I thought the results of the Israeli court case deserved their own post.
According to the report, the judge in this case has determined that our expectation of privacy in the modern world is limited. Therefore, Israel must comply with the United States FATCA demands and perform the transfer to the U.S. of the (excuse me) private financial information of Israeli citizens living in Israel just because they have some sort of nominal association with the U.S.
The issue that was completely missed in this case was discrimination, a shocking oversight considering the historical background of the judge’s nation. I hope that Mr. Arvay in his prosecution of the Canadian lawsuit will stress this point heavily. Regardless of whether or not privacy must be held as a limited “right” in modern society, it should be equally limited and not more limited for some citizens than for others. As it now stands in Israel, Canada and every other country in the world, those deemed by the United States to be Americans have even greater limitations placed on their privacy than any other members of their populations.
That is the issue. That is the injustice. That is the wrong. That is our cause.
This article should make it clear why the Israeli appeals court voted for FATCA:
http://edition.cnn.com /2016/09/13/politics/us-israel-military-aid-package-mou/
“Because the governments have concluded that their banks being hit with 30% penalties is much worse than throwing their US Person citizens under the bus. When it comes to the power of US extortion, moral corruption knows no bounds.”
Very well said Mr. A. I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately for the USA, it is a country very much in debt and their day of reckoning will come. We just don’t know exactly how or when.
I think some of the world is starting to get it though. Don’t forget the recent embarrassing snubs Zero-Bama got on his recent Asian trip: being denied a staircase to debark Air Force One by the Chinese, being chewed out by other area leaders etc. The world IS starting to get what a PRICK the USA gov’t is, and is starting to act upon that. Have a little faith. It will only take a little more time.
@PierreD
Yes, FATCA is a very nasty situation. I think other countries will eventually get it. In the meantime, as you have said, “have a little faith” and in the meantime protect yourself but do no harm.
I guess we’ll see how the craven Canadian government counters the findings of the report on privacy issues and FATCA commissioned by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (note link change at Privacy C. site https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/research/funding-for-privacy-research-and-knowledge-translation/completed-contributions-program-projects/2013-2014/p_201314_02/ ), authored by Queens U. law prof. Arthur Cockfield;
“….. The final report discusses how FATCA and the IGA unduly harm the privacy interests and rights of Canadians, in part because detailed financial information concerning hundreds of thousands of Canadians would be transferred to a foreign government for the first time. It makes the argument that Canada is getting nothing in return for this privacy giveaway, other than the relief of the threatened economic sanctions, and recommends that the Canadian government not implement the IGA until privacy concerns are addressed. ”
For those not familiar with it yet, see fulltext here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2433198&download=yes
Cockfield, Arthur J., FATCA and the Erosion of Canadian Taxpayer Privacy (April 1, 2014). Report to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, April 2014. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2433198
Makes important points relevant even outside of the Canadian context.
Interestingly though, the amount awarded to study the privacy issues raised by FATCA was among the lowest in the list of research the Privacy Commissioner of Canada funded.
See the list, look at the majority of the funding each project received, and note the OPC’s own comment ; “Most organizations have received close to the $50,000 maximum available…..”
https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/about-the-opc/opc-operational-reports/audits-and-evaluations-of-the-opc/internal-opc-audits-and-evaluations/2014/eval_rep_2014/
In contrast, the FATCA research was only awarded 10,000.
The decision wasn’t about justice;
“….treating American-Israelis differently is “clearly discriminatory…There is no easy answer to that… the Government simply disregarded the privacy interests of the affected class, signed what is effectively an adhesion [coercive] contract and paid no attention whatsoever to the fact that the US Government…does not provide adequate protection for private information,” confirmed he said by the European Court of Justice and Israel’s Justice Ministry…….”……..
The decision was really about;
“…If the agreements is overturned, the Finance Ministry is concerned it will both set a dangerous precedent, and also invite US sanctions.
Israel signed its agreement with the US regarding FATCA after extended negotiations in order to ensure that a US law imposing steep financial sanctions wouldn’t kick in and deal Israel’s financial institutions a serious blow.
There is also concern that if the court blocks the agreement, it will be harder for Israel to sign any international economic agreement in the future, which would severely limit its options for improving international trade and financial relationships…”
http://www.jpost.com/Business-and-Innovation/Legal-Background-Why-is-the-Republican-Party-coming-to-the-Israeli-High-Court-for-help-441069
In other words, to hell with ideals about the sovereignty of Israel, or of a concern for ethics and justice as applied equally, or for respect for local law, and civil and human rights vs. extraterritorial manipulation and extortion. It’s all about “….. international trade and financial relationships” and keeping the US and banksters happy.
Someone should inform the judge that the assumption that FATCA is constitutional in the US is dubious.
He should read;
Christians, Allison, The Dubious Legal Pedigree of IGAs (and Why it Matters) (February 11, 2013). Tax Notes International, Vol. 69, No. 6, 2013. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2280508
More reading material for the judge;
Friday, July 4, 2014
‘IRS claims statutory authority for FATCA agreements where no such authority exists ‘
by Prof. Allison Christians
H. Heward Stikeman Chair in Tax Law at McGill University Faculty of Law
Montreal, QC
http://taxpol.blogspot.ca/2014/07/irs-claims-statutory-authority-for.html
Republicans Overseas are aware of this pro-FATCA ruling but they vow to press on with their anti-FATCA action. From their Facebook page:
If only I could change my birthplace.
@Fred
I think it’s the Hindu that believe you are reincarnated. You could try that.
But, then again one has to ask oneself: “What did I do in an earlier life that was so bad that I was born a US person in this one?”.
@UnforgivenToo, re;
“What did I do in an earlier life that was so bad that I was born a US person in this one?”.”
The US should be answerable for why being born an US citizen, trying to remain a ‘compliant’ one, or finding out it has been foisted on one without consent, has been made to feel like a punishment and an intolerable burden for those living outside the US.
Should citizenship be saddled with so much baggage and garbage that it feels like a life sentence or a membership in an expensive club that one cannot afford to keep?
I am surprised the judge didn’t deliver up additional pithy advice like; “just renounce” as a remedy.
This is very disappointing news and the reality is that there is no more privacy for people who have the burden of US citizenship or are deemed as such and anyone associated with US persons too whether it be a spouse, business partner or whatever. The best advise is to get your affairs in order in whatever way makes one sleep well at night.
The withholding tax is too big a threat and citizens are easily thrown under the bus. The affects of Fatca are here to stay even if there is a modification of the rules, there will be still be questions around the new rules. A repeal of citizenship based taxation is the only remedy.
I tried to find out information from my bank last week, the one that sent the Fatca letter, to see if any of my information was transferred, or if i was sent as recalcitrant account holder as at the time I didn’t know my social security number. No one could tell me anything for certain. Probably nothing was sent as I am still banking normally but no one knew.
I had a very rude bank assistant on the phone and she said doesn’t matter if you renounced, we still need your social security number if you ever had one and that I best go online right away and use my pin number and submit it. What pin number? The new forms must have pin numbers as the old letter didn’t? I won’t be sending anything that’s for sure.
Any way I did look up to see my old letter, can’t see a pin number. anyway she said even if you renounced to submit the social security number but say you renounced in the box. what on earth for I asked? She said because you have a number and for US source income (which I don’t have).