CRA Bootleg Draft “Guidance for Financial Institutions” (re Implementation of Canada’s IGA with the US)

32 thoughts on “CRA Bootleg Draft “Guidance for Financial Institutions” (re Implementation of Canada’s IGA with the US)”

1. @Just Me, re;
   https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/03/24/cra-bootleg-draft-guidance-for-financial-institutions-re-implementation-iga/comment-page-1/#comment-1300049

   If this was a ‘leak’ http://business.financialpost.com/2014/03/26/leaked-documents-show-canada-intended-departure-from-fatca-agreement-with-u-s/ , then how did the US tax lawyer quoted in the article (Roy Berg of Moodys) obtained a copy of the IGA legislation if it was only provided to the financial institutions and was not to be distributed to the public? He was quoted on this before yesterday. He espouses concern only for the protection of the financial industry. Is he acting for them? Or for another stakeholder? Why is he particularly concerned about that aspect, but not for the consequences for ordinary accountholders and individuals, the Charter, etc.? He knows of the consequences to US persons in Canada – having participated here occassionally in the past and some of his core clientele are or have been persons affected by CBT (and now of FATCA). Where are quotes from other lawyers in Canada?

   Where is the FP’s author’s evidence of the “intent” behind the wording of the document?
   “Leaked documents suggest that the federal government and the Canada Revenue Agency have deliberately undermined an intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. “

2. It would seem that Mr Berg’s intent is to create controversy over the government’s actions – but is anyone listening?

3. @bubblebustin, controversy, but for what/whose purpose? No mention of Charter rights, constitution, discrimination based on national origin, etc. No criticism of FATCA itself, or of its onerous mis-application to Canadians and rights to privacy and data integrity.

   Only trusts;
   “……The guidance appears to confirm concerns the draft legislation is materially inconsistent with the IGA (and FATCA) on the issue of the status of trusts holding U.S.-based accounts.

   IGA classifies these trusts as financial institutions that must meet FATCA requirements. The draft legislation—and CRA’s supposed interpretation of it—appears to suggest trusts are not financial institutions, and therefore aren’t required to report.This could mean trouble for trusts, says Roy Berg, director of U.S. Tax Law at Moodys Gartner Tax Law LLP in Calgary.
   http://www.advisor.ca/tax/tax-news/cra-may-ignore-fatca-trust-rules-147928

4. IRSCompliantForever, regarding the answer to your request of them, https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/03/24/cra-bootleg-draft-guidance-for-financial-institutions-re-implementation-iga/comment-page-1/#comment-1299890

   All the more reason for us to starve them of any of our personal assets – and never have any relationship EVER with the CBA Canadian Bankers Association or their kin – the IIAC.

   This is not apparently a democracy, or even a good facade in this case – we provide the assets, they reap the rewards and arrange for their own maximum benefit without even a modicum of care for their accountholders and fellow Canadians.

   We are being governed by the Banksters. An unelected cabal of predators.

5. Ask your MP why bankers and “tax lawyers” are free to access and read the draft legislation, and comment on it to the media as well as invited to give feedback to the Harper government http://business.financialpost.com/2014/03/10/canadas-draft-legislation-undermines-fatca-agreement-with-u-s/ http://business.financialpost.com/2014/03/26/leaked-documents-show-canada-intended-departure-from-fatca-agreement-with-u-s/ http://www.advisor.ca/tax/tax-news/cra-may-ignore-fatca-trust-rules-147928 , but Canadian taxpayers and accountholders and citizens and residents and voters are not.

6. Pingback: Canada “Intended” Departure From IGA | Maple Sandbox

7. Advisor.ca has contacted CRA but has not been able to confirm the document’s authenticity. (See below for update)

   The guidance appears to confirm concerns the draft legislation is materially inconsistent with the IGA (and FATCA) on the issue of the status of trusts holding U.S.-based accounts.

   IGA classifies these trusts as financial institutions that must meet FATCA requirements. The draft legislation—and CRA’s supposed interpretation of it—appears to suggest trusts are not financial institutions, and therefore aren’t required to report.

   UPDATED: CRA may ignore FATCA trust rules

   UPDATE:

   In response to Advisor.ca’s request for a statement on the guidance note’s authenticity, a CRA spokesperson said the following:

   “While we have not reviewed the documents in the links provided in their entirety, they appear to be a copy of DRAFT CRA Guidance being developed for the Enhanced Financial Account Information Reporting – Part XVIII of the Income Tax Act.

   “The CRA will be responsible for administering the legislation (currently in draft form) that will implement the IGA with the U.S. and is making the necessary preparations to do so. As part of these preparations, the CRA is developing guidance to assist financial institutions with their obligations under the draft legislation.

   “In developing the guidance, the CRA is consulting with Canadian financial institutions, and is asking for their comments on a draft version. It is common practice for the CRA to undertake consultations in this manner.

   “The draft guidance is subject to change and should not be considered final.

   “The CRA has released information to assist individuals and entities that hold accounts at Canadian financial institutions and who may have questions about the agreement and how it works. The information is available on the CRAs website at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/nhncdrprtng/menu-eng.html.”