
I believe our aims and our leader heroes at IBS and ADCS have that kind of resolve and fortitude. We all do, here in Canada and in the far flung reaches of this world who have the same aims and hopes.
Somehow kindred spirits find each other and when needed form a juggernaut with which to fight the enemy,wherever found.
@Embee, re the article and comments you posted;
“……. The “little guy” can win against the banks and we know the Harper government does not have a great win record at the Supreme Court of Canada.
from
‘Supreme Court rules against banks in highly watched case’
TIM KILADZE – BANKING REPORTER
The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Sep. 19, 2014
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/supreme-court-rules-against-banks-in-highly-watched-class-action-case/article20687980/
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/scoc-harper-gov-scorecard-741324
The article says in part;
“..By the time the Supreme Court took the case on, it had become a landmark lawsuit with implications for all federally regulated industries, such as banking and telecommunications, because the issue of provincial power is thrown into question. Canadian banks are governed by the federal Bank Act, and therefore argued that this legislation was “paramount” to Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act.
The Supreme Court, however, has ruled otherwise.
The “paramountcy” rule is applicable in Canada when there is a conflict between provincial and federal law; when one arises, the federal law prevails. Yet the Supreme Court ruled there are areas in which provincial rules must be followed, despite a broad federal framework.”
“If the banks’ argument amounts to claiming that the federal scheme was intended to be a complete code to which no other rules at all can be applied, that argument must also fail as the federal scheme is dependent on fundamental provincial rules such as the basic rules of contract,” the Supreme Court wrote in its ruling.
“…..The decision could impact other federally regulated industries, such as media and telecommunications, when provinces impose their own standards….”
So, am wondering if a challenge to FATCA based on conflict between federal law and provincial laws governing credit unions might result in a favourable ruling against the FATCA IGA as applied to credit unions in Canada. That is an angle that might have potential.
Apparently most of the credit unions didn’t bite at Flaherty’s double edged enticement to enter into federal regulation in exchange for the chance to expand and become nationwide, except this one;
http://business.financialpost.com/news/fp-street/new-brunswick-credit-union-first-to-move-toward-federal-charter-as-most-remain-reluctant
This is what Flaherty was offering; “…..In 2012, the federal government unveiled a streamlined process to allow credit unions in different provinces to apply for national regulation.
The following year, however, it removed a small-business tax exemption that had been available to credit unions since the 1970s.
The credit unions argue that the tax break helped credit unions raise capital and offset some of the tax preferences enjoyed by banks….” http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/10/06/canadas_credit_unions_struggle_to_appeal_to_canadians.html
The biased Financial Post – siding with the CRA, tries to paint the provincially regulated credit unions as a worrisome ‘risk’ ( http://business.financialpost.com/news/fp-street/credit-unions-staying-under-the-radar-in-canadas-patchwork-regulatory-system ) but in my opinion, the Banksters are trying to hobble the credit unions to further keep them out of competition for our accounts and assets. It wasn’t the credit unions betraying us by lobbying for FATCA – all the more reason to shift as much as possible, or all of our assets from banks to credit unions if we haven’t done so already. The costs of FATCA fall on the credit unions as a bigger burden since they do not have the size or the profit incentive to comply with FATCA based on direct exposure in the US that banks such as TD do ( still more US branches now than in Canada ?) yet are still subject to FATCA costs to an extent, even with the “Local FFI” exemption” http://www.bdo.ca/en/Library/Services/Tax/pages/Tax-Alert-FATCA-and-Canadian-Credit-Unions.aspx See report about credit union regulatory costs – with concerns about FATCA mentioned; “……We asked our Canadian respondents for their views on some projected regulations. The respondents were most critical about the federal proposal to submit FINTRAC data to the Canadian Revenue Agency. Over 90% of the respondents think that requirement would lead to a significant increase in the compliance burden. Over 70% of the respondents are concerned about the US-initiated Foreign Account Transaction Compliance Act (FATCA) and a much smaller number about federal anti-spam legislation….” pg 14-15 of report ‘Only Up: Regulatory Burden
and Its Effects on Credit Unions’ Giovanni Ferri, Professor of Economics, LUMSA University, Rome, Italy
Panu Kalmi, Professor of Economics, University of Vaasa, Finland for Filene, CUCC
http://www.info-pro.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/331_Regulatory_Burden.pdf
On another angle about the significance of federally imposed FATCA IGA vs. provincial jurisdiction and conflict:
Have also wondered repeatedly ( ex. http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/03/11/would-an-independent-quebec-sign-an-iga/comment-page-1/#comment-1215107 ) whether any special status that Quebec enjoys would challenge FATCA’s application to Quebec financial and non-financial institutions, and/or re the power of Quebec’s taxing powers or some other area where Quebec might have a unique relationship to the feds making it not possible for the feds to bind them to a US extraterritorial law of this kind. It would take someone versed in Quebec law, sovereignty issues and special relationship to the feds to explore.