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.
And this MOST important detail!:
http://www.repealfatca.com/index.asp?idmenu=4&idsubmenu=157&title=statement-in-support-of-fatca-repeal-andagainst-unauthorized-international-agreements
“Because FATCA includes not a single provision targeting actual tax evasion activity but relies exclusively on indiscriminate “fishing expedition” data collection, the costs and harm inflicted by FATCA cannot be justified as a legitimate tool for combating offshore tax evasion; in 2013 even the IRS’s own in-house Taxpayer Advocate Service reported to Congress that “FATCA-related costs equal or exceed projected FATCA revenue”;”
How will the Judge go about notifying his decision?
Will he call the lawyers into his court?
Will he fax his judgement to the two parties?
Will post details of the Mulcair visit in London this morning. Media took several pictures of my shirt, front and back. More later.
Great, NativeCanadian. Glad some media took an interest!
I’ll try to call Sean Hunter again — left a message. I want to order and get at least one tee-shirt mailed to Calgary — while it’s tee-shirt weather.
@ wonderful brockers and AU post August 25, 2015 at 6:35 pm ……AU-welcome to the site and e-family that saved my sanity in last 3 years. I wept to read your post. I think u will ride the rollercoaster but I promise -IBS willl be there for you. if a group of youse end up challenging AU Govt like Canada-rest assured that Brockers in England will contribute like we did to ADCS. stay strong. remember that you are NOT ALONE. there are MILLIONS of people around the world with US clinging nationality that, like you , will have OMG moments and will come to IBS. take the comfort that brockers share your feelings and want to help. IBS is like nothing else on the internet… it has revolutionised my life and I believe it has revolutionised the tax debate globally. vive IBS! and the saddest thing of all? US people are wonderful, its USG that is causing the issues. stay well, stay strong, stay sane and stay in touch!
@Furious
Your comments on the OECD CRS seem to assume that financial information would be reported to the OECD and/or all component countries. But I see nothing in the Standard to indicate this. On the contrary, Part II is a model agreement between jurisdictions. It appears to me (show me where I am wrong) that the jurisdictions intended are national taxing authorities. In effect, a CRS-based agreement between countries X and Y means that country X will report to country Y on financial assets in X of residents (for tax purposes) of Y (and vice versa). This standard will replace a variety of agreements already in place for the same purpose; however the common reporting standard will ease the reporting burden on financial institutions in participating countries.
I am a resident of Canada. (Also a citizen of Canada, though that is irrelevant here.) I am obliged to report my global income to the Government of Canada. I have no privacy rights regarding this income, and in fact my domestic income is reported automatically to the Canada Revenue Agency. There is however no equivalent, universal or global process for automatic reporting of any foreign income, e.g. investment income, I receive abroad. (In fact, I have no foreign income or assets.) I believe the intent with the OECD standard is to facilitate this sharing. If this is the case, I fully support it. Although people may have perfectly legitimate reasons for having offshore financial assets and may earn payment for work performed abroad, they have no privacy right to conceal these assets or earnings from the jurisdiction within which they pay taxes.
It is also necessary, of course, to accompany any such agreements with tax treaties, to prevent double taxation.
I am not a tax expert, but that’s my reading of the situation.
@Northern Shrike
Probably the big issue with OECD CRS system is which countries should Canada share information with even on their own residents. Right now this is all determined in a smoke filled room at Canada Revenue. The issue as I see it is OECD CRS doesn’t really changes this that much. It in some ways “formalizes” a practice that has occurred for many years but doesn’t really bring much accountability.
The problems is that in making the decisions more transparent in itself becomes a political football. For example I suspect everyone agrees Canada should share tax information on lets say British, Australian, and French residents with their home countries. But what about lets say Nigeria and Zimbabwe(both of whom have treaties with Canada). Some like Canadian for Tax Fairness and Dennis Howlett might say yes other like lets say more Conservative types(notwithstanding their support of FATCA) might say no. Then their is the existing middle ground of information upon request. With some countries “upon request” might seem more sensible. Then all of these decisions have to be reevaluated each year upon the current political situation. If Canada doesn’t find China “fit” for information sharing could China trying to retaliate against Canadian business interest ala FATCA. What will be the political positions of the NDP, Liberals, Cons et all in this scenario. What if other countries refuse to share data with Canada on dubious political grounds.
To be clear the above already occurs in a smoke filled room at CRA(with regards to over 100 countries including some not so savory ones). By formalizing this though you bring in a lot more scrutiny including possible charter challenges in some limited circumstances even with regards to non Canadian residents. One thing Canada has going for itself is that Canada even with Stephen Harper still has a pretty good reputation as on honest broker and the CRA has a long experience of having at least some minimal contact with the majority tax collection agencies worldwide and having an open door towards the other ones(There have even been on and off discussions between CRA/Finance and Cuba over a Canada Cuba tax treaty).
http://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/treatystatus_-eng.asp#status
http://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/tieaaerf-eng.asp
@NorthernShrike:
“show me where I am wrong”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/17987-a-new-world-tax-regime
From the article:
OECD officially unveiled its plan informally called GATCA (Global Account Tax Compliance Act) by analysts. Calling its ploy to put the final nail in the coffin for financial privacy “game changing,” the tax-funded OECD said it would require governments to collect massive amounts of sensitive personal information on individuals from banks and other financial institutions in their jurisdictions.
Also, sounding suspiciously like a threat, the participating governments claimed that only countries with rulers who submit to the draconian new regime will be able to “prosper in the future.” In other words, join the emerging global tax regime and violate the privacy rights of everyone, or suffer financial penalties. “We call on other countries and jurisdictions to commit to join this initiative at the earliest opportunity with the aim of rapidly creating a truly global system of automatic information exchange,” the governments continued in their joint statement.
The reality is that, using the information collected, a lot more will be done than catching tax cheats. Besides the worldwide violation of individuals’ financial privacy, the plan will provide the platform to implement a global taxing authority.
A coalition of governments and brutal dictatorships known as the Group of 20 (G-20) is in the process of building what virtually every major “mainstream” media outlet recently described as a “New World Order,” with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and UN at its center.
Besides publicly announcing its desire in recent years for shared financial data and more on all citizens, top officials in the coalition, which includes the ruthless communist regime ruling mainland China and the rest of the “BRICS” (Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa), among other autocracies, have been brazenly calling for a new world currency and empowering the IMF to serve as a global central bank, as well as “harmonizing” tax policies and ending what the outfit refers to as “harmful tax competition.”
Also from the article:
So Much for Citizens’ Welfare
None of the proposed changes look likely to benefit the common man — only governments and their functionaries. For Americans such a scheme would turn American traditions and constitutional protections upside down. According to a brief by the OECD, among the data that governments would share with each other as part of the “automatic exchange of information” regime are various categories of income, changes of address, purchase or sale of property, and more. Instead of being secure in one’s house, papers, and effects without a warrant and probable cause, governments and autocrats around the world will be free to rifle through Americans’ most sensitive information at will.
Hackers, criminals, and identity thieves, among others, will almost certainly be able to access the data, dubious globalist promises of “security” notwithstanding. The situation is similar in other nations where authorities are busy gutting long-standing protections on privacy rights to comply with FATCA.
While Americans might recoil in horror at the prospect of sharing private financial information with Third World socialist regimes, the OECD boasts of its collaboration with them. “Working with partner countries (including Argentina, Brazil, China, India, the Russian Federation and South Africa), the OECD is advancing rapidly in the development of a common model for reporting and automatic exchange of certain account information held by financial institutions, including due diligence rules, reporting formats and secure transmission methods,” the outfit explained, noting that automatic information sharing between governments and even ruthless tyrannies was becoming “the new standard.”
The chance for abuse of individuals’ information is 100 percent. Consider that among the early participants in the scheme is the imploding socialist regime ruling Argentina — currently searching frantically for wealth to plunder as the economy it misrules collapses around it. Also on board is the radical South African Communist Party-African National Congress regime, which has been implicated in genocide in South Africa by the world’s leading expert in the field, and which has more poverty today than when power was transferred from the white government to the ANC. Eventually, globalists hope to force every government and dictator on the planet into participating. More than a few brutal autocracies are already lining up to join.
A senior OECD bureaucrat claimed that the Obama administration had also committed to “early adoption” of the new world tax plot, though experts and analysts have pointed out that the U.S. president has no lawful authority to follow through on such a pledge without approval from Congress. And with the IRS rampantly trying to hurt conservative organizations and the Justice Department refusing to do a thorough investigation of the lawbreaking, Americans cannot count on our government to work at safeguarding our data from abuse.
In addition to paying new world taxes, Americans will also get to pay to make it work. The plot to abolish financial privacy and national independence in tax policy will be expensive, although the taxpayer-funded bureaucrats at the OECD — whose salaries are not taxed — do not seem to care. “What we are doing is to develop a single standard that will be compatible with national and regional systems — there will be only one way of collecting and exchanging information,” said OECD tax czar Saint-Amans. “That will cost something, but it is the price to pay to be free from suspicion of complicity in fiscal fraud.”
The costs of implementing the new regime are expected to be staggering. Estimates vary, but potentially hundreds of billions will be required to implement the regime.
Top OECD leaders also admit that benefiting rulers, not those they rule, is the goal of the machinations. “We are happy to redouble our efforts in this area, working closely with interested countries [governments] and stakeholders to design global solutions to global problems to the benefit of governments and business around the world,” declared OECD boss Ángel Gurría, though it was not clear how having massive compliance costs and mandates foisted on companies would benefit them. The OECD boss, a former Mexican official with the Socialist International-aligned Revolutionary Institutional Party, was celebrating the exploitation of FATCA to create the global tax regime.
If countries with less restrictive tax regimes do not bow down to the OECD demands, they can be blacklisted as “uncooperative,” or worse, with economic sanctions being the implicit threat. The tactic is especially effective when bullying smaller nations — Switzerland and Hong Kong, for instance — particularly with Obama and bloated governments ruling major Western economies already fully on board with the agenda.
If and when it goes into effect, governments all over the world will have instant access to people’s most sensitive financial records, including bank accounts, assets, income, insurance, interest paid, capital gains, property ownership, investments, sale of real estate, and more. And the age-old notion of innocent until proven guilty is being flipped on its head, with authorities searching through people’s highly personal information in search of potential crimes without warrants or even suspicion.
@Tim
I won’t comment on your remarks point by point, however I think I probably agree with you on the most important points, as I see them. It is very difficult to launch a global system for tax compliance when the culture of tax-paying varies so much, one country to the next. We have at the moment the example of Greece, where there is evidently a deep culture of tax evasion, made easier in a country where so many people are self-employed. FATCA was launched by a country which assumed that everyone was just like the USA. The OECD CRS standard reflects much the same assumption. Speaking for myself, I spent a couple of weeks in Nigeria a number of years ago. Although a big country with a lot of money, there was not even a functioning postal service. Accompanied by people who knew the system, I arrived in the country with thousands of dollars in cash and changed them on the street. I cannot imagine how the Government of Nigeria could possibly comply with reporting standards along the line of the OECD CRS.
@Furious
Your reply seems to be an extended quote from The New American. I was unfamiliar with this publication, but I found that it is published by the John Birch Society. I have no interest in engaging in debate with JBS, an organisation with an absurd belief system. I will respectfully try to avoid responding to your posts going forward. Have fun.
Reading the Aug 26 Bopp filing is truly heartwarming. Hope this gets somewhere! The man has a track record, thankfully. I am struck by the feisty informal language he sometimes uses, all the while making very forceful arguments. Imagine if the IGAs were simultaneously struck down in Canada and in the US. Champagne that day, friends.
@NorthernStrike, reference your comment……
“We either all hang together or we shall most assuredly hang seperately.” We at IBS must live by those words…….
Under other circumstances, I would probably not associate with many on this board. But on this matter, I have put aside all differences.
If US Democrats will support us, I will say thank you. If US Republicans will support us, I will say thank you. If the National Front (France) will support us, I will say thank you. If UKIP (UK) will support us, I will say thank you. If Labour (UK) under Corbyn will support us, I will say thank you. If Al Sharpton came out in support of our cause, I would say thank you.
It does not matter to me if a group is looney tunes on other matters if they support us. We need allies. We will be defeated if we go back into the shell of political tribalism which is a massive EU problem and is a problem in getting an IGA lawsuit moving here.
I would suspect that I would not want to associate with Joe Arvey on a personal basis because of some of the cases that he has taken on, but I am glad that we hired him and are paying him lots of money.
George: the only caveat is when an “ally” is so “out there” that he hurts the cause, or devalues it, or decredibilizes it. But overall I agree. I’ll certainly root for Republicans Overseas and for Mr Bopp, for instance, in their efforts.
My point from the beginning as I believe some Brockers understand has NOT been the tax angle so much as the Freedom from Tyranny angle. The fact that there can be no Freedom without Privacy of the person. Governments need to be transparent …People need Privacy.
The obvious example are the Jews in Germany in the 1930s who would have been so much more easily targeted and robbed if Financial Institutions worldwide had been part of a “CRS” or a “FATCA” at that time. Hitler would have loved knowledge of whatever accounts the Jews (and other targets) had worldwide at that time (and indeed with more personal information on file aiding in the identification of Jews). Stalin same way. ALL Dictators would salivate at gaining this sort of information control over persons within their grasp.
Through history, persons around the world have escaped Tyrannical regimes with whatever of their personal assets they could move out (often illegally from their home countries) and deposit in London, New York, Toronto, Zurich or elsewhere. None of this would have been possible in the era of a “CRS” or a “FATCA”. In the 1970s when Jamaica said that her people could only travel with US$50.00 (yes, FIFTY dollars) per ANNUM – honest people were forced to break the (unjust) Law and do deals in secret to move a few hundred or a few thousand dollars for the security / education / healthcare / welfare of their families. Such situations have been common around the world over the decades and centuries. People often saw North America as a safe haven … now due to “FATCA” and “CRS”, North America is turning snitch to betray (to Tyrants) Freedom loving people such as those who BUILT the North American Nations. In decades past people have risked firing squads to put nest eggs for their families outside the reach of Dictators. Now FATCA and CRS seek to endanger those or similar people henceforth. Pray God that our Litigation in Canada is successful in stopping FATCA and pray God that the Litigation in Ohio manages to stop FATCA at its root. With FATCA dead on arrival, I cannot see the US supporting CRS … and the result I pray will be the end of that “tax cheat tracing” canard.
Go there Native Canadian ! Proud of you.
“decredibilizes” WOW ! New word to me !
Usain Bolt just “mashed down” Gatlin again at 200 meters.
Bolt is the man who when the British wanted to tax him on part of his worldwide earnings from endorsements, other races and so on when he was to run in the UK told them that he simply would not run in the UK. The UK tax authorities back pedaled. Bolt ran, won and entertained the crowd. The crowds rejoiced.
@nervous, re Tyranny
I am 100% with you. Had FATCA existed under the Nazis, the few fragments of my family that escaped and survived would have been doomed. I would never have been born. Some Brockers resent any reference to the Nazis. But those of us who know what was going on (in terms of illegal, immoral, systematic and brazen government-driven theft from vulnerable, isolated and terrorised individuals and families, as early as the *1930s*) understand the frightful parallels being threatened today. Nazi genocide was preceded by (and cynically funded by) this asset stripping.
[am also 100% with you and others in cheering Native Canadian!]
@crystal: also 100% with you in support, from Europe, of our Australian friends, like our Canadian ones, in this shared hour of need. The strength that comes from the tenacity, warmth, generosity and well-informed intelligence of this astonishing community is precious and remarkable.
@Fred
What’s “out there” is certainly in the eye of the beholder when a certain sect of non-resident Americans won’t support the US lawsuit because it’s led by the lawyer who won the Citizens United case.
@nervousinvestor
My concern all along has been “mission creep”. This information is just too valuable to limit it to one thing! Thanks for reminding me about the reference Jim Jatras once made about FATCA being “dead on arrival”. Unfortunately this reality doesn’t seem to have much effect on the zombie FATCA’s become, when governments like mine are happy to play along.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/02/04/will-canada-turn-a-blind-eye-to-the-igas-faux-reciprocity/comment-page-1/
Here is the skinny on the latest political gathering in Canada. I guess you can call me the “political party crasher” I had conversation with Fred Sinclair, my NDP candidate for St Thomas Ont. He told me that I was welcome to the announcement at a local company that was arranged within 24 hours by Tom Mulcair’s campaign office. I arrived at the company at 9am and walked into the company. There were no guards or anyone else at the door. Of course, I had my new shirt on. There were mostly media in the place and some other people. It did not look like many people, if any. were there from the public. I was photographed many times by the media and they sort of followed me around. I was approached by a tall man in a suit and asked if I worked there. When I replied “no” I was told that no public was invited and I was on private property and had to leave. I apologized and told him there was nobody at the door to ask when I walked in 10 minutes ago. I was escorted to the door. On my way, several pictures of my shirt were again taken. Once outside, I met 2 people. One was a pensioner wearing a shirt that said ” friends don’t let friends vote for Harper” and the other was a recent immigrant from Sri Lanka. While waiting for Tom Mulcair to come out, I chatted these people up a bit. I did let the Sri Lankan fellow know that he has NO protections from the Canadian government if his country of birth government wants to tax him. I let him know that under the current government, HE and his family are actually “second class Canadians” like myself and in detail, told him what the Conservative government was doing to a “group” of people from another country and how the Conservatives threw Canadian citizens to their country of birth to be prosecuted. He was astounded when told that the Conservative government was even giving the people’s country of birth the personal information, name, address, phone number, and full bank records to a foreign government to enforce their laws on these people in Canada. He will take this message to other people in his environment and let them know what they might have to deal in the future. Anyways, once the speech was over, Mr. Mulcair was slipped out the back door and wisked away out of the public’s eyes. Then, his candidates came out. I met Fred Sinclair and he came right over. He was with Mulcair’s right hand man. They fully apologized to me for not allowing me in and said invited people could come, but they had not arranged anyone to be at the door. Now, I took that explanation with a grain of sand and talked with them both and asked Mulcair’s right hand man to have Nathan Cullen and Murray Rankin please respond to our emails and phone calls with regards to their work with the recent FATCA issues. I also let him know that the court decision will be the biggest game changer in election history and they should be on this and watch it closely. I was left with a promise that I would get responses and still have a meeting with my local candidate Fred Sinclair withing 1 week. I’ll keep you posted.
Bubblebustin: Hear, Hear. Politics does make for strange bedfellows.
But despite the passion and the many horizons people come from, the discourse here, on this site, on this subject, has been overwhelmingly on a high level of civility and reason. Moreover I continue to marvel at how articulate and meticulously documented the people who comment here are.
Thank you NativeCanadian.
I am also waiting for responses from Thomas Mulcair, Nathan Cullen and Murray Rankin.
@ NativeCanadian
I hope some of those photos of you in your new tee shirt make it into publication. Did they ask you to explain more about your (our) cause? Your boldness is an inspiration to all of us. Would this be the Mulcair appearance (then disappearance) you were at? I noted he used one of Paul Craig Robert’s favourite words — “insouciance”.
http://www.lfpress.com/2015/08/26/ndp-leader-tom-mulcair-pledges-innovation-tax-credit-at-london-campaign-stop
@Embee At 1:27mins into the video, the bald man with the striped multicolour tie is Fred Sinclair, my NDP candidate. At 1:02, the grey haired man on the right side of the screen was Mulcair’s spokesman who I talked with along with Fred Sinclair.
@ NativeCanadian
Thanks, I’ll play it again. Putting faces to names is helpful.
@NorthernShrike
There are people are there who affiliated with the political left(NDP and Liberal) in Canada who don’t like “us” for the lack of better term i.e. they support FATCA, Citizenship Based Taxation, and more broadly Obama’s economic agenda. I would say though that they tend to be a rather small group and they are definitely reluctant to get into a direct fight with “us.” Having said that if come October we have a Liberal, NDP or some combination of both government some of these tensions might break out. I happen to know from pretty good sources that at least some people in Canada have actually directly complained to Murray Rankin and Nathan Cullen on the anti FATCA stances. Having said that again this is a relatively small group of people
The more broader point is FATCA and CBT split both the political right and political left and most politicians on either right or left don’t really like issues that split their political coalition’s right down the middle. I will also add among the American political left there has always been a certain amount of dislike of those who left the US during the Vietnam era(especially those who never came back post Vietnam) that is surprisingly cloaked often in very “progressive” political terms.
I guess a lot of this has to do with what your view is of the relationship between individual and state.