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.
…and don’t blink.
Thank her for me for the courtesy of a prompt acknowledgement.
” March 9, 2016 at 4:29 pm
While I understand the search for people directly harmed by the IGA, it would seem that the fact that the very structure of the IGA carries great POTENTIAL for invasion of privacy and infringement on Sec 15 should carry weight. For example, you don’t really have to be a “US person” to have your information forwarded by some bank clerical error, or in the case of a high value account, forwarded by a relationship manager that thinks you “might” be a US person. The wording in the IGA, “actual knowledge”, means what? Bank employees are not citizenship experts, and if reporting you means safeguarding their job, they will err on the side of caution, and out goes your information.”
I think the committee should suggest to the government that any person on the American person list should be sent a CRA letter to confirm status. People can tell the government why they are not an American and prevent information being sent. If the CRA letter is returned to CRA as undeliverable, the CRA should try and contact the person by phone. Mail may be mis-delivered and the bank may list person as recalcitrant.
Let me mention: Videographing you undressing is an invasion of privacy whether or not the video is shared. Sending your bank account information to a foreign country is an invasion of your privacy whether or not there is any further action.
If you are afraid to travel into or over the U.S.A. that is a quarrel with the U.S.A. Government but the disclosure is a quarrel with the Government of Canada.
I have previously posted that the guideline require the bank to finish off it reviews of low value account by June 30, 2016. I assume that there were a large number of the 150K that were reported, include low value accounts (less than 1 million US$). Can the lawyer determine how many were turned over?
Can anybody confirm that Bank questions to low value account were sent out last year?
There may be people who did not answered the letter. They may have gotten on the US person list that was sent out September 2015?
Can it be confirmed that Bank have sent out the letter for the year end 2015?
This reviews has to be completed by June 30 my guess it would have been sent out by now.
If you people think my question are stupid, please note I made it plainly clear that party in power was not going to overturn FATCA.
“Timing of reviews
Lower value accounts
8.78 The review of preexisting individual accounts that are lower value accounts on June 30, 2014, must be completed by June 30, 2016.”
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/nhncdrprtng/gdnc-eng.html#Toc390079639
go to link and look at 12.29
strange as it may seem there is also this in the same guideline see May 2, 2015
“12.29 The obligation to obtain and report information with respect to U.S. reportable accounts is phased in over a three-year period as shown in the tables below. The phase-in is provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of the Agreement.
2014
In respect of
Information to be reported to the CRA before May 2, 2015
Each specified U.S. person, either: holding a U.S. reportable account;
or who is a controlling person of a passive NFFE that holds a U.S. reportable account.
Name
Address
U.S. TIN (but only required for a holder of a preexisting account for the 2014 to 2016 reporting years if the TIN is held in the FI’s records; if not, date of birth is required if that date is held in the FI’s records)
Canadian TIN
Account number or functional equivalent
Account balance or value “
I’m copying the following comment (from another thread) to this post in the hopes it will gain more visibility here. I don’t feel qualified to give this anguished person the advice he/she needs. Could someone more legally equipped than I help this person out? I would like to tell him/her to refuse to sign anything but I do not know what consequences that would have in Argentina. Help is urgently needed, in any regard. Thank you!
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2016/03/08/us-expats-evade-taxation-not-mythbusted-91-5-of-expats-live-in-high-tax-regions/comment-page-1/#comment-7294972
http://www.connexionfrance.com/Americans-FATCA-bank-account-reporting-AARO-letters-16732-view-article.html
Another article in English about the Republicans Overseas France action.
http://frenchmorning.com/francais-etats-unis-prives-de-compte-bancaire-france/
Another article about FATCA in France in French.
Just listening to Obama welcome Trudeau to Washington. Says we should be grateful for the fact that Canadians and Americans are free to marry whomever they want – neglected to mention, however, that should a Canadian marry an American in Canada they’re also marrying the IRS.
Trudeau’s visit to Washington, D.C., U.S.A. is getting a lot of press today. This is the opportunity to reach reporters about FATCA and “citizen”-ship based taxation.
I refuse to acknowledge the IRS as a spouse. And they’re not getting any support from me either.
Our PM is getting ready to sell out privacy rights regarding border crossing at the insistence of the Americans. This has been difficult previously because of the Privacy Act, but he appears ready to hand it over.
John Canuck,
As in this article by CBC, March 11, 2016: ANALYSIS Trudeau-Obama bromance’s real prize comes with the world watching: Chris HallThey also agreed to streamline the movement of people and cargo across the border. That means pre-clearance at more airports and train stations.
Am torn by an ethical dilemma. Maybe fellow Brockers can help me out. As a very angry US person, I wanted desperately to be a plaintiff to sock it to the Cdn government, so volunteered and interviewed for the role. Luckily I did not get chosen for the job.
As time has passed, anger has not subsided, but a somewhat more rational mindset is prevailing, leading me to recant an earlier offer as witness. One reason for this (not the only one), is that someday I will be receiving a US inheritance. I am concerned that by going public as witness, that this will give USA a list of my assets, and thus a basis to assess willful penalties for non filing of FBARS, and thus possibly freezing my US assets within the USA.
Would I be nuts to be a witness or am I fretting about nothing?
@whitecat I feel for your indecision. Whatever you decide you are supported here.
Like many, I have come overtime to realize directly the slippery slope from democracy to tyranny of which the FATCA IGA is just one example. I realize that I have been very naive, being in a position of privilege (white, middle class, well educated, etc) which has made it harder for me to see the slippery slope. It is much easier to recognize it from the inside rather than the outside. The FATCA IGA has provided me with new perspective.
As an unrelated example, in the last few years I was heavily involved with helping my parents at their end of life to remain in their home as they wished. It was very stressful and involved fatigue that I had never previously experienced only to experience it again with FATCA. On many occasions my parents experienced hospitalizations with bad care and poor decision events. What surprised me was that as a physician how vulnerable I felt when trying to deal with these events. I found myself in a position of trying to advocate for my parents without antagonizing those in power. After all those people looked after my parents when I wasn’t there. I found myself and my parents to be very vulnerable.
Fast forward to FATCA. Without going into the details, I am in a similar situation dealing with the Canadian and U.S. governments about my citizenship. I have to walk a fine line (thank goodness I have help with that) advocating for myself without antagonizing power. It is frustrating, soul sucking and has made me soooo angry.
Long story short…this is how those in power control us and how our democracy is eroded. We depend on them and they can ignore us. This is the slippery slope.
Thank you Ginny & Gwen for realizing this so many years ago and refusing to acquiesce. I hope that enough of us can come out of the shadows to help by demonstrating the wide spectrum of harms that are occurring so that victory can be ours.
My anger is often misplaced as evidenced by some of my comments here and I am grateful for the understanding fellow brokers have given me.
Take care white cat and all
Cheryl, thanks for your reply and for your bravery, and for your reminder as to why this fight is so important. But what I am really asking is, how much risk I am taking knowing that I have a sizable US inheritance in my future which is going to make the difference between a challenging retirement versus a more comfortable one? I would not be so hesitant if all my assets were in Canada (as I really do not think it will get to a point where USA will have access to our Canadian bank accounts), but unlike the plaintiffs (and other witnesses), this is not the case for me.
White Cat, if being a volunteer helps you overcome your anger, then maybe volunteering is what you need to do. You have obviously experienced emotional pain, as many of us have. Just wondering, if you were not initially chosen as a witness, what leads you to believe you’d be chosen this time around?
@WhiteKat
Why don’t you just do Streamlined? The only reason why my husband and I capitulated, sold out, or whatever you want to call it, is because we had something significant we could lose – that is our livelihood – if we hadn’t.
@WhiteKat
Unless the testator is either very wealthy or already very dead (ie the person from whom you will inherit is already dead and the funds are in trust), I wouldn’t recommend banking on a US inheritance for your future in Canada. It is much easier for an elderly person to hang on to an inheritance they want to pass on to heirs in Canada than it is in the US. That is because nursing home costs are much higher in the US and (at least by comparison) more reasonable in Canada. The last years of a person’s life in a nursing home have a way of eating through a US resident’s assets even if they thought they were fairly well off–if they eat through all the assets (a common occurrence) they then end up on Medicaid.
Now if the testator has pockets of the depth of a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffett, obviously this doesn’t apply. In that case, though, I’d invite your deep pocketed relative to spread a bit of the wealth around and make a pledge to support the appeal of the Arvay litigation (and we know it will be appealed by either the gov’t or our side).
@BB, re:”Why don’t you just do Streamlined?”
3 children each with their own RESP, TFSA, multiple smallish RRSPs,lots of Canadian mutual funds equates to big compliance headache and expense on top of $2,350 renunciation fee, plus the having to prove a life lived entirely outside the USA (minus the first 18 months or so) to get a SSN to file for the first and last time for the sole purpose of having to renounce. Never mind the absolute anger that I should have to do ANYTHING at all.
Still, I sometimes think as you suggest that maybe I should do Streamlined even with all that complication and expense, and do it now before I have US assets. I don’t know. It’s a mess.
@Marie re: ” Just wondering, if you were not initially chosen as a witness, what leads you to believe you’d be chosen this time around?”
I was not chosen for plaintiff. I was not rejected as witness. The two roles require quite different characteristics.
@WhiteKat
I guess I’m “lucky” in a perverse kind of way that I felt that the path I took was the right one, and I had the resources to do it. If I’d had a crystal ball though, I would have….
I know it’s relatively minor to your decision (should you feel you need to make one), I believe that you no longer have to prove to foreign residency when applying for an SSN.
It’s up to you WhiteKat. But for the benefit of others considering applying to be a witness,hope this helps:
Any affidavit you sign can only speak to current accounts of any nature, whether FBARs, income, reportable etc as of the date of signing. No affidavit can include future income or possible inheritance.
And in my former estate legal work, I can assure you that many people who had Great Expectations with respect to their potential inheritance were frequently duly disappointed.
This is what Dash is saying. The testator is well and alive in your case. Thus, your worries are anticipatory which is fine. Do what you need to do as you make your decisions.
Just know that it isn’t applicable to worry about anything in the future impacting your affidavit as a witness. I am saying this in the general sense to any potential witness. One’s affidavit can only be a snapshot of your situation as of the day it is signed by you. Since it is, no one could know what you think might be conferred to you in the future.
But I always recommend that everyone conducts their own risk factors. Which the Arvay team will also recommend. I went through the whole assessment, 99% of my answers were: yes, I know. Ask me if I care. That’s just me.
I appreciate not everyone will assess things like Gwen and I do. But I do believe we will find witnesses who meet the criteria Stephen has disclosed. In that sense, I can be patient. No one is under any pressure. We will get there; it will just take time. And of course, we need to fulfill the complete witness steps before we can proceed. We didn’t raise all the funds in a few months either.
A thought about ‘harms.’
Because mutual funds and other long term planning firms are trying to force ‘US persons’ to save within the US dollar system, isn’t a Canadian citizen being harmed if they aren’t allowed to plan their retirements in Canadian dollars like other fellow Canadians?
A country’s currency is a powerful symbol except for Canadian deemed ‘US persons’ are increasingly not allowed to use their own currency.
[Canada’s PM Justin Trudeau finally discloses actual nationality of “Canadians” — with his end of State dinner toast to Mr. Obama thanking him “on behalf of 36 million… Americans”]
That says it all — quite the slip (for those US-deemed Americans who happen to abide in Canada). No permission given by my family be we Canadian or Americans who happen to abide in Canada to toast President Obama.