Democracy Day on the Danforth – featuring
special guest NDP Leader Tom Mulcair
Bring your questions and ideas for remaking our democracy.
Starts: September 19th, 2013 – 6:30pm
Ends: September 19th, 2013 – 8:30pm
Where: Auditorium, Eastminster United Church,
310 Danforth Avenue
near Chester TTC Station
Blaze wrote: “What changed? Thomas Mulcair became the leader. Jack would be rolling over in his grave at this betrayal.”
So true. In my e-mails to the BC dozen (less one) I mentioned Jack Layton and how I believed he would have instantly adopted their position on FATCA as the party’s position.
http://themoneyguide.ca/canadian-protection-irs-tax-penalty-issues/
Regarding Blaze’s article in The Money Guide entitled “Canadian Protection from the IRS – Tax and Penalty Issues”. Apparently “in moderation” there means “we don’t post comments”. Here was mine. I tried, Blaze.
This is most definitely an aspect of FATCA that begged to be covered and Lynne Swanson did an excellent job of it. While Flaherty negotiates a FATCA IGA there are many Canadian residents with a U.S. connection and an awareness of the implications of FATCA who wait and worry, often to the great detriment of their physical and financial well-being. There are an unknown but undoubtedly large number of folks who are oblivious to all of this. When the FATCA sledgehammer hits them they will have had less time to prepare themselves for the blow. It will be a sad date in Canadian history if Flaherty compromises Canada’s sovereignty and turns at least 3% of Canada’s population into FATCA fodder.
I say leverage the President of Brazil’s Statement in the United Nations as to the unacceptable behavior of the US in their spying on individuals , companies and sovereign countries that are the FRIENDS of the US.
The other thing is to be very cautious about the use of smart phones … watch this video http://video.foxnews.com/v/2688294976001/
I am posting this from another thread…
It came from here..
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/10/29/i-wont-back-down/comment-page-1/#comment-612140
northernstar says
October 30, 2013 at 12:10 am
@AtticusinCanada and Bubblebustin
Thanks for the encouraging words. I am feeling better today with all your support.
Now some good news. I received a real email from Mr. Mulcair with an attached letter from Mr Murray Rankin. I would like to share it with you..What post would be good?
When I saw his name on the Email I thought another acknowledgement letter but no, it is quite good.
I will answer him on Wednesday. I would like hear your suggestions as what I should ask him when I write back to thank him. .
The Murray Rankin letter is dated September 25, to Mr. Flaherty. I think I saw that letter on Brock.
I will put in Mr. Mulcair’s e letter here now. If it needs to be put on another post I give permission to move it.
thomas.mulcair@parl.gc.ca
5:24 PM October 29, 2013
Dear ******
Thank you for taking the time to write and share your concerns with current US tax and foreign bank account reporting laws, and, more specifically, the U.S. Foreign Account Compliance Act (FATCA). Your points about consulting with knowledgeable experts is well taken.
I share your concerns that FATCA’s sweeping provisions on financial disclosure will have significant consequences for dual Canadian-American citizens and Americans with landed immigrant status lawfully living here in Canada. Please know that New Democrats have consistently challenged the over-reaching aspects of FATCA and have urged the Conservative government to negotiate protective measures for those citizens who would be affected by FATCA’s onerous regulations.
We are also troubled that the secrecy of these negotiations with the US is detrimental for citizens with legitimate concerns relating to privacy and financial pressures. They must rely on media reports for developing news and have no opportunity to have their views considered in a meaningful way.
In discussing this matter with my NDP colleagues, we felt that it was important to reinforce how serious and unfair the consequences of FATCA could be for Canadians if unilaterally imposed. In taking the lead on this issue, Official Opposition critic for National Revenue, Murray Rankin, has written to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty calling on his government to reject any agreement that may violate the privacy rights of Canadians, erode Canadian sovereignty, or fail to offer Canada equal benefits to those provided to the United States. Please see the attached copy of Murray Rankin’s letter to Minister Flaherty.
Going forward, please be assured that New Democrats will remain vigilant on this issue. We will continue to pressure the Government to help address the above-mentioned concerns and ensure the rights of Canadians who hold dual citizenship with the United States are protected.
Again, I appreciate the time you have taken to share your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mulcair, M.P. (Outremont)
Leader of the Official Opposition
New Democratic Party of Canada
Follow Tom on Facebook and Twitter
http://www.facebook.com/ThomasMulcair
http://www.twitter.com/ThomasMulcair
Someone may have brought this up before re Mr Mulcair’s sentence:
“In discussing this matter with my NDP colleagues, we felt that it was important to reinforce how serious and unfair the consequences of FATCA could be for Canadians if unilaterally imposed.”
Does this mean the if bilaterally imposed it would be ok? The rest of the paragraph seems to contradict that notion however. I hate it when politicians make ambiguous statements.
@Just Me…
That is a question to ask him…Paying attention to every word is important. I hate the confusing words in laws and agreements when signing for credit cards It is said they make it that way so you don’t want to read the darn things.
Both Mulcair and Rankin are lawyers. So is Flaherty. And they are politicians. They are trained and immersed in the importance of how things are worded, and how things are framed.
I am wary of this: “….and have urged the Conservative government to negotiate protective measures for those citizens who would be affected by FATCA’s onerous regulations.”…
Does that mean an agreement to FATCA with so-called ‘protective measures’ would be acceptable? May the powers deliver us from any ‘protective measures’ agreed to by the IRS and Treasury. May the powers protect us from ‘protective measures’ like those supposedly preventing US double taxation in the Canada US tax treaty which leaves our Canadian mutual funds, Canadian registered savings and the sale of our Canadian principal residence – and phantom currency gains vulnerable and subject to US taxation and penalties – (limited exceptions or thresholds notwithstanding) .
We know that the term ‘amnesty’ is a misnomer as applied to the OVD programs.
We all know how narrowly the ‘Streamlined process’ is designed – with zero guarantee of protection, nebulous undefined binary categories like ‘low’ and ‘high’ risk. Or zero to 1,500. owed OR NOT (vague musings on some flexibility over that notwithstanding). And no guarantee re the FBARs. Note that it has been in place over a full year – and no new refinements published. Note that those who should never have been part of the OVD programs – even when qualifying for Streamlined, and even with ZERO US tax owed, are still stuck in limboland. The IRS is not inclined to shed any light on how many have passed through Streamlined, or what the results were. Results are anecdotal only.
Note that when Flaherty applauded Streamlined, he was accepting a program that tax lawyers all said was useless or of limited use. So any ‘protection’ the IRS and Treasury might offer re FATCA will be in the same vein or worse.
@badger
Yes, politicians are well trained in speaking from both sides of their mouths, leaving the listener to choose what he/she would like to hear. The fact that most of them are lawyers makes them better trained at this. It’s really a lethal combination of abilities to deliver the most effective kinds of deception if you think about it, but I won’t go on.
Can anyone tell me what happens to Canada’s current information exchange agreement with the US if an IGA is entered into? Seems to me that they can’t have both.
…and if they can’t have both – and the latter is redundant in providing what the former has provided, why the necessity to change anything at all? Is this Flaherty’s insistence on sticking to the treaty? What are the mechanisms in cancelling the current agreement? Sorry to ask all of these questions, but maybe Canada CAN’T enter in to an IGA because of our unique pre-existing agreement. Just a thought from someone who knows squat about these things 🙂
…that’s someone who knows squat.
@bubblebustin, very good questions. The Macleans article spoke of the tactic of choosing to interpret a Canadian IGA as just an expansion of the existing treaty? …”…How will the government implement FATCA?
The Macleans article by Erica Alini (Thursday, October 31, 2013) seems to answer that:
….”…..FATCA is so intrusive it often needs to be somehow incorporated into foreign countries’ legislation in order for the banks to be able to comply with it without breaking domestic laws (such as the ones that govern the release of confidential information). It isn’t clear yet how Canada plans to do this.
The “how” here matters, because it might determine whether Parliament gets a say in all this or not. Ottawa might, for example, decide to re-interpret the existing U.S.-Canada tax treaty to allow financial institutions to abide by FATCA provisions. This would shut out lawmakers.
Another way to by-pass the Hill could be to draft a document that looks like an intergovernmental agreement and then call it by another name–say, “memorandum of understanding,” which does not require parliamentary action….”… see http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/10/31/think-sharing-bank-data-with-the-u-s-only-affects-canadian-americans-think-again/ ‘What’s FATCA? The IRS peeking into Canadians’ bank accounts’ Macleans. (NOTE to IBS Admin: This Macleans article needs its own post – too valuable to get buried here.)
Seems that the Harper government might be inspired by how the IRS and Treasury are choosing to interpret/sell/bamboozle/subvert the US Congress and democratic process – by asserting that they have the authority to enter into them without Congressional approval even though the original FATCA legislation did not contemplate or enable IGAs (ex. see http://thefranco-americanflophouse.blogspot.ca/2013/07/the-us-congress-and-fatca-reciprocity.html ), and the potential methods that Harper can/will choose as a path designed to bypass Parliamentary approval and the democratic process in Canada.
@bubblebustin:
This is worth another read as well;
December 12, 2012 at 5:45 PM
Allison Christians said…
“You’ve raised perhaps the most critical point of all here. These IGAs are NOT treaties as such. Rather, they are authorized by the tax treaties. So if you don’t already have a tax treaty or TIEA with the US, you can’t get an IGA, you’ll have to go through the treaty ratification process. But wait, there’s more: if you get an IGA through a TIEA, you’re already working with an agreement that also isn’t a treaty under US law, rather it’s what they call an executive agreement, which is (usually, but not always) pre-authorized by congress.”
from http://taxpol.blogspot.ca/2012/12/iga-flurry-shows-us-is-locking-down-on.html
http://taxpol.blogspot.ca/2013/01/why-fatca-is-tax-treaty-override.html
http://taxpol.blogspot.ca/2013/01/current-status-of-us-tax-treaties-with.html
@badger
Thanks for all of this. Do you think Harper’s willing to commit political suicide by enacting a predictably unpopular legislation against the approval of both the Canadian electorate and lawmakers alike? But then, what better way is there to bypass a tidal wave of opposition, lol. If Harper is hell bent of FATCAing Canada, he’ll most definitely have to take inspiration from the IRS and Treasury, as we can feel pretty confident that FATCA won’t fly without it being forced on to Canada.
Will he try? From a philosophical point of view, you have to be the staunchest of anti-offshore tax evasion advocates to support FATCA, and as Canada isn’t a tax haven, WTF? It doesn’t even make sense as solely a business decision!
The Senate scandal is taking its toll on the publics opinion of Harper:
“What Harper has to worry about is that this issue comes as death by a thousand paper cuts, that there are new twists and turns and revelations over the next year that keep him off-balance and don’t allow him to kind of rebuild his personal brand,” he said.
The survey also found 76 per cent of respondents are dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied with Harper’s explanation that he didn’t know about his former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, giving Senator Mike Duffy a cheque for $90,000 to repay questionable expenses.”
This would not be a very good time for Harper to announce an IGA with the US on FATCA.