Duke of Devon says,
Mr. Morneau’s letter deserves its’ own post so it won’t get lost. He seems to get it. It will be interesting to keep on his case about the lack of reciprocity. He is the first Lib. to confirm they won’t help collect anything the IRS claims against a Canadian and I think his distinction that CRA-IRS transfer of information cannot legally be used by the IRS to impose FBAR fines is a new commitment. Not so sure the IRS would respect the distinction.
Here is the first reply that any of have gotten from the Finance Minister. Thanks for sharing it, Cheryl.
April 26, 2016 Reply from The Honourable Bill Morneau, P.C., M.P.
Thanks to Cheryl for sharing the first we’ve seen of a real reply to all of our queries from Canada’s Liberal Finance Minister. Duke of Devon requested that it have its own post so not to get lost in the comments.
Yes I guess he gets it but he also gets that I am not worthy of the protection of what I thought was my own government.
Interesting that the letter shows different fonts and colours like it was cut and pasted? What’s that about?
Cheryl,
You’re right in your comment to EmBee — the government will continue to favour the banks over the country’s people, as every other country has done because *The US Congress has spoken*. It is apparent to me our only recourse and way we can stand up for ourselves and what we know is blatant discrimination against one million Canadians and their families, etc., has to be the litigation we have funded as well as litigation against CBT in the US.
Re: *Interesting that the letter shows different fonts and colours like it was cut and pasted? What’s that about?*
I don’t know why the letters come out that way, but I have observed the same in past replies I’ve gotten from the Conservatives so don’t think it is specific to the reply you got (and the one the rest of us will perhaps now receive after all this time).
If every U.S. Person (expats) who is presumed to owe the IRS a tax information return and possibly taxes would have the courage to sent them a post card with a simple phrase,”KISS THE BACK MOST PART OF MY ANATOMY” they would be overwhelmed and probably give up. It costs about 60 thousand dollars a year to keep a citizen in jail and the IRS would never want that expense except to scapegoat a few in order to scare the rest.
I really like your suggestion!!!!
The Honourable Bill Morneau’s sympathy and a few bucks might buy me a coffee at Starbucks.
Someone should ask him what “underlying policy objectives” he’s referring to when he states that the “Canada-U.S. lGA will be subject to ongoing assessment to determine whether it is fulfilling its underlying policy objectives.”
sadly the proponents of FATCA saw it as a tool against money laundering, terrorism; basically another espionage tool. Once the data is in US hands it can be shared with any other US agency; Canadian privacy laws are not applicable in the US
It’s interesting that he keeps referring to “U.S. citizens resident in Canada” … he doesn’t mention that we/many of us are Canadian citizens first. Nor does he mention my Canadian-(only) husband whose joint account is violated…nor my Canadian-born children. He may ‘get it’ … but he keeps defending it.
Cheryl,
Thanks for providing the letter,
As there are statements in the letter that might be of interest to our litigators, I have passed it on to them (without you being identified).
Thanks Stephen. I don’t mind if they know who I am.
The letter is atrocious in my mind especially as I specifically asked him to change finance rules to allow us to protect our RRSPs, TFSAs, RESPs etc from U.S. exit taxes, penalties, taxes etc etc etc like maybe being able to transfer to a spouse or other family member. Just got more obfuscation and a whimper of sympathy.
I disagree with Duke that Morneau “seems to get it.”
The letter addresses the technicalities of FATCA. It says nothing about the very real impact on Canadians.
Once again we are Americans in Canada. We are not “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”
It is clear to me this letter was written by the one of the same government employees who wrote the letters for Flaherty and Oliver supporting the IGA.
As a long time civil servant in a provincial government, I know Ministers are always briefed by public sector employees when assuming their roles. But then Ministers and the elected officials put their own direction and policies in place.
The Lib Cons are playing the Con Con game of “Congress has spoken” for Canada’s Parliament.
A Liberal Hypocrite is a Hypocrite is a Hypocrite.
@Blaze… all we can do as civil servants is “Fearlessly advise and loyally implement.”
I would love to see someone request an an ATIP on all correspondence and briefing materials sent to Conservative and Liberal MPs and departmental staff concerning inquiries over FATCA. That could make for interesting reading.
(If nothing else, it would probably give us a glimpse on how they truly feel about it!)
or a Canadian is NOT a Canafian is NOT a Canadian. I hope McCallum is warning all the new immigrants that although we will all pretend for now that they are “Full Canaduan Citizens” with all the rights and responsibilities that go with that, that could change in a heartbeat when their country of origin or their children born in Canada are discriminated against because of financial pressure against Canada. For example, China is getting more powerful politically and economically. I would be very afraid if I had any Chinese ancestry in the coming years. First they came for…….
Ha! I got the same letter but only the first couple of paragraphs! I dumped it in the trash!
The complete letter posted here simply dumps the responsibility back onto each of us lowly “Americans in Canada” to duke it out individually with the US government. I recall Minister Flaherty saying something similar on camera shortly after the IGA was signed.
I have included a link to this letter in the update to the UN that will be sent this summer on the 2nd Anniversary of the submission of our Human Rights Complaint. It is more damning proof that our government will do nothing for us and that we need help from the world’s foremost Human Rights body.
Our future rests on the Arvay teams ability to prove two things
1. That it violates certain sections of the charter. Our govt doesn’t believe that the charter is being violated, and
2. That charter violations trump bank profits. I think this will be the harder of the two.
Does anyone know how many judges are involved in this first trial? Do we need a unanimous decision or best of?
Wasn’t it just the one judge? Justice Martineau?
Mr. Morneau’s letter is quite nuanced. For example he is careful to say ‘ tax filing of Can residents who, under US law, hold US citizenship.’
He is between a rock and a hard place. It does no good to vilify him. Instead we should continue to emphasize lack of privacy, lack or reciprocity, the lack of treaty status in the US and the unconstitutional nature of the IGA.
The IGA is due for review. We shouldn’t drop our efforts with Morneau. That said, I agree the courts are more likely to yield a result.
@ Isabelle Brock
Justice Martineau was the Federal court judge in the Summary trial. Now that we move over to the Supreme Court I believe a new judge(s) takes over.
Marie. Federal Court involves one judge not necessarily the same one. An appeal would go to the Federal Cort of Appeal-3 judges
@Duke
I thought we were done with FEDERAL COURT and now on our way to the Supreme Court because this is a Charter Trial.
Should definitely stay on the Canadian government’s case in the lead up to the IGA review, should one of the Canadian government’s “policy objectives” be the mutual exchange of information to support tax compliance in both countries.
Marie, Sorry to disappoint. This is a marathon. Federal Court->Federal Court of Appeal-> ( just maybe) Supreme Court of Canada
@Duke: I don’t think any of the comments “vilify” Morneau.
@Marie, Isabelle: Duke is correct. We are far from the Supreme Court.
I am not a lawyer, but this is what I understand:
Justice Martineau heard and ruled on only Income Tax Act and Income Tax Treaty issues as a single judge in Federal Court.
Another single judge will hear and rule on the Charter issues in Federal Court. We do not have a date for that trial yet. Stephen is diligently and desperately trying to get witnesses for that trial.
Whichever side loses at Federal Court can appeal to a three panel of judges at the Federal Court of Appeal. Whichever side loses there can appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court must decide if they will grant leave to hear that appeal. The Supreme Court has nine judges.
As someone far wiser than me in these matters have said: “This is a marathon not a sprint.” We are only at the very beginnning with the government trying to wear us down by making this as costly and brutal as they possibly can.
It is very clear from LeBouthillier, Morneau, Brison and Garneau and silence from other Fiberals that they continue the Con Con FATCA Dance.
@Marie I neglected to answer one of your questions. The decision does not have to be unanimous.
At Federal Court, there is a ruling of just one judge, At Federal Court of Appeal, we require two of three. At Supreme Court, we require five of nine.