7. The United States is the World’s Greatest Force for Good
Of all the shocking things you can say around the [Canadian] dinner table, this is the most shocking one. After all, America-bashing is part of our national identity.
Thus ends — and begins — Margaret Wente’s cutesy little list of seven deconstructions of what all Canadians seem likely (to her) to think.
Wente must no longer feel like she could possibly be on the hit list?
Please, Uncle, sock it to her!
Arthur Cockfield on FATCA
Professor Arthur Cockfield will be at McGill next Monday, where he will present his paper on FATCA as part of the Tax Policy Colloquium Series.
The Limits of the International Tax Regime as a Commitment Projector
The paper examines how transaction cost approaches (as developed by North and Williamson) can inform international tax law and policy discussions. The international tax regime evolved institutions and institutional arrangements to address transaction costs such as the risk that two countries might doubly tax the same cross-border business profits. It mainly sought to reduce this risk by serving as a ‘commitment projector’ that enables governments to make credible political promises to taxpayers, other members of the public and other governments that they will not overtax these cross-border profits. As a result of these political commitments, taxpayers do not need to incur transaction costs they would otherwise have to sustain to identify and protect their global tax liabilities. In other areas, however, the international tax regime does not facilitate credible commitments. The talk will focus on one such challenge to the regime, namely the 2010 U.S. proposal to create a global tax reporting system via the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act or FATCA. By eschewing traditional bilateral and multilateral cooperation when it introduced FATCA, the United States subverted its ability to offer credible commitments and raised transaction costs for economic participants. The talk will review the impact of FATCA on U.S. expatriates (and others) in Canada as well as potential options available to the Canadian government to resist FATCA.
11:35am at the McGill Law Faculty, Chancellor Day Hall Room 202, 3644 Peel Street
Congratulations Sir Isaac Brock. Royal Canadian Mint has issued a commemorative quarter in your honour.
Your allies at Maple Sandbox congratulate you on this great honour.
We hope together we will be as successful in resisting the attempted 2012 American invasion into Canada as you were in 1812.
“Even in era of emailed ballots, corralling far-flung voters proves troublesome.”
Global Post, a news feeder organization for PBS and NPR ran a story with this headline a couple days ago that caught my attention.
BANGKOK, Thailand — There is no variety of American voter quite so unreliable as expatriates. They vote far less frequently than even teenagers and high-school dropouts. When it comes to campaign contributions, they donate less than 1 percent of the total haul.
I thought it rated at least a short comment. There are only 3. Maybe some of you will think so too. Maybe you can explain why you are sooo lazy, or not! 🙂
James M. Hayes, a lawyer in Binghamton, N.Y., who specializes in estate and other planning for people with special needs and has a developmentally disabled adult son, put it more bluntly. “I’ve never felt like I was taking advantage of anything,” he said. “It’s my adult son. I’ve never really felt that people who have adult children like my son should have a burden that other people don’t have.”
What about US Persons in Canada?
I must say it’s hard for me to continue to feel this strongly hearing the arguments to the contrary that those like my adult son, or for that matter me and the medical care I’ve received in Canada over the years (although remaining in the work force and paying taxes), are not a burden.
Special Needs Planning in Canada, including the RDSP, is a good resource for planning — in Canada for Canadians. There are likely similar programs in other countries.
I’ve tried to plan and save for my son (and my peace of mind) and not leave it all to government funding — through contributing to a Canadian Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP) and also putting in place a Discretionary Trust through Royal Trust, in conjnction with my daughter (my son’s only other blood relative in Canada) that will take effect upon my death to seamlessly be the source of paying expenses for my son. Upon my death with my estate consisting of my house, my RRSP/RRIF and minor investment, my son will no longer be eligible for Alberta’s Assured Income for Severely Handicapped (as he will have over the limit of assets, which is the way I think it should be). It seems that because my son is deemed a US citizen (although never registered with the US, never lived in the US, never had any benefit from the US), my planning is of limited use and robs me of the peace of mind so necessary for me that I’ve done everything within my power to ensure my son will be OK after I’m gone (and government funding perhaps gone).
I continue to question that I and other parents, guardians, trustees are not allowed the right, even with a court order, to renounce US citizenship on our family member’s behalf when we deem that in their best interests. Perhaps someone can enlighten me of the benefits my son would have from the US after my death and, as I see it, would have to be transported to that country for his care from the dwindling resources of social security there. Does that make any sense? Why would they want to take this on? Would this make my son very discriminated against in a strange new country, not the one he was born and raised in and looked after and encouraged him to be as independent as possible — Canada?
From the above article for planning for special needs persons within the US (and US Persons Abroad?):
With each passing election season, the conversations about the cost of government-provided health care and Social Security get more urgent.
But debates about the deserving and the undeserving and the proper level of budgets and taxes tend to gloss over the issue of disabled people — many of whom must hope that the programs they rely on are not cut, because they have no way to make up the difference.
There were 5.5 million nonelderly adults with disabilities whose health care was covered by Medicaid in 2009, according to a Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation estimate using the most recent numbers available. And an estimated 6.9 million nonelderly disabled people receive Social Security payments under the Supplemental Security Income program, according to federal government figures.
For every one of those people, many of whom draw from multiple sources of government aid, there are often several family members helping to sort out the financial details of that relative’s care. They navigate a confounding thicket of tasks and rules. On one side, there is the bureaucracy that government program administrators may erect at any moment. On the other, there are specialized trust accounts and estate planning issues to consider. Even sophisticated investors and ace budgeters find themselves lost when encountering all of this for the first time.
Note: I am not a “sophisticated investor” or “ace budgeter” but I have tried to have in place an effective plan for my son.
Just thinking aloud again. Thanks for listening.
Interesting show last night on TVOntario. The two “conservative” guests made a case for Romney with some success. David Frum came close to bringing up the “tax” issue and in fact talked criticially of Obama’s corporate tax policies as to how they affected Canada. Sheila Copps did not impress me and I thought Frum did a job on her. I thought though that Frum should have pushed not the level of American investment in Canadian energy but the level of American investment in manufacturing around the GTA and Ontario (striking right at Sheila Copps’ home base of Hamilton, ON). I kind of felt Sheila Copps sounded a little like Linda McQuaig. I still haven’t watched the whole show yet but I wanted to post it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPowKUpSxoE&list=UUu_u-P3cBFO7D-sAjxd_I-w&index=2&feature=plcp
Check it out – Canada has determined that many US nationals are going to try and attempt to move illegally to Canada after the US election. One Canadian police officer joked that there weren’t enough places for 47% of the US in Canada, but has Canada also possibly considered this decision based on financial consequences of allowing so many bound by citizenship-based taxation to migrate? Closing the flood gates before the FATCA deadline perhaps?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/10/canada-tightens-border.html
Unfortionately, it has nothing with FATCA or non resident filing. I just thought some would to like see and hear who his is.
Here it is:
Canada: Do Not Get Out Of IRS’s Tax Amnesty Programs Without Knowing The Facts
OR
A couple of initial comments I have:
1. My understanding is once you enter OVDI Criminal penalties are off the table opt out or no opt out. Can someone clarify this further?
2. Roy makes a point that himself and others have made before which are that the new super minnow “program” is rather narrowily defined AND as currently exists does not allow for people currently in the OVDI program to enter the new minnow program. (Roy makes a point in the article is this “might” change “someday” in the future).
3. As discussed previously the new minnow “program” really doesn’t solve that many problems despite the fact it has been under development for almost eight months.
4. Roy’s article pours cold water to some degree over the claims of some that you can enter OVDI and opt-out with relative ease.
Banks Deny US Student an Account
October 7th 2012
From T. Hirsekorn – No account for pocket change: Out of fear from lawsuits, Swiss banks turned a 16 year old US student away.
The 16 year old was rejected by many banks and doesn’t want her face to be shown (image: 20 Minutes)
The tax dispute with America released a strong defensive response from several Swiss banks. Some banks are following a compromise-free path to avoid any conflict with the IRS, such as with the case of Christina (16). The exchange student, who lives in Zurich, wanted to open up an account so that her parents could give her an allowance of 60 CHF per month. But Raiffeisen abruptly turned her away by stating that no Swiss banks accept US persons anymore. “Unbelievable! Given that I’m not even taxable in the US” stated Cristina annoyed.
Raiffeisen justified itself by stating that it is currently not accepting US citizens as new customers. “We cannot come to the conclusion if kids are taxed in the US or not”, explained speaker Jens Wiesenhütter. After the Wegelin affair, banks are avoiding any possible risk that could derive from US business relations, assumes the economic professor, Walter Wittmann.
The Zurich cantonal bank, Coop bank and Clientis also refused to open an account for Cristina. Credit Suisse didn’t even want to reveal its business policy. “Every bank can, according to their policy and contract flexibility, decide with whom they are willing to do business”, explained Rebeca Garcia from the Swiss Bankers Association. More liberal are UBS, Postfinance and Migrosbank. “Christina may have an account with us as an exchange student”, confirmed the UBS spokesperson.
————————————————————————————————-
I quickly translated this during my lunch break, so please excuse any mistakes
Source: 20 Minuten Online
