March 8, 2016 UPDATE: Legal fees paid — on to Federal Court for Charter trial contesting Canadian FATCA IGA legislation.
Canadians and International Supporters:
You came through once again: $594,970 for legal costs have now been donated and our outstanding legal bill is finally paid off.
Thanks especially to those who donated even though they never had any “spare” money to give, and despite this gave over and over and over again.
This last round of fundraising also shows that our Canadian lawsuit remains dependent on the kindness of our International Friends: There would be no lawsuit without their financial help.
Know that a very generous donation (today) from a supporter in the United States made it possible to pay off the remaining legal debt. Also please appreciate that there would be no lawsuit without the help of the Isaac Brock Society which has kindly let us use its website to solicit funds.
Our next step is the Constitutional-Charter trial in Federal Court.
For this we need more Canadian Witnesses, and my next post will be devoted only to a request for Witnesses willing to go public, like our Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen.
For the future: I want a win in Federal Court — and I want the new Liberal Government not to appeal that win.
Thank you all for your support,
Stephen Kish,
for the Directors,
Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty
I just opened a scam email and wanted to share it. The email shows the IRS logo and there is an attachment. Naturally, I am also reporting it to the authorities:
Sir/Madam,
Our records indicate that you are a Non-resident, and that you are exempted from the United States of America Tax reporting and withholdings on interest paid to you on your account and other financial benefits. To protect your exemption from tax on your account and other financial benefits, you need to re-certify your exempt status to enable us confirm your records with us.
1. We need you to provide your permanent address and US address if any. if different from the current mailing address. You must indicate as a Non-US resident, the country you are residing, to support your non-resident status and if your bank or other financial institutions you are dealing with has a US address for mailing purposes.
2. Please complete 1 through 11 and have all account holder(s) (if more than one account holder) sign and date the form separately and send to us through the fax number or email at the bottom of the W-8BEN form. Note that if your W-8BEN FORM together with a copy of your International passport is not received from you after 7days from the day of the receipt of this letter you will lose your Non-resident status and be listed as undocumented,resulting in the standard rate of 30% being applied on any dividend or interest income received on your investments/accounts.*
List of required documents:
1.A copy of filled W-8BEN FORM.
2.A photocopy of the photo page of your international passport.
*If you should receive multiple notifications,it means previous filled out forms was not properly filled and as such,we need you to refill needed columns and re-fax or email to us using the details at the bottom of W-8BEN.
.
We appreciate your co-operation in helping us protect your exempt status and also confirm our records.
Sincerely,
Angela M. Barrett.
IRS Public Relations
O.M.G.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/phishing_email2.pdf
The IRS does not initiate communication through e-mail.
The scam e-mail reported by Tom Alciere is also distributed by fax. It gives a US fax number (phone number) for victims to reply by fax. My employer got those faxes twice, several years apart.
The first time my employer got one, I shared it with an IRS lawyer and US Tax Court. The second time my employer got one, I didn’t bother to share it with anyone.
The fax number was the same. Several years had passed but the scammers could still use the same fax number. They had not been closed down.
The IRS assists scammers in other ways too. When the IRS stops using a toll free phone number, the number doesn’t sit unused until it gets randomly assigned to some legitimate business, it gets handed over to scammers. The answering machine has a voice that sounds the same as the IRS’s voice menu systems, starts with something like “Please listen carefully because our options may have changed”, and then tries to sell something like Walmart gift cards. One of those scamming phone numbers is still published in IRS web pages when you search for how to contact an IRS appeals office.
Plus of course there are the IRS’s own scammers. Monica Hernandez wasn’t working alone.
By the way, the scammer’s W-8BEN form isn’t a genuine W-8BEN form. It asks for information that will be used by identity thieves to rob bank accounts.
Sent letter express mail we have to try
C62,
Thanks for taking the time and the extra expense (the express mail) to send a letter to the new Liberal Government.
All can argue that the odds are against us, but I agree with you that “we have to try”.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-pariss-wake-a-changed-presidential-contest–and-electorate/2015/11/22/4ef899b8-8fc7-11e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.html
In Paris’s wake, a changed presidential contest — and electorate
“Terrorists are insidious people,” Lochocki said. “Your neighbor could be one, and you wouldn’t know. I feel we should close our borders until we get the rest of the world under control. If that’s inhumane, then I’m inhumane. You think what you want.”
All,
If you want a better idea of the length of time and complexity involved in Charter litigation I recommend you watch this video below from prominent Canadian lawyer Alan Young.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5RrkQFf8Bg
None of this has to do with FATCA but it goes to show you the complexity of suing the government. I wonder the government will start talking about tax evaders in Switzerland smuggling diamonds in toothpaste tubes like they used caged women in Thailand to defend themselves against Alan Young’s lawsuit.
If you are busy skip ahead to 12:00 minutes.
— You might remember when we asked, back in September, the Conservative Government and CRA to delay the September 30 handover of private banking information to the IRS. We did our best but our efforts were unsuccessful. Today (November 23) I just received an email reply from CRA:
“Dear Dr. Kish…
I am responding to your correspondence of September 21 and 22, 2015, addressed to the former Minister of National Revenue, in which you ask that the Minister apply, on behalf of Canada, for an extension of time to exchange the information to be transmitted under the Canada–U.S. intergovernmental agreement. You believe an extension was available under a recent U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) notice.
The notice you refer to did not allow Canada to seek an extension. This was confirmed in conversations between officials of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the IRS. The IRS notice allowed an extension for countries that had not yet signed an agreement and passed the required legislation or that were having trouble setting up the systems to actually transmit the information to the U.S. Neither of those two situations applied to Canada. Canada signed the agreement and passed the required legislation in 2014. The CRA and the IRS also shared the view that the notice did not allow for an extension because of the ongoing litigation surrounding the agreement.
I can confirm that the exchanges required under the agreement to be made by September 30, 2015, have taken place.
I trust the information I have provided is helpful.
Yours sincerely,
[XXXXXX]
Assistant Commissioner
Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch
Canada Revenue Agency
I am now receiving many emails through our ADCS website from supporters of our lawsuit who are responding to our request to contact the new Liberal Government. Some are enclosing a copy of a letter to Canada’s Attorney General.
Each letter tells a heart-wrenching story.
Canada AG just hired her first chief of staff.
https://twitter.com/kirstenmercer
This is the first appointment in Justice Canada under new government other than pre-existing civil servants.
I would also mention the joint account issue(admittedly much more of an issue in Europe) to the new AG and her chief of staff who working for Kathleen Wynne was a point person on violence against women,
Interesting phrasing:
“The CRA and the IRS also shared the view that the notice did not allow for an extension because of the ongoing litigation surrounding the agreement.”
Makes it sound like the extension was denied because of ongoing litigation.
@BB I would have thought ongoing litigation would have placed a halt on the “exchange” (right) of information until a resolution had been reached. Decisions these days seem to mostly fall in the counterintuitive department.
Comments falling under the ‘counterintuitive’ department?
More like the ‘vindictive’ department.
Rather than granting an extension BECAUSE of the litigation it is denied because of the litigation.
‘IRS and CRA share the view’
That is EXACTLY the trouble.
Our government and our agencies are supposed to be ON OUR SIDE. They are there for that very reason and that very reason only. The ONLY reason for their existence is our good will to have them in positions to advance and protect Canadian rights within Canada’s own borders.
These lawsuits and forwarding litigation cannot come any sooner.
This is tiresome, worrying and unendingly agitating.
Which is what they count on when implementing delay after delay on everything BUT transfer of information.
The equivalent of ‘slapping them up side the head’ IS our litigation. ALL of it.
And the sooner the better.
@ Bubblebustin
Re:
Maybe, but could also be an ambiguous use of the word “because.”
If I’m recalling correctly, Plaintiffs raised the sensible point that the data transfer should be delayed because of the ongoing litigation.
I don’t think CRA is saying that if there were no ongoing litigation, they and IRS might have agreed to a delay in transferring the data.
I think CRA is replying to Plaintiff’s point by saying that they and IRS don’t feel that because there is ongoing litigation is sufficient reason to delay data transfer.
That’s my 2 rmb. But either way it sucks.
@Stephen
“The CRA and the IRS also shared the view that the notice did not allow for an extension because of the ongoing litigation surrounding the agreement.”
“I trust the information I have provided is helpful.”
It ought to be helpful. Who needs another motivator beyond this to see the litigation gets fully funded?
“The CRA and the IRS also shared the view that the notice did not allow for an extension because of the ongoing litigation surrounding the agreement.”
There are three things that statement tells me:
1.) The two agencies admit they are now actively working together to the detriment of our interest.
That’s understandable in the case of the IRS but outrageous for the CRA.
2.) Both agencies wanted that to have that information transmitted before and in case the lawsuit was
successful.
3.) I need to make another donation ASAP. A curse upon them both.
It might make a little sense if those at the CRA actually believed that the lawsuit might pose a threat to data exchange – keeping up with the ruse that Canada might just benefit from the FATCA IGA – but they aren’t, and never will.
@Stephen Kish says:
Each letter tells a heart-wrenching story.
We can all talk about legal issues and political issues, but that sentence tells me everything I need to know and precisely explains why I am a plaintiff. What my Canadian government, what the USG, what the government of any country that has subjected its citizens to this travesty and the impact it has had on individual lives is the the exact reason why we must carry on to the finish.
Those stories are why we do what we do, with your ongoing support. I know I say it often, but I won’t stop thanking you for that support until we are done. And then, probably for the rest of my life as well.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/politicians-slam-tax-avoiding-pfizer-223752250.html
f
US politicians complain about Pfizer / Allegan merger seeing its new company being headquartered in Ireland rather than NY.
Once again the US is trying to find a magic bullet to ‘handcuff’ companies to the US. Yes it’s about the tax rate, but also the new company will have total freedom with its overseas earnings without IRS interference.
What the US should be doing is asking WHY rather than brand this deal as un-American. In fairness to Pfizer to compete against other global drug companies, they need to have to be part of a better tax regime than the US offers.
As Professor Christians says (about non-resident USC’s), rather than making it harder to leave, they should be making it easier to stay.
After the US government treatment of its expats the last number of years most of them don’t want to stay, even if it does become easier.