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 went through this video quickly.
The guy is an accountant, YOU MUST fill in all these IRS information returns, OR YOU’LL end up pay large penalties. That’s his presentation in a nutshell.
What they didn’t discuss is the unfairness of US tax law, how the Democratic Party is responsible for FATCA to begin with, how resident citizen’s rights are being trampled on, the US has no business collecting tax from foreign countries, and most of all they should be lining up an IBS style legal challenge in Europe against FATCA.
Until Democrats Abroad start speaking that language, it’s just comply comply comply for them, and allow the US tax the gaps between tax systems.
@ mjh49783
I’m just thinking in terms of my own situation
If there is no US indicia on the account, and the bank is just screening all accounts, how/why would they close it?
Thanks for the videos, Don, but I’ll take your word on what was said. Not much good comes from Democrats Abroad, as it’s primarily the overseas propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.
@Don:
“Democrats Abroad are trying to communicate the virtues of complying with US tax law abroad.”
They have been and are now a complete waste of time.
Not filling in the forms may not be the answer because most bank operating on the basis if you don’t reply they’ll send it regardless.
Provide wrong SS numbers, etc. – garbage in garbage out. The IRS would have to waste time manually looking up the correct numbers. Make the IRS waste time on resources and collect zero tax revenue.
Make foreign tax revenue expensive, costly and time consuming.
Tick the box that says “NO i AM NOT A US PERSON”
The bank will breathe a sigh of relief
So, what is the benefit to Canada of signing a FATCA IGA, over and above the pre-existing treaty re data exchanged? Looks like the US is NOT abiding by the IGA with Mexico:
“….the Commissioner of the Mexican IRS (SAT – Servicio de Administración Tributaria (SAT)), Mr. Aristóteles Núñez Sánchez just announced that the U.S. government is not holding up its side of the bargain under the U.S.-Mexico IGA. See, the Dec. 12, 2015 article en the national Mexican newspaper, El Universal, EU incumple entrega de informacion: SAT: Mexico ha hecho su parte, asegura Aristóteles Núñez
The article, which is in Spanish, explains that Mexico has complied with its obligations under the IGA by providing detailed information about U.S. taxpayers with accounts in Mexican financial institutions to the U.S. government. However, the U.S. government has not complied with its side of the bargain. The news report says no specific details were provided by Mr. Núñez about what type of information was provided.”
http://tax-expatriation.com/tag/fatca-iga/
Don: exactly! Always leave a grain of sand in the gears. Slows things down. I just got a letter from the IRS refusing my child deduction. Wrong SSN for my child. I swear I didn’t do this on purpose. All this for no tax owed, jeez, I’m actually counting on a credit. Might as well make them pay up, right?
@Fred and all
The child deduction can only be used if your child is a US person, same for your spouse. If you are a US person, you cannot claim your non-US family on your tax return. They’re not considered your family, just some random people you picked up along the way.
Our Revenue Minister should be revealing just what (if any) information CRA has received from the IRS. No doubt, very little. Perhaps all these IGAs will crater under the US intransigence and deceit in signing these things. Does failure of one party to live up to the agreement void the agreement?
I would think only if the short changed country had the courage to object. Only time will tell if Mexico has cajones. If our new government is anything like the old one, Canada will probably just give a wink and a nod to the US.
John Canuck,
My understanding is that IRS has turned over some banking information to Canada CRA in September or so of this year, as a “response” to the FATCA “agreement” to exchange banking data, and that IRS refuses to release details of this information. Since we don’t know the nature of the IRS information, it is not possible for anyone outside of the U.S. and Canadian governments to know whether the IRS data were really FATCA-related. The suspicion is that the IRS information is not “reciprocal” or identical to that seized by Canadian banks and sent, without your consent, to CRA/IRS to comply with FATCA.
The speculation is that IRS banking data are pretty much limited to interest income but this needs to be verified.
Would you really expect that any Canadian Government would complain to the U.S. about non-reciprocity of IRS data?
See below, but all is speculation with statements not coming directly from IRS:
“What information is being shared? Richard Kando, a director of Navigant Consulting in New York, says that in general, financial firms abroad [e.g., in Canada] have to report the name, address and taxpayer ID number of each U.S. account holder. They also must give the account number, account balance and gross amounts of dividends, interest and other income—including items such as the cash value of annuities. The threshold for reporting foreign accounts can be as little as $50,000.
The IRS won’t send all the same information abroad [to Canada] about foreigners’ accounts held in the U.S. firms, Mr. Kando says. In general, the agency will provide the name, address, account number and tax ID number or date of birth for the client, plus the gross amounts of deposit interest, U.S.-source dividends and certain other U.S.-source income. But the agency isn’t required to provide the account balance.
The IRS declined to say what the threshold is for reporting accounts held by foreigners.”
http://federaltaxcrimes.blogspot.ca/2015/10/wsj-article-on-bank-information-sharing.html
[We still need more donations for the Canadian lawsuit and Witnesses willing to go public.]
@Stephen Kish
Can’t the Arvay team request this information from the defense to establish whether there is reciprocity? What exactly is the US sharing with CRA under FATCA?
“Does failure of one party to live up to the agreement void the agreement?”
If the weaker party fails to live up, the stronger party gets to decide what part of the agreement is voided, and the stronger party gets to win a lawsuit against the weaker party for damages.
If the stronger party fails to live up, the stronger party gets to decide what part of the agreement is voided, and the weaker party gets to lose a lawsuit against the stronger party for damages.
The thing is, the US only agreed to work towards adopting the legislation it would take to reciprocate!
@Bubblebustin
“The thing is, the US only agreed to work towards adopting the legislation it would take to reciprocate!”
EXACTLY!!! So our CDN govt is in no position to be singing the praises of reciprocity when we were never promised it to begin with. If the Attorney General and Revenue Minister in our Canadian lawsuit plan to use reciprocity as a defense, doesn’t the the text of the IGA prove otherwise?
If anyone in our government tells me they’re pleased with the deal they got under FATCA, I’ll have a very heart laugh – right in their face, just as I did when my MP John Weston said he was “thrilled” with the FATCA IGA (well maybe it wasn’t so much a laugh, but I did get him to say he was sorry after he blamed his writing staff for using the word “thrilled”).
I have a letter into my new MP Pam Goldsmith-Jones today asking her if she’ll find out from the Revenue Minister just what was in the information the IRS sent to the Canadian government. I couldn’t ask for information under the terms of the FATCA IGA because none, as you’ve pointed out exist.
The reduction ($94,221 to $79,191) is indeed good news. It’s still a large sum for essentially one month of fund raising but we can do this. The Arvay team gave us all a Christmas bonus and we can show our gratitude by making that February 1st deadline. I don’t have a network but I can help.
That is good news, EmBee, a reduction in the expected billing, which gets us many inches closer to the goal. Thanks to your friend of a friend, Stephen, for helping as well. I’ll also continue my monthly donations but won’t be able to do more until the new year.
@Marie
If there is no US indicia on the account that the bank can use, then you might have nothing to worry about.
I’m celebrating the reduced fee!
Small contribution sent by PayPal.
Wow! The substantial reduction of Mr. Arvay’s invoice is the best Christmas present ever! Wonderful news!
@Marie
Well I did infect my kids at birth. My tax preparer, not without a sense of humor, suggested I claim them and save the money refunded for renunciation in the future!
“Letter of Transmittal
July 2, 1980
From: George McGovern, United States Senator (a Democrat)
To: Hon. Frank Church, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In 1978 and again in 1979 I drafted and sponsored legislation intended to bring governmental attention to bear on the question of how U.S. law affects government affects American citizens living and working abroad. Numbering well over one million and representing the United States around the world in all aspects of commerce, these overseas Americans constitute an important national asset.
Recently, however, U.S. law governing the rights and obligations of these citizens has fallen subject to increasing criticism… I therefore deemed it important that the policy implicit in this diverse body of law be subjected to a fresh and comprehensive examination….[etc]……”
— My response to Canada’s compliance in assisting the United States in enforcing these bad foreign laws is to sue in Canada’s Federal Court. I know that it is not the season for giving to fund a lawsuit, but please consider a donation to help us pay the legal bills — and what we are trying to achieve on your behalf.
“III. SECOND PRESIDENTIAL REPORT
From: Jimmy Carter [a United States President]
January 24, 1980
The White House, Washington
To: Hon. Frank Church, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
“…The various studies undertaken on the taxation of Americans living abroad do not yet provide clear evidence of competitive disadvantage and its impact on American economic interests.
In addition, the Foreign Earned Income Act of 1978 has been in place for only one year, Consequently, the Treasury Department has not yet had a chance to submit to Congress, as required by that Act, a report on the operation of the new provision for tax year 1979 and on the economic and revenue effects of the new law. Until some assessment is made for at least the first year’s operations, I believe it prudent not to recommend changes in the law.
I believe however, that this report will be helpful to the Congress and to the Administration in understanding the complicated and controversial area of tax policy and law. I fully intend to explore these important matters and to work with the Congress in developing needed improvements.”
— Please help us, with your donations, sue the Government of Canada for its compliance with these foreign laws imposed on Canadian citizens.