UPDATE SEPTEMBER 19, 2015: SEE ALSO DISCLAIMER AND LITIGATION UPDATES.
[This post, which began in May and having over 1000 revisions and 2000 comments, is being retired from service and updates. It lived through the success of reaching a total of $500,000 in donations from our kind, dear supporters who had little money to give, the hope and disappointment with the summary trial decision, and the certainty that we are now finally moving on to the Charter trial.]
CANADIAN CHARTER TRIAL UPDATE:
— We have instructed the Arvay team to prepare for the “Constitutional-Charter” trial. This means that our focus now, as it was in the beginning of our lawsuit, is on the Charter trial.
Unless there is a new expense in the future that we have not anticipated, the monies from your donations will be sufficient to take us through the “constitutional-charter” trial in Federal Court. However, to pay other legal bills we will need additional donations from our supporters, and a request for donations will appear on another post soon.
OUR LITIGATION HISTORY:
One year ago, on August 11, 2014, Litigator Joseph Arvay filed a FATCA IGA lawsuit in Canada Federal Court on behalf of Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen, the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty (en français), and all peoples.
Because of a Government delay we initiated a “summary trial”, using a portion of the arguments, which offered the possibility of preventing private banking information from being turned over to the IRS before September 30, 2015. See Alliance’s Claims, our Alliance blog, and AUGUST 4-5 SUMMARY TRIAL FILINGS in LITIGATION UPDATES.
Wondering,
Thanks — have passed on your comment to Arvay-Gruber team.
Okay. I see why this type of litigation is definitely not a DIY project. 😉
I also believe that something can be made of the IGA requirement for a US-issued Certificate of Loss of US nationality.
That a Canadian law would require certain Canadians to present documentation from a foreign state – especially documentation that is issued thru a capricious and opaque and totally unaccountable foreign state’s process – is shocking!
However the US decision to conveniently raise the CLN fee 500% to a jaw-dropping $2350 USD – now that this US documentation is disgustingly enshrined in Canadian law – speaks volumes to the the toxic and utterly cynical motivations of this “repugnant attack on domestic (Canadian) sovereignty.” I believe a case can be made for malice.
It’s a nice tight argument. It will be interesting to hear how the government of Canada’s strategy will try to drive it’s own Citizens under the bus once again in a court of law. Shameful and embarrassing to say the very least.
? How do I get a direct link into: (direct to the document itself & would be nice if I could direct link to a page on that pdf.- much as I could directly link into a comment here on IBS. I took the href from the source and it did not work.
Volume 1, page 93: Allison Christians on Tax Treaty Gaps.
Volume 2, page 262: Robert Wood, sec 4 IRS Collection Options
I would like to easily put that Allison Christians doco in response to those on comment sections that because of the FEIE that there is no additional tax to be paid.
Also I am planning a point of information communication here in Australia for the Australian government, that yes there are tax treaty gaps, and yes Australians (who are US persons) need worry (the Australian Tax Office Website needs to be amended from its current tax treaty ‘no worries mate’ position.) And, all evidence that Australia has created a 2nd class of citizenship.
@Wondering – that is a famous case as I recollect now … I had forgotten about it …. Good Find. I wonder how Arvey could weave that in after already filing his case.
@wondering @nervousinvestor
I remember that court case was included in the information gathered for the Arvay team, I believe at the time they were forming a legal opinion. I hope it wasn’t somehow overlooked…
Professor Allison Christians, Chair in The Law of Taxation at McGill University, outlines Tax Treaty Gaps where US taxes apply to tax resident Canadians who are also US persons.
See page 93 of this document: VOLUME 1
While tax treaties may prevent and reduce double taxation, because of Tax Treaty Gaps they also may guarantee double taxation.
This is a message to Amanda Lang and others who think that the Canadian-US Tax Treaty eliminates taxation. Same with all the other US tax treaties.
@Brockers……..
Arvey has come up with a very unique way to attack the beast.
But is this tract Canada Treaty centric or does it show a path to make similar attacks in other jurisdictions?
I am using as an example, the UK US IGA and its counterpart tax treaty.
The UK IGA states, “Whereas, the Parties desire to conclude an agreement to improve international tax
compliance and provide for the implementation of FATCA based on domestic reporting and reciprocal automatic exchange pursuant to the Convention and subject to the confidentiality and other protections provided for therein, including the provisions limiting the use of the information exchanged under the Convention.”
I think the gotcha language is “pursuant to the Convention and subject to the confidentiality and other protections provided for therein, including the provisions limiting the use of the information exchanged under the Convention.”
I hope others here can chime in………
But if a Court in Canada buys into Joe Arveys argument, I think many of these IGA agreements are now technically defective……and importantly subject to legal challenge.
They tried to create an IGA that would slide into the existing Treaty Structure but alas may have failed or hoped no one would notice.
@Wondering “That a Canadian law would require certain Canadians to present documentation from a foreign state – especially documentation that is issued thru a capricious and opaque and totally unaccountable foreign state’s process – is shocking!”
If I had been on the other team, I would have written in that a Certificate of Naturalization issued by Canada would be proof of loss of USC.
I would like to get started reading these documents. When I click on, for example, Volume 1, my computer asks me if I wish to Save the document or Cancel. Usually it asks me if I want to Save or Open the document. Is there a way of simply opening the document so I can read it. I don’t want to have to save it on my computer. Any thoughts?
@MuzzledNoMore
Mine says “open” or “save” with Adobe reader.
Muzzled. Very large files like this have to be downloaded and then saved in order to be read. The only other way is streaming which clearly isn’t available.
Download them, read them , then delete them.
MuzzledNoMore,
Perhaps try a different browser??
@ George
“If I had been on the other team, I would have written in that a Certificate of Naturalization issued by Canada would be proof of loss of USC.”
Excellent idea. If you watched the Canadian Finance Committee’s debate on the implementation of IGA, I believe this was similar to the amendment proposed by Murray Rankin (NDP). Something along the lines of NO Canadian citizen, resident in Canada should be considered a US person for the purpose of implementing the IGA. Of course the Conservatives voted “NO” on the amendment.
I have read all four volumes and the Memorandum of Fact and Law through and through.
I cannot fully express my admiration for the team that put this all together!
Brilliant, comprehensive and thorough.
To all involved in the formulation of our case my heartfelt admiration and my tearful thanks from the bottom of my heart.
Now on to strike the beast a fatal blow!
Hope and pray fervently that it will be so!
Allison , Arthur, Joseph,Stephen and John
Ginny , Gwen, Tricia and Lynne
And ALL who have taken on the Cons
The world entire will be grateful one day
That from cowardice heroes were born
Who rose up ,enraged, to remove such a Thorn
Ensuring Democracy and Freedom
would always hold sway.
( from heart’s desire to God’s Ear)
and Judges sensibilities !!!
Not to mention the monies further needed to carry this through. Donate today!
@Marie: Here is the amendment put forward by Murray Rankin:
That amendment was originally written by Anne Frank. Schubert and I submitted it to NDP and Liberal MPs. I suggested it in my testimony before Finance Committee. Murray Rankin formally introduced it. Scott Brison and Elizabeth May also submitted it, but they were not able to formally move it because their proposals were identical to Murray Rankin’s–which was defeated,
Correction to the above: Murray Rankin’s motion (and the information I submitted to MPs) used the term permanent resident instead of landed immigrant because that is the term that has been used for many years.
I did a copy and paste from Anne Frank’s original suggestion in posting the above. Sorry if I caused any confusion. The intent of the motion was to exclude any Canadian citizen or permanent resident from reporting requirements.
@Blaze
Kudos to Anne Frank, Schubert and yourself. And thank you to Murray Rankin.
Today’s quote in the main article quoting the memorandum of fact questioning the international validity of cbt is spot on
The problem is that beaurocrats and courts have mangledhow you ditch us citizenship
Cbt was tolerable when it was very easy to get rid of unwanted citizenship
The problem is that today its very hard to get rid of the underlying problem citizenship
@george
One of these days someone formerly of the State Dept is going to spill the goods on what’s really going on at the consulates, and it won’t come too soon.
@Bubbles…….Good Morning!!!! Or rather I think you happen to be a night owl. But as they say The Sun Never Sets on The Isaac Brock Society. And to be honest thats the great thing about IBS, the common bond we all share though we are all otherwise radically different.
What I was getting it and hope that Joe Arvey covers it for Phase II Litigation, is that pre-1980 the law as written by Congress actually “worked.” CBT and the rules on loss of citizenship actually worked in harmony.
You did not worry about CBT because frankly once you emigrated, the USA likely considered you were not a USC.
In 1980 there were American Citizens Abroad but they were definately not like Brockers. Brockers IMO are emigrants…..ACA folks are short termers abroad.
I think there are many homelanders who are of the mindset that we are a group of expats who are clinging on to our USC desperately not wanting to give it up, fighting to retain it AND at the same time fighting paying our fair share in tax.
If 8 U.S. Code § 1481(a) was amended as follows, I would have no problem;
(8) A US Citizen also in possession of another nationality who has resided outside the United States for three consecutive calendar years on a permanent basis who has not met his/her filing obligations under the US Internal Revenue Code shall lose his/her citizenship unless he/she has obtained a Certificate of Retention of Nationality issued by the Secretary.
—-
To be honest, I believe the rest of the world has it right and Germany and South Africa come to mind. There you need to obtain a Certificate of Retention. If the US applied similar rules, when you applied for a Certificate of Retention you could be reminded of your USC obligations like tax payment and registering for the draft.
The US Supreme Court ultimately got it wrong, they are forcing unwanted citizenship and that is what is a violation of ones human rights!!!!!!
@Brockers……..we need a map that shows where Brockers are “located.”
That would be encouraging for all of us.
@George
You mean like a map with pins in it? I like that idea!
Right now I’m on an island in the Pacific with crappy internet.
Thanks, Marie, Duke and Calgary! I will give your suggestions a try! I read the “Memorandum” yesterday. It is quite a document. There is no doubt that we’re in excellent hands with our legal team!