94 thoughts on “Dear Valued Customer, Indicators Found: Your Place of Birth is the United States”
@iota
I don’t know how many Americans live in the UK, but there are about a million of us in Canada. That means roughly one in seven of Canadians is directly affected by FATCA, which is why this subject gets so much attention in the Canadian media. I can’t speak to how much coverage FATCA gets in the UK, but there is no way you can live in Canada and not be aware of this issue.
iota re: “Sorry, WTF, I’m afraid I don’t agree with you.
I’m not violating anybody’s human rights. Also not beating anybody up, or colluding with any beatings.”
I never suggested that you, iota, are personally “violating anybody’s human rights”, or are “colluding with any beatings”. I was referring to the Cdn and American governments – they are the abusers and colluders(a word?) here.
However, for someone, such as yourself to agree that it is OK for a government (or individual) to abuse others based on an argument that the abused agreed to the abuse, is not OK and does not fall under the realm of opinion. It is an attitude that condones abuse by its tacit acceptance of it (especially when one has found ones own out or is not personally affected). Much like the CCLA is doing now with its silence in response to our pleas.
@Wtf “However, for someone, such as yourself to agree that it is OK for a government (or individual) to abuse others based on an argument that the abused agreed to the abuse, is not OK and does not fall under the realm of opinion. It is an attitude that condones abuse by its tacit acceptance of it (especially when one has found ones own out or is not personally affected). Much like the CCLA is doing now with its silence in response to our pleas.”
You don’t think Americans abroad are entitled to decide not to renounce?
@iota,
Do you agree that birth place taxation is a human rights violation?
If so, is it a stretch to then agree that is morally wrong for Canada to facilitate a human rights violation against resident Canadians by the government of another country?
Does the fact that these Canadians may have ‘agreed’ (a difficult fact to deduce with certainty in most cases to begin with as many have felt they have little choice) to the human rights abuse, make it morally justifiable for Canada to assist the foreign government to abuse these Canadians?
@iota, “You don’t think Americans abroad are entitled to decide not to renounce?”
I give up.
@Westcoaster – “I don’t know how many Americans live in the UK, but there are about a million of us in Canada. That means roughly one in seven of Canadians is directly affected by FATCA, which is why this subject gets so much attention in the Canadian media. I can’t speak to how much coverage FATCA gets in the UK, but there is no way you can live in Canada and not be aware of this issue.”
I think that you aren’t aware of your own ignorance.
@iota
You seem intent on misconstruing every word that comes out of my mouth, so I’m going to opt out of this discussion since we’re going in circles.
@Westcoaster, there really hasn’t been that much media coverage. And often the details as reported are muddy or even incorrect or insufficiently explained. Just skimming, it would be easy not to ever see FATCA explained, or US extraterritorial tax twinned with citizenship or the FBAR.
Referring to us as ‘Americans in Canada’ (as the Conservatives and FATCA supporters in Canada like to do) makes those born Canadian, and living in Canada think it refers only to Americans recently relocated to Canada – and not even duals per se. People continue to look at me like I’ve got two heads when I try to explain. And generally, if one was born in Canada, even if one technically might have some potential claim for another citizenship, nothing important or is contingent on one pursuing it to find out what significance it might or might not have. I don’t know anyone else worried about a potential NON-Canadian additional citizenship. The rules re inheriting via US parentage are not straightforward, or logical. Nothing intuitive in that either.
Referring to ‘offshore’ and ‘foreign’ accounts in the media, and even in Parliament, or in statements by the IRS misleads readers – who then think of the Caymans or Switzerland, not Canada. They don’t get that it is our ordinary legal local Canadian accounts because – as many of us thought too – our accounts are NOT offshore, NOT foreign – except by counter-intuitive, irrational, obscure parts of another country’s tax code. If we are local and our accounts are local and our income is local, then how would anyone understand how they are also OFFSHORE according not to the tax system where we live and which has first jurisdiction, but according to a government which IS OFFSHORE to us.
People used to how the majority of the world’s taxation systems based on ACTUAL residency and ACTUAL site of assets – would assume that US taxes imposed on people living in Canada would involve US sited assets like US property held by Canadians (ex. snowbirds and people retiring to Arizona gated communities). And the US muddies the waters by referring to ‘tax residency’ that includes citizenship – and making it synonymous with a fictive imaginary US residency – which isn’t intuitive or logical. Residency means ‘where I live’, not where was I or my parents born.
Many of the media articles were published only online and never appeared in print editions. Several of them are no longer accessible unless we archived them. Others we find only because we’re searching for them.
Lots of people don’t even read the news. Or the business pages where the FATCA articles appeared in terms of their impact on banks.
I think you overestimate people’s awareness and access to even what does exist. I’ve been combing the media since I first started to hear about this – by accident – because I was in a car listening to CBC and caught the very end of a program in the fall of 2011 (to my lasting regret). Even now, I really have to look for things other than internal banking industry or business coverage online.
One of the biggest problems for IBS and Maple Sandbox has been to get media coverage and raise awareness of FATCA.
Now skim the headlines to see who they describe.
Which ‘individuals’ appear to be affected? It is really not that obvious.
Wtf – ”
Do you agree that birth place taxation is a human rights violation?”
If so, is it a stretch to then agree that is morally wrong for Canada to facilitate a human rights violation against resident Canadians by the government of another country?”
Does the fact that these Canadians may have ‘agreed’ (a difficult fact to deduce with certainty in most cases to begin with as many have felt they have little choice) to the human rights abuse, make it morally justifiable for Canada to assist the foreign government to abuse these Canadians?”
1. I think a US citizen who is aware of the US tax obligations, and understands the obligations, and nevertheless wants to remain a US citizen, is perfectly entitled to retain their US citizenship and accept the US tax obligations.
2. I think that if a US citizen does make that decision, they’re accepting that the IRS will be privy to their financial information.
3. I don’t agree that they’re being abused.
Who really cares whether at this point every US person living in Canada is aware of USA’s counterintuitive CBT or not? Abuse is abuse is abuse. End of story. However, the reality is that many (I would argue most)of us had NO CLUE until the FATCA hunt, and quite possibly many are still in the dark despite media reports because they either don’t read them or shut off when they hear that this is about ‘Americans living in Canada’ or ‘tax cheats’ or ‘fat cats’ and since they don’t consider themselves as such, think it doesn’t apply to them. Some have known about CBT all along and grudgingly or happily filed all their returns when due, but were clueless about the FBARS. Some have recently become compliant as a result of the FATCA hunt – some out of a sense of obligation, some out of fear with the aim of renouncing the ball and chain.
It doesn’t matter the how’s, when’s or why’s someone became aware(or not) of CBT and FATCA. Both the US and Canada are abusing Canadians with US person status – not an opinon, a statement of reality.
@WTF?
I agree.
@ WTF? “It doesn’t matter the how’s, when’s or why’s someone became aware(or not) of CBT and FATCA. Both the US and Canada are abusing Canadians with US person status – not an opinon, a statement of reality.”
I agree and in Trudeauesque fashion I say, “A bad law is a bad law is a bad law.” Complying with a bad law because one feels forced to do so does not make that bad law right or even a tad more acceptable. In fact, the force involved to bring about this compliance merely enhances the badness of the bad law.
@iota, my last comment was made prior to your response to my 3 questions.
In response to your response to my 3 questions.
1. You did not answer my first question. To rephrase, I asked you whether or not taxation – where place of birth is parlayed as sufficient justification for said taxation (and associated life control) – is human rights abuse?
2. You did not answer my second question either. But I guess you cannot really, since you would have had to have agreed with number one (i.e. that CBT is a human rights violation), in order to take the next step toward understanding that a facilitator of abuse is also behaving abusively.
3. You wrote: “I don’t agree that they’re being abused. ”
Ah…that explains it.
@Badger and Embee,
We should not even have to debate whether or not CBT is abuse and Canada is facilitating an abuser. It blows my mind that it is not obvious to some. And worse, that eventhose who get it, but don’t want to for their own selfish reasons, will support those who insist we are not being abused.
@badger
Having been born in the US, I’ve always known I had American citizenship even though I never lived in the US or had any US ties. I do realize that there are some who were born and raised in Canada, who might not have realized they inherited US citizenship from their parent(s). That said, I think there has been growing awareness over the last few years. As Baby Elle’s parents found out, it’s no longer possible to even open a bank account without being questioned about US ties.
Over the past five years I’ve seen stories about FATCA on the front pages of newspapers, discussed on the radio, talked about at work, front and centre on the CBC and other Canadian websites. It also makes the news when public figures like Tina Turner, Boris Johnson, one of the Facebook co-founders, etc. expatriate.
I do however agree with you that the coverage hasn’t been all that informative; the stories are often inaccurate and biased, skipping key facts and making us all look like tax evaders. However, I stand by assertion that there has been quite a lot of media attention in Canada. (Or I guess I hang out with people who keep up with current events? Is that really so unusual to be informed about what’s going on at home and abroad? If so, that’s an even bigger issue than US CBT.)
The bottom line is that I believe it’s unfair, especially for those who cannot break free of the US. It’s a terrible injustice, but I don’t think ignorance is as widespread as you believe. I think a lot of people realize they have filing obligations, but are in denial. Or are too stubborn to deal with it, as a matter of principle. Or simply can’t meet their legal obligations for whatever reason.
As I’ve said before, I’m not defending US CBT. I also understand that some people cannot make a clean break for whatever reason. My only point is that having official ties to the US means the countries we call home will share our financial data with the States. I don’t like it, but I accept that this is legal.
@WTF – No, I don’t agree that a US citizen who chooses to retain their US citizenship knowing and understanding the rights and obligations involced is being abused, or suffering a violation of their human rights, or guilty of collusion in abuse, or guilty of collusion in the violation of their human rights or others’ human rights. Does that cover it?
Actually, I’ll go even one further. The US person in Canada who chooses to remain a USC is actually abusing all of Canada, as they know their selfish choices will be a burden upon the Canadian treasury. Do we really want someone like that here?
Unfortunately, the fact that my wife doesn’t want to commit financial suicide even though she recently (relatively) found out about what some people of skewed logic call her “obligations” to a parasitic neighbour, does not for a second mean that she has any desire to maintain her obviously unwanted citizenship to that regime.
Fortunately for them, my British, Irish, Dutch German neigbours etc. don’t seem to have these worries. Gee. I wonder why.
On another funny note, a cousin of mine who moved here to Canada from Mordor about 3 years ago, and is starting to understand how stupidly the USA is behaving said to me that he thinks the USA should pay HIM to renounce, as that will free them from future pension liabilities (true or not).
@WestCoaster
“Not really. Now when the bank (or anyone else) asks me to prove I’m not American, I can.”
Precisely, you vividly prove my point. Why be asked to begin with? I am not in America but a resident and citizen of X, paying my taxes in X, working for this company in X.
CBT is an anachronism; a globalised world no longer practices this form of taxation (except an African dictatorship). It is not for so-called US Persons to comply with an anachronism but for the American government to comply with global standards, whether they like it or not.
“Do we really want someone like that here?”
Evidently not. That’s fair enough, I’m off.
@Duality
I’ve stated over and over again that I believe that US CBT is unreasonable and unfair. However, it is what it is. If you want to act like you’re above the law, that’s certainly your prerogative, but don’t judge those of us who choose otherwise.
@Duality
I should restate that. Instead of “don’t judge those of us who choose otherwise” I should say “please accept that some of us choose otherwise.”
Brock was a better place (IMHO) when we put the blame where the blame belongs — one overreaching, hegemonic gov’t and one submissive, insensitive gov’t which chose to walk lockstep with its financial institutions which were fearful of sanction and its compliance industry which profits from the plight of its FATCA’d clients. Canada used to be a better place (maybe it wasn’t really but it seemed to be) but experiencing just a fraction of the unfair treatment that our indigenous population has suffered makes me long for some place kinder, fairer, freer and a helluva lot more rational.
I agree, iota. No reasonable person should be expected to know about CBT, because no reasonable country subjects its citizens to it. Even unreasonable countries don’t. And your comment about Streamlined is one I’ve been saying for awhile – in spite of IRS Commissioner Koskinen’s ridiculous warning that Streamlined will end soon because everyone should know about CBT by now.
The problem with WestCoaster’s argument is there are some people that CAN’T renounce U.S. citizenship – namely minors and some mentally challenged people. Plus the unreasonable fee for doing so.
Now I might agree if it were a U.S. citizen continuing to exercise the rights with having that citizenship (e.g. voting in U.S. elections, traveling on a U.S. passport to other countries, etc.) – but I do not agree that someone who acquired their U.S. citizenship involuntarily and has no intentions on utilizing it should be subject to CBT regardless (unless they make it free and don’t screen based on mental ability to renounce).
@iota
I don’t know how many Americans live in the UK, but there are about a million of us in Canada. That means roughly one in seven of Canadians is directly affected by FATCA, which is why this subject gets so much attention in the Canadian media. I can’t speak to how much coverage FATCA gets in the UK, but there is no way you can live in Canada and not be aware of this issue.
iota re: “Sorry, WTF, I’m afraid I don’t agree with you.
I’m not violating anybody’s human rights. Also not beating anybody up, or colluding with any beatings.”
I never suggested that you, iota, are personally “violating anybody’s human rights”, or are “colluding with any beatings”. I was referring to the Cdn and American governments – they are the abusers and colluders(a word?) here.
However, for someone, such as yourself to agree that it is OK for a government (or individual) to abuse others based on an argument that the abused agreed to the abuse, is not OK and does not fall under the realm of opinion. It is an attitude that condones abuse by its tacit acceptance of it (especially when one has found ones own out or is not personally affected). Much like the CCLA is doing now with its silence in response to our pleas.
@Wtf “However, for someone, such as yourself to agree that it is OK for a government (or individual) to abuse others based on an argument that the abused agreed to the abuse, is not OK and does not fall under the realm of opinion. It is an attitude that condones abuse by its tacit acceptance of it (especially when one has found ones own out or is not personally affected). Much like the CCLA is doing now with its silence in response to our pleas.”
You don’t think Americans abroad are entitled to decide not to renounce?
@iota,
Do you agree that birth place taxation is a human rights violation?
If so, is it a stretch to then agree that is morally wrong for Canada to facilitate a human rights violation against resident Canadians by the government of another country?
Does the fact that these Canadians may have ‘agreed’ (a difficult fact to deduce with certainty in most cases to begin with as many have felt they have little choice) to the human rights abuse, make it morally justifiable for Canada to assist the foreign government to abuse these Canadians?
@iota, “You don’t think Americans abroad are entitled to decide not to renounce?”
I give up.
@Westcoaster – “I don’t know how many Americans live in the UK, but there are about a million of us in Canada. That means roughly one in seven of Canadians is directly affected by FATCA, which is why this subject gets so much attention in the Canadian media. I can’t speak to how much coverage FATCA gets in the UK, but there is no way you can live in Canada and not be aware of this issue.”
I think that you aren’t aware of your own ignorance.
@iota
You seem intent on misconstruing every word that comes out of my mouth, so I’m going to opt out of this discussion since we’re going in circles.
@Westcoaster, there really hasn’t been that much media coverage. And often the details as reported are muddy or even incorrect or insufficiently explained. Just skimming, it would be easy not to ever see FATCA explained, or US extraterritorial tax twinned with citizenship or the FBAR.
Referring to us as ‘Americans in Canada’ (as the Conservatives and FATCA supporters in Canada like to do) makes those born Canadian, and living in Canada think it refers only to Americans recently relocated to Canada – and not even duals per se. People continue to look at me like I’ve got two heads when I try to explain. And generally, if one was born in Canada, even if one technically might have some potential claim for another citizenship, nothing important or is contingent on one pursuing it to find out what significance it might or might not have. I don’t know anyone else worried about a potential NON-Canadian additional citizenship. The rules re inheriting via US parentage are not straightforward, or logical. Nothing intuitive in that either.
Referring to ‘offshore’ and ‘foreign’ accounts in the media, and even in Parliament, or in statements by the IRS misleads readers – who then think of the Caymans or Switzerland, not Canada. They don’t get that it is our ordinary legal local Canadian accounts because – as many of us thought too – our accounts are NOT offshore, NOT foreign – except by counter-intuitive, irrational, obscure parts of another country’s tax code. If we are local and our accounts are local and our income is local, then how would anyone understand how they are also OFFSHORE according not to the tax system where we live and which has first jurisdiction, but according to a government which IS OFFSHORE to us.
People used to how the majority of the world’s taxation systems based on ACTUAL residency and ACTUAL site of assets – would assume that US taxes imposed on people living in Canada would involve US sited assets like US property held by Canadians (ex. snowbirds and people retiring to Arizona gated communities). And the US muddies the waters by referring to ‘tax residency’ that includes citizenship – and making it synonymous with a fictive imaginary US residency – which isn’t intuitive or logical. Residency means ‘where I live’, not where was I or my parents born.
Many of the media articles were published only online and never appeared in print editions. Several of them are no longer accessible unless we archived them. Others we find only because we’re searching for them.
Lots of people don’t even read the news. Or the business pages where the FATCA articles appeared in terms of their impact on banks.
I think you overestimate people’s awareness and access to even what does exist. I’ve been combing the media since I first started to hear about this – by accident – because I was in a car listening to CBC and caught the very end of a program in the fall of 2011 (to my lasting regret). Even now, I really have to look for things other than internal banking industry or business coverage online.
One of the biggest problems for IBS and Maple Sandbox has been to get media coverage and raise awareness of FATCA.
Check out that Liberal MP Bob Bratina – former mayor of Hamilton – a large Canadian city in Southern Ontario, and very near one of the busiest of crossings (Niagara) demonstrates that he doesn’t really have a clue about FATCA and US Extraterritorial CBT. See his questions and comments during the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI)
42nd Parliament, 1st Session
Meeting No. 8
Thursday, April 14, 2016, 8:45 a.m. to 10:49 a.m.
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20160414/-1/24805?useragent=Mozilla/5.0%20(Windows%20NT%2010.0;%20WOW64)%20AppleWebKit/537.36%20(KHTML,%20like%20Gecko)%20Chrome/49.0.2623.112%20Safari/537.36
@Westcoaster, try this experiment:
Do this Google search with the AND in capitals as a connector;
FATCA AND Canada
Now, narrow by ‘news’.
7,880 results
Now narrow by country
https://www.google.ca/search?q=fatca+AND+canada&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=kC0ZV-n1JsrmjgTvj4KAAQ#q=fatca+AND+canada&cr=countryCA&tbs=ctr:countryCA&tbm=nws
Remove duplicates.
I ended up with
About 2,340 results
Now skim the headlines to see who they describe.
Which ‘individuals’ appear to be affected? It is really not that obvious.
Wtf – ”
Do you agree that birth place taxation is a human rights violation?”
If so, is it a stretch to then agree that is morally wrong for Canada to facilitate a human rights violation against resident Canadians by the government of another country?”
Does the fact that these Canadians may have ‘agreed’ (a difficult fact to deduce with certainty in most cases to begin with as many have felt they have little choice) to the human rights abuse, make it morally justifiable for Canada to assist the foreign government to abuse these Canadians?”
1. I think a US citizen who is aware of the US tax obligations, and understands the obligations, and nevertheless wants to remain a US citizen, is perfectly entitled to retain their US citizenship and accept the US tax obligations.
2. I think that if a US citizen does make that decision, they’re accepting that the IRS will be privy to their financial information.
3. I don’t agree that they’re being abused.
Who really cares whether at this point every US person living in Canada is aware of USA’s counterintuitive CBT or not? Abuse is abuse is abuse. End of story. However, the reality is that many (I would argue most)of us had NO CLUE until the FATCA hunt, and quite possibly many are still in the dark despite media reports because they either don’t read them or shut off when they hear that this is about ‘Americans living in Canada’ or ‘tax cheats’ or ‘fat cats’ and since they don’t consider themselves as such, think it doesn’t apply to them. Some have known about CBT all along and grudgingly or happily filed all their returns when due, but were clueless about the FBARS. Some have recently become compliant as a result of the FATCA hunt – some out of a sense of obligation, some out of fear with the aim of renouncing the ball and chain.
It doesn’t matter the how’s, when’s or why’s someone became aware(or not) of CBT and FATCA. Both the US and Canada are abusing Canadians with US person status – not an opinon, a statement of reality.
@WTF?
I agree.
@ WTF?
“It doesn’t matter the how’s, when’s or why’s someone became aware(or not) of CBT and FATCA. Both the US and Canada are abusing Canadians with US person status – not an opinon, a statement of reality.”
I agree and in Trudeauesque fashion I say, “A bad law is a bad law is a bad law.” Complying with a bad law because one feels forced to do so does not make that bad law right or even a tad more acceptable. In fact, the force involved to bring about this compliance merely enhances the badness of the bad law.
@iota, my last comment was made prior to your response to my 3 questions.
In response to your response to my 3 questions.
1. You did not answer my first question. To rephrase, I asked you whether or not taxation – where place of birth is parlayed as sufficient justification for said taxation (and associated life control) – is human rights abuse?
2. You did not answer my second question either. But I guess you cannot really, since you would have had to have agreed with number one (i.e. that CBT is a human rights violation), in order to take the next step toward understanding that a facilitator of abuse is also behaving abusively.
3. You wrote: “I don’t agree that they’re being abused. ”
Ah…that explains it.
@Badger and Embee,
We should not even have to debate whether or not CBT is abuse and Canada is facilitating an abuser. It blows my mind that it is not obvious to some. And worse, that eventhose who get it, but don’t want to for their own selfish reasons, will support those who insist we are not being abused.
@badger
Having been born in the US, I’ve always known I had American citizenship even though I never lived in the US or had any US ties. I do realize that there are some who were born and raised in Canada, who might not have realized they inherited US citizenship from their parent(s). That said, I think there has been growing awareness over the last few years. As Baby Elle’s parents found out, it’s no longer possible to even open a bank account without being questioned about US ties.
Over the past five years I’ve seen stories about FATCA on the front pages of newspapers, discussed on the radio, talked about at work, front and centre on the CBC and other Canadian websites. It also makes the news when public figures like Tina Turner, Boris Johnson, one of the Facebook co-founders, etc. expatriate.
I do however agree with you that the coverage hasn’t been all that informative; the stories are often inaccurate and biased, skipping key facts and making us all look like tax evaders. However, I stand by assertion that there has been quite a lot of media attention in Canada. (Or I guess I hang out with people who keep up with current events? Is that really so unusual to be informed about what’s going on at home and abroad? If so, that’s an even bigger issue than US CBT.)
The bottom line is that I believe it’s unfair, especially for those who cannot break free of the US. It’s a terrible injustice, but I don’t think ignorance is as widespread as you believe. I think a lot of people realize they have filing obligations, but are in denial. Or are too stubborn to deal with it, as a matter of principle. Or simply can’t meet their legal obligations for whatever reason.
As I’ve said before, I’m not defending US CBT. I also understand that some people cannot make a clean break for whatever reason. My only point is that having official ties to the US means the countries we call home will share our financial data with the States. I don’t like it, but I accept that this is legal.
@WTF – No, I don’t agree that a US citizen who chooses to retain their US citizenship knowing and understanding the rights and obligations involced is being abused, or suffering a violation of their human rights, or guilty of collusion in abuse, or guilty of collusion in the violation of their human rights or others’ human rights. Does that cover it?
Actually, I’ll go even one further. The US person in Canada who chooses to remain a USC is actually abusing all of Canada, as they know their selfish choices will be a burden upon the Canadian treasury. Do we really want someone like that here?
Unfortunately, the fact that my wife doesn’t want to commit financial suicide even though she recently (relatively) found out about what some people of skewed logic call her “obligations” to a parasitic neighbour, does not for a second mean that she has any desire to maintain her obviously unwanted citizenship to that regime.
Fortunately for them, my British, Irish, Dutch German neigbours etc. don’t seem to have these worries. Gee. I wonder why.
On another funny note, a cousin of mine who moved here to Canada from Mordor about 3 years ago, and is starting to understand how stupidly the USA is behaving said to me that he thinks the USA should pay HIM to renounce, as that will free them from future pension liabilities (true or not).
@WestCoaster
“Not really. Now when the bank (or anyone else) asks me to prove I’m not American, I can.”
Precisely, you vividly prove my point. Why be asked to begin with? I am not in America but a resident and citizen of X, paying my taxes in X, working for this company in X.
CBT is an anachronism; a globalised world no longer practices this form of taxation (except an African dictatorship). It is not for so-called US Persons to comply with an anachronism but for the American government to comply with global standards, whether they like it or not.
“Do we really want someone like that here?”
Evidently not. That’s fair enough, I’m off.
@Duality
I’ve stated over and over again that I believe that US CBT is unreasonable and unfair. However, it is what it is. If you want to act like you’re above the law, that’s certainly your prerogative, but don’t judge those of us who choose otherwise.
@Duality
I should restate that. Instead of “don’t judge those of us who choose otherwise” I should say “please accept that some of us choose otherwise.”
Brock was a better place (IMHO) when we put the blame where the blame belongs — one overreaching, hegemonic gov’t and one submissive, insensitive gov’t which chose to walk lockstep with its financial institutions which were fearful of sanction and its compliance industry which profits from the plight of its FATCA’d clients. Canada used to be a better place (maybe it wasn’t really but it seemed to be) but experiencing just a fraction of the unfair treatment that our indigenous population has suffered makes me long for some place kinder, fairer, freer and a helluva lot more rational.
I agree, iota. No reasonable person should be expected to know about CBT, because no reasonable country subjects its citizens to it. Even unreasonable countries don’t. And your comment about Streamlined is one I’ve been saying for awhile – in spite of IRS Commissioner Koskinen’s ridiculous warning that Streamlined will end soon because everyone should know about CBT by now.
The problem with WestCoaster’s argument is there are some people that CAN’T renounce U.S. citizenship – namely minors and some mentally challenged people. Plus the unreasonable fee for doing so.
Now I might agree if it were a U.S. citizen continuing to exercise the rights with having that citizenship (e.g. voting in U.S. elections, traveling on a U.S. passport to other countries, etc.) – but I do not agree that someone who acquired their U.S. citizenship involuntarily and has no intentions on utilizing it should be subject to CBT regardless (unless they make it free and don’t screen based on mental ability to renounce).