Personally, I am not surprised. Canadian courts are very conservative and always it appears defers to the government.
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/T-1736-14%20decision%20sept-16-2015.pdf
Suggest emailing Mulcair’s press Secretary about this outrage as he is apparently US-born.
george.smith@ndp.ca
Bummer. Bracing myself for our resident curmudgeon to show up and throw salt in everyone’s wounds – the last thing we, especially Gwen and Ginny need. At least Justice Martineau recommended they not have to pay court costs.
This was always the proverbial “Hail Mary Pass.”
The argument was a highly technical argument not a personal/individual argument.
ADCS had to take this option with the hope it might have worked because the Charter Argument was too far off in the new year. It was never a sure thing.
The glimmer is that the Judge did not assign costs to the plaintiffs and did nothing to restrict further litigation.
Ladies and gentlemen, we go back to work and keep moving forward.
Time to make this a BIG election issue. Make it clear to NDP and Liberals that we are talking about 1,000,000+ potential votes. Remind Carol Goar cgoar@thestar,ca at the Toronto Star and Margaret Wente mwente@globeandmail.com that their tax information is being provided to the USA . Send to every other other US-Canadian celebrity you can think of.
NDP MPs:
malcolm.allen@parl.gc.ca
charlie.angus@parl.gc.ca
niki.ashton@parl.gc.ca
alex.atamanenko@parl.gc.ca
Robert.Aubin@parl.gc.ca
Paulina.Ayala@parl.gc.ca
Tyrone.Benskin@parl.gc.ca
dennis.bevington@parl.gc.ca
Denis.Blanchette@parl.gc.ca
Lysane.Blanchette-Lamothe@parl.gc.ca
Francoise.Boivin@parl.gc.ca
Charmaine.Borg@parl.gc.ca
Alexandre.Boulerice@parl.gc.ca
Marjolaine.Boutin-Sweet@parl.gc.ca
Tarik.Brahmi@parl.gc.ca
Guy.Caron@parl.gc.ca
Andrew.Cash@parl.gc.ca
chris.charlton@parl.gc.ca
Sylvain.Chicoine@parl.gc.ca
Robert.Chisholm@parl.gc.ca
Francois.Choquette@parl.gc.ca
olivia.chow@parl.gc.ca
david.christopherson@parl.gc.ca
Ryan.Cleary@parl.gc.ca
joe.comartin@parl.gc.ca
Raymond.Cote@parl.gc.ca
jean.crowder@parl.gc.ca
nathan.cullen@parl.gc.ca
don.davies@parl.gc.ca
libby.davies@parl.gc.ca
Anne-Marie.Day@parl.gc.ca
paul.dewar@parl.gc.ca
Pierre.DionneLabelle@parl.gc.ca
fin.donnelly@parl.gc.ca
Rosane.DoreLefebvre@parl.gc.ca
Matthew.Dube@parl.gc.ca
linda.duncan@parl.gc.ca
Pierre-Luc.Dusseault@parl.gc.ca
RuthEllen.Brosseau@parl.gc.ca
Mylene.Freeman@parl.gc.ca
Randall.Garrison@parl.gc.ca
Rejean.Genest@parl.gc.ca
Jonathan.Genest-Jourdain@parl.gc.ca
Alain.Giguere@parl.gc.ca
yvon.godin@parl.gc.ca
claude.gravelle@parl.gc.ca
Sadia.Groguhe@parl.gc.ca
Dan.Harris@parl.gc.ca
jack.harris@parl.gc.ca
Sana.Hassainia@parl.gc.ca
carol.hughes@parl.gc.ca
bruce.hyer@parl.gc.ca
Pierre.Jacob@parl.gc.ca
peter.julian@parl.gc.ca
Matthew.Kellway@parl.gc.ca
Francois.Lapointe@parl.gc.ca
Jean-Francois.Larose@parl.gc.ca
Alexandrine.Latendresse@parl.gc.ca
Helene.Laverdiere@parl.gc.ca
Helene.LeBlanc@parl.gc.ca
megan.leslie@parl.gc.ca
Laurin.Liu@parl.gc.ca
Hoang.Mai@parl.gc.ca
wayne.marston@parl.gc.ca
pat.martin@parl.gc.ca
brian.masse@parl.gc.ca
irene.mathyssen@parl.gc.ca
Elaine.Michaud@parl.gc.ca
AnneMinh-Thu.Quach@parl.gc.ca
Christine.Moore@parl.gc.ca
Dany.Morin@parl.gc.ca
Isabelle.Morin@parl.gc.ca
Marc-Andre.Morin@parl.gc.ca
Marie-Claude.Morin@parl.gc.ca
thomas.mulcair@parl.gc.ca
Pierre.Nantel@parl.gc.ca
Peggy.Nash@parl.gc.ca
Jamie.Nicholls@parl.gc.ca
Jose.Nunez-Melo@parl.gc.ca
Annick.Papillon@parl.gc.ca
Claude.Patry@parl.gc.ca
Eve.Peclet@parl.gc.ca
Manon.Perreault@parl.gc.ca
Francois.Pilon@parl.gc.ca
john.rafferty@parl.gc.ca
Mathieu.Ravignat@parl.gc.ca
Francine.Raynault@parl.gc.ca
Murray.Rankin@parl.gc.ca
Jean.Rousseau@parl.gc.ca
Romeo.Saganash@parl.gc.ca
Jasbir.Sandhu@parl.gc.ca
denise.savoie@parl.gc.ca
Djaouida.Sellah@parl.gc.ca
Jinny.Sims@parl.gc.ca
Rathika.Sitsabaiesan@parl.gc.ca
Lise.St-Denis@parl.gc.ca
Kennedy.Stewart@parl.gc.ca
peter.stoffer@parl.gc.ca
Mike.Sullivan@parl.gc.ca
glenn.thibeault@parl.gc.ca
Philip.Toone@parl.gc.ca
Jonathan.Tremblay@parl.gc.ca
Nycole.Turmel@parl.gc.ca
craig.scott@parl.gc.ca
I have only looked at the ruling very quickly. I like most of the findings in terms of accuracy but there are some I definitely disagree with(especially with regards to renunciation/relinquishment).
Tim
@Joe We need a better number than 1 million Canadians impacted. We might say that but also best to include in the same sentence nonUS person family members impacted: non US spouses, kids, grandkids, grand parents etc. @All what is the best number we have for nonUS Canadian resident family members also impacted?
There was hope of success at this point. It appears (in my perhaps slanted viewpoint) that Justice Martineau was looking for excuses not to put through an injunction. I’ll need to read more thoroughly. There will be points that we may use such as Justice Martineau’s court acknowledgement of Tax Treaty Gaps (according to the Australian Tax Office, tax treaties “prevent double taxation.” Oopps!)
The Republicans keep yanking funding from the IRS. The IRS will be stretched.
I saw a video on Twitter of Rand Paul using stacks of boxes, symbolizing the enormity of the US tax code, with sign on the boxes “US Tax Code”, using them as shooting target practice. I also saw somewhere that that IRS will prioritize their action with FATCA data received. We know one of their favorites is Switzerland, also they have indicated South America. One may imagine countries less likely to be tax havens (relatively high tax countries) of lower priority then countries with relatively lower tax rates than the US / countries identified by the US as tax havens.
Surgite!
Rand Paul in action:
https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/644205982470402048
Such disappointing news. (: It still hasn’t sunk in.
At least no one has to “pay costs”, which would have added insult to injury.
It seems to me the judge was highly influenced by how Mr. Ernewein spoke for the banks, even though as Senator Buth points out, it’s hard to understand how a foreign country can regulate our banks.
Senator Buth: I guess I’m having a hard time understanding how a foreign country can regulate what a Canadian bank does.
Mr. Ernewein: As a policy matter, we very much share that question, and certainly former Finance Minister Flaherty was very public about criticizing it on that basis. I guess the second part of that answer is that what we were seeking to do with the intergovernmental agreement was to work around that approach and come at it a different way on exchange of information and not the threat of withholding. The U.S. has always maintained that this is about information exchange and not about trying to collect tax, at least through the withholding tax mechanism. It’s an exchange of information and taxpayer compliance, and I think what we’ve got in this intergovernmental agreement is more consistent with that stated purpose than FATCA itself or the approach FATCA put forward.
Senator Buth: What would have happened if we had not done this agreement, then? Let me ask another question. Are the banks supportive of this legislation?
Mr. Ernewein: Yes. That’s my summary answer, … I think they believe … that it will introduce compliance burdens for them and extra obligations for their clientele, but I think they are much more at peace, if I may put it that way, with this intergovernmental agreement.
@Joe Smith, yes, the upcoming election REALLY matters. I’d hate for the cons to stay in power.
Definitely a disappointing day for our side for sure. I think Justice Martineau’s ruling boils down to the following:
Accordingly, in the absence of concrete evidence, it is speculative to suggest that the automatic collection and disclosure of taxpayer information mentioned in the IGA is tantamount to providing help to the US authorities in the collection of taxes.
This is where I strongly disagree with Justice Martineau. Collecting information about someone’s assets (not just income) can serve no purpose other than to assist in collecting taxes.
However, the non-award of costs is a significant win for our side. It means that when fund raising resumes for the next stage in this battle (which was certain to happen either way), the focus can be on directly fighting that battle. Had costs been awarded we would have had to open a second fund raising effort to help Gwen and Ginny with those costs which would have significantly diluted our efforts.
Agree with all that this increases the importance of the election now.
So what is the next step now? My non-lawyer’s mind can imagine at least three possibilities: an immediate appeal (with the hope for an injunction before Sept 23) to a higher court; a less urgent appeal to a higher court; or waiting now for the full (non-summary) trial.
I guess we also have to wait and see what happens on the Bopp injunction. Although I’m highly skeptical of Rand Paul’s motives for involvement, the lawsuit itself seems to be viable and have a chance to me.
I read some, but not all yet, of the 46 pages of Judgement and Reasons. Very disappointing. We have to keep moving forward, likely on to the Supreme Court. Sounds like a long and expensive road. Anyone who can possibly renounce and hasn’t yet needs to seriously consider moving forward with the process. Of course keeping in mind form 8854 and tax filing issues if you might ever need to cross the US border. In the meantime, move your funds into a credit union like Vancity, Local Client Based. US citizenship, the most toxic citizenship in the world. Ugh.
More important than ever…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltmMJntSfQI
🙁
From the back of the bus to under the bus. This is a sad day for Canadians with American taint.
@Joe Smith
Bear in mind that those are parliamentary email addresses. In contacting a non-NDP member of parliament recently regarding another matter (not FATCA-related), I was advised that, as parliament is currently dissolved in advance of the election, they could not respond to emails of a partisan nature sent to the parliamentary email address.
I was advised to contact the non-parliamentary campaign office for the MP. I did so and got a reply promptly.
Not just for Canadians. I haven’t set foot in Canada since 1994, but this case to me is the bellwether for the future of FATCA. The USA has just been given a big shot in the arm. The bully will only be inspired to raise the level of brutality.
Hubby and I have been talking renunciation for about a year now, neither of us at all eager to do so, even though for us, compliance isn’t the issue. I’ve been telling him, let’s see what happens with the Canadian lawsuit, whether the tides will start to turn. He’s been asking me daily about this and the Bopp suit (which I am extremely skeptical about our side winning a thing, not because of the nature of the plaintiffs’ arguments, but because of the political and America-centric bias of US courts).
Tonight I guess we start getting our papers in order, to renounce before things get even worse.
Anyone waiting to decide whether to renounce or not should now get on with it …. they’ve closed the relinquishment fee loophole, so it is a matter of biting the bullet and getting out of the firing line. Irrespective of any past “compliance” issues, the sooner a person can officially shed their USP status the better. A very disappointing interpretation by the judge.
A year and half ago I was pushing beat the system. I still think it is the best way. If you do not want to renounce/relinquish and not do exit taxes. That it is why I warned you people about not using paypal. In truth the Obama is less likely to ask a list of paypal donor with an unsuccessful lawsuit.
I had previously pointed out the economic damage to all Canadian with 30% withholding (go to last page of Calgary 411 personal story if you want to read the analysis). If Russia did not think of it as a bluff we should not think of it as a bluff. As previously mentioned I stated that any government will apply non withstanding clause. I also thought it was better to challenge the 1995 changes to USA Canada tax treaty which recognized USA tax law in Canada, This is how the obligation of US citizen in Canada to file occurred. The CRA will only do limited collection of non Canadian citizen at time obligation occurred. There was no 30% withholding threat when the Liberal signed that deal. This reversed the revenue rule. But the political agitators ignored what the Federal Liberal did back then and ignored that all developed countries signed off to FATCA. In addition our IGA was a lot better than the original IGA and other countries where they may still use US person for tax purposes.
I think on a political situation we should demand that all political parties agree to require that the bank use the USA/Canada $ conversion rate and ban google searches if a person requests. Regarding use of USA/Canada exchange rate at the present time it is only an option in guideline. FI could use total in Canadian dollars and not convert to US dollars. Our exchange rate is very closely related to our oil export and oil price in US dollars. In addition if the future Federal government runs big budget deficits this will also lower the exchange rate. I do not expect to see Canada at 100 USA cent for the forseeable future,
Financial institution may try and do google or other internet searches. Do a search on your own name you may see USA indices that will not show up using the credit check method.The European Union came up with one smart idea people are able to prevent search engines from checking your name. Actually this is a good thing for all Canadian and I do not see why any politicial party will oppose it.
“European Court Lets Users Erase Records on Web”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?_r=0
Just read through the judgement for the first time and all I saw was Gerald Keddy in robes. It’s legal because it’s the law, was pretty much all I heard. I’m extremely disappointed that he referred to “dual” citizens, something I recall he warned the defence about creating during the trial.
@Dash1729
Re:
“Accordingly, in the absence of concrete evidence, it is speculative to suggest that the automatic collection and disclosure of taxpayer information mentioned in the IGA is tantamount to providing help to the US authorities in the collection of taxes.”
– yet the judge said that the IGA was necessary for the U.S. to enforce its tax regime. Huh? What’s the purpose in having this kind of information if you aren’t going to assess taxes?
I still think that any major political party in power will use the non withstanding clause to prevent the 30% withholding just because some American do not want to renounce their dual citizenship..
I did send an email to George Smith and asked him to get the information to Mr. Mulcair, Murray Rankin, Nathan Cullen, Mike Sullivan.
At the very least, Martineau calls it the “law” to allow ANYONE born outside of Canada to be known as a “foreigner” living in Canada regardless of the fact that they have a useless piece of paper that says they are a Canadian! ANYONE born outside of Canada, you can use your citizenship proof as toilet paper as that is ALL it actually is! You are nothing more than a taxable government revenue slave!
Calgary 411
You want to make a non monetary bet that the NDP will not make this an important political issue. Did the French socialist sign an IGA, are the Greek socialist have an agreement in principle (they got bigger issue to solve). Did Russia allow their big bank to be FATCA compliant. Did the Liberal government in 1995 recognize USA tax law in Canada when there was not even a threat. The CRA will not collect from Canadian citizen at time obligation occurred but it is why US citizen have an obligation to file.
@ Joe Smith and Dash 1729 and everyone else:
I confirm what Dash says about not sending emails c/o parl.ca, you’ll just get a robo reply.
AFAIK, all NDP MPs (at least, Dewar and Mulcair who are the only one’s I’ve contacted since the election writ was dropped) are the same initial email (e.g. paul.dewar) but it’s @ndp.ca now. So e.g. paul.dewar@ndp.ca, thomas.mulcair@ndp.ca.
@Bubblebustin,
>Bracing myself for our resident curmudgeon
Some of us have earned the right to be exceedingly negative by paying the USG a fuck load of money in taxes and penalties. Every few months there is another slap in the face for people who have gone though this stuff.
I really hoped this court case would at least be a slight pain the arse for them but no dice.
Yes, Neill, you can count me among those you refer to, believe me. The last thing any of us needs right now is ridicule.
In which case
peter.julian@ndp.ca
Matthew.Kellway@ndp.ca
Francois.Lapointe@ndp.ca
Jean-Francois.Larose@ndp.ca
Alexandrine.Latendresse@ndp.ca
Helene.Laverdiere@ndp.ca
Helene.LeBlanc@ndp.ca
megan.leslie@ndp.ca
Laurin.Liu@ndp.ca
Hoang.Mai@ndp.ca
wayne.marston@ndp.ca
pat.martin@ndp.ca
brian.masse@ndp.ca
irene.mathyssen@ndp.ca
Elaine.Michaud@ndp.ca
AnneMinh-Thu.Quach@ndp.ca
Christine.Moore@ndp.ca
Dany.Morin@ndp.ca
Isabelle.Morin@ndp.ca
Marc-Andre.Morin@ndp.ca
Marie-Claude.Morin@ndp.ca
thomas.mulcair@ndp.ca
Pierre.Nantel@ndp.ca
Peggy.Nash@ndp.ca
Jamie.Nicholls@ndp.ca
Jose.Nunez-Melo@ndp.ca
Annick.Papillon@ndp.ca
Claude.Patry@ndp.ca
Eve.Peclet@ndp.ca
Manon.Perreault@ndp.ca
Francois.Pilon@ndp.ca
john.rafferty@ndp.ca
Mathieu.Ravignat@ndp.ca
Francine.Raynault@ndp.ca
Murray.Rankin@ndp.ca
Jean.Rousseau@ndp.ca
Romeo.Saganash@ndp.ca
Jasbir.Sandhu@ndp.ca
denise.savoie@ndp.ca
Djaouida.Sellah@ndp.ca
Jinny.Sims@ndp.ca
Rathika.Sitsabaiesan@ndp.ca
Lise.St-Denis@ndp.ca
Kennedy.Stewart@ndp.ca
peter.stoffer@ndp.ca
Mike.Sullivan@ndp.ca
glenn.thibeault@ndp.ca
Philip.Toone@ndp.ca
Jonathan.Tremblay@ndp.ca
Nycole.Turmel@ndp.ca
craig.scott@ndp.ca
As resident realist peers into briny deep, a distant cry reverberates: Sauve qui peut!
Better to contend hand-to-hand with true pirates on wide undrinkable waters beyond all jurismalediction than to paddle with excruciating sweat toward a mirage islet of statist law.
Siren theme song