OCTOBER 24, 2017 FATCA IGA legislation/FATCA litigation update.

Canadian (Alliance for the Defense of Canadian Sovereignty [ADCS] is the “client”) FATCA IGA legislation lawsuit:

We are suing (since 2014) the Government of Canada (specifically Justin Trudeau’s Attorney General and Revenue Minister), in Federal Court for rounding up Canadians having a U.S. taint and turning them over to a foreign government. We argue that this violates Canada’s sovereignty as an independent nation and its Charter of Rights that is meant to protect all Canadians.

As to next steps, it now appears likely that most, if not all, of our brave lay witnesses, who provided written affidavits demonstrating harm, will NOT be examined by the Government lawyers. This is good news as it means that we will get to trial “sooner”. We do expect, however, that our expert witnesses will be cross-examined by Government next.

We have not yet received all of Government’s affidavits (e.g., from their experts). When we do, our legal team will need to decide whether they need to cross examine any of the affiants. We are moving forward but I am sorry but I cannot give you a time frame on this.

It is the “job” of the Case Management Judge, who supervises our case, to keep our litigation “moving”.

U.S. Republicans Overseas (RO, the client) FATCA, IGA, and FBAR lawsuit:

Mark Crawford, Senator Rand Paul, Roger Johnson, Daniel Kuettel, Stephen Kish, Donna-Lane Nelson, and Marc Zell are Plaintiffs, Republicans Overseas is the client. The lawsuit is in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

From the petition: “This case challenges FATCA, the IGAs unilaterally negotiated by the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury Department”) to supplant FATCA in signatory countries, and the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (“FBAR”) ad- ministered by the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. These laws and agreements impose unique and discriminatory burdens on U.S. citizens living and working abroad.”

U.S. Government lawyers have been arguing, so far successfully, that none of the Plaintiffs have the necessary “standing” to go to trial. The RO attorney however, argues in part that a “certain” threat of harm/prosecution is not necessary, but that a “credible” threat of prosecution should suffice for standing.

On August 30, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the original panel’s Opinion conflicted with two decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Plaintiffs asked that the original panel reconsider the case under correct standards, and absent such action by the original panel, we asked that the full Court consider the case en banc to establish and apply standing rules compliant with existing Supreme Court decisions.

The 6th Circuit has now denied rehearing. Plaintiffs’ next step will be to file (which they will) a certiorari petition to the United States Supreme Court, asking them to review the decision of the lower court on standing. This petition is due on Monday, December 25, 2017.

— I mention the U.S. negative court decisions on Plaintiff standing as I personally suspect that this general issue will be brought up by Government attorneys in the Canadian FATCA IGA legislation lawsuit — Mr. Trudeau’s Ministers arguing that there has been no “FATCA harm” caused to any Canadian. I personally dispute this as Government admits that the Canadian FATCA IGA legislation has directly resulted in over 100,000 Canadians (now up to 500,000?) being turned over to a foreign country — a clear harm that is a Charter and Constitutional violation.

Alliance for the Defeat of Citizenship Taxation (ADCT) litigation efforts in United States:

An aim of ADCT is to defeat by litigation in U.S. court citizenship-based taxation and related laws that we believe, in part, violate the U.S. Constitution. ADCT is not moving forward with any lawsuit in U.S. Court until the US tax reform legislation is passed by Congress (probably in 2018) and our legal claims can be clarified in light of that legislation (or absence of legislation) and established at that time as being reasonable to pursue.