On February 28 2019 John Richardson published a post in TaxConnections entitled: “The USA Of The 21st Century Is Like Britain In The 19th Century”.
Yesterday (March 13), he published a NEW post entitled: “The United States Imposes A Separate And Much More Punitive Tax On U.S. Citizens Who Are Residents Of Other Countries”
You can read and contribute to the new post on this link.
We’ll be getting together for lunch Saturday, 9 February, at 1:00 pm at Montana’s BBQ Restaurant, 1750 Ogilvie Road. Plenty of free parking on site, also accessible by city bus.
We’re currently expecting 9 people — hope you can come, too! Please rsvp by posting a comment here or e-mail me at pacifica at isaacbrocksociety dot ca
THE INTENDED FOCUS OF THIS POST IS THE ALLIANCE FOR THE DEFENCE OF CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY (ADCS) FATCA IGA LEGISLATION TRIAL IN CANADA HELD ON JANUARY 28, 2019.
The Government of Canada (who we are suing), together with some commenters on this site, strongly emphasize that Canadians should thank their lucky stars because they can easily get out of any FATCA-related “problems” (e.g., Canada won’t collect on behalf of the IRS at the present time, IRS at present time is not prosecuting all those turned over by FATCA, American interference is only hypothetical, “US citizens in Canada don’t seem to have much to fear from America or Canada, apart from the pointless automatic reporting. Canada may in fact be the last remaining country in the world where dual citizen status isn’t risky.” etc.). Why then did our Plaintiffs put themselves personally at financial risk with this lawsuit?
One reason for this trial is that Plaintiffs Gwen and Kazia want Canada’s FATCA IGA legislation, infringing on their privacy (Charter section 8) and equality (section 15) rights, declared unconstitutional by Canada’s Federal Court — and that a lawsuit is the way to achieve this specific objective.
Do privacy and equality rights matter? Should we care?
Plaintiffs also say in their court submission: “Canada effectively maintains that it enacted the Impugned Provisions under duress from a foreign state. The Court should be very slow to accept this as a justification for infringements of the Charter. Canada is expected to defend the constitutional rights and freedoms of its citizens and not bargain them away or capitulate to threats from a foreign bully state.”
Is it important that Canada be a sovereign nation and not bargain away Charter rights because of a threat from a foreign bully? Does standing up to a foreign bully matter?
The CBC tells us that information on 600,000 accounts/year has been turned over to the US IRS during the past years. Even those who do not support Plaintiffs’ lawsuit would likely admit that at least “some” of the accountholders did not give consent for the turnover — meaning that the loss of Charter rights is not hypothetical.
Gwen and Kazia believe, and shouldn’t this really be obvious to all Canadians?, that the loss of our Charter rights, the loss of Canada’s sovereignty, and the loss of dignity of a subgroup of Canadian citizens, are more than, as some commenters argue, just “a relatively abstract sort of harm”.
Canada argues no harm caused by the FATCA IGA, but does acknowledge that if Charter rights are infringed, it had plenty of justification to do so — Canada had no choice but to comply with United States FATCA demands and could not have said “no”.
The lawsuit began during the time of the Harper Conservative government. We had hoped that when the Liberals came to power, there would be no need to continue the lawsuit, because of statements made on June 25, 2015 by Justin Trudeau to ADCS (“The Government of Canada has a responsibility to stand up for its citizens when foreign governments are encroaching on their rights. We believe that the [FATCA] deal reached between Canada and the U.S. is insufficient to protect Canadians.”) — but this was not to be, and the lawsuit continues even with the change in government.
When reading the diverse comments below on a variety of topics please try to consider what Plaintiffs’ Gwen and Kazia want to achieve, on behalf of all Canadians, with their lawsuit.
More discussion of the lawsuit below:
[The critical Section 1 of Canada’s Charter of Rights is mentioned below: Canada says in a lawsuit submission for our January 28 FATCA trial in Federal Court, that if compliance with the U.S. FATCA law is “found to limit any Charter right, any such limitation can be justified under s.1 of the Charter” [and that] In order to be justified the Impugned Provisions must have a pressing and substantial objective” …”.
— Canada argues that avoidance of economic “catastrophic effects” that will be inflicted on Canada if she does not comply with the U.S. FATCA demand is a “pressing and substantial objective”.
— But Plaintiffs point out in their submission that: “Kevin Shoom, Canada’s witness who participated in the negotiations with the United States that ultimately resulted in the IGA, agreed [in cross examination] that any consideration of what would transpire if any part of the Impugned Provisions were declared of no force or effect would be highly speculative. He agreed that it would depend on “a whole lot of considerations,” that Canada would negotiate with the United States to achieve the best possible outcome, and that “we don’t know how the US would respond.””.
More generally, Plaintiffs say: “Canada effectively maintains that it enacted the Impugned Provisions under duress from a foreign state. The Court should be very slow to accept this as a justification for infringements of the Charter. Canada is expected to defend the constitutional rights and freedoms of its citizens and not bargain them away or capitulate to threats from a foreign bully state.” and, what “if another state’s laws required a person residing in Canada to report to that state obviously private, personal details about their lives – such as their religious practices…”?
[See: http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/CourtSubmissions.html ]
Canada is a Westminster Parliamentary democracy. Historically it has had a constitution (British North America Act) which defined how Canada was to be governed. In simple terms: the Federal Government has the jurisdiction to legislate in some areas (example criminal law). The Provincial Governments have the right to legislate in other areas (property and civil rights). These laws are made by democratically elected legislatures. Prior to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (April 17, 1982), the only limits on the legislative bodies were jurisdictional. Any law could be enacted. It was just a question of whether it was the Federal Government or the Provincial Government that could enact the law.
Continue reading
Before Obama FATCA and before FBAR, there was Caesar Augustus and the ROMAN Empire–with its capitol far away.
“Now it happened in those days, that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment made when Quirinius was governor. All went to enroll themselves….”
And so it was….an ancient FATCA. The capital of the government was far away….however each of the lands was governed by some puppet of Rome. The subjects had no benefit of census or taxation—-they were only subject to both.
From those times of oppression, was there a great birth which is celebrated today. For this, there are no parallels. Let us celebrate this day for what it is and separate the glory of this day from the tyranny of the kingdom.
The empire is not on our side. The pharisees of the media and congressional halls continually whip up propaganda against us. The empire digs us a hole and requires a “scoring” to be allowed to get us out of the hole.
The empire is led by men. If and when the earthly, human leaders of empire realizes their moral, constitutional, and godly responsibility to their population, the expats will rise from the tyranny.
We celebrate today. Tomorrow, we must remember our mortal code: God only helps those that help themselves. We must rise up and resist the government tyrannies of FATCA, the tyranny of discriminatory extra-territorial, person-based taxation, the tyrannies of GILTI and transition tax, and the tyranny of FBAR all emanating from the Empire.
Merry Christmas to all !
Congressman Holding has introduced the “Fair Taxation for Americans Abroad Act” in the United States House of Representatives.
“In 2019, Republicans Overseas will focus on getting the Tax Fairness for Americans Abroad Act passed….The TFFAAA will amend the Internal Revenue Code by offering overseas Americans a status similar to that enjoyed by corporations where foreign-sourced income is taxed in the country where it is earned. ” says Solomon Yue, of Republicans Overseas, who spearheaded this effort.
The direct link to the video (found in Embee’s comment) is HERE:
Here is John Richardson’s description of the Bill:
In order to keep the comments on Stephen’s post on topic, please direct your comments regarding Barbara’s comment, to this post.
Barbara says
December 18, 2018 at 12:18 am (Edit)
@BB: “We need to get people coming back to Brock.”
First step: how lovely it would be if someone actually moderated the forums and simply culled the repetitive and incessant chatter on some of the (formerly) useful threads. Many of the most essential threads have turned into a free-for-all which veer way off topic, raking over the same-old-same-old coals that have been raked over in every one of the other popular threads. It’s become so that I don’t even come to IBS much anymore. I check for new top-level posts and anything new on the “Current Media and Articles” thread and skip the rest of the bla-bla-bla because I’ve read it all so many times before.
Sorry to be so negative. When I first joined IBS a couple years ago, it was a clean, mean source of wisdom. I wonder how I’d feel if I joined now, with so much of the useful discussion buried under so much steamy hot air. I wish there were a separate thread called “The IBS Pub” where all the windy conversations can cheerfully continue, while those who simply need clarity about renunciation, etc., don’t have to comb through page after page of blather to find the few nuggets.
I still very strongly support the principles here, and the actions of the brave souls who put their time, money and lives on the line for the rest of us, and therefore I am happy to offer financial support.
**************
Thanks.
UPDATE: FATCA IGA litigation in Canada Federal Court: The guts of our Plaintiffs’ (Gwen and Kazia) arguments and those of the Government we oppose (for simplicity, “Canada”) can now be found in four court documents (that our supporters paid for) submitted between October 3 and December 13, 2018 (see below for some excerpts). The Court submissions can be found on our ADCS website.
The trial, which fleshes out the written arguments in orals in Federal Court, has been held the week of January 28, 2019 in Vancouver.
OUR TRIAL WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF BROCKERS. Somehow you found the monies to pay for this trial.
THE FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS THAT OUR SUPPORTERS PAID FOR:
1. October 3, 2018 Plaintiffs’ Complaint. We argue in part that Canada’s FATCA IGA legislation violates Sections 7, 8, and 15, of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the sovereignty of our country. Includes: ” …the principle of nonintervention between states is a cornerstone of the international order and intrinsically connected to state sovereignty; it is undoubtedly considered by all Canadians to be fundamental to their notion of justice that Canada will not expose them to enforcement of another state’s laws; and it is predictable and easily applied – simply, Canada may not allow other state to enforce their laws on individuals residing in Canada.”
2. November 21, 2018 Canada’s response to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Many arguments including: Canada argues that it responded wisely to a threat from a bully:“…severe consequences to the Canadian financial sector, its customers and investors, and to the Canadian economy as a whole if Canadian financial institutions were unable or unwilling to comply with FATCA.” “…the plaintiffs have no standing..” because their accounts were not turned over, etc. “The CRS has been adopted by over 100 countries, including Canada…” “While it is acknowledged that the Impugned Provisions cause the seizure of information for the purposes of s.8, the plaintiffs do not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in that information.” “The plaintiffs argue for the recognition of a novel principle of fundamental justice “that Canada will not deny its citizens the protection of Canadian sovereignty”. This proposed principle does not meet the requirements of a principle of fundamental justice as outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada.” “Avoiding the possibility of such catastrophic effects as a decline in GDP, labour income, employment, a depreciation of the Canadian dollar and a lowering of the standard of living of Canadians, are certainly sufficiently pressing and substantial to justify any minimal limitation on rights which may be found to a be result of the Impugned Provisions.”
3. December 7, 2018 Plaintiff’s response to Canada’s motion to strike out some testimony of our witnesses. Includes: “Canada seeks to strike the entirety of the Second Nightingale Affidavit based on a lack of relevance. The Second Nightingale Affidavit concerns the Exit Tax. As explained in the plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Fact and Law, the Exit Tax is relevant context in this constitutional case because it constitutes part of the burden faced by some individuals of avoiding exposure to the Impugned Provisions.” “The out of court statements referred to by Ms. Tapanila to which Canada objects are not adduced for the truth of their contents, but rather for the fact that they were made. The plaintiffs do not rely on the legal advice lay witnesses were given for the truth of its contents. Rather, the plaintiffs rely on the fact that these witnesses sought and paid for legal advice, in many cases from multiple lawyers and at significant expense. This evidence establishes that it can be onerous and costly for an individual to determine whether and how they may be affected by the Impugned Provisions – and if they are affected, whether and how they may avoid this by changing their immigration status under US law – as referred to in the plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Fact and Law, at paragraph 19. The specific legal opinions lay witnesses received are not relevant to this point.” [I will not provide a link to this short submission, which includes the names of witnesses other than that of Carol Tapanila, whose name is already in the public domain.]
4. December 13, 2018 Plaintiffs’ reply record for the Summary Trial. Includes: “This is the first time Canada has raised standing as an issue. It does not plead that the plaintiffs lack standing in its Amended Statement of Defence. Canada’s assertion that the plaintiffs’ rights have not been affected by the Impugned Provisions is incorrect. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs bear US Person Indicia, since they both have an unambiguous US Place of Birth. As a result, any Low Value Accounts they own now or in the future may be reported and shared pursuant to the Impugned Provisions. For Lower Value Accounts or High Value Accounts that they own now or in the future,the relevant FIs are required pursuant to the Impugned Provisions to obtain or review the plaintiffs’ Proof of Loss of US Citizenship.” “Further, or in the alternative, the plaintiffs have public interest standing to challenge the Impugned Provisions…Relatedly, in an earlier summary trial in this proceeding, this Court declined to grant costs given “the public interest involved in clarifying the scope of novel provisions affecting hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens.” etc. “Canada relies on the expert report of Matthias Oschinski for the proposition that if all of Canada’s big banks did not comply with FATCA, and the Impugned Provisions were not implemented, Canada would face significant negative economic impacts. In fact, Mr. Oschinski agreed that the severity of those impacts was subject to a “great deal of uncertainty” More importantly…” “This Court has already observed that the Common Reporting Standard is different from FATCA in “significant ways”. Comparing the CRS and the Impugned Provisions – as Canada does in various parts of its argument – does not aid in the resolution of this case.”
“…the record before the court actually does not establish that the plaintiffs have US tax reporting obligations [!]. There is no expert evidence before the court that considers the plaintiffs’ immigration and citizenship status under US law. The plaintiffs are affected by the Impugned Provisions because they bear US Person Indicia, not because they are US citizens. This is important: it is the presence or absence of US Person Indicia – as defined in the Impugned Provisions – that determines whether an individual is affected by the Impugned Provisions, not their citizenship status under US law. As noted above, Canada’s submission unreasonably assumes that the two are perfectly correlated.” “Canada states that its primary purpose in enacting the Impugned Provisions was to “avoid the potentially catastrophic impacts of FATCA on Canadian financial institutions, their customers and the Canadian economy.” It says its secondary purposes were to (a) lessen “the burden of the direct application of FATCA on Canadian financial institutions and their customers” and (b) “obtaining additional automatic exchange of information from the US to Canada for Canadian taxation purposes.” Assuming that the first of the secondary purpose is different than the alleged primary purpose, we do not accept that lessening of an undefined “burden” would be a legitimate objective for purpose of s. 8 or s. 1. As to Canada’s secondary purpose (b), while it is supported by one paragraph of the preamble to the IGA, it is undermined by all other relevant evidence and the effect of the law…Third, and in any event, Canada’s articulation of its “primary purpose” is too general to be accepted. A purpose that is articulated in too general terms will provide no meaningful check on the means employed to achieve it. Not only is the threat of economic harm Canada refers to amorphous and highly uncertain, it is so general that it could justify any rights infringement arguably motivated by such a threat from a foreign state…Canada effectively maintains that it enacted the Impugned Provisions under duress from a foreign state. The Court should be very slow to accept this as a justification for infringements of the Charter. Canada is expected to defend the constitutional rights and freedoms of its citizens and not bargain them away or capitulate to threats from a foreign bully state. The notion that a foreign state could indirectly cause the violation of a Charter right in circumstances where Canada could not do so directly simply cannot be accepted. This is a deeply illiberal proposition and it would undermine the principle of the rule of law which explicitly animates the Charter. ”
“Further, even if a desire to avoid financial punishment by a foreign state is accepted as the actual objective underlying the Impugned Provisions, and is considered a valid basis to violate a Charter right, there is significant uncertainty surrounding (a) whether the United States actually would have inflicted that punishment if Canada did not abide, or would do so now if the Impugned Provisions were declared of no force or effect, and (b) the severity of the financial consequences if they were to materialize.” “Canada does not deny that the CRA will use Accountholder Information obtained pursuant to the Impugned Provisions for domestic tax compliance work, nor does it refute the plaintiffs’ contention that such use is unrelated to the objectives of the Impugned Provisions. However, Canada relies on Jarvis for the proposition that “once information is validly gathered by the CRA any reasonable expectation of privacy in the information is lost.” On this basis, it suggests that the CRA’s use of this information is not unreasonable. Jarvis cannot be applied to the present case in the manner suggested by Canada. First…”
“In asserting that the Impugned Provisions are minimally impairing, Canada states that it is not the court’s role to speculate about whether Canada could have achieved a better deal through negotiations with the United States. We disagree. It is Canada’s onus to prove that the Impugned Provisions are minimally impairing and if its claim is that it had no choice because of US demands then it must prove that by appropriate evidence.”
“Finally, the plaintiffs do not assert, as Canada suggests, a right “to avoid the consequences of choosing to violate US law.” The plaintiffs claim their Charter rights, and they claim that they have been breached by Canadian law for the reasons set out above.”
Reposted from the Renounce US Citizenship blog
This post was written in December 2014. It is being reposted in 2018 – the question is why
FATCA and the CRS (“Common Reporting Standard”) are mandatory information sharing schemes. They first define people in terms of their “tax residency” (each country defines who its tax residents are) and then shares people’s private information based on that “tax residency”. In other words (assuming you believe that there is a legitimate interest in privacy) both FATCA and the CRS should be viewed as “privacy overrides”.
Although the notion of privacy is dead in the United States (companies like Facebook and Google make a living off obtaining and using private information), the European GDPR suggests that privacy is valued by Europeans and that individuals should have some control over their data. In Europe the GDPR reflects a presumption that individual belongs to the individual. There is no such presumption in the United States. See:
31-year-old Austrian lawyer Max Schrems was the catalyst for new privacy protection regulations in Europe. He says your data belongs to you and you should have control over it. pic.twitter.com/OTV0reXDOg
— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) November 12, 2018
Automatic exchange of tax information and data privacy
cross-posted from citizenshipsolutions
Introduction – “Indifference being the worst form of abuse”
"Indifference and neglect often do much more damage than outright dislike." https://t.co/dxiMjWIltE via @BrainyQuote pic.twitter.com/wi3JS4WCGg
— John Richardson – Counsellor for US persons abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) November 29, 2018
A quick summary of this post:
On November 26, 2018 the House Ways and Means Committee under the leadership of Chairman Brady announced a bi-partisan bill which contains a number of “Technical Fixes” to the December 22, 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. While specifically addressing the Sec. 965 transition tax, the bill contains neither mention nor relief for Americans Abroad who are at risk of having their retirement pensions confiscated by the U.S. Government. (While the transition tax may actually be beneficial for Homeland Americans, it is simply devastating for Americans abroad.)
In other words: The proposed legislation is NOT neutral. By specifically addressing the Sec. 965 transition tax and NOT providing relief for Americans abroad, it has exacerbated a difficult situation. My understanding is that many Americans abroad have requested filing extensions to December 15, 2018. The failure of this proposed bill to provide relief means that many Americans abroad with small businesses are in an impossible situation where compliance may well be impossible.
My analysis and discussion follows …
Continue reading
