cross posted from AmericanExpatFinance.com
By Helen Burggraf, Editor – September 08, 2018
A panel discussion that will consider recent and growing efforts to convince U.S. lawmakers to end America’s increasingly-unpopular “citizenship-based” tax regime is set to take place at a venue in the Mayfair district of London, on the 18th of September.
American expats with concerns about the way they are being tax are being invited to the event, which is entitled “What’s next: a light at the end of the tunnel? The possible end of U.S. citizenship-based taxation.”
The discussion will feature Solomon Yue (pictured), the Oregon-based global chief executive of the Republicans Overseas, who has been a long-time and visible campaigner on behalf of expatriate Americans, but the event’s organizers say he will be joined in London by tax, Solomon Yue legal and citizenship experts from across the political spectrum.
Some tax experts who are determinedly non-political, including at least one non-American, will also participate, the event’s organizers, an un-affiliated group of individuals who include some Republican Overseas members, said.
A question-and-answer period will be held at the end.
Last month Yue participated in three similar such events in Toronto, including one that was filmed and posted on YouTube.
This followed an earlier appearance in May in Hong Kong. Yue is set to follow up the London event in coming weeks with similar programs in Paris, Berlin, Frankfurt and Rome, most of which are being sponsored by the respective local chapters of the American Chamber of Commerce.
Among those scheduled to join Yue at the London event will be John Richardson, a Toronto-based lawyer who specializes in citizenship issues, and who is an American-Canadian dual national himself.
He and Yue are also set to participate in another, more informal event on the subject of America’s expat tax regime, also in London, on the 17th of September, at a venue yet to be decided (but probably near Kings Cross Station). More information ******* about this event will be made available in due course, Richardson said.
When: Tuesday 18 September 2018 – 17:30 to 19:00
Where: Central London location – to be confirmed upon RSVP (nearest tube: Westminster)
Venue: To be provided upon RSVP (nearest tube: Westminster)
Cost: Free to attend
RSVP: drewliquerman@gmail.com by 17:00 Monday 17 September 2018
*******
UPDATE – Wednesday Sept 12 2018
Due to unforeseen circumstances, Solomon Yue WILL NOT be able to attend the “grassroots” meeting on Monday, September 17 listed below. John Richardson will run this program as scheduled.
In addition to the meeting mentioned above, we will have a second, more informal program for expats and their families and friends. This format will be a more intimate question and answer session which will be focused on individuals subject to the CBT regime.
When: Monday 17 September 2018 – 19:00 – 21:00
Where: 40 Bernard St, Bloomsbury, London WC1N 1LE, UK- across from Russell Square Station
Venue: Pret a Manger
Cost: FREE
Registration : REQUIRED: nobledreamer16 at gmail dot com by 5 pm (EDT) Saturday 15 September 2018
MAP 
@pacifica
Interesting, I just checked and saw that. I did a tour of the major banks’ application forms in the spring and didn’t see that – must be new. I’ll fire up my VPN and do a dummy application to see what happens if you say no for US citizen, Canada for the only country of tax residency, then US for country of birth. Probably they tell you to call a number to explain. I will also check what happens if you “lie” and say Canada – do they require validation.
I think I remember why the lawsuit was not against the Tax Treaty as the FATCA IGA was Canadian law passed by Canada. If the FATCA IGA fails the Canadian Charter of Rights, IMO, the Tax Treaty would as well.
The lawsuit was not launched only for accidentals, it’s just that Joe Arvay chose those particular people likely because he felt they were the most vulnerable, the ones most likely to appeal to the court’s sense of injustice.
That said, it is not at all true that the case is only for accidentals or that it is now irrelevant. Not sure one can make the judgement that all “US Persons” take the position that people in Canada cannot be harmed by the FATCA IGA. That is the opinion of some here but that does not mean there are not other situations/viewpoints.
It really is very insulting to all of our donors and to those working on this now for years, (on a very regular basis with our lawyers, to prepare for the Charter aspect of the case) to have anyone proclaim that it is useless.or irrelevant. Especially if those criticising have not been involved and who come on complaining that Canada is not up to par because there is no separate group for accidentals. Brock has never been about separating anyone in this miserable situation. Brock was started for research and to support people with criticism reserved for the U.S. government, the Canadian government, the media, the Homelanders and above all, the tax compliance community.
There are very few people really, who put in real effort and like it or not, their plates are already full. We are all original Brockers. I cannot express how much we do not appreciate new people coming on here telling us what we are doing is useless.You may not really know us too well because we no longer have as much time as in the beginning, to comment and so on. We are not the bad guys in this situation. If you cannot offer criticism in a constructive way, please take it elsewhere.
It should be remembered that the first trial was an add-on as many felt we had to try for an injunction. The decision in that case was based entirely upon tax compliance, treaty issues and the like. Largely irrelevant to the Charter case.
Probably a lot of people are waiting to see what happens with the lawsuit in the same way that people are watching what is going to happen with TTFI before taking action. It could be a mistake to assume that we are not going to see other actions come out of the U.S. that will disrupt our current sense of being untouchable. Who on earth felt the horror of the Transition Tax and G.I.L.T.I.coming?
@plaxy
Thank you kindly for your support. It amazed us how many people outside of Canada stepped up to the plate. It was/is very much appreciated.
You are (maybe) asking two separate questions.
The answer to the first question – why is the lawsuit necessary – is quite simple and can be answered in various ways:
First, because conditions can easily change. Any number of definitions, rules and requirements about what needs to be disclosed could easily change. The methodology for “due diligence” could easily change. The rules for “self certification” can easily change.
Second, because a large part of the FATCA inquisition has now been tagged on to the CRS “due diligence” rules. Because of this, more people are now being asked about FATCA than ever before.
Third, Canada could easily amend its own laws that legislate FATCA in Canada to change the requirements for any of the above.
Undoubtedly there are more reasons. But, the point is that although you may be able to hide today, there is no guarantee that you can hide tomorrow. To think otherwise (given the progression of these laws and the international climate of CRS and capital confiscation) is staggering tunnel vision.
The answer to your second question – could the lawsuit make things worse for accidentals – not sure what you mean (and you may not know what you mean either). But, I take your point to be that to strike down the IGA would restore FATCA to its original form which could therefore result in more detection of accidentals. Maybe, who knows. Since you asked the question perhaps you could supply an answer.
Because, you can’t assume that conditions won’t change.
Thanks, Tricia! Even though I’m in a mettleman frame of mind most of the time now I still get flashbacks and when I do it helps to know the ADCS lawsuit is wending its way through the Canadian court system and that there are so many dedicated people, like yourself, working to make things right. The Canadian government did me, my husband and a million others here in Canada wrong when it signed the IGA to soothe the nervous financial industry and cater to the whims of the bully next door.
@ pacifica 777
I knew you’d find those comments by Nononymous. Thanks … a good re-read too. I hope oldies and newbies appreciate what goes on behind the scenes here. This site is tended by some very competent and caring people.
@plaxy
I am not sure it was the CDN govt. who had that brainwave. On 26 July 2012, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK and the US jointly published the first model for an intergovernmental agreement (Model IGA) in relation to FATCA.I remember this because in late 2011, the Finance Minister, the late James Flaherty, had spoken very strongly against FATCA. and I don’t recall anything suggesting that any breakthroughs were made in negotiations, or even that there were negotiations at that time.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Documents/FATCA-Joint-Statement-US-Fr-Ger-It-Sp-UK-02-07-2012.pdf
3. An intergovernmental approach to FATCA implementation would address these legal
impediments to compliance, simplify practical implementation, and reduce FFI costs.
7. In light of these considerations, the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom have agreed to explore a common approach to FATCA implementation through domestic reporting and reciprocal automatic exchange and based on existing bilateral tax treaties
Andrew Bonham, “FATCA and FBAR Reporting by Individuals: Enforcement Considerations from a Canadian Perspective” (2012) 60:2 Canadian Tax Journal 305-54, at 345. (sorry no link; clicking on it just prompts a download…)
In light of the foregoing, it is interesting to note Canada’s rather conspicuous absence from the recently announced joint statement by the United States and five other countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) regarding efforts to improve international tax compliance and, in particular, the implementation of FATCA.37 The statement makes bilateral, at least as regards the participating nations, that which had been unilateral. Specifically, the joint statement explicitly recognizes the practical legal and policy impediments faced by foreign nations in terms of FATCA compliance and provides that, as consideration for the cooperation of the “FATCA partners”38 in taking all required steps to compel their FFIs to comply with FATCA, the United States would agree to forgo certain of the formalities contained in the FATCA regulations (for example, the requirement for each affected FFI to enter into an agreement with, and furnish information directly to, the US Treasury). The statement also demonstrates an apparent willingness on the part of the United States to reciprocate in the collection and exchange of information on accounts held in US financial institutions by residents of the FATCA partners.
@EmBee
Thanks! I am missing our old Brock days, remembering how intense it all was. I honestly can’t imagine telling our donors that the lawsuit was not relevant and that we would just drop it. I don’t even think we could just terminate the agreement with the law firm without consequences. It’s just not something that one can let go of in the middle of the process and esp not when our donors have sacrificed so much to raise that $594k.
I wonder if the justice could direct the government to take other actions as opposed to just striking the IGA in its entirety? I can imagine an argument that FATCA would continue to apply to US landed immigrants in Canada but not anyone who was a Canadian citizen. IOW, direct the government to renegotiate the treaty. There are probably other possibilities but its past my bedtime. 😉
“A more interesting question I think is whether Canadian accidentals and noncompliants would be better off doing nothing rather than attempting to bring down a status quo that seems to be working for them.”
It does, doesn’t it.
Thanks for the discussion. Very interesting.
“FATCA and FBAR Reporting by Individuals: Enforcement Considerations from a Canadian Perspective” (2012) 60:2 Canadian Tax Journal 305-54, at 345. (sorry no link; clicking on it just prompts a download…)”
http://www.ctf.ca/ctfweb/CMDownload.aspx?ContentKey=7ae51268-fbf4-4abf-a07a-41c7be3af7f6&ContentItemKey=c3e8c6ab-f4f9-45b3-8d34-c8dde8c018a2
Table of contents:
http://www.ctf.ca/CTFWEB/EN/Publications/CTJ_Contents/2012CTJ2.aspx
The lawsuit and all other actions continue to be necessary. I fully understand that avoiding FATCA is often possible and easy in Canada.
But, bear with me for some political fiction.
Just imagine that in a few years the political winds shift and a hard-right, hard-left, or centrist government comes to power with wide public support. One of its campaign promises is a national ID card, with a chip. It’s all very reasonable, will be used to better control whatever it is they want to control, or even used to provide universal income, or ferret out terrorists or pedophiles, whatever. Everyone will agree, save a few grumpy souls, who will be suspected of dark sympathies. But it will get implemented easily. The technology is widely available.
Then, under the same or another government, in the wake of a banking scandal, or not, “Know Your Customer” rules will tighten and banks will have to ask all new customers for that chip card (no more “please tell me your birthdate” niceties), and it will be read right into the computer when they open an account (online too, with a card reader). There will be no way around it. All existing customers will also have to come into the bank, or do it online with a card reader, to update their personal info. And somewhere on that chip is your birthplace.
All of a sudden your bank of 20 – 30 years will discover your birthplace (and that you’ve been lying, too). You’ll start getting letters asking for W8 or W9 or something similar. They will threaten to freeze the account, or stop you from borrowing or refuse other services until you answer the form’s questions. If you have a US birthplace then you will really have to prove you are not a USC. You would have to go into fake-ID card or fake CLN territory to be able to keep lying. Neither cheap nor risk-free to say the least.
Think all this is farfetched? Well it exists right where I live. Elsewhere, India is implementing a national ID number. The tools exist. I certainly don’t wish this situation on Canada — I’m just saying that relying on the current ability to skirt around US Person issues is not a long-term solution. Better to attempt to resolve the situation legally, especially since the situation is legally absurd and should not be able to stand. This is why I have contributed to the lawsuit, and will continue to do so if necessary.
To say that the FATCA lawsuit is not relevant, is like a high school student saying it’s not worth studying history because the study of history has no practical utility in the job market.
“Think all this is farfetched? Well it exists right where I live.”
You live in Japan?
No, wait.
“of its campaign promises”
Japan did it without a campaign promise.
Um, wait again.
“or even used to provide universal income”
Eh? I think you were right when you said this:
“political fiction”
@Fred(B).
Precisely.
As long as the USA claims the right to and tax and penalise the residents and citizens of other nations, and our nations accept that right, nobody is safe.
Oh yea, you got all covered now?
Nobody should underestimate what the US government is capable of doing in the future in its efforts to find that pot of gold hidden overeas by ungrateful US tax cheats.
They also shouldn’t underestimate how far our own governments will go in order to protect the banks, including handing US citizens heads and wallets to the USA on a platter if the US demanded it.
I can just see the discussion now….
Schumer: So why is FATCA not bringing in millions of US citizens to the IRS and trillions in revenue?
Minion: Because people are ignoring it and the banks are not doing a very good job of finding US citizens.
Schumer: Where is this problem worst?
Minion: Canada….
It really doesn’t take too much imagination to see where this can eventually lead in the future if we don’t continue to fight both CBT and our own nations acceptance of the principle and participation in enforcement.
@Pacifica
I tried the RBC Direct form as a new client but it wouldn’t let me proceed with the online application because I failed some sort of verification check (I guess 1234 Main St. isn’t valid address). I don’t want to use my own RBC login, obviously. I’ll make another attempt with a more realistic stolen identity. I want to see what happens when you choose:
US citizenship – no
Other tax residency – no
US birthplace – yes
@ Nononymous,
I think you’re replying to MuzzledNoMore’s comment about banking requirements.
My comment was about your report on the Moody’s seminar.
Plaxy, 🙂
Fred and Mike, My fears as well.
Fred and Mike, but not convinced the Canadian FATCA IGA lawsuit is the way to go towards alleviating those fears for future. Working towards helping people free themselves from unwanted US personhood, which I see as root problem for many, might be good supplemental strategy.
Jules: Not my fears. The outcome of the Canadian case won’t have an impact in Europe, win or lose.
But, you apparently neither support nor are involved in the FATCA lawsuit, so why would it matter whether you are convinced of it’s wisdom or value?
You consistently have supported and promoted the notion of “helping people free themselves from unwanted personhood”. This is a good idea. Why don’t you take some positive steps/action to do something about it? A group of Accidentals in France has done just that. There is nothing stopping you – why not get moving?
@ Fred (B) RE: your future ID card scenario
“Everyone will agree, save a few grumpy souls, who will be suspected of dark sympathies.”
Hey, that’s me … a grumpy soul indeed. 🙁
Jules:
“Working towards helping people free themselves from unwanted US personhood, which I see as root problem for many, might be good supplemental strategy.”
It’s up to the person who doesn’t want the US citizenship to relinquish it (extremely easy). Buying a CLN is expensive, but then, in Canada the CLN is apparently not necessary. 🙂
Fred (B): As Mike said, “Precisely.” Great expose of a possible future scenario! None of us would have believed that something as heinous as FATCA could have been created, much less accepted worldwide. I don’t doubt for a second that what you describe today as a possibility could indeed become tomorrow’s reality.
Nononymous: RE: RBC Direct Investing birthplace question: It’s not new. I saw it years ago at the time of our domestic financial “restructuring” after we learned about FATCA. In fact, I think I made a mistake when I said it was there in black and white. I recall it was actually in bright RED! 🙂 Good luck with your further researches on this. The results won’t permit me to lie, unfortunately. (See Fred B.’s outline of the future we may all be headed for. I hope he’s wrong but I don’t think so.)
Following.