Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 3 of 11 (Year 2016)

2,818 thoughts on “Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 3 of 11 (Year 2016)”

1. BB, so Justin TooBlow is also Justin ThrewBlow.

2. ooops…cannot type this AM.

3. A comment on CBC’s upcoming commenting policy change … IT SUCKS! … and I will not be logging in there after the change, even for a FATCA related article. PROBLEM (politically incorrect comments) — REACTION (must put a stop to this) — SOLUTION (disallow anonymity) — DECEPTION (tell them it’s all about respect)

   Starting soon: To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, for all new accounts, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada’s online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted for existing community members in June.
   By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.

4. “The EU should carefully scrutinize the US in the upcoming process of creating a common blacklist of tax havens. We should introduce a withholding tax on US banks not exchanging information as the US has done with European banks. We need the US to sign up to the highest international standards of transparency,” says the report, released last Wednesday.

   https://www.rt.com/usa/343486-eu-us-tax-haven/#.Vz3ogq2tGwg.twitter

5. Char, from the article you reference: ” The Greens/European Free Alliance’s research was published ahead of a special visit to Washington by a European Parliament committee that is investigating tax avoidance. ”

   Isn’t this the same ‘special visit’ that our new friend Mr. Haydon suggested we send a Brocker representative to?

6. The suggestion from Mr. Perryman:

   Haydon Perryman says
   May 17, 2016 at 5:03 am
   If you want to be heard this might be the time and place:
   http://www.uscib.org/oecd-tax-conference-ud-3647/

7. It’s the same OECD meeting. The Russia Today piece might almost give the impression that the EU Parliament Special Committee on Tax Rulings is travelling to Washington to investigate America for tax avoidance, but since they’re not mentioned in the programme they’re probably in the “Foreign Tax Policy Officials” category.

   GET ON BOARD, AMERICA:

   Alain Lamassoure, the chairman of the European Parliament’s Special Committee on Tax Rulings, basically told reporters in Washington on Thursday that the success of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting initiative rests on U.S. implementation. Here’s the quote, per our Katy O’Donnell:

   “Our first economic partner is the U.S., and clearly if there is no agreement by the U.S. on the OECD BEPS action plan, we run the risk that even in the EU some of our member states refuse” to take part.

   Lamassoure’s comments came after what he called a “frank and blunt” conversation with top Treasury officials, who are none too pleased that European officials want to make public information about the profits corporations make and the taxes they pay in each country they’re active. (That’s better known as country-by-country reporting.)

   http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-tax/2016/05/do-we-really-need-an-innovation-box-beps-is-on-you-america-will-ways-and-means-go-rifleshot-214404

8. The IRS is in favour:

   “IRS Proposes Country-by-Country Reporting Rules for 2017”

   The Republicans are against:

   ‘ “Congress will not allow Treasury to move forward with BEPS policies that enable foreign governments to misuse information reporting and exploit American companies,” [Brady] said.’

   http://www.bna.com/irs-proposes-countrybycountry-n57982065451/

9. Great questions:

   “Why did the Treasury purposefully create this limited reporting obligations for U.S. financial institutions while creating extensive and detailed reporting obligations for FFIs?

   Why are U.S. financial institutions not required under FATCA IGAs to identify the beneficial owners of opaque legal structures to report the income and gains to foreign tax authorities?

   Why are U.S. financial institutions not required under FATCA IGAs to identify the and report non-U.S. source income in their U.S. accounts?

   Why has the U.S. refused to participate in the OECD common reporting standards?

   Why did the U.S. federal government wait until just this month of May 2016, to say it will start increasing the ” . . . transparency [of] the “beneficial ownership” of companies formed in the United States by requiring that companies know and report their true owners . . . “?

   Why is the White House just now saying it is going to be “Closing a Loophole that Enables Foreigners to Hide Behind Anonymous Entities Formed in the United States” when from inception, starting in 2012 all of the FATCA IGAs (which were drafted and negotiated exclusively by the U.S. Treasury) have always allowed foreigners with accounts and investments in the U.S. to hide behind anonymous entities?”

   https://tax-expatriation.com/2016/05/21/the-dirty-secret-of-u-s-fatca-igas/

10. I just came across this, which I hadn’t seen previously…

    http://www.smarterwaytocross.com/2016/03/28/group-seeks-relief-for-u-s-citizens-with-resp-and-tfsa-accounts/

    In its proposal, AmCham Canada recommended that Treasury implement the following measures in order to reduce the tax and reporting burdens associated with various cross-border deferred and tax-exempt savings accounts:

    1. Provide U.S. citizens and residents tax-deferred or tax-exempt treatment, comparable to that offered by Canada to its residents, for their contributions, income and withdrawals from properly established Canadian RESP, RDSP and TFSA.

    2. Exempt properly established Canadian RESP, RDSP and TFSA from classification as grantor trusts. In addition, exempt U.S. citizens and residents from various onerous statutory filing requirements for foreign trusts and PFICs which can currently exist for these plans.

    3. Work with their Canadian counterparts at Finance Canada to provide similar relief from taxation and burdensome reporting requirements for Canadian residents who hold and contribute to properly established 529 Plans, qualified ABLE accounts and Roth IRAs in the United States.

    http://www.amchamcanada.ca/news-article/Media-Release-Tax-fix

    Ottawa, March 7, 2016 – The American Chamber of Commerce in Canada (AmCham Canada), the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada (CPA Canada), and American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) have called on their governments to work together to help people with cross-border tax-assisted saving plans achieve the fully intended benefit of the incentives.

    Tax-deferred and tax-exempt savings plans use special provisions in the tax law to help Canadians and Americans save for a variety of important goals such as pursing higher education, ensuring there is ongoing care for people or family members with disabilities, or investing for the future, to name a few. But the U.S. and Canada treat similar types of savings plans differently. This mismatched alignment or treatment brings unexpected – and harsh effects – for many people who’ve had a cross-border move or temporary job assignment.

    Tax-assisted plans encourage savings by allowing contributions and/or earnings in the plans to go untaxed or to be taxed later (and often at a lower rate) when they’re withdrawn. But, as Jim Yager, Chair of AmCham Canada’s International Tax Committee explains, “the mismatched Canadian and U.S. tax rules that govern these plans can cause some amounts in the plans to be taxed unexpectedly, or the same amount can be taxed twice – once by each country.

    “Many people are often forced to unwind their plans and forfeit the tax benefit to pay the unexpected bill and avoid the complex tax filings that can ensue,” says Yager. “In extreme cases, this can create even more tax to pay on the liquidated amounts.”

    …
    Our goal in doing this is to allow the social objectives associated with the tax incentives in Canada and the U.S. to be achieved and to ensure smoother cross-border mobility for both workers and retirees,” says Yager.

11. @Calgary411

    Interesting that AmCham has teamed up with CPA Canada,

    https://www.cpacanada.ca/en/connecting-and-news/news/media-centre/2016/march/us-canada-tax-assisted-savings

    …and are now lobbying none other than Kevin Shoom from Canada’s Finance Department to bring about the necessary changes to the tax treaty to save many a Canadian from financial ruin.

    I remember personally speaking with Kevin Shoom when the Finance Department was supposedly looking for feedback on the IGA before it was passed. So did you, I recall. I hope he’s gotten a hearing aid since then.

    Should we give him another call? I’m sure he’d appreciate hearing about how the US taxation of RDSPs personally affects you after reading the CPA’s appeal.

12. I should have referenced in my above post the link to the letter the CPA sent to Brian Ernewein, General Director Tax Policy Branch Finance Canada that Kevin Shoom was cc’d on:

    https://www.cpacanada.ca/~/media/site/operational/mr-media-releases/docs/feb%2025%202016letter%20to%20finance%20canadauscanada%20tax%20deferred%20planssigned.pdf

    Had TFSA’s, RDSP’s and RESP’s not been exempt from FATCA reporting under Canada’s IGA, what would that say to Canada’s claims that FATCA is allowed under the treaty, when the treaty is supposedly there to prevent double taxation?

13. bubblebustin,

    Re:

    … AmCham has teamed up with CPA Canada,

    https://www.cpacanada.ca/en/connecting-and-news/news/media-centre/2016/march/us-canada-tax-assisted-savings

    …and are now lobbying none other than Kevin Shoom from Canada’s Finance Department to bring about the necessary changes to the tax treaty to save many a Canadian from financial ruin.

    I remember personally speaking with Kevin Shoom when the Finance Department was supposedly looking for feedback on the IGA before it was passed. So did you, I recall. I hope he’s gotten a hearing aid since then.

    Should we give him another call? I’m sure he’d appreciate hearing about how the US taxation of RDSPs personally affects you after reading the CPA’s appeal.

    …the letter the CPA sent to Brian Ernewein, General Director Tax Policy Branch Finance Canada that Kevin Shoom was cc’d on:

    https://www.cpacanada.ca/~/media/site/operational/mr-media-releases/docs/feb%2025%202016letter%20to%20finance%20canadauscanada%20tax%20deferred%20planssigned.pdf

    Had TFSA’s, RDSP’s and RESP’s not been exempt from FATCA reporting under Canada’s IGA, what would that say to Canada’s claims that FATCA is allowed under the treaty, when the treaty is supposedly there to prevent double taxation?

    I did not personally speak with Kevin Shoom, but he and I certainly had MUCH back and forth communication on the subject of how my son (and others like him) would be affected. (In coming into US tax compliance, my son was identified in my Foreign Bank Account Reports (FBAR, now FINCEN114), as I am the Holder of his RDSP, he the beneficiary. That resulted in a payment to the IRS of US$ Mr. Shoom certainly had to be aware that TFSAs, RDSPs and RESPs were subject to double taxation — (the reason they were exempted by Canada? but, as we know, are not exempt, for yearly tax and account report filing with the US — NOT GOOD ENOUGH).

    Not to belabour what I’ve said so many times and to Kevin Shoom, the Canadian RDSP is considered a *foreign trust* and this is the way I was taxed US$3,661 by the US for the RDSP that I am the Holder for on behalf of my son, taxed by the US for US Persons in Canada:

    1. If the sponsor / Holder of an RDSP (or RESP for that matter) is a US person then (US person analysis of the beneficiary is irrelevant):

    a. The income generated by the RDSP is taxed to the US person sponsor currently as it is earned

    b. The grant is taxed to the US person sponsor when it is distributed to the beneficiary

    c. US person sponsor must file 3520A annually

    d. US person sponsor must file 3520 annually

    2. If the sponsor / Holder of a RDSP (or RESP) is NOT a US person, AND the beneficiary is a US person then:

    a. The income generated by the RDSP (RESP) is taxed to the US beneficiary currently as it is earned

    b. The grant is taxed to the US person beneficiary when it is distributed

    c. US person beneficiary must file 3520 annually (no 3520A)

    Neither RDSPs nor RESPs are covered by the Canada / US Tax Treaty.

    Beyond that payment (which came through me from every Canadian taxpayer for the bonds and grants to my son’s RDSP), I paid a US tax accountant firm for getting into that US tax and reporting compliance. The US government has my son’s private banking information provided in my accounts (including those held for my son) I had to provide in my FBARs to the US.

    Just adding links to the testimony of Kevin Shoom and Brian Ernewein, for anyone’s review, although not specific to this …

    Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
    National Finance, Issue 10 – Evidence – April 30, 2014: http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/412%5CNFFN/10EV-51378-E.HTM

    May 1, 2014: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6562065&Language=E&Mode=1

14. I guess too many people are renouncing for the compliance industry’s liking – at least those who can renounce.

    Better to have less of something than nothing at all.

15. !!! WARNING about TPP !!!
    http://www.govtslaves.info/tpp-would-subject-canadian-citizens-banking-data-to-u-s-patriot-act/

    “Goods and services aren’t the only things that will be freely traded across the border. Banking data will be packaged and transmitted to servers in the United States where U.S. intelligence gathering organizations would undoubtedly rejoice at the reception of such a large cache of critical financial data without the need of a warrant.” …… “One provision of the TPP agreement would authorize American corporations to sue Ottawa should Canadian interests interfere with the “data flow provisions” of the agreement.” …… “Something more than private banking data is being transferred by the TPP: national sovereignty.”

16. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxHHmr2Yvol

17. Dear Mrs. Clinton,
    Are you worried by the fact that Donald Trump is now surpassing you in the polls? Could this race be too close to call ? Well I believe you should take a look at Austria and see that every vote is extremely important and realize that the winner for president was decided by the mail in ballots…so quite possibly expats. Yes …just 31,000 mail in votes decided the election!! Hmmm….would you like to throw us a piece of candy?? Or are you going to risk it and make us mad enough so that we will vote as a block for the republicans? There are probably 4 million votes out there just waiting for the right policy change!! So…. sweet dreams, Hillary.

18. What was at your link appears to have been removed, Polly.

19. Rachel Heller has written another good piece about FATCA. It may be awhile before she writes more. The fatigue she mentions is palpable here at Brock too but I’m hoping everyone is simply resting a bit in order to catch the second, third and fourth wind that will be needed to blow FATCA and eventually CBT into the burial pit of bad ideas. Rachel’s description of the fear factor is a perfect summary of why we don’t have the numbers of people supporting us that we should but we must keep on keeping on. Our cause is just and collectively we’ve invested too many LCUs into this fight to stop now.
    http://rachelheller.org/indignation-fatigue-fatca/

20. test

21. @JakDac met with his local Australian MP who forwarded his letter to his Senator, who forwarded the letter to the Australian Treasurer Scott Morrison. The Senator forwarded reply from the Treasurer to (JD).

    It was one of those responses: ‘it is a matter to pursue with the US government in the first instance.’

    Here is my response to that. Unjustifiable Tax Treaty Gaps front and centre, and Australian law (tax treaty) and Australian FATCA IGA impacting Australian Residents. An Australian living in Australia should bring this matter up with the Australian Government in the first instance.

    http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/fatca-and-australia/comment-page-33/#comment-7561948

    I am planning a Twitter storm of sorts in about a week.

22. @Calgary
    My links NEVER work…..:(

23. @EmBee, your “friend” George S. is pretty discouraged Fatcawise this morning so it was good to see your words. Basically, I am going through one of those moments where I think our countrymen will throw us under the bus because of fear because of money.

    I thought people would do what was considered right based on by example same sex marriage. That is an issue where at the end of the day you can still disagree with but you can understand why supporters fought for it.

    But here in the UK, I am seeing Project Fear 2.0 base on the EU referendum. The core argument is should the UK have its own self determination. Polls indicate that a sizeable number of persons who supported brexit because of the merits of self determination now no longer support it because of a possible monetary fear. (I have no issue with the remainers who will vote stay because they believe in pooling of sovereignty.)

    How does this remotely relate to our struggle? Sadly, I now believe that many of our respective countrymen will happily throw away any charter/constitional rights we may have because of FEAR of what 30% witholding could do to them and the economy.

    I can now EASILY envision George Osborne and HM Treasury preparing absolutely dire financial reports of what would happen to the UK economy if they exited FATCA/IGA.

24. https://twitter.com/JCDoubleTaxed/status/734982680329244672

25. Never Trump, Never Hillary? Tax-Wise Exit If Your Candidate Loses: http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/05/23/never-trump-never-hillary-tax-wise-exit-if-your-candidate-loses/

    Mentions US federal tax on non-resident citizens, but mostly about how to avoid state tax when residing outside of the US.

Comments are closed.