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.
“On a serious note isn’t that disgusting that our kids who owe NOTHING to said FOREIGN COUNTRY would have to pay what is a lot of money to a young person to shed something they never wanted or asked for.”
Quoted for truth. We may be a little older but it’s still a heck of a lot of money for us.
My MIL told me that my FIL felt awful about everything going down with FATCA and the IGA, and that he was ready to financially help us should shit hit the fan.
Well, dear FIL, shit be hittin’ the fan.
@Isabella Brock……its shaking down money equal to organized crime.
@George– Right you are. You win the bet– when we spoke about Selective Service in the past, he laughed and said “no way am I registering.” He is Canadian through and through.
I find it ironic that while he’s committed and loyal to Canada, our PM views him as a “US person” who can be treated prejudicially by Canadian businesses and whose financial data can be turned over to a hostile foreign government.
I was happy to see Lynne repost “the amendment” at Maple Sandbox today. We all want it to be introduced and passed in parliament. It is so simple, yet it would defang the FATCA monster.
@Embee, thanks for posting Lynne’s repost of that amendment.
The Trudeau Liberals should be considering if they want to be known as the government who not only flipflopped dramatically in their position on the FATCAnization of Canadian individuals and families residing on Canadian sovereign autonomous soil, but whether they can justify doing the bidding of the Banksters and abandoning and burdening other Canadians operating Canadian sited businesses to be FATCAnized by the US into costly compliance exercises demanded by a foreign country which creates no added value for Canada and damages their competitiveness;
Small businesses are being told;
……..”What Can You Expect?
“It’s safe to assume that you may shortly receive a FATCA status request from your bank, another financial institution, or U.S.-based companies with which you work—if you haven’t already. While responding to these requests is voluntary, non-response or delaying your response will deem you or your company as “non-compliant” and could result in costly withholding and/or the closure of your accounts.
What can trigger these requests? There are a range of indicators that financial institutions look for, which may include payments to or from a U.S.-based account, a U.S. person granted signing authority, a U.S. birthplace, and/or a U.S. phone number or address associated with the account. However slight the indicator of a U.S. person’s involvement in the company, financial institutions will send a request to err on the side of caution, especially given the stiff financial penalties that result from non-compliance. Requesting FATCA status is also becoming a standard procedure for the creation of new financial accounts, and may also be required by other payors with which you work as part of their own due diligence.”………
http://www.bdo.ca/en/Library/Services/Tax/pages/What-Canadian-Business-Owners-Need-to-Know-About-FATCA.aspx
Trudeau Fibbin’Libs need to be asked how exactly their defence of the FATCA IGA helps small business owners in Canada given the cost of compliance with US extraterritorial laws. How will it help small businesses like those of Canadian doctors, lawyers, etc. deemed to be ‘foreign corporations’ by the US? How will it help all those Canadian NON-US small businesses to spend scarce startup money to prove that they are NOT US tainted?
@badger
When it comes to FATCA, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Proving a negative has always been a difficulty. We may soon hear about business owners wanting to verify whether a certain employee’s parent(s) conferred US citizenship on that employee. Of course, in order for someone to verify that one might need to ask their friendly US consulate. For those who qualify for the ‘privilege’ of US citizenship, you know what the result would be.
Classic pithy comment from you @bubblebustin;
“When it comes to FATCA, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Love the way you boil it down (which I cannot do).
Thanks!
Thanks, Badger.
It’s actually my limited brain capacity and memory that forces me to condense things down into shortened versions of very complicated subjects. That’s why I like the suggestion that “if you tell the truth, you won’t have to remember anything” (Twain). Not that I stick to that religiously, but it’s a simple one for me to go by.
I actually picked up that evidence phrase from then Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, when in the lead up to the Iraq evasion he was asked about any evidence the US had that Saddam Hussien was storing WMD’s.
Well you know how well that’s turned out to be for the US. When FATCA treats every nation as a tax haven, and every US person as a tax-evader, can we expect a somewhat similar outcome?
That’s actually Iraq “invasion”, but when applied to Rumsfeld, maybe “evasion” works too.
I would love to see our Parliament introduce and pass “the amendment”. I wonder what the chances are of the Liberals passing it. I wonder if we have to wait until Obama is no longer POTUS, with no worries of him interfering and pressuring Canada to leave FATCA alone.
Wow, George. As LM said, you have put forward a stunning point here. I’ve been working on a FATCA/CBT-related project and have gotten to this discussion very late. Military matters have always been way off my own life’s radar and I would have probably missed the critical connection between the US Selective Service requirement and the tax filing requirement if you hadn’t brought it up.
I’d say this is a HUGE issue to throw onto the desks of Trudeau and his Fiberals. If they will turn us over to the US for tax rendering will they now also expose our children and grandchildren to (in)voluntary military service in a foreign army? If they say we’re Americans first and foremost for tax purposes why wouldn’t they believe the same thing in the case of military service?
Would Mr. Arvay able to use this at all?
@Muzzled…..I think this is an “additional wedge issue” to pry the lid off the FATCA IGA.
Statements the Libs and Cons have been made on the FATCA IGA, in my opinion are equal in relevence to US Selective Service (Draft).
Flaherty issued the now infamous statement that Canada would not assist in collection against US Citizens. I think its high time that a similar statement be made on US Selective Service.
Will Canada protect Canadian Citizens against Selective Service of a foreign power whilst said citizens are in Canada?
In another day, Canada did just that but FATCA has turned the world upside down.
The issue regarding young women soon likely needing to register provides the flammable edge to raise the issue in Canada.
Officially, I’m not sure precedent is on our side with this.
While there has never been a precedent to report Canadians with US taint to the Selective Service board, it’s been the policy (as long as I can remember) that the Canadian government is not in a position to interfere with the laws that dual citizens are expected to be compliant with in their other country of citizenship. This includes military service and taxes.
Canada and the US are both signatories to the 1930 Protocol Relating to Military Obligations in Certain Cases of Double Nationality
http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b38c10.html
This came out of a big League of Nations conference on codification of international law (whence also the Master Nationality Rule). Not sure why the League never bothered trying to solve tax issues in a similar way. Maybe because they thought the issue would get solved in bilateral tax treaties. (But then, the US went and screwed that up by cramming “saving clauses” into its treaties. Can’t recall offhand when exactly that started.)
What is Trump’s position on FATCA, FBAR as well as CBT? (Are they even on his radar?)
@Eric: This… this is actually fantastic news because honestly, all I could ever find online ANYWHERE was the text about the Canadian government not being able to save you if you were called by Uncle Sam in the lottery.
This would have saved me and hubs the biggest fight of our relationship 😛
@Eric @Isabelle………tiny problem.
“Signatures not yet perfected by ratification
Canada”
Canada has not ratified it.
I think Brockers should welcome any change to Selective Service that gets Selective Service in the news again. It is highly unlikely that there will be a draft–of men or women, of “homelanders” or of expats–any time soon. But any change to the law that shines a spotlight on Selective Service will draw attention to the extraterritorial reach of many US laws which may also draw needed attention to FATCA. Plus–with all due respect to the many Brockers “of a certain age”–it may draw the attention of a younger generation to these issues and I think that a younger generation joining this fight is needed here.
One interesting question would be whether FATCA data that gets sent from the bank to the CRA to the IRS will then find its way to the Selective Service.
Ditto what dash wrote.
This creates a bigger package
@Dash1729
You wrote: “One interesting question would be whether FATCA data that gets sent from the bank to the CRA to the IRS will then find its way to the Selective Service.”
I would bring your attention to the final section of the infamous letter that Senator Carl Levin wrote in 2012 to then IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman:
I don’t see anything in here that would preclude the sharing of FATCA-related data with any branch of the U.S. military, including the Selective Service office. However, I do not believe we know which, if any, of the many recommendations in this letter may have made their way into official IRS policy – that would require further investigation, and perhaps a formal Freedom of Information Act request.
Perhaps it’s time for this important subject to be moved to a separate post.
@deckard and dash –
Here’s a place to start on IRS policy re confidentiality of FATCA data: https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/media-resources/news-media-resources/checkpoint-news/daily-newsstand/irs-sheds-light-on-when-incoming-and-outgoing-fatca-information-becomes-confidential/
…
While I’m sure Levin wanted the IRS to use FATCA data as broadly as possible, I’m not convinced that the IRS is actually able to share the data with other agencies.
A separate post exploring this issue would be welcome.
What about passing the info to DOS to revoke passports…seems a slippery slope?
@Karen
“While I’m sure Levin wanted the IRS to use FATCA data as broadly as possible, I’m not convinced that the IRS is actually able to share the data with other agencies.”
We may have to wait until the next Snowden comes along to uncover the truth about that. In the meantime, any assurances from the IRS about Section 6103 protection should be taken by the CRA with an Everest-sized grain of salt.
The only constant when it comes to America’s record with any form of foreign (or domestic) intelligence gathering is lies, lies and even more lies. I’d like to hear from the mouth of a US or Canadian official even one single reason why we should believe that FATCA data will be treated any differently. Because Justin once shared dinner and some laughs with Obama? Perhaps Justin could ask Angela Merkel how being chummy with the Americans has worked out for her so far.
@ Duality
“What is Trump’s position on FATCA, FBAR as well as CBT?”
Not sure it matters. We all know what Trudeau, Brison and Goodale thought about FATCA before they got elected. I wouldn’t trust any campaign blabber from any of them.