This is an extremely important post because it makes clear that some “US Persons” in Canada, due to holding a green card, have an option to follow the advice of the CRA and not identify themselves as a US Person to their financial institution. This may also be possible in other countries IF a treaty has the same provisions as those discussed in this post and that tax agency has a similar position. Please do check carefully and follow through before deciding whether this can apply to you. And note, nothing in this post can be considered to be accounting or legal advice for your situation.
Without intending it, we seem to have started a new approach to the ongoing problem of having US law inflicted upon us outside the US. I consider this post connected to my recent posts which I will call the “Tax Treaty Series.” Brockers outside of Canada are encouraged to do what we do best; i.e., go and research this to see if people in your countries also have a possibility of utilyzing this information. I think it is undeniable that Brock has had perhaps the largest effect on these issues due to our beginning as a resource tool based upon research. Due to our REFUSAL to believe what we were being told without adequate proof. We have managed to make this situation/people uncomfortable and forced to see that there are other options available than those we are told/offered. No other expat organization as far as I can see, in the last four years, has contributed more. In this spirit, I want to initiate a new effort focused upon looking for “loopholes;” not loopholes in the sense that we get out of doing something. Loopholes where governments have failed to “nail” us to the US’s requirements and by which we may legally NOT follow what is presumed by such governments and the tax compliance industry. I think treaties are an area where we can do more than we have in the past. And I ask for suggestions for a new term – not “loopholes” – what shall we call these? – Patricia Moon
*****
cross-posted from citizenshipsolutions.ca
Introduction …
Circa 2014: Are Green Card Holders who r resident in Canada "US Persons" within the meaning of Canada US FATCA IGA? https://t.co/txcOlpNMfJ
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) April 3, 2016
The above tweet references a comment that was left on Olivier Wagner’s Tax Samurai blog. Olivier is discussing an earlier post of mine called “When It Comes To FATCA, There Are Four Kinds Of Americans Abroad“.
I highly recommend his “post about my post”.
The comments discuss the question of:
Is a Green Card Holder resident in Canada a “U.S. Person”
for the purposes of FATCA?
The last comment notes that the Canada Revenue Agency is advising U.S. Green Card Holders who are resident in Canada that they should NOT identify as “U.S. Persons” under the FATCA IGA.
The exact text of the comment reads:
Green Card holders in Canada are interpreting the following statement from the Government of Canada to mean that FATCA does NOT apply to them:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/nhncdrprtng/ndvdls-eng.html
“I hold a U.S. green card. How does this affect my tax residency?
If you are a green card holder (that is, a lawful permanent resident of the U.S.), the U.S. considers you to be a U.S. resident.
However, if you are a resident of Canada for tax purposes and do not hold U.S. citizenship, you should not identify yourself as a U.S. person to your Canadian financial institution.”
The actual IGA is here.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/pdf/FATCA-eng.pdf
The definition section includes “U.S. residents” which presumably means tax residents (which in the case of Green Card Holders may be affected by a Treaty election).
The plain reading of the statement on the CRA site will mean that Green Card holders resident in Canada will NOT identify as being U.S. tax subjects.
Note: I tried to leave a similar comment a moment ago, but it didn’t seem to show up. This is a duplicate. Feel free to pick one comment or the other.
– See more at:
http://www.taxsamurai.com/index.php/2014/09/06/four-kinds-americans-abroad-response/#comment-7
The purpose of this post is to expand this discussion …
Let me take you through a step-by-step analysis in 9 parts.
Part 1. What does the Canada U.S. FATCA IGA actually say?
FATCA is a “hunt” for “U.S. Persons” (focusing on those born in the
U.S.) and, according to the IGA:
1 (ee) The term “U.S. Person” means
(1) A U.S. citizen or resident individual,
This subparagraph 1(ee) shall be interpreted in accordance with the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.
https://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/pdf/FATCA-eng.pdf
Part 2. Who is a “U.S. Person” according to the Internal Revenue Code?
S. 7701(a) of the Internal Revenue Code tells us that:
(a) (30) United States person
The term “United States person” means—
(a) a citizen or resident of the United States,
(and more that are not relevant to this post)
Part 3. Is a Green Card holder considered to be a “resident” of the United States?
Well, let’s look to the Internal Revenue Code. The answer is found in S.
7701(b) of the Internal Revenue Code.
(b) Definition of resident alien and non-resident alien
(1) In general
For purposes of this title (other than subtitle B)—
(A) Resident alien
An alien individual shall be treated as a resident of the United States with respect to any calendar year if (and only if) such individual meets the requirements of clause (i), (ii), or (iii):
(i) Lawfully admitted for permanent residence
Such individual is a lawful permanent resident of the United States at any time during such calendar year.
(ii) Substantial presence test
Such individual meets the substantial presence test of paragraph (3).
First year election
Such individual makes the election provided in paragraph (4).
(B) Non-resident alien
An individual is a non-resident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States (within the meaning of subparagraph (A)).
Conclusion: Under the Internal Revenue Code, a Green Card Holder (whether living in the United States or not) is considered to be a “resident” for tax purposes.
Part 4. If a Green Card Holder is a “resident” of the U.S. under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, then isn’t a Green Card Holder a “U.S. Person” under the Canada U.S. FATCA IGA?
Interesting …
First, Canada has the right to interpret the IGA.
Second, Canada and the U.S. have a “Tax Treaty”. One of the purposes of the Tax Treaty is to determine “residence” if a person qualifies as a “resident” of both Canada and the U.S. for tax purposes.
Under U.S. law a Green Card holder is a “U.S. resident” for tax purposes. But, under Canadian law, a Green Card holder who is resident in Canada is also a Canadian resident for tax purposes. It’s totally unfair for a Green Card holder to be considered to be a “resident” of BOTH Canada and the United States for tax purposes, right? (Only U.S.
citizens should be subjected to this level of unfairness, see below.)
Does the Tax Treaty resolve the question of “dual residency”? The answer is YES. You will find the answer in Article IV of the Treaty, which
includes:
2. Where by reason of the provisions of paragraph 1 an individual is a resident of both Contracting States, then his status shall be determined as follows:
(a) he shall be deemed to be a resident of the Contracting State in which he has a permanent home available to him; if he has a permanent home available to him in both States or in neither State, he shall be deemed to be a resident of the Contracting State with which his personal and economic relations are closer (centre of vital interests);
(b) if the Contracting State in which he has his centre of vital interests cannot be determined, he shall be deemed to be a resident of the Contracting State in which he has an habitual abode;
(c) if he has an habitual abode in both States or in neither State, he shall be deemed to be a resident of the Contracting State of which he is a citizen; and
(d) if he is a citizen of both States or of neither of them, the competent authorities of the Contracting States shall settle the question by mutual agreement.
Therefore, under the Canada U.S. Tax Treaty, a Green Card Holder who is “resident” in Canada, will be deemed to be a resident of Canada and NOT of the United States.
And this is why I believe that the Canada Revenue Agency provides the following advice to Green Card Holders who are “resident in Canada”:
I hold a U.S. green card. How does this affect my tax residency?
If you are a green card holder (that is, a lawful permanent resident of the U.S.), the U.S. considers you to be a U.S. resident.
However, if you are a resident of Canada for tax purposes and do not hold U.S. citizenship, you should not identify yourself as a U.S. person to your Canadian financial institution.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/nhncdrprtng/ndvdls-eng.html
(Note that in taking this position, the Government of Canada, is under the provisions of the tax treaty, “treating” Green Card Holders who are resident in Canada as residents of Canada and NOT of the United States.
Note also that those Green Card Holders are NOT required to actually elect to claim the benefits of the treaty.)
Part 5. Oh my God! If Green Card Holders resident in Canada are NOT “U.S. Persons” under the FATCA IGA, then shouldn’t this apply to U.S. citizens resident in Canada too?
Not so fast. The Canada U.S. Tax Treaty contains a provision commonly known as “the savings clause”. You will find it in Article XXIX, paragraph 2:
Miscellaneous Rules
1. The provisions of this Convention shall not restrict in any manner any exclusion, exemption, deduction, credit or other allowance now or hereafter accorded by the laws of a Contracting State in the determination of the tax imposed by that State.
2. Except as provided in paragraph 3, nothing in the Convention shall be construed as preventing a Contracting State from taxing its residents (as determined under Article IV (Residence)) and, in the case of the United States, its citizens (including a former citizen whose loss of citizenship had as one of its principal purposes the avoidance of tax, but only for a period of ten years following such loss) and companies electing to be treated as domestic corporations, as if there were no convention between the United States and Canada with respect to taxes on income and on capital.
3. The provisions of paragraph 2 shall not affect the obligations undertaken by a Contracting State:
(a) under paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article IX (Related Persons), paragraphs
6 and 7 of Article XIII (Gains), paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6(b) and 7 of Article XVIII (Pensions and Annuities), paragraph 5 of Article XXIX (Miscellaneous Rules), paragraphs 1, 5 and 6 of Article XXIX B (Taxes Imposed by Reason of Death), paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 7 of Article XXIX B (Taxes Imposed by Reason of Death) as applied to the estates of persons other than former citizens referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, paragraphs 3 and 5 of Article XXX (Entry into Force), and Articles XIX (Government Service), XXI (Exempt Organizations), XXIV (Elimination of Double Taxation), XXV (Non-Discrimination) and XXVI (Mutual Agreement Procedure);(b) under Article XX (Students), toward individuals who are neither citizens of, nor have immigrant status in, that State.
Just see the part that I bolded in paragraph 2. This is how the “savings clause” works. Because of the “Savings Clause” you do NOT get the benefits of the Tax Treaty if you are a U.S. citizen!
An injection of commentary: The ONLY people (if they are worth calling people) who should be justly considered to be tax residents of BOTH Canada and the United States for tax purposes are U.S. citizens. Clearly they should be punished for having been “Born in the USA” and having left the USA, right? (If you don’t note the sarcasm, this sentence is to emphasize the sarcasm!).
Understand that the Canada U.S. Tax Treaty does NOT prevent double taxation on U.S. citizens resident in Canada. The “savings clause”
GUARANTEES double taxation of U.S. citizens resident in Canada. Any relief from double taxation comes NOT from the Treaty but from the Internal Revenue Code under the “Foreign Tax Credit” rules or under the “Foreign Earned Income Exclusion”!Yet people have been conned into believing that the Treaty is to prevent double taxation on U.S citizens. Go figure!
Part 6. Wow! the treaty “tie breaker” rules are an amazing opportunity? But, what if I am a Green Card Holder in a country that (1) has a FATCA IGA with the USA but that (2) does NOT have a “tax treaty”
with the USA?
Interesting question.
First, the U.S. Treasury makes it clear that a country can have a FATCA IGA without having a Tax Treaty.
Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) https://t.co/imCNQzMwDM – list of countries with #FATCA treaties (or whatever they are)
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) April 3, 2016
Second, a list of countries that the U.S. has a tax treaty with does NOT include all the countries in the world.
Does your country have a tax treaty with the USA? It'ts time to check! Here is the list of U.S. Tax Treaties : https://t.co/XJg8xegPsT
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) April 3, 2016
Who could have known? The Bahamas (which by the way is a great place to combine a vacation with a renunciation of U.S. citizenship) has a FATCA IGA but no tax treaty.
The relevant provision of the U.S. Bahamas IGA include:
1(aa) The term “U.S. Person” means a U.S. citizen or resident individual, a partnership or corporation organized in the United States or under the laws of the United States or any State thereof, a trust if (i) a court within the United States would have authority under applicable law to render orders or judgments concerning substantially all issues regarding administration of the trust, and (ii) one or more U.S. persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust, or an estate of a decedent that is a citizen or resident of the United States. This subparagraph 1( aa) shall be interpreted in accordance with the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.
Looks like the Green Card Holder in the Bahamas is “SOL” a “U.S Person” under the U.S. Bahamas FATCA IGA.
In the same way that the U.S law treats U.S. citizens abroad differently depending on their country of residence, FATCA treats Green Card Holders abroad differently depending on their country of residence.
#YouCantMakeThisUp
Part 7. Back to Green Card Holders in Canada and the Canada U.S.
Tax Treaty
As always, there is “Good News” and “Bad News”.
First, the “Good News”.
You are being advised (with justification) that you are NOT a “U.S.
Person” for the purposes of FATCA reporting. In other words, if your bank asks you the question:
“Are you a “U.S. Person”, the Canada Revenue Agency is advising you to answer in the negative.
Second, the “Bad News”
As a Green Card Holder you are considered to be a “U.S Person” under the Internal Revenue Code. In “people talk” this means that you must file U.S. tax returns. The only question is whether you file as a “U.S.
resident – 1040” or if you take advantage of the provisions of the Tax Treaty by treating yourself as a “non-resident” of the U.S. and file as a “non-resident alien” – 1040-NR. This may involve making a formal election under the Tax Treaty to deem yourself to be a non-resident of the U.S. for tax purposes. You should get professional advice before filing as a “non-resident of the United States”. I repeat that you should get professional advice before taking advantage of the tax treaty and filing as a “non-resident” alien!
Why? Because …
1. If you file your U.S. tax return as a “non-resident” you may jeopardize your status as a lawful permanent resident of the United States (you might lose your Green Card); and
2. You may (according to the provision of S. 7701(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code have “expatriated yourself” and (are you ready for this?) be subject to the Exit Tax Provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.
So, PLEASE be careful …!
As per S. 7701(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, ALL Green Card Holders are considered to be U.S. taxpayers. This harsh reality has been recently confirmed in the case of Topsnik. I will save you the trouble. Here is the
case:
Part 8. The “Oh My God” moment for Green Card Holders – How to cease being as U.S. tax subject …
I will discuss “Green Card Expatriation” (how to get rid of the Green Card SAFELY and possible tax consequences for so doing) in a future post. This future post will include the question of which Green Card Holders are subject to the S. 877A Exit Tax (a frightening prospect).
Any chance of a Really Useful Summary Table detailing country-by-country (with reference to supporting Treaty clauses by country) the situation for holders of current and expired ‘kryptonite card’ holders?
@Patricia Moon @EmBee
Right now I’m looking at this from the perspective that we are currently seeking witnesses for this lawsuit–a task I was recently surprised to learn wasn’t completed back in 2014 around the time this lawsuit was filed.
I’m looking at this from the perspective of: who makes a sympathetic witness? If someone moved internationally as a young child–when they had no choice in the matter–and are now being punished for this as an adult, then they make a very sympathetic witness. Both Gwen and Ginny fall into this category, and I rather suspect that is a big part of why they were chosen as plaintiffs. Their situation is especially sympathetic.
If someone moved internationally as an adult, I suspect at some point they are going to be asked–perhaps under cross examination when this case (eventually) goes to trial–whether they sought professional advice as to the tax implications of their international move. If they answer that they did so and even the tax professionals didn’t know much about this stuff–a plausible answer in a lot of cases sadly–then again they present as very sympathetic witnesses IMHO.
If, OTOH, someone moved internationally as an adult and never sought professional advice about the tax implications, then one can still have human sympathy. But I think in such a case it will be harder for their testimony to stand up to what is sure to be aggressive cross examination–again, when this case (eventually) goes to trial.
I do agree @Patricia Moon that there is a bit of a “loophole” that exists for green card holders in that they don’t have to self-identify as “US persons” to their financial institutions. I believe that loophole exists because financial institutions are supposed to (under FATCA) be looking for so-called “US indicia”. One key example of a “US indicium” is a US place of birth. US passports routinely show a US place of birth as do US birth certificates. A US green card almost never shows a US place of birth. I believe that is why US green card holders get to fly under the radar a bit here–the way the law is written the US green card doesn’t create the problematic “US indicia”.
@KingOfTheRoad
I think that is a good idea. Even more than that I would like to see a table summarizing all the differences between the IGA’s in the different countries. I believe that all countries outside the USA got screwed over on this but it would be interesting to see in what ways some countries got screwed over worse than others. All IGA’s are bad but was Canada’s especially bad? Would be interesting to know.
@Patricia Moon
We did not know jack… my home country is not foreign… Every dime we have has been taxed at its source… US also wants a piece of the action from things we owned prior to the Green Card also…
@EmBee @Dash1729
Didn’t know about cross border anything… we have simple lives… we diy it ourselves also at the beginning… we didn’t have alot of money then… nothing complicated… who the heck knew we did it all wrong… We used professionals when family started different businesses… not one person asked us any questions in regards to citizenships or anything… Get this as a kicker… we had an accountant who did our taxes for many yrs… he knew we were foreigners… english is not our first language… he never said crap to us… he worked for the IRS for many yrs… if he didn’t know the frigging rules or explain it to us… how would we know any better… I never even heard of CBT until this mess started a few yrs ago….
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/04/panama-papers-tax-haven-used-by-politicians-and-celebrities/
Hypocrisy – David Cameron signs up for an IGA while it’s likely he knew about his Father’s activities in Panama.
If he loses the EU referendum on June 23rd he’ll probably be replaced by US taxpayer Boris Johnson. I wonder if he’ll get to renounce before he may become PM?
Not an endorsement of the site below. Just providing link to a list which might be helpful in terms of;
‘IRS Lists Countries With Which it Shares Certain Tax Information (4/3/16)’
http://federaltaxcrimes.blogspot.ca/2016/04/irs-lists-countries-with-which-it.html#more
Interesting topic but better to emphasize the need for every American expat to vote Republican in the general election, regardless of who it is. Any American expat who votes Democratic should be hung up like the traitor they are. FATCA was and is a democratic initiative and I for one would love with fervor to see that we who have been so adversely affected with no acknowledgment, make a difference in the election. Would it not be a great moment to have the media say the overseas Americans made a difference in a few states and gave Hillary a big slap in the face to turn the election against her? Those of us from the swing states can make a difference. Voting Dem in this election is such a disgrace and affront to all of us hard working Americans overseas who have been outright cheated and ignored.
@ Brik
The problem is most expats have never heard of fatca, let alone who’s is responsible for it.
2. Many expats are accidentals with no SSN, no passport, etc.. Who will not be registering to vote anytime soon.
3. Have you seen the GOP candidates?
That said, I’d vote for a monkey if I thought it would help our situation.
@Marie, ” Have you seen the GOP candidates?”
I relinquished so my opinion is not worth two cents, but of ALL candidates Trump is the only one who is not part of the system that brought us FATCA.
@Brikland
Not everybody involved here CAN vote. And since I cannot, I don’t post about that sort of thing. FWIW agree about DEMS.
This is more than an “interesting topic.” This is a concrete way for some to avoid FATCA as supported by CRA. Big deal I think….
@All
If someone wants to write a post to discuss the election great. Would really appreciate this not happening on this thread. Way-off topic.
@Dash
Yes but it’s not really a loophole. The indicia are clearly devised to search out those who are resident in the United States. The indicia would be constructed very differently if they were looking for citizens residing abroad.(i.e., at the time the indicia were listed. Now of course, a very different problem…)
@badger. Good link. Thank you.
@King &Dash
That’s a really large project. Anyone can take it on. And I will be happy to post anyone’s work if they are not an author. It probably could get a permanent link as a resource.
@Don
Thanks for this. Wonder how many more will be exposed particularly Americans. Love the title. Panama Papers. Has a nice ring to it….Panama…..Pentagon….
@Patricia Moon
They are not “loopholes”, they are legal alternative avenues. i.e. missing links in the chain of government tax verbiage.
@US_Foreign_Person
If what you say is true then I hope you will come forward as a witness and testify (and/or file an affidavit) naming names as to the identity of the tax “professional” who worked for the IRS for many years but who was ignorant of CBT.
IMHO it is understandable for a private individual to have known nothing of these issues prior to FATCA. It is, however, IMHO inexcusable for a tax professional–especially one trained in the US system–to have been unfamiliar with these issues even pre-FATCA.
If you can document what you say it is good evidence supporting the lawsuit but of course it is useless unless you come forward as a witness.
@Trish
You wrote, “The indicia would be constructed very differently if they were looking for citizens residing abroad”.
Can you speculate as to how the indicia would be different? I imagine it would include some way to ferret out accidental Americans who don’t have a US birthplace.
Initially, because I live in a border town, I was concerned about how many GC holders might be affected and infected.
Keep in mind, that I am referring to the 100% who are daily commuters, and reside at all times in Canada. 80% are in healthcare positions, about 19% in auto related positions and 1% other.
I contacted the Ontario Nurses Association. I was assured they inform their members that when they quit their US jobs, they must return their GCs.
Additionally, because the US employers must document that they cannot find similarly qualified employees to hire ( or alternatively they are operating under NAFTA rules), when the employee retires or quits, part of their termination documents as provided by their HR departments include the requirement to hand over the GCs. The employer then files the necessary papers to terminate the GC status and all is satisfied.
I was pleased to learn this. It is one good example of where the USG worked with American companies hiring Canadians to inform them as to proper procedures.
Those such as EmBee described would likely never have been informed as most often they actually resided in the US for some amount of time.
And that’s the first and last time that I will likely ever say anything good about the USG!
My understanding is that if the GC is held for 8 years the only way to exit the US tax system is to File 8854 and run the exit tax gauntlet. Merely turning in the GC (I-407?) doesn’t terminate US tax liability if you have had a GC for 8 years or longer. This may not matter if you are never “FATCAd” by your bank.
As far as answering “the question” it depends entirely how it is worded. For GC holders:
1. Are you a US person? NO
2. Were you born in the US? NO
3. Are you considered by the IRS to be a US person for tax purposes? YES
4. Are you a US taxable person? YES
5. Do you have any reason to believe the US considers you to be a US taxable person? YES
I have no idea why given the choice anyone in Canada would ever self-identify themselves as a US person meaning in some cases it would be necessary to “modify” the truth. 3 thru 5 could legitimately be answered “I don’t have a clue”.
Panama, Panama. No surprise about there being illegal off shore tax havens. As if the USG is just finding about this now and is SO shocked. Right. Let’s see what they will do. Please don’t hold your breath. There will be huffing and puffing from politicians of every stripe, especially in the run up months to their POTUS elections. Then watch it fall off the radar.
The hunt for us minnows is their current fishing expedition. East locatable prey thanks to our CRA.
Meanwhile, our law suit is facing a status report. What would you like our response to be?
Sorry, we are not ready as we lack witnesses. Could you give us another delay please sir?
Please know that the Feds are quite able and soon will be in the position to have our claim dismissed for lack of forward movement. Extensions are only granted for a certain limited time.
Have we done all that we have accomplished to have it end this way? Frankly, I am far more concerned about that than any scandal with known offshore fraud.
@ Canadian Ginny
I returned to Canada to care for my father after my mother passed away. Believe me, greencard and US taxes were not on my mind but my then American-only husband knew he had to keep filing, having lived with his family in Canada years before (his father found work in Canada when jobs were scarce in the USA). I can’t remember exactly how, about 2 years later, that I learned my greencard was null and void (because I hadn’t informed US immigration to keep it active) but that made me believe I may as well put it away (forgot its location but found it in 2012). Unfortunately I hadn’t heard anything about having to return it. So we just kept noting on my husband’s US taxes that I was a FORMER resident alien, thinking that was what I was.
We went to one tax presentation at the US consulate but the guy never got past the middle of the first page of the 1040 because he was too busy telling the Americans there who had never filed that they would have to backfile 13 years (yes, that was the number he gave). Green faces everywhere, all kinds of questions about how in the world would they be able to find the information that far back, etc., etc. We left without having learned anything of use to us. With income from only 2 sources (husband’s salary, interest from joint back accounts) we just kept on DIYing, thinking all was well. Oh, and when our house finally sold in the USA, we DIY’d that form too. It wasn’t all that hard to do since the sale price was way below the taxable line.
@EmBee, you weren’t to know. How could anyone? This was long before internet access to the hidden USG laws.
It’s the equivalent of the souvenir process a lot of us employ when our passports expire. Some people save them to have the stamps from travels and just put it in a drawer etc. to occasionally look back at. What if there were some obscure law that decreed we were all supposed to return them. In Canada for instance, they are deemed property of the Queen!
Dear Queen,
Enclosed is my expired passport. Please note I visited your lovely country on a few trips. Love your house! Wouldn’t want to have to wash all those windows. However do you manage?
Love,
Ginny, your humble subject
@ Canadian Ginny
Well if there is an obscure law about returning Canadian passports then I’m in Dutch for that too. I had one back in the 70’s and it is somewhere unknown around here … I think. Made many moves since then so it might have been tossed. Oh, I did find my university student’s card when looking for my greencard. I wouldn’t have wanted to return that one because it was actually a fairly good photo. Call me irresponsible but don’t call me late for dinner. 😉
reprint
news says
“March 6, 2015 at 9:02 pm
This is legal logic behind decision
news says
March 5, 2015 at 8:34 pm
for rational people
Green Carder who live in Canada are considered resident of Canada (especially if you have not live in USA for a long time. I think Green Card are not valid if you leave a country for more than a year.
Canada USA Tax Treaty
“Article IV
Residence
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “resident” of a Contracting State means any person that, under the laws of that State, is liable to tax therein by reason of that person’s domicile, residence, citizenship, place of management, place of incorporation or any other criterion of a similar nature, but in the case of an estate or trust, only to the extent that income derived by the estate or trust is liable to tax in that State, either in its hands or in the hands of its beneficiaries. For the purposes of this paragraph, an individual who is not a resident of Canada under this paragraph and who is a United States citizen or an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence (a “green card” holder) is a resident of the United States only if the individual has a substantial presence, permanent home or habitual abode in the United States, and that individual’s personal and economic relations are closer to the United States than to any third State. The term “resident” of a Contracting State is understood to include:
http://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/usa_-eng.asp
additionally from Canada government
“IRS Publication 519 states that the U.S. domestic rules that determine if a non-U.S. citizen is a U.S. resident do not override tax treaty definitions of residency. If you are considered a resident of Canada and the U.S. under each country’s laws and the Canada–U.S. tax treaty considers you a resident of Canada, the U.S. has to treat you as a non-resident taxpayer and you should not identify yourself as a U.S. resident to your Canadian financial institution.”
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/nhncdrprtng/fq-eng.html#q2-5“
‘I hope you will come forward as a witness and testify (and/or file an affidavit) naming names as to the identity of the tax “professional” who worked for the IRS for many years but who was ignorant of CBT.’
I bet we can do better.
A while back there was discussion of a case, I think in US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where the judges didn’t know about CBT even though their court has jurisdiction over income tax cases of the US’s diaspora.
As well, an IRS lawyer (H.R.M.) and a US Department of Justice tax lawyer (M.J.R.) proved in court filings that they didn’t understand some US CBT laws.
“Keep in mind, that I am referring to the 100% who are daily commuters, and reside at all times in Canada. 80% are in healthcare positions, about 19% in auto related positions and 1% other.
I contacted the Ontario Nurses Association. I was assured they inform their members that when they quit their US jobs, they must return their GCs.
Additionally, because the US employers must document that they cannot find similarly qualified employees to hire ( or alternatively they are operating under NAFTA rules), when the employee retires or quits, part of their termination documents as provided by their HR departments include the requirement to hand over the GCs. The employer then files the necessary papers to terminate the GC status and all is satisfied.”
They get green cards (permanent RESIDENCE visas) to NOT RESIDE in the US while working there?
They lose their PERMANENT residence visas when they DON’T CHANGE RESIDENCE?
These are really green cards and not some kind of employment visas?
“Panama, Panama. No surprise about there being illegal off shore tax havens.”
Also no surprise that it’s smaller than the world’s biggest illegal off shore tax haven. Also no surprise that it’s farther offshore from Canada than the biggest is.