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.
Forty minute interview with Jim Jatras for the Canadian Liberals (and the truth for Conservatives like Lisa Raitt*) and for all other governments outside the American Empires — who signed IGAs with the US.
*from Stephen Kish:
Thanks, James Jatras!
Lots of very good points made in this interview. Jim claims a PAC can knock FATCA over with a feather and less than $1M.
I’m going to send it to my MP and insist that she listen to it. The Trudeau government needs to put itself on the right side of history with this monstrosity.
I like his comments about compliance condors. The whole interview is double good plus plus.
Brilliant — all there for our government representatives in 40 minutes.
@ calgary411
I’m thinking of sending some e-mails with the SUBJECT: “Listen Up … please“ and enclose a link to this video.
@All — Many thanks!
@calgary411 Re “It was the only thing we could do…It was a very strong request from the U.S. government…” I love it! Does she do stand-up in an Ottawa comedy club somewhere?
In 1940 Stalin made a “very strong request” to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. They knuckled under and became part of the USSR for almost half a century. Stalin made the same “very strong request” to Finland. The Finns said No and fought. As a result, Finland was free during those same decades.
Nothing in the American “very strong request” or threatened consequences on FATCA remotely compares to 1940. But the dilemma is the same: submit and lose your sovereignty, or resist.
Canada’s *ability* to resist is clear — *if* the will were there. But so far, it hasn’t been. The mealy-mouthed can always find excuses to knuckle under to a bully.
The title “True North Strong and Free” must be earned, eh?
EmBee,
I will be as well — with further comment above by Jim Jatras on the description of our country, *True North Strong and Free*. That and *A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian*, the words of our new PM, along with the reminder that all in Canada should have the same rights and freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This 40 minutes reality of what ignorance accomplishes should be required for every one of our government representatives in whatever country outside the USA.
I, too, like your PAC idea, Mr. Jatras, funded by those who can really afford it and the very banks who consented to becoming arms of the US IRS as they lobbied our governments to acquiesce our countries’ own sovereignties and with total disregard for the loss of financial privacy for a segment of its citizens and residents.
@Jim Jatras
Best line ever: Does she do stand-up in an Ottawa comedy club somewhere?
Thank you so much.
@calgary411
Thanks. Point of clarification. What I am suggesting re (1) a lobbying and media effort to get rid of FATCA and (2) a PAC are a bit different, thought they could work in tandem.
The first, which I estimated at about $1M refers to a lobbying and media effort to get FATCA repealed, is based on other similar (and successful) campaigns. (Consider, for example the money Canadian government and industry poured into the unsuccessful effort to approve Keystone against substantial opposition, vs. zip, zilch, nada, they’ve put into FATCA.) As I mentioned, FATCA was slipped in in 2010, but there wasn’t and *still isn’t* any big groundswell of support for it. (Certainly nothing like the opposition to Keystone, as well as support for it, in the US.) But even a weak “something” can’t be opposed with nothing, which is essentially what we’ve got. The $1M is just an estimate. Maybe it’s only $500K. Maybe $1.25M. Maybe a year, two years. Or six months. You really don’t know the lay of the land until you engage and start forcing the targets to look at the issue. That can’t happen as long as for most of Congress it’s still “’FATCA’, what’s that?” 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 http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/12/29/fatca-fact-finding-forum-part-7-of-9-james-jatras-how-fatca-can-be-defeated/ ), but the chickens keep roosting with no push-back.
The PAC suggestion is different, though a PAC could also start the ball rolling on the media and lobbying effort noted above. It’s unlikely it could succeed of itself in killing FATCA. (I don’t rule it out, just that education of the political class in DC takes some serious resources, and it helps if the “who” behind lobbying is institutional. One of the first questions I was asked when I started to make Hill contacts on FATCA was “What does industry think?’, referring to the US financial industry. Answer: AWOL. Or in the case of the foreign financial industry like CBA, Quislings. That doesn’t help. OTOH, seven million Americans abroad, or some subset thereof, ain’t chicken feed.) The importance of a PAC is that it’s one thing for a Congresscritter or his/her staff listen to you nicely about how unfair FATCA is, look at record renunciations, CBT is so much better, etc. etc. It’s quite another for someone representing “ExPAC” (like that?) to waltz into a fundraiser and drop a check into his/her campaign warchest. Then, they care. Such a PAC is nowhere near as expensive as a full-blown lobbying and PR effort. Maybe $50K to start it and run it for a year, thereafter the level of influence is commensurate to the money put into it. Money is the lifeblood of American politics. (I’m shocked! Shocked! Get the smelling salts!) You have to pay to play. Also note that ExPAC would not have to be limited to FATCA but could address other issues like CBT, passport revocation, etc.
Yes, I like it — ExPAC!
*FATCA – what’s that?* is the same whichever government we’re talking about. FATCA needs to have exemplary media attention to make it *real* to the general public and, unfortunately, I guess, our government representatives who are no better educated on the subject. That is negligence from the governments of countries abroad resulting in the soon-to-be realized drain on their economies as they pick up so much of the costs, with the actual $$ benefit to the US negligible. For the US government, *it’s all money, honey*, witness lame analysis before releasing FATCA threat to the rest of the world.
Thanks for this additional on your experience in the workings of US government and what (still) might work to stop FATCA.
Thanks, Jim.
At what point do we pull the feather out? 😉
@Jim Jatras
YES to lobbying. Seems the only way in the USA!
I am an American, Canadians are Americans, Mexicans are Americans, I am a citizen of the United States of North America. It is all North America until it becomes Central America and then South America.
Every country within the world has the responsibility to protect their citizens, even if some hold dual citizenship.
If the canadian government won’t tell the government of the U.S.”Sorry No can Do” then the people of Canada must rise up and throw that government out and form a new government and if that government won’t say ”no can do”, then get another and another until one of them wants to stay bad enough to tell the U.S. government to take a hike.
@ Jim Jatras
I have now listened to this three times. Best summary I have ever heard. Glad you emphasized privacy and sovereignty but just too many wonderful statements to quote. Thank you.
The way I first heard of FATCA was through a brother-in-law who was a partner in an international accounting firm way back years ago before few in Canada had ever heard of what was coming down the pipe .He warned me they were dealing with compliance, especially in finding reputable software companies that could assist them.
I remember the discussion so well. I was asserting with legal arguments this could never happen in Canada. I was so naive. He assured me it was indeed coming. Later, as with many, I experienced my own personal OMG moment. Which is how I got here.
I am forwarding this clip to everyone I know. Thanks you so much Jim. You hit every single topic.
@Wilton Jere Tidwell
I like to consider myself as a citizen of the world. I also liked what Jim Jatras said about how Canada could have resisted the big gun to its head as could have other nations had they banded together.
Strength in numbers is a proven simple concept which is why we are all here fighting this together. Other times it takes just one person.
Still looking for that one or more willing witness who will join Gwen and me and help our committee and lawyers set this right once and for all( of us).
______
As you read this can you be that person? For some, that is too hard and too much to ask depending on your personal situation and I respect that. However, if you feel you might be that person and want some concerns addressed please consult Stephen Kish or any of the committee and we can explain what it entails. When I asked to be considered as a plaintiff that’s what I did.
And I was immediately surrounded by the most supportive informed people who addressed my every concern. I was finally able to breathe again. I could not think of a way to repay that relief other than being involved. The benefits of that decision have fully outweighed the risks.
Yes this is great stuff. Comparing RBT with CBT. Glad he is emphasizing sovereignty. This needs to be publicized more.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tdf-bBTrVGdo_PRx3veGFgbNeeDoyxO1hVo4cGkOZg0
I’ve been creating a master plan for an organization that can effect a switch to CBT. FATCA and CBT are closely intertwined, so hopefully there is some common ground for ridding ourselves of both.
I’m not sure if this is the right approach, so comments are definitely welcome. If the right organization is founded, I will hit the pavement looking for donors.
@Jim Jatras – Hi Jim, in the UK banks have re-written their terms and conditions which essentially bypasses the IGA and makes customers agree the following:
– sign away their data protection rights
– agree the data can be sent to any foreign tax authority
– agree not to hold the bank responsible for any costs/liability associated with the data transfer
If an IBS style lawsuit were to take place somewhere in the EU and eventually get up to the European Court of Justice ruling against the IGAs (hopefully in one swoop across 28 countries), how would we stop EU banks doing a direct bank-IRS data transfer.
I believe UK banks have looked down the road and have decided the IGA may be at risk of a lawsuit and have implemented the changed T&Cs to mitigate that risk as a Plan B.
Follow on –
Here’a an example of a clause from the Bank of Scotland.
22. Tax reporting and withholding for customers
who are subject to the tax regime of certain other
countries (including the US).
22.1 We (or other companies in the Lloyds Banking
Group) may be required by legislation or by
agreement with tax authorities to report certain
information about you and your relationship with
us, including information about your accounts:
a) to the tax authorities in the UK, which may then
pass that information to the tax authorities in
another country where you may be subject to
tax; or
b) directly to the tax authorities in other countries
(such as the US) where we reasonably think or
are required to presume you are subject to tax.
22.2 Where we are required to report information
about you and/or your relationship with us,
including information about your accounts,
this information includes (but is not limited to)
the account number, the amount of interest
paid or credited to the account, the account
balance or value, your name, address, country of
residence and social security number or taxpayer
identification number. In addition, we may need
you to provide us with further information,
documents or certifications about your identity,
tax residence, nationality and status.
22.3 If we are required to report information about your
accounts, you agree that:
a) you will provide additional information
or documents we need from you and
confidentiality rights under applicable data
protection, bank secrecy or similar laws will not
apply to this information we report or obtain
from you to comply with our obligations;
b) if you do not provide us with information
or documents we need, we may (i) apply a
withholding tax to amounts, including interest,
we pay to you; or (ii) close your account; or (iii)
transfer the account to an affiliate in another
jurisdiction; and
c) we will not be liable to you for any loss you
may suffer as a result of our complying with
legislation or agreements with tax authorities
in accordance with this condition 22, unless
that loss is caused by our
Jim, a huge THANK YOU for your supremely articulate interview. You can rest assured that this video is going to be sent far and wide to as many of this community’s adversaries as is humanly possible! Your leadership in this matter has been deeply appreciated since the beginning!
Bud Millwood: great work! Godspeed with your efforts! (I’m also assuming your comment above contained a typo and should have said “switch to RBT”. 🙂
Mr. Jatras simply confirmed what I already knew from the beginning (of Fatca), which is it was, and is, supported by the various big central banks around the world. Certainly that was the case here in Switzerland where UBS and Credit Banque Suisse twisted the arm of the the senators in Bern to sign the IGA.
Had the big banks said hell no, as apposed to hell yes, Fatca would never have even been proposed let alone passed.
@Bud Millwood,
Thank you for presenting your approach to those who have viewed the Jim Jatras video here. Very interesting for the right people — are those readers here, even lurkers, as we struggle to get enough persons to make up the deficit to fund the start of Canadian litigation? It would give many of us, donors without deep enough pockets, heart to know there are persons with both the backbone and the means to fund an approach you have outlined in your document.
Many immersed in this huge CBT issue will agree that ACA and AARO have seen their day and effectiveness, hard for them to know how to change course.
Others, like me, may find these of your points interesting to think about…
As our countries’ governments were bambozzled, none of our government representatives seeming to stand up in Canada to what they previously stated about FATCA. Where are leaders with backbone and the courage to protect their own country’s sovereignty and all of its people’s supposed rights?
Stephen, just copying this from another thread:
with regard to the CBC All in a Day program, if the Trudeau government will not send a spokesperson what about suggesting that the CBC invite Jim Jatras. He’ll have some excellent ideas for the Canadian government!
@Don
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. Banks here are federally regulated, so the tactic of forcing customers to sign away their rights might well be out of bounds. That is why the IGA here was created- to skirt the law under the guise of our government deciding to defy our rights under the Charter and get the banks off the hook.
@bubblebustin Let’s hold the feather in reserve for now. {{;-{)}}}
@Bud Millwood Yes, that is an excellent and well thought-out presentation! With regard to launching it, five HNWIs would be ideal, but one could start the ball rolling with just one. Even “ExPAC,” which as I say could be launched with as little as $50K, is doable. In any case, you’re definitely on the right track. The obvious problem on funding is that if institutions (who have the most to gain) continue to hold back (and really, like CBA, working for the IRS) and if no HNWIs engage, passing the hat for smaller donations has its limits, even for something as small as $50K. This is is especially true as people have tapped out supporting vital litigation in the US and Canada, which might not leave much for lobbying, media, or a PAC. You can’t get blood from a turnip.
@Don
Maybe I am missing something, but I am not sure how this is bypassing or rewriting the IGA. Note:
22.1 We (or other companies in the Lloyds Banking Group) may be required by legislation or by agreement with tax authorities to report certain information about you and your relationship with
us, including information about your accounts:a) *to the tax authorities in the UK*, which may then
pass that information to the tax authorities in another country where you may be subject to
tax; or . . .
The IGA specifically mandates that personal information be provided to HMRC (“to the tax authorities in the UK”), which then sends it over to their overlords at IRS, as opposed to sending the data directly to IRS under FATCA as written. It seems to me that what you cite is exactly how the IGA is designed. The notice to customers is simply to inform them of that, to seek their “consent” (a fiction, because if they don’t “voluntarily” agree their account will be closed) for the data transfer ==> HMRC ==> IRS ==> NSA.