“DOING NOTHING” WAS NEVER AN OPTION. TODAY THIS POEM OF DRYDEN COMES TO MIND:
“Fight on, my men,” says Sir Andrew Barton,
“I am hurt, but I am not slain;
I’ll lay me down and bleed a while,
And then I’ll rise and fight again…”
“Fight on my men,” says Sir Andrew Barton,
“These [English dogs] they bite so low;
Fight on for Scotland and Saint Andrew
Till you hear my whistle blow!”
[Republican Overseas motion for preliminary FATCA injunction denied (September 29) by Thomas Rose, U.S. District Court Judge in Ohio. Here is the link to the decision.
— Win or lose our Canadian injunction, we will do as George says: “…get straight on to the Charter challenge.”]
This is the affidavit of Sue Murray, which is part of the submission of Government of Canada in response to our request for a delay in the banking information turnover. Go to this link which contains this and other affidavits.
Canada claims that a delay is not possible given the specifics of the IRS regulation.
Also, it appears that about 155,000 bits of private banking information are waiting to be turned over to a foreign country.
Here is her affidavit:
I, Sue Murray, of the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, SWEAR THAT:
1. I am the Director, Competent Authority Services Division, International and Large Business Directorate, Compliance Programs Brancl1 (“CPB”), Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”), and as such have personal knowledge of the matters deposed to in this affidavit, except where they are stated to be based on information and belief, in which case I believe them to be true.
Discussions with the IRS
2. Subsequent to the hearing of the summary trial (which took place August 4-5, 2015), on August 27, 2015 there was a call between representatives of the CRA (myself, Richard Montroy, Assistant Commissioner, CPB, and Ted Gallivan, Deputy 000059 2- Assistant Commissioner, CPB) and Douglas O’Donnell, Commissioner-Large Business and International Division, of the US Internal Revenue Service (“JRS”).
During that call the issue of a possible injunction application in this case was raised with Mr. 0′ Donnell. There was general discussion ·of the impacts of such an injunction. Although no definitive answer was provided, it appeared that it would be very unlikely that the IRS would be willing to grant Canada an extension of time to provide information to the IRS in order to avoid an injunction application.
3. On the afternoon of September 18, 2015, the IRS issued a notice, attached as 1::-;hibit ‘ A’ (the «Notice”), in which they indicated on pages 18 and 19 that they would consider granting extensions of time to certain jurisdictions to comply with reporting requirements under an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) related the US FATCA provisions. Specifically, the portion of the Notice that could be applicable to Canada is that pertaining to B. Model 1 IGAs for which the Obligation to Exchange is
4. Mr. Montroy again requested a call with Mr. O’Donnell. When the call occurred, on September 21, 2015, after the appellants had withdrawn their request for an injunction hearing, Mr. Montroy was not available, but a number of CRA representatives, including me and Lisa Anawati, Director General, International and Large Business Directorate (ILBD), CPB participated in the call. The CRA representatives informed Mr. O’Donnell of the outcome of the summary trial application in this case, and that an appeal would be filed, and sought clarification from Mr. O’Donnell on the application oftbe Notice to Canada. Mr. O’Donnell made clear that the Notice did not pertain to Canada’s circumstances and that the U.S. continued to expect that Canada would comply with its obligation to provide its information by September 30,2015.
5. On September 23, 20J 5, after the appellants indicated that they would once again be moving forward with an injunction application, [sought clarification from the IRS 000060 – 3 – regarding whether they would grant an extension of time to provide the information if the appellants were successful in obtaining an injunction.
6. On September 24, 2015, there was a call between representatives of the CRA (myself, Mr. Montroy and Ms. Anawati) and Mr. O’Donnell. During that call it was confirmed that the US was not prepared to grant an extension because the Canadian situation is not covered by the Notice criteria, as the legislation and systems are in place to be able to effect exchange. Given that the Notice does not contemplate such an exception, this was the US position even if Canada is subject to a Court ordered injunction. In addition, Mr. O’Donnell confirmed that the exchange is anticipated to be reciprocal [!] and should Canada be prohibited from delivering its information, the US would not provide theirs.
Change in transmission date 7.
Under the IGA there is an obligation to exchange information by September 30, 2015. Leading up to the summary trial hearing we were asked to advise when the transmission would actually take place and we estimated that it would occur sometime within the September 15 – 30, 2015 time period, in order to allow for technical difficulties that may arise once transmissions began. When, after the hearing of the summary trial, we were asked to advise the court exactly when transmission would start, we determined that September 23, 2015 would be the probable date. However, just prior to September 23, 2015 we realized that we would need more time to make the appropriate arrangements for transmission. In recognition of the need to again provide a date before the September 30, 2015 deadline, and to avoid having to change the date again, we decided that transmission will not take place before September 29, 20:15 and will instead take place either the 29th or 30th of September. 00061
Information to be sent to the IRS
8. I have reviewed tbe information which has been provided by Canadian financial institutions and is to be sent to the IRS. The package consists of approximately 155,000 information slips. Each slip represents one account and one account holder.An account holder can be either an individual or a corporate entity. There are instances where a single individual or entity holds multiple accounts. Allbaugh unable to provide a precise number, I can say that the number of individuals represented by the 155,000 information slips is less than 155,000.
lJ. Based on my review of the information slips I can confirm that there are no information slips in relation to either of the appellants in this proceeding. I have reviewed the appellants’ notice of application and note that the injunction they seek in paragraph 1 applies to any information to be sent under the Canada-United States 1:·11/wnced Tax !Hformation Exchange Agreement Implementation ct, being s.99 and Schedule 3 of the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act~ S.C. 2014, c.20. However they also state in their notice of application that they are only seeking an injunction in relation to a “subclass” of information. I have reviewed the remedy sought by the appellants’ in their summary trial application, on the assumption that this is the relief being sought in paragraph 68 of their notice of application, and note that the CRA is not generally in possession of information which would permit it to sort the information slips provided by financial institutions to narrow them to a subclass of information.
Impacts of an Injunction
W. If the CRA is unable, due to an injunction, to transmit the required information to the IRS, and no extension of time is granted by the IRS, Canadian financial institutions will risk losing the benefit of the deemed FATCA compliance that they would otherwise obtain through the IGA. ln particular, as of October 1, 2015, if the 000062 – 5 – ·000063 information has not been received by the IRS and no extension of lime has bct.:n granted, it is possible that the Canadian Financial Institutions could be considered noncompliant.
II . The lGA not only requires the CRA to provide information to the IRS , but for the JRS to provide information to the CRA If an injunction is granted and the CRA is not able to meet its commitments under the lOA, the IRS will not provide CRA with the information it has committed to provide. This would have a detrimental impact on CRA ‘s tax compliance work. The information to be provided by the IRS is helpful to tax compliance work in Canada because it would quickly and easily permit the CRA to match financial holdings in the US to specific taxpayers in Canada to, in a timely way, assess their compliance and if necessary commence audit action. As with other information obtained by the CRA, it is compared to that reported on tax returns and where inconsistencies are identified. compliance actions are undertaken and reassessments made.
12. Canada has a long-standing history of exchange of information with many countries, particularly the United Stales and non-compliance with the lGA would have a detrimental effect on our international reputation in this regard.
SWORN before me at the City of Ottawa,
in the Province of Ontario, this 25th clay of
September, 2() IS .