*UPDATED TO REFLECT CORRECT CREDIT UNION
For those of you who’ve sought refuge from FATCA at YNCU, you may be interested to know (if you don’t already) that the Ontario-based credit union has grown after a recent merger with
First Ontario Credit Union Community First Credit Union.
Total assets for YNCU now total about $1.5 billion which greatly exceeds. Looks like things were finalized in April, 2016.
I’ve seen no recent updates on FATCA reporting at YNCU, nor about LCB registration.
If you know something about the credit union’s status – please advise in the comments.
And if you know of a “failsafe” (or something close to it in FATCA terms) credit union that’s not named “My Bedroom Mattress” feel free to share.
I’m always interested in the credit unions and FATCA but I live in BC not Ontario. The local client based credit unions should be posting something on their website like BC Vancity does:
Otherwise how do we know that they are safe? We might as well resort to “under the mattress”
Brockers in Ontario and other provinces might be wise to research their credit unions further. If you find one that documents LCB status, its best to stick with this credit union and avoid the big banks. I’m no longer a “US Person” but will stick with Vancity and never return to the big banks. Hopefully those in the other provinces research this and post their findings for us.
I believe the above should read Community First credit union, not First Ontario. Community First is the old steelworkers’ credit union in Sault Ste. Marie, which gobbled up a few tiny bits.
Corrected. Thanks Mom.
CCEC on Commercial
I wonder if this has something to do with Fatca….http://business.financialpost.com/investing/investing-pro/u-s-broker-tells-canadian-clients-living-in-u-s-to-take-their-business-elsewhere
My understanding is that in order for a broker to have a Canadian resident (regardless of citizenship(s)) as a customer, the broker has to have a physical presence in Canada. Therefore Scottrade can’t deal with Canadian residents.
Unless Canada recently enacted a stupid variation of FATCA, for which the previous and present governing parties are eminently qualified though it doesn’t necessarily mean they did such a thing, my guess is that Scottrade confused residence with citizenship. I wonder if Scottrade has too much experience contending with a government that imposes such confusions so that Scottrade would get confused.
@Carol, @ADCS, @Mods….
Our friend NativeCanadian may have found a valuable nugget that can be of some use.
The article states concerning ScottTrade; “Because of those changes, said the reply, “we’re no longer able to hold accounts for Canadian citizens that don’t also hold dual citizenship in the United States.””
So a Canadian Citizen in the USA can not have an account because of US Rules but a “Dual” in the USA can have an account.
What is so special about the Dual?
Simples, there is NO SUCH THING as dual citizenship, a person who is considered a Canadian Citizen by the Government of Canada and is considered a US Citizen by the US Government is SOLELY a US Citizen when that person is in the USA.
Does it matter to ScottTrade if said “dual” was born in Toronto? NO
Being a US Citizen in the USA blots out everything else!
Lets assume ScottTrade has not misread some rule/law.
This would be a great example to use in the pending litigation!
In Canada, we want the Court to rule that Canadian Citizenship is PARAMOUNT to all other citizenship in Canada.
Ginny would rightly slap me but just a few miles due West, no matter what Ginny thinks to the contrary she is a US Citizen (USA USA USA).
But…this is where Ginny forgives me and hugs me….a Canadian in Canada is a Canadian is a Canadian.
The concept is so so easy why or why do so few homelanders get it?
I suppose it gets down to homelanders saying things like “I am 50% Irish, 50% French and 100% American.” You can not be half something!!! I always like posing to such idiots; “Which fingers are the Irish fingers?”
@George “So a Canadian Citizen in the USA can not have an account because of US Rules….”
That’s not what Native”s article says.
It says the problem is Scottrade’s reading of Canada’s rules.
So I’m with Norm Diamond. It’s likely Scottrade incorrectly thinks the whole world taxes the way the U.S. does, and thus considers the exclusively Canadian citizen living in the States to be a “resident of Canada for tax purposes”.
And Scottrade, not having a presence in Canada, believes it can’t serve Canadian “residents” because of Canadian rules.
The link that Neill provides in this comment has a statement that may be related to the why of what Scottrade is doing regarding Canadians in the US investing with them:
Internatonal Advisor, October 5, 2016 – “Generali, Schwab in UAE set ‘impossible’ choice for US expatsI”
Gun-shy and misinformed that the rest of the world has the same absurdities as the USA — as Shovel points out, as does Norman Diamond (above).
Calgary411’s link to “this comment” is so enormously uninformative that it appears to have been planted by the IRS ^_^
Regarding the International Advisor article:
‘Only a handful of financial institutions will open investment accounts for Americans abroad and also send the respective tax documentation (Form 1099) to the US Internal Revenue Service. And, by “a handful” we mean we’ve found two such institutions.’
If TD Waterhouse isn’t one of them, then now we know a third. But they forgot the related problem that the IRS, DOJ, and courts STILL protect the IRS’s embezzlers who steal withholding reported on Form 1099.
‘We’ve seen it become almost impossible for US clients to get accounts as well as understand the onerous reporting demands of the IRS. For expats, it’s confusing, potentially bankrupting and increasingly intimidating.’
Why do they bother saying ‘almost impossible’ when the IRS’s Taxpayer Advocate already reported to Congress in 2011 that it actually is impossible?
‘US expats are routinely given advice that is either confusing, or dangerously wrong.’
Yay, they know. But still, why would Congress listen to them when Congress doesn’t listen to the IRS’s Taxpayer Advocate? Anyway, I thank them for the effort. It’s better that a few more get the message than not get the message.
Yikes, just seeing this — and my failure to check on the *dead* link I put into my comment for *this comment”. I have fixed that now and it may make more sense (or not). Thanks, Norman Diamond.
It still may be the case that the FATCA IGA is not sufficient legally to get around provincial regulation of credit unions in Canada as well as some provincial privacy laws (see https://fipa.bc.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MoF-consult-sub-signed-Mar-10-2014.pdf ) which had been previously raised by the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association;