I found some interesting comments in Hansard by Halifax MP Megan Leslie on FATCA made on Febuary 27th. They actually came up in the context of Canada Panama relations discussing how the US was claiming to go after tax havens such as Panama using legislation such as FATCA but instead FATCA is being used to go after lawful Canadian citizens. I have posted the comments below:
Panama’s complete lack of taxation transparency has even led the OECD to label the nation a tax haven. As another parentheses about tax havens, we have recently seen the U.S. trying to crack down on tax havens. It loses about $100 billion a year to offshore tax evasion and avoidance. Canada loses about a tenth of that or $10 billion a year. The U.S. is trying to crack down on these tax havens by making sure that people are tax compliant and introducing new legislation like FATCA, for example. The problem is that they are actually scooping up the wrong people. They are not going after the folks who are tax avoiders or are ferreting off this money and trying to hide it, but are hitting ordinary citizens, like ordinary Canadians.
In my riding of Halifax, there are many people who have immigrated to Canada from the U.S. and are dual citizens, as well as people who are American by accident, whose parents were American citizens and whose offspring are therefore considered American citizens for tax purposes. They did not know they had to file taxes over all these years and are now finding out that they may face tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of fines. The phone was ringing off the hook in my constituency office from these folks calling and saying that they were scared, too scared to find out what their rights were and too scared to find out if they are considered U.S. citizens and do not know what to do.
As a result, we held an information session on rights and filing obligations, how the amnesty works, and those kinds of things. Myta Blacklaws in my Halifax office organized this information session. We booked a room for 60 people but when we managed to fit 125 people into that room, we started putting people into a second room. It was unbelievable. It was standing rooms only, as it were. This information session was led by a woman named Blair Hodgman, an immigration lawyer, and some tax accountants were also present.
It is really stressing people. People are scared and under a lot of pressure. Yet the NDP has been asking the Conservative government to take action to start discussions with the U.S. about what is going on, why regular folks are being penalized and that this is not what we are going after with the tax haven legislation, that this is not the intended effect and that we should be reasonable.
@Tim
I would love to know what Blair Hodgman, the immigration lawyer had to say at that meeting re loss of U.S. citizenship, if she did in fact speak to that issue. I went to her firm’s website http://www.allhod.com. Very interesting. It states they can help you determine if you are in fact, a U.S. citizen.
I posted a report on the meeting. The post is dated Jan 18. maybe Petros can figure out how to put a link here. Otherwise, you can just go through the older posts. It’s called CanuckDoc reports on meeting with Megan Leslie, or something of that sort.
@tiger
While I do believe what Schubert has said about the law re: pre 1986 I also don’t get the impression that is an position officially supported by the US State Department. It’s position that would hold up in US court but I don’t how many minnows really have the resources to get into a court fight in the US. My view has been the most cost effective strategy is to continue to put pressure on Canadian MP’s and the Canadian government for some type of resolution. I am happy this is still an area of concern from MP’s such as Leslie. The remarks if you go back to Hansard were almost completely unprompted my sense was someone wanted to bring the whole Panama as a tax haven thing and Leslie brought up FATCA and Canadians.
The case you have to remember that is still ongoing is that of New Brunswick premier David Alward who supposedly went into to OVDI. Alward is of course a conservative and personal friends with Flaherty, current Revenue Minister Gail Shea, and former Revenue Minister Keith Ashfield.
@Tim
You could be right but I think that DOS will actually have no trouble issuing a delayed CLN to anyone who expatriated pre 1986 and did nothing since that date to cancel the relinquishment. What I am unsure of is what the view of the IRS will be. Certainly when Johnnb filed his papers at the Halifax consulate and also another friend of John’s, they did not have any impression the CLN would be denied. The “unknown” in all of this is the IRS. All of the facts support “relinquishing” for pre-1986 citizenship in another country.
@Tim and all – since NONE of the cases until now involved legitimate law-adbiding citizens abroad, I, and EVERYONE else I tell here thinks this is a RUSE to generate $450 per person income for the US in renunciation fees.
It is completely ridiculous ttry to deny someone access to where they were born and raised for many years. I speak English with no accent. Do you [or Mr. Obama], think that people woudl treat me differently because I have a CLN? Never! I could get a Walmart job in 20 seconds if I wanted one.
The point is, I’m from there — the way the US is acting is assenine — too FEW people will ask/pay to have citizenship reinstated. Even a woman told me today “Everyone is leaving America!!!”
I don’t know where she got those numbers from, but I’m assuming the immigrant Brazilian population.
Obama has to be the biggest waste of political capital in 30 years. No offense, ** I’ve never voted in my life ** , but this idiot was the first to vote something negative in the affect my life overseas. He promised great changes and things only got worse. Think about it… I live in the 3rd word.. and the US could offer me 2-3 million per year and I wouldn’t go there. WTF does that say about the USA?
Now I have a major delima: renounce or relinquish, and I’m well aware of the differences…. we’lll see which one I do!
Today johnnb confirmed that he filled out both a DS-4079 and a DS-4081. I cannot see that a DS-4081 would be required for pure relinquishment. That factoid (thank you johnnb) tells me that US consulate/embassy CYA SOP is to have the applicant complete both forms and then to leave all those fine distinctions to central HQ.
If central HQ is looking for revenue everywhere and feeling mean, they may eventually offer people like johnnb a choice: pay $450 and get a precious CLN now, or get yourself started into an indeterminate appeal procedure and pay a lawyer many times that amount to achieve nothing certain.
If I were what I understand the US authorities to be — rapacious and capricious — I would jump at the opportunity to perpetuate this outrage.
This is why I am, first of all, so curious to hear of one single instance of a modern-day CLN — and just as much, to hear of one single instance of a modern-day relinquishment rather than renunciation that results in a no-fee CLN.
Let your imaginations swirl with the eddies of those CLN waters ever mounting behind that State Department dam.
Something in Washington has got to be super weird right about now.
@usxcanada
A CLN is not necessary to renounce citizenship and not having one does not mean you have not legally renounced or relinquished. It is really only important because under FATCA they want Canadian banks to demand it even though it would be in contravention of Canadian law. I don’t truely even believe a CLN is legally required to cross the border as a Canadian citizen with a US birthplace. You might get hassled without one but I don’t believe you would be denied entry on a Canadian passport. We need to demand the Canadian government get this CLN crap out of FATCA and all together not allow Canadian banks to comply with FATCA
@usxcanada
I’d say those are pretty interesting comments from you — and food for thought (oh, oh, just before bedtime).
When or Shall someone claiming Relinquishment today be receiving his or her Certificate of Loss of Nationality — the jury may be out for a long time.
Heck, would like to know of one received for a straight-forward Renouncement.
I just saw a post on ACA’s Facebook page mentioning the John Weston MP for West Vancouver Sunshine Coast is taking a major role on FATCA for the Conservatives.
@calgary411
My personal prediction is CLN’s will take a very looong time to come. Petros has been waiting almost a year. My sense is legally it is a very complex thing for the US State Department to carry out and as a such go about it very slow.
In Panama, the problem is likely “bearer shares” which can create an anonymous environment for scammers. The US got its way– from what I have heard The Panama of 2-3 years ago is not the same Panama of today. The problem arises when *ME* – Mr. Honest – wants to open an account and is denied.
AAhh.. how I long for the day.. when I can pay the ridiculous fees and renounce. What’s really sad about this government has most likely NOT told the mainlander Americans that they are charging such a fee. I KNOW of tTHOUSANDS of mainlanders that would say “If they aren’t with us…. ***** them”. I’m sorry, but a real American, out of pride, would never charge $450. Accepting the $450 makes them worthless than sewer rats, I’m sorry.
Real Americans, please crucify your government for devaluing the worth of your citizenship. I’m a REAL American, so I value where I was born, but I live here, so * I MUST * abide by the laws here. When are the people in the US Treasury / Government going to get this??
@ all of the above,
Oh, to be able to “fast forward” to perhaps 2013. Johnnb filed his “relinquishment” papers in January; Arrow’s wife files her next week; now if we could fast forward and discover what happens down the road, life would be better and perhaps some of the tension would be allieviated.
@usxcanada
I did notice on the DOS Form – 4081, a statement that says you are to contact the IRS re filing obligations (or words to that effect).
@Tim
And, at the same time, some consulates (ex: the Calgary US Consulate) will not give those who have “renounced” a copy or any documentation that they have renounced and should eventually receive a CLN. (At least those renunciants can now can get a RECEIPT for their $450 paid up front for renunciation — up front, for what pray tell? Maybe those receipts should go in safety deposit boxes and a copy carried with Canadian (or other country) passports.
How controlling that there is not the same standard of procedure for each consulate / each renunciation. They all make up their own rules.
@Calgary411
As I have said relying in a CLN or some type of documentation from the US should only be a Plan A. Supposedly there are almost a million people in Canada with US ancestry if all of them applied for CLN’s there is no way they could all be processed. Plan B is going to require continued pressure on the Government of Canada related to FATCA, Bank Identification, preserving the right of Canadian citizens to travel abroad, and pressure by Canada on the US to dramatically overhaul the CLN issuance process.. As I said earlier one thing I am still waiting to see is if in fact there is any specific requirement for a Canadian citizen born in the US to present a CLN at the border. I don’t believe there is and thus they real issue is this idiotic FATCA regime.
@Tim,
I don’t think the requirement is in place at the border at the present time. In fact, I said to someone today that I believe the time to return to the U.S for a visit for someone like myself would be in the next year. After that all bets are off. I don’t believe the Americans are going to back off. They believe they are right and just, as they always have believed – in their very narcissistic manner.
Thanks, Tim. I agree.
@Calgary411
Your post at 10:17 p.m. You are so correct. But I don’t think this is anything new. It appears based on what has been posted over the last week or so, that for those of us who relinquished many years ago by performing the expatriating act of taking out Canadian citizenship were all treated differently. Some received CLN’s without asking for them and others of us never heard anything and thus are now dealing with this mess.
@tiger
You’re right — it’s a continuing saga. History does repeat itself.
This is interesting too:
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 (No. 75)
Questions
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&DocId=5357886&File=9#DOC–93986D13BDC049DDB80A1F32243FD822
Q-4122 — January 26, 2012 — Mr. Mai (Brossard—La Prairie) — With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) responses to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR): (a) according to the government’s analysis, do the IRS provisions comply with the provisions of the Convention Between Canada and the United States of America With Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital and its amending Protocol (2007); (b) are there Canadian exemptions to FBAR; (c) has Canada negotiated the FBAR provisions with United States Treasury Officials or the IRS, (i) at what time was the government made aware of these provisions, (ii) how long did it take for Canada to respond to the changes made by the IRS and the United States Treasury; (d) how will the government ensure that the CRA does not act on behalf of the IRS to collect revenues and penalties; (e) has Canada informed dual citizens about their tax obligations resulting from FBAR; (f) what was the number of exchanges of information between Canada and the United States of America this year and during the past ten years regarding FBAR, (i) has the CRA set internal deadlines to be able to respond to exchange of information requests in a timely manner, (ii) will Canada work to improve bilateral cooperation on this issue, (iii) has there been an increase of exchange of information requests at the CRA due to FBAR; (g) will the government lose revenue as a result of the implementation of FBAR; (h) what are the cost implications emanating from FBAR (i) for the government, (ii) for the CRA, (iii) for Canadian banks, (iv) who will absorb these costs, (v) are there other types of non-financial costs such as efficiency or fairness reductions; (i) how many complaints has the CRA received regarding FBAR or related vexatious inquiries by the IRS, (i) what are the main complaints, (ii) what has the CRA done concerning these complaints, (iii) what department at the CRA is in charge of dealing with complaints of this nature, (iv) will the CRA cut Full-Time Equivalents from that department or reduce its funding, (v) has the office of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsman looked into the matter; (j) will FBAR prevent double taxation of pre-migration gain; (k) has there been an increase in arbitration cases due to active procedures by the IRS, (i) what departments are most affected, (ii) has the CRA cut Full-Time Equivalents from each of these affected departments or reduced their funding; (l) will FBAR affect different saving vehicles such as, but not limited to, (i) Registered Retirement Savings Plans, (ii) Registered Education Savings Plans, (iii) Registered Disability Savings Plans, (iv) Tax-Free Savings Accounts; and (m) how many Canadian-American dual citizens are affected by FBAR and does Canada have contact information for the dual citizens affected by FBAR? Q-4122 — 26 janvier 2012 — M. Mai (Brossard—La Prairie) — En ce qui concerne les réponses de l’Agence du Revenu du Canada (ARC) aux dispositions de l’Internal Revenue Service (IRS) en ce qui a trait au Rapport sur les comptes bancaires étrangers (FBAR) : a) selon l’analyse du gouvernement, est-ce que les dispositions de l’IRS respectent celles de la Convention entre le Canada et les États-Unis d’Amérique en matière d’impôts sur le revenu et sur la fortune et du Protocole la modifiant (2007); b) des dérogations au FBAR sont-elles accordées au Canada; c) le Canada a-t-il négocié les dispositions du FBAR avec des représentants du département du Trésor des États-Unis ou avec l’IRS, (i) à quel moment le gouvernement a-t-il été mis au courant de ces dispositions, (ii) combien de temps le Canada a-t-il mis à réagir aux changements apportés par l’IRS et le département du Trésor des États-Unis; d) comment le gouvernement veillera-t-il à ce que l’ARC n’agisse pas au nom de l’IRS pour percevoir les recettes et les amendes; e) le Canada a-t-il informé les personnes détenant la double citoyenneté de leurs obligations fiscales par suite du FBAR; f) le FBAR a donné lieu à combien d’échanges d’information entre le Canada et les États-Unis d’Amérique cette année et au cours des dix dernières années, (i) l’ARC a-t-elle fixé des échéances à l’interne pour pouvoir répondre aux demandes d’échange d’information de façon rapide, (ii) le Canada travaillera-t-il à améliorer la collaboration bilatérale sur ce point, (iii) y a-t-il eu une augmentation des demandes d’échange d’information à l’ARC par suite du FBAR; g) le gouvernement perdra-t-il des revenus par suite de la mise en œuvre du FBAR; h) quelles sont les implications financières du FBAR (i) pour le gouvernement, (ii) pour l’ARC, (iii) pour les banques canadiennes, (iv) qui assumera ces coûts, (v) y a-t-il d’autres types de coûts non financiers, comme la réduction d’efficacité ou d’équité; i) combien de plaintes l’ARC a-t-elle reçu au sujet du FBAR ou de demandes vexatoires à ce sujet par l’IRS, (i) quelles sont les principales plaintes, (ii) qu’a fait l’ARC au sujet de ces plaintes, (iii) quel département de l’ARC est chargé de répondre aux plaintes de cette nature, (iv) l’ARC va-t-elle réduire le nombre d’équivalents temps complet ou réduire son financement, (v) le bureau de l’ombudsman des contribuables s’est-il penché sur la question; j) le FBAR empêchera-t-il la double imposition des gains pré-migration; k) y a-t-il eu augmentation du nombre de cas d’arbitrage par suite de procédures actives par l’IRS, (i) quels ministères sont les plus touchés, (ii) l’ARC a-t-elle réduit le nombre d’équivalents temps complet dans chacun des ministères touchés ou réduit leur financement; l) le FBAR aura-t-il des incidences sur divers instruments d’épargne, comme, entre autres, (i) le régime enregistré d’épargne-retraite, (ii) les régimes enregistrés d’épargne-études, (iii) le régime enregistré d’épargne-invalidité, (iv) les comptes d’épargne libres d’impôt; m) combien de personnes ayant la double citoyenneté canadienne-américaine sont touchées par le FBAR et le Canada a-t-il leurs coordonnées?
Q-4132 — January 26, 2012 — Mr. Mai (Brossard—La Prairie) — With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) response to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA): (a) according to the government’s analysis, do the FATCA provisions comply with the provisions of the Convention Between Canada and the United States of America With Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital and its amending Protocol (2007); (b) how many citizens from the United States of America will be affected by FATCA, (ii) are there specific Canadian exemptions to FATCA; (c) has Canada negotiated with United States Treasury officials or the IRS following the announcement of FATCA provisions, (i) at what time was the government made aware of these provisions, (ii) how long did it take Canada to respond to the initial creation of FATCA and its implementation, (iii) are there ongoing negotiations in this regard; (d) will Canada inform dual citizens about FATCA and, if so, (i) how, (ii) at what time, (iii) what department or agencies will be responsible; (e) has the government conducted any studies or mandated a task force to look into how much FATCA will cost Canadians and, if so, what are the cost implications resulting from the additional regulations and demands, (i) for the government, (ii) for the CRA, (iii) for Canadian banks, (iv) who will absorb these costs, (v) are there other types of non-financial costs such as efficiency or fairness reductions; (f) which Canadian civil liberties associations or other types of association has the government met with to discuss the privacy implications of FATCA and what actions will the government undertake to protect the fundamental civil liberties of all Canadians in this regard; (g) according to the government’s analysis, do the FATCA provisions comply with the provisions of the Privacy Act or the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, and if so, which department undertook this assesment; (h) in order to discuss the implications of FATCA, who within the government has met with (i) Canadian banks, (ii) other financial institutions, (iii) insurance companies; (i) how many complaints has the CRA received regarding FATCA, (i) what are the main complaints, (ii) what has the CRA done concerning these complaints, (iii) what department at the CRA is in charge of dealing with complaints of this nature, (iv) will the CRA cut Full-Time Equivalents from that department or reduce its funding, (v) has the office of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsman looked into the matter; (j) has Canada ever studied the development or implementation of a process similar to FATCA to improve tax compliance involving foreign financial assets and offshore accounts; (k) who will be most affected by FATCA and have concerns been raised by entities such as, but not limited to, (i) interests groups, (ii) stakeholder groups, (iii) hedge funds; and (l) will FATCA affect different saving vehicles such as, but not limited to, (i) Registered Retirement Savings Plans, (ii) Registered Education Savings Plans, (iii) Registered Disability Savings Plans, (iv) Tax-Free Savings Accounts?
Q-4122 — January 26, 2012 — Mr. Mai (Brossard—La Prairie) — With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) responses to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR): (a) according to the government’s analysis, do the IRS provisions comply with the provisions of the Convention Between Canada and the United States of America With Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital and its amending Protocol (2007); (b) are there Canadian exemptions to FBAR; (c) has Canada negotiated the FBAR provisions with United States Treasury Officials or the IRS, (i) at what time was the government made aware of these provisions, (ii) how long did it take for Canada to respond to the changes made by the IRS and the United States Treasury; (d) how will the government ensure that the CRA does not act on behalf of the IRS to collect revenues and penalties; (e) has Canada informed dual citizens about their tax obligations resulting from FBAR; (f) what was the number of exchanges of information between Canada and the United States of America this year and during the past ten years regarding FBAR, (i) has the CRA set internal deadlines to be able to respond to exchange of information requests in a timely manner, (ii) will Canada work to improve bilateral cooperation on this issue, (iii) has there been an increase of exchange of information requests at the CRA due to FBAR; (g) will the government lose revenue as a result of the implementation of FBAR; (h) what are the cost implications emanating from FBAR (i) for the government, (ii) for the CRA, (iii) for Canadian banks, (iv) who will absorb these costs, (v) are there other types of non-financial costs such as efficiency or fairness reductions; (i) how many complaints has the CRA received regarding FBAR or related vexatious inquiries by the IRS, (i) what are the main complaints, (ii) what has the CRA done concerning these complaints, (iii) what department at the CRA is in charge of dealing with complaints of this nature, (iv) will the CRA cut Full-Time Equivalents from that department or reduce its funding, (v) has the office of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsman looked into the matter; (j) will FBAR prevent double taxation of pre-migration gain; (k) has there been an increase in arbitration cases due to active procedures by the IRS, (i) what departments are most affected, (ii) has the CRA cut Full-Time Equivalents from each of these affected departments or reduced their funding; (l) will FBAR affect different saving vehicles such as, but not limited to, (i) Registered Retirement Savings Plans, (ii) Registered Education Savings Plans, (iii) Registered Disability Savings Plans, (iv) Tax-Free Savings Accounts; and (m) how many Canadian-American dual citizens are affected by FBAR and does Canada have contact information for the dual citizens affected by FBAR? Q-4122 — 26 janvier 2012 — M. Mai (Brossard—La Prairie) — En ce qui concerne les réponses de l’Agence du Revenu du Canada (ARC) aux dispositions de l’Internal Revenue Service (IRS) en ce qui a trait au Rapport sur les comptes bancaires étrangers (FBAR) : a) selon l’analyse du gouvernement, est-ce que les dispositions de l’IRS respectent celles de la Convention entre le Canada et les États-Unis d’Amérique en matière d’impôts sur le revenu et sur la fortune et du Protocole la modifiant (2007); b) des dérogations au FBAR sont-elles accordées au Canada; c) le Canada a-t-il négocié les dispositions du FBAR avec des représentants du département du Trésor des États-Unis ou avec l’IRS, (i) à quel moment le gouvernement a-t-il été mis au courant de ces dispositions, (ii) combien de temps le Canada a-t-il mis à réagir aux changements apportés par l’IRS et le département du Trésor des États-Unis; d) comment le gouvernement veillera-t-il à ce que l’ARC n’agisse pas au nom de l’IRS pour percevoir les recettes et les amendes; e) le Canada a-t-il informé les personnes détenant la double citoyenneté de leurs obligations fiscales par suite du FBAR; f) le FBAR a donné lieu à combien d’échanges d’information entre le Canada et les États-Unis d’Amérique cette année et au cours des dix dernières années, (i) l’ARC a-t-elle fixé des échéances à l’interne pour pouvoir répondre aux demandes d’échange d’information de façon rapide, (ii) le Canada travaillera-t-il à améliorer la collaboration bilatérale sur ce point, (iii) y a-t-il eu une augmentation des demandes d’échange d’information à l’ARC par suite du FBAR; g) le gouvernement perdra-t-il des revenus par suite de la mise en œuvre du FBAR; h) quelles sont les implications financières du FBAR (i) pour le gouvernement, (ii) pour l’ARC, (iii) pour les banques canadiennes, (iv) qui assumera ces coûts, (v) y a-t-il d’autres types de coûts non financiers, comme la réduction d’efficacité ou d’équité; i) combien de plaintes l’ARC a-t-elle reçu au sujet du FBAR ou de demandes vexatoires à ce sujet par l’IRS, (i) quelles sont les principales plaintes, (ii) qu’a fait l’ARC au sujet de ces plaintes, (iii) quel département de l’ARC est chargé de répondre aux plaintes de cette nature, (iv) l’ARC va-t-elle réduire le nombre d’équivalents temps complet ou réduire son financement, (v) le bureau de l’ombudsman des contribuables s’est-il penché sur la question; j) le FBAR empêchera-t-il la double imposition des gains pré-migration; k) y a-t-il eu augmentation du nombre de cas d’arbitrage par suite de procédures actives par l’IRS, (i) quels ministères sont les plus touchés, (ii) l’ARC a-t-elle réduit le nombre d’équivalents temps complet dans chacun des ministères touchés ou réduit leur financement; l) le FBAR aura-t-il des incidences sur divers instruments d’épargne, comme, entre autres, (i) le régime enregistré d’épargne-retraite, (ii) les régimes enregistrés d’épargne-études, (iii) le régime enregistré d’épargne-invalidité, (iv) les comptes d’épargne libres d’impôt; m) combien de personnes ayant la double citoyenneté canadienne-américaine sont touchées par le FBAR et le Canada a-t-il leurs coordonnées?
Q-4132 — January 26, 2012 — Mr. Mai (Brossard—La Prairie) — With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) response to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA): (a) according to the government’s analysis, do the FATCA provisions comply with the provisions of the Convention Between Canada and the United States of America With Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital and its amending Protocol (2007); (b) how many citizens from the United States of America will be affected by FATCA, (ii) are there specific Canadian exemptions to FATCA; (c) has Canada negotiated with United States Treasury officials or the IRS following the announcement of FATCA provisions, (i) at what time was the government made aware of these provisions, (ii) how long did it take Canada to respond to the initial creation of FATCA and its implementation, (iii) are there ongoing negotiations in this regard; (d) will Canada inform dual citizens about FATCA and, if so, (i) how, (ii) at what time, (iii) what department or agencies will be responsible; (e) has the government conducted any studies or mandated a task force to look into how much FATCA will cost Canadians and, if so, what are the cost implications resulting from the additional regulations and demands, (i) for the government, (ii) for the CRA, (iii) for Canadian banks, (iv) who will absorb these costs, (v) are there other types of non-financial costs such as efficiency or fairness reductions; (f) which Canadian civil liberties associations or other types of association has the government met with to discuss the privacy implications of FATCA and what actions will the government undertake to protect the fundamental civil liberties of all Canadians in this regard; (g) according to the government’s analysis, do the FATCA provisions comply with the provisions of the Privacy Act or the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, and if so, which department undertook this assesment; (h) in order to discuss the implications of FATCA, who within the government has met with (i) Canadian banks, (ii) other financial institutions, (iii) insurance companies; (i) how many complaints has the CRA received regarding FATCA, (i) what are the main complaints, (ii) what has the CRA done concerning these complaints, (iii) what department at the CRA is in charge of dealing with complaints of this nature, (iv) will the CRA cut Full-Time Equivalents from that department or reduce its funding, (v) has the office of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsman looked into the matter; (j) has Canada ever studied the development or implementation of a process similar to FATCA to improve tax compliance involving foreign financial assets and offshore accounts; (k) who will be most affected by FATCA and have concerns been raised by entities such as, but not limited to, (i) interests groups, (ii) stakeholder groups, (iii) hedge funds; and (l) will FATCA affect different saving vehicles such as, but not limited to, (i) Registered Retirement Savings Plans, (ii) Registered Education Savings Plans, (iii) Registered Disability Savings Plans, (iv) Tax-Free Savings Accounts?
@geeeez
I personally will be renouncing. I am not put off by the 450 dollar fee and I want to be 100% certain that my citizenship is cancelled as quickly and effortlessly as possible. I am going to make an appointment this week.
As to the CLN issue, it seems like there is a two speed process. Those based in Canada or maybe other countries like the UK seem to have to wait longer than some of us in some EU countries. I think that this is because somebody renouncing in Denmark, Germany or Spain will probably need the CLN asap since all of these countries don’t allow dual citizenship and it would be outrageous to leave people stateless for over a year. I have read that people from the above countries received their CLN in about a month (a contact of mine in Germany did as well – He promptly completed his application for German citizenship right after) Just my theory anyway.
We have reached the point, in America, that the truly evil, blind and stupid, are elected to govern. We have reached the point Jefferson feared. Over 50% of the voters are getting benefits from those who are being victimized by the truly stupid laws they have passed and that (actually 53% voted for them) unless some part of the over 50% wakes up, we are doomed to become a banana republic, run by dictators of the democratic mob.
I am a 10th generation American and have read our history and heard the older family members talk and have concluded we made a mistake when we allowed one man one vote to become law. We now have 53% with now skin in the game, setting the rules. The only way out is probably a great awakening, as we have had several times before, when the Republic was in such danger The first step would be Repeal of the 16nth amendment of the constitution, the second would be repeal of all federal Tax Laws, third Disband the IRS, fourth Pass the FairTax which is territorial and not citizenship based, fifth stop spending a wasteful percentage of the taxes collected and watch the New Great Awakening happen.
Note to Dom Pomodoro:
Renouncing is more than filing a form. You must pay Capital Gains tax on all assets owned world wide, file all forms for the past, report all worldwide income for the next ten years and pay U.S. taxes on that income and then you are free from the “stupidest law ever made by a civilized country”. Good Luck Dom!
@ Wilton You don’t HAVE to do or pay anything. Unless your assets are in the United States. But if you get them out before renouncing there isn’t anything the United States can do to make you pay the exit tax. OR? In any case, the 8854, the five years of tax returns is a joke for those who are long term residents and citizens of Canada. I would refuse to do it on principle.
Note to Dom Pomodoro:
My appointment is in one hour. It took a month to get my appoint here in Calgary. Free and clrear is all I want. As for the exit tax, half my assets are owned by a Canadian and since that’s a small amout I can deal with it.
@Wilton I thought the exit tax was if you have assets worth $2M and more. @Petros I’d do the five years of returns just to make sure they never have anything to persecute me for EVER AGAIN! Hasta la vista, U-Sa!