WITNESS SEARCH UPDATE FOR CANADIAN FATCA IGA LAWSUIT:
WE STILL SEEK MORE CANADIAN WITNESSES:
Have you experienced marital stress or breakup, or medical or psychiatric illness because Canada turned you and your family over to a foreign country — or because you were afraid and entered into IRS compliance and suffered harm, or because you are in “hiding” and can’t afford to be IRS compliant or to renounce? Be a witness.
No single witness will be “perfect” from a litigation point of view. We will be seeking more witnesses (almost) right up to the time of submission of court documents. Your specific situation, that we cannot predict, might have unique characteristics that would be helpful in the lawsuit.
If you cannot be a witness, please tell a friend who you think might be interested.
— If you are interested in becoming a witness You will describe your harm in a written affidavit which will be made public and you can contact me at stephen.kish.chair@adcs-adsc.ca See our website at www.adcs-adsc-ca
FOR THOSE CANADIANS WHO ALREADY VOLUNTEERED: Unless you have already been informed by me or by our legal team that you will not be a witness, there is still the possibility — or (for some) likelihood — that you will be asked to be a witness. I’m sorry but I cannot estimate the time it will take for our legal team to get back to you with their decision. This is because they need to “mesh” the characteristics of all of the necessary witnesses and testimonies with the actual detailed submission that contains the entirety of their evidence, which are all still evolving. Please be patient in our getting back to you with a decision. Thank you for your help.
@Stephen Kish
You said “CANADIAN FATCA IGA LITIGATION: Seeking a CANADIAN citizen witness that I don’t believe exists: U.S. birth but non-meaningful otherwise, NEVER IRS compliant, but has received FBAR/IRS collection letter — Canadians and International readers: Please prove to me that these people exist”
Unfortunately, I think you may have difficulty finding such a witness until well after September 2016. The tragic irony of this situation is that many such witnesses will likely exist down the road. After the next transfer of financial information people will eventually receive those FBAR/IRS collection letters, I believe. It may take a while as only high value accounts were sent last September. This September, the lower value accounts of US persons will be turned over.
I’ve commented on this before. My past experience with the IRS indicates that they eventually will go after innocent Canadians (and other nationalities of course) who are considered “US persons”.
in 2008 before FATCA, I received such a letter from the IRS. It was quite a shocking experience. The letter stated that I owed them large sums of money in taxes, interest and penalties. But as I said, this was before FATCA. With a good lawyer and some legal fees, it turned out I owed zero to the IRS. Things are more complicated now with FATCA and FBAR.
Likely many are too frightened to come out about this. I continue talking to people in my area and hope for the best.
I thought that if you renounced, you could never again, under any circumstances, reacquire US citizen again, but is this really true? If you relinquish, can you at a later date reacquire US citizenship?
Depending on the answers, you may find that even if you have proof that you are no longer a US citizen, that you actually do not have any proof at all.
If true, then you just donated some more of your hard earned money to feed the US war machine AND they now know exactly who you are and more or less exactly where you live.
No thanks, I’m never going to play that game.
“I thought that if you renounced, you could never again, under any circumstances, reacquire US citizen again, but is this really true?”
My understanding is that the US does that as a matter of policy, but the law is silent on the matter.
Suppose someone was born in Puerto Rico with Spanish citizenship, moved to the US, took US citizenship, moved back to Puerto Rico and renounced US citizenship. And then suppose the US took over Puerto Rico, and after a few years the US gave US citizenship to Puerto Ricans.
My understanding is that if you want to re-acquire US citizenship after renouncing you need to go through the same process as any other “alien” — green card, etc. Don’t know the details because after going through all the effort to exit the system cleanly, I don’t expect to ever want to be a US person again.
Middle Finger –
I thought that if you renounced, you could never again, under any circumstances, reacquire US citizen again, but is this really true? If you relinquish, can you at a later date reacquire US citizenship?
Eric has cited one counterexample case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jolley
I know of two or three other counterexamples. The US loves to blow hot air.
The Wikipedia article implies that Thomas Jolley didn’t regain US citizenship and didn’t even get a green card. He remained deportable until he died.
On this site I saw examples of renunciants getting green cards but no examples of renunciants regaining US citizenship.
As far as I can tell, the law (by its silence) allows regaining US citizenship by getting a green card and going through the same process as any other green card holder, but as a matter of policy the US never approves any such applications.
What about Lee Harvey Oswald? He went to the USSR, renounced and then returned to the US and somehow got his US citizenship back…funny that.
Then there is Elizabeth Taylor
https://tax-expatriation.com/2014/03/14/famous-americans-who-renounced-u-s-citizenship-elizabeth-taylor/
@Badger, “Wonder if those of us who are now solely Canadian citizens but have obtained a CLN can be witnesses due to the fact that the IGA would require that FIs can demand that people who are NOT any longer US citizens despite our US birthplace?”
It is as discriminatory as requiring persons with “yellow skin” to show extra papers to open a FI account. Here is a link to a UK site discussing discrimination and I think what you said clearly fits.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discrimination/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/indirect-discrimination/
But the very sad lesson I have learned in the brexit debate as a leave supporter is the lesson you guys know with the not withstanding clause of your Charter. In my country, my countrymen are openly saying it is OK to discriminate against non-EU family members that wish to migrate in comparison to EU migrants with non-EU family members “because thats the price we pay to be in the single market.”
Nothing like getting screwed twice; discrimination on bringing my family over “because thats the price we have to pay to be in the single market and then financial discrimination “because thats the price we pay to access US markets.”
Its all about “market access” and people be damned.
After 7 months I got a reply to an e-mail I’d forgotten I sent …
That’s wonderful you got an answer finally, EmBee. Maybe the RM is in enough of a letter writing mood to let me know what the CRA told her three weeks ago about whether my accounts were reported to the CRA. Or will she be coy, and not tell me as the matter is before the courts?
It’s nice to know that the IGA will receive ongoing assessment to determine if it’s fulfilling it’s objectives, but why can’t she be more specific? Oh yeah, it’s before the courts.
“I am sympathetic to the concerns many Canadians expressed about the U.S. FATCA provisions”
I don’t want or care for the ministers sympathy, I simply want to be treated in the exact same way as all my fellow Canadians are treated, because I am in fact a Canadian just like everyone else is. There should be no argument concerning what’s going on with the “IGA”, it’s discriminatory, and it marginalizes a select group of people for something that they have absolutely no control over.
I DID NOT CHOOSE AND I CANNOT CHANGE MY LOCATION OF BIRTH!
@Bubblebustin
“It’s nice to know that the IGA will receive ongoing assessment to determine if it’s fulfilling it’s objectives,”
I’d like to know exactly what the objectives are, so that we are able to determine for ourselves if the IGA is fulfilling the objectives. The Liberal’s “transparency” lens is very hard to see through.
I think she’s stated her position and the position of our government quite clearly in one sentence. She approves of the IGA passed into law by the previous government stating, “while the intergovernmental agreement is a far better outcome for Canadians than FATCA (the rest of the sentence is pablum).
@ Bubblebustin
Your reply might take 7 months. BTW, did you write your request for information on a hot potato? It sure likes it’s been tossed around like one.
It sure seems like it EmBee!
The nice lady at the CRA said to call about my hot potato if I haven’t heard from the RM in the next week or so. Why would the RM take measures to get my query answered and then stonewall me?
I’m impressed that the RM gave you a personal response, unless of course she has a FATCA form letter that includes a tardy thanks for congratulating her on her appointment.
Now that you have a personal line of communication with her going…
BB. It’s a form letter. I got one from the Min. of Finance with exactly the same phrases.
I got one a couple of days ago. It’s longer than the one published on Brock, but all the pithy phrases are there. I especially liked the part about how lucky we are that the IGA saved us from the ravages of FATCA. Also, she “so very kindly” offered me a link to OVDP portion of the IRS web site. SHE IS ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS! The only positive note in the letter was the statement that Canada would not assist in the collection of US taxes or penalties so long as the person was a Canadian citizen at the time the liability occurred. How in gods name would they ever figure out what liabilities would be applicable to people who became Canadian citizens years or decades ago? She also hinted at future negotiations that would address TFSAs, RDSPs, and RESPs. Nothing about capitol gains on proceeds of sale of principal residence. Does the savings clause interfere with her claim of non collection? That whole discussion is a blur to me, but I’m thinking that it is an important one.
@ Bubblebustin
Duke of Devon is right … they are pretty much ALWAYS form letters. It sounds like No Name’s form letter had more specifics than the one I got. I can’t speak for all but I think many of us are not seeking tweaking. This mess can only be fixed by repealing Part 5 of Bill C-31 (2014). FATCA be gone! You don’t have “standing” in my country.
@EmBee
What about the fact that she thanked you for congratulating her on her appointment to Revenue Minister?
How can they be a part of a form letter?
“How can they be a part of a form letter?”
Add your own personal BS here:
Thank you for stroking my ego.
Copy & paste the standard FATCA BS here:
Thank you for your correspondence about the Canada–U.S. intergovernmental agreement to implement the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) …
@ Bubblebustin
At that time I think there were quite a few of us writing to the new Revenue Minister, trying to advance our concerns about FATCA from the git-go of her arrival in that office. We probably all got the basic response (eventually) but perhaps her staff inserted a starting line into each to somewhat “personalize” them. I actually did the same with the e-mails I sent then and at other times. I think the long wait for these replies had to do with the time needed to get all the ministers being contacted about FATCA singing from the same song sheet.
THIS IS STILL A WITNESS POST — SEE MY REQUEST FOR WITNESSES AT THE TOP OF THE POST
Not at lot volunteering these past few weeks, but the “quality” is very high. Still time to be a witness.
For those readers who cannot/will not volunteer but will not speak to those they know who might agree to be a good witness: Please change your mind. Do you think it will be easy or even possible to add new witnesses once the submissions are made?
WE STILL SEEK MORE WITNESSES:
No single witness will be “perfect” from a litigation point of view. We will be seeking more witnesses (almost) right up to the time of submission of court documents. Your specific situation, that we cannot predict, might have unique characteristics that would be helpful in the lawsuit. If you cannot be a witness, please encourage others on this “witness” post to volunteer.
— If you are interested in becoming a witness You will describe your harm in a written affidavit which will be made public and you can contact me at stephen.kish.chair@adcs-adsc.ca See our website at http://www.adcs-adsc-ca
FOR THOSE CANADIANS WHO ALREADY VOLUNTEERED: Unless you have already been informed by me or by our legal team that you will not be a witness, there is still the possibility — or (for some) likelihood — that you will be asked to be a witness. I’m sorry but I cannot estimate the time it will take for our legal team to get back to you with their decision. This is because they need to “mesh” the characteristics of all of the necessary witnesses and testimonies with the actual detailed submission that contains the entirety of their evidence, which are all still evolving. Please be patient in our getting back to you with a decision. Thank you for your help.
EmBee: I’m sure you’re right about this: “I think the long wait for these replies had to do with the time needed to get all the ministers being contacted about FATCA singing from the same song sheet.” Over the past while, I’ve been gradually receiving answers from the Finance Minister to letters I never sent to him directly but which had gotten forwarded to him by the people I *had* written. The letters were pretty much the standard meaningless boilerplate and I’ve deleted them all.
As far as Canada is concerned, I’m done with writing. I just can’t wait for this to get to court!
@heidi: Seems like Oswald never formally swore the oath of renunciation in person; the consul told him to come back for a second appointment in order to delay him, and he never came:
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-15.html#attempts
I don’t think Jolley ever got his citizenship back either. Canada wouldn’t accept him for deportation, though, meaning the US had nowhere to send him. Cases where ex-citizens definitely did manage to get their citizenship back:
1. Joel Slater renounced in Australia, got deported back to the US, and then got his citizenship back by asking the State Department. I think State folded so easily cuz they didn’t want to deal with another lawsuit; that might have resulted in some precedent that would tie their hands even further on future cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Slater
2. A few immigrants who renounced to go into Taiwanese politics in the 1990s were able to re-naturalise in the 2000s.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/06/22/re-naturalising-after-giving-up-u-s-citizenship/
3. A few dozen US-born people naturalise as US citizens each year, though there’s no way to know how many are ex-citizens and how many are diplomats’ kids:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/07/12/statistics-on-u-s-green-cards-issued-to-people-born-in-the-u-s/#Naturalisation