Virginia La Torre Jeker J.D., has weighed in on how the IRS Notice 15-66
will affect Model 1 IGA countries.
TIMING OF EXCHANGE OF 2014 INFORMATION UNDER A MODEL 1 IGA
Treasury and the IRS will treat foreign financial institutions (FFIs) covered by an IGA as complying with, and not subject to withholding under FATCA even if the relevant partner jurisdiction has not exchanged 2014 information by September 30, 2015, as long as the partner jurisdiction notifies the U.S. competent authority before September 30, 2015, of the delay and provides assurance that the jurisdiction is making good faith efforts to exchange the information as soon as possible.
The point to be made here, is that notification is what is required not permission.
Entire article can be found Here.
More on Virginia La Torre Jeker J.D., can be found Here.
Calgary411 and Shovel,
Thanks for explaining that section of the IGA. This means that a challenge to the IGA on constitutional grounds might succeed, but could the government invoke the Notwithstanding clause?
@Queenston
“…a challenge to the IGA on constitutional grounds might succeed, but could the government invoke the Notwithstanding clause?”
There are several things the government could do if a constitutional challenge succeeds.
1. They could appeal the court’s ruling to a higher court.
2. They could enact entirely new legislation having the same effect but using different words.
3. They could re-enact exactly the same legislation but with the notwithstanding clause stuck into it.
Since you ask, let’s examine Option 3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
“Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause … and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override certain portions of the Charter.”
……………………………………………………………..
“The federal Parliament, a provincial legislature, or a territorial legislature may declare that one of its laws or part of a law applies temporarily (“notwithstanding”) countermanding sections of the Charter, thereby nullifying any judicial review by overriding the Charter protections for a limited period of time. This is done by including a section in the law clearly specifying which rights have been overridden.”
……………………………………………………………..
“Such a declaration lapses after five years or a lesser time specified in the clause, although the legislature may re-enact the clause indefinitely. The rationale behind having a five-year expiry date is that it is also the maximum amount of time that the Parliament or legislature may sit before an election must be called. Therefore, if the people wish for the law to be repealed they have the right to elect representatives that will carry out the wish of the electorate.”