2,221 thoughts on “Canadian FATCA IGA lawsuit: November 1, 2014 legal bill will be paid on time! / Poursuite canadienne contre la FATCA et le gouvernement canadien : nos frais légaux du 1er novembre 2014 seront payés à temps !”

1. i was at an event this weekend and met 2 different families from the usa

   neither had heard of fatca however after me explaining it to them there were 2 very different reactions. the first chap was x military and he was mad as heck at what his gov’t was attempting to do. he told me that when he gets home he will work on informing more people south of the border.

   the second chap was a dual english/us citizen. he had been in the states for 40 years. when i was done explaining how fatca was susposed to work he did not want to talk about it anymore and actually walked away from me saying i was wrong. he seemed almost mad at me for saying i would never cross the border again and that i did not want anything to do america ever again.

   his sister was there as well whom i know works at the front end of the bank of montreal. she said she has heard a little about fatca but was unaware of the asking about a persons nationality starting july 1st.

2. Thanks for the interesting reactions of two different US persons, mettleman.

   From your comment and from Devon’s comment, it appears that some of the front-end Canadian bank people are learning what FATCA is, different than the blank stares reported here when those people were formerly asked about FATCA and not having any idea what we were talking about.

3. MuzzledNoMore and Blaze,

   Thanks for the reminder of what is and what we must keep in mind. I agree and am proud to be one of our footsoldiers.

4. Cross-comment from NorthernShrike at MapleSandbox:

   http://maplesandbox.ca/2014/house-of-commons-votes-to-help-u-s-irs-seize-bank-records-of-canadians-bill-c31-passes-fatca-is-now-the-law-in-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-45857

   On a technical matter:
   A bill becomes law only after being signed by the Governor General.

   It comes into force
   a) on a date indicated in the bill, or
   b) by order-in-council (i.e. decided by cabinet, typically done this way to allow regulations to be drafted and in place), or if neither a) nor b) then
   c) when the bill becomes law.

5. @Em

   You ask, “Does anyone know if the senators only choice is either to reject or accept Bill C-31in total or can they reject parts of it like Part 5 (FATCA implementation section)?”

   The answer is yes, they can. At a number of stages, including the committee stage, individual legislators can move amendments to the bill, including deletion. In the case of government bills, i.e. bills introduced by the party holding a majority of seats, these amendments are almost always defeated.

6. @Em

   Apologies if this posting is duplicate. My first attempt seemed to fail.

   You ask, “Does anyone know if the senators only choice is either to reject or accept Bill C-31in total or can they reject parts of it like Part 5 (FATCA implementation section)?”

   The answer is yes, senators and other legislators in the Canadian parliamentary system may introduce amendments at various stages, including committee stage. Amendments might call for deletion of entire sections of the bill.

   In the case of a government bill, i.e. a bill introduced by the party holding the most seats in the legislature, amendments made by opposition members are almost always defeated.

7. NorthernShrike,

   Your other comment did show up and is on this site. Blaze asked me this morning what I could see as comments to this post — I was able to see more than she was seeing. Perhaps some can see all the comments and some cannot for whatever reason, but I see your previous comment to Em.

8. @ NorthernShrike
   Thanks for that answer. So they CAN do it but it’s a long shot. Long shot will have to do. (I’m still working on doing a brief “brief” for the senators.)

   RE: the comments. Things are a bit wonky right now. I have to use a new way to navigate. Basically, open the home page then select a link to a recent comment but open it only in an additional window (Macs use control-option to do this), do the usual to find the latest page of comments on that thread, read, close the second window, return to the home page window, reload it (there could be new comments posted in the interim) and repeat. It’s working but if anyone else has a smoother solution please say.

   Also, when I post a comment there is sometimes a delay now. I can either just give it time and reload to see if it appears or post it again (exactly same wording) and the notice comes up to say it’s a duplicate which tells me the first attempt has gone through (the second attempt won’t appear as long as you have made no changes). Sometimes I actually have to reset my browser and empty its cache to get things going better too.

9. AND just when I thought I had a working system — the method in my previous comment just stopped working. The only way to find ALL the comments for the thread below, AT THE MOMENT, is to access them from the “# of comments” link on the home page, not from the Recent Comments list. Resetting my browser, emptying the cache, switching to a different browser didn’t help this time. (My husband just verified this so at least one person can testify I’m not going crazy.) Maybe in a few minutes things will work again. (sigh)
   https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/06/16/hilary-clinton-speaking-live-in-toronto-now-watch-it-here/

10. AND just like that — things started to work again. Maybe someone is doing some site maintenance today or something. (another sigh)

11. Calgary,

    Thank you for sending my email to all the senators. I will work on another one to them – likely shorter and stressing the unconstitutionality of the IGA. I also submitted my email (with a few minor changes) to the Globe and Mail Editorial & Comment Page. I did this anonymously and they may not publish it but it’s worth trying.

12. You’re welcome, Mr. A. I didn’t send to the Globe and Mail but I did send on to the journalists that did interview me, suggesting to them that a follow up on my story would be real good journalism. I could not let your powerful words, combined with my plea, go to waste. Thanks once again!

13. I hope these emails are taken seriously. When I sent my MP Joe Preston in St Thomas Ont my letters, his secretary, Karen would reply with reasons Joe could not talk with me. When I sent emails with attachments with reference letters and other written questions, Karen replied and in the “subject” line was “fatca spam” Joe Preston appears to care less about Canadians and his front person Karen, circle files questions. I wish you all better responses than I got from my “elected dictator” in St Thomas!

14. An interesting and pertinent read :

    Magna Carta is the birthright of all English-speakers

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100276470/magna-carta-should-unite-every-english-speaker-from-david-cameron-to-owen-jones/

15. Consider similarities in cause:

    From http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2459566,00.asp

    First few paragraphs: ”

    Apple, Cisco Oppose U.S. Searches of Data Stored Overseas

    By Stephanie Mlot
    June 16, 2014 09:54am EST
    Comments

    Apple and Cisco have joined Microsoft to oppose U.S. government access to data stored in overseas data centers.
    0shares

    Apple logo

    Apple and Cisco have joined the fight against the U.S. government’s request to turn over customer email data stored in Microsoft’s Ireland data center.

    Redmond last week objected to a U.S. government request for data stored overseas. That gained support from Verizon, and now Apple and Cisco have filed a joint amicus brief, suggesting the government has “erred.”

    The summons was granted in December as part of a criminal inquiry, and Microsoft lost an appeal in April to have the search warrant annulled.

    But Redmond continues to fight, saying last week that if the judicial order is upheld, it “would violate international laws and treaties, and reduce the privacy protection of everyone on the planet.””

16. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2459566,00.asp

    My last post referring to the above does not seem to have appeared. I believe that this is a very pertinent related case …. a snippet ……

    “But Redmond (Microsoft) continues to fight, saying last week that if the judicial order is upheld, it “would violate international laws and treaties, and reduce the privacy protection of everyone on the planet.”

    Apple and Cisco agree, adding that the government’s move “places providers and their employees at significant risk of foreign sanctions, and threatens a potential loss of customer confidence in U.S. providers generally.”

    It also allows foreign agencies to return the favor by using equivalent international laws to require production of data stored in the U.S.”

17. Calgary411: And thanks back to you and NorthernShrike for the reminder that its the Governor General who is the last stop in the process of a bill becoming law. I forgot about him! I just went to his website (www.gg.ca) in the hopes that I would find a detailed description of his powers but the only thing of relevance I could find was this: “In addition, the governor general holds certain reserve powers, which are exercised at his or her own discretion.” Does anyone know what these “reserve powers” are? Do they include the veto over legislation passed by Parliament?

18. MuzzledNoMore,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada

    The governor general also grants Royal Assent in the Queen’s name; legally, he or she has three options:

    grant Royal Assent (making the bill law),

    withhold Royal Assent (vetoing the bill), or

    reserve the bill for the signification of the Queen’s pleasure (allowing the sovereign to personally grant or withhold assent).[68] If the governor general withholds the Queen’s assent, the sovereign may within two years disallow the bill, thereby annulling the law in question.

    …
    With the appointment of David Johnston, a lifelong academic and former University of Waterloo president and vice-chancellor, there was a signalled emphasis for the Governor General to vigorously promote learning and innovation. Johnston stated in his inaugural address: “[We want to be] a society that innovates, embraces its talent and uses the knowledge of each of its citizens to improve the human condition for all.”[179] There was also a recognition of Johnston’s expertise in constitutional law, following the controversial prorogations of parliament in 2008 and 2009, which initiated some debate about the governor general’s role as the representative of Canada’s head of state.[180]

    No modern Canadian viceroy has denied Royal Assent to a bill.

    Let’s change that boring history, Mr. Johnston.

19. Consider a democratically elected head of state
    http://democracywatch.ca/campaigns/democratichead/

20. PM’s bias comes into focus Re: Battle over rail cargo secrecy intensifies, June 15

    Let me get this straight: the Harper government provides private information about Canadians to American authorities. But it’s “reluctant” to demand disclosure of dangerous goods carried by American trains in our country?

    If any Canadians still wonder who Stephen Harper works for, it’s clearly expressed in his actions.

    Tim Doran, Toronto

    Battle over rail secrecy intensifies, Toronto Star, June 15

21. @ calgary411
    Your e-mail to all the senators will not be lonely. I sent one off today too. I included a link to Lynne’s FINA testimony video and let it be known that I was supporting ADCS. I kept it down to one page because I thought if I was going to toss a Hail Mary pass at the senators I didn’t want it to be too bulky. 😉

    Any other Brockers willing to try? Whether or not these e-mails will be read by the senators is not known but their staff members will likely inform them that there is opposition to Part 5 of Bill C-31.

22. Done!

23. As, the Canadian process for implementation of the US FATCA IGA is almost ended, the least we can do is try, try and try once again — to say we did not give up. Thanks, Em. Mr. A was working on his as well.

24. UPDATE ON BILL C-31:

    Bill C-31 Status (I am listening / tributes to retiring Senator so far, so may be nothing re Bill C-31): http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=6483626

    Video will be available here for today’s Senate sitting: http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx?viewmode=4&categoryid=-1&currentdate=2014-06-17&languagecode=12298&eventid=9589#

    Transcript / Yesterday’s 2nd Reading in Senate of Bill C-31: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Chamber/412/Debates/072db_2014-06-16-e.htm#39
    2nd Session, 41st Parliament,
    Volume 149, Issue 72
    Monday, June 16, 2014
    The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker

    Video of this morning’s meeting: http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx?viewmode=4&categoryid=-1&eventid=9596&Language=E#

    National Finance Committee Meeting – Agenda

    1. Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measuresClause-by-clause consideration
    2. IN CAMERA (Item with Reporting and Interpretation)Consideration of a draft report
    3. Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measuresClause-by-clause consideration

    Calendar of remainder of this week’s Senate meetings in calendar on left-hand side of video page.

25. Thank you, NDP MP Charlie Angus, for your latest statement about privacy rights for All Canadians. “Embarrassment” is the correct definition.

    http://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/6/17/charlie-angus-1/

    Privacy
    Oral Questions

    June 17th, 2014 / 2:40 p.m.

    NDP

    Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government’s inability to balance reasonable legislation with respect for the Constitution and the privacy rights of Canadians is getting embarrassing. The Conservatives ignore legal experts, reject amendments, and end up banging their heads against the Supreme Court, like last Friday, when the Supreme Court had to remind them that snooping on Canadians without a warrant is illegal. Well, quelle surprise.

    This brings us to the cyberbullying bill. Why did the minister not listen to the experts, separate the cyberbullying provisions so that it would be passed through this House, and then allow us to amend the clearly unconstitutional parts of the Conservatives’ agenda for snooping on the private rights of Canadians?

    How apparent that the NDP stands up for constitutionality and ALL Canadians compared with the Conservatives! US Persons in Alberta have virtually little to no representation.

    Here is a new Conservative Candidate (is this your possible new MP, Em?) says when asked about implementation of the FATCA IGA — sounds to me like the Conservative Talking Points copied and pasted VS the well-reasoned conversation of the NDP:

    I had to do some digging on your correspondence regarding U.S. government taxation policy, specifically the Foreign Bank Account Report (FBAR) and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

    Rest assured, the Government of Canada shares many of these concerns and has expressed them directly to the U.S. government.

    While we all understand that Canada and the U.S. share many common values, including ensuring fair tax systems where everybody pays their share, we have concerns about the impact of FBAR and FATCA on Canadians.

    For instance, many dual Canadian-American citizens captured under FBAR have complained they have only very remote links to the U.S. and a very limited knowledge of their tax reporting obligations to the U.S.

    We recognize that the vast majority of these dual citizens being targeted are honest, hardworking and law-abiding people – including many senior citizens – who have dutifully paid their Canadian taxes. Their only transgression has been failing to file Internal Revenue Service (IRS) paperwork that they were unaware they were required to file.

    Now, faced with the knowledge they have an obligation to file U.S. tax returns (even if they most often do not actually owe any taxes), we appreciate that many dual citizens want to fulfill that obligation. But we also understand that the threat of prohibitive fines for simply failing to file a return they were never aware they had to file has become a frightening prospect causing unnecessary stress and fear among many honest, hardworking individuals.

    As such, we have called on the U.S. government to look upon those individuals impacted in Canada with leniency.

    I am happy to report that the U.S. government has listened to our concerns and the concerns of Canadians. Recent guidance by the IRS on December 7, 2011 and June 26, 2012 will help dual citizens residing in Canada deal with their U.S. tax filing obligations and provide assistance to people with Canadian retirement plan issues. Our Government applauds these actions.

    The December 7, 2011 guidance states that U.S. taxpayers who owe no U.S. tax are not subject to any penalties for a failure to file a U.S. tax return, while other taxpayers may be eligible for reasonable cause relief. In the case of a failure to file an FBAR, where the IRS determines that a violation was due to reasonable cause, the guidance says that there is no penalty.

    The June 26, 2012 guidance signals the intention of the U.S. to provide simplified procedures to allow taxpayers who pose low compliance risk to become compliant with their U.S. tax and FBAR filing requirements without facing penalties or additional enforcement action.

    In addition, the IRS is streamlining the process for U.S. citizens and dual citizens who have contributed to Registered Retirement Savings Plans or Registered Retirement Income Funds in Canada to take advantage of the provision in the Canada‑United States Income Tax Convention allowing deferral of taxation in the U.S. of income in those accounts, if they have not already done so.

    The new streamlined filing procedures are accessible as of September 1, 2012. Instructions for the new procedures can be found by visiting the IRS website.

    I should also note that penalties imposed by the IRS under FBAR will not be collected by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) on the IRS’ behalf. While the Canada‑United States Income Tax Convention contains a provision that allows for the collection by a country of taxes imposed by the other country, this does not apply to penalties imposed under laws that impose only a reporting requirement. Furthermore, the CRA does not and will not collect the U.S. tax liability of a Canadian citizen if the individual was a Canadian citizen at the time the liability arose (whether or not the individual was also a U.S. citizen at that time).

    A related piece of U.S. legislation causing similar concern is FATCA, which is proposed to come into force on January 1, 2014.

    To be clear, Canada respects the sovereign right of the U.S. to determine its own tax legislation and its efforts to combat tax evasion – the underlying objective of FATCA. In fact, our two jurisdictions cooperate to prevent tax evasion.

    However, we are concerned that FATCA would impose significant compliance obligations on Canadian financial institutions, and raise significant privacy concerns for Canadians.

    Canada is not a tax haven and people do not flock to Canada to avoid paying taxes. But for those who would seek to evade taxes, we believe that there are ways of addressing these issues with the U.S. through our bilateral Income Tax Convention.

    The Government of Canada will continue to express its strong concerns relating to FATCA with the U.S. government and advocate on behalf of Canadians on these issues.

    Talks are underway between Canadian and U.S. officials to develop an approach that both countries will find agreeable, with a view towards concluding an agreement in the near future.

    —

    The agreement under negotiation would recognize the principle our Government has consistently advanced, that in seeking to meet the objectives of FATCA, greater reliance can be placed on the procedures that already exist under our bilateral Income Tax Convention for the exchange of tax information. We are pleased that the U.S. has accepted this principle.

    John Barlow

    Conservative Candidate for Macleod

    403-837-0543

    Deemed *US Persons* in the AB Riding of Macleod take note of his regurgitation. Could Mr. Barlow have *thought* those thoughts without checking on what his Conservative mates were parroting?