Forty minutes of more FATCA education for every *Government Abroad* (outside the USA)…
And, our Canadian government representatives – whichever stripe (past Conservatives or present Liberals), you haven’t been listening or comprehending. You have been and remain to be negligent on behalf of *US Person* Canadians as well as all Canadians.
Jim Jatras reminds us — and many here at Brock have certainly provided information from the December 15, 2012 video below to our Canadian government representatives,
Frankly, this would have been a helluva lot easier a few years ago (there’s not much I said in this new video I didn’t say in 2012…
…but the chickens keep roosting with no push-back.
100 Days – ask Trudeau on Twitter. Cross-post from Lynne Swanson: http://maplesandbox.ca/2016/ask-trudeau-on-twitter/
Prime Minister Trudeau tweeted an opportunity to ask him questions live on Twitter
tomorrowTODAY (Friday), marking 100 Days of Liberals in Office.
He says this will be live. I don’t know what time, but I plan to tweet questions about FATCA. I hope others who are on Twitter will too.
@All – My point is that UK banks has made you ‘agree’ to waive your data protection rights, thereby, it begs the question in the UK, if the IGA is rubbished, then would another lawsuit be needed against a bank as a test case for these clauses?
If all UK banks add these clauses, thereby leaving the EU/British resident citizen effective without any choice in the matter, does amount to de facto discrimination?
UK banks have been clever by making ‘everyone’ sign their rights away at the front end to avoid that process being deemed discriminatory, however, it’s the ‘backroom data discrimination’ that takes place that I’m interested in legally.
What the banks have done is add another layer of complexity (thus making legals are more difficult to understand) with the hope a court won’t grasp the reality of what’s going on here.
However, if a bank is asked to describe the ‘backroom’ procedures from beginning to end in detail for a pattern to emerge that 100% of ‘US Persons’ get reported while only a handful of, for example, Italian citizens where reported to Italy because they’re residents in Italy and UK resident Italians didn’t get reported, it could be powerful stuff.
This is what concerns me the most. Act I is get the IGA rubbished, but Act 2 is go after the banks, Act 3 if you have 2 successes, is go after the Government to make it stick.
One thing Jim said was to get together a PAC so the argument can be presented in a familiar langauage to them. That I’m in full agreement. Lobbyist/PAC money is driving FATCA and that kind of money is needed to defeat it.
ACA, AARO and DA may not be totally in our corner but if Congress were to want turn its attention to issues affecting nonresident Americans, they would probably be the first they go to for more information.
…and of course RO too.
“CBT is complex and even many expats don’t understand it”
And even the IRS, US Department of Justice, and courts don’t understand it. They do understand that they put us in a maze of laws, but sometimes they don’t understand some of their own laws and sometimes they just plain lie about their own laws.
“I don’t know about the UK, but for a bank here to make up its own rules that violate the Charter and privacy laws would likely be challenged”
‘Here’ is Canada, right? Where TD Waterhouse, in Canada, made up its own rules that violate the Charter and privacy laws, and where questions (not even a challenge, just questions) went unanswered except that TD Waterhouse closed the account? That was in 2002, well before FATCA.
“Maybe I am missing something, but I am not sure how this is bypassing or rewriting the IGA. Note:
22.1 […] a)”
I think you’re missing 22.1 b).
I think they’re just covering all the bases by making the extorted “consent” as broad as possible. The personal data can be given to HMRC (22(a), which is what the IGA requires), under 22(b) to the US (which is what FATCA requires but is unlikely to happen because of the IGA) or to whoever else the institution may be required to give it. I think they’re just trying to protect themselves for any scenario where they *may* have to give information to someone other than HMRC (maybe in the future under the OECD’s “automatic exchange of information” (AEOI) or maybe come EuSSR scheme for AEOI?). They don’t want the owner of the information to have any option to come back and say, “Hey, I gave you ‘consent’ for HMRC under the IGA. I didn’t say you could give it to anyone else.” It’s as close to a blanket consent as clever lawyers could draft.
On this issue, where are the HNWis? I suspect that one problem is that the financial industry tipped off the HNWis before the December 2013 date, so they are unlikely to get caught out. At the end of 2013, I went to a HNWi tax talk (because it was impossible to find out about U.S. tax law as a normal person and I got an invite because of the university I had graduated from) and all those people seemed to be really calm and knew the tax code backwards and forwards and how they were going to deal with it. And there are all sorts of strategies that are opened to people with enough money, like being able to open U.S. accounts. Many of them, at least in London, were short-term expats. A big contrast with the local, mainly middle class, Democrats Abroad who were foaming at the mouth in 2012.
From: “Carol Tapanila”
To: “Matt Grant” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: “kent hehr” <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 9:25:58 AM
Subject: Attention: Matt Grant from someone who gave my vote to you…
I’m glad to see you are still involved. How I wish you were the MP representing me — so close you came. I hope that you get this message and I don’t get just an automatic reply from *firstname.lastname@example.org*.
What I would beg you to do, Matt, is take 40 minutes of your time to view and listen to the following video and then to share it with other of Canada’s Liberal government representatives. This is important for ALL Canadians — the cost of FATCA. Even though you are not my Liberal MP and I haven’t heard from the Liberal MP in neighbouring Calgary Centre, Kent Hehr who promised that he would represent all Calgarians, you are still my neighbour in the riding you ran in. Take the 40 minutes more to listen (from me) once again. I appreciated your listening to me during your campaign and you told me what I was saying was important.
Our Canadian government representatives — whichever stripe (past Conservatives or present Liberals, among them who made informed statements about defeating FATCA) I fear — remain negligent on behalf of US-deemed *US Person* Canadians — as well as ALL Canadians in the costs of FATCA law implemented by the IGA signed with the US:
Jim Jatras, in this video, a US expert with the intelligence and determination that we aren’t seeing in Canada, reminds us…
Frankly, this would have been a helluva lot easier a few years ago (there’s not much I said in this new video I didn’t say in 2012…
Will you, Matt, acknowledge my request, commit to listen, and let me know your views after viewing?
I’m still counting on you!
residing in Calgary Confederation
From: “Matt Grant” <email@example.com>
To: “Carol Tapanila” <>
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 9:00:13 AM
Subject: LPCA Policy Convention Schedule
The LPCA Policy Convention schedule is live!
If you haven’t registered for the Convention, happening February 26-28 in Edmonton, you can do so here: … Highlights include…:
Yes, in terms of making sure their personal interests won’t suffer, I am sure HNWIs can take care of themselves. If they’re conscious tax-evaders (a tiny minority, I reckon), I am confident they mostly will manage not to be caught. But for the large majority, they have the expertise to make sure they are able to make best use of the mechanisms available to them, much as they do in other contexts. I can’t blame them. The sad part is the much larger number of people of middle class or upper middle means who will get hammered, even if they owed no tax and were not consciously engaged in evasion.
I was mainly referring to HNWIs in with regard to having the resources to fund an opposition, whether in the form of lawsuits, lobbying and media, a PAC, whatever. If any have stepped up to the plate, I haven’t seen it. Maybe they figure: Look out for Number One. Make sure I don’t get raked over the coals, then maintain a small target.
If any of the MPs would be interested in talking with me directly, I’m happy to do so.
Should I have the courtesy of hearing back from any Liberal government representatives (as should anyone else) and in any further correspondence, your offer to talk to any of them directly will be relayed. As always, thanks for your generosity and your expertise, Jim.
In a reply to his assistant’s reply to my recent letter to MP Pierre-Luc Dusseault (NDP FATCA critic), I forwarded to him that quote from Jim Jatras (RE willingness to speak with any MP) and, as I did in the original message, encouraged Mr Dusseault (or someone in his staff) to take the time to view the recent Jatras video.
According to the note from his associate, Mr. Dusseaault has already been in touch with Allison Christian (that is +++ good news).
I think we should NOT bombard his office with appeals – – he seems to be taking this issue VERY seriously (the reply letter included the following link to his order paper questions: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=F&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8067385&File=9 )
HOWEVER, I do think it is reasonable to immediately respectfully pass on to his office any new data or article or other information which he can use in a persuasive manner when confronting the Liberals who are digging their heals in. All this new data / articles / information should also be immediately sent to the Liberal Minsters who are SUPPOSED to be dealing with reviewing/reconsidering FATCA and the IGA.
Looking at Mr. Dusseault’s letter to Ms. Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue (it probably should also have been sent to Trudeau, Jody Wilson-Raybould -Minister of Justice & Attn General – and Stephane Dion – Minister of Foreign Affairs) he says “… since the passage of Bill C-31 during the 41 st Parliament, the Canada Revenue Agency is authorized to provide confidential financial information about a number of Canadian citizens to the Internal Revenue Service — IRS — of the U.S. government…..” While this statement is correct, the use of the words “a number of” does not communicate clearly the extent of the problem.
If anyone is writing to Mr. Dussault, there should be clear mention to him of the numbers of Canadians we are talking about / the numbers of Canadians effected by FATCA/the IGA (estimated to be 1 MILLION individuals – – PLUS their joint account family members AND business/community organization partners).
He needs to be informed that FATCA effects perhaps MORE individuals living in Canada than those in the indigenous population (and aren’t the Liberals spending much time and effort on Native issues – – which definitely need investigation and review and repair, but not any more so than the issues of “US Persons” living in Canada……).
While this has been posted elsewhere recently on IBS, here is a copy of the many questions Mr. Dussault has posted on the Parliamentary Order Paper (on January 21, 2016). If you think there are other vital questions that might be added to this set of questions to the Liberal Government, Mr. Dussault can be contacted at Pierre-Luc.Dusseault@parl.gc.ca
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=F&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8067385&File=9 Q-35 [response requested within 45 days] — January 21, 2016 — Mr. Dusseault (Sherbrooke) —
With respect to the September 2015 announcement of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that it would effectuate a transfer of information to the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS): (a) how many records has the CRA transferred to the IRS to date; (b) on what dates did information transfer occur and how many records were transferred on each date; (c) how many records of individuals have been transferred in total; (d) by what means were the records transferred; (e) how much did it cost the CRA to compile the records for transfer; (f) how much did it cost the CRA to complete the transfer; (g) how were the costs in (e) and (f) calculated and what is the breakdown of those costs; (h) who made the decision to transfer the records; (i) when was the decision made to transfer records; (j) when did the CRA become aware that the U.S. Treasury had extended the deadline for such transfer; (k) how was the CRA made aware that the U.S. Treasury had extended the deadline; (l) what steps were taken to assess and respond to the notice of deadline extension in (j); (m) what was the policy reason for transferring records despite the deadline extension; (n) when is the next transfer of records scheduled to take place; (o) what analysis was conducted to assess whether the transfer of records during the writ period for the 42nd General Election complied with the “Guidelines on the Conduct of Ministers, Ministers of State, Exempt Staff and Public Servants During an Election”; (p) what records exist with respect to any analysis conducted in relation to (o); (q) was information concerning the transfer of records from the CRA to the IRS included in any transition materials prepared for a potential change in government or the Ministers responsible for CRA and Foreign Affairs; (r) what documents exist in relation to (q) and what are their file numbers; (s) has the new Minister responsible for CRA been informed of information transfers to the IRS and, if so, (i) when, (ii) how, (iii) by whom, (iv) with what documents produced or prepared for this purpose; (t) has the new Minister of Justice been informed of the information transfer and been provided with any analysis of its legal implications and, if so, (i) when, (ii) how, (iii) by whom, (iv) with what documents produced or prepared for this purpose; (u) have Canadians who will be affected by the transfer been informed of the transfer of their records; (v) what plans exist with regard to informing Canadians about the transfer of their records; (w) has any proposal to inform Canadians of the transfer of their information to the IRS been evaluated by the government and, if so, with what conclusions; (x) what documents exist in relation to (w) and what are their file numbers; (y) what legal challenges does the government anticipate with respect to information transfer, and how is it preparing to respond; (z) what measures are in place to ensure the security of record transfers to the IRS; and (aa) has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted or involved in any way in the preparation or planning of record transfer to ensure conformity with applicable laws regarding the exchange of Canadians’ personal information and, if so, to what extent?
I cc’d my Mr. Morneau e-mail (Jim Jatras video link included) to Mr. Dusseault because I mentioned him, very favourably, in that e-mail and thought it would be of interest to him. Of course, I am hoping that he and/or his staff will also take a look at the video. My Mr. Morneau e-mail also mentioned being hopeful that the government would soon be responding with good answers to the many questions posed in Mr. Dusseault’s Q-352. I think I did it all very respectively. No responses yet but none are expected since these replies take weeks (or sometimes months or even not at all) not days. That video is so good, I just had to share it.