92 thoughts on “Tune Into CBC “All in a Day” at 4:45 EST pm today – John Richardson interview”

1. I hope you will place your good comment in the comment section of http://www.cbc.ca/allinaday/2016/01/20/how-fatca-lead-to-one-woman-spending-thousands-to-prove-she-owes-nothing/, bubblebustin.

2. I see you already did (reading comments backwards) — I’ll leave this for others though. Thanks!!!!

3. Done, Calgary411!

4. OMG….this woman veronica does not have a clue about what she has just done…..

   she was born in Canada, has no American indica and yet chooses to out her self to the IRS

   she states she was recently married…congrats…you have just dragged your new husband into a rabbit hole with no bottom

   she has also just cost herself thousands of dollars in accounting fees over her lifetime and if she ever wakes up and wants to get rid of something she should have possibly never taken in the first place $2350 u.s. to be done….

   there are so many things wrong with her story…..

5. @mettleman

   I predict that Veronique is going to quickly learn that in order to save for the retirement she hopes to enjoy in California, she may need to move a lot soon than expected.

   In that case, I have a nice house in Porter Ranch I’d like to sell her.

6. @Bubblebustin

   I am sure… many have gcs…. use to be easy to get… especially near the border towns… I am pretty sure that would perk people right up… even non-US citizens are caught up in this mess… people use to say… wow… u can go to the US… now its… man.. it sucks to be u… prior to the internet… who the heck knew boo about anything… Majority of things I see… only mention citizens… barely any mention of GC or Visa… Lots of immigrants world wide may have GCs… use to be the golden ticket… its no longer that… they treat us as US citizens without rights or protection… trying to claw money they think we owe for that golden ticket even if its not made there. I was not the only moron that heard… citizen tax… assume that it had nothing do to with us… we are not citizens & are paying guests… its like u have an invited visitor come to your home… u decide… what the heck… rob them at gun point cause they cross your door… even though they were invited to stay.

7. Veronique has, without realizing it unless she knowingly accepts all the consequences of citizenship taxation of the US (very different than residence taxation of her birth country), just dug a deeper hole for herself and now a new married spouse (thank goodness she will not be able to transmit USC onto to any children of their marriage). She and her husband do have a choice now (or she can choose to go without) to reverse the damage of USC abroad before compounding it with some of the things we collect in our adult lives if we are fortunate enough to afford them, like investments – especially mutual funds, real estate, pensions, life insurance, *foreign trusts like TFSAs, RESPs, RDSPs, owners of small (or, large!) businesses, solely or with other partners, condo owners, Girl Guides (and other) treasurers for their children’s activities, etc.). There is, as well, and it may work for them / be their now informed choice, that of moving and living their lives in the USA instead of in Canada in order for them to live a more normal life.

   Oh, the mistakes we make when we’re young (or, in this case, her father doing it for her) without full understanding of our decisions. Some are easier to reverse than others and some are compounded by the years beyond.

   This is why the media is so important in telling this story over and over — that’s you, CBC — and thank you. And, why continued awareness through information sessions like the Saturday one posted at Brock will spread the word to those now unknowingly affected.

8. I seem to remember from her interview that she said her father registered her as a US citizen. Does than not make a difference?

9. In what way a difference, Mr. Physics? According to US immigration and nationality law, I am almost sure she would have had ACQUIRED her US citizenship automatically by birth to a US citizen father who had resided in the US for the requisite number of years after the age of 14 (before he came to Canada).

   (Saying that, as said here often, one should always confirm whether or not they really ARE a US citizen before entering into any US tax compliance industry office for legal and tax accounting assistance.)

   You can read more about the complexity of US immigration / nationality law and how some actual USC children born abroad to US parent(s), Accidental Americans, are less *discoverable* (as their Canadian or other-country passport will show their place of birth in Canada or another country than the US) than the Accidental American children that were born to Canadian (or other country parents) temporarily in the US (and their passport will have their US place of birth) but who returned to their parent’s country as infants or young children at the link in this post: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2016/01/19/uncle-sam-wants-who-at-ubc-law-this-week-allison-christians-mcgill-university-faculty-of-law/.

   If you want to learn more about this subject, you can also read here: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2016/01/16/born-abroad-to-us-citizen-parents-in-a-cookvtait-world-are-you-a-us-citizen-or-do-have-a-right-to-us-citizenship/.

   It seems to me that if there is such a thing as US citizenship taxation (or citizenship taxation for any other country) and its life-altering consequences for anyone living outside the US, there should be an OPT-IN to US citizenship at age of majority and with the requisite mental capacity to understand what they are opting into, not an OPT-OUT.

10. @Calgary, “It seems to me that if there is such a thing as US citizenship taxation (or citizenship taxation for any other country) and its life-altering consequences for anyone living outside the US, there should be an OPT-IN to US citizenship at age of majority and with the requisite mental capacity to understand what they are opting into, not an OPT-OUT.”

    Lets take a look at US Code 1481 and in particular;

    “Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence.”

    Riddle me this…..in Canada centric terms.

    Lets assume I walk into TD Bank to open an account. I provide my “enhanced” Canadian Drivers License from Ontario which means I am Canadian.

    It seems to me the “burden of proof” that I am or am not a USC should be on the bank. This is in the spirit with 8 US Code. They should also have the “burden of proof” based on “the preponderence of evidence” that I am a USC or not.

    I think it is “right” that to open an account in Canada that I show that I am resident and that I am Canadian. But beyond that the “burden” the problem then rests with the Bank itself and actually the US Government.

11. George, is that in line with what Professor Allison Christians points out?

    Beyond the impossibility of even enforcement of the law as written, ignorance is very clearly a valid excuse for noncompliance on the part of a significant and globally dispersed population. Yet among members of the global birthright diaspora, many do not understand the involuntary nature of US citizenship. Conventional wisdom aligns with the idea of volition: that citizenship is a status agreed to rather than conferred.

    An intuitive authority relationship between the individual and the state does not similarly arise extraterritorially. It is not clear by what basis individuals may be expected to inform themselves of all of the possible laws of other states that might apply to them, by virtue of such things as the circumstances of their birth or lineage.  Further, it is not clear what theory applies to explain one state’s right to punish the infractions of its own domestic rule by the residents of another state, much less why the second state should assist in carrying out this purpose.

    As a rule, banks and other financial institutions lack competence to make determinations about US citizenship; the same is true for other governments. Nevertheless, the US has deputized these institutions and governments to make inquiries and collect certifications.

    From this observation it follows that it is the state that holds the duty to inform all of its subjects that it considers them subject to its laws, and that it accordingly demands fidelity beyond its territorial reach. It cannot be the duty of the individual to inform the state that she is subject to its law if the consequence for furnishing that information automatically involves retroactively-applied obligations and onerous processes and fees to leave.

    On this score, the United States falls far short. The IRS has acknowledged its own failure to inform and educate non-resident US persons about their tax obligations.   The National Taxpayer Advocate agrees, and attributes a great deal of noncompliance with US tax law to lack of administrative effort.  More recently, TIGTA confirms that the attention paid by the IRS to non-resident US Persons is appropriately characterized as neglect.

    is from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2717367

    Uncle Sam Wants … Who? A Global Perspective on Citizenship Taxation

    Allison Christians 

    McGill University – Faculty of Law

    January 18, 2016

    Abstract:

    Across the globe, banks are flagging accounts with indicia indicating their owners may be “US Persons,” making it possible for the United States to enforce its taxation of nonresident citizens extraterritorially for the first time in history. The indicia method constitutes a mining expedition for US citizens carried out by foreign banks and governments. Establishing a tax jurisdiction in this manner is unprecedented and has significant practical and normative consequences. In the case of so-called “accidental Americans,” it violates one of the most fundamental and universally- acknowledged tenets of taxpayer rights, namely, the right to be informed about what the law requires. Third party indicia-searching should be universally rejected as a means of identifying a taxpayer population. Instead, the United States itself is responsible for cataloguing, informing, and educating its global population of taxpayers. Those who don’t belong in the system should be allowed to opt out without cost.

12. @Calgary, I think we are all on a path of expanding our understanding.

    I honestly believe that it is the responsibility of a Bank to determine “by a preponderance of the evidence” what other Citizenship may apply AFTER I certify by way of example Canadian resident in Canada.

    And I agree “banks and other financial institutions lack competence to make determinations about US citizenship.”

    This whole idea of proving a negative (hat tip Bubbles..) is ABSURD!!!

    With respect to FATCA, I can buy into exchange of information on all US homelanders. I could grudgingly buy into exchange of information on USC landed immigrants. I could even buy into anyone voluntarily self identifying as a USC!! I even suppose I could buy into a question “Do you have a valid US Passport?”

13. I see Kevyn Nightingale has posted a comment re: Veronique’s interview. He thinks most of “the US tax sector in Canada” would welcome the demise of US CBT. I think only some would because the FATCA/FBAR/CBT pogrom provides a good income to said sector.

14. Thanks to an alert from Tim. “All in a Day” did another in its FATCA series today. Here’s the link:
    http://www.cbc.ca/allinaday/2016/01/25/opposition-critics-weigh-in-on-fatca/

15. Thank you @Tim @EmBee

    Here’s a link to the podcast itself:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/programs/allinaday/opposition-parties-weigh-in-on-fatca-1.3419438

16. I put up a quick comment after I listened to the two finance critics but with the loooong CBC moderation I’ll have to wait to see if it “took”. For what it’s worth, here it is …

    A Conservative apologist for what was NOT “the best deal possible” but at least the NDP finance critic is concerned enough to ask questions in parliament. Thank you CBC for continuing to explore this topic. When Lisa Raitt says the U.S. made a “strong request” you can take that as meaning “an offer the U.S. thought Canada couldn’t refuse”. WRONG! FATCA could have and should have been rejected by a country that purports to be a sovereign nation and pretends it wants to protect its citizens.

17. @EmBee: For the Cons “Congress has spoken.” Seems the Libs agree.

18. Managed to get comments in with no waiting; someone forgot to put on a filter?

    Thank you again for continuing to dig into this story. We applaud Mr. Dusseault’s effort to get some answers regarding the exchange of information that took place on September 30, 2015. There is a great deal of information routinely quoted that demonstrates a lack of comprehension of what has taken place since FATCA was passed and the IGA was signed. One of the greatest misconceptions is that Canada somehow gained large concessions that other countries did not. All Model I IGA countries (the type Canada has) have the same exemption from reporting tax-deferred savings accounts to the CRA-IRS.
    Please see: http://www.groom.com/media/publication/1224_IGA_Cumulative_List_Alpha_03272015.pdf

    There is a great distinction to be made between exempt from reporting by the banks/CRA and being taxed on these “tax-deferred” accounts. The United States does not recognize our government-registered accounts even though there are very similar equivalents. There is NO protection for these accounts in the Treaty (with the exception of RRSP’s). So our TFSA’s, RESP’s and RDSP’s are taxed as foreign “trusts.”The US requires undistributed earnings to be claimed as regular income received and taxed annually. In addition, they must be included on annual information returns; failure to file is a $10k penalty per account per year. There is no protection for Canadian pensions as stated in today’s show. The US views any non-US pension as an “ineligible” pension. For example, when one renounces, the value of the entire pension (as if it had been paid out in full) must be included as income and is taxed in its entirety at that time. This is one of the reasons it is not easy for people to “just renounce.” 1/3

    The implementing legislation for FATCA/the IGA was buried in the enormous omnibus Bill C-31. In the small period of time the Standing Committee for Finance had to discuss it, the point was made repeatedly, that Canada had complied and there was no hurry to rush the legislation through. The Honorable Scott Brison said “a better deal could have been negotiated, given our relationship with the Americans.” Witnesses Professor Arthur Cockfield (Queens), Professor Allison Christians (McGill) and Mr. John Richardson all made reference to the fact there was no need to hurry and that further discussion should take place. Particularly because the only party given any serious consideration, were the banks. NDP MP’s Murray Rankin and Nathan Cullen took very strong positions against the IGA as did Elizabeth May, Lib MP Ted Hsu and NDP Guy Caron. . These hearings took place May 13 & 14, 2014 in Ottawa.
    http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2&DocId=6597204
    http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6601885&Language=E&Mode=1

    The bill was rushed through anyway and in just over a month’s time, received Royal Assent (June 19,2014). It is not at all the case that Canada held off for as long as possible before capitulating.Canada and Australia are the only countries I am 100% certain, to have made the exchange last September. Other countries are farther behind in the process and some presumably have applied for and received the extension to September 30, 2016. It is unclear whether Canada even asked for the extension. 2/3

    When one has lived in a country for many decades, or perhaps one’s entire conscious life, one identifies with that country. As “home.” As one’s “identity. “Technically one may have dual citizenship but the reality is we do not consider ourselves as Americans living in Canada. We are Canadians. We live HERE. We work HERE. We raise our children HERE. We pay our taxes HERE. Please respect the fact that we choose to be Canadian. We are no less Canadian than any other Canadian. It is not reasonable to write us all off as if this was no big deal. The (lack of) border/easy-going attitude of the 1950’s and ’60’s is gone. Nobody knew things would change. Nobody bothered to renounce because there simply was no reason to do so.
    What is involved to come into compliance is far more than filing a few returns for a couple of hundred dollars. It can cost $1000 for a simple 1040 (similar to T-1) and a minimum of $500 for the simpler versions of the reporting requirements (one for each TFSA, RESP, RDSP, etc). For a professional who is incorporated, a very complex form that is minimum $2,000. Another complicated and expensive form-one for EACH mutual fund. Those who think they are in compliance are very likely to find that they are not because the US not only failed to enforce these laws, they did not undertake due diligence. Many who own unreported tax-deferred accounts, have not reported bank accounts and other assets (via FBAR and FATCA forms) or have Canadian mutual funds and so on, may find themselves in for a large shock. Hopefully someday, we will get our message across and instead of being seen as Americans and tax cheats our fellow Canadians will come forward and support us. FWIW, I renounced my US citizenship 4 years ago to protect my Canadian family. 3/3

19. @ Tricia
    No comments are showing up here yet. I thought mine had gone up without moderation until I reset my browser and then looked again — not there. Maybe in the morning?

20. @EmBee oh yes, now I see that pesky notice…I thought I’d gotten around it somehow as last time I saw it as soon as I hit “send” it took a very long time for mine to go up the other day….I tweeted Ms. Raitt and Me. Dusseault (again) with a link to this post…..

21. @Trish

    Something reoccurred to me which affirms that the Cons are being disingenuous when they claim that these account reporting exemptions are for our benefit – let’s not overlook the fact that the banks profit from Canadian tax sheltered accounts too.

    Also, it would seem that our new media-friendly government is reluctant to talk to the CBC about the FATCA IGA. So much for transparency.

22. Great comment, Trish.

23. As ever, thanks for sending this needed information, Patricia Moon.

24. Way, way past time and, of course, another egrecious discrimination finally called out:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/canada-discriminates-against-children-on-reserves-tribunal-rules-1.3419480

    The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal agreed, according to a decision published this morning that states that the federal government’s funding model and management of its First Nations child and family services “resulted in denials of services and created various adverse impacts for many First Nations children and families living on reserves.”

    The decision also makes it clear that the government must “cease the discriminatory practice and take measures to redress and prevent it.” It calls the redesign of the child welfare system and its funding model, including the use of experts to ensure First Nations are given culturally appropriate services.

    “I can’t even believe we had to file a case against the Canadian government so First Nations children have the same chance to grow up in their families as other kids get,” Blackstock said, before the decision was made public.

    “I’m still shocked by that, even nine years later.”

    Long fight

    Although the complaint was launched in 2007, hearings only began in 2013 and the federal government made multiple attempts to have the case thrown out.

    “They fought right out of the gate,” Blackstock said.

    Before final arguments were heard in October 2014, during which the tribunal heard from 25 witnesses, the federal government had racked up $5.3 million in legal fees.

    “Never once were those motions brought because they felt it was in the best interests of the children,” Blackstock said. “It was always to protect the government.“

25. Thanks, Tricia, for your great comment to the CBC! Hope it’s published soon! Canadians have *got* to learn the facts.