I agree with others that Jim Jatras’ words in The Hill is important for its own post. Thank you, Mr. Jatras, saying that…
FATCA’s only beneficiaries are the army of lawyers, accountants and software vendors who are making a fortune on it, with the costs passed onto consumers.
I started my journey regarding US tax compliance almost ten years ago. I have paid dearly from my retirement savings and, although compliance has ended for me (but will that ever change?), the absurdity has not ended for my US-deemed Canadian-born son who has a developmental disability and, without requisite mental capacity, who would be trapped into such ongoing, never-ending costs of US tax and reporting compliance. Again, I will say that it is not only for my son that I have come forward in this fight but for that of any person / family with the same entrapment. My son will not be the only one so affected and for them this injustice to continue, year after year, to benefit that described army of lawyers, accountants and software vendors who are making a fortune on it, with the costs passed onto him and others like him.
I chose to go the route of having these professionals help get my family out of this US citizenship-based taxation nightmare, but have found it is impossible. I don’t want any special work-around for my son. I want this to end for all such sons and daughters. Personally, I want the end result to be US residence-based taxation so no *accidental American* faces this injustice. If there is the exceptionality of US CBT rather than RBT of the rest of the world (save Eritrea), then, in my eyes, there should only ever be an OPT-IN to US citizenship if the facts permit, never an OPT-OUT where some, the most vulnerable, are entrapped into, by US tax law, never-ending US tax compliance and reporting.
FATCA needs to go. The unconstitutional IGAs need to go. And the US needs to change to the same and much fairer residence-based taxation as the rest of the world and end the unconstitutional “warrantless seizure of personal financial information without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”
I continue to be incensed that my chosen country of citizenship, Canada, and the country in which my son was born and raised (and never registered as a US citizen abroad) chose to honour the US in agreement to sign the extra-territorial IGA with the USA. I continue to say that the words of Prime Minister Trudeau that *A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian* were political rhetoric, untrue and audacious. It is discriminatory that some Canadians, those with some US connection, however meaningless, do not fit with his faux words. I don’t know what will take away the injustice for many. I continue to feel betrayed by both my chosen country and the country in which my children were born and the country of my birth.
Again, thank you for this article, Mr. Jatras. I have included it all below. (If there is a problem for this site with quoting all of it, I will update to remove part of it. I think it important for all to read the article in its entirety.)
President-elect Donald J. Trump has stated that among his top priorities will be revocation of President Barack Obama’s misguided executive orders. Among the first such items to get the ax should be a series of legally infirm international agreements to implement a monstrosity unfamiliar to most Americans, called the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).FATCA, enacted by Democrats in 2010, is an indiscriminate information dragnet requiring — under threat of extraterritorial sanctions — all non-U.S. financial institutions (banks, credit unions, insurance companies, investment and pension funds, etc.) in every country in the world to report data on all specified U.S. accounts to the IRS.
No proof or even suspicion of wrongdoing is required. The 2016 Republican Platform rightly called for FATCA’s repeal as an unconstitutional “warrantless seizure of personal financial information without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”
FATCA supposedly is aimed at “fat cat” American tax cheats with money stashed abroad but does not include a single provision targeting actual tax evasion.
It has not yielded significant revenue recovery while imposing crushing compliance costs worldwide. FATCA’s only beneficiaries are the army of lawyers, accountants and software vendors who are making a fortune on it, with the costs passed onto consumers. It is a perfect example of the kind of wasteful, indiscriminate and counterproductive regulation Trump has promised to roll back.
Repeal of FATCA is a must-include item in a tax reform package Congress will send to President Trump’s desk in 2017. But while that package takes shape, there is something the incoming administration can do on its own authority as soon as the new president takes office, consistent with Trump’s pledge to reverse his predecessor’s extravagant abuse of his executive authority: He can nullify a series of unconstitutional fake treaties that outgoing Treasury Secretary Jack Lew (and before him, Timothy Geithner) used as a mechanism to implement FATCA.
This requires some short explanation. In addition to its other defects, FATCA is also one of the worst-drafted pieces of legislation this veteran of over 17 years working at the U.S. Senate has ever seen. Evidently no one noticed prior to enactment that the law’s central requirement — that hundreds of thousands of foreign firms outside of U.S. jurisdiction in almost 200 countries turn personal data directly over to the IRS — would be unenforceable under most countries’ privacy laws. Even supporters of FATCA concede it is “wholly unachievable” as written.
Accordingly, after FATCA became law, the Obama Treasury Department figured out that the only way it could work at all would be to pressure foreign governments to enforce it against their own citizens and to abrogate their domestic privacy protection laws to do so.
This was done through a series of bilateral “intergovernmental agreements” for which Treasury has no statutory authority, under either FATCA itself or any other law. While these agreements read like treaties and are duly ratified as such by foreign “partner” governments, they are not submitted to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent under the U.S. Constitution.
In short, these agreements are purely distilled examples of Obama and his underlings using their respective pens and phones to create the appearance of legality where none exists. Dozens of such agreements have been signed and more are in the works.
But wait, it gets even worse! As a sweetener to induce countries to agree to sacrifice their sovereignty and to place their financial sectors under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) supervision, Treasury offered, also without statutory authority, “reciprocal reporting” from domestic U.S. institutions to foreign governments.
This would hit U.S. banks, credit unions, insurance companies, mutual funds, etc. with costs comparable to those FATCA inflicts abroad, extracting billions of dollars from American consumers and taxpayers and spurring job-killing capital flight from the United States.
Several attempts by the Obama administration to sneak through legislation for FATCA reciprocity have been blocked in Congress. But as long as the law remains on the books and the implementing agreements remain in force, they hang like a sword of Damocles waiting for the next Democratic administration to press forward.
The illegitimate FATCA agreements include a provision for one year’s notice of termination, which Trump’s Treasury secretary can issue upon taking office.
Even better, the Trump White House’s Office of Management and Budget could also immediately issue a determination declaring the agreements null and void on the grounds that the Obama administration had exceeded its legal authority in making the agreements in the first place.
That would effectively gut FATCA and put foreign governments on notice that the U.S. is pulling the plug on it, pending enactment of a tax reform bill that includes final repeal of what I have called “the worst law most Americans have never heard of.”
James George Jatras is a former U.S. diplomat and foreign policy adviser to the Senate GOP leadership. He edits www.RepealFATCA.com and recently published a major study, “How American Media Serves as a Transmission Belt for Wars of Choice.”
Just expanding on my Trudeau analogy I was stating with Ginny.
The Cons truly gave Trudeau a poisoned chalice with the IGA agreements. This gave Trudeau three choices;
1.) Place the poisoned chalice on a high shelf safely out of reach. This was the choice he actually took when his government decided to defend the agreements in Court. He felt domestically he could blame the Cons, he wanted to man hug POTUS and be his pal and the Court would toss them if they were going to toss. HIS hands were clean!!! This is Trudeau wanting to be Pontuis Pilate and have clean hands.
This is Justin say “My hands are clean” and in the spirit of Flip Wilson “The devil made me do it.”
2.) Throw the poisoned chalice against a brick wall and declare that in Canada, A Canadian is a Canadian!!!! His father would have been so proud but that would have meant he would not get the photo ops with his new friend. Justin likes selfies with his new friends………..
3.) Drink from the poisoned chalice by embracing the defeated IGAs in continuing to defend them until the end. In the USA, the IGAs are now on life support, its now a question of when…….. (I wonder if Roy Berg is planning on moving back home (USA) now?)
Honestly, we are about to see what Justin is made out of? (Note, we know he is not his father.)
Will Justin pull the plug on defending the IGAs and take the political glory while naturally claiming the election due south had nothing to do with the decision he was standing for Canadians?
Or will Justin instruct the Crown lawyers to keep fighting the lawsuit until the bitter end regardless of when President Trump invalidates them?
Poor little Justin…….if he only had followed his father.
@surya
I would take cash to be sure. I was asked for cash. Maybe they think your credit card might be revoked/not covered or something.
Thank you once again @calgary for the very very important reminder to all of us of the lifelong and unjust repercussions of US extraterritorial parentage-based taxation, and the treatment of those denied relief lifelong based on conditions outside their control making them deemed legally incompetent – and thus denied the right to renounce/relinquish, and also denying their parents and legal guardians any avenue to free them.
This is an aspect of USextraterritorial Citizenship-based-UStaxation that of course no US politicians or CBT defenders have chosen to raise or to acknowledge, much less to address.
None of the CBT proponents have had the courage to even raise the issue, much less to call for remedy or to write about it – the deafening silence reminds me of a notable CBT proponent who was educated about the issue by Canadians at the ACA forum in Toronto and who by virtue of his academic and social position and power and experience has access to publication and other US venues to raise the issue, but who chooses not to http://maplesandbox.ca/2014/may-2-2014-aca-sponsored-toronto-forumdebate-on-citizenship-based-taxation-vs-residence-based-taxation/ ).
Neither the party recently (CONS), or currently in power (Sunny Fibbin Libs) in Canada have even had the gonads or ethics required to confront the US, and tackle the gaping tax gaps in the Canada US treaty re RDSPs and RESPs that among other sinful omissions allow Canadian taxpayer funded grants and benefits and family contributions to the savings of children and to those with disabilities to be continue to be treated extraterritorially as UStaxable’foreigntrusts’ – with nary a dissent or objection raised by Canada – their own home country who the Liberal government (and Cons before them) were sworn to protect.
The treatment of Canadian citizen and resident children and dependents as US tax fodder bound until maturity or for life is not being addressed by Sunny J and his cohort – which were well educated on the issues, but once in power suddenly came down with selective amnesia in order to do what they decided was most expedient – continue to sacrifice some of their fellow Canadians in order to appease the US emperor. And offend our Charter rights and constitution in order to do so.
@George, that poisoned chalice analogy is so very apt, and the three avenues that Sunny J had to choose from. It is being recorded on the official record what choice he made and continues to make – and the hypocrisy and backtracking that entails. Which the Cons made repeated hay of all throughout a recent committee hearing
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8188113 .
@All, just some more to mull over….maybe there will be a nugget here for @ADCS. I just read the following on a pending lawsuit due south pertaining to Obama and some sort of amnesty. Forget about the politics…focus on the mechanics.
—-
The injunction remains in place while Judge Hanen was to hear full arguments — but both sides now say President-elect Trump should have the chance to weigh in.
“Given the change in Administration, the parties jointly submit that a brief stay of any further litigation in this Court before beginning any further proceedings would serve judicial efficiency and economy so that the parties have a better understanding of how they might choose to move forward,” both sides said
______
Now lets think about this…………..
First, I think it best to ask the Crown do they simply want to drop the case. But……I like backup plans……
I wonder if @ADCS could get the Court to grant a Stay PLUS a temporary injunction against the IGA whilst the stay is in effect until lets say 30 days after Trump takes office? This would need to be agreed by ADCS, the Crown and the Court.
Why? Its a second bite at the apple, puts pressure on the Government and creates a media point. From a media perspective it shows there is a break in the dam. Remember from day one we have been scurrying around pulling a pebble here and there, this would be a stone and would allow water to run its course. It would force the Government to take the position that the USA “may” rescind the agreements.
I would think the Court would appreciate this because to be honest if POTUS invalidates the IGA with Canada as being illegal under US Law then the suit itself crumbles.
The evidence for the request of a Stay would be Allison Christians brilliant write up, the stuff by James Jattras and the GOP Mainfesto along with the 2014 GOP documents as well.
George is rubbing his hands with glee as Justin may very well be staking his political capital on agreements with the USA that the USA is definately going to declare null and void. And…..Justin and the Cons were WARNED by actual recorded testimony in Parliament.
Surya it is my understanding that 4082 is used if your wife doesn’t speak English. As far as a credit card , every consulate is differentl.
Thank you DOD. My wife speaks perfect English. I was under the impression that it is for renunciation only. Thank you for clarification…. Surya
I was asked if you are of First Nations/ Metis are you still classed the same. They are allowed to go back & forth between Canada and the USA by showing their status card at the border. Thank you,Jane
Hi, can anyone here help me with something? What information is shared between Canada and the U.S. government departments on dual citizens? I know tax info is shared between the irs and cra, and certain medical information is uploaded to a shared site so that Canadians who have attempted suicide are sometimes not permitted into the U.S.; but is there anything other information that is shared on either side? Thanks
@Jane. I am a first nations native and yes, I can use my status card to cross the border. It is a secure card similar to a secure drivers license. I could not use my old status card though as it was not a secure card. Crossing the border is no different for native people. The border officers need either a secure card, Nexus or a passport to cross no matter who you are or your status.
@Wm
Can’t answer your question fully, but that medical information you referred to is as a result of a police force being contacted about providing support to first responders who are attending an attempted suicide call location. Then a police record is generated. Why that is shared with others ( especially foreign governments) is a relevant question and a subject in Canada of much controversy.
Normally prior convictions are shared. And worse, arrests which result in no convictions, just charges laid or detention are also being shared across our border with the southern country. Most likely elsewhere as well.
Then there is voluntary disclosure. Be wary of that at the border. The most recent case I can recall is a gentleman from BC,who if I am right, was refused entry to the USA because when questioned by US border officials, admitted he used pot at some previous point. Of course, he didn’t have to answer but having done so was denied entry.
Also there is now an agreement between CAN/USA which records and reveals every exit and entry, dates, port of entry etc. by land of citizens of either country. Of course, there are many other hidden files such as immigration status, Interpol type security and US border security info that can be accessed.
And more we don’t know about.
Is this what you are asking?
@ All:
@George Now lets think about this…………..
First, I think it best to ask the Crown do they simply want to drop the case. But……I like backup plans……
I wonder if @ADCS could get the Court to grant a Stay PLUS a temporary injunction against the IGA whilst the stay is in effect until lets say 30 days after Trump takes office? This would need to be agreed by ADCS, the Crown and the Court.
Why? Its a second bite at the apple, puts pressure on the Government and creates a media point. From a media perspective it shows there is a break in the dam. Remember from day one we have been scurrying around pulling a pebble here and there, this would be a stone and would allow water to run its course. It would force the Government to take the position that the USA “may” rescind the agreements.
___
Ah, George, you are such an optimist but I get what you are saying.
If T2 is watching the events south of my border, my guess is his political position would be to wait out any decision or move on the part of big brother; then he could take all the credit. I expect the Canadian court would think any injunction application as premature.
I have finally had the chance tonight to finish reading the whole thread ” Now’s the Time”. Interesting . Persuasive. Maybe just what I needed, who knows. Frankly the last two weeks or so have not been easy for the plaintiffs, but we knew that when we signed up so not complaining, and reading that thread was an interesting diversion. I will spare you my comments, but I enjoyed how it resulted in my seeing and thinking about issues those of you who have much stronger ties to US politics than I do articulated. Just wanted to drop in briefly to say that; sorry I am too burned out to have another cohesive thought tonight.
Back later. Like a bad penny.
My understanding is there is now a “separate” cabinet committee headed by Dominic LeBlanc outside of the Attorney General’s Office that is trying to determine what lawsuits T2 should continue to fight and what ones he should settle. Unfortunately from what I have read this process will continue to go on for a long time.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/litigation-committee-leblanc-lawsuits-1.3736480
My sense though is T2’s priority is to get the gross financial exposures that built during the Harper era down.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/litigation-committee-leblanc-lawsuits-1.3736480
Does “US person” mean an individual or is it another anthropomorphism of a corporate entity such as in Citizens United? Read the discussion arising from a posting by Daniel Kuettel at American Expatriates re: a recent article at JDSUPRA …
https://www.facebook.com/groups/AmericanExpatriates/
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-year-new-tax-laws-tax-reform-90548/
The key but confusing quote being this …
I’d feel better if this had been under the category of “Individual Income Tax” rather than “Corporate Tax”.
@Canadian Ginny: YES! That was the exact answer I was looking for! Thank you so very much for that. If I had more in depth questions, do you mind if I email you? Or is there a feature here to PM someone? Thanks!!
@EmBee
I guess individuals need to become corporations in order to be viewed as individuals.
@ Bubblebustin
American individuals were supposed to be guaranteed individual rights by their Constitution and its Amendments but along the way these papers have been crumpled up and ignored. All three branches of the US gov’t now like corporations best. 🙁
@ Wm To contact me just reach out to an admin and then we can exchange emails addresses. Happy to help where I can. It’s my job :-).
@ Embee, when didn’t they like corporations best?
@ Canadian Ginny,
Since I saw this, I can forward your e-mail address to Wm right away. He doesn’t have to contact us first. Okay?
@ Pacifica
Thank you, as always for your help. I enjoy my interactions with Brock posters and learn so much from them.
Their personal stories, which not all want to disclose publicly but sometimes will to me as I do keep confidences and feel honored by their sharing, motivate me to keep on working and doing my part.
My email door is always open.
@ Pacifica Sorry if that was confusing. The answer of course is YES.
@ Canadian Ginny
Come to think of it, I don’t think there ever was a time when individual rights completely trumped corporate interests. Perhaps before 1913 (the year of Woodrow Wilson’s great betrayal) there was a bit more balance but certainly since then it’s been corporations and banking institutions which reign supreme.
@ Canadian Ginny,
Thought so, just being (over)cautious. Will send now. Thanks!
@Wm,
I sent you Canadian Ginny’s email address, using the e-mail address we have for you, but it bounced. Would you e-mail me at pacifica@isaacbrocksociety.ca so I can send it to you.
Is the US presidential election over? Maybe not. Recounts might happen in 3 key states (WI, MI and PA). Should we repress our hopes about the repeal of FATCA and everything else? I think I’m going to.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/23/jill-stein-seeks-recount-wisconsin-michigan-and-pennsylvania/gmziuhamGOjDgYitbQpWSJ/story.html