Courtesy of the Animal
Courtesy of the Animal
I recommend that people visit our website, the Isaac Brock Society where we the issue of US citizenship-based taxation from a much more sober and realistic point of view. Golombek, who works for CIBC, is not a good source of information on the issues of FATCA and US citizenship-based taxation. The practice of the United States of taxing “citizens” who are living in Canada is discriminatory and violation of the charter rights of all Canadian residents–and the banks, including the CIBC, plan to throw American “citizens” under the bus by instituting FATCA which they know already violates the charter and privacy rights of those they will expose to the IRS.
Golombek is clearly incorrect on the following point in his article: “This means that high-income Canadians may have to start writing a cheque to Uncle Sam for the first time in 2013.” According to the Canadian government, Canadian citizens never have to pay taxes to the United States on Canadian source income no matter how much they make, because the CRA will never collect for the IRS on a Canadian citizen, provided that they are a citizen at the time the tax liability was allegedly incurred. Golombek seems to me to be carrying water for the IRS, and he should really work much harder to get a Canadian perspective on this issue.
Also I should mention that Golombek’s sources are KPMG and Moody’s, folks that make a lot of money off your misery by charging you thousands of dollars to get your US tax affairs in order. They are very “interested” in your business.
At some point the Financial Post has to get some credibility on this issue. Using sources such as banks (Golombek), accounting firms (KPMG) and cross-border law firms (Moody’s), all of whom have millions of dollars at stake, is not the best way to gain credibility on what is essentially a human rights issue.
I came across this and am now reading. I am posting the “Conclusions” of “FATCA and FBAR Reporting by Individuals: Enforcement Considerations from a Canadian Perspective” by Andrew Bonham in the link below in case others are interested and haven’t yet come across this.
CONCLUSIONSDespite the increasing trend toward judicial comity, the revenue rule and the penal/public-law rule are still the law of the land. With respect to the enforcement of FBAR fines and penalties, since the BSA is not a taxing statute, the revenue rule would not apply, and ultimately any application or action brought by the United States for FBAR enforcement in a Canadian court would be barred by operation of the penal rule. A similar action brought for enforcement of FATCA claims would be barred by both rules.
This leaves the matter of the impact of the assistance-in-collection provisions of the Canada-US tax treaty. Again, since the BSA is not a taxing statute, FBAR collection claims would not fall under the provisions of the treaty. The issue of FATCA individual reporting claims is more problematic. Continue reading →