Posted on Ipolitics.ca You can add your comments at that website. The title of the article is “Revenue Canada quietly handed 155,000 Canadian banking records to IRS”
[Note that the journalist began article with point that our Canadian Government sent private bank info south before receiving privacy assessment from Office of Privacy Commissioner. Journalist failed to find Liberal Government MP willing to chat but did hunt down Liberal Senator who complained about actions of the Tories.]
The journalist, Elizabeth Thompson, comments on her own article: “The language is not misleading. A number of people I interviewed told me of their efforts to get comments from the new Liberal government since the election – from the same Liberal MPs who commented on this issue before the election. I’m trying once again today for an interview with the Revenue Minister (who has a lot less to do with the budget than the finance minister does) and I will keep trying.”]
THE ARTICLE:
“The Canada Revenue Agency quietly turned 155,000 banking records over to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service during last fall’s election, without waiting for an assessment from Canada’s Privacy Commissioner or the outcome of a court challenge to the controversial move.
According to documents tabled in the House of Commons, roughly 150,000 of the Canadian bank records transferred to the IRS on Sept. 30, 2015 related to individuals who are U.S. residents or people with U.S citizenship living in Canada.
The transfer, the first of its kind, was the result of a deal worked out between Canada and the United States in the wake of the U.S. decision to adopt the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), pressuring financial institutions around the world to reveal information about bank accounts in a bid to crack down on tax evasion by U.S. taxpayers with foreign accounts.
The Conservatives have argued that given the penalties the U.S. was threatening to impose, they had no choice but to negotiate the information sharing deal and through the deal was able to exempt some types of accounts such as RRSPs and Tax Free Savings Accounts from the information transfer.
A second transfer of records to the IRS is scheduled for September 30, 2016.
As part of the deal, the IRS also agrees to send the CRA information on Canadians with U.S. accounts.
While the government says financial institutions should be open with clients about their files being sent to the IRS, the CRA is not automatically informing those whose records have been transferred, saying it is up to individuals to ask for the information.
The CRA says it submitted a privacy impact assessment to Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien’s office for review on Aug. 27, 2015 but only received recommendations from Therrien on Jan. 4, 2016 – well after the records had already been transferred.
Critics, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau before he came to power, have raised concerns about the information sharing deal, saying the implications of the CRA reporting to a foreign government agency about Canadian citizens was “troublesome.”
“The Liberal Party of Canada believes that the Conservative government’s efforts to safeguard the personal privacy of Canadians have been inadequate,” Trudeau wrote in a letter dated June 25, 2015 to Lynne Swanson of the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty, which has been fighting to stop the CRA from turning the records over to the IRS.
“While the United States has the right to target tax evaders using offshore accounts, targeting hard working Canadians who pay taxes is unfair,” Trudeau added. “The Government of Canada has a responsibility to stand up for its citizens when foreign governments are encroaching on their rights. We believe that the deal reached between Canada and the U.S. is insufficient to protect affected Canadians.”
During the election campaign, Liberal Darrell Samson, who was elected MP for the Nova Scotia riding of Sackville-Preston-Chezzetcook, pointed out that Liberals had criticized the information sharing in the House of Commons and questioned whether the move was even constitutional.
“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,” he wrote on his website.
Since taking office, however, Trudeau’s Liberal government appears to have been silent on the deal.
A spokeswoman for Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier said the minister was not available for an interview Tuesday.
Swanson, who has been a Canadian citizen since 1973, says she feels betrayed – first by the Conservatives and now by the Liberals.
“I’m furious. I feel totally betrayed,” she said, rattling off a list of prominent Liberals who spoke out against the deal before they formed the government.
Swanson questions whether Canadians would accept a similar deal to share private information with any country other than the U.S, saying it treats some Canadian citizens differently from others.
“FATCA requires Canadian banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS private banking information, private financial information. In terms of bank accounts that includes account numbers, account balances, total assets, transactions, address and other personal identifying information.”
“If all Canadians were having that information submitted to the Canada Revenue Agency to pass on to a foreign government, there would be absolute outrage in this country.”
Swanson said her group’s constitutional challenge of the information sharing deal is currently before the courts. NDP Revenue Critic Pierre-Luc Dusseault, who placed the question on the order paper, is concerned that the CRA is not advising people whose records were shared with the IRS.
“What is worrying me is that CRA is not notifying people automatically whose information was transferred,” Dusseault explained. “So the CRA has some information on Canadian citizens who are happen to also have American citizenship and these people had their information transferred on September 30 without a lot of noise.”
Dusseault says the CRA should notify all of those whose records were transferred.
“Some people may not know that they are part of that transfer.”
Dusseault says he is also concerned by the CRA’s decision not to wait for the privacy commissioner’s ruling and to transfer the records during the election campaign – a time when under the caretaker convention public servants are supposed to abstain from anything but routine actions.
Dusseault said he plans to propose a parliamentary committee hold hearings into the CRA’s actions.
Senator Percy Downe, who sits as a Senate Liberal, says the CRA should have waited until after the election before transferring the records to the IRS.
“It’s quite surprising that they did not ask for an extension,” he said. “The extensions the IRS gave others they claimed did not apply to the CRA but I’m sure the IRS would have understood if the CRA had said, ‘We’re in the middle of an election, the election’s over in October, we’ll have a new minister in November.’ What’s a couple of months delay?”
Downe said he was also surprised the CRA transferred the records before getting an assessment from the privacy commissioner’s office, which he said made recommendations about limiting the collection of information, limiting the disclosure of information and the retention of personal information.
“This is after the horse had left the barn, if you will, because the information was already turned over in the rush to get it to them.”
elizabeththompson@ipolitics.ca
See Ipolitics.ca interview with Lynne.
Thank you for posting this iPolitics article that comes from Lynne Swanson’s interview with Elizabeth Thompson. And, of course, thanks once again, Lynne.
I so hope that Elizabeth does a complete and no-cover-up story regarding FATCA and the Liberals, pre- and post-election to lead this sovereign country!
There are 8 comments so far at: http://ipolitics.ca/2016/03/16/revenue-canada-quietly-handed-155000-canadian-banking-records-to-irs/
I’m furious that a request by my MP to the Revenue Minister made several weeks ago as to whether my banking info has been sent to the IRS has fallen on deaf ears, ESPECIALLY since I was instructed by my bank to get this info directly from the CRA, who in turn told me to get it from the Revenue Minister. I’m getting the runaround!
This is especially infuriating when I know that my bank had the obligation to tell me. They told me that if I had a problem with their determination, that I should take it up with the bank’s ombudsman.
Way to go Lynne. Thank you for persisting.
How in the world are we supposed to find out if our information was sent to the IRS?
The banks say ask the CRA.
The CRA says ask the Revenue Minister.
The Revenue Mininster does not respond.
A family member receives Social security benefits in Canada. Did her bank send her info assuming she was a USP? How do thy know she did not renounce?
My MP and I are still waiting for responses from the Revenue Minister and Attorney General explaining why they continue to defend this lawsuit.
Marie,
The bank is required to provide this information.
If anyone, like Bubblebustin above, asks their bank whether their bank info was sent to CRA/IRS and the bank refuses to provide this information — and you are willing to submit an affidavit (including your name) on this as part of our litigation — let me know. This is a “harm”.
Further damage is while waiting to hear whether the IRS has your info, the IRS sends you a letter telling you you’re on their radar. Once the IRS has contacted you, you will not be able to enter any of their amnesty programs. Of course, the IRS will just tell you that you should have sought compliance when you became aware of your tax-filing obligations, not because the bank handed your banking info over.
@Stephen
The previous Privacy Commissioner claimed “we must resign ourselves to the fact that we are faced with a requirement from the United States and that the requirement corresponds to the public interest of the United States, meaning the integrity of their tax regime”, YET the IGA exempts many US taxable accounts from reporting – making the premise for reporting utter BS.
@StephenKish
The problem is that asking your bank the question identifies you as a USP.
Marie re: “A family member receives Social security benefits in Canada. Did her bank send her info assuming she was a USP? How do thy know she did not renounce?”
How do they know your family member was ever a US person at all based? You don’t have to have been a US person to collect SS benefits.
For example the ex-spouse of someone collecting SS benefits may also be entitled to spousal benefits depending on the length of the marriage, regardless whether or not they ever worked in the USA. I doubt very much that the banks would make assumptions about the US person status of an individual receiving SS benefits into their bank accounts.
ooops…excuse typos.
Marie, I would think though that anyone receiving SS benefit deposits will be on the list for ‘curing US indicia’ prior to the 2016 transfer of information to the IRS. If I understand correctly, this is the year that the banks are supposed to be reviewing existing accounts. A regular SS deposit could be considered US slave indicia worthy of further interrogation. Perhaps, you could suggest to your family member to be prepared with an explanation as to why she/he is not owned by the USA.
As a precaution, social security benefits can be deposited into an account at a credit union with a FATCA exemption. In addition, you can still just get the checks in the mail and then deposit them. I’ve checked on this as I’m eligible for social security benefits at age 65, which for me will be next year. Even though I’ve renounced, protecting oneself from the FATCA nightmare is a good idea.
It is infuriating that the Canadian government continues to be compliant with FATCA but I’m more frightened of the United States, the root cause of this evil.
ATTENTION! Interview request from CBC on this!
CBC’s The Exchange Interview Request
Hello, My name is Jessy Bains and I’m a producer with the CBC’s Exchange.
We’re hoping a member of your group is available today. We would like to chat about the following at around 4:20 this afternoon at our Toronto studio if possible…
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2011/12/14/about-the-isaac-brock-society/comment-page-15/#comment-7317330
@White Cat
Receiving regular SS benefits is a pretty good indication that you are a USP. She was never contacted by the bank and she’s been receiving the benefits for years. Aside from asking the bank, which we are afraid to do, we have no way of knowing. She could be the widow of a US person collecting the widow’s benefit for all they know. And yes, we have our speech prepared as to why she is not a US person. However, we are still concerned that they sent the info and did not tell her.
@PatCanadian
Every credit union we spoke to was FATCA compliant and reported info to the CRA on US person.
@Marie, re: ” Receiving regular SS benefits is a pretty good indication that you are a USP. ”
No, it indicates you MIGHT be a USP, and at most may result in an interrogation. I doubt very much that banks will leap to the conclusion that your family member is a US person just based on having SS deposits.
Also, you do not have to be a widow of a US person to collect SS. You could be an ex.
Cool!!! Slowly but surely.
@Marie. I agree. When you walk into a bank to ask, they will ask you why you are asking. Then you will need to lie and say that you heard a story on Fatca on the radio or something like that. Likely will not stop the bank from looking further. The CRA knows this and has you in a catch 22!
Remember clinging nationality, U.S. Taxing Canadian citizens Canaduan income & retirement funds, supposedly to stop U.S. tax evasion from the country that has become the largest tax haven in the world., etc
@Marie, your family member could also be an ex-green card holder collecting SS, and we know that the IGA says green card holders (ex or not) should not identify themselves to the banks as US taxpayers.
@NC re: ” When you walk into a bank to ask, they will ask you why you are asking. ”
Yes, best not to ask. Wait until they ask you to cure your US indicia. Have your explanation ready.
I feel sorry for the people who get asked and have no idea about any of this.
Bubblebustin, thanks — I have contacted Jessi Bains — John Richardson can do the interview.
In the meantime, can you also find me a Liberal Government spokesperson (like the Minister of Finance who we are NOT suing) willing to speak to Mr. Bains as part of the interview…..?
@Stephen
The fact that we can’t find a single Liberal to talk about this IS the story!
Bubblebustin,
Nevertheless, I asked Mr. Bains to include in the interview a discussion with a Liberal Government spokesperson and wished him good luck in finding one.
@WhiteKat
Bank workers are sometimes not the smartest group of people…. I know that one for a fact when they hire my idiot cousin to work there… cousin is a few french fries short of a happy meal…. Bank will do everything they can to follow the rules… even if they are wrong… they will err on the side of… just report it if they are not sure… that alone will cause headaches for those who are not US persons… Ok… not to be mean… that could be a good thing if non-US persons gets reported… then more people will protest…