WITNESS SEARCH UPDATE FOR CANADIAN FATCA IGA LAWSUIT:
WE STILL SEEK MORE CANADIAN WITNESSES:
Have you experienced marital stress or breakup, or medical or psychiatric illness because Canada turned you and your family over to a foreign country — or because you were afraid and entered into IRS compliance and suffered harm, or because you are in “hiding” and can’t afford to be IRS compliant or to renounce? Be a witness.
No single witness will be “perfect” from a litigation point of view. We will be seeking more witnesses (almost) right up to the time of submission of court documents. Your specific situation, that we cannot predict, might have unique characteristics that would be helpful in the lawsuit.
If you cannot be a witness, please tell a friend who you think might be interested.
— If you are interested in becoming a witness You will describe your harm in a written affidavit which will be made public and you can contact me at stephen.kish.chair@adcs-adsc.ca See our website at www.adcs-adsc-ca
FOR THOSE CANADIANS WHO ALREADY VOLUNTEERED: Unless you have already been informed by me or by our legal team that you will not be a witness, there is still the possibility — or (for some) likelihood — that you will be asked to be a witness. I’m sorry but I cannot estimate the time it will take for our legal team to get back to you with their decision. This is because they need to “mesh” the characteristics of all of the necessary witnesses and testimonies with the actual detailed submission that contains the entirety of their evidence, which are all still evolving. Please be patient in our getting back to you with a decision. Thank you for your help.
MP Kate needs to reveal how frustrated she would be if it were her private Canadian financial information being sent across the US border — as for it not go be discrimination based on national origin of a Canadian or the national origin of a Canadian person’s parent(s). Would she support such info of ALL Canadians to be so handled and at risk?
I agree that things would move much more quickly is CRA were required to inform all Canadians whose info was sent to the IRS. We would have a waiting list of pissed off witnesses. As long as they keep people in the dark, they can keep this entire issue quiet.
Our Canadian govt is hoping that our first notice will come from the IRS. By that time your life is sent into such a tailspin by the IRS that you won’t bother with the CRA. Cowards.
Question for the legal types.
Can the issue of CRA not informing taxpayers be part of the legal action? Can the CRA be forced by the court to inform those whose info has been sent, or about to be sent?
Under the UK enabling legislation (which encompasses not only FATCA, but also DAC/CRS, and CDOT), the banks are required to notify “reportable persons” that their information will be sent to HMRC and may be sent to the IRS.
International Tax Compliance Regulations 2015, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/878/pdfs/uksi_20150878_en.pdf
I was under the impression the UK FATCA deal was more or less the same as the Canada FATCA deal. It seems odd if the UK requires banks to notify but Canada does not.
People should at the very least have the right to be notified. It’s outrageous.
@ iota
It is outrageous. It sort of reminds me of red-light camera tickets. The ticket arrives after the alleged offence and you can’t defend yourself properly because you don’t remember if you were driving that day or not. If banks and the CRA don’t inform you that you’ve been FATCA’d then you’ll only find out when a heart attack inducing brown envelope arrives from the IRS. For cripes sake, we all get our interest/dividend information slips before we file our Canadian taxes so why aren’t FATCA information slips being sent out to those who are filing US FBARs? Actually the FATCA information slips should be sent BEFORE the CRA transmits the data to the IRS so the wrongly FATCA’d have a chance to object.
@EmBee
That is exactly what the Canadian govt does not want, a chance for you to object. Once you’ve received that IRS envelope, you’ve long since forgotten about the CRA.
@Embee – I wonder if the fact that duty to notify is spelt out in the UK legislation, could perhaps be used to put pressure on the Canadian government to include a duty to notify in the Canadian legislation?
I wonder whether other countries are doing.
“Actually the FATCA information slips should be sent BEFORE the CRA transmits the data to the IRS so the wrongly FATCA’d have a chance to object.”
Not too optimistic about that. It really is quite amazing that nowhere in any of these “automatic international data exchange” agreements between 21st century liberal democracies is there any recognition whatsoever that those who are having their data handed over could have any right to object or appeal or prove their innocence. Extraordinary.
Why the Court will not allow witnesses to have their identities protected is a mystery to me (as in the recent Jian Ghomeshi trial, where 2 of the 3 complainants had a publication ban on their identities). Why does the Court not recognize that people’s fear of having their identities exposed is a demonstrable form of harm itself? If this barrier could be overcome, the need for further witnesses would likely be satisfied easily.
I hate the idea of not being able to stop the 2016 transfer (bound to be bigger than the first) but maybe that’s exactly what we need to wait for in order to bring out more harmed witnesses for the lawsuit. Actually I wish the lawsuit could simply be argued on the basis of FATCA being a breach of the Charter and privacy rights, without witnesses other than constitutional experts being asked to testify, BUT obviously Joseph Arvay has determined it must be harmed witnesses and he’s the one who should know. Bubblebustin can’t even find out, right now, if any information on her and her husband was transferred.
@ CanadianSpouse
Good point. The IRS is a nortorious abuser and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for anonymity in order to provide protection to witnesses.
RE: Today’s update where Ginny says,
“We cannot file our court papers, let alone get a trial date until we have the requisite volunteer witnesses. As I said previously, we are stalled until that happens.I misjudged things. I thought the hard part would be raising the funds.”
I so want to ask what is the requisite number and how close are we BUT I know the legal team cannot give that information away to the benefit of the defendents. Sigh. I have to curb my curiousity again. I’m actually missing the Sovereignty Thermometer which told us how far we were away from the goal.
@Bubbles
your bank is full of it
from the CRA website:
notification of accounts sent
• 16. Does my Canadian financial institution have to notify me if information on my accounts is reported to the CRA?
• Canadian financial institutions must be open about their policies and procedures for complying with the agreement and must be prepared to make this information available to anyone who asks about them. Although financial institutions do not have to automatically notify their account holders about reporting to the CRA under the agreement, they must, upon request, allow account holders to have access to the personal information that has been reported.
Yes, I’m aware of the bank’s requirement to inform me if I ask. My branch even went so far as to call their head office and ask. Something told me I need to hold off pressing them on this. There might be a more opportune time to catch them on this, if they haven’t gotten wind of the requirement yet…
CANADIAN FATCA IGA LITIGATION UPDATE:
We need IRS NON-COMPLIANT Canadian Witnesses with FATCA REPORTABLE (non-RRSP) ACCOUNTS > $US 50,000 — Court requires status report by June 13
I know that people are afraid. But if we don’t get the required number of witnesses, we can’t move forward. Consider the level of fear if this lawsuit never gets off the ground and fatca remains the law of the land. What then?
You ask a very good and relevant question, Marie.
If we don’t get the number and kind of witnesses required to move forward with the lawsuit, what will be the level of fear for all of us, including the individuals who are now afraid for themselves and their families? Will we have collectively rolled over and just let be done to us with the IGA that implements FATCA what our own and the US governments have license to do?
The very next post on this website discusses the US taxes that Canadians might owe on their Canadian sourced income. There is an attachment written by a cross border tax specialist which clearly outlines a number of tax pitfalls. Has ADCS considered soliciting a witness who is a tax specialist that can clearly outline each tax implication for the courts?
‘Justin Trudeau calls for more ‘open and accessible’ Liberal Party at Halifax meeting’
…..”With Liberal governments currently in place in all four Atlantic provinces, Trudeau called the sweep “an unprecedented opportunity to advance our shared values and bring positive change to the lives of all Atlantic Canadians…………”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/ns-liberal-agm-1.3517532
Except he forgot to mention those Atlantic Canadians with border baby US status woes, or any other Canadians made second class via the FATCA IGA which the Trudeau government once opposed and now abuses Canadian taxpayer revenues to defend.
And I guess the Liberal MPs who are stonewalling their constituents about the Liberal flipflop and now defence of the FATCA IGA didn’t get the message about the new ‘open’ and ‘acccessible’ Liberals ( as Blaze, Bubblebustin and others have found).
It is 2016, and the tiny country of Portugal extends FATCA reporting deadlines for the 4th time:
“…Portugal has not enacted relevant legislation to enable the FATCA reporting by financial institutions…”
Funny that the Canadian FATCA ‘early adopters’; Canadian CONS, Banksters, and those USCompliance Condor imports to Canada appearing before Finance in favour of rushing into legislation and implementation of the FATCA IGA WITHOUT sufficient Parliamentary debate and public consultation insisted that Canada had no choice but to sign on to implement FATCA in Canada or our economy would be blown to smithereens by the US FATCAbomb.
Yet, here we are in April 2016, and even with an IGA, Portugal hasn’t ratified it, and the US hasn’t blown up their financial sector.
See;
‘Portugal: FATCA reporting deadline extended to 30 June 2016’
1 April 2016
“……..The extension to 30 June 2016 is the fourth time that the FATCA reporting deadline has been extended (the deadline was last extended to 31 March 2016). The FATCA reporting deadline extension applies even though Portugal and the United States already signed an intergovernmental agreement (IGA). That IGA has not yet been approved and ratified in order to enable its entry into force. Also, Portugal has not enacted relevant legislation to enable the FATCA reporting by financial institutions.”
https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/insights/2016/04/tnf-portugal-fatca-reporting-deadline-extension-30-june.html
“With Canada’s agreement in February 2014, all G7 countries have signed intergovernmental agreements. As of March 24, 2016, the following jurisdictions have concluded intergovernmental agreements with the United States regarding the implementation of FATCA, many of which have not entered into force.[219]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act#International_implementation
Let me repeat, “many of which have not entered into force”. Two years later, and look at all the countries whose IGAs have not entered into force.
Potential plaintiffs and witnesses to the lawsuit – think about the fact that your Canadian government betrayed us all – with the FATCA IGA taking force on Canada Day 2014, and yet, almost 2 years later, countries like Portugal were able to put off actually ratifying their IGA.
And now, the Liberals who criticized the CONs (who legislated the FATCA IGA in Canada, rushed it through hidden in an omnibus bill, and abused their majority to force it on to us) are abusing Canadian taxpayer funds to pay the CRA to enforce a foreign law and assist a foreign government to collect the personal and financial data of Canadians – and defend the CON betrayal by continuing to fight us by taking over the CON defense against our lawsuit.
And Brison and other Liberal MPs who were once defenders against the FATCA IGA imposed on CANADIAN citizens and residents say there is nothing that they can do or are completely silent? (Talking to you who’ve stonewalled Blaze and others; ex. HONOURABLE? MPs Kate Young, Scott Brison, Stephan Dion, Marc Emmanuel, Jody, Bill Morneau, …… etc.)
Laughable that tiny Portugal could hold out, but Canadian CONS and now Trudeau Liberals say they are powerless and defend what they once rejected.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2016/03/23/revenue-minister-diane-lebouthillier-who-we-are-suing-in-federal-court-will-be-summoned-to-appear-before-a-parliamentary-committee-to-explain-fatca-turnover-of-your-private-bank-data-to-irs/
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2016/03/22/elizabeth-thompson-ipolitics-march-22-2016-brison-garneau-endorse-deal-to-share-canadian-banking-records-with-irs/
You’d think Harper’s government thought they’d be getting a gold star from the US government by capitulating so early on.
Act in haste, repent at leisure. Now to make them repent.
Another huge leak, this time from a compliance industry player in Panama.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-35918844
It’s just matter of time before FATCA data becomes public domain.
@Don — That made the front page of the Australian Financial Review this morning with news that up to 800 Australian HNW individuals were implicated in the data released. http://www.afr.com/news/policy/tax/tax-office-targets-800-australians-in-global-tax-haven-probe-20160329-gnt9ko
(probably paywalled, so I’ve saved a pdf version here)
@CanadianSpouse
I can’t comment specifically on Jian Ghomeshi. However in general witnesses in legal matters are in fact expected to testify in open court and/or provide affidavits that become public documents. Courts make an exception in sexual assault cases because of the deeply private nature of such testimony but in general I favour the concept of an open, public courtroom. There has been a tendency in the USA in recent years to go with more secret proceedings–especially in cases with a whiff of terrorism involved–but if the Arvay team has to resort to such secret tribunals to “win” then IMHO the USA mentality has already prevailed.
I’ve said it before–sometimes, I’ll admit, not all that politely–so I’ll try to be more polite today but my basic views have not changed: if we cannot find witnesses with the courage to provide open, public affidavits and/or testimony, then we do not deserve to win.