Category Archives: Issues regarding US persons abroad

Feds set to introduce bill with new rules for crossing Canada-U.S. border https://t.co/ECdhHIn6pg Reminds me a bit too much of #FATCA IGA

— Patricia Moon (@nobledreamer16) May 9, 2016

New Rules for Crossing the Canadian-US Border

Masquerading (?) as an extension of the pre-clearance system already in place, the Canadian government ” is preparing to introduce legislation that will establish rules for a new border-crossing experiment that could change the way travellers enter the U.S.”

• It will spell out the rights and responsibilities of U.S. customs agents working on Canadian soil
• preclearance is being extended to land travel with the first pilot projects occurring at train stations in Vancouver and Montreal

Excerpts:

Under the 2001 airport deal, American agents can detain travellers in Canada — but it would be up to domestic police services to make a formal arrest. Also, American officers can be present for a strip search, but not when it involves travellers of the opposite sex. Other provisions govern the ability of agents to carry firearms.

“This is not a newfangled thing. We have preclearance (at airports),” Freeland said in an interview. “It works very well for Canadians, and that’s why we’re keen to extend it and formalize the structure a bit more.”

The land-preclearance agreement was first announced by the former Conservative government and the Obama administration, but implementing legislation had never been passed.

“That’s a really important step — introducing and passing the enabling legislation in Canada is really important,” said Maryscott Greenwood of the Canadian American Business Council.

The Canadian government has apparently concluded that the economic benefit warrants the cost. Canada will pay for U.S. customs infrastructure on Canadian soil.

Hmmmm… if we already have a pre-clearance program, why on earth do we need more rules, particularly ones that define being detained by Americans on Canadian soil, strip searches, and use of firearms by US agents? This reminds me an awful lot of the IGA and how it is “authorized by the Treaty.” If the Treaty covered it, why the IGA? If pre-clearance is already established, why the need for rules that sound like anticipated arrests rather than just the checking of documents etc? And of course, implementing legislation in the US does not exist and Canada (of course) will pay for Americans operating on Canadian soil. Will Canadian officers have the same “rights and responsibilities on US soil and will the US pay for that?

I cannot help but think that this is another way for the U.S. to try and sneak through the problems that have prevented previous attempts to have policing conducted by the U.S. in Canada as the U.S. sees fit. Definitely something we should all keep an eye on.

*****

Background:

End of Nations: Canada, the US and the “Security Perimeter” – GlobalResearchTV
 

While this video is from 2011, it outlines the recent history of border initiatives and questions the effects of cooperation with the Americans. Listen to former US Ambassador Jacobsen describe how no legislation is required; all this can be achieved via executive action. (sound familiar?)

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North American

U.S. Wants Cross-Border Officers Exempt from Canadian Law

Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Police Project ‘Postponed’ Over Differences

Integrated Cross-border Law Enforcement Operations Act (in force August 20, 2012)

So I just received my 2016 Canadian Census notice in the mail today, complete with a personalized secure access code, presumably to initiate the self-destruct mechanism attached to the few remaining vestiges of privacy I have in my life, and to potentially out myself – and my family – to both the Canadian and US Governments. In the back of my mind I’m thinking, should I really be this paranoid, just because it’s increasingly likely that everyone is indeed out to get me?

While I have so far managed to elude the FATCA police by sheer luck of having never revealed my birthplace to anyone where I bank, I am now confronted with one of the first true conundrums of my post-OMG moment life – how to respond, if at all, to the following census questions:

2016 Census of Population questions, long form (National Household Survey):

STEP B
1. Including yourself, how many persons usually live at this address on May 10, 2016?
1: Number of Persons

2. Including yourself, list all persons who usually live here on May 10, 2016.
1: Family Name(s); Given Name(s)

STEP C
1. Did you leave anyone out of step B because you were not sure the person should be listed? For example, a student, a child in joint custody, a person temporarily away, a person who lives here temporarily, a resident from another country with a work or study permit, a refugee claimant, etc.

1: No
2: Yes. Specify the name, the relationship and the reason.

STEP E
Copy the names in step B to question 1. Keep the same order.

If more than five persons live here, you will need an extra questionnaire.
1. Name.
In the spaces provided, copy the names in the same order as in step B. Then answer the following questions for each person.
1: Family Name, Given Name

SOCIOCULTURAL INFORMATION

12: Where was this person born?

Specify one response only, according to present boundaries.
Born in Canada
1: Nfld. Lab.
2: P.E.I.
3: N.S.
4: N.B.
5: Quebec
6: Ontario
7: Manitoba
8: Sask.
9: Alberta
10: B.C.
11: Yukon
12: N.W.T.
13: Nunavut

Born outside Canada
14: specify country

13: Of what country is this person a citizen?

Indicate more than one citizenship, if applicable.

“Canada, by naturalization” refers to the process by which an immigrant is granted citizenship of Canada, under the Citizenship Act.

1: Canada, by birth
2: Canada, by naturalization
3: Other country — specify

14: Is this person now, or has this person ever been, a landed immigrant?

A “landed immigrant” (permanent resident) is a person who has been granted the right to live in Canada permanently by immigration authorities.
1: No. Go to question 16.
2: Yes

15: In what year did this person first become a landed immigrant?

Example: Year 1974
1: Year. If exact year is not known, enter best estimate.

PLACE OF BIRTH OF PARENTS

24: Where was each of this person’s parents born?

a) Father

Mark or specify country according to present boundaries.
1: Born in Canada
2: Born outside Canada — specify country
b) Mother

Mark or specify country according to present boundaries.
1: Born in Canada
2: Born outside Canada — specify country

The bottom of the notice reads:

By law, your responses will be kept confidential.
Thank you for your cooperation.

Didn’t the CRA also recently insist that their handing-over of the financial information of hundreds of thousands of Canadians to the US Government is also being kept confidential? How reassuring.

Now, I’m well aware that there are a million other data points out there already broadcasting every detail of my life to whichever three-letter agency might be interested, but it genuinely concerns me that this very explicit package of personal information is being demanded so unequivocally, right now, when so many of us are still figuratively hiding in the attic, not all that far removed from Anne Frank – and the Canadian Government damn well knows it. The threat is right there on the front of the notice:

Complete the census – it’s the law.

So, that perennial philosophical question: what would Jesus do?
If you are a US Person living in Canada in 2016, what will you do?

"Residence should be a “necessary condition” for US taxation for ALL people!"https://t.co/4fCxD7DmiJ Jackie Bugnion on importance of RBT

— Patricia Moon (@nobledreamer16) May 3, 2016

This is the first in what I expect will be a series of posts on an issue we have yet to really focus on. Yes we all know what RBT is and so on but what we may not be so aware of, is how the US, while claiming we are “residents” of the U.S., doesn’t even give us equal (if not better) considerations than aliens/immigrants. And if this information doesn’t make you hopping mad, read it until it does.
 

*******
cross-posted from citizenshipsolutions dot ca
 
Introduction

Every country in the world with the exceptions of Eritrea and the United States claim tax jurisdiction based on “residence”. Although the tests for “residence” may differ, “residence based taxation” means that it is possible to sever your tax connection to a country by severing residence.

The nations of Eritrea and the United States impose taxation based on citizenship. U.S. citizens (primarily those “Born In The USA”) can NEVER sever their tax connection to the United States as long as they remain citizens. When it comes to U.S. citizenship-based taxation it is possible to NEVER have lived in the United States and still be subject to taxation!
Continue reading →

 
There is something quintessentially American about chasing the whale. While FATCA harpooners rove the globe, their keen steel promises to take out countless ordinary fool “U.S. persons” as collateral damage. Grotesque governmental pursuit flounders through more dimensions than a bad science fiction novel.

Concepts of “residence” and “taxation” will never be the same again. Impacted individuals may amount to little more than froth on the tsunami. Even if their own wrecked lives inevitably stand front and center in their own perspectives.

The so-called sharing economy could be on the verge of dwarfing clunky old corporate inversions as a threat that zeroes in on plodding and entitled behemoths like the U.S.A. If nothing else, watching techno-payback inflicted on a failing state may offer at least the respite of schadenfreude.
 

In the five years since these businesses [Airbnb, Uber, etc.] began their spiraling growth, some cities and states around the globe have fought hard to make them play by the same rules as traditional hotels or taxis and collect various local taxes — often as not, they’ve lost. As the new breed of companies moves toward profitability, transforming larger chunks of the economy, policy experts say the battle is likely to shift to the national level, where billions of dollars a year in corporate taxes could be at risk. … “These companies are the future,” says Stephen Shay, a former top international tax lawyer at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, now teaching at Harvard. “The nature of their business and the structure of the companies can allow them to essentially keep all of their profits out of the U.S.”

 
You can read the online version of the rest of Bloomberg Businessweek’s article:
Sharing Everything But the Wealth (April 11-24,2016) 29-30.
 

Today, I received a letter from my Member of Parliament (Deputy Finance Critic), Phil McColeman.

I’ve been hounding Mr. McColeman on Twitter (I’m relentless at times) for months about FATCA and it seems he simply doesn’t feel the need/urge to reply there.

So I went old school and sent a letter.

I’ve told him about the accidental Americans I meet at random in his riding…the look of anguish when I make the decision to force feed the the red pill known as FATCA. I’ve also told him about the impacts of FATCA on non-Americans (spouses, children, etc.)

Oddly, he didn’t mention them in his letter.

I’ll be writing him back and adding the PDF from a few weeks about about potential costs of FATCA to the Canadian economy and some new stories of accidental Americans he “represents” in Ottawa.

Anyway, here’s the letter if you’re having trouble falling asleep:

cross-posted from ADCSovereignty blog

Chronology of events …

On July 14, 2015, a post at the Isaac Brock Society, detailed the pleadings in the @FATCALawsuit. In late summer, @FATCALawsuit brought a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the effects of FATCA on Americans abroad. The Obama administration defended the “injunction application” (in part) on the basis that any harm to Americans abroad was the result of “self-inflicted wounds“. The application was brought before Judge Thomas Rose of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton. On September 30, 2015 Judge Rose denied the plaintiffs application for an injunction. On April 25, 2016, Judge Thomas Rose terminated the @FATCALawsuit brought by Jim Bopp and organized by Republicans Overseas.

The complete decision may be read here:

FATCAlawsuitdismissal,

An early response is here:

Continue reading →

Here is the full text of the motion to dismiss:

ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT (DOC. 32); GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 26) PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT (DOC. 1); AND
TERMINATING CASE.

Here, analyzing each Plaintiff individually, the Court finds that none of the Plaintiffs has standing to sue Defendants. No individual Plaintiff has suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest, which is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Moreover, no alleged injury is fairly traceable to the actions of the Defendants, but rather, the actions of an independent third party. Finally, there are no allegations that it is likely that the alleged injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560–61. In reaching these holdings, the Court analyzed the proposed Amended Verified Complaint, (doc. 32-1), which could not withstand Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (doc. 26); therefore, the proposed amendments are futile.
Accordingly, all claims are DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), against all Defendants, without prejudice.

UPDATE: Here is a new article from CGMA Magazine detailing the lawsuit dismissal:

US Court dismisses FATCA challenges

And as reported yesterday in Law360:

Sen. Rand Paul’s FATCA Lawsuit Tossed For Lack Of Standing
By Jack Newsham

Law360, New York (April 26, 2016, 9:15 PM ET) — An Ohio federal judge tossed a lawsuit filed by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and several current and former U.S. citizens living abroad that challenged key elements of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, saying the plaintiffs hadn’t shown that the law had harmed them or probably would harm them.

Paul and nine others lack standing, U.S. District Judge Thomas Rose ruled, and they still haven’t done anything to fix the problems Judge Rose identified when he refused to issue an injunction against the law’s provisions in September…

Registration required to read the rest of the article.

Here’s an unsympathetic Forbes story from October 2015 about the same lawsuit and the original motion to dismiss:

Rand Paul Suffers Setback In Foreign Reporting Lawsuit