UPDATE 2: This post has been upgraded to a press release at newswire.ca and digitjournal.com. Thanks go to Jim Jatras.
UPDATE: Jim Jatras has provided an revised Word Version of the text below for mass distribution.
The following is a message from Jim Jatras:
Friends
Please review that following and submit comments. I hope it’s more or less self-explanatory.
As indicated in a previous comment, it’s in effect a kind of ad or statement inviting people to contact Harper, Flaherty, MPs and oppose FATCA/IGA. Ideally, it’s the kind of thing that would be posted online or even in print publications as an ad, if there were money for that. (If Canadian industry weren’t spending money trying to get the “best deal possible” from the Americans under an IGA instead of fighting.) Certainly individual comment letters to the Finance Department should be sent, but let’s not kid ourselves they will pay much attention them. What we need is a groundswell of outraged Canadians to contact Harper, Flaherty, and MPs as soon as possible with a simple message: NO!
I realize that it’s always risky to hang a draft out where anyone can take a whack at it, but feel free. Also, any ideas on where and how it can be posted and distributed are welcome.
BTW, this is the kind of thing that routinely gets placed in DC in publications like Politico, The Hill, Roll Call, and other pubs aimed at Congress. Picture a similar message aimed at Congress but making an American argument against FATCA, as this makes a Canadian one. That’s how we get things done – if we had someone with money and willing to fight.
Best
Jim
Call or email Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty, and Your MP Today!
Call or email Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty, and Your MP Today!
STOP an Impending Massive Handover of Canadian Sovereignty to the United States!
Tell the Government: Canada Must Say NO
to the United States on ‘FATCA’
Recently the Department of Finance invited comments on what was characterized as “an agreement to improve cross-border tax compliance through . . . the provisions enacted by the United States commonly known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).” This eleventh-hour invitation came as sources in both Ottawa and Washington announced that they were close to finalizing an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) that would, in effect, deputize the Canadian government to enforce this American law in Canada.
The Department’s invitation is to “persons whose interests are affected by the provisions of FATCA” but does not spell out that each and every Canadian citizen would suffer from FATCA and from an IGA to implement it:
Canadian citizens have an interest in preserving Canada’s sovereignty against US encroachment. However it is disguised, FATCA is a unilateral U.S. initiative. The U.S. didn’t negotiate a global tax scheme with Canada and other countries but instead enacted an unprecedented extraterritorial law and demands that Canada comply and bear the costs. An IGA simply puts a Canadian glove on the hand enforcing American law.
Canadian taxpayers have an interest in a tax policy that benefits Canada’s needs, not America’s. Sold under the guise of “reciprocity” and “partnership,” an IGA in reality would be a costly one-way street imposed by the U.S. Given the differences between the two countries’ tax systems, FATCA would accelerate a zero-sum game that siphons wealth from Canada and robs the Canadian treasury.
Canadian consumers have an interest in avoiding foreign schemes that impose costly non-economic regulations on Canadian firms (banks, insurance companies, pension funds, stock and investment companies) – who will then pass those costs on to consumers. With or without an IGA, FATCA’s costs will be in the billions of dollars (for example, one major bank alone would pay an estimated $100 million in FATCA compliance!) These costs would be non-productive as regards the Canadian economy and a waste of human and material resources. Imposing these costs on Canadians supposedly is justified by the unproven hope that FATCA may trip up American “tax cheats,” even though FATCA does little specifically to catch such people.
Canadians as human beings have an interest in ensuring their rights are protected under sovereign Canadian law. FATCA demands extraordinary disclosure of private information of U.S. citizens in Canada in violation of Canadian laws, such as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, whose application Canada would be forced to alter under an IGA. Many of these resident Americans are Canadian dual citizens who would be denied protection of Canada’s laws to appease the U.S. Once it’s established a foreign government can demand abrogation of such rights, even of Canadian citizens, where’s the limit?
So why is the Government considering an IGA with the United States? Because of the very real fear that Washington otherwise would unilaterally impose FATCA on Canada at ruinous cost, especially a 30% withholding penalty on Canadian firms’ U.S.-derived revenue. Simply put, this is a threat of U.S. economic sanctions against Canada.
Finance Minister Flaherty and industry leaders publicly have talked a good fight on FATCA while in private negotiating Canada’s capitulation under an IGA. Canadians must not let that happen! Instead:
Contact Prime Minister Harper and tell him No on FATCA, and No on an IGA with Washington!
Contact Minister Flaherty and tell him No on FATCA, and No on an IGA with Washington!
Contact your Senators and MPs and tell them No on FATCA, and No on an IGA with Washington!
Get the FATCA facts! Find more information at [Isaac Brock Society and Repeal FATCA]
@ bubblebustin
Ah yes, the environmentalists. OVDI is a waste of LCUs and TREES too!
@Tim
Re: “I would like to try to stop a signature but in reality the real ball game is ratification not signature. Canadian governments have learned from the US the art of signing treaties but not ratifying them. If we stop a “signature” it would be one of the rare times a treaty was stopped at the signing phase before ratification in the context of treaties never being ratified.”
This is correct in a Canadian legal context. But for Treasury’s honking bandwagon to create a self-realizing impression that the world is falling all over itself to sign onto FATCA — itself a powerful psychological weapon in pressuring yet more countries — Canada’s just signing an IGA would be very damaging. Then, in turn, as more countries sign on, that then will be used to help force parliamentary approval in Ottawa (“Gee, we signed it, and look at all these other countries. We can’t reject it now . . .”). Snowball . . .
Opportunity to raise FATCA and the FBAR persecution of those in Canada – in comment section on a CBC article about US-Canada relations:
see ‘Harper ‘surprised’ by protectionist feelings from U.S. Prime minister fields questions in relaxed session at business forum in Ottawa‘ By Leslie MacKinnon,
CBC News Posted:
Nov 19, 2012 2:05 PM
“Harper was participating in a question-and-answer “dialogue” at a
meeting of the Canadian American Business Council, answering questions
put to him by Maryscott Greenwood, an American government relations
lawyer and former Clinton appointee to the U.S. embassy in Ottawa.
The theme for this year’s CABC gathering is the state of Canada-U.S. relations after the U.S. presidential election.
Replying to a question about whether “Obama lost Canada” during his
first term as president, Harper told the audience of U.S. and Canadian
businesspeople that Canada’s most important relationship remained the
one with the United States…….”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/11/19/pol-harper-canadian-american-business-council.html
Suspicious absence of any reference to contentious banking disputes – FATCA, or the threats and pursuit of Canadians by the IRS – double taxing those born and living inside Canada.
*This is the process an IGA would need to go through in order to be brought into force.
For treaties that require implementing legislation before the Government can proceed to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession (“ratification”), the Government will:
@Badger- so sad that the PM is still wasting his time prostrating this nation before the U.S. throne, when the most important relationship in the world that the U.S. has going is the one that it has with itself.
@recalcitrantexpat
Karma works in strange ways. Soon both Canada and the U.S. will be competing against each other to see who can most deeply prostrate themselves before China.
Pingback: FATCA – “I’d Like To Teach The World To Sing (In Perfect Harmony)” – Seven reasons to not do a FATCA IGA « Freedom from the tyranny of U.S. citizenship-based taxation for U.S. and dual citizens outside the U.S.
@ calgary411, Just Me and bubblebustin
I finished the photo composite of “form trauma”, “fornography” or “formaggedon” — whatever you might want to call it. I used the photos you kindly provided. Thanks! Petros has a jpg of the composite now so he might be willing to pass it on to you if you e-mail him. It’s time for me to e-mail Mr. Flaherty again and this time I have a little show and tell to attach.
@ renounce
Your “Seven Reasons” post is loaded with talking points for future e-mails. Since you included my little parody I hope you won’t mind if I borrow from you. My favourite line …
“History will remember Prime Minister Harper as the man who, on the 200th
anniversary of the War of 1812, surrendered Canada to the U.S. What
then, would the War of 1812 have been for?” — We definitely don’t want that to happen do we. We have to keep on writing, talking and maybe even singing a bit too.
@ petros
I found the ukelele chords for “I’d like to teach the world to sing …” Want ’em? 🙂
I think Petros should post your composite photo, Em. That way, we can all take pride in including it in a cover sheet to letters to our government representatives, etc. Would that work?
PS – Thanks for putting it together. You’re very creative — art works, music, puns. I hope you have put your talents to good use elsewhere too!
@Em
Thanks for doing that. I hope Petros just uploads the composite, so we call all use it for various posts.
@ calgary411 & Just Me
Yes, works for me. The text can be edited to better suit individuals, if they have a photoshop type application available. Afraid I’m not very good at writing letters but I try. (Ahem, I have to “borrow” a lot from Brockers.) Right now I’m focusing on the plight of Palestinians, particularly in Gaza. That is such a sad situation and requires somber writing — very difficult — makes tears fall on my keyboard.
This is a very interesting resource re Canada, the Charter and Constitution, and the rights of Citizens and non-citizens (ex. permanent residents) http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/issues/Citizenship.php
Could be useful to cite in correspondence against FATCA and its essential conflict with Canadian laws, values, etc.
Also applicable to the enabling of US extraterritorial taxation on duals and permanent residents here I think. At what point could the Canada US tax treaty be raised above the Charter – would the objectives of that treaty ever be deemed to have a compelling enough objective to override the Charter provisions – which do not discriminate between classes of Canadian citizen like duals vs. singles, and between citizens and permanent residents?
Thanks, Em. Indeed a sad situation. The photos we see of “unintended? consequences” are heart-wrenching.
@Tim and Jim…
Technical question. Are these IGAs actually considered a treaty? Or are they just an administrative agreement between regulatory bodies and need no further Parliamentary or Congressional approval?
I think for US, Treasury is trying to say that they can do this without any “advise and consent’ process as they are already have the power. In Canada, I am less sure than I am on the process in the States, so just looking for any clarity to my befuddled mind you can provide.
Tim, you speak of them as Treaties, and maybe from the Canadian side they are, but can one side consider them that, and the other decide that it is not?
I am somewhat confused by these Treasury technocrats who are shrewdly manipulating the FATCA process to get something in place that was never the intention of Congress. They did NOT sign up for a DATCA or a GATCA, and that is clearly what US Treasury is trying to create, IMHO.
From my reading, I think they are very much trying to keep any of this from rising to the level of Congressional or Parliamentary over sight, but then my understanding is lacking in these areas. It seems to me, for them to win, any process that is required must just be perfunctory in nature, so no debate occurs. Help flesh out this picture for me, if you can.
@badger
Regarding ur: November 19, 2012 at 9:55 pm comment.
The link doesn’t work for me.
Good questions, points, Just Me.
If one side (US Treasury) can pull this off under the radar of Congressional procedure, maybe the other side too (Canada or whatever country) can use the same shenanigans. Is that why we are hearing that Canada may be ready to sign on the dotted line without every Canadian knowing about this, offering comment? Can our privacy laws and our sovereignty be surrendered so easily? I hope not.
sorry Just Me, this should work http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/11/19/pol-harper-canadian-american-business-council.html
“Harper ‘surprised’ by protectionist feelings from U.S.
Prime minister fields questions in relaxed session at business forum in Ottawa”
By Leslie MacKinnon,
CBC News Posted:
Nov 19, 2012 2:05 PM ETLast Updated:
Nov 19, 2012 8:38 PM
….Replying to a question about whether “Obama lost Canada” during his
first term as president, Harper told the audience of U.S. and Canadian
businesspeople that Canada’s most important relationship remained the
one with the United States.”……
No mention of the poaching of Canadian assets, outrage over FATCA, or the unethical treatment of over 1 million ‘US deemed double-taxable persons’ in Canada, claimed as indentured servants by the US IRS.
Now that you mention CBC, here was a story yesterday: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/11/19/pol-foreign-policy-.html
Is Canada’s answer to US overreach into Canada re FATCA a similar situation: arriving late when it could be a leader?
@RogerConklin- pub. 54 may say what it does but the truth is that the majority of American citizens believe that the U.S. has a territorial tax system. These are not my words but the words of an American tax expert who spoke at a tax symposium that I viewed. Citizenship based taxation is very aberrant and runs totally counter to human logic.
When I came to Canada I had absolutely no idea that the U.S. would want to know anything about my financial accounts in Canada or my income. The very notion is totally absurd. Nor did my wife who had a Green Card still which she never formally surrendered.
I would also cite in my defense the fact that the government held one of the big financial servies institutions, I think it was Goldman Sachs, accountable for not disclosing to one of its “sophisticated” customers mortgage customers that it had actually shorted the same mortgages that it was selling long to the client.
The investment banks defense was that the client should have known what was happening because the client had more knowledge of how the market works than does you average person on the street.
I would also again point out that the U.S. does not divulge to potential immigrants any information with regards to its very unique system of citizenship based taxation. The U.S. should be telling these people about this because they come from countries that tax based upon residency. The U.S. is deliberately misleading these people through OMMISSION. Deliberate ommission is just as much of a crime as is commission.
As others have said, the U.S. tax system is just a form and penalty club. The last thing that they want is for you to understand it.
Just so you know, I’m NOT directing this against you.
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society - Question: Are these FATCA IGAs considered a Tax treaty or not?
Re-post for Ask your FATCA Question Thread…
In Preparing For FATCA, American Government Relations Specialist Tells Jamaican Firms: Stop Wasting Your Money
I thought it would be interesting to note that, according to the version on the Revenue Canada website, the main tax convention with the US seems to exempt ex US-persons from taxation on their non US income:
To my mind this would provide some protection in the case of loss of nationality or green card, but my guess is that it would not protect against the exit-tax?
On the other hand, the savings clause in the treaty with Switzerland is less forgiving (Article 1, Section 2, sic, a morbid coincidence with the very US Constitution article that suggests that the US has no authority over us anyway because no proportional representation):
This is a blanket waiver which means that even if one renounces, pays the exit tax, and even becomes compliant with back taxes, the US could still decide to tax the person regardless of their level of financial ties with the US.
However, I have often argued that the Swiss tax treaty is null and void because it was not voted by the people. The old constitution that was in effect in 1998 reads inter alia:
I read Article 89 and 89bis and especially ” (2) Federal laws and generally binding federal decrees must be submitted to the people for approval or rejection if 50,000 Swiss citizens entitled to vote or eight Cantons so demand. (3) Paragraph (2) shall be applicable also to international treaties which: a) are of unspecified duration and cannot be denounced; b) provide for adherence to an international organization; c) entail a multilateral unification of the law.[READ LAST IN TIME RULE FOLKS]” and 89bis “Decrees put immediately into effect which have no constitutional basis must be approved by the people and the Cantons within one year after their adoption by the Federal Assembly; failing this, they shall lose their validity after the lapse or this year and may not be renewed.” as mandating a popular vote on a treaty that contains such a savings clause as the US one which threatens overriding the constitutional rights of current Swiss citizens (“no constitutional basis”), whether they be former US, or dual.
Thus, the double taxation treaty with the US is not in force.
The current constitution also requires a popular vote whenever the constitution is to be modified (see my emphasis in bold):
Now, that the Federal Council has stated that the FATCA IGA will be submitted to an option referendum (50’000 signatures required for a vote) is find. All acts of the government can be blocked by such a referendum. But, in the spirit of the old Article 89 from the previous constitution, Article 140.1a, read together with Article 141a1 means that for a treaty to override the constitution, it must be approved by the people. 141a2 merely means that if an option referendum is raised, the Federal Assembly may put to vote the accompanying LAWs as part of the question to vote on. Note that 141a2 speaks about laws, and 141a1 speaks about the Constitution. This shows that there are two specific cases: treaties which require constitutional amendment (because the treaty violates the Constitution), and those that may require changing federal laws (because the treaty might violate current federal laws or require changing them, but not neccesarily changing the constitution.
Treaties are thus not above the Constitution, of which the content is the property of the sovereign Swiss People, and can only be modified by a majority vote of the Cantons and the People. FATCA IGA requires a popular vote, and so did the revison of the tax treaty to provide for enhanced information sharing that was voted at the beginning of 2012.
The Federal Council and the Parliament need to quit hiding behind Art 141 (optional referendum) and read and interpret Art 140 and 141a TOGETHER, rather than reading Article 141 as a simple continuation of Article 89 (and still ignoring what 89bis implied) To my mind these two articles in the NEW constitution were written this way in order to strengthen Article 89 with mandatory referendum in the case of treaties which threaten the Constitution, not to weaken it.
We need a popular vote on the double tax convention NOW. Any FATCA implementation requires the same.
As Alison suggested in the FATCA fact finding video, somebody needs to do a similar constitutional analysis for Canada. Perhaps all of you Brockers in Canada will have a way of blocking your governement’s hand even if your governement does not grow a pair (as mine has not).
To note that the NEW constitution contains many of the articles that I cited above 89/89bis above, in rephrased and reorganized fashion, and in many ways both more specific and general in protecting of the rights of citizens. The only one that does not seem to be replicated is the Article 11 “No military capitulations…”. This was doubtless the article Switzerland and General Guisan relied on during WWII. Switzerland was not to surrender. Today, Switzerland is surrendering sovereignty to FATCA. This is unacceptable.
Pingback: What a FATCA IGA “would” mean for non-compliant U.S. citizens abroad « Freedom from the tyranny of U.S. citizenship-based taxation for U.S. and dual citizens outside the U.S.
If Canada signs the IGA with the U.S., will Canadian banks require all their account holders to produce a birth certificate?
Someone please tell me how a bank knows if one is born in the U.S. as they will need some verifying documentation?