I want to give you a status update on the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty (ADCS-ADSC) “FATCA IGA” lawsuit against Canada’s Justin Trudeau Government.
Our lawsuit argues that the Canadian legislation that enables the U.S.-Canada FATCA “agreement”, made under threat of financial penalty imposed by the U.S., violates Canada’s Charter of Rights and our Constitution.
The Case Management Judge who is handling the logistics of the lawsuit has asked for a status update from Plaintiffs Ginny, Gwen, and Kazia. Our Vancouver litigators responded on their behalf on November 4, 2016 and said:
“We can advise that counsel for the Attorney General has advised counsel for the Plaintiffs that the Attorney General will be filing a motion for production of documents and particulars within the next two weeks.
The Plaintiffs intend to file a summary trial motion and supporting materials by December 2016. The Attorney General takes the position that a summary trial cannot proceed, even with respect to setting dates for service of materials in response, until the Attorney General’s motions have been resolved, any resulting orders satisfied, and examinations for discovery of the Plaintiffs have been completed.”
This means that our litigators expect to provide the Court with the submission for the Constitutional-Charter FATCA IGA trial (including expert testimonies and witness affidavits) by December 2016.
However, there is ongoing back and forth between Government and our side regarding timing of the production of “documents” (I can’t go into the details). These disagreements will have to be sorted out by the Court and could result in a delay in the trial, which will be held in Federal Court next year.
I know that litigation moves slowly, will keep you posted on developments, and thank you for your patience.
The Claims can be found HERE.
@ George
Subconsciously though, I do hold the belief that we did tip the results in Trump’s favour. If only the Homelanders were aware of our fight against an awful extraterritorial tax regime (as many still don’t). Now that Trump will be presiding over the States, the campaign must carry on. For the first time since Fatca came into force, I am genuinely optimistic about change. Let’s see what happens in the first 100 days of Donald…
Many of us have truly drunk the Kool-Aide. Trump is a bobble head doll for the extreme right wing of the US
Even in the unlikely event that FATCA is repealed, it will not be worth the price. Unrest at home. Trampling on the civil rights of minorities, skyrocketing health costs, more uninsured,. Trade wars. Cosying up to Russia. Burgeoning deficits. A right wing Supreme Court. Tax cuts for Billioaires and crumbs to everyone else.
I could go on and on and on . Good luck with the next 4 or 8 years. There is only one option left- renounce.- Sauve qui peut.
@duality, “For the first time since Fatca came into force, I am genuinely optimistic about change.”
I now see the light at the end of the tunnel and am thankful.
And the possibility of getting this struck down is energizing.
@dod, the fact remains Donald Trump will be POTUS on 20 Jan 2017. The fact remains that the IGAs regardless if you renounced or have a prior relinquishment, you remain a SECOND CLASS CITIZEN in your home country.
I will NOT be a second class citizen anymore, I will not live in fear anymore having a US Place of Birth. That CLN…sorry….its a f’ing piece of expensive paper and everytime you want to open an account, you will NOT be treated like a normal everyday citizen.
Sen Rand Paul has gone into Court fighting for this issue.
The GOP has included repeal in its Manifesto.
Your complaints against Trump may happen and they may not happen, it is what it is. But at his moment in time, we have the best chance in our cause and its not going to get better.
Sorry, I can NOT wait four or eight years for this to be resolved.
@dod “Even in the unlikely event that FATCA is repealed, it will not be worth the price. Unrest at home. Trampling on the civil rights of minorities, skyrocketing health costs, more uninsured,. Trade wars. Cosying up to Russia. Burgeoning deficits. A right wing Supreme Court. Tax cuts for Billioaires and crumbs to everyone else.”
With great respect to you…..
How will lobbying the US Congress to repeal FATCA and/or IGAs contribute to “Unrest at home. Trampling on the civil rights of minorities, skyrocketing health costs, more uninsured,. Trade wars. Cosying up to Russia. Burgeoning deficits. A right wing Supreme Court. Tax cuts for Billioaires and crumbs to everyone else.”
Sorry but I can not see the connection.
But to be honest the way things have been going in the past including getting Trudeau elected in Canada, we have been handed the best hand of cards ever.
My sending letters of thanks to Rand Paul and asking him to ask the President Elect to invalidate an executive agreement is NOT going to create “more uninsured.”
I and many others may fail in this fresh round but its the last bite at the apple and the fruit is hanging the lowest its ever been.
Of course, in many countries place of birth and information on tax-residence would continue to be required when opening an account, regardless of whether there is an IGA in force.
@dod. +1. Well said.
Trump’s victory and the Republicans’ control of Congress may be the opportunity of our lifetime for ending CBT and ending FATCA. But Trump’s vision for America IMO is so dark and dystopian that I believe he will create an America I never want go back to even as a visitor. Restoring right of return, which is what CBT and FATCA stole from me, are meaningless if America becomes a country I have no desire to return to.
Trump’s election is a nightmare. I know what side of history in the making I want to stand on.
Lobbying congress doesn’t result in those consequences. Electing the con man Trump does.
@George
“How will lobbying the US Congress to repeal FATCA and/or IGAs contribute to “Unrest at home. Trampling on the civil rights of minorities, skyrocketing health costs, more uninsured,. Trade wars. Cosying up to Russia. Burgeoning deficits. A right wing Supreme Court. Tax cuts for Billioaires and crumbs to everyone else.”
EXCELLENT POINT!
I was actually accused by a FB acquaintance of only caring about my wallet because I chose to view any aspect of the GOP platform and Trump’/ election as a positive. My response? “I understand your concerns as I share them with you. They keep we awake at night wondering what is going to happen to America. But I am hopeful. Things could not go on as they have. Crying about it won’t change anything – activism will. I’m working on what I can do from my corner of the world, and it includes matters that are first and foremost to expats. If it was about money to me I would have renounced years ago and never paid them a dime in tax, instead of the six figures I’ve paid them and what I continue to pay them in order to remain tax compliant. It’s equality and justice I fight for…”
Here’s some food for thought. Those campaign promises to build a wall, deport all illegals, and to ban all Muslims? It would’t be the first time a President broke his campaign promises, would he. Is it a mistake to assume those who’d support those things as his base?
Don’t Panic
…”The truth is, most of Trump’s voters voted for him despite the fact that he said/believes awful things, not because of it.”…
…”Trump rode a wave of support from people who’ve spent the last eight years watching terrifying nightly news reports about ISIS and mass shootings and riots. They look out their front door and see painkiller addicts and closed factories. They believe that nobody in Washington gives a shit about them, mainly because that’s 100-percent correct.”…
http://www.cracked.com/blog/dont-panic/
Even by Hillary’s estimates, “deplorables” represent less that 25% of American voters.
@Bubbles….if Hillary had won I would have been writing _______ with a congrats and asking them to fullfill their promise on SCSH.
The USA is going to become what the USA is going to become, I left the USA, burned a bridge, relinquished and have documented same very well absent a CLN. I have removed myself from the politics of that place other than this unfortunate one issue which affects me as a non-US person.
As a Non-US Citizen that was roped in by a bad US law I am pretty thankful that some people in the USA like Rand Paul and the GOP Platform People have listened to my plight and might just change things.
In regards to all other USA issues well I am about as interested in other USA issues as I am interested in political issues in the Cape Verde Islands. So frankly I do not care if the US builds a wall or does not build a wall, if they limit Muslim immigration or increase it, I do not care if Cape Verde raises fishing quotas or reduces fishing quotas.
I simply want the USA, Cape Verde, Canada, South Korea………to not bother me with any extraterritorial laws. What they do internally, I do not care.
@dod, “Lobbying congress doesn’t result in those consequences. Electing the con man Trump does.”
Your grammar is incorrect, no one is “electing” anyone now, Donald Trump has been elected. Its over, done, finished……
What I do know is that there are millions of “deemed US Citizens” around the world and around 30,000 in my nation that do not consider themselves US Persons!! This includes my very children.
I refuse to lower myself to the pettiness of political issues of a foreign country to stop fighting for abolishing an extraterritorial law that if NOT struck down will only get worse!! I fear son of FATCA whatever that may be.
It is NOT my business if they build a wall, build a fence or dig out a ditch, but it is my business if they tell my government how to treat me as someone who has relinquished. Just like I do not give a rats as- what your Government in Canada does or does not do, thats your problem not mine. The sole reason I got any involved in the affairs of your Government was to fund a lawsuit to strike down am IGA solely because that could possibly help me in my country.
Peace
When I first learned of FATCA, CBT, IGAs, I did think the IGA might be discriminatory towards persons born in the US, because of the “guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent” aspect.
Now that the UK has signed up to CRS, I no longer think a discrimination case would have much chance under UK laws, as under CRS everyone has to prove they’re not tax-resident in another CRS country, if indicia are found.
@George “I will NOT be a second class citizen anymore, I will not live in fear anymore having a US Place of Birth. That CLN…sorry….its a f’ing piece of expensive paper and everytime you want to open an account, you will NOT be treated like a normal everyday citizen.”
Spot on. Even if Fatca is abolished, the American place of birth will never change. It is this “otherness” that has made us dysfunctional in society for absolutely no reason. It is now all about waiting for the right moment to get that “piece of expensive paper” and then jump ship. What can be undone (FATCA, CBT, FBAR) by the Republicans can be re-instated later by the Democrats. ALWAYS bear this in mind; America is an odious place…
CRS almost didn’t exclude TFSAs from reporting;
“…. Excluding TFSAs from CRS reporting requirements better aligns CRS rules with those already in place for the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), the regime that provides the framework for the tax information exchange agreement between the U.S. and Canada.
“We always felt it was entirely appropriate for TFSAs to be excluded from the scope of CRS as they are for FATCA,” says Andrea Taylor, managing director of the IIAC.
Previously released draft legislation to implement the CRS did exclude registered accounts such as RRSPs, RDSPs and RESPs from the scope of CRS, but did not exclude TFSAs. In October, the Department of Finance Canada released new legislation for the CRS that excludes TFSAs. That legislation has now been tabled in Parliament.
Under the CRS, Canadian financial services institutions will begin identifying accounts belonging to individuals who are tax residents of foreign countries in July 2017 and will start reporting that information to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). In turn, the CRA will exchange that information with other jurisdictions in 2018….”
……….” The OECD modelled the CRS on FATCA, a law passed in the U.S. in 2010 that compels global banks to report on their U.S. clients to the U.S. government. Last year, Canadian banks began implementing FATCA under a reciprocal agreement signed between Canada and the U.S. It should be noted, however, that the U.S. government is not a signatory to the CRS.
The IIAC had been arguing in dialogue with Ottawa that tax-deferred savings accounts similar in structure to TFSAs were excluded in the legislation of other CRS signatory countries, such as the U.K. and France. As well, TFSA deposits are subject to stringent residency rules, and the accounts are considered very low risk for tax evasion……..”……
http://www.investmentexecutive.com/-/iiac-lauds-exclusion-of-tfsas-in-new-common-reporting-standard-legislation
More from Therrien on FATCA and privacy;
https://openparliament.ca/committees/ethics/42-1/32/daniel-therrien-4/
November 1st, 2016 / 11:15 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
” Daniel Therrien
I’ll put it at the level of policy objective. That issue, of course, was raised in the context of FATCA, as an example. The first step, I think, is to determine whether the agreement between Canada and another state—here the United States—for tax purposes is trying to achieve a legitimate purpose. In the case of FATCA, the objective was to avoid tax evasion, which is a legitimate purpose.
In general terms, first, the purpose must be identified. Is it a legitimate purpose? Then, ensure that the information that being shared is consistent with that purpose and does not go beyond that purpose. If you follow these rules, yes, the information of certain Canadian individuals or companies may be shared, but it will be because an analysis will have been made that there is a valid policy objective to be achieved and that no more than what needs to be shared for that purpose is shared.”
Recent comments and discussions re privacy laws, proportionality, quasi-constitutional status, etc. – which may apply to FATCA;
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20161101/-1/26039?useragent=Mozilla/5.0%20(Macintosh;%20Intel%20Mac%20OS%20X%2010.8;%20rv:48.0)%20Gecko/20100101%20Firefox/48.0
Meeting No. 32 ETHI – Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics
Tuesday, Nov 1, 2016
11:00 AM – 12:58 PM
1 Hour 58 Minutes
See for ex. the recent comments by current Privacy Commissioner Therrien;
November 1st, 2016 / 11:15 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Daniel Therrien
“I’ll put it at the level of policy objective. That issue, of course, was raised in the context of FATCA, as an example. The first step, I think, is to determine whether the agreement between Canada and another state—here the United States—for tax purposes is trying to achieve a legitimate purpose. In the case of FATCA, the objective was to avoid tax evasion, which is a legitimate purpose.
In general terms, first, the purpose must be identified. Is it a legitimate purpose? Then, ensure that the information that being shared is consistent with that purpose and does not go beyond that purpose. If you follow these rules, yes, the information of certain Canadian individuals or companies may be shared, but it will be because an analysis will have been made that there is a valid policy objective to be achieved and that no more than what needs to be shared for that purpose is shared.”
https://openparliament.ca/committees/ethics/42-1/32/daniel-therrien-4/
Canada Revenue Agency
Adjournment Proceedings
November 21st, 2016 / 6:35 p.m.
Bourassa
Québec
Emmanuel Dubourg Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue
Liberal
“The government is committed to maintaining a tax system that is open and fair for all Canadians. The CRA has a plan for enhancing its compliance activities through an unprecedented investment of $444 million announced in April 2016. This additional funding over five years will be used to equip CRA with more resources and tools to crack down on cheats and encourage compliance. Some of this additional funding will allow the agency to hire more tax experts to uncover more cases of tax evasion and tax avoidance…..”
https://openparliament.ca/debates/2016/11/21/emmanuel-dubourg-1/
And, what MP Dubourg doesn’t acknowledge (though he knows it) is that some substantial amount of our own Canadian taxpayer revenues went to the CRA to implement FATCA in Canada – assisting a foreign country – the US – who does NOT reciprocate and does not intend full and equivalent reciprocity – as the US FATCA law was never designed to even contemplate reciprocity by the US. And discrimination against some Canadian taxpayer based on birthplace or parentage national origin is not “a tax system that is open and fair for all Canadians.”
Note of course that Dubourg was very eloquent and forthright in his opposition to FATCA BEFORE the Liberals won the last federal election;
ex. “……..Under that agreement, Canadian banks will now give information about those people to the Canada Revenue Agency, and that agency will do the dirty work of transmitting the information to the IRS, the American counterpart of the Canada Revenue Agency. This is what was recently signed. We are truly appalled by it, because doing this kind of thing to assist the Americans is not appropriate……….”
Under that agreement, Canadian banks will now give information about those people to the Canada Revenue Agency, and that agency will do the dirty work of transmitting the information to the IRS, the American counterpart of the Canada Revenue Agency. This is what was recently signed. We are truly appalled by it, because doing this kind of thing to assist the Americans is not appropriate.
See also;
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/emmanuel-dubourg-an-attack-on-our-privacy
http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1352837-harper-liberals-hawkish-on-privacy-in-opposition-mild-in-government
http://ipolitics.ca/2016/03/17/trudeau-liberals-reverse-position-on-controversial-irs-information-sharing-deal/
@Badger
Just a thought here. It might be helpful to discuss FATCA with the one of the Block Quebecois MPs. I spent a decade living in Quebec. When I applied for permanent residence in Canada, my application was first vetted and approved by Immigration Quebec. In that Quebec is a distinct society, a nation within Canada if you will, it gets to choose who it will approve for immigration. Once approved, my application was forwarded on to Immigration Canada for processing of my medical suitability for immigration (a physical examination and a chest xray) as well as a criminal record check. When I lived in Quebec, my taxes were paid to Revenu Quebec. Again, the distinct society notion at work again.
The FATCA IGA feeds a number Quebec citizens of American descent and their assets to the monstrosity to the south thereby eroding both Quebec sovereignty and the Quebec tax base. Was Quebec consulted before the IGA was signed? Was Quebec in agreement with the IGA? It might be “fun” for the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to raise the issue in Question Period followed by the question, “Why is the present government defending the FATCA IGA in a Charter lawsuit when it claimed it was against FATCA prior to the election?”
“Some of this additional funding will allow the agency to hire more tax experts to uncover more cases of tax evasion and tax avoidance…..”
Oh, again? CRA will find more cases of people violating laws and more cases of people obeying laws. The next question is what should Canada do with all these evil traitorous law-obeying truth tellers. Extraordinary rendition to the US perhaps?
“the objective was to avoid tax evasion, which is a legitimate purpose”
I always thought that the focus should be on CBT. It isn’t just a privacy issue, it is the fact that CBT should be considered an abomination globally. Nobody could consider paying taxes and getting nothing in return “legitimate”. (People will however pay high taxes for good services from the government.)
I read this the other day:
Apartheid was legal. The Holocaust was legal. It gave a few more examples which escape me right now-but it said it is about power- period. I`ll see if I can find it. Bad people make bad laws.
US law might be better: Slavery was legal.
Apartheid was legal, the holocaust was legal, slavery was legal, colonialism was legal. Legality is not a matter of justice but of power.
Sad but true.
Current US law is better: Torture is legal.
@BC_Doc, that was very interesting. Can you think of why we did not see much traction on this from the BQ originally?
The closest I can get and I have to be cautious in stereotyping but I know of French “duals” resident in France many of which have taken the attitude…F-them. But remember in France that Roman Polanski has been protected from extradition.
I wonder if much of the worrying is more restricted to english speakers. That could a huge leap but just grabbing at straws…