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.
And even those of us who have renounced/relinquished still have the problem of a birth certificate and / or Canadian passport that states our US birthplace. So if we want to open an account without being discriminated against we have to consciously avoid showing our birth certificate or Canadian passport (with US birthplace) if we want to avoid being hassled by our FIs and forced to provide a CLN or provide an explanation that they will accept. And that is a burden that we’ll face for the life of the FATCA enabling IGA – perhaps forever.
Why should I or any other Canadian have to produce paperwork or produce an explanation for our accident of birthplace for scrutiny by banks and insurance companies, etc.?
The US birthplace taint has forever repercussions under the IGA, even if we are no longer US citizens.
“Why should I or any other Canadian have to produce paperwork or produce an explanation for our accident of birthplace for scrutiny by banks and insurance companies, etc.?”
In my limited experience, and based on what I’ve heard elsewhere, you don’t have to produce any paperwork. You simply tell them you’re not a US person. Which is true if you’ve renounced, not true if you haven’t.
“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.”
Yeah but it doesn’t matter what we recognize. It matters what the judge recognizes. It doesn’t even matter what the judge knows, it matters what the judge recognizes.
@USCA
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”.
What the lawyers may be doing is establishing examples of financial hardship faced by exclusively one class of Canadian citzen by an application of a law (IGA), which would fall under the Charter of Rights.
Wouldn’t “Canada enforcing US laws be on Canadian soil” fall under constitition law or international(sovereignity)law? IMHO.
Also ,isn’t the harm ,the financial hardship, self-inflicted in Canada since the US can not collect taxes from Canadian (dual US) citzens. The fact that US does not collect tax was clearly recognized in the 2015 decision and that opinion will not help here.
As far you breaking down the population here into two classes, I belong to the first class. People here are merely suggesting a course of act and are not assuming that it is a one size fits all.
Also,one generality is that people in the course of living have more regrets in acting foolishly than not acting ar all. Case in point, one gentleman here wrote that he paid $120,000 in FBAR penalties and didn’t receive any response from the IRS. He was embarrassed for having paid. That sum would represent a good deal of my life’s work.
As for class 2 and the broader issues, the only issue of concern that I see here on these pages is FATCA . This is the safe house from FATCA abuse. How broad do you want the issues to be ?
Go online on the Canada Government website to find form: pptc077-eng also available in French.
and to pptc 077 e : request for a canadian passport without place of birth
@RobertRoss
I MUST be misunderstanding you. You cannot possibly be suggesting that we accept the notion that the harm from the FATCA IGA is “self-inflicted” since Canada would not collect from certain individuals? If you are, then opening(or keeping) accounts amounts to “self-inflicted” harm and there’s simply no way a lawsuit could even be presented, never mind won.Nor could any “US Person” in Canada ever have any kind of a financial account. ???
USCitizenAbroad said:
The Charter is intentionally broad. MuzzledNoMore described it in the manner it was intended. It is not written in such a narrow way that only one application applies.
The Charter makes it absolutely clear that citizenship, place of birth and other immutable characteristics cannot be used by the government to deprive one of rights and freedoms that other Canadians without those immutable characteristics have.
The point is not whether or not one is turned over. The point is the government has created a situation that ALLOWS for that possibility.
Let’s try it this way…Which of the following DO NOT constitute harm?
*******
1) Guess it is NOT harm for people to essentially go into hiding.
Were people consciously hiding before FATCA was passed? Most didn’t even know they were supposed to file. The US passed FATCA on March 18, 2010. Most of us did not know about any of this (CBT OR FATCA) until sometime in 2011. The threat of FATCA existed before Canada implemented it o July 1 2014. Therefore, there is no way anybody can claim that US tax policy is the source of the harm as opposed to FATCA. The state of mind of those affected is part of the whole. It was bad enough to find out about tax and FBAR. It was BECAUSE OF FATCA that anyone post March 18, 2010 worried about any of this.
2) Guess its not harmful to have to lie to your bank.
Would anyone be “lying” to their bank before FATCA was passed? I don’t think so because the bank was not asking your citizenship before the (FATCA) IGA was implemented. And it was 4-1/4 years from the time the US passed the law to the CDN implementation of it. More than enough time to point to the (FATCA) IGA. (The QI business applied only to certain US source investments and not to the opening of ALL accounts so it is excluded….)
3) Guess it’s not harmful to be assessed U.S. taxes and penalties and have to rely on the tax treaty to protect you.
Nobody was worrying about the US assessing taxes again, because most didn’t even know about them. FATCA was passed before most of us even heard about the FBAR/tax requirements. FATCA is the source of this harm (even though it could be reduced to CBT by concept, does not work out that way in reality).
4)Guess it’s not harmful for people to have to live with fear and uncertainty.
Same as 1& 3
5)Guess it’s not harm to learn that you do NOT have the rights that the Charter guarantees to other Canadians.
This is clearly from the Canadian (FATCA) IGA
6)guess it’s not harm for the Canadian Government to turn a certain number of Canadian citizen/residents over to the USA.
This is clearly from the Canadian (FATCA) IGA
Okay, I’ve done 1-6. Anybody want to do 7-11? Badger?
7)Guess it’s not harm for certain Canadians to be denied the opportunity to participate in normal financial and retirement planning.
8)Guess it’s not harm for Canadians to be forced to pay the U.S. an “Exit Tax” (which is actually one point of the post).
9)Guess it’s not harm to be forced to renounce to be have permission to NOT be treated as a U.S. citizen.
10)Guess it’s not harm to worry about the USA retroactively defining who is a U.S. citizen.
11)Guess it’s not harm to be forever defined by where you were born.
Guess none of these things are harm, right?
Guess if NOT everybody has experienced the SAME harm then there could NOT have been any harm.
Yup, guess there is no harm.
The experience of a narrow part of those Canadians subject to FATCA (accidental dual citizens, especially those without a U.S. place of birth) is NOT the experience of the whole.
*******
Therefore, it follows that other harm most definitely does exist. If Group 1 does not represent all the US Persons subject to the Canadian (FATCA) IGA, how can their experience possibly limit what constitutes harm in terms of the Charter?
‘Would anyone be “lying” to their bank before FATCA was passed? I don’t think so because the bank was not asking your citizenship before the (FATCA) IGA was implemented. […] (The QI business applied only to certain US source investments and not to the opening of ALL accounts so it is excluded….)’
From 2002 to 2005, in three non-US countries, three non-US financial institutions including one bank asked my citizenship, and no US source investments were involved. In one case I simply answered Canadian and then was allowed to open the account.
‘Guess it’s not harm to worry about the USA retroactively defining who is a U.S. citizen.’
Actually I think that’s not what we need to be concerned about here. It’s harm that CANADA retroactively defines who is a US citizen. It’s harm that CANADA cooperates with the US’s human rights abuses.
Canadian Russian duals can visit the US, Canadian Chinese duals can visit the US, Canadian Iranian duals can’t visit the US, and Canadian US duals should be very hesitant about visiting the US. Canada isn’t causing those harms. The harm that Canada is causing is what Canada does to Canadian US duals in Canada.
@ Patricia
Hear hear! Why are 99% of us using pseudonyms if there is no harm? Could it be because we are scared? Isn’t fear or terror a harm?
I’m broadly sympathetic to the complaints of “Accidental Americans,” but worry that the concept is fuzzy. Again and again I read somebody here saying that the US shouldn’t grant or impose citizenship on someone who was only born there, that this represents some kind of human rights violation, etc. Okay, then, under what circumstances *would* it be okay for the USA (or any country) to grant citizenship? Should all countries be required to adopt the jus sanguinis principle, or should jus solis come with some sort of time-spent-in-the-country requirement? Of course an easy fix would be to give up CBT and/or make renunciation easier, but those are different questions. How would you have the USA change its nationality law?
Or to look at it another way, should “Accidentals” be treated differently (i.e. better) than someone who was born to US citizen parents and/or grew up in the USA, but moved to Canada (or wherever) later in life?
@ Zla’od
You might find Peter Spiro’s new article interesting. Allison Christians provides a link here:
http://taxpol.blogspot.ca/2017/04/spiro-on-citizenship-overreach.html
The problem is not how the US decides who is or is not a US citizen from birth; the problem is that they put obstacles in the way of anyone who wants to stop being a U.S. citizen.
Only naturalized USCs are non-accidental. They’re the only ones who did it deliberately.
@iota
Indeed, that is the crux of the problem. We are only slaves because we cannot stop being slaves. If being american was in any way voluntary it wouldn’t be a breach of human rights and basic morals. Any way we can fight is good but the minimum we should aim for is the freedom to leave.
@Abn – I wouldn’t describe it as slavery. As I posted elsewhere, to me it seems more like a colossal case of coercive control. But otherwise, yes, I agree, if there was a reasonable accessible renunciation option (with parents/guardians able to renounce on behalf of minors/wards), that would solve the problems permanently and cleanly for most.
@Ziaod
I believe that the forcible imposition of U.S. citizenship discussed on this blog (from time to time) is the notion that the USA can forcibly impose U.S. citizenship on people born OUTSIDE the USA to U.S. citizen parents.
Nobody (to the best of my knowledge) has ever disputed the notion that that the U.S. can impose citizenship on people born in the United States (although making it difficult to leave is another issue).
Given the tax obligations of U.S. citizenship, and the fact that taxing U.S. citizens can transfer capital from another country to the USA, it is hard to see how the international community can tolerate the USA imposing citizenship on an individual born in their country..
I really don’t see how the USA can impose citizenship on anybody born outside the USA. The USA can of course make it clear that any person is entitled to U.S. citizenship if they choose it.
I wonder if it would be feasible for a dual-citizen to bring a case against his/her country of residence for requiring a hard-to-get expensive CLN to prove nonUSness to FIs.
US law does actually allow one to relinquish without buying a CLN, as I understand it. Or am I mistaken? Maybe this is one of those things that used to be possible but has by now been firmly nailed shut.
@Iota
Could you explain the difference between slavery and a “colossal case of coercive control”.
“I really don’t see how the USA can impose citizenship on anybody born outside the USA. ”
Usually the US citizenship has been done to the child by its own parent, not knowing what the consequences would be. The childhood registration of birth and the childhood passport are consequently facts, making it necessary for the person to renounce or lie if they want a normal life including being allowed to invest, open accounts at will, and fly over the US landmass.
@Anonymous by necessity
So why not just leave (decree yourself to not be a U.S. citizen). Perhaps U.S. citizenship is only a problem for people who believe that their actions should be in compliance with the law (how does U.S. law apply to people outside the USA anyway?) regardless of the morality of these laws.
Because, the only way to leave U.S. citizenship is to “buy your way out” (which by the way is why U.S. citizenship is pure slavery and not a case of “coercive control”) sooner or later most people will simply stop paying and just leave it behind them.
Just say: Bye, bye USA.
@Iota
Not so. Almost every immigration lawyer takes the position that people born outside the USA to U.S. citizen parents ARE U.S. citizens whether they: know about it, care about it, want it or whatever. I am not saying that I agree with that position, but that is the consensus.
The registration by the Homelander parent simply makes the citizenship visible.
On the issue of the parent abusing the child by registering him/her as a U.S. citizen. Actually, I think that a minor who has been registered as a U.S. citizen may be able to defend himself from U.S. citizenship.
Put it this way: The State Department is reluctant to let people renounce if they are under 18 or to let the parent renounce for the child. If that is so, why not take the position that a parent cannot sign the kid for U.S. slavery without the kid’s consent?
Sooner or later people will come around and realize that the most important thing is how they define themselves and NOT how they are defined by the USA.
“Not so. Almost every immigration lawyer takes the position that people born outside the USA to U.S. citizen parents ARE U.S. citizens whether they: know about it, care about it, want it or whatever. I am not saying that I agree with that position, but that is the consensus.”
Do I look like somebody who gives a four-letter-word what almost every immigration lawyer thinks?
@Iota
So, then your answer to the question:
Can the USA forcibly impose U.S. citizenship on a person born outside the USA to U.S. citizen parents?
is …
A person who was registered at birth as a USC, and issued with a US passport, has to make a decision about how to deal with those facts.
Some will answer “no” when asked the question; the answer may or may not come back to bite them.
Some will answer “yes” when asked the question. They then move on to the next question: how to become able to answer “no”.
I said:
It seems to be still on the books. Sec. 349. [8 U.S.C. 1481]
It’s only renunciation that requires approval by the DoS. Other forms of relinquishment only require one to commit a relinquishing act with the intention of losing US citizenship. And then Paragraph b:
“(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.”
All of which seems to say that provided a person hasn’t made use of any USC privilege since the relinquishing act (which would cast doubt on their intention), that should be accepted by the IGA country (and therefore by its banks and other FIs) as sufficient evidence of non-USness.
If a case could be brought on this point, and if the case was successful, that country’s IGA could be modified (subject no doubt to negotiation with the US but since it’s in line with US law that might not be a problem). And if one Model 1 IGA could be modified in that way, others could follow.
Of course not everyone would be able to make use of such a provision, but it could help many. Am I wrong?
Sigh. Yes I’m wrong. Nailed shut by https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/877A#g
Apologies for wild goose chase.
@iota – as I understand it, you can lose citizenship for nationality purposes by relinquishing without a CLN, but to lose citizenship for tax purposes now requires a CLN. However, the FATCA IGAs do not distinguish between nationality and tax citizenship – and most allow a reasonable explanation as to why a CLN cannot be produced. So, for someone willing to thumb their nose at the IRS, documenting a relinquishment *should* be sufficient to prove loss of US citizenship under FATCA for their foreign bank (if the bank is willing to accept a reasonable explanation).