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. “I presume, taxpayers should not be so quick in getting U.S. citizenship for their children born in Canada, at least not until they graduate. Attaining U.S. citizenship puts the child under the U.S. tax reporting umbrella from the get-go.”

   https://www.taxconnections.com/taxblog/u-s-expatriates-resps-reporting-issues-in-canada/#.V7sN5JBfOrU

2. @Tricia, sorry to derail your work today! Thanks for your able and thorough rebuttal though. It will make no dent in the author’s dis/mis-information – which made me gag, but it will offset it for other readers- and in that, your work, time and energy will have lasting positive impact.

   Always appreciate all you and the others do – working so hard in countless ways which we cannot see, in order to help us all.

   Best wishes, always.

3. @badger,

   Thank you. You’re the best!

4. FATCA Lobby Urges Rethink To Ease Banking Problems

   http://www.iexpats.com/fatca-lobby-urges-rethink-ease-banking-problems/

5. @ Tom Alciere
   There it is again. That 1 inch bandaid over a 10 inch gash. If SCE is applied, there will high fives and back pats all around at ACA but expats will continue to bleed from their FBAR/CBT injuries and some will still have FATCA to contend with anyway. (I believe it isn’t uncommon for people in the Eurozone to have accounts outside their countries of residence.) Notice the focus is on making things easier for the banks . After all, these poor entities suffered an annoying paper cut boo-boo when the reporting paper weight of FATCA fell upon their tender hides. I see SCE as a way for everyone with the power to actually heal the entire wound (i.e. ditch CBT, switch to RBT) to walk away from it, claiming they did something, even though that something is totally insufficient.

6. @Bubblebustin

   The TaxConnections column you have linked to above is dated August, 2016. A virtually identical blog was previously published at TaxConnections by the same author (Larry Stolberg) in March, 2015 (It can be found by scrolling back through the TaxConnections blogs to a year ago March).

   I replied to Stolberg’s previous blog saying that readers should beware that Mr. Stolberg and TaxConnections might be advocating tax evasion rather than tax avoidance, because under U.S. citizenship law as written, attainment of citizenship by birth abroad was different than mere registration of that citizenship.

   My comment was deleted, and I was promptly banned from commenting further at TaxConnections.

   Go figure.

7. Some will remember Edgar Schmidt, former General counsel with Canada’s Department of Justice:

   “Whistleblower Edgar Schmidt and the federal concur on a critical point — it’s the Minister and Deputy Minister’s job to review draft legislation to ensure that it’s consistent with both the Canadian Bill of Rightsand the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The next step, at trial, will be to determine whether that system is churning out unconstitutional legislation.”

   http://www.nationalmagazine.ca/Articles/December-2014-Web/What-are-the-odds.aspx

   Well the BCCLA and CCLA have now both decided to intervene on his behalf in his lawsuit against the Attorney General as it goes to appeal. He writes,

   “It is always useful to have thoughtful organizations such as these recognize the significance of a standard of examination that calls for no more than a faint possibility of lawfulness, allowing bills that the Minister of Justice herself considers to be likely or even almost certainly inconsistent with the Charter to proceed without a report to the House of Commons.”

   http://charterdefence.ca/blog.html

8. Shovel, the author does seem to think that a US taxpayer’s tax and reporting obligations begin at registration.

   You think he’d recommend OVDI for those willful tax evaders who might want to enter the US tax system at a later stage in life?

9. From the CCLA submission on the Edgar Schmidt case:
   “12. The CCLA’s core mandate is to protect and promote the fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the Charter.”

   So, has any Canadian heard of help from the CCLA on FATCA Charter issues since Abby Deshman?
   

10. @Bubblebustin
    He certainly might….

    “What Offshore Delinquent U.S. Individual Filers Need To Know! – Part 4
    TaxConnections blog. Written by Larry Stolberg, Nov 10, 2014

    “The primary criteria for acceptance into the Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedure (“SFOP”) is that the reason for the non-compliance was due to non-willful conduct and that you meet a non-residency test.

    “What if you don’t qualify for SFOP?
    Alternative to the SFOP is filing under normal assessment procedures or applying under the 2014 OVDP (“Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program”).

    “The OVDP is generally reserved for taxpayers who may possess higher risk such as those who may have difficulty in determining or be concerned that their conduct may not be non-willful. If one’s conduct was willful then all bets are off causing civil and potential criminal penalties to apply.

    “The OVDP applies to those who have been non-tax compliant with regards to one’s offshore assets. Non-compliance may include having not reported an element of gross income or filing international information returns. The procedures for filing an OVDP application are more detailed. The disclosure period for the OVDP is 8 years of past due filings. There is now a 50% miscellaneous offshore or OVDP penalty (previously 27.5%) on the highest value of undisclosed foreign assets during the 8-year disclosure period. The OVDP penalty is in lieu of levying the otherwise civil penalties noted above (excluding the accuracy related penalty) and criminal penalties.

    “Recommendation
    Based on your fact pattern, you need to discuss each filing alternative with your accountant or experienced tax attorney.”

11. @Bubblebustin, from the CCLA submission on the Schmidt case;

    “e) The court -centric approach adopted by the Court below places the burden of ensuring
    constitutional compliance on ordinary Canadians, who must challenge legislation in
    court. This process is costly and can be subject to significant delay. Legislation may
    also be reviewed piecemeal, or not reviewed at all, if issues of standing or ripeness
    pose barriers.”

    http://charterdefence.ca/uploads/3/4/5/1/34515720/schmdit_v_ag_-_fca_-_ccla_motion_to_intervene.pdf

    Several of the statements seem to me to be just as applicable to the former, and current government’s defence of the FATCA IGA re constitutionality, conflict with our Charter, etc.

    ex.
    “20. This Honourable Court must ultimately determine how the statutory examination provisions
    must be interpreted. The CCLA’s argument will stress that rather than allowing the Minister
    to test what policy choices the govemment can get away with, robust review and
    transparency is required”

    And from the BCCLA submission;
    “….Since the enactment of s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Courts have
    been given the primary responsibility of determining whether legislation conforms with
    substantive constitutional norms. Given the nature of Canada’s adversarial tradition, this means
    that the burden of vindicating constitutional rights rests on individual litigants, who must have
    the resources to pursue constitutional litigation. The BCCLA, given its involvement in many
    significant Charter cases over the last several decades, knows that this can be an exceptionally
    difficult task. Many persons who are impacted by constitutionally suspect laws simply lack the
    skills, ability and resources to fight complex, lengthy and costly lawsuits against the state..”…..
    http://charterdefence.ca/uploads/3/4/5/1/34515720/motion_for_leave_to_intervene_of_bccla.pdf

    To date, unless I am just not aware of it, neither the BCCLA nor the CCLA have sought intervenor status in the ADCS suit against the FATCA IGA which the CONS forced upon us and defended against our challenge – and which very same constitutional and Charter abuse now the Libs continue, at the expense of all Canadian taxpayers.

12. @Shovel @Badger

    BCCLA let their position on FATCA known to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as recently as January 2016 here:

    Information Sharing Under the Income Tax Act

    56. The CCLA highlights for the Committee an inter-governmental agreement between the United States and Canada that imposes privacy-invasive and potentially discriminatory tax reporting measures on a distinct group of Canadians. The CCLA has been contacted by dual Canadian/American citizens regarding allegations of discrimination in relation to this agreement, and we are currently considering its implications. In February 2014, the United States and Canada announced that they had signed an inter-governmental agreement, aimed at implementing that country’s Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act (known as FATCA) in Canada. At the same time, Canadian implementing legislation was released. It received royal assent in June 2014 and is now codified in Part XVIII (Enhanced International Information Reporting) of the Canadian Income Tax Act.58 


    56. Under the amendments to the Income Tax Act, Canadian financial institutions are required to conduct due diligence to identify and report to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) all financial accounts that they hold for “US persons.” The CRA will then share that information annually with American tax authorities, in accordance with the information- sharing arrangements under the existing Canada-US tax treaty. 


    57. In 2011, ahead of the negotiations between Canada and the United States, the CCLA addressed a letter to the Canadian Department of Finance raising concerns about the potential for privacy and rights violations.59 We noted that the definition of “US persons” who could be affected by the agreement did not simply include US citizens, but also “former green-card holders [who] have permanently left the United States or even individuals who have spent a substantial amount of time in the US over a number of years.”60 


    58. The information-sharing contemplated under the Income Tax Act may affect Canadians who were born in the United States but who were never American citizens or who have relinquished American citizenship. Such individuals may have difficulty demonstrating to their financial institutions that they are not, in fact, “US persons” as contemplated by the Act. Particularly as regards these Canadians, the Income Tax Act authorizes information- sharing in a manner that is overbroad and lacks sufficient protocols to protect individuals’ privacy interests. It creates an arbitrary, arguably discriminatory distinction among Canadians based on place of birth and subjects a subclass of Canadian citizens to privacy-invasive measures.

    https://ccla.org/cclanewsite/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Report-to-the-UN-Committee-on-Economic-Social-and-Cultural-Rights.pdf

    


13. More foreign stuff from TA:

    http://taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/reports/fy-2017-objectives-report-to-congress/volume-2

    I couldn’t be bother to read it in detail. More of the same extra burden on taxpayers and no additional help.

14. UK says it’s getting tougher on tax evaders. So far no attempt to punish me. some of the comments call for CBT like the US.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3920211c-6954-11e6-ae5b-a7cc5dd5a28c.html#axzz4IGk5kTiF

15. @Bubblebustin, re the CCLA. Thanks for reposting their report comments for those who weren’t aware of it, and as a refresher.

    I appreciate that this issue was included in their submission, particularly as it helps to support the complaint lodged with the UN by IBS members and others http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/07/28/human-rights-complaint-on-behalf-of-all-u-s-persons-abroad-is-ready-to-submit-you-and-i-can-be-part-of-this-effort-by-lending-our-signatures-to-the-document/ .

    In the CCLA submission to the UN, I note particularly the acknowledgement that;
    “…It creates an arbitrary, arguably discriminatory distinction among Canadians based on place of birth and subjects a subclass of Canadian citizens to privacy-invasive measures.”

    I know that CCLA has limited resources. It would be supportive if they would issue an updated public statement on the FATCA issues similar to their previous statements; https://www.google.com/url?q=https://ccla.org/cclanewsite/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2012-12-04-Letter-to-Dpt-of-Finance.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj0kdL5v9rOAhUpI8AKHV5KATMQFggKMAI&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNG7fQkel2Hy16QFTk7Wj0bE3HrM9w https://ccla.org/ccla-registers-privacy-concerns-over-ongoing-canada-u-s-information-exchange-negotiations/ ) in support of their fellow citizens, who like the ordinary Canadian individual plaintiffs and the volunteers of ADCS are actively trying to take this to court and access justice, with limited means (exactly the type of situation both CCLA and BCCLA raise as barriers to democracy in their submissions to the court).

    It was mere happy accident that we found out that they’d included a reference to FATCA in their 2016 report to the UN https://ccla.org/cclanewsite/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Report-to-the-UN-Committee-on-Economic-Social-and-Cultural-Rights.pdf , and I think it deserved more public exposure – as does the issues raised by FATCA.

    It would be heartening to hear public support from the CCLA and the BCCLA for the ADCS lawsuit. There was some comment from them I remember (can’t find it now) about obtaining their own legal opinion on FATCA, but I haven’t seen anything about their results – though perhaps it is strategically better for them not to share it publicly. Perhaps they have been in touch with ADCS. I hope so.

16. http://www.international-adviser.com/news/1031112/campaign-calls-fatca-exemption-us-expats
    More from ACA re SCE,

17. This is priceless:

    >Treasury Department in Washington said the Brussels-based commission is taking on the role of
    >a “supra-national tax authority” that has the scope to threaten global tax reform deals.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-24/u-s-treasury-steps-up-pressure-on-eu-over-apple-tax-dispute

    I can see this is going to cheer me up no end.

18. Haven’t seen this before??
    http://news.cchgroup.com/2016/08/24/u-s-citizen-living-in-saudi-arabia-lacked-standing-to-challenge-fatca-alsheikh-v-lew-dc-calif/
    ‘U.S. Citizen Living in Saudi Arabia Lacked Standing to Challenge FATCA (Alsheikh v. Lew, DC Calif.)’

19. @Neill, I liked the rampant hypocrisy in this part;
    “..“There is a possibility that any repayments ordered by the Commission will be considered foreign income taxes that are creditable against U.S. taxes owed by the companies in the United States,” the paper said. “If so, the companies’ U.S. tax liability would be reduced dollar for dollar by these recoveries when their offshore earnings are repatriated or treated as repatriated as part of possible U.S. tax reform.”

    Treasury’s white paper called that potential outcome “deeply troubling, as it would effectively constitute a transfer of revenue to the EU from the U.S. government and its taxpayers.”.”. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-24/u-s-treasury-steps-up-pressure-on-eu-over-apple-tax-dispute

    This is hysterical, the US claims against the EU;
    “The Commission’s New Approach Is Inconsistent with International Norms and
    Undermines the International Tax System”
    https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Documents/White-Paper-State-Aid.pdf

    Lew has no problem as long as it is the US extraterritorial CBT and FATCA being “inconsistent with International Norms and Undermines the International Tax System””.

    And Treasury also cites this with a straight face; “The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) provides that “any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or
    threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain
    goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal
    market.”1 The State aid rules “ensure that the functioning of [the] internal market is not distorted
    by anticompetitive behavior . . . favouring some actors to the detriment of others.”2”

    Funny, FATCA does just that to all NON-US banking, as well as NON-US NON-financial institutions, the finances of individuals abroad, their families, and even NON-US trusts with NO US connection at all ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11050777/British-families-billed-500-to-prevent-Americans-dodging-tax.html ), and bills the taxpayers of non-US countries to pay for the distortion (ex. favouring the US as the worlds biggest tax haven, and saddles non-US FIs and NON-FIs with a useless costly punitive and complex reporting system. Talk about anti-competition. According to Queens U Prof. Cockfield, there are NAFTA and WTO issues with FATCA http://www.tax-news.com/articles/_FATCA_Sea_Change__571885.html http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2&DocId=6597204#Int-8359630

    Prof. Christians of McGill points out that FATCA violates international norms http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2&DocId=6597204 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2280508

    The US Treasury doesn’t give a damn about the transfer of revenue to the US from the EU and elsewhere around the world: ex. siphoning off Australian Superannuation funds, or Canadian children’s RESPs, or the RDSPs of those with disabilities. It welcomes all coercive extortionate involuntary donations to the US from the non-US government grants and benefits paid for by local non-US taxpayers to achieve social policy aims and actual concrete local benefits like sending kids to college and assisting those with disabilities and their families to try and stave off living in poverty.

    The US Treasury is not concerned with extraterritorially confiscatory FBAR, FATCA and using information returns to generate non-tax penalty revenues over and above or instead of any actual tax assessed under extraterritorial CBT practices – which it demands of people around the world who neither live in the US nor receive any benefit from the US.

    The US Treasury is not concerned with taxing on the basis of non-economic incidentals such as our parentage or birthplace. Or of denying tax credits based merely on nationality – if a USP abroad’s dependent is not a USP. Or denying deductions based on non-US location of property (ex. US-sited property mortgage payments/interest) deductable even when they also assert taxes regardless of location (ex. sale of Canadian principal residence).

    The US Treasury is not concerned with the Obamacare NIIT doubletax which tax treaties do not protect USPs from https://citizenshiptaxation.wordpress.com/2016/07/24/chapter-14-the-obamacare-net-investment-income-tax-pure-double-taxation-of-americansabroad/ https://www.americansabroad.org/affordable-care-act/

    The US Treasury gives not a flying fig for children and others outside the US. What it is really concerned with is US corporations, and anything it can grab for the US – all the chips, at the expense of the rest of the world. It aims to be the last and biggest tax haven standing http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-s-favorite-new-tax-haven-is-the-united-states

    See what Canadian taxpayers were paying at MINIMUM to implement the US FATCA in Canada as per the budget of 2015;

    Go to http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/fnncl/r150828-eng.html
    titled:
    “Canada Revenue Agency
    Quarterly Financial Report

    For the quarter ended June 30, 2015
    ………………….
    Statement outlining results, risks and significant changes in operations, personnel and program
    …………………………………..
    ………………………..
    Highlights of fiscal quarter and fiscal year to date (YTD) results

    Analysis of Authorities

    This report reflects the results of the current fiscal period in relation to the Main Estimates for which full supply was released on June 19, 2015, including authorities available for use from the prior fiscal year……..

    ……..$4 million pertains to tax measures, including the implementation of the intergovernmental agreement between Canada and the United States to enhance the exchange of tax information; “

20. Hopefully this will start to snowball (I hope it’s true!!) This might be the opening of our back door to freedom FROM american tyranny.

    https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/four-more-mega-banks-join-the-anti-dollar-alliance-20120/

21. @PierreD

    Here’s a short video on how Blockchain works:

    http://minutevideos.com/project/blockchain-introduction-mgm0hv8m/pub?gclid=Cj0KEQjwi_W9BRD_3uio_Jz-p8UBEiQANU80vqe4ZCORfIMy_udAk382eK4TBjB7-lMoBJCifpu5Xq0aAozT8P8HAQ

22. Thanks BB. I did learn something from the video you linked. I’m not sure, however, if you’re suggesting the sovereign man article I posted at 4:11 today is hogwash or good news. Can you elaborate or share your opinion?

23. @PierreD

    I haven’t a clue, but I don’t think Sovereignman can be trusted to be impartial, as he seems to definitely have his own agenda. That isn’t t say he isn’t right though. I just don’t know enough about world finance, and whether the US is under any real threat of losing its dominance within it. Sounds as though some might be ready to challenge it however. Good luck to them!

24. This could get interesting: “….a withholding tax on US financial institutions, based on FATCA – is still in the drawer”

    http://www.taxjustice.net/2016/08/24/us-treasury-tax-war-europe/

25. @Neill thanks for the alert that volume 2 is available now from the IRS TAS. Well worth a read anyway, and Nina Olson deserves kudos for her intelligent, laser-focused, determined and advocacy-informed analysis of the IRS ‘Future State’ (scary as it sounds) and other proposals , and she takes them to task and calls out their bs. Some of the IRS responses are simply and obviously fully disingenuous. Who would trust them when they’re peddling such official shite – which it is obvious is going to hurt even more of the general resident taxpayers that they pretend they are going to ‘serve’ better? No mention so far of the unique needs of those ‘abroad’ (maybe I should just do a keyword search for the word ‘enforcement’?).

    The report is long, and I’m not finished, but if the IRS is allowed to do what it proposes, only more pain, more ‘user fees’, more penalties, more abusive enforcement, more lack of service, etc. can come from it. And if the outcome for US resident taxpayers looks increasingly bleak, the picture for those outside the US is even worse than it has been up to now. Not to mention that there is no even attempt to pretend on ‘consultation’ with the ‘taxpayers’ the US claims to own outside the US. Those ‘abroad’ are merely to be silent tax and penalty fodder, with no IRS attempt to consult or engage with, and of course, no attempt to ‘serve’.

    Here is an extract about the IRS proposals to levy more user fees for service (thought that those services – or is that a benefit? – was to be paid for out of US taxes?). The TAS response is very frank:
    “….However, the IRS’s continued lack of transparency in discussing potential user fee increases in public remains an area of concern. For example, the IRS has still declined to permit the National Taxpayer Advocate to release an unredacted version of her memorandum to the IRS Commissioner, which discusses her concerns about the fees being proposed.

    Another remaining concern is that the IRS’s comments (above) understate its discretion in setting
    appropriate user fees and requesting a waiver for user fees, potentially leaving readers with the misimpression that its hands are tied. As noted in the MSP, the IRS did not establish any fees under IOAA for 43 years. For some fees the IRS has discretion to set any reasonable fee, and OMB Circular A-26 directs that other fees must be “fair” and based, in part, on the “public policy or interest served,” and agencies can seek a waiver to set a lower fee based on anything that “in the opinion of the agency head or his designee, justifies an exception.” In short, the IRS is responsible for whatever fees and fee policies it ultimately adopts. Its hands are not tied. It should not blindly adopt, retain, or raise fees without fully considering the consequences to taxpayers and tax administration……..”…………

    http://taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/reports/fy-2017-objectives-report-to-congress/volume-2

Comments are closed.