UPDATE SEPTEMBER 19, 2015: SEE ALSO DISCLAIMER AND LITIGATION UPDATES.
[This post, which began in May and having over 1000 revisions and 2000 comments, is being retired from service and updates. It lived through the success of reaching a total of $500,000 in donations from our kind, dear supporters who had little money to give, the hope and disappointment with the summary trial decision, and the certainty that we are now finally moving on to the Charter trial.]
CANADIAN CHARTER TRIAL UPDATE:
— We have instructed the Arvay team to prepare for the “Constitutional-Charter” trial. This means that our focus now, as it was in the beginning of our lawsuit, is on the Charter trial.
Unless there is a new expense in the future that we have not anticipated, the monies from your donations will be sufficient to take us through the “constitutional-charter” trial in Federal Court. However, to pay other legal bills we will need additional donations from our supporters, and a request for donations will appear on another post soon.
OUR LITIGATION HISTORY:
One year ago, on August 11, 2014, Litigator Joseph Arvay filed a FATCA IGA lawsuit in Canada Federal Court on behalf of Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen, the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty (en français), and all peoples.
Because of a Government delay we initiated a “summary trial”, using a portion of the arguments, which offered the possibility of preventing private banking information from being turned over to the IRS before September 30, 2015. See Alliance’s Claims, our Alliance blog, and AUGUST 4-5 SUMMARY TRIAL FILINGS in LITIGATION UPDATES.
I wonder, if we get a CD of the proceedings — assume that’s verbal? — could that be transcribed to a transcript, if that were the only way to get a written version?
@canoe
Good tip to read John’s post about his thoughts from day one. Everyone attending will have his or her interpretations of what is occurring. Nice to receive all views.
My inside reporters says:
So now he’s saying the Canadian government can’t figure out which one of us may or may not be US tax liable so they just need to send ALL our data to the US and then let them sort it all out cuz Canada can’t possibly figure it out.
Perhaps with Justice’s rebuke that he senses the Govt really doesn’t want ti talk about FATCA and hoping this injustice will go away.
I’m going to repost a question @Marie posed earlier … I’m curious too.
I’m not sure what “first trial” here means … maybe the Supreme Court?
I call that the shotgun argument, so I am now getting very close to calling out the first BINGO. How is your card filling up?
Or your drinking game going? I am trying to be equilateral in my comments.
Oops, that didn’t post correctly. This from my inside reporter:
So now he’s saying the Canadian government can’t figure out which one of us may or may not be US tax liable so they just need to send ALL our data to the US and then let them sort it all out cuz Canada can’t possibly figure it out.
@Ginny:
“My inside reporters says:
So now he’s saying the Canadian government can’t figure out which one of us may or may not be US tax liable so they just need to send ALL our data to the US and then let them sort it all out cuz Canada can’t possibly figure it out.”
I nearly dropped my blender with Caesers on that post.
Are you saying that is what gov is arguing?? Seriously??
Funding this case is important for other FATCA lawsuits especially in common law countries where it can serve as a blueprint for other cases. For codified law countries it could be used in affidavit evidence.
The first cases is the hardiest, but expertise is being built up.
“Come on people now
smile on your brother
everybody get together
and try to FUND one
another right now!”
There is such a small bit left to go in the final funding….we can do it!
@Ginny:
Send all data regardless AND without probable cause!
Not sure exactly what that means. Doubt the Feds are arguing they will send info of all Canadian citizens, with or without US indicia. So I would say the Feds are just talking about duals here.
Also the judge has asked if it means that US fines for non filers.. would Canada assist in collection with any legal authority to do so.
That is a great question!!!
Feds answer:That’s a political question, however it is the law. They are now moving into FBARS!
Hang on to your seats.
@ canoe
That would be a lot of transcribing but given time it could be done. We have some talented (but already overworked) Brockers like Calgary411 who have graciously done such things in the past for us. In my long lost past I transcribed medical reports but I had the benefit of a foot pedal to push for stop and repeat. I’m not quick enough anymore to do real time transcribing. Anyway we’ll cross that bridge later. If there are no copyrights or other legalities involved the hearing/trial could be posted on the Isaac Brock youtube channel like the Standing Finance Committee hearings were.
I am going off line down to a Rum Bar to drink a bowl of soup and a glass or two of something stronger. I hope that I will be able to get reception on my SmartPhone to keep up.
@Furious
I am not there, but that’s how it sounds to me. No probable cause because that’s the law! According to my southern neighbor that is.
@Don
I completely agree with you about this being a precedent setting case for Commonwealth countries.
Send it all???? Good grief!!!! I hope the defendants’ counsel (aha spelled it right this time) hurry up so Arvay and Gruber can get a good rebuttal in. Maybe the judge will take this into overtime today?
This is just total speculation but based on the proceedings so far I think there is definitely a possibility of the judge delivering a ruling quite fast in order to allow either side to appeal prior to September 15th.
It seems as if the Government got off on the wrong foot by asking for an adjournment.
@Ginny:
“No probable cause because it is the law!”
That sounds about right considering their case so far.
Well, Probable Cause IS the law and
so was privacy until an illegal IGA overrode both.
Justice is concerned that the US will eventually use FATCA information for more than tax purposes, like FBAR penalty enforcement.
Ok things are now getting quite technical in terms of information the Feds believe has to be handed over to the USA under the agreements. I won’t go into that, as it would be more helpful if I were reading an actual transcript, so I won’t quote at this point to be fair.
Anyway, the judge is asking questions along the lines of saying that just as the counsel is asking for liberal interpretation of the information required to be exchanged as “relevant” we must also be very liberal with interpreting our privacy and rights issues.
Obviously, we have now moved into the ” may be relevant” argument that our expert witness spent a lot of time on in her examination. And more discussion of FBARS.
Caution here: don’t drink and drive!
Seems like the Feds worked hard during lunch time.
@Bubblebustin
He’s connecting the dots about a million times faster than the Government did!
@Marie
I am not ignoring your question about funding. I don’t have the expertise to answer that, so I will leave the answer to the fund raising committee.
@Ginny:
“Anyway, the judge is asking questions along the lines of saying that just as the counsel is asking for liberal interpretation of the information required to be exchanged as “relevant” we must also be very liberal with interpreting our privacy and rights issues.”
THIS gives me hope!!
@Ginny
Will today’s proceedings go to 5:30 PT like yesterday? Sorry if you’ve already answered this.
The Crown clearly says:
1)FATCA is necessary to enforce CBT
2) does not know “how far back FATCA can go
3) seems to think even tho FBAR is not under IRC reporting is covered by the tax treaty
4)Eritrea is unlike the US and condemned for collecting 2% in order to fund war effort
After point 4, entire courtroom erupts in laughter.
@Ann#1, “Yes, a Canadian spouse will be reported. BUT what about the CANADIAN only employer, if you have signing authority? How do we know that the bank will not report those accounts?”
That would have been perfect!!!!!
Like what of Ginny was a signor of the client account for real estate closings at Smith, Muck and Fin…..
The Judge would have hit the ceiling……..