“…The government of Canada has a responsibility to stand up for its citizens when foreign governments are encroaching on their rights…We believe that the deal reached between Canada and the U.S. is insufficient to protect affected Canadians…” June 2015 Pre-Election statement of Mr. Justin Trudeau (now Prime Minister of the Government we are suing) to a constituent
May 13 2017 Canadian FATCA Litigation Update:
SUMMARY TRIAL MOTION has now been submitted on Constitutional/Charter issues. We are finally moving closer to trial and our Vancouver litigators have now served and filed in Canada’s Federal Court a “Notice of Motion for Summary Trial”.
As detailed in this brief motion (see link) this is a pleading to the Federal Court of Canada for a summary judgement we are seeking on the Constitutional-Charter issues.
We argue in the motion that the Canadian legislation enabling the FATCA Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) violates Canada’s Constitution Act (by forfeiting Canada’s sovereignty and facilitating the extra-territorial enforcement of a foreign state’s taxation and tax compliance regime on Canadians) and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Sections 7, 8, and 15).
Some of you do not consent to be “U.S. Persons”. There is this statement in the Motion:
“The contours of United States citizenship and the definition of US Person are matters of United States law and/or policy and are subject to be changed by the United States at any time.”
There is also this:
“It is a principle of international law that every sovereign state has the right to conduct its affairs without intervention by other states (the “Principle of Non-Intervention”). The Principle of Non-Intervention is at the core of the international legal order and is a corollary of every state’s right to sovereignty, territorial integrity and political Independence. The Principle of Non-Intervention is an element of the unwritten constitution.”
Will the Federal Court of Canada accept this Constitutional argument?
This motion is NOT the main, detailed legal submission (i.e., where all of the case law is discussed, etc.) which will be filed much closer to the hearing date (yet to be decided).
AFFIDAVITS. You will notice on pages 22-23 a long list of affidavit titles. Because of a technical issue related to the litigation, it is not possible to publish the text of these affidavits at the present time.
Some of the affidavits include those we previously submitted and those Government submitted – which we feel will help our case.
There are also expert reports from three witnesses (Ryan Liss, Roy Berg, Kevyn Nightingale) who were selected by our litigators to provide an expert opinion based on our litigators’ assessment of their expertise and experience.
In addition, there are affidavits listed from lay witnesses.
Our litigators made a strategic decision on the selection of specific lay witnesses for the trial from the larger group of volunteers. I thank the lay witnesses and all witness volunteers for their courage and commitment to push for return of Canada to Canadians.
LIKELY NEXT STEPS. On May 19, 2017 there will be a teleconference with Government, Case Management Judge, and our side to deal with the Government Motion to compel further documents from the three plaintiffs (we oppose the motion).
After the ruling, Examinations for Discovery of the three expert witnesses and the plaintiffs will be scheduled and conducted. Our lawyers will likewise examine the Attorney General’s witnesses. It is also possible that the Attorney General might examine our lay witnesses. We currently do not know if they will elect to do so.
Upon completion of the all examinations of the parties, and after filing all required submissions, we will await a trial date to be set by the court. Trial dates are dependent on the availability of Justices and court (backlog) schedules.
I know that the slow pace of our litigation is frustrating. Thank you for your continued support and kind thoughts.
Meant to include this link, Pacifica.
Plenty to SMH about today – Ms Bean has responded to Mr Meadows request for ways to fix FATCA. (Keith Redmond posted it on the American Expatriates FB page). She’s suggested the US sanction FFI for rejecting US persons by denying them the ability to purchase US Treasury bonds.
Thanks, interesting read.
BTW, re my earlier comment which you are replying to, I wrote:
but I must say you sure don’t hear me squawking about those senior citizen discounts that started kicking in when I turned 60. In that case, people can call me whatever they want!
“She’s suggested the US sanction FFI for rejecting US persons by denying them the ability to purchase US Treasury bonds.”
I hope Trump doesn’t get impeached. We need his walls so that all FFI’s will be denied the ability to invest in the US.
Perhaps this might be useful for the ADCS team, and to the team in the US fighing US extraterritorial CBT (I’ve posted it on other pages at IBS as well).
The AICPA article at the link below is very interesting and well worth reading in entirety because it appears to identify and dissect in detail another important potential Achilles Heel of the FBAR – which might prove another edifying example of how US extraterritorial CBT demands are abusive to Canadians and others around the world;
Analysis of the FBAR and IRS failure to meet terms of the APA ‘Administrative Procedures Act’;
“…..Because FBAR penalties are imposed under Title 31 of the U.S. Code and not the Internal Revenue Code, the assessment and collection procedures for FBAR penalties are different than for tax penalties, and those procedures may be more susceptible to challenge based on Administrative Procedure Act (APA) violations………..”;
‘Developing a strategy to fight FBAR penalties’
By Larry R. Kemm, CPA, J.D.
May 1, 2017
As an aside, the AICPA site is very useful, (ex. http://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2017/apr/planning-nonresident-entering-us-tax-system.html ) as they have actively submitted advocacy letters to try and get the IRS/Treasury to address some of the glaring and unwarranted mistreatment of those living outside the US ex. re RESPs, RDSPs, TFSAs, etc.
RE: My comment on this thread about an IRS phone scam …
I just hung up but one clever fellow had a very creative way to get back at the scammers …
People are more aware of these scams now (I hope) so I wonder how successful the third attempt by the IRS to use private debt collectors will be, despite the IRS sending a letter first. Letters can be lost/shredded, calls can be disconnected/call-flooded and I doubt few would care if this happened to an IRS authorized collection company — especially if they were trying to collect from someone overseas.