Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 4 of 11 (Year 2017)

1,720 thoughts on “Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 4 of 11 (Year 2017)”

1. @Badger

   I don’t mind registering a complaint at my local Vancity branch in person this week. They already know me as a “non” US person. I was in touch with Vancity about FATCA before they put out the original notice about being a Local Client Base FI. Should be interesting.

2. I’m not a BC resident so can’t use Vancity but if I were I’d march in and start yelling because some willfully non-compliant folks might have chosen to bank there to avoid FATCA. I expect that the change is due to CRS.

   Of course it’s only a theoretical problem if they don’t validate the truthfulness of one’s answers to any questions concerning citizenship.

3. @ Nononymous
   You’d really do that? March in and essentially encourage Vancity to dig even deeper to unearth possible connections to tax jurisdictions outside of Canada and then do even more extensive tattling to the CRA than they are doing already? Yipes!

4. No, I’d yell at them for changing their policy without making a big announcement, potentially screwing over folks who chose to bank with them precisely because they were local client base and FATCA-free until very recently.

   Realistically though, anyone sophisticated enough to bank with them for that reason would already know how to answer citizenship questions, so likely would not be outed.

5. I’ve been doing my banking at Vancity for several years and never had a problem. It’s possible that there is more pressure to comply with FATCA now that CRS is in the picture.

   Vancity statement says, “Canada incorporated CRS into our Income Tax Act on December 15, 2016. As a reporting Canadian financial institution, Vancity complies with all CRS requirements, as outlined by the Government of Canada.”

   This statement is from:

   https://www.vancity.com/PrivacyAndSecurity/YourPrivacy/CRS/

   This leaves me feeling uncomfortable to say the least. I’ll ask them some questions at my local branch this week. As I’ve said before this FATCA business is a slippery slope.

6. It’s a bit rich given that a few years ago they made quite a point of being FATCA-free. Rather a selling feature, going on about protecting their customers’ privacy rights etc. Seems to have quietly changed due to CRS.

7. To be fair, only basic banking was exempt from reporting under the local client base rules. If you wanted to invest in anything more complex than a savings account you needed to deal with a separate VanCity investment firm that was fully FATCA-compliant.

8. @ Pat Canadian
   I’m glad it’s you going into Vancity to ask some questions — you’ve got a CLN shield. Good luck!

9. Maple Sandbox still has the text of the old VanCity FATCA statement. Worth printing off and waving at them.

   I also noted this on the CRS page:

   The purpose of CRS is to set a new, international standard for the automatic exchange of financial account information between jurisdictions to reduce global tax evasion and improve tax compliance.

   CRS requires all Canadian financial institutions to report on financial accounts held by individuals who hold tax residency status in jurisdictions outside of Canada and the United States, and entities (or certain entities controlled by reportable clients) to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). Similarly, financial institutions around the world will report the tax residency status of their clients to their own country’s governing tax body, so these agencies can share information with each other.

   Which suggests that FATCA was a separate decision?

   Who knows? But heads should roll!

10. Here it be, the old statement:

    While Vancity must comply with the law, we are committed to protecting our members’ right to privacy. By registering as a Local Client Base financial institution, we believe we have significantly reduced the impact of FATCA on the majority of our members. As a result of our Local Client Base classification, Vancity only needs to collect FATCA information and report on member accounts held by non-Canadian residents.

11. Two posts above I was referring to the current VanCity CRS page. Expand the + to see full text.

12. @Nononymous
    @Embee

    Nononymous, I’ve kept copies of the original Vancity FATCA statement as well.

    Thanks for the support Embee. Without that CLN, I would hesitate to do this.

    I’ll bring both with me. I wouldn’t expect much other than the slippery slope to continue on a downward spiral. Under these difficult circumstances, it’s best to be informed.

13. March in there first thing Tuesday morning and give ’em hell!

14. @PatCanadian I look forward to your report.

15. @PatCanadian,
    Good luck with Van City.
    I do have my CLN, so am not concerned that I will be denied services, but I resent any potential for being made to prove the absence of something. I also have been interested to see what my 2 local credit unions might actually ask me for if I open new types of accounts, and whether they will get around to asking about my pre-existing ones.

    I have been a Canadian resident for more than 50 yrs. I had already had a long and detailed talk about this with my branch manager at the credit union I used most, and the person who had been my regular banking contact, well before Flaherty turned about face and went and signed the IGA. At the time, the manager did not think anything would come of FATCA in Canada and that Canada would not roll over. I tried to explain some of the nuances of FATCA, FBAR, and US extraterritorial CBT and their impact on our legal local banking and ability to invest in registered accts like the TFSA and RESP . How wrong that manager was not to take it more seriously, though I think the personal banking contact did at the time. Perhaps he just felt that Canada would never turn out to be so craven nor so stupid as to serve a foreign country by turning over and betraying their own citizens and residents who were merely saving and banking legally and locally in their own home country.

16. I thought the US didn’t agree to the CRS. Why then would CRS reporting include US persons? Why would CRS cause VanCity to give up the FATCA IGA’s local-client-base exemption?

17. There’s something unprecedented going on at the CRA, and I think it has everything to do with the new Revenue Minister when you hear such rhetoric as “pay their fair share”.

    http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=622836&email_access=on&chk=1573032&q=950196

18. Another survey on CBT, this time from Democrats Abroad. A chance to vent. And maybe, finally, DA is actually listening for once.

    Easy to fill in, no e-mail address requested. Just do it, people.

    https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfS5B5EYxLADL8JTD_5u-xPBjxP_Y48cNeC7GkHwhv0M_GQpA/viewform

19. Wow, thank you for posting that link. Never have I got so much satisfaction from filling out a survey!!

20. @Barbara,

    Who are the democrats going to rush to help. American citizens abroad or the illegal aliens they call dreamers?

21. @WhatAmI

    Good points…”I thought the US didn’t agree to the CRS. Why then would CRS reporting include US persons? Why would CRS cause VanCity to give up the FATCA IGA’s local-client-base exemption?”

    So |I walked into Vancity this morning. The branch manager I was directed to could only see me briefly as a walk in so we made an appointment for tomorrow. Among the questions I’ll ask are WhatAmI’s above. United States is not part of CRS. FATCA is only for US interest. CRS has over a hundred member countries which I believe utilize RBT. US has CBT. What goes on here?

22. @WhatAmI and PatCanadian,

    Here’s a link to FAQ and related question there that we need to better understand re US and FATCA re OECD CRS: https://www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/CRS-related-FAQs.pdf

    4. Reliance on Model 1 FATCA IGA definition of Investment Entity for purposes of CRS
    Can jurisdictions rely on the definition of Investment Entity used in the Model 1 FATCA IGA for the purposes of implementing the CRS?

    No, the definition of Investment Entity in Article 1(1)( j) of the Model 1 FATCA IGA cannot be used for CRS purposes on its own, as it is less prescriptive than the definition of Investment Entity in Section VIII(A)(6). However, the definitions of the Model 1 FATCA IGA and the CRS can be read consistently. For example, the CRS definition includes a gross income test to determine whether an Entity is treated as primarily conducting as a business one or more of the activities described in subparagraph A(6)(a), or an Entity’s gross income is primarily attributable to investing, reinvesting, or trading in Financial Assets for purposes of subparagraph A(6)(b), and could be used to interpret the less prescriptive aspects of the Model 1 FATCA IGA definition. The CRS definition is in fact based on the definition of Investment Entity in the US FATCA regulations, which may be used to interpret the Model 1 FATCA IGA definition.

    Also: long and detailed The CRS Implementation Handbook:

    https://www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/implementation-handbook-standard-for-automatic-exchange-of-financial-information-in-tax-matters.pdf

    Exceptionality: https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/AEOI-commitments.pdf

    1 The United States has indicated that it is undertaking automatic information exchanges pursuant to FATCA from 2015 and has entered into intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) with other jurisdictions to do so. The Model 1A IGAs entered into by the United States acknowledge the need for the United States to achieve equivalent levels of reciprocal automatic information exchange with partner jurisdictions. They also include a political commitment to pursue the adoption of regulations and to advocate and support relevant legislation to achieve such equivalent levels of reciprocal automatic exchange.

23. @Calgary411

    Thanks…I’ll try to get my head around some of it. Complex financial and legal stuff really makes my head spin. Another reason I’m glad to have left the US tax system behind. But my heart goes out to those who can’t.

24. Relevant to the ADCS lawsuit – harm from involuntary US extraterritorial taxcitizenship continues to be foisted onto unwilling Canadian border babies being born involuntary US taxablecitizens as a result of Canadian mothers sent to the US to give birth due to a lack of neonatal beds and specialist services on the Canadian side of the border, and in S.Ontario continues, even if the article below says none were sent THIS WEEK. Problems unrecognized in the newspaper articles include the unwilling and unwitting involuntary inheritance of a lifelong US extraterritorial tax, FBAR and FATCA problem for the Canadian baby and their Canadian family.

    See;
    https://www.thespec.com/news-story/7521092-neonatal-crisis-mcmaster-children-s-hospital-forced-to-halt-care-for-new-admissions/

    “…No Ontario babies were sent to other provinces or to the United States this week.

    In addition, HHS says all babies born in this region were treated here.

    But a Hamilton mother who had to deliver her premature twins in Buffalo in 2008 because of similar shortages can’t believe there was potential for it to happen again.

    “We were told back in 2008 that they would increase beds,” said Maria Matozzo. “Here we are nine years later and nothing has changed.”

    She says it’s stressful enough to deal with a premature birth, never mind “knowing there are no beds available” on top of that.

    “No parent should have to worry they will be sent away,” she said. “I’m upset that our health-care system is failing us.”

    Matozzo describes mountains of complicated paperwork to recuperate costs and get Canadian citizenship for her boys after they were born in the United States. “We were sent there with no help or direction.” ….”

    I am not belittling the need to obtain neonatal emergency services wherever they may be obtained in time. I am only suggesting that the Province of Ontario Ministry of Health and other provincial health bodies need to acknowledge that US citizenship is involuntary and thus those border babies and their Canadian families are then saddled with US extraterritorial burdens due to actions by their local and provincial health bodies.

25. Further to the story above.
    http://nationalpost.com/health/a-huge-problem-over-half-of-ontarios-neonatal-icus-closed-to-new-patients-due-to-crowding

    Can a Canadian family sue the province and their local health agency for creating a lifelong US extraterritorial tax, FBAR and FATCA jeopardy due to insufficient local Canadian services?

Comments are closed.