Discussion arising from Justice MacTavish’s Deegan v. Canada decision, but not specifically related to the case
To keep the main thread focused on Justice MacTavish’s Deegan v. Canada decision, I’ve started this thread for conversations that arise in our discussion of Justice MacTavish’s decision but move into other areas.
I wonder if the UK realizes that their new PM, Boris Johnson, is an American living in the UK yet.
Johnson renounced his US citizenship when he was appointed as Minister for Foreign Affairs.
He was born in the USA though, still was an American. Nice he can afford a special deal with the US for his tax purposes. He renounced after finding out about Fatca.
More likely to get through the vetting and because he was getting a diplomatic passport.
He soon lost the diplomatic passport but has now got it back again.
Renunciation really is the most effective solution for a US citizen in the UK who doesn’t want banks to report their accounts to the IRS.
It’s interesting that the US is given cover for it behaviour because it’s a so-called democratic country.
“I have further concluded that although the Impugned Provisions draw a distinction based on the enumerated and analogous grounds of national origin and citizenship, any such distinction is not discriminatory and thus does not violate section 15 of the Charter. Consequently, the Plaintiffs’ action will be dismissed.” At which point does a distinction become discriminatory? From what I’ve read so far, I think the justice made her decision based on whether the IGA was better for Canada than without it – not whether the IGA was in contravention of the Charter.
@Nativecanadian
Where did you learn that BoJo got a special deal with the IRS?
@BB
It’s generally assumed in the UK that BJ got a deal from the IRS. He refused to give any details when asked and said he will not talk about it.
He also dropped the vast amount (100’s of thousands)owed by the US Embassy in London in parking charges .
How could he not be angry and wary of US behavior if he was fleeced by them? Yet he keeps on about his ‘ special relationship with the US and Trump.
He will be a catastrophe for the UK.
“He will be a catastrophe for the UK.”
Undoubtedly. Not a covert US-citizen catastrophe though; just a UK-citizen catastrophe.
@Heidi
You think the IRS allowed him to negotiate on the tax he owed on the sale of his house? Not under any of the amnesty programs I know of.
I have a personal interest in this, as my situation was almost identical to his.
I have heard of people settling with the IRS for amounts significantly less than what’s owed. Maybe that’s the case here.
Th court ignores how the so-called U.S. persons only have a legal duty under U.S. law and have a right to defy the laws of foreign countries while Canadian citizens living in Canada.
“…the so-called U.S. persons only have a legal duty under U.S. law and have a right to defy the laws of foreign countries while Canadian citizens living in Canada.”
Speaking from a UK perspective, there’s no obligation to comply with the tax laws of other countries; but there’s certainly no “right to defy.” For example, if a UK resident with US citizenship files a self-assessment tax form with the US, reporting some (but not all) of his/her worldwide income as US-taxable, that’s an extraditable offence under UK law as well as US law.
That’s how we got landed with FATCA: Swiss law gave Swiss banks the right to “defy” US law with impunity. A solution to that problem was invented, and imposed on us all.
Tax crime is not an extraditable offense in Switzerland and many other countries. FATCA does have a limited clout in that respect.
I am afraid the UK will be further under the US thumb after Brexit.
Perjury was an offence in UK law long before FATCA came along.
No obligation, under UK law, to file US tax returns – but no right, under UK law, to file dishonestly.
Perjury to a foreign gov with no legal jurisdiction in citizenship country ?
I remember photos of US officials high fiving each other on the runway after David Blunkett signed away UK citizens to be extradited to the US with just simple paperwork and no evidence needed to be set before a UK judge.
The US resists extradition the other way.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/dec/15/immigrationpolicy.foreignpolicy
What more will the UK be prepared to give away for a US trade deal?!
“Perjury to a foreign gov with no legal jurisdiction in citizenship country?”
Any offence for which there’s a UK equivalent, AIUI.
@plaxy
This is all semantics and means little in practice . I thought you were a pragmatist
“This is all semantics and means little in practice.”
To you, apparently.
“Th court ignores how the so-called U.S. persons only have a legal duty under U.S. law and have a right to defy the laws of foreign countries while Canadian citizens living in Canada.”
Do dual US-Canadian citizens have a right to defy the laws of foreign countries while living in Canada?
I don’t need to consider it but many others may do.
You are now wearing a coat of many colours with your condor like warnings. How far must you go to have the last word, iota, plaxy, phyllis, purpleflower?
You have much to offer here yet you chose to involve yourself in pointless argumentative minutiae, why?
“Do dual US-Canadian citizens have a right to defy the laws of foreign countries while living in Canada?”
I hazard a guess that the relevant right which dual US-Canadian citizens have in Canada (and may not always have in the US) is a right to be treated as innocent of tax crime unless proven guilty.
And that’s the problem with the Mutual Assistance article.
“I hazard a guess that the relevant right which dual US-Canadian citizens have in Canada (and may not always have in the US) is a right to be treated as innocent of tax crime unless proven guilty.
And that’s the problem with the Mutual Assistance article.”
Most US expats don’t owe US tax.
That’s why those of us (the overwhelming majority) who never filed tax returns and never filed FBARs never had a problem: we weren’t breaking any country’s laws, and neither the US nor the residence country had any grounds for suspecting us of breaking any laws. We were innocent, and had a right to be treated as innocent.
Instead, without informing us, the residence-country abrogated to itself the right to treat our financial information as “foreseeably relevant” to the administration and enforcement of US tax law.
Foreseeing that purely because we were US citizens we were likely to be committing tax crime.
Whereas in reality we were fully compliant with US tax law – never having had any untaxed, illegally-concealed US-taxable income.
Treaty law trumps national law though; making it much easier (and cheaper) to accept the reporting and sign the W9, or dump the citizenship and sign the W8, than to try to get treaty law overturned in court.
Renouncing is easy.
“Most US expats don’t owe US tax.
That’s why those of us (the overwhelming majority) who never filed tax returns and never filed FBARs never had a problem: we weren’t breaking any country’s laws, and neither the US nor the residence country had any grounds for suspecting us of breaking any laws. We were innocent, and had a right to be treated as innocent.”
US expats in the UK who do file US tax returns, on the other hand, are in a very different situation. By reporting their worldwide income as US-taxable, they make it so, and also provide the US with all the information it needs to assess tax and penalties. They’ve jettisoned any claim to privacy rights.
And US expats who file US tax returns, reporting their worldwide income as US-taxable except the gain on the sale of their house and the growth of their stocks-and-shares ISA, have obviously not only jettisoned any claim to privacy rights, they’ve also jettisoned their right to be treated as innocent until proved guilty. They’ve self-documented their own guilt.
Of course the IRS is unlikely ever to notice or care, but the idea that UK-resident US expats have a right to “partial compliance” (as I’ve seen it called), couldn’t be further from reality.
And would obviously weaken rather than strengthen a UK case challenging FATCA, should one arise.
@PH, re; “…isn’t it rather essential to count, or at least in some way form a reasonably reliable estimate, of the number of fellow Canadians who feel that the lawyers for the plaintiffs are speaking for them?….”.
Exactly. Many Canadian people don’t even understand that FATCA exists or why their data may be imperilled. I meet them everyday here in a region in which many have crossborder relationships created when their relatives and friends go to school in the US, are transferred to the US by their employer, etc. Several may have nominated those US residents/citizens to be executors of their estates or hold joint accounts, or have some other financial or economic relationship that would end up involving them in FBAR or FATCA.
And I remain very troubled about the burden on those who can never renounce/relinquish, and the most vulnerable – kept UStaxablepersons for substantial periods (minors) or for life (those deemed legally incompetent), with their RESPs and RDSPs and any Canadian support grants/benefits deemed taxable assets by the US. Those two last groups cannot mount a challenge on their own, yet have no remedy at all that they can access alone.
What of them? I would have hoped that our federal government (both the CONs and now the GLIBs) would have cared about those most vulnerable rather than banks, but it is clear that some Canadians were considered expendable sacrifices to the US emperor.
“Those two last groups cannot mount a challenge on their own, yet have no remedy at all that they can access alone.”
No way to prevent their accounts from being treated as reportable, if they have a US birthplace; but as long as those responsible for their affairs don’t report the vulnerable individuals’ Canadian income as US-taxable, and assuming they receive no US-source income, they’ll surely remain under the threshold for filing US tax returns. As will those others you mention, who are forming cross-border relationships.
The tax advisers promote the idea that FATCA enables the IRS to enforce US taxation of residence-country income, but it doesn’t. What enables the IRS to enforce US taxation of residence-country income is filing US tax returns when it’s not necessary.