cross posted from ADCSovereignty page

UPDATE September 28, 2015
CANADA

from Tricia Moon:

As we wait (and wait and wait) I thought I would tell you of a small thing that happened to me that might make a few people feel better…

I opened a (new) bank account last Friday with a different branch of BNS than the one where I still have quite a few accts. After about 3 mins, poof! Not asked “Are you or have you ever been an American citizen/U.S. “Person?” Not asked to fill out a W8 or W9.
I asked the gentleman why and he said as an existing customer, they already have done the KYC/AML procedures etc.I mentioned that I renounced, had a CLN etc and we had a very nice discussion.

However, it was interesting that he didn’t pick up that the bank could have been in error by not asking considering I very much was US for the majority of my time as their customer. Meaning lots of others who haven’t renounced/have no CLN may well not have to worry…

Many duals will obviously be able to evade detection -even with new accounts- if their banks have similar policies. He also told me that it is illegal for a bank to photocopy any identification documents. And never to let anyone take ID to do that.

So perhaps, way back when, even if one DID use a a non-US passport with a US birthplace, I can’t really imagine the birthplace being written down-just the passport number (of course, for years prior to FATCA).
September 27, 2015

  from Dr. Stephen Kish:

 Yesterday I attended a meeting of the Republican Overseas (RO), who are mounting their own lawsuit against FATCA and the IGAs. I met, for the first time in person, Dani Küttel, who has been posting on this site and who is one of the plaintiffs. The U.S. Government lawyers, as expected, are attempting to contest “standing” of all of the plaintiffs arguing that our wounds are self-inflicted. The decision on the RO injunction (September 28-29) will be made at about the same time as that for our request for a stay (September 28?) and their attorney will advise me as soon as the Federal Court has ruled in their case.

September 26, 2015

 from Dr. Stephen Kish:

“LITIGATION UPDATE: We instructed the Arvay-Gruber team to take legal steps to prevent the handover and obtain a stay related to the summary trial appeal. It is likely now (but situation still fluid) that the Court will hear our motion for a stay. There will be no oral arguments and the court will consider our arguments based on the written submission only. The Government of Canada will also file written materials. I will release the motion when I am able to do so.

The “live feed” below will pick up every tweet that uses the hashtag#StopFatca. Please help get this message out-join our Tweet brigade (another version of Brock SWAT) now at 56! Canadians have 1 day to continue pressuring the government prior to transmission on Sept 29. Other Model 1 IGA countries have 2 days prior to transmission on Sept 30. Please advise of any countries who have received an extension from the September 30, 2015 deadline. Also please advise if you know of any governments who have notified the IRS that they want the extension.

Every US Person abroad needs to put the same pressure on their own governments TO STOP THE EXCHANGES FROM TAKING PLACE as all Model 1 IGA’s require turnover of information by September 30. Each government has TO ACTUALLY REQUEST THIS EXTENSION FROM THE IRS, so members need to take responsibility for making sure their respective tax authority/government does so.

#StopFATCA Tweets

WORLD

The Treasury Department is up to something. new CAAs signed

The titles of both agreements include the words “to improve International Tax Compliance and to Implement FATCA. I am afraid to imagine what that actually means.

A competent authority arrangement is a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and its treaty partners to clarify or interpret provisions of an existing tax treaty, such as the ones used to justify the intergovernmental agreements, or IGAs, under FATCA

“The signing of these Competent Authority Arrangements marks another significant milestone in the international effort to gain proper reporting of offshore accounts and income,” said IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in a statement. “Together in partnership with other tax authorities, we are demonstrating how far we have come in the fight against offshore tax evasion.”

US & Australia

US & UK and Northern Ireland

ATO hands over bank details to US Internal Revenue Service
THE AUSTRALIAN SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 12:00AM

The Australian Taxation Office has handed the US Internal Revenue Service details of more than 30,000 bank accounts containing more than $5 billion in the first transfer of information under America’s Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.The ATO said that in return for supplying the FATCA data, the IRS will give it information about Australians with US accounts that will be used to root out undeclared offshore income.Its figures imply the accounts, revealed to the IRS in the first tranche of data, have an average balance of more than $160,000.

Note: Link not guaranteed due to paywall
Continue reading →

[JOHN RICHARDSON ASKS THAT EVERY PERSON READING THIS POST IMMEDIATELY LAUNCH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA TOOLS AND SKILLS AND SEND TO ALL PEOPLES AND ALL POLITICIANS: THE MESSAGE IS TO DELAY THE FATCA HANDOVER.

ADCS HAS JUST PREPARED A PRESS RELEASE WITH SAME MESSAGE WHICH IT IS SENDING OUT AND WILL POST.]

Cross-posted from the ADCS blog

Let’s begin with the end:

My advice to you for the next few days …

Launch a massive a focused “social media” campaign (primarily Twitter
and Facebook) which is to convey two sets of messages:

1. To individuals – The Government of Canada
   is about to turn one million of your fellow Canadians over to
   the IRS because Stevie Harper WANTS to!! Get them to pressure
   the Government and the Candidates.
2. To Candidates and Political Parties – Those
   who do NOT actively oppose the great FATCA turnover will NOT
   winning the election!!

You have only a few days. As Ronald Reagan was fond of saying:

“When you can’t
make them see the light, make them feel the
heat.”

Move quickly!!

John
Richardson

___________________________________________________________________________

Here is why …
Continue reading →

cross posted from the ADCSovereignty Blog

FATCA Update: Treasury Relaxes September 30 Deadline for Model 1 IGA Jurisdictions to Exchange Ta… http://t.co/wocIyAGoPr via @BlankRomeLLP

— John Richardson – Counsellor for US persons abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) September 19, 2015

Well, it’s been quite a week. At approximately 4:45 p.m. today the IRS issued a notice confirming that the FATCA implementation date will be extended to September 30, 2016. As you know Canada has a Model 1 IGA. Assuming the correctness of the post in the above tweet:

Model 1 IGA Jurisdictions for Which the Obligation to Exchange Is In Effect

For those Model 1 IGA jurisdictions where the obligation to exchange is in effect now, Notice 2015-66 provides that FFIs in that country will be treated as FATCA compliant, and not subject to withholding, so long as the partner jurisdiction notifies the U.S. before September 30 that it requires more time, and “provides assurance that the jurisdiction is making good faith efforts to exchange the information as soon as possible.” Notice 2015-66 does not, however, change the deadline for FFIs to report information to their local tax authority, which remains governed by law of that country.

We have instructed our legal counsel to notify the Government of Canada (and they have) of this development and request that the Government of Canada NOT disclose your banking information to the IRS.

It’s been quite a week. We will keep you posted.

John Richardson

UPDATE:
Please go to these articles about the lawsuit and comment:

Financial Post

Globe & Mail

cross posted from the ADCSovereignty WordPress blog

I  left my root canal appointment this afternoon to a message announcing that Justice Martineau had rendered his decision. We did not win round 1. Notice that I did NOT say that the Government won round 1.

Here is the decision:

T-1736-14 decision sept-16-2015

Before, I comment specifically on the decision, I want to be clear on the following points:

1. This decision marks the end of the beginning. It has always been clear that this litigation would NOT stop at the first level of trial.
2. The “summary trial” on the Tax Treaty issues was a “carve out” of the main Charter issues.
3. Obviously we continue on.

I am not surprised by the result – that is a “win” or a “loss”. What I am surprised at is the content of the decision (which I will get to in a moment).

But first some general thoughts/feelings/comments …

A. As you know, the CRA has announced that it will be sending the results of “FATCA Hunt” to the IRS on September 23, 2015.

This is hardly a surprise, given that Canada, has been and continues (under the Harper Government) to be a “World Leader” in FATCA implementation. Obviously this is  a great disappointment. My guess is that it will be a long time before there are any specific results (meaning letters from the IRS) from this.

This is the beginning of a long struggle. Remember, this is a “marathon” and NOT a sprint. Concern is appropriate. Panic is not. Justice Martineau’s decision does reinforce the principle that the Treaty does NOT obligate the Canada Revenue Agency to assist the IRS in collecting tax on Canadian citizens. Do NOT do anything that is reckless and is a reaction to this decision (as opposed to a response). You will be subject to a good deal of “fear mongering” from various people (accountants, lawyers, bankers …). You should deal with this situation “one FATCA letter at a time”. Remember that a “FATCA Letter” is a letter that indicates that you are under “suspicion of being a U.S citizen”. It does not mean that you are a U.S. citizen.

The only difference between today and yesterday is that Justice Martineau has ruled against us – clearing the way for the next step.

In any case, Justice Martineau has “cleared the way” for the CRA to send your account information to the IRS. This is not good news.

B. It’s important to see this decision as an event that brings us one step closer to moving this issue through the courts.

For those of you who see the result as failure (and I don’t) I remind you that every failure brings us one step closer to our next success.
 

As George said over at Brock:

“Ladies and gentlemen, we go back to work and keep moving forward.”

Continue reading →

Personally, I am not surprised. Canadian courts are very conservative and always it appears defers to the government.

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/T-1736-14%20decision%20sept-16-2015.pdf

Suggest emailing Mulcair’s press Secretary about this outrage as he is apparently US-born.

george.smith@ndp.ca

[This is from the September 14 2015 Tax Blog on www.taxconnections.com]

“How To Live Outside The United States In An FBAR And FATCA World” by John Richardson

“When in Rome, live as a Homelander” does, when elsewhere, live as they live elsewhere.

Introduction:

Americans abroad are constantly told that they should “come clean”. They should file their U.S. taxes. This assumes that they are somehow “unclean” or perhaps “dirty”. The life of an “American abroad” is about three things:

1. “Thinking Clean” – The importance of “thinking clean” while living abroad.

2. “Coming Clean” – Atoning for the sins of “living abroad” and entering the U.S. tax system; and

3. “Living Clean” – Living as a Homeland American outside the United States

“Living clean” for Americans abroad

A supporter of “citizenship taxation” is a person who thinks about “citizenship taxation”.

An opponent of “citizenship taxation” is a “U.S. tax compliant” American abroad who understands what it’s like to live under “citizenship taxation”.

There are rumored to be “millions” of people with a U.S. birthplace who live outside the United States.

The Good News:
According to the constitution of the United States, those people began life as U.S. citizens. If they have NOT committed a “relinquishing act” they are still considered by the U.S. to be U.S. citizens.

The Bad News:
According to the constitution of the United States, those people began life as U.S. citizens. If they have NOT committed a “relinquishing act” they are still considered by the U.S. to be U.S. citizens.
Continue reading →

cross posted from Citizenship Solutions.
 

The $2350 “relinquishment fee” does NOT mean that people should simply renounce citizenship http://t.co/nKanxobfhQ

— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) September 7, 2015

On September 6, 2015 it was reported on the Isaac Brock Society that the State Department intended to begin charging $2350 for both “relinquishments” and “renunciations”. The proposed rule is to be published on September 8, 2015. With respect to “relinquishments” the Federal Register states:

The Department is expanding the application of and renaming item 8 in the Schedule of Fees to “Administrative Processing of Request for Certificate of Loss of Nationality.” The fee will be applied to cover not only services to U.S. nationals (i.e., U.S. citizens and non-citizen nationals) who relinquish nationality by taking the oath of renunciation under 8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5), but also to cover services to U.S. nationals who relinquish nationality under 8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(1) to 1481(a)(4) or any earlier-in-time relinquishment statutes administered by the Department of State and request a Certificate of Loss of Nationality. Currently, the fee is paid by those taking the oath of renunciation under 8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5) at the time the oath is sworn. The fee would be collected from an individual claiming to have relinquished nationality at the time that person requests the Certificate of Loss of Nationality (that is, after completing Form DS-4079 and signing before a consular officer Part II of Form DS-4079 entitled “Statement of Voluntary Relinquishment of U.S. Citizenship”). The Fiscal Year 2012 Cost of Service Model update demonstrated that documenting a U.S. national’s relinquishment of nationality is extremely costly whether the service is for a relinquishment under 8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(1) to 1481(a)(4) or a relinquishment by renunciation under 8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5). Both require American consular officers overseas to spend substantial amounts of time to accept, process, and adjudicate cases. The cost of the service is not limited to the time consular officers spend with individuals prior to and at appointments. The application is reviewed both overseas and domestically to ensure full compliance with the law. The consular officer must determine that the individual is indeed a U.S. national, advise the individual on the consequences of loss of nationality, and ensure that the individual fully understands the consequences of loss, including the inability to reside in the United States unless properly documented as an alien. Through documentary review, consideration of the individual’s circumstances, and careful interviewing, the consular officer also must determine whether the individual is seeking loss of nationality voluntarily and with the requisite intent, as required by U.S. Supreme Court case law and by statute (8 U.S.C. 1481). This determination can be especially demanding in the case of minors or individuals with a developmental disability or mental illness.

The consular officer must also ensure that the commission of an expatriating act was as prescribed by statute, which is often an issue in non-renunciation relinquishment cases. The loss of nationality service must be documented on several forms and in consular systems as well as in a memorandum from the consular officer to the Department’s Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services in Washington, DC (“OCS”), in the Bureau of Consular Affairs. All forms and memoranda are closely reviewed in OCS by a country officer and a senior approving officer, and may include consultation with legal advisers. This review entails close examination of whether the requirements of voluntariness and intent are satisfied in the individual case. Some applications require multiple rounds of correspondence between post and the Department. The final approval of the loss of nationality must be done by law within the Department (8 U.S.C. 1501), by OCS, after which the case is returned to the consular officer overseas for final delivery of the Certificate of Loss of Nationality to the individual. In addition, every individual issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality is advised of the possibility of seeking a future Administrative Review of the loss of nationality, a time-consuming process that is conducted by OCS’s Office of Legal Affairs.

Currently, nationals who renounce nationality pay a fee of $2,350, while nationals who apply for documentation of relinquishment of nationality by the voluntary commission of an expatriating act with the intention to lose nationality, do not pay a fee. However the services performed in both situations are similar, requiring close and detailed case-by-case review of the factors involved in a request for a Certificate of Loss of Nationality, and both result in similar costs to the Department.

In the past, individuals seldom requested Certificates of Loss of Nationality from the Department to document relinquishment. Although the Department was aware that an individual relinquishment service was among the most time consuming of consular services, it was rarely performed so the overall cost to the Department was low and the Department did not establish a fee. Requests for a Certificate of Loss of Nationality on the basis of a non-renunciatory relinquishment have increased significantly in recent years, and the Department expects the number to grow in the future, causing the total cost of this service to increase. At the same time, the Department funds consular services completely from user fees. The Cost of Service Model continues to demonstrate that such costs are incurred by the Department when accepting, processing, and adjudicating relinquishment of nationality cases; therefore, the Department will collect a fee from all individuals seeking a Certificate of Loss of Nationality. Taking into account the costs of both renunciation and non-renunciation relinquishment processes, the fee will be $2,350.

 
 
The effective date will be November 9, 2015,. I have been aware of this impending fee increase for some time. Hence, it comes as no surprise. Furthermore, if you accept the validity of the $2350 fee for renunciations then a similar fee for “relinquishments” is justifiable.
Continue reading →