Since their origins, both the Isaac Brock Society and Maple Sandbox have been invaluable sources of information and a productive forum for intelligent discussion. These discussions have matured to a point where we have a much greater understanding of the overreach of the United States government into the lives of those who choose to permanently live outside of the United States or are ‘Accidental Americans’. This summer, we have seen contributors to Brock and Sandbox quoted in various publications and even have articles published in The Hill.
However, in Canada, the issues discussed here, primarily Citizen Based Taxation and FATCA, are virtually invisible to our elected representatives, the media and the general public (with the exception of the Green Party of Canada).
Living in an advanced Western democracy, with a modern and model Constitution, Canadian citizens and permanent residents can and should expect our government to protect us in many ways. We expect police and fire services, safety regulations, affordable and accessible health care,protection of our land, our borders, our resources, and our economy. And when some of those protections fail or are inadequate, we expect public debate and action by our government.
Can anyone honestly say that the Canadian government has protected U.S. persons in Canada from CBT?
We do know that Canada has limited influence over U.S. tax policies. However, except for RRSPs, why haven’t TFSAs, RESPs and RDSPs been included in any of our treaties or other agreements with the U.S.? Instead, they are treated as taxable foreign trusts, with compliance difficulties and penalties.
Why are our mutual funds and ETSs classified as Passive Foreign Investment Corporations, thereby making them subject to discriminatory taxation, complicated forms and penalties for honest mistakes?
As far as FATCA is concerned, the jury is still out. We simply don’t know the shape of a Canada-U.S. FATCA IGA and how it will compromise our Charter rights and freedoms and our privacy rights.
In spite of all the wonderful discussions we have been having, I feel we are hampered by the lack of a legally registered organization with a spokesperson the media can turn to. Instead, on those rare occasions when FATCA or other issues affecting U.S. persons in Canada is mentioned, reporters usually turn to professionals with a vested interest in promoting compliance and fear.
This proposed organization would be one of Canadians defending Canadian interests, values and laws from the intrusion of U.S. extra-territorial taxation.
The organization could begin with just a few core members to get things started and look after the not very difficult or costly task of provincial registration. Then it would recruit members. Both the Maple Sandbox and Isaac Brock Society can be used to promote membership. There would be a small membership fee to defray expenses.
It is my opinion that the organization would be more effective if the core group was located in Ottawa or Toronto. There appears to be a more concentrated population of duals and former Americans in those cities. The location would also be closer to political and media centres, and thus possibly have more legitimacy in the eyes of the media and the powers that be.
The organization itself might not launch any lawsuits over FATCA, but would assist anyone or any other group, such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, with both financial and research assistance.
So, the question is, where do we go from here? Is just discussing the problems of CBT and FATCA enough or do we need boots on the ground, so to speak? Please share your ideas.
x-posted from Maple Sandbox:
I don’t have a dog in this fight any more (I have a CLN instead) but probably the simplest option is to just liven up American Citizens Abroad in Canada. ACA has been on these issues intelligently for years, but they’re based in Europe – actually, it’s unfortunate that an organization that opposes measures that are meant to curb international tax evasion (whatever their destructive side effects) is based in Geneva.
There are lots of Americans-abroad organizations – no point reinventing the wheel with another one.
ACA takes its mission to deal with USA legislature efforts. They don’t take a mission to deal with other governments. They can’t afford to send mixed messages.
If Hazy’s objective is to deal with Canada govt, then a separate org could deal with that.
ACA will deal with USA govt.
We get together on our own time and discuss US citizenship based taxation issues, FATCA issues, unfair US policies, etc….
Does that not fit the definition of an organization?
I mean, some of us come here to rant, (I certainly being one) but I also see some regular people here that are seriously dedicated to getting the word out on our plight.
Instead of (or in addition to) asking for an exemption to the various 4-letter accounts, how about asking for a repeal of the saving clause in the tax treaty? If the Canadian government requests it, that would at least force the US to discuss the merits of CBT instead of completely ignoring the elephant in the room.
I think an organization is a good idea, but I think there will be problems getting people to join who are ‘undercover’. For example, I know I have been fairly outspoken here, but my bank still does not know who I am, I have not given my name to any media which made me unable to contribute to an article recently. Fear is going to keep many from becoming ‘too public’. The core group will need to be comfortable with being in the forefront, and likely will be ‘compliant’ (hate that term) and have their CLN. However as ‘A broken man on a Halifax pier’ says, they no longer have a dog in the fight anymore.
@A broken man on a Halifax pier
That’s a great idea. Victoria has somewhat close dealings with the inner workings of ACA, we should ask her her thoughts about aligning ourselves with them.
@Hazy
I remember reading somewhere that the greatest concentrations of Americans are in the Toronto and Vancouver areas. Elizabeth May apparently has many in her constituency. Nelson and surrounding Kootenay area was also very popular during the Vietnam war. I do agree, however, that Canada’s political epicentre is the east and a physical location there would probably be the most beneficial to us.
Perhaps expanding the role of Issac Brock Society is an idea.
@Mark Twain –
That’s what they’ve done so far, yes. But just on a pragmatic level, if foreign governments are helpful in defending the rights of Americans overseas, then so much the better.
‘American citizens abroad’ is a big category that takes in a lot of dual citizens by naturalization, accidentals and so forth – they have relationships with more than one national state, and we might as well acknowledge that.
A U.S. citizen expatriate living in a village in Italy is an American citizen abroad, but then again so is some guy in New Brunswick who was born in Machias, Maine. Their interests intersect, on these issues, at least.
@bubblebustin –
The 2006 census showed that the densest concentrations of Americans (many of whom will also be Canadians) are in the Yukon and the BC interior. Other pockets are in Ontario border areas plus central Toronto, the St. John River Valley in New Brunswick and (for some reason, I don’t understand this one) the New Brunswick Fundy shore.
@WhiteKat
Indeed! Why not?
the New Brunswick Fundy shore
Sorry, I meant the Northumberland Strait. I assume there’s some Acadian-US connection there, but I don’t know the culture well enough to explain it.
@A broken man on a Halifax pier
I predict that the next census that notes such things will see a significant decrease in the number of Americans living in Canada, partly because of a the renunciations and partly because they won’t admit they are. Way to legislate your diaspora to pariah status, America!
I like the idea. I am in Ontario, but not in Ottawa or Toronto and travelling there is a challenge for me for medical reasons.
I think ACA does excellent work, but I personally would not become a member or align with them officially on this issue. That is because my position is I relinquished U.S. citizenship “permanently and irrevocably” 40 years ago, just as US Consulate said I was when I became a Canadian citizen.
Officially being associated with ACA would give a very different message.
Plus, I think a Canadian organization would be better focused on how this affects Canadian citizens and residents. It would also focus on Canadian laws and not on American ones as ACA does.
Finally, I think a Canadian organization would have more clout (as small as that may be) with the media and with the Canadian government than an American one would.
I think if the main goal is to end US citizenship-based-taxation or any such US policy, a person would join American Citizens Abroad (I personally wouldn’t as I’m not a US citizen and I don’t participate in US political activity).
But if the main goal is to influence Canadian policy and get the Canadian government to protect Canadians (“US persons” and the other 97% of Canadians) from US policies, I would join a Canadian organisation.
There’s common interests between ACA and the people of Canada in fighting FATCA and related issues. But I don’t see lobbying the Canadian government as being within ACA’s mandate.
I see ACA as an American organisation, an ally in the battle. But I don’t see ACA as a group to lead Canadians working to influence Canadian policy and ensure Canadian law is enforced on behalf of Canadians.
To start, we’d have to determine if it’s even worthwhile to organize ourselves by knowing how many people would be willing to out themselves to the media and both the Canadian and US governments. To be fully effective and credible, it’s members should not be anonymous, imo.
I think that many who no longer have a dog in the fight anymore still wish to stay in the fight for others. That being said, I am still hesitant to fully “come out” if it might identify my son and affect his Canadian banking rights. I’m not that brave — or stupid — until I know that my son will not bear the brunt of my being born in the US.
I don’t think the Canadian media has paid much attention to the good work of American Citizens Abroad, so I think for us in Canada, a strong Canadian group (extension of what we have) would be best and likely, as suggested, best located around Toronto / Ottawa. I will be with an organization that will effectively be able to fight the waiving of our rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, allowing discrimination by nationality and our personal financial information and that of our spouses/partners turned over to the US IRS.
With my son’s and other like him situation, I am not for the part of ACA that upholds the “gifting” of automatic US citizenship to children born abroad. I believe it should, justly, be only a right to claim US citizenship by all the US definitions of parent(s), grandparent(s) who are, or were former, US citizens.
@calgary411 –
It is what it is. FWIW Americans-abroad organizations (formal and informal) seem edgier and much less judgemental about renunciation than I think would have been the case a few years ago. The Americans in Canada Facebook group is one example. I was (pleasantly) surprised by the tone of Anne Hornung-Soukup’s Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/worldnewsreader
Let’s hope that the Americans in Canada Facebook group are coming around because when they chose to block me from participating some months back, they were a bunch of apologists for the USG and only wanted to discuss things like the difference in mayonnaise tastes between the US and Canada.
While I like the idea of a more formal organization, and one that could be linked to Americans Abroad, it would seem that the big problem is going to get people to come forward and participate using their real names. Even if they have their CLN and no longer have a dog in the fight, they may still have “accidental puppies” to protect. Also, there is still the statute of limitations issue to consider for those who have only recently become compliant. Many here will continue to worry for years.
On the plus side, this site has been such a fantastic source of information and support, I feel many who have followed the process and obtained their CLN will want to give something back to the community that has done so much for them. I now have my CLN, have crossed the border many times since without incident, but still check in here almost every day to see what new things are going on.
If a more formal organization can be created and funded, I would hope that in addition to bringing our concerns to the Canadian Government, another objective should be to seek and help those who are still unaware of their situation regarding their obligations to the US Government or if they know, too afraid to take the next step.
Bubblebustin and broken man,
I, too, hope that the Americans in Canada Facebook group is waking up. Anne Hornung-Soukup’s strong voice will go a long way for that. (I’m not on Facebook so I can’t see the trend.)
Whateven name it would have, it would be an organization dedicated to protecting Canada’s citizens and residents against US tax policy, wouldn’t it?
The Americans in Canada FB hasn’t seemed hostile to the facts of late, but aside from that and IBS, I am mostly off the social media radar and I question the real effectiveness of social media activism in terms of concrete results anyway. For information purposes, fine, but I believe a real life group could get more done.
Although I am not “out of it”, I am not particularly frightened by what the USG might or could do to me if I were to “out” myself. I am too tired of this and still pissed off enough to not care, and I have every intention now of committing a relinquishing act by taking citizenship despite the fact that the USG doesn’t deem my daughter old enough to do the same. She believes she is and we will see what kind of shit hits which fan when she insists on traveling on a Canadian passport herself. (I might even record it and share it on YouTube should it happen. The thought of my pixie of a junior higher arguing the Constitutionality of her reliquishing act with a Border guard amuses me a bit.)
But to the original question, a bricks and mortar organization with options for the far flung might grab more attention from the Canadian govt then going through the ACA, which is primarily concerned with the USG.
People in high concentration of USC’s might be the best front people but let’s not forget Alberta as a whole b/c the energy industry here means lots of USP’s whether they are USC’s, duals or simply Canadians who do a lot of back and forth between here and Texas and are therefore “at risk”.
We shouldn’t forget the CARP as an ally either b/c the snowbird aspect of this has serious implications in terms of estate issues for both provinces and the federal govt.
Thank you for raising this question. I think it has merit. However, I think in some ways we have to wait for the other shoe to drop, at which point class action suits start up, whether in the face of an unacceptable Canada-US IGA or if Canadian financial institutions begin FATCA implementation. What we have here is a single issue issue for which a standing organisation might waste to much effort. A class action suit is also protected by solicitor-client privilege, which might be a benefit.
I am not sure. I don’t oppose an organisation. I am being a bit of a devil’s advocate.
In my opinion, the most important aspect of “where do we go from here” is whether there is any possible way to lobby the outcome of the eventual Schumer/Casey/Reed “ex-patriot” ammendment to remove the retroactive clause.
Believe me, folks, I could go on for longer than anyone here in a rant about what BS this whole thing is and why it shouldn’t become law. But we’re not in charge, and it appears to me that passage of this crap in some form is just a matter of time.
Casey/Schumer/Reed’s big agenda appears to be discouraging FUTURE expatriations. As much as I HATE to suggest anything akin to “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”, I wonder if it’s possible to reach out to these people and point out that their new law would be far more defensible against post-facto objections, challenges of fairness, etc. if they deleted the retroactive clause. They would still get their way and people who have yet to expatriate would be screwed, but at least it would take the heat off those of us who are being treated like criminals when we complied with all laws and paid all taxes.
If I thought there was any way to stop these clowns I would be suggesting that. But if the sad reality is that this thing is going to pass sooner or later, it would behoove us to do whatever we can to influence the content of what is passed to be a little less unfair to those of us who already got out of dodge.
I also wonder if Casey/Schumer et al realize that their bill effectively prohibits covered expatriates from coming back and PAYING TAXES! When I expatriated, part of my thinking was that if I ever felt differently, I could just apply for a green card and move back to the USA.
To my reading, if Ex-PATRIOT passes, people who already have green cards are ok, but people like me would be prevented from applying for one. So if I want to return to the USA and start paying US taxes again, Schumer is going to stop me from doing so. Brilliant. Just brilliant.