March 8, 2016 UPDATE: Legal fees paid — on to Federal Court for Charter trial contesting Canadian FATCA IGA legislation.
Canadians and International Supporters:
You came through once again: $594,970 for legal costs have now been donated and our outstanding legal bill is finally paid off.
Thanks especially to those who donated even though they never had any “spare” money to give, and despite this gave over and over and over again.
This last round of fundraising also shows that our Canadian lawsuit remains dependent on the kindness of our International Friends: There would be no lawsuit without their financial help.
Know that a very generous donation (today) from a supporter in the United States made it possible to pay off the remaining legal debt. Also please appreciate that there would be no lawsuit without the help of the Isaac Brock Society which has kindly let us use its website to solicit funds.
Our next step is the Constitutional-Charter trial in Federal Court.
For this we need more Canadian Witnesses, and my next post will be devoted only to a request for Witnesses willing to go public, like our Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen.
For the future: I want a win in Federal Court — and I want the new Liberal Government not to appeal that win.
Thank you all for your support,
Stephen Kish,
for the Directors,
Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty
Mock Harper for copping the attitude that “Congress has spoken.”
Truth is, though, that Congress HAS spoken. If a bank has operations in the U.S.A. then they will be forced to comply with FATCA, a U.S.A. law, or face the U.S.A. tax there. Streamline the AML/KYC regulations so corporations around the world can easily open accounts in Canada instead. They can do business in Canadian dollars, boosting the reserve currency status of the Canadian dollar.
Hey, look…the Banana Republic of Lower Bongo Bongo officially chartered XYZ Corporation, and confirms the names of the treasurer and CFO and the address. The bank then mails the account documents there and confirms that they are doing business with XYZ Corporation. Only a natural person can visit Canada and produce identification, so there is no need for that.
As for transactions in U.S. dollars, they could even open a correspondent bank relationship with a bank in Zimbabwe that has not registered with I.R.S. There is no I.G.A. with Zimbabwe and the U.S. dollar is the official currency there. The cheques will still clear through the central bank, which is exempt from FATCA as a governmental institution. See
http://non-fatca-banks.com/zw.html
George says
October 18, 2015 at 2:35 pm
But the reality in the treaty languages is that if the US assess tax/penalty, a Canadian Citizen can say pound sand. The CRA will NOT assist in the collection against against a Canadian Citizen. Same treatment with Denmark and their respective treaty.
…I can forsee a lot of nasty family blowouts where somebody refuses to board a flight to attend a wedding or funeral and won’t say why. The flight passes over U.S.A. and might be required to make an emergency landing. The Canadian does not wish to explain this.
I’m not going, period.
It is extremely rude to threaten to file for divorce if your opponent does not shut up. So rude, that some victims do not realize that it is even worse to hurt your opponent physically. The first is perfectly legal whilst the second is criminally illegal. If it’s time to break bones, it’s time to break up.
I’m not going because I am the one who decides whether I will go, and I have chosen not to go.
It will get as nasty as the bully who tries to get a classmate stoned when the answer is no, and the classmate insists on saying NO to drugs. It will get as nasty as the guy who desperately wants a special treat from his date when the answer is NO. (“Just give me one good reason why not.”)
“Why don’t you want to talk about it?”
The only reason anybody would ask a question like that is just to provoke. The question acknowledges that the victim does not want to talk about it but solicits the victim to talk about it anyway.
In the olden days, a king would bring his army to the gates of a foreign city and demand that the citizens bring out their silver and gold. Of course, Stephen Harper just let Obama come and take without first laying siege to our country.
Stephen Harper just went and gave Obama the data.
But when it comes to the actual gold and silver, it was the individual Canadian citizens who just handed it over through participation in programs like OVDI, etc. without so much as a request or demand from anyone with the possible exception of the compliance industry.
You’ve really got to wonder who died and made Roy Berg king.
@Dash1729
“But when it comes to the actual gold and silver, it was the individual Canadian citizens who just handed it over through participation in programs like OVDI, etc. without so much as a request or demand from anyone with the possible exception of the compliance industry.”
Maybe without request or demand, but certainly under threat of confiscation and penalty.
@bubblebustin
Well if there were threats it only came from the likes of Roy Berg. Not directly from either government. I still remember the conference room they gave Roy at the summary trial. The conference room looked like a rat cage! But I can see where the misunderstanding arose! Roy looks like a rat! Stop taking your cues from the likes of rats like Roy!
Regarding today’s border-crossing story, I have to say that most of the individuals I have encountered who are in charge of enforcing this stuff are pretty decent and understanding (a few notable exceptions notwithstanding). By and large it is not their fault, it is the system’s.
@Dash1729 – the real threat came from Congress and President Obama … do what we tell you regardless else we steal 30% of all your money.
@Dash
“…the people of Alberta are extremely fortunate not to have rats. This is not by chance but by design. For the past four decades, Alberta has had a program to keep rats out of the province.”
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex3441
Alberta Agriculture should take action about Roy Berg living in Calgary.
@ foo
What is “today’s border-crossing story”. Where do I find that?
@Dash
You’ve perhaps already forgotten the infamous words of IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman back in 2011:
“As I’ve said all along, the goal is to get people back into the U.S. tax system,” Shulman said. “Combating international tax evasion is a top priority for the IRS. We have additional cases and banks under review. The situation will just get worse in the months ahead for those hiding assets and income offshore. This new disclosure initiative is the last, best chance for people to get back into the system.”
https://www.irs.gov/uac/Second-Special-Voluntary-Disclosure-Initiative-Opens%3B-Those-Hiding-Assets-Offshore-Face-Aug.-31-deadline
In the words of the NTA herself, many benign actors were being pushed by the IRS and it’s commissioner to enter voluntary disclosure programs, believing they had no other option:
“The memo further explains that “the OVDP penalty structure assumes all participants are tax evaders hiding money overseas, when in fact, the IRS steered many people into the program who made honest mistakes.”
Many participants in the OVDP program have been Americans living overseas who had no idea they had to make a tax declaration to the United States, which is the only country in the world (besides renegade Eritrea) which taxes on the basis of citizenship instead of residence. In her Memorandum, Olson further wrote of the OVDP, “a more effective initiative would have prompted even more taxpayers to come into compliance without leaving those who did come forward feeling terrified, tricked, or cheated.” ”
https://americansabroad.org/files/1413/3589/7842/prweb006.pdf
EmBee — it
iswas (I believe) in Stephen’s update for today in the body of the post. Looks like it has been updated over that.Stephen told about an account he got from someone regarding a crossing from Canada into the US, the border guard asking the person with the *US birthplace* if he had ever thought of going into a US Consulate and renouncing. A question about having paid taxes and a reply that yes, he had paid his taxes and that was why he had just renounced, producing his receipt as evidence. The border guard looked at it and exclaimed something like Wow, that was a huge amount of money paid for that. An awakening of what was going on for the US border guard and then the usual, have a good trip, etc.
One moral of the story — always carry that hefty receipt until you receive and then copy your CLN to accompany your Canadian passport for any future crossings. Border guards are often and can be human!
It would be nice if Stephen would leave the Anecdotes like the Border Crossing Story somewhere that folks can reference rather than losing them as the main post is updated.
@ calgary411
Ah, thanks! Interesting story.
EmBee, here it is — an email sent to me today about a border crossing. Posted with permission, and I have removed some disclosing details:
“I just wanted to share a funny experience my [relative] had on her way to [The U.S.] Upon seeing my [relative’s] US place of birth in her Canadian passport, the US custom’s officer asked, “Do you have a US passport?”
– No
– Have you ever had one?
– Yes, but a very, very long time ago.
He then asked my [relative], “Can I ask you something?”
– Yes.
– Have you ever thought about just walking into a US consulate and renouncing?
(WOW)
– I actually did last [week].
– Really? Do have proof of that?
She then explained that she only had the receipt and he asked to see it. He said, “Oh my God! That’s a lot of money!”
He even asked if she had been paying her taxes!
Yes, she said, and that’s one of the reasons why I renounced.
She explained about being Canadian, not planning on moving to US, it being illegal to invest in certain retirement funds…
And he wished her a nice trip.
Aside from the “Had you been paying your taxes,” that whole conversation was pretty unexpected!
[XXXXX]”
@Stephen, the sociopathic Police State engages all levels of government as tax collectors.
@Calgary @S Kish, “producing his receipt as evidence. The border guard looked at it and exclaimed something like Wow, that was a huge amount of money paid for that.”
That CLN…….its worth two ounces of gold.
Two one ounce gold bars……
It really is based on the current price.
@Petros, but we also need to be the salt and light on these matters.
@all,
I work for the government and am looking at a promotion that involves some banking related tasks. At this stage I will have to verify the incoming credits and deposit them in the bank.
Would there be any FBAR requirement?
Would there be an FBAR requirement if I could approve spending of the government money on government projects?
Any advice appreciated
Welcome bee!
So you are a USA/CND dual citizen (or possibly a PR of Canada, not a citizen yet) reporting annually to the IRS and your CND government promotion would give you signing authority on that department’s bank account. Correct? If so I would have to say, yes, the IRS (form 8938) and FinCEN (form FinCEN114, formerly FBAR) expect you to report the details of that bank account. BTW your CND government job is grounds for applying for a relinquishment of US citizenship … should you choose to do so.
If someone here is aware of an exception for government accounts please respond.
“am looking at a promotion”
Does a voluntarily accepted promotion qualify as taking employment?
If bee accepts the promotion with the intention to relinquish US citizenship, is relinquishment accomplished?
A CLN will still cost 2 ounces of gold, but the relinquishment should be enough to stop the FBAR requirement.
So now Canadian lawyers are being given advice in Canada about complying with their own or an employees’ FBAR obligations?
See:
http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/docs/bulletin/BB_2015-03-Fall.pdf
See
Page 13 and Page 14 of;
FALL 2015 • BENCHERS’ BULLETIN 13
PRACTICE
“An FBAR must be filed by any US citizen
or green card holder or other US resident
(“US persons”) with a financial interest
in or signature authority over non-US
financial accounts where the funds in the
accounts together total USD$10,000
or more. This includes a lawyer’s trust
account.
Are you or any of your employees
US citizens?
IF YOU OR any of your partners or employ-
ees are US citizens, and you or such partners
or employees have a financial interest in
or signature authority over trust accounts,
you should be aware of the US govern-
ment’s Report of Foreign Bank and Financial
Accounts (FBAR) requirements.
An FBAR must be filed by any US citi-
zen or green card holder or other US resi-
dent (“US persons”) with a financial inter-
est in or signature authority over non-US
financial accounts where the funds in the
accounts together total USD$10,000 or
more. This includes a lawyer’s trust ac-
count. BC lawyers who are US persons,
or law firms whose signing authorities for
trust accounts include US persons, should
be aware of the requirements and ensure
that any FBAR in respect of their trust ac-
count is filled out correctly. Most impor-
tantly, it is necessary to ensure that no
confidential information about clients is
disclosed. Generally, a lawyer must not
disclose having been retained by a per-
son about a particular matter and should
therefore ensure such information is not
included in an FBAR (BC Code s. 3.3).
1. US persons with a financial inter-
est in the trust account
The FBAR regulations provide that
the owner of record or holder of legal
title of an account is deemed to have
a financial interest in that account. As
such, a BC lawyer who is a US person
who holds legal title on a trust ac-
count is required to follow filing re-
quirements for an individual with a
financial interest. If the trust account
is in the name of a partnership, a US
person who is a partner has a financial
interest in that account if he or she
directly or indirectly controls either 50
per cent or more of the profits or 50
per cent or more of the capital in the
partnership. If the trust account is in
the name of a law corporation, a US
person has a financial interest in that
account if he or she owns 50 per cent
or more of the total value of the shares
or 50 per cent or more of the voting
power of all the shares in the corpora-
tion.
If an individual has a financial interest
in 25 or more non-US accounts, he or
she is required to fill out Part I of the
FBAR form (Form 114), which relates
to personal information, and should
maintain records of the information
normally included in Part II of Form
114, which relates to account infor-
mation. If an individual has a financial
interest in fewer than 25 non-US ac-
counts, Part II should be completed.
Note that “account information” does
not include the names of beneficiaries
to the trust, i.e. does not include a
lawyer’s client names.
2. US persons who have signature
authority over a trust account
US persons with signature authority
over a trust account have different fil-
ing requirements. Any person who has
authority (alone or in conjunction with
another individual) to control funds
or other assets in a financial account
by direct communication (whether in
writing or otherwise) with the person
maintaining the account has signature
authority over that account.
A US person with signature authority
but no financial interest in 25 or more
non-US accounts is required to fill out …….”
“This includes a lawyer’s trust account.”
I’ve read stuff like that elsewhere. It looks to me like BC Law Society is explaining without giving an opinion, which seems reasonable.
I “trust” that any Canadian who needs to retain a lawyer will ask the lawyer if the lawyer is a US person or employs a US person or has any other such taint. Also any Canadian lawyer who considers hiring an employee will have to ask if the employee is a US person. Hey, maybe lawyers will find incentive to teach the Liberals something.
@all,
I concern here is if a government employee would have to report the government accounts.
The government employee has signature authority but no financial interest in the government accounts. Should the employee report the accounts?
I think with FATCA IGA government accounts are not reportable by the banks.
Any suggestions
bee, it looks like you’re safe.
https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Report-of-Foreign-Bank-and-Financial-Accounts-FBAR
“Exceptions to the Reporting Requirement”
“•Foreign financial accounts owned by a governmental entity”
Furthermore, you seem to be safe from Form 8938.
https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Comparison-of-Form-8938-and-FBAR-Requirements
“When do you have an interest in an account or asset?”
Form 8938 doesn’t include signature authority. Only FinCEN Form 114 (FBAR) includes signature authority.
@Bee, @Norman is usually a good source of information but he made an error on this one.
The IRS instructions indicate that you are safe BUT the IRS instructions link you to FINCEN; a Government Entity ONLY includes Government Entities of the USA.
Sorry……