We already have Witnesses for our Canadian FATCA IGA lawsuit, but are now seeking a few more. If you are a Canadian who supports the major aim of the lawsuit (to return Canadian sovereignty back to Canada) and are interested, see below:
The May 31 2017 Canada Federal Court Order gives us 60 days to comply by providing additional information to Government as part of our lawsuit.
This delay may give us time to provide to the Court additional evidence, from new witnesses, of harms caused by the Canadian FATCA IGA enabling legislation. If:
— You are a Canadian resident (and possibly a U.S. person as well) who has experienced difficulty, uncertainty, or perceived risk of personal harm, in acting as an executor of the estate of a U.S. person in Canada, or you are someone who has refused to act as an executor for the estate of a U.S. person in Canada because of the risk of harm; or
— You are a Canadian citizen and resident who the U.S. deems a U.S. citizen, and you would like to renounce your U.S. citizenship and tax citizenship, but cannot because you would have to pay a U.S. “exit tax” because of the value of your assets (see link) — or you renounced and DID pay an exit tax; or
— You are a Canadian citizen and resident and a U.S. citizen who had your bank account information turned over to CRA/IRS and the U.S. IRS has now contacted you about your account.
AND you are willing to provide a written, public (your name will be disclosed) affidavit to Canada Federal Court explaining your situation,
– please contact me at Stephen.Kish.Chair@adcs-adsc.ca
Further request:
The Federal Court order asks for a list of all specific harms caused by the Canadian FATCA IGA enabling legislation, that contradict our Canadian Charter rights and nation’s sovereignty (our Claim) that have been or are certain to be experienced by our three Plaintiffs but also by “anyone else” (i.e., I interpret this to mean other Canadian residents).
We already have Witness affidavits detailing harms that cannot be disclosed publicly at the present time. But if you have experienced a harm or know that you will experience a harm related to the above legislation, that you suspect that we might not have addressed, AND ARE A CANADIAN CITIZEN AND RESIDENT WILLING TO FILE A WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT TO FEDERAL COURT THAT WILL DISCLOSE YOUR NAME, then please contact me.
From a practical point of view that I have to deal with, making suggestions is fine, but we need to provide the Court with written affidavits of harm in which your name will be disclosed. If you can’t disclose, perhaps you know someone who might. The time opportunity for this is short.
@SK @DoD
The IRS’s inability to get its correspondence delivered to offshore addresses is well documented. Will the IRS simply give up if a FATCA related letter inquiring about a person’s foreign bank account is not responded to? One of the very concerns about the new passport revocation procedure relates to this problem when the IRS can easily assess a tax liability to a bank account in a substitute tax return.
https://americansoverseas.org/en/irs-revoking-passports/
@EmBee
I guess the IRS would only care if my end of year bank balance was higher than what I reported on my FBAR. Still, it’s extra scrutiny over the unwarranted scrutiny for having a bank account where I live.
Our lawmakers made a leap of faith that the US government would limit the information it receives through FATCA to tax enforcement. Someone even remarked about it at one of the Standing Committee on Finance meetings prior to the FATCA IGA’s passage. The US will not guaranteee that it won’t.
Is that not harm enough?
“Guess I’ve NOT been harmed because there aren’t any detectable blood or bruises. Now if you looked into my brain you might see some damaged neurons but I can’t prove they’re there.”
Oh I can do that. A lawyer who’s known for assisting poor downtrodden victims of IRS malfeasance refused to help me, saying I have mental problems. I have to agree. Chronic stress is immensely harmful, and my heart isn’t the only organ that was damaged.
But courts rule that writing an honest declaration on a tax return is frivolous, and failure to fabricate a social security number for a person whose ITIN applications have been rejected is frivolous, and embezzlement of withholding originally legally collected is related to assessment of tax not collection of tax even though the IRS never assessed me any tax, and use of offset to collect a penalty that was asserted but not assessed and violates a ruling by a different court (which was exceptionally honest that time) is related to assessment of tax not collection of tax even though the IRS never assessed any tax, I have to say I’m not the only one with mental problems.
I guess this lawsuit was too early. It should have been initiated after some masochistic volunteers suffered harm by legal standards.
“In Canada, harm #1 is pretty minimal because the US is toothless to collect penalties or taxes owing.”
Right, when the US collected taxes NOT owing, it collected by using QI not FATCA.
“And thus far there’s no indication that harm #2 is an issue in Canada. Particularly given that banks make no effort to validate whether customers truthfully report US personhood.”
Right, liars don’t get harmed. Everyone needs to learn this lesson from Nonymous’s explanation and my experience. Honesty is the worst policy when the US is involved. If you get harmed by telling the truth, it’s your own stupid fault.
“Nowhere else in the world can you be fined several times your net worth for anything.”
Yes you can, in Russia, China, Singapore, and likely other places. Eritrea isn’t the US’s only friend this time.
“US citizenship and tax law causes all sorts of harm to those living outside the US. No doubt about that. But US law is not something the Canadian FATCA lawsuit will change.”
It might, if it were to succeed. It could result in changes to the US-Canadian IGA – changes which could then be replicated in the IGAs of other countries. Changes which might or might not be welcomed by those affected – USCs and non-USCs, with and without second citizenships, in Canada and other countries throughout the world.
I don’t understand what outcome is desired by those bringing the lawsuit.
@iota
As I understand it, the main goal is to stop the government from discriminating against Canadian citizens deemed “US Persons” by allowing their bank information to be disclosed to the IRS via CRA. This should also include landed immigrants deemed “US Persons” and according to the Hon Sinclair Stevens, any person on Canadian soil. Other Canadians are still protected by PIPEDA and the same information may not be disclosed to the CRA. That is it on a simple level.
There are various perceptions as to the actual effect on other aspects of the situation. For anyone to presume he/she can weigh this out definitively is questionable. The quoted statement could be seen as technically correct but to see it that narrowly is constricting and useless.It does NOT represent the attitude of ADCS-ADSC nor I suspect, the donors of the nearly $600k collected to launch the suit.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. There are a lot more moving parts as this situation goes forward in time. As you mentioned, if other countries saw Canada change, they might change. A cumulative effect of that would amount to refusal to comply. Even the mighty US could not survive trying to enforce 30% withholding on several nations at once. Add a factor like that to other actions currently taking place; the Meadows hearing; the Rand/Meadows bills; the Bopp lawsuit; the now discussed French lawsuit by the Accidentals; even the failed Florida/Texas bankers…all these things interact, even if it is not evident at this very moment. And one moves forward with some faith in that part of the process.
Of what value is it to proclaim that the Canadian IGA suit will not change US law?
@EmBee
I’m with USCitizenAbroad on this one. We already know the harms caused by US tax policy etc. These are exacerbated by FATCA. The two things are not separate and what is needed is to present them as such. This is the type of skill we expect from our lawyers.
Sorry, but I hear (over time) a little bit too much of “this doesn’t affect me” therefore, there are no harms.
That approach is not going to help us. Stephen is asking for new types of witnesses. Let’s stay focussed on that.
@Patricia – Thanks for your reply.
“Other Canadians are still protected by PIPEDA and the same information may not be disclosed to the CRA. That is it on a simple level.”
It gets complicated because banking privacy/confidentiality laws vary from country to country. (In the UK, there is no such absolute guarantee of a right to banking confidentiality: any customer might find themselves in circumstances which allowed/required their bank to disclose information about their account(s)). I have no insights into how these issues might play out in other Model 1 countries, in the event of a court win upholding Canadian rights to banking confidentiality. Maybe other countries would just choose not to implement any resulting change.
“As you mentioned, if other countries saw Canada change, they might change. A cumulative effect of that would amount to refusal to comply. Even the mighty US could not survive trying to enforce 30% withholding on several nations at once.”
Actually, I was thinking of other kinds of change that might result as a consequence of one country’s courts ruling the IGA unlawful. I personally see no reason to think other (rich) countries have any desire to refuse to comply with FATCA. FATCA gives them a weapon with which to control their banks. Changes could come which would make FATCA more oppressive, not less. I think the chances of the US losing the co-operation of the market economies are close to zero. MHO.
“Of what value is it to proclaim that the Canadian IGA suit will not change US law?”
Nononymous’s words, to which I replied. I myself think a win could definitely result in a change to US law. I’m just not confident it would be good news.
Here is part of the Income Tax Act of Canada that was AMENDED as a result of the IGA so that the Government of Canada could enact U.S. law in Canada.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-3.3/page-281.html#docCont
Ladies and Gentlemen, FATCA is NOW Canadian law!
The reason that it was necessary to change Canadian law, was to make what would have been illegal in Canada (and most other countries of the world) not only LEGAL but mandatory. Specifically, the law was enacted to force Canadian banks and other foreign financial institutions to (for now) “hunt down” people based on an immutable characteristic – specifically a U.S. place of birth. Some will say that U.S. citizen includes more than those born in the USA, but if you look at the IGAs and the legislation you will see that it focuses on finding those with a U.S. place of birth. Why not those with brown eyes? Why not those with dark skin? Why not those with a specific religion.
The simple fact is that the United States of America – that so called “Great citadel of freedom and justice NOT” is on a campaign to lower (frankly obliterate) the standard of human rights that has been achieved in the world to date. (I would include “taxation-based citizenship” in those human rights violating laws.) It’s easy to see why this is. Americans do NOT have the “human rights” that citizens of some other countries have. Americans have ONLY constitutional rights (in other words only those rights that the U.S. constitution allows – which incidentally were not part of the original constitution). Any country that has signed the IGA and enacted enabling legislation is complicit in lowering the standard of human rights the world over.
Much of the discussion in this thread is completely misguided. Although U.S. law provides some context for FATCA and CBT, this lawsuit is against the Government of Canada for enacting laws that violate Canada’s Charter of Rights. Whether the lawsuit succeeds in influencing the USA to change its laws (it may or may not) is irrelevant. It is Canada’s laws that are the focus of the lawsuit.
Some commenters take the position:
Well, I can’t prove harm to me. Therefore there is no harm. Almost 80 years ago, a Pastor in Germany wrote the following:
Perhaps this could be updated to contextualize recent events:
As always, the commenters on this blog are in two groups.
Group 1: Consider (whether accurately or inaccurately) the possible impact of the the FATCA IGAS on only themselves. (If they see no harm to themselves, then surely there could not be any harm.)
Group 2: Those who see the issue in broader terms
(With some overlap between the two groups.)
As Ms. Moon points out this thread is for people who are in Group 2 and want Canada’s involvement in this latest U.S. initiative in human rights erosion to be struck down.
Where this thread has been valuable is that it illuminates the fact that there is disagreement on what constitutes being “harmed by FATCA – or more specifically Canada’s enacting U.S. laws on Canadian soil”.
But, aren’t ALL Canadians harmed (even those who think that because they are not personally harmed that there is no harm) when the Government of Canada violates the Charter of Rights, by assisting the USA to erode human rights on Canadian soil?
#iota
If you like I can delete the last line from your comment (and presume your last comment as well).
There are grumblings about the US not reciprocating. With ongoing costs continuing to be borne by them while the US continues to give nothing would have to create pressure from within those countries. These other countries will receive info from their CRS reporting. I can’t imagine them comparing the two situations and remaining willing to do all the heavy lifting while the US does nothing.
If the US dollar does not remain the primary reserve currency a lot of the ability to bully others will be lost.
I am not convinced that FATCA amounts to having control over the banking industry of a country.
It amounts to controlling US account holders which by and large do not constitute the primary function of a bank nor a majority of its funds.
If not privacy, are there not other concerns that might offend the Brits?
@Patricia – thanks. These are the words I’d like to have deleted:
“I personally am very sceptical that”
And yes, my comment apologising for my error.
Yes indeed, other countries would like full reciprocity. They want reciprocity, not repeal. More reporting, not less. (IMO).
The governments don’t bear the costs of FATCA implementation – that falls on the banks, and ultimately on the shareholders and customers.
“If the US dollar does not remain the primary reserve currency a lot of the ability to bully others will be lost.”
Agreed – that would be a gamechanger.
“I am not convinced that FATCA amounts to having control over the banking industry of a country.
It amounts to controlling US account holders which by and large do not constitute the primary function of a bank nor a majority of its funds.”
The UK made use of FATCA to force the Crown Dependencies and Territories to accept the CDOT regime. (a.k.a. UK FATCA)
“If not privacy, are there not other concerns that might offend the Brits?”
Do you mean, might FATCA/IGA violate any legal rights of UK residents? Not that I’m aware of. The IGA was drawn up by lawyers to make FATCA legal; as far as my non-lawyer knowledge goes, that’s what it does.
Further to USCitizenAbroad’s last point, which I think touches on “sovereignty”,
In the pleading (which is supported by the client, ADCS) the Plaintiffs point out to Canada’s Federal Court that Canada has a “right to sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence” and that “Canada is forfeiting its sovereignty” with its FATCA IGA enabling legislation.
Canada gave up part of our sovereignty when it decided to assist a foreign state in the discovery, round up, and turnover of a segment of our people to the United States — because it was afraid of financial harm promised by U.S. if it did not comply.
If readers agree with me that Canada lost part of its sovereignty and territorial independence when it signed off on the IGA so-called “agreement”, would that loss of sovereignty, an institutional betrayal, not be a “harm” that affects all Canadians without any exception whatsoever — and irrespective of their US taint?
@iota
Yes they want reciprocity but how long will they continue to comply if they do not get it?
True I was sloppy here. Ultimately, the whole country loses out when funds are used to help the US and there is no return on that money…….
I realize UK made “SON of FATCA” but my point was simply in reference to the main effect; not particularly helpful tit for tat.
N.B. I am not a lawyer. This is just my own understanding of what our lawsuit is about. I apologize in advance for anything here that may be incorrect from the legal perspective.
It is important to recognize that this is not an ordinary, run-of-the-mill lawsuit. It is a Charter Challenge, against the adoption of language into Canadian law that allows for discrimination against Canadian citizens and residents who hail from one particular country and/or who have some other particular relationship to that same country. A harm does not need to have taken place. It is enough that the Canadian government, by passing the FATCA enabling legislation, has given itself the power to treat certain of its own people in a different manner than other members of its society thus leaving them vulnerable to potential harms that are allowable under this legislation. Who wants to live under the threat of constant potential and “legal” harm? That is what this lawsuit is about as I understand it.
Considering the Charter nature of this action I really find it more than appalling that the government is demanding all this specific financial information from the plaintiffs and, furthermore, is going to charge them for providing it! The plaintiffs are human beings, citizens and residents of Canada, who are potentially (if not presently) in danger of having their most basic rights violated by a law now on Canada’s books. Moreover it is a law adopted solely at the behest of a foreign power that believes it has the right to impose its will on all other societies in the world.
If this is not just cause for citizens to bring a suit against their government I don’t know what is.
@muzzled no more
YESSS!!! That’s exactly the way it is and there are no two ways about it.
It’s a Chatter challenge – and shame on the Canafian government for making this challenge necessary.
Would the threat of economic sanctions be considered a harm?
“Despite international opposition, including from Canada, the FATCA implementation deadline remains unchanged, so we have agreed with the federal government that entering into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) is the best approach under the circumstances. We recognize and support the efforts that the Canadian government has made. The alternative would potentially expose Canadians to punitive U.S. withholding taxes on income from their investments, including retirement income, of 30 per cent. The IGA should avoid that and ensure that the domestic rights of Canadians are respected while still sharing relevant taxpayer information bilaterally.”
http://www.cba.ca/cba-statement-on-fatca?l=en-us
@Patricia:
“Yes they want reciprocity but how long will they continue to comply if they do not get it?
True I was sloppy here. Ultimately, the whole country loses out when funds are used to help the US and there is no return on that money…….”
The banks have lost very little compared to what they might have paid out had naked FATCA come to town, it seems to me. The software and systems that had to put in place for FATCA due diligence now in many if not most banks do double duty for CRS, and the IGA has saved them from the withholding that might otherwise have been imposed. And the FATCA-compliant label, once obtained, brings very significant reputational benefits.
“I realize UK made “SON of FATCA” but my point was simply in reference to the main effect; not particularly helpful tit for tat.”
It wasn’t intended as tit for tat – I was just aiming to be brief in my response – though on rereading I can see it could give that impression. To clarify, AIUI the UK at first did take exception to FATCA, but then seemed to do a U-turn, getting together with the other G5 countries to work out a way to make FATCA workable. The CDOT implementation followed shortly thereafter, giving rise to the supposition that HMG had spotted ways in which it was in the national interest to make FATCA workable, and accordingly had withdrawn its initial opposition. It seems a reasonable conclusion, to me. I rather think the UK government, and very likely the other G5 governments, were well aware the US Federal Government might not be able to deliver full reciprocity – hence the break-out provisions. If the UK wanted to, it could pull out of the IGA at any time, but so far there seems to be no sign that it thinks that’s a good idea.
— I was reminded today that Lynne Swanson (Blaze) wrote an article for “the Hill” which was published exactly two years ago, to the day.
The article is entitled, simply “FATCA is an attack on Canadian sovereignty”.
Our Plaintiff Ginny is quoted in Lynne’s article:
“They have no rights over me. None.”
“I am not an American. I am a Canadian. Therefore I do not believe they have any business in my financial affairs,” said Hillis. “They can get their nose out of my life.” and
“I don’t expect the United States to ever change. But I do expect my (Canadian) government to protect me.”
Gwen said:
“FATCA and CBT are two of the worst and most egregious examples of bad laws that demonstrate how US lawmakers don’t understand the way their own laws work in the real world.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/243799-fatca-is-an-attack-on-canadian-sovereignty#bottom-story-socials
@ Patricia Moon
I’m with USCA too … FATCA does harm … PERIOD. BTW, was it ever mentioned on Brock that The Hon. Sinclair Stevens passed away last year (November 30, 2016)? If it was mentioned I missed it (found out today). He will always be remembered for his participation in the Toronto Forum of 2012. He was a fine man and a fount of knowlege about the workings of the Canadian parliament. It was an honour to have him on our side.
@ MuzzledNoMore
Well said! Everyone repeat three times, “It’s a Charter Challenge.” Followed by a hearty, “Surgite!”
I believe the USA is using FATCA to control foreign financial institutions, not just US individuals. At the least sign of a FATCA reporting misstep the USA can, if it cares to, evoke its 30% withholding sanction and thus hamstring a foreign competitor. The threat alone is enough to keep FFIs in line and less able to attract clients from abroad. Meanwhile US financial institutions do attract foreign clients (many of which fall under the catgegory of money launderers) because they do not have to provided reciprocal reporting. What a scheme!
@Muzzled & Mary M
Ideally yes. But the harm thing is an issue. The govt seems NEVER to have to rise to the level of the language of the ideal, whether in a charter ,the law, etc.
I only have hope for this level of examination if we make it to the Supreme Court. 🙁
@Stephen Kish:
“If readers agree with me that Canada lost part of its sovereignty and territorial independence when it signed off on the IGA so-called “agreement”, would that loss of sovereignty, an institutional betrayal, not be a “harm” that affects all Canadians without any exception whatsoever — and irrespective of their US taint?”
This reader agrees 100% !
“Despite international opposition, including from Canada, the FATCA implementation deadline remains unchanged, so we have agreed with the federal government that entering into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) is the best approach under the circumstances. We recognize and support the efforts that the Canadian government has made. The alternative would potentially expose Canadians to punitive U.S. withholding taxes on income from their investments, including retirement income, of 30 per cent. The IGA should avoid that and ensure that the domestic rights of Canadians are respected while still sharing relevant taxpayer information bilaterally.”
The Domestic Rights of Canadians are never respected as long as “sharing relevant taxpayer information bilaterally” is allowed WITHOUT A WARRANT.
PROBABLE CAUSE put before a Judge who decides if a warrant is justified. The IGA bypasses that , ignores that and CHANGED both privacy laws AND the insistence that a basic right be adhered to: Probable Cause.
Sovereignty. Privacy. Basic rights of the individual to be secure in their person and effects.
The Judge in the ruling that plaintiffs turn over all further documents and pay for the process violates immediately all Canadian rights ensured in the Charter.
Meanwhile, back at the Ranch!-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/03/5000-canadians-march-in-support-of-trump-against-liberal-trudeau-administration/
All this legal crap would disappear if every expat would cover the 435 congress people’s desk with post cards saying one word, which if I include it you have a program that will rejet my post. One word and one way to tax citizens and that is a consumption tax paid only within our borders. COVER THEM UP.
@ Stephen re;
“…Canada gave up part of our sovereignty when it decided to assist a foreign state in the discovery, round up, and turnover of a segment of our people to the United States — because it was afraid of financial harm promised by U.S. if it did not comply.
If readers agree with me that Canada lost part of its sovereignty and territorial independence when it signed off on the IGA so-called “agreement”, would that loss of sovereignty, an institutional betrayal, not be a “harm” that affects all Canadians without any exception whatsoever — and irrespective of their US taint?”
Yes, absolutely. Though I ‘chose’ (under significant duress and threat of harm from the US that threatened my and my Canadian family’s wellbeing and security) to relinquish my US birthright citizenship and I am no longer a US person, I do see FATCA and assistance by Canada to prop up US extraterritorial CBT as an offense against myself, my fellow Canadians and my home country of Canada. As solely a CANADIAN now, I still do not and will never agree that my home and only country of Canada should cede sovereignty and autonomy and bow and scrape and defend the US extraterritorial extortionate subversion of our Charter and the constitutional rights of all my fellow Canadian citizens and residents, and abuse and misuse our hard earned Canadian revenue and taxpayer monies to enable a foreign law on Canadian soil.
So I AM affected even if I am no longer a UStaxablecitizenserf – and so are all my other Canadian citizen and residents fellows – whether dual or not. ALL Canadian taxpayers and Canadian accountholders (in FIs and in non-FIs) are affected via the waste of our taxes, the waste of our government resources (ex. via the CRA and the DOJ), and the higher accountholder fees that go to enable and defend
FATCA.