Read this article from the National Post, then please consider volunteering as a witness in our Canadian lawsuit. If interested, contact me at: stephen.kish.chair@adcs-adsc.ca
From the article (in which our Plaintiffs Gwen and Ginny are mentioned):
“No one was clearer about his qualms about this agreement than now-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who wrote in a pre-election letter that, “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.” etc. etc.
Another Justin Trudeau flip-flop article.
I tried to post a comment on the article asking for witnesses, but it appears that I have been moderated out. Maybe you can try.
@ Stephen Kish
This one got through moderation …
“Laura” (and David and Bead Bash),
Thank you for posting requests for witnesses!
Look for an article (probably tomorrow) in the Toronto Star. I was interviewed this morning.
I told the reporter we are seeking witnesses. I have no idea if that wil make it into the article.
I see your post, Stephen.
Another good article from Marni Soupcoff. Here’s her previous, for those who haven’t seen it:
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/marni-soupcoff-ottawa-is-violating-canadians-constitutional-rights-to-help-the-u-s-collect-taxes
Interesting that she heads the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which my current Liberal MP Conservative predecessor, John Weston founded. Like peas in a pod, the Libs and Cons are.
I am suspicious of Marni Soupcoff’s motives–for reasons I won’t share publicly.
I said this before but isn’t it reasonable that the signing of the treaty (IGA) made if difficult for the liberals to go back and do what they might like to do?
Forbidden fruit and information people won’t tell – a very interesting day on Brock today.
My husband has a joke he likes to tell:
How do you keep an idiot in suspense?
I’ll tell you tomorrow.
So BB, are you waiting for him to tell you the answer? 🙂
Neil Article 10 of the IGA commits both countries to ‘consult in good faith’ prior to the end of 2016 to amend the IGA to reflect progress or lack of progress with regard to reciprocity. Since the US has no intention or ability to reciprocate we have an easy out. In addition, the IGA can be terminated at any time with 12 months notice.
@Duke of Devon,
I thought we had news reports that the US did send out account details? We never expect it but I am sure I read it happened and posted it to the media articles open for comments section.
I’ll tell you tomorrow, WK.
Neill. It would be interesting to know. As far as I know, the US would only report interest and dividends not account totals. And of course they report nothing to Canada about Canadians living in the US. There is no true reciprocity. This is info the banks already send to the IRS. How the banks or the IRS could possibly sort out the info to send to 150 different counter parties is beyond me.
@EmBee et al:
When you speak of persons “that may be willing to be a witness” it might be better to say, that might be willing to complete an affidavit describing the harms FATCA has done to them.
That way they won’t think they’d have to testify in person. The words, “describing the harms FATCA has done to them” clarifies that they definitely don’t want false statements.
@Duke of Devon,
They have a portal that companies and other governments use.
It says the IRS sent out data to 34 countries:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/irs-begins-sending-individual-account-information-to-foreign-countries-1443810584
@ Tom Alciere
Good point. My last comment at CBC was close to the mark (I mentioned being a witness involved writing an affidavit) but I need to fine tune that. I’ll await more commenting opportunities.
I came across something quite by chance today; old, but it gives an idea of what was exchanged before the IGA. I was actually suprised at the number of accounts:
http://www.ifacanada.org/en/resource/9-english-articles/17-questions-for-competent-authority-services-division.html
Questions For Competent Authority Services Division
There are some suggestions in the technical explanations of protocols that claim a treaty partner cannot rely on bank privacy rules as away to avoid reporting information. That dates from the 1995 changes, though there is no wording directly saying that. I suspect it was not direct enough, thus the need for the IGA. reading and reading and reading PIPEDA , Privacy Act, Income Tax Act, and the Treaty. What a jumbled mess……..
PS I know I have said this before, butI think it may be somewhat pointless to expect these rules are followed. I asked a former CRA auditor what information they exchanged starting in 1996? And the answer was, “We gave them whatever they asked for.”
In that list of what has already been communicated to the IRS for decades it should be noted that the list contains nothing but T4s and T5s. Both these information slips report account *earnings*. In no case is the *balance* of an account reported. *That* is the elephant in the room that nobody with the power to help us (including Justice Martineau last summer) seems to have grasped. The FATCA IGA mandates the reporting of account *balances*. Taxes have nothing to do with balances, only earnings.
FATCA goes above and beyond what has ever been exchanged before. Diane Lebouthillier suggesting that the FATCA agreement is all perfectly normal and is nothing more than what has been going on since 1942 is completely erroneous.
@Muzzled re: “In that list of what has already been communicated to the IRS for decades it should be noted that the list contains nothing but T4s and T5s. Both these information slips report account *earnings*. In no case is the *balance* of an account reported. ”
Right, account balances are for penalty calculations, not for tax calcuations.
The other thing that is different about the non-FATCA information transfers (besides account balances not being included), is with regard to WHO is being reported on. It’s not like the FATCA transfer reflects the SAME people whose account interest was already transferred. If that was the case, the Cdn government could just have added another field on the data file that they already send for the interest, to include the balance. There. Problem solved. Now you get the interest and the balance for the same group of people who either live in the USA or voluntarily identify as American, but NOT for Canadians who live in Canada and who do NOT agree that they are US persons.
Of course the USA would never agree to that though, because FATCA is not about adding ‘account balance’ to the list of details that the USA already gets about US taxpayers. It is about smoking out the hidden ‘US persons’ among us. It is about receiving even more data (balance, interest, withdrawals, etc) about an even larger group of people including Canadians living in Canada who long ago ceased to have any meaningful, economic connection with the USA, so USA can further terrorize Canadians with penalty assessments for having the nerve to work for a living and save for their future. Our politicians should be pissed, as should ALL Canadians.
@Muzzled and WhiteKat
Exactly. Just what Professor Cockfield said during the May 13, 2014 FINA meetings. Not just much much more info but prev only on non-residents/temporary residents.
I have been, for days now trying to work out the interplay between PIPEDA, the Privacy Act, the ITA and the Treaty. I came across a reference in a technical explanation of the fifth protocol that claimed a Treaty partner could not exclude bank information due to bank privacy laws. That date of passing was September 21 2007. So there are some things to uncover and more of that info not available on internet. At least not enough of
it at one time. Going to check into this today….
PS. Our politicians , at least some of them should have connected more strongly or pressed our own civil servants negotiating these agreements. These guys are Canadians and they know what is in these agreements.
“If that was the case, the Cdn government could just have added another field on the data file that they already send for the interest, to include the balance.”
The US takes interest in principals not principles. The US gets nothing from the interest because Canada’s tax is higher. The US is fishing for penalties.
@Norman Diamond,
How can you say Canada’s tax on interest is higher? Could be up to 39.6%+3.8%+state in the US. That’s pretty high. US taxes are so complex that you can face marginal tax rates of 35% even for much lower incomes when in AMT.
“Could be up to 39.6%+3.8%+state in the US”
‘The key elements of the 1988 PIT reform reduced the number of tax brackets from ten to three, reduced the number of surtaxes from three to one, reduced the statutory top marginal tax rate from 34 to 29 percent’
OK, federal + Ontario might be a bit lower than the US now, a bit. It wasn’t when I was living there.