Category Archives: Issues regarding US persons abroad

The Yucatan Times:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — United States authorities have begun the exchange of information with Mexico on all Mexicans with bank accounts or investments in the U.S. who have obtained more than $10 USD in annual interest…

Mexico will provide the IRS the name, address and tax number of Americans with accounts whose balance is greater than $50,000 USD, the account number, the monthly balance and the amount of interest paid.

http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2015/09/u-s-irs-and-mexican-sat-begin-sharing-info-on-bank-accounts/

“DOING NOTHING” WAS NEVER AN OPTION. TODAY THIS POEM OF DRYDEN COMES TO MIND:

“Fight on, my men,” says Sir Andrew Barton,
“I am hurt, but I am not slain;
I’ll lay me down and bleed a while,
And then I’ll rise and fight again…”

“Fight on my men,” says Sir Andrew Barton,
“These [English dogs] they bite so low;
Fight on for Scotland and Saint Andrew
Till you hear my whistle blow!”

[Republican Overseas motion for preliminary FATCA injunction denied (September 29) by Thomas Rose, U.S. District Court Judge in Ohio. Here is the link to the decision.

— Win or lose our Canadian injunction, we will do as George says: “…get straight on to the Charter challenge.”]

This is the affidavit of Sue Murray, which is part of the submission of Government of Canada in response to our request for a delay in the banking information turnover. Go to this link which contains this and other affidavits.

Canada claims that a delay is not possible given the specifics of the IRS regulation.

Also, it appears that about 155,000 bits of private banking information are waiting to be turned over to a foreign country.

Here is her affidavit:

I, Sue Murray, of the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, SWEAR THAT:

1. I am the Director, Competent Authority Services Division, International and Large Business Directorate, Compliance Programs Brancl1 (“CPB”), Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”), and as such have personal knowledge of the matters deposed to in this affidavit, except where they are stated to be based on information and belief, in which case I believe them to be true.

Discussions with the IRS

2. Subsequent to the hearing of the summary trial (which took place August 4-5, 2015), on August 27, 2015 there was a call between representatives of the CRA (myself, Richard Montroy, Assistant Commissioner, CPB, and Ted Gallivan, Deputy 000059 2- Assistant Commissioner, CPB) and Douglas O’Donnell, Commissioner-Large Business and International Division, of the US Internal Revenue Service (“JRS”).

During that call the issue of a possible injunction application in this case was raised with Mr. 0′ Donnell. There was general discussion ·of the impacts of such an injunction. Although no definitive answer was provided, it appeared that it would be very unlikely that the IRS would be willing to grant Canada an extension of time to provide information to the IRS in order to avoid an injunction application.

3. On the afternoon of September 18, 2015, the IRS issued a notice, attached as 1::-;hibit ‘ A’ (the «Notice”), in which they indicated on pages 18 and 19 that they would consider granting extensions of time to certain jurisdictions to comply with reporting requirements under an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) related the US FATCA provisions. Specifically, the portion of the Notice that could be applicable to Canada is that pertaining to B. Model 1 IGAs for which the Obligation to Exchange is
in Effect.

4. Mr. Montroy again requested a call with Mr. O’Donnell. When the call occurred, on September 21, 2015, after the appellants had withdrawn their request for an injunction hearing, Mr. Montroy was not available, but a number of CRA representatives, including me and Lisa Anawati, Director General, International and Large Business Directorate (ILBD), CPB participated in the call. The CRA representatives informed Mr. O’Donnell of the outcome of the summary trial application in this case, and that an appeal would be filed, and sought clarification from Mr. O’Donnell on the application oftbe Notice to Canada. Mr. O’Donnell made clear that the Notice did not pertain to Canada’s circumstances and that the U.S. continued to expect that Canada would comply with its obligation to provide its information by September 30,2015.

5. On September 23, 20J 5, after the appellants indicated that they would once again be moving forward with an injunction application, [sought clarification from the IRS 000060 – 3 – regarding whether they would grant an extension of time to provide the information if the appellants were successful in obtaining an injunction.

6. On September 24, 2015, there was a call between representatives of the CRA (myself, Mr. Montroy and Ms. Anawati) and Mr. O’Donnell. During that call it was confirmed that the US was not prepared to grant an extension because the Canadian situation is not covered by the Notice criteria, as the legislation and systems are in place to be able to effect exchange. Given that the Notice does not contemplate such an exception, this was the US position even if Canada is subject to a Court ordered injunction. In addition, Mr. O’Donnell confirmed that the exchange is anticipated to be reciprocal [!] and should Canada be prohibited from delivering its information, the US would not provide theirs.

Change in transmission date 7.

Under the IGA there is an obligation to exchange information by September 30, 2015. Leading up to the summary trial hearing we were asked to advise when the transmission would actually take place and we estimated that it would occur sometime within the September 15 – 30, 2015 time period, in order to allow for technical difficulties that may arise once transmissions began. When, after the hearing of the summary trial, we were asked to advise the court exactly when transmission would start, we determined that September 23, 2015 would be the probable date. However, just prior to September 23, 2015 we realized that we would need more time to make the appropriate arrangements for transmission. In recognition of the need to again provide a date before the September 30, 2015 deadline, and to avoid having to change the date again, we decided that transmission will not take place before September 29, 20:15 and will instead take place either the 29th or 30th of September. 00061
-4 –
Information to be sent to the IRS

8. I have reviewed tbe information which has been provided by Canadian financial institutions and is to be sent to the IRS. The package consists of approximately 155,000 information slips. Each slip represents one account and one account holder.An account holder can be either an individual or a corporate entity. There are instances where a single individual or entity holds multiple accounts. Allbaugh unable to provide a precise number, I can say that the number of individuals represented by the 155,000 information slips is less than 155,000.

lJ. Based on my review of the information slips I can confirm that there are no information slips in relation to either of the appellants in this proceeding. I have reviewed the appellants’ notice of application and note that the injunction they seek in paragraph 1 applies to any information to be sent under the Canada-United States 1:·11/wnced Tax !Hformation Exchange Agreement Implementation ct, being s.99 and Schedule 3 of the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act~ S.C. 2014, c.20. However they also state in their notice of application that they are only seeking an injunction in relation to a “subclass” of information. I have reviewed the remedy sought by the appellants’ in their summary trial application, on the assumption that this is the relief being sought in paragraph 68 of their notice of application, and note that the CRA is not generally in possession of information which would permit it to sort the information slips provided by financial institutions to narrow them to a subclass of information.

Impacts of an Injunction
W. If the CRA is unable, due to an injunction, to transmit the required information to the IRS, and no extension of time is granted by the IRS, Canadian financial institutions will risk losing the benefit of the deemed FATCA compliance that they would otherwise obtain through the IGA. ln particular, as of October 1, 2015, if the 000062 – 5 – ·000063 information has not been received by the IRS and no extension of lime has bct.:n granted, it is possible that the Canadian Financial Institutions could be considered noncompliant.

II . The lGA not only requires the CRA to provide information to the IRS , but for the JRS to provide information to the CRA If an injunction is granted and the CRA is not able to meet its commitments under the lOA, the IRS will not provide CRA with the information it has committed to provide. This would have a detrimental impact on CRA ‘s tax compliance work. The information to be provided by the IRS is helpful to tax compliance work in Canada because it would quickly and easily permit the CRA to match financial holdings in the US to specific taxpayers in Canada to, in a timely way, assess their compliance and if necessary commence audit action. As with other information obtained by the CRA, it is compared to that reported on tax returns and where inconsistencies are identified. compliance actions are undertaken and reassessments made.

12. Canada has a long-standing history of exchange of information with many countries, particularly the United Stales and non-compliance with the lGA would have a detrimental effect on our international reputation in this regard.

SWORN before me at the City of Ottawa,
in the Province of Ontario, this 25th clay of
September, 2() IS .
Commissioner

Continue reading →

— SEPTEMBER 30 MORNING BUT NO DECISION YET FROM COURT ON OUR REQUEST FOR A STAY.

— Remember, win or lose the stay, we move on to the Constitutional-Charter trial.

Here is a link to part of our request for a stay and here is part of Government response.

— I also enclose below a September 28 response of the Arvay team to some key points raised by Government.

— Starting first with part of our request for a stay in the turnover:

Appropriateness of Injunctive Relief

58. The Appellants acknowledge that the three part test In RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (A.C), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 applies to this application.

59. With respect to whether the Appellants have raised a “serious question” on the appeal, that branch of the test will be satisfied if on a limited review of the issues the Court concludes that the Appellants -14- “may” have a meritorious appeal: Coca-Cola Ltd v. Pardhan,
(1999),85 C.P.R. (3d) 501 (F.C.A.).

60. In this case, that threshold is easily satisfied. For example, in his reasons for judgment, Martineau J.:

a. entirely fails to address the meaning and import to be accorded the Technical Interpretation, which unambiguously states that Article XXVII prohibits bulk exchange of financial institution
account information;

b. engages in an unduly formalistic and narrow construction of Article XXVIA;

c. entirely fails to address the Article XXV admission which unanswerably shows that the Impugned Provisions violate the Canada-US Tax Treaty; and

d. reaches the conclusion that for the purposes of Canadian law, the Intergovernmental Agreement is a treaty or listed agreement for the purposes of s. 241 (4) of the ITA when that was not pled by the Respondents, where the Intergovernmental Agreement explicitly purports to be subordinate to the Canada-US Tax Treaty, and where the Appellants sought to tender evidence showing that from the point of view of the other party to the agreement it certainly is not a treaty.

61. With respect to whether the Appellants would suffer irreparable harm, there is a real risk that the appeal would be rendered moot insofar as the existing Account information of U.S. Persons is concerned if an injunction were not granted.
-15-
62. Under Article 4 of the Intergovernmental Agreement, Canada is required to begin providing the Accountholder Information to the United States by September 30,2015.

63. Canada previously advised that it intended to begin disclosing the Accountholder Information to the United States on September 23, 2015. On September 18, 2015 the Appellants informed the
Respondents of their intent to seek a stay and requested the Respondents’ confirmation that any exchange of information pursuant to the Impugned Provisions would be delayed as a result of it. On September 22,2015, the Respondents informed the Appellants that no information would be exchanged until September 29,2015.

64. Once Canada has disclosed the Accountholder Information, the information will be irretrievable. The impact on the individuals whose Accountholder Information is disclosed will be permanent and irremediable.

65. This is particularly so given that this first disclosure will identify the Appellants and others in their position to the IRS as US Persons where previously the IRS would not have had that information.

66. Thus, once the information is disclosed, the primary purpose of the appeal for such persons and for such information, to prevent such disclosure, will have been rendered moot.

67. With respect to the balance of convenience, the Appellants acknowledge that there is a strong presumption in favour of legislation enacted by Parliament being in the public interest, which presumption is rebuttable if it can be shown that injunctive relief would serve a public interest greater than that served by maintaining the challenged legislation in immediate force: Allard v. Canada, 2014 FC 280.
-16-
68. Further, it should be noted that the present motion does not seek a complete suspension of the IGA, but rather only an exemption in respect of a subclass of persons to whom it applies and then only insofar as it seeks to enjoin the disclosure of Accountholder Information and not the collection. Courts have drawn a distinction between injunctions which seek to suspend legislation, and those which seek exemptions from the application of legislation. Those seeking only exemptions are subjected to a less stringent test:Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd.,
[1987] 1 S.C.R. 110.

69 . Moreover, in the present case, there are, on their face, competing public interests embodied in section 241 of the ITA, the Tax Treaty Act, and the Impugned Provisions.

70. Privacy over taxpayer information has been recognized by this Court and the Supreme Court of Canada as an important public interest under s. 241 of the ITA because it is a key tool to promote compliance in self-assessment tax systems: Slattery (Trustee oj) v. Slattery, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 430; Gernhart v. Canada, [2000] 2 F.C.R. 292 (F.C.A.).

71. ‘The Technical Interpretation evinces that pnvacy of taxpayer financial account information specifically is a public interest that animates the Canada-US Tax Treaty and, accordingly, therefore the Tax Treaty Act.

72. There can be no doubt that unless an injunction is granted to prevent imminent disclosure under the Intergovernmental Agreement, the public interest in privacy of taxpayer information will have been compromised. The question as to whether such compromise is lawful is the very question under appeal. In that sense, the status quo very much favours the granting of an injunction.
-17-
73. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that the specific public interest the Impugned Provisions purport to advance, enhanced taxpayer compliance, will not actually be achieved. Indeed, Martineau J.
explicitly recognized in paragraph 76 of his Reasons that in many quarters, the regime the FATCA regime is regarded as ineffective, as well as costly and unjust. The record before him amply supports the conclusion that such may well be the case.

74. It is to be recalled that both the Tax Treaty Act and the Impugned Provisions contain paramountcy clauses. If in fact the provisions of the two pieces of legislation cannot be reconciled in the manner that either the Appellants or Respondents advocate, and if the paramountcy clause in the Tax Treaty Act were to be found primary over the paramountcy clause in the Impugned Provisions, then failure to issue an injunction will have resulted in the will of Parliament to protect the public interest in privacy over taxpayer confidentiality as expressed in s.241 of the ITA, the Tax Treaty Act having been subverted.

75. On the other hand, if an injunction is granted, there will only be a delay while the appeal proceeds, and the Appellants submit that in that case the appeal should be expedited to minimize the delay. Further, it is apparent from the Notice that the IRS is aware that a number of jurisdictions may not be ready to exchange information by the original deadlines pursuant to their IGAs, and is for that reason treating 2014 and 2015 as “transition years” and granting certain countries extensions for the exchange of information. It is submitted that common sense would prevail, and the United States would refrain from taking any steps while its ally and treaty partner adheres to the rule of law.

—- Part of the Government’s response to our request for a stay:

OVERVIEW
1. The Appellants seek an injunction against the Crown in a non-constitutional case. This is something this Court has no jurisdiction to grant.

Continue reading →

 
Virginia La Torre Jeker J.D., has weighed in on how the IRS Notice 15-66
will affect Model 1 IGA countries.
 
TIMING OF EXCHANGE OF 2014 INFORMATION UNDER A MODEL 1 IGA

Treasury and the IRS will treat foreign financial institutions (FFIs) covered by an IGA as complying with, and not subject to withholding under FATCA even if the relevant partner jurisdiction has not exchanged 2014 information by September 30, 2015, as long as the partner jurisdiction notifies the U.S. competent authority before September 30, 2015, of the delay and provides assurance that the jurisdiction is making good faith efforts to exchange the information as soon as possible.

The point to be made here, is that notification is what is required not permission.

 
Entire article can be found Here.

More on Virginia La Torre Jeker J.D., can be found Here.
 

The *never-give-up actions* of a Brocker who is a constituent of Conservative MP, John Weston, received positive news today (see the link to the pdf of the letter in this email) …

From: <john.weston.c1d@parl.gc.ca>
Date: September 24, 2015 at 12:12:21 PM PDT
Subject: Letter from John Weston.
Suzanne,

Thank you for contacting our office with the information from tax controversy watch. I wanted to provide to you the letter that was sent to Minister Findlay’s office regarding the delaying the information exchange.

We will continue to keep you up to date.

Kindest regards,

Sue McQueen
Chief Member’s Assistant

John Weston, MP
PO Box 1505
Sechelt, BC V0N 3A0
604-885-2939

Says our fellow-Brocker,

This is the FIRST Conservative MP to write to the Revenue Minister about the delay that I know of. Maybe it would be good to post on Brock for other people who have Con MP’s too. If we can get enough Con MP’s to write – who knows??? Never say never!
…
And guess what, just as I was ready to send this to you, I heard back from my Lib candidate who I just sent John’s letter to and was told that she’s working on it and to “stand by”!

**************

Message to the rest of us:

Stay tuned —

AND contact YOUR Conservative (or any other Party) MP and ask them to responsibly and urgently act on behalf of *US Persons in Canada*.

[IF ANYONE HAS FULL LETTERS FROM CANADIAN POLITICIANS REQUESTING A FATCA DELAY — OTHER THAN THE LETTERS ALREADY POSTED ON BROCK — PLEASE SEND TO ME IMMEDIATELY USING THE EMAIL SITE ON WWW.ADCS-ADSC.CA]

The Honourable Nathan Cullen is one of my heroes for trying to stop the Canadian FATCA IGA implementing legislation in the Parliament Committee meetings. Here he asks the Minister of National Revenue and Finance Minister to request a delay of the FATCA transfer (what is the downside in Canada making the simple request?):

Minister of Finance The Honourable Joe Oliver Department of Finance Canada
90 Elgin Street Ottawa,
Minister of National Revenue The Honourable Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay PC, QC, MP
7th Floor 555 MacKenzie Avenue
Ottawa ON K1A 0L5 Ontario K1A 0G5

Via email

September 22, 2015

Dear Honourable Ministers,

It is with urgency that I write you about the impending transfer of Canadians’ financial information through the U.S.-Canada Intergovernmental Agreement and Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

A September 23rd transfer of information is set to take place in order to adhere to the original September 30, 2015 deadline imposed by the United States Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under FATCA, but this deadline has now been extended until September 30, 2016, and as a result I am asking that the Canadian government halt the planned transfer of information.

The IRS notice, issued September 18, 2015 states that:

Many partner jurisdictions that have signed IGAs or reached an agreement in substance on the text of an IGA continue to work through their internal procedures to bring the IGA into force. Pursuant to its authority under section 1471(b)(2)(B), and consistent with Announcement 2014-38, for Model 1 IGAs that have not yet entered into force on September 30, 2015, Treasury intends to continue to treat FFIs covered by the IGA as complying with, and not subject to withholding under, FATCA so long as the partner jurisdiction continues to demonstrate firm resolve to bring the IGA into force and any information that would have been reportable under the IGA on September 30, 2015, is exchanged by September 30, 2016, together with any information that is reportable under the IGA on September 30, 2016. Source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-15-66.pdf

The Canadian government can now request a delay of transfer and still remain compliant with FATCA, therefore I urgently request that you cease the planned transfer of information on September 23rd, and proceed request a delay from the United States government.

The intergovernmental agreement to implement the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act in Canada has been the subject of widespread criticisms. Serious concerns remain about the potential violation of privacy and constitutional rights as a consequence of the agreement, as well as the unknown costs to Canadians.

It is the responsibility of the Government of Canada to ensure that privacy rights of all Canadians are protected.

Please consider this urgent request.

Sincerely,

Nathan Cullen
NDP Critic for Finance (Skeena – Bulkley Valley)

UPDATE: September 23, 2015, p.m.
From Lynne:

It looks like when Murray Rankin’s Assistant said “We sent…” , she was referring to Nathan Cullen’s letter.

This afternoon, she sent me the following e-mail attaching the Cullen letter.

Hello Lynne,

I trust you have seen this by now. Please find attached Mr. Cullen’s letter to ministers urgently asking for a delay in transferring information.

Regards,
Maura Parte

Please refer to Nathan Cullen’s letter, as posted here: https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/09/23/letter-from-nathan-cullen-canadian-ndp-finance-critic-to-canadas-minister-of-national-revenue-and-the-finance-minister-requesting-delay-in-fatca-turnover/

******************
AS REPORTED EARLIER TODAY:

Building on Elizabeth May’s letter to the government that Stephen Kish advised about yesterday:

https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/09/22/letter-from-elizabeth-may-green-party-of-canada-leader-to-canadas-prime-minister-requesting-delay-in-fatca-turnover/

Lynne Swanson reports this morning — thanks, Blaze:

After I contacted the NDP National campaign and Murray Rankin’s office yesterday, I received this reply sent from Murray Rankin’s Assistant at 10:57 last night:

Hello Lynne,
We have sent an urgent letter to the minister. I can provide you with more detail tomorrow.
Maura

I will post any updates when I receive them. I am working on Scott Brison and the Libs.

We’ll stay tuned here and at MapleSandbox for more from Blaze.

(..and I hope the NDP Party Leader, Thomas Mulcair, and other Party candidates will weigh in on the important action of the NDP Deputy Critic for National Revenue for *US-deemed US Persons in Canada*.

[This letter from the Honourable Elizabeth May was prompted by a letter to her from one of our supporters.]

“September 22, 2015

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, PC, MP
Prime Minister of Canada
Langevin Block
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A2

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing to inform you of an urgent deadline that impacts many Canadians, including many of my constituents in Saanich Gulf Islands.

As you are well aware, the Government passed Bill C31 in the spring of 2014, that, amongst its many provisions, implemented an intergovernmental agreement with the United States respecting the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

Per the terms of that agreement, the private banking information of hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens and permanent residents is set to be transferred by Canada Revenue Agency to the IRS on September 23, 2015.

This is unacceptable.

It is a breach of privacy and an attack on citizenship, sovereignty, and access to justice for the Canadian government to allow Canadian banks to send personal financial information of Canadian citizens to another country.

I implore you, Prime Minister, to act now to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens. The IRS is receptive to extension requests and has already granted extensions to other countries. You can, and should, write to the IRS by end of business day and seek an extension from the IRS.

Yours sincerely,

Elizabeth May, OC, MP
Incumbent Candidate for Saanich Gulf Islands
Leader of the Green Party of Canada”

Continue reading →

THIS POST, WRITTEN BY JOHN RICHARDSON, IS CROSS POSTED FROM OUR ADCS-ADSC BLOG.

THE GIST OF THIS POST IS THAT WE NEED TO KEEP THIS SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN GOING FULL STEAM UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT ADVISES THAT IT WILL ASK FOR A DELAY IN SENDING YOUR PRIVATE BANK DATA TO U.S. IRS — OR HAS ALREADY SENT THE DATA:

“As previously posted, ADCS has written the Minister of National Revenue and requested that (in light of familiar considerations) the Government of Canada NOT transfer your FATCA data to the IRS by the September 30, 2015 deadline. In addition (as you know) our lawyers have notified the Government lawyers that they are not required to abide by the September 30 deadline.

The significance of September 23, 2015:

September 23, 2015 has NO legal significance.

It is simply the date that (according to the Government lawyers) the CRA had decided to transfer the data to the IRS. Will they or won’t they? Only their “legal counsel” knows for sure (maybe).

That said, the real issue is whether the Government of Canada intends to comply with the September 30 deadline. If they choose to comply with the September 30 deadline, then the information can be sent any time up to and including September 30, 2015.

Furthermore, the Government of Canada has NO legal obligation to notify us (or anybody else) of their decision.

Therefore, ….

Without a clear statement from the Government of Canada that they have decided to NOT meet the September 30, 2015 deadline your social media campaign must continue.

To put it another way:

If the Government of Canada gives NO indication that it has sent the light, then your job is to continue to make sure that if feels the heat! Use the #StopFATCA hashtag!”

Continue reading →

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/09/21/irs-and-fbi-track-americans-who-renounce-citizenship-why-is-fbi-list-longer/

A new article by Robert Wood highlighting the disparity between IRS and FBI renunciation lists. The Isaac Brock Society is name-checked for its pioneering role in tracking and flagging the inconsistencies in this data. Here’s an excerpt:

The FBI and the IRS don’t agree, yet both are ostensibly tracking the same data: how Americans are giving up their citizenship. For several years, a historical trickle of renunciations of U.S. citizenship has spiked materially. The trickle is now more of an open faucet, though one difficulty in determining the flow is available data. The IRS publishes a list, but many people who have expatriated claim their names are never on the IRS list.

Each three months, there is a public name and shame list published by the Treasury Department based on information from the IRS. The list each quarter is incomplete so the numbers are under-stated, some say considerably. For example, consular expatriations where people do not file exit tax forms with the IRS are apparently not counted. Indeed, the Treasury Department’s published list states explicitly that this is just a list of those about whom the Secretary of the Treasury has data. Statistics are also not available for why people say good-bye.

Now, a new report flagged by Paul Caron backs up the claim that the IRS is undercounting Americans who are renouncing citizenship. The report quotes extensively from Andrew Mitchel, an attorney who specializes in renunciations. Mr. Mitchel compares IRS and FBI data and says the gap between the two sets of figures is significant. Mr. Mitchel credits Canada’s Isaac Brock Society for beginning to track the FBI data in 2013.