“Conservative revenue critic Pat Kelly is calling for parliamentary committee hearings into the transfer of Canadian banking records to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, saying he wants to know why the numbers have risen sharply. “I think that it’s a big number and the trend of ever-increasing transfers is going to be a concern to many Canadians,” Kelly told CBC News. “I think that the Canada Revenue Agency should be able to give a better explanation than they have so far about what’s driving the ever-increasing requests for record transfers.””
Mr. Kelly kindly spoke to me today and provided more clarification of his position:
— He said that he wants an explanation for the increasing turnover numbers, the correction in number of transfers for 2017 tax year, whether some accounts were transferred that should not have been transferred, and the issue of uncertain U.S. reciprocity — but Mr. Kelly confirmed that he does “not advocate repeal of FATCA“.
See John Richardson interview on Canadian FATCA law.
If you are interested in a Canadian Court striking down the entirety of the FATCA IGA legislation, Please donate to our Canadian FATCA lawsuit.
Why would a Canadian MP have an opinion on whether or not to repeal FATCA? It’s an American law.
What he should have an opinion on, of course, is whether or not the Canadian government should withdraw from the IGA.
But at very least he’s right to demand that we know more about what banks are reporting. Clearly CRA does not have a clue what’s in the data file they hand over each year.
As ever, be careful what you wish for. Right now banks don’t ask for proof of birthplace, nor do they go beyond requiring self-certification of citizenship. It would be a very bad thing if parliamentary inquiries somehow caused them to make greater efforts towards finding US persons.
Stephen,
Does Mr. Kelly have any views on Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth and exit taxes and their extension to Canadian residents?
One might remind the MP that the only Canadian residents who would be subject to IRS collection of wealth, exit or any other US taxes or penalties are not Canadian citizens, and do not vote. Canadian citizens are not be subject to collection so any compliance on their part would be purely by choice, or to protect US assets.
@RH
Why don’t you remind him?
Though an MP is not likely to want to comment on US domestic affairs, their knowing that any new taxes proposed in a presidential primary campaign could only be imposed on those who cannot vote in Canada would make them care even less.
@BB My guess is that he’s only in it to take advantage of the headline and see if he can cause some trouble for the Liberal government, not to actually do something useful. In view of the fact that a former Conservative government inflicted the IGA on us in the first place, its no surprise that he’s not in favor of terminating it.
Though an MP is probably not going to comment on US domestic political races, their knowing that any new taxes proposed in a presidential primary campaign could only be imposed on those who cannot vote in Canada would likely make them care even less.
Many of us spent a lot of time and energy trying to get it through the thick heads of our “public servants” that signing the IGA would bring endless trouble that would likely get worse and worse. And here we are today seeing it happening before our eyes. I’m just thankful our issue is receiving parliamentary attention once again, as well as another badly needed airing in the press.
No kidding, MNM.
I must be getting cynical. I would have found such a development cause for celebration not so long ago. Now I look at is as another reason to be disappointed.
I still believe in critical mass creating change though. Just don’t know if it will happen in my lifetime. All I know is that it WILL happen. It HAS to.
Just spent part of my evening trying to educate a homelander who views American expats as whiners who should be grateful for having the “Ferrari” of citizenships. I said, how much is a Ferrari worth if you can’t go anywhere?
That’s actually not a bad analogy…. The cost of owning and maintaining a Ferrari is so excessive that the expression “if you need to ask how much, then you can’t afford it” applies. At the end of the day, a Ferrari is a car with four wheels that roll down the road to get you from point A to point B. There are many other automotive choices that can do the same job just as well but cost a lot less.
Now if you happen to be the type who needs to look flashy, wants to convince others of how superior and exceptional you are, doesn’t care about the cost, and doesn’t mind a car that owns you rather than the other way around…..
we discussed this years ago. A wikipedia author named Samuel Clemmons rewrote the wikipedia FATCA article and discussed this issue as such
Minimum requirements without limits on the upper end. FATCA has minimum standards in its methodology of finding U.S. persons. For example, the accounts with minimum end balance of US$50,000 must be investigated with at least the U.S. indicia criteria specified. The FATCA rules do not require any FFI to not investigate or report or FATCA-process accounts as low as zero. The FFI’s are not prohibited from using any indicia to identify[144] U.S. persons. There are no restrictions in FATCA regulations as to what is not allowed to be used against U.S. persons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act
Apparently both Justice Minister Lemetti(the Defendent) and National Revenue Minister Lebouthillier will be remaining in their current positions in the second Trudeau government.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-trudeau-cabinet-minority-government-1.5366129
And I tuned into the live CBC feed just at the moment Lebouthillier got sworn in again by Trudeau as Revenue Minister.
@ Tim Smyth
Oh no … Chrystia Freeland as Deputy PM. It lines her up for PM. She was a horrible Minister of Foreign Affairs.
@EmBee
She has been lined up for this for a while. BTW her two kids are US citizens and her husband commuted weekly from Toronto to New York City for work.
” As ever, be careful what you wish for. Right now banks don’t ask for proof of birthplace, nor do they go beyond requiring self-certification of citizenship. It would be a very bad thing if parliamentary inquiries somehow caused them to make greater efforts towards finding US persons. ”
Don’t worry about what you wish for, the US will get there in fine time anyway ,as the Canadian government finetunes its GUIDANCE ON ENHANCED FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING INFORMATION REPORTING every year to the wishes of the US. It’s already been refined a few times already .
You don’t have to hide or put your head in the sand ,they already know what the game is about.
Mme Smith mentions at the end of her podcast with JR that in the light of such a large incremental change to Canadian IRS submissions ,she would not be surprised that anyone with / without US citzenship having even a US dollar account may have their financial information submitted as well ,now or in the long run. Seems a far stretch but realizable ,if not not checked.
One item that should definitely be mentionned in the lawsuit is that anyone who is effectd by fatca should made aware or ,at the very least ,told upon request if their account information has been irs-submitted not just by the banks ,who probably submit everything, but most importantly by the CRA. Not just as a courtesy but as a requirement.
I sure hope she has her kiddies dutifully filing their FBARs (according to the IRS kids are supposed to file their own). And of course, she’ll make sure the boys register for the draft when they are old enough. Scheer’s Dad did him the favor so obviously she should do no less.
@Robert Ross
I agree 100% with your last paragraph. Right now, it seems that everybody has a right to our information except us, under the guise of privacy, no less. What kind of privacy is that? Presently, we don’t have a clue who or what is being reported and we have absolutely no way of finding out.
Pestering a bank to provide that sort of information could easily cause them to conclude that your accounts are US reportable or at the very least they should call you in to review your customer profile. Official notification should be legally required from both the banks and the CRA whenever information has been transmitted.
If banks are consistently reporting account information without regard to citizenship – accounts with old US addresses, US dollar accounts, etc. – that makes the data is even less useful to the IRS, since it would by definition include records without SSNs and/or that do not belong to US persons. Still a privacy violation of course.
Yes, I know, identity theft.
Important follow up to my original post from:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2019/11/12/bmo-facta-reporting/
BMO confirmed to me today on the phone, with a signed paper copy of the same statement on their letterhead to follow, that none of our family’s financial information has ever been reported by them to the CRA for transmittal to the IRS under the FATCA IGA. Now, we are just waiting for the CRA’s response to see if they corroborate that statement from BMO.
I strongly recommend for anyone interested in whether their stuff has been reported to the IRS to force their financial institution and the CRA to provide records of such transfers in writing. It is a requirement under the law that they provide this information upon request and we should all make them do it. Flood them with requests…
” ….that makes the data is even less useful to the IRS, since it would by definition include records without SSNs and/or that do not belong to US persons. ”
The issue is not whether any data collected is useful or not ,but in essence ,that personal data is discriminatorily collected from citzens of one country at the behest of another under threat of financial reprisal .
In really they are not IGAs but ultimatums, especially since there is no reciprocity .
Minimizing the fatca issue in such a manner, may alleviate fears on one hand but will assuredly encourage complacency til a much more rigorous form of cbt/fatca arrives .
@ refugeefromamerica
Congratulaions going through the process and providing information. What is so dangerous here is how the computer age results in people doing things so impersonally and automatically and without realizing the implications. What I find interesting is what if you had a few banks to deal with and had to do the process with each one. IMHO,the onus should be with the CRA only. They should be required to provide irs-submission info when they send out tax return assessments .Can’t be all that difficult.
It would be easy for the CRA to provide that sort of info via their My Account website:
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/e-services/e-services-individuals/account-individuals.html
Here is the fly in the ointment. From a recent CBC Article and could prlobably be used to refuse personal requests . Amounts a lot of legal BS to murk the waters.
“The CRA cannot disclose the number of records received from the IRS under intergovernmental agreement as this is considered treaty-protected information and is subject to the confidentiality provisions of the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention and Section 241 of the Income Tax Act,”
My guess? They don’t want to admit that they haven’t gotten anything from the IRS. If the number of records going South is OK to disclose (i.e. not treaty protected) then why would the number going North be any different?
Also, if the IRS were sending stuff North there would be people in the US complaining about it. Instead, nothing but silence. My BS meter is in the red.