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
That was this Liberal MP’s statement on FATCA as a candidate. We need to know if that is still his statement as an elected Liberal MP and, if not, why not? Do others in Darrell Samson’s/our Liberal government disagree with his statement or has someone nixed his statement as a Liberal candidate? Good catch, NativeCanadian.
Thanks for the Liberal statement, Native Canadian, but that was BEFORE the election. I think it’s more of a case of amnesia now than lying then though. We need to remind them of their words, because apparently they’ve forgotten that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.
@George and Stephen, To clarify (as rereading my comment to Dash it sounds as though I also felt “rebuffed”) I did not feel rebuffed at all. Rebuff implies ungracious rejection which was NOT my experience and I am sorry Dash took the decision to decline his generous offer as a personal slight.
…and that Candidate Justin Trudeau’s statement was not qualified with *except when a Canadian is a deemed US citizen abiding in Canada*.
Could that post, which is STILL active, be sent to Trudeau via Facebook along with questions asking him why he lied?
@NativeCanadian
I would suggest you take a screen shot of the page and print out a copy– the page may be taken down once the inconsistency between statement and action is pointed out.
FYI, I sent the MP from my former riding (Marc Garneau) a letter back on December 3rd. I am still waiting for a reply.
You can find lots of quotes including the one above and the entire letter from Mr. Trudeau to Lynne Swanson in the letter our litigator sent to the Crown attorneys.
We asked whether the Attorney General, given the change in Government, had given new instructions to her attorneys re: defence of lawsuit. The reply was a “no” but that we would be informed if this ever happened.
The Arvay letter with the pre-election quotes:
https://adcsovereignty.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/2015-11-09b-et-nygard-et-al_delivering-letter-of-same-date.pdf
Again, good idea to save something in case it disappears, BC_Doc.
Small to get it all in, but might work???
Screen Shot Liberal Party Position on U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)
@everyone. This has nothing to do with any recent comments but I have recently been reviewing my experience from the beginning of my introduction to FATCA and acknowledged to myself how devastating this has been for me. If I had not found the IBS, I don’t know where I would be now but I don’t think it would be a good place. You have all helped me figure this thing out and helped me have the courage to stand strong. Thank you all so much. Let’s get it done guys.
Having recently made a contribution to ADCS, I just directed my energy to the second most effective place, that is at my MP. I hope others will be similarly inspired:
Dear Pam,
OK, I’ve officially lost patience now. It’s evident that the Trudeau government has changed its mind that a “Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” as it seems you intend on defending the Harper government’s FATCA IGA in court. It appears that the Liberals have forgotten its stance on FATCA before the election:
Liberal Party Position on U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)
In response to a question from a constituent regarding the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, see the Liberal Party position below.
In February of 2014 the Government of Canada entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. regarding FATCA requirements. Under these rules the Canada Revenue Agency will collect tax information on Canadians who are U.S. citizens and then hand that information over to the IRS. While the US has the right to target tax evaders using offshore accounts, targeting hard working Canadians who pay taxes is unfair.
Before the agreement which came into effect on July 1, the Liberal Party of Canada raised the issue in Question Period, pressing the Conservative government to do the right thing for Canadians. We believe that the Government of Canada should stand up for honest, hardworking people who have been caught up by overly complex American tax rules. They are not tax cheats and we encouraged Stephen Harper to stand up for them.
We also have concerns that the agreement reached with the U.S. may not stand up to a Constitutional challenge given that it forces the banks to treat clients differently based on their national origin, something forbidden by Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Government of Canada has a responsibility to stand up for its citizens when foreign governments are encroaching on their rights. The deal reached between the Government and the U.S. is insufficient to protect affected Canadians. Liberals believe Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird should have asked the U.S. for amnesty against penalties as the IRS’s Foreign Bank Account Reporting requirements were not adequately communicated to dual-citizens living in Canada. In addition, we encouraged Finance Minister Joe Oliver to work to amend the agreement so that the IRS would not tax savings vehicles such as TFSAs and RESPs. We were pleased to learn these registered plans have since been exempted from reporting by the banks but continue to worry that the IRS may view them as taxable when dual citizens file their returns.
Please correct me if I’m wrong and convince me that you haven’t forgotten.
Also, the FATCA IGA the Harper government negotiated with the US is quickly coming up for review. Will the Trudeau government continue with the sham that Canada’s actually getting a reciprocal exchange of information, or quit with the current “wink and nod” level of diplomacy we’ve seen thus far?
By the way, I am still awaiting the information promised by your office as to what exactly the IRS provided to the CRA in that first exchange of information in 2015. (See email exchange with Deanna below).
The evidence that the US doesn’t plan to reciprocate under FATCA nor the OECD CRS is growing and undeniable. This article from a well-respected tax professional can’t make it any clearer that Canada is getting much less that it bargained for, and certainly no more than it had before the IGA. Can we go on pretending?
The US and It’s Reciprocal IGA’s – Oh, Really?
http://blogs.angloinfo.com/us-tax/2016/01/16/the-us-and-its-reciprocal-igas-oh-really/
Pardon me if I sound short. I don’t think it’s right that every day Canadians are forced to spend their after tax dollars fighting a taxpayer funded defense that infringes on the rights of all Canadians, when our legislators could justly say “NO, Canadians matter”!
Best regards always,
[bubblebustin]
@Cheryl for a while I was in that dark place and it is not a good place. I am a person of faith and consider being directed to IBS a great gift.
Thank you for sharing your story on this board. Your story raised problems that I needed to discuss with one of my teens on career choices so you have made a difference half way round the world, can you imagine for a moment that your path would impact someone else half way around the world?
@Bubbles……you are the STAR in nailing MPs!!!!!
Thanks George. We just have to get this done and we have to do it together. You have often been a great support to me and I am truly grateful.
@Dash1729
Re your question “If not me then who”? I offered to be a witness over a year ago. I frankly don’t care if the IRS knows who I am, because they cannot collect even if I owed them anything (I don’t). I do not consider volunteering as a witness to be brave, simply a matter of opposing an egregious piece of legislation by our own government, in aid of a more outrageous move by a foreign one. Castigating someone for not pushing their offspring to be a witness is out of line. Very disappointing comment, and quite arrogant for someone with no kids.
@Dash
Calgary411 should no more throw her son under the bus for the sake of Canada than my son should by being a witness for ADCS. The fact that she would need to do it without his consent makes it even more preposterous.
For those wondering – I have two sons, one registered, the other not. Both born in Canada, both “entitled” to US citizenship.
@George
My unregistered son doesn’t know he’s cursed with US citizenship. I haven’t told him, because I don’t want him to lie or hesitate with his bank if he’s required to certify he’s not a US person. Of course he is aware of his brother being a USC, but thinks that because he wasn’t registered before he was 18 he missed the “opportunity” to do so. He may just hesitate with the bank regardless, and maybe evn say he’s not sure – which would lead to them to insist he verify it with the US government, or just send his info to the CRA anyway.
Should all young women Canadian Citizens (age 18-25) with a US Place of birth and/or one/two parents with US Citizenship be required to register for Selective Service (draft) with the United States?
Should the Government of Canada assist the United States in ensuring that all young women Canadian Citizens (age 18-25) with a US Place of birth and/or one/two parents with US Citizenship be required to registered for Selective Service (draft) with the United States?
These are not silly questions and reflect a debate that is now happening in the homeland but one that affects young women worldwide that have a taint of US Citizenship.
Just as the US Embassy in Ottawa issues “tax information” for US Citizens it also issues Selective Service information; “Male U.S. Citizens between the ages of 18 and 26 are required to register with the Selective Service no matter where they currently reside.” They also make it eligible right now for young Canadian males to register with a direct link from their website.
http://canada.usembassy.gov/consular_services/selective-service.html
The Selective Service websites states; “Dual nationals of the U.S. and another country are required to register, regardless of where they live, because they are U.S. nationals.” and remind us of the penalty “Failure to register is a violation of the Military Selective Service Act. Conviction for such a violation may result in imprisonment for up to five years and/or a fine of not more than $250,000.”
Because of changes made by the current administration, the Supreme Court decision that upheld male only registration is no longer valid hence a lawsuit making its way through the courts.
http://taskandpurpose.com/its-time-we-require-women-to-register-for-the-draft/
As Brockers…..lets put aside for the moment should women be subject to a draft, should women serve in combat roles…..in THEIR OWN COUNTRY.
The greater question that we can all agree on is if Canada should assist the USA in making sure all Canadian Citizen young women (18-25) whose only sin is a US Place of birth that they be registered for a draft in what is actually a foreign country?
In addition to serving as a discussion for Brockers, I hope that ADCS and Arvey can use this concept to illustrate why FATCA IGA is equally poisoned fruit from the tree.
IF it is alright for Canada to aid the USA in ratting out US Persons for FATCA then it is equally alright to aid the USA in registering all these young women when Selective Service comes online in America.
One of our biggest problems is that we get called “tax cheats” but how will our fellow in your case Pure Canadians react to an issue like Selective Service in the USA and young Canadian Citizen women?
The penalty for not registering is
@George
The problem is that our government argues that the exchange of information with FATCA is under the existing treaty, therefore ok.
Re my MPs (current and former). I’m just lucky I got (and kept) their attention!
Just as American Citizens Abroad reminds young “expats” of the need to register for Selective Service, Brock could do a public service and post a link too;
https://www.sss.gov/Home/Registration
https://americansabroad.org/issues/citizenship/requirements-us-citizenship/
@calgary411
U are not alone in thinking that your son should not be part of this lawsuit… he may not understand… what good would it do to harm him for this? Lawsuits are brutal… being badgered by our own gov’t who is suppose to represent & protect us. I would put myself in harms’ way before I put my child there…
U are not the only one who knew nothing about taxes… US wants a chunk on things that was never made in the US… our own gov’t tossed us under the bus which is the biggest bitter pill we have to swallow… The Canadian gov’t is using our tax money… which is unlimited… to defend themselves against us… who has to raise money… to ensure our rights & privacy… we thought the changing of the guard would ensure our rights & privacy but he is too busy going on an expensive vacation with his family on taxpayers’ money
**except when a Canadian is a deemed US citizen abiding in Canada**
That is incorrect… its US person… broader brush the US is using.
To the ones who do not donate… sitting there thinking it won’t happen to them…. there are loads of US GC or Visa holders in Canada… valid or not… cause it was easy to get… surprise… u are screwed just like we are…. u may not know until u cross the border or get the dreaded letter of demand… mistake or not… how do u fix that problem? A polite letter will not solve the problem… u have been flagged… right or wrong
The headline;
“Selective Service Is an Obligation of Citizenship, Including Women”
My remake of the headline in our cause;
“US Selective Service Registration Is an Obligation of Citizenship, Including Young Canadian Citizen Women resident in Canada, born in the USA or anywhere else to at least one USC Parent.”
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/02/12/selective-service-is-an-obligation-of-citizenship-including-women
Just as “paying your fair share in US taxes” is a “citizenship obligation” so is registering for the US draft.
US_Foreign_Person,
I was referring to what Lynne Swanson gave in one of her submissions to Finance Canada, but you are right it refers to those deemed US Persons as well, the even broader brush we’re all painted with:
For Dash and others, I have offered myself as a witness in the litigation and that would be on behalf of those like my son and their families. My name, too, is no secret (and neither is my son’s through my FBARs to the US).
Thanks also to bubblebustin and John Canuck for seeing my son’s being a witness the way I do. I don’t understand what it might accomplish but his emotional harm.
@ US_Foreign_Person
I understand the danger described in your last paragraph. I will not answer a “letter of demand” from a foreign agency and I will not go anywhere near the U.S. border. I donate — so far more than a year’s worth of CPP/OAS cheques which are actually Canadian tax dollars. This is one very bizarre lawsuit beast the U.S.A. caused to be created in Canada. It is spinning round and round consuming its own taxes tail. Let the Charter Trial proceed and more’s the pity that Canadian taxpayers are paying for something that could have been avoided.
@EmBee
I know people who are current or expired gc or visas who think I am smoking cheap crack… when I tell them about it… they all say… we ain’t US citizens… what does it have to do with us…
When I chat up with people about it…. I see the interest in their eyes at first… then the light goes out… they made be still there in body… but their mind has left the room… no one except the people on this mb understands the anxiety & the helpness one feels when we know about the problem… this has been the heavy rock that has been sitting on my shoulder… I am not the only one in this problem… the majority of the elders in my family are trapped in this situation also… how do u tell them… what they worked for all their lives can be gone because of this nasty law… here is a word of warning to all who think going to the US is all that… Don’t go… go elsewhere…. immigrants are seen as easy marks in the US… no other country in the world does this… u can make money just as easy elsewhere…
@MuzzledNoMore, it pains me to criticize the ACA because of their laudable and valuable efforts on many expat issues, but I feel that they have decided to cut loose those of us who feel that FATCA (and FBAR and USextraterritorial CBT) is so flawed and unacceptable from so many angles, and so deeply offends our loyalty to our home countries (NON-US) as well as to our fellow citizens and residents, our NON-US family wellbeing, our local laws, constitutions and systems of human and civil rights, etc. that we feel that talk of ameliorating FATCA is like putting lipstick on a pig. FATCA Son of FBAR can never be anything other than what Congress made it. And Congress isn’t God, and FATCA wasn’t handed down to the prophet Harvey on stone tablets for the greater good of the US public. A Congress and a US public who as we know have no conception of the true motivations and life of those outside the US and really no interest in the true facts such as these;
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2016/01/16/un-300k-us-natives-got-out-since-2010/
https://books.google.ca/books?id=Cy7FAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=inauthor%3A%22Amanda%20Klekowski%20von%20Koppenfels%22&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
ACA may have made what they consider a strategic political decision to distance themselves from all other positions and efforts to get redress/recourse/justice for expats re FATCA/FBAR/USextraterritorialCBT, but I don’t think that their plan for success needed them to be outspokenly (and not I think objectively) criticizing and undermining the attempts of others to repeal the bad law that is FATCA, or to accept the USextraterritorial injury against our right to privacy, our right to be considered innocent before guilt, to conserve our local taxpayer revenues and spend them on our own social goods and priorities rather than pay our local tax agency to do the dirty work of the IRS and US Treasury hunting down our own fellow citizens, burdening our local financial and non-financial institutions and governments by extortionate means, and tormenting us for no just cause – from afar – far outside the US actual boundaries and jurisdiction. And all based on something so flimsy and indefensible as the place where our mother gave birth, the birthplace of our parent/s, etc. There is NO defensible economic connection or relationship. And might never makes right.
The ACA (along with the AARO and FAWCO) said this directly to the IRS in 2010, urging the repeal of FATCA:
“…ACA, AARO and FAWCO strongly recommend not only seriously revising Form
8938, but also question its usefulness in terms of information collected, IRS
efficiencies and tax filer compliance. The IRS should encourage Congress to repeal
FATCA legislation and the related filing requirement for Form 8938”
from;
https://americansabroad.org/files/6113/3589/8113/8938comm.pdf
See letter ‘Concerns: Comments on Draft Form 8938’
December 20, 2010 to
Yet, ACA says this now in January 2016:
“…..To fight for the repeal of FATCA is basically to fight against the need for tax evasion
legislation. ACA’s role is not to determine whether or not our current tax evasion
legislation is strong enough to combat the problem. Fighting to repeal FATCA puts ACA in
a dangerous position and forces us to comment on the appropriateness of tax evasion
legislation. Moreover, we have to ask the question: “If not FATCA, then what? “Again, ACA
simply does not have the expertise in this area to comment or provide guidance on the
best way to combat tax evasion. Our job is to raise awareness of the problems that
legislation is causing for Americans overseas and to work aggressively and smartly for
redress.
ACA believes that instead of fighting FATCA with efforts to repeal—essentially telling the
Congress that we believe there is no need to combat tax evasion—ACA should fight
FATCA on its specific negative effects on the community of Americans overseas. What
Americans living overseas object to is not the need for tax evasion legislation. Americans
overseas object to fighting tax evasion with a tool that seriously impedes their ability to
function economically….”….
Quite the repudiation of the 2010 stance. And very strange statements given the doubts raised from several reputable quarters that there has never been a cost-benefit analysis of FATCA, or a legal constitutional analysis of the FATCA IGAs, or that FATCA can even achieve what it is purported to be designed to do. Also very questionable given the US refusal to sign on to the OECD CRS and its lack of ‘reciprocity’ under FATCA.
And what does the ACA make of the criticisms of FATCA direct from the IRS Taxpayer Advocate – some of which raise the same issues we raise; of “the right to privacy”, “The right to a fair and just tax system”, etc.?
Ex.
“By the time lawmakers and taxpayers have figured out whether the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act was worth the trouble, it might be too late to undo any damage, National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson said October 7.
“However much I’ve tried to figure out what on earth [FATCA] means, and the consequences of it, I have no idea,” Olson told a luncheon audience at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association FATCA Policy Symposium in Washington.
“This is a piece of legislation that is so big and so far-reaching, and [has] so many different moving pieces, and is rolling out in an incremental fashion . . . that you really won’t be able to know what its consequences are, intended or otherwise,” Olson said. “I don’t think we’ll know that for years. And by that point we’ll actually be a little too late to go, ‘Oops, my bad, we shouldn’t have done this,’ and then try to unwind it.” “……
Read the fulltext of the TAS remarks here http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/FD2860D17810639485257D6B0052AC9C?OpenDocument
and of course the FATCA and International sections in the TAS reports to Congress for at least the last 5 years:
ex. http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/Media/Default/Documents/2016-JRC/Area_of_Focus_4_Implementation_of_FATCA.pdf
Area of Focus #4
‘The IRS’s Implementation of FATCA Has in Some Cases Imposed
Unnecessary Burdens and Failed to Protect the Rights of
Affected Taxpayers’
TAXPAYER RIGHTS IMPACTED1
■ The right to pay no more than the correct amount of tax
■ The right to privacy
■ The right to a fair and just tax system
and here:
http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/reports
This is why the ADCS lawsuit MUST go forward. It is the only effort which asserts our local legal laws and rights override any foreign US extraterritorial extortionate laws such as FATCA Son of FBAR.
@all.
Send donations now.
See this to fruition.
We are so close – our cause is just.
@badger
@Canadian Ginny; you and Gwevil and the others of ADCS, IBS, and MapleSandbox are the inspiration and the mechanism and the public face that gives all of our individual opposition and rebellious hearts a chance at expression and avenues for redress and recourse – for the injuries that have already taken place, as well as a chance to prevent injury to others now, to our children, our fellows, and our home countries.
We are still here, thanks to the work of all of you.
____
Thank you for your kind and most generous words. I worry that I will never find an adequate way of ever thanking people and donors like you who keep me inspired.When I submitted my request to be considered as a plaintiff, I was not fully aware of the tremendous support behind this effort.
I just did what I had to do in order to live with myself. Purely selfish reasons, I assure you.As a lawyer, I recognized a legal wrong of great magnitude and thought: this needs to be fixed and off I went. The enormous unanticipated personal bonus is the friends and support I have found here.
The experience has been life changing for me. Especially hearing the narratives of the impact this draconian treaty has had. As lawyers, it is something that John Richardson and I talk about a lot. And his focus in his public talks of course.
There’s the law, and it is mostly promulgated and studied in its abstract. Then there’s the reality of the impact of the law. That needs far more study, imo. Access to justice has been my legal focus.Without it laws take on other meanings and often, some unintended consequences.
@Dash,
I too do not feel that sacrificing the wellbeing of a minor or someone who cannot make the fully informed decision themselves is ethical or necessary. I do not feel that is a sacrifice that loyalty to one’s country should require.
A parent and legal guardian must do what is BEST for the minor or legally incompetent person in their care. That does not equate with sacrificing them to a cause, or to their country.
I myself will not compromise my family wellbeing and stability by coming forward as a potential witness in this lawsuit without family and spousal consent – though I myself would like to help this lawsuit succeed and I know we need willing witnesses which fit whatever criteria the lawyers have identified as most strategic (note; I don’t know whether I fit).
I appreciate that you have participated here at IBS over a significant period of time and have donated and contributed by commenting regularly.