[Do you believe that this article will change the mind of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau? If not, be a witness in our lawsuit. Contact me TODAY at stephen.kish.chair@adcs-adsc.ca If you won’t volunteer, please post comments on this article asking for witnesses.]
“When the former Conservative government agreed to hand over private banking information of Canadians to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, the Liberals led the growing chorus of indignation…
Read this article from the National Post, then please consider volunteering as a witness in our Canadian lawsuit. If interested, contact me at: stephen.kish.chair@adcs-adsc.ca
From the article (in which our Plaintiffs Gwen and Ginny are mentioned):
“No one was clearer about his qualms about this agreement than now-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who wrote in a pre-election letter that, “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 deal reached between Canada and the U.S. is insufficient to protect affected Canadians.” etc. etc.
Thank you, MP Peter Julian for your responsible question in Question Period.
Video version with English simultaneous translation:
Alternate video version with floor audio (spoken English and French without translation):
GAO begins doublespeak already in the title “Economic Benefits of Income Exclusion for U.S. Citizens Working Abroad Are Uncertain ” The entire report –investigating removal of the FEIE “tax expenditure” reads like the script of 1980’s shortwave Radio Moscow—full of “some experts say” and “it can’t be shown” doublespeak. Already on the 1st page “GAO made no recommendations in this report.” . GAO doublespeak already says that “uncertain” in its title means it has “No recommendations.” The table of contents itself is full of doublespeak conclusions.
In order to fully understand what the 74 page General Accounting Office (GAO) report is saying, one really needs to have fluency in doublespeak—-to grasp the real meaning. For those who can read doublespeak, this report might best be read alone in that quiet place after having your morning coffee. Otherwise, I will attempt to provide a translation.
May 20, 2014, The Honorable Jim McDermott, The Honorable Michael Honda. The Honorable Carolyn Maloney, House of Representatives
Apparently the report was commissioned by the well-meaning, yet passively-aggressively naive Abroad Caucus, in response to repeated visits by ACA/AARO.
The immediate cause of the caucus naive error is in commissioning the study to G.A.O. –the General Accounting Office. This band of merry men has a self-interest in making as much form filing work as possible, even though its extra-territorial taxation method might never create any tax revenues.
GAO then went on to interview the normal lackeys “government officials, experts, and stakeholders, including groups representing citizens working abroad and employers”. The list (described in Appendix 1) is stacked with “experts” in creating complicated compliance law in their own interest. The last on the list is American Citizens Abroad who has been profiling itself as “THE Voice of Americans Overseas” . AARO with a similar approach. As we know, there are still no other expat organizations than these two 40-yr-old organization
As the biases are built into the report by its authors and experts, it understandably comes up with a list of options in Appendix 1, Table 7, which range from worse to bad:
-Repeal the FEIE & tax all foreign earned income.
-Reduce the maximum exclusion
-Increase the maximum exclusion
-Restrict eligibility,
-Expand eligibility
-indexed for the cost of living.
– convert the exclusion to a credit
-targeted to employees of selected industries. —(oil & gas, construction, engineering, UN work)
-Uncap the exclusion and exclude all foreign earned income from taxation (but not enact RBT).
-Impose an exit fee on U.S. citizens and U.S. resident aliens living in a foreign country & exclude all foreign income for eligible individuals living overseas (ACA proposal).
Continue reading
In a short November 2015 report which seems to have gone unnoticed by compliance professionals, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security — responsible, via one of their myriad sub-agencies, for deciding whether a person who shows up at a U.S. border crossing can legally enter the country — revealed (p. 2):
Since 2002, two individuals who admitted to having renounced for tax avoidance purposes were found to be inadmissible under section 212(a)(10)(E) of the Act. Five additional individuals were identified as possibly inadmissible on the basis of section 212(a)(10)(E). One was served a notice to appear, but was not placed in removal proceedings. The four others were paroled, one of whom was deferred for inspection and later admitted.
Many countries, including Australia, Denmark, India, the Philippines, and the United Kingdom grant their former citizens “diaspora visas” or allow them to re-acquire citizenship easily — a simple humanitarian gesture so that emigrants can make decisions about their nationality without worrying they will be blocked from coming back to visit their hometowns, attend their high school reunions, watch their nieces & nephews grow up, or care for their parents in their dying days.
In contrast, the U.S. threatens its diaspora with permanent banishment: § 212(a)(10)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, known for short as the Reed Amendment, makes former citizens inadmissible if DHS (originally, the Attorney-General) determines that they “renounced United States citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation by the United States”. Some Canadians have stated openly that fear of the Reed Amendment is their sole reason for retaining U.S. citizenship.
The thing is, Reed’s badly-drafted law didn’t bother giving the IRS authorisation to share tax information with DHS, meaning it’s nearly impossible to enforce legally. So you might ask: how did DHS make this determination in the cases mentioned above? (pp. 3, 5):
Interagency coordination between DHS and DOS operations in this area is improving continuously, but there currently are no advisable options for altering enforcement of the inadmissibility ground against persons who do not affirmatively admit to renouncing their U.S. citizenship for the purpose of avoiding U.S. taxation …
Despite the legal, operational, and policy challenges to the full implementation of section 212(a)(10)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State remain committed to continuing to strengthen lines of communication, improve information sharing, and develop more consistent protocols to ensure that both Departments are aware when a renunciant admits that he or she renounced U.S. citizenship for the purpose of U.S. tax avoidance.
So there you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth: they have no way to enforce the Reed Amendment unless you “admit” to a government official the obvious truth that taxation-based citizenship is making it miserable for you to lead a normal life in the country you have chosen to call home.
From today’s ipolitics.ca article Lynne Swanson is also quoted. Here is part of the article:
“…Members of the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee voted unanimously Tuesday to invite Lebouthillier to appear along with Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien and Marie-Claude Juneau, privacy coordinator for the CRA…
While prominent Liberals, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, criticized the information sharing deal before the election, Lebouthillier has defended it. “Minister Lebouthillier wants to reassure Canadians that all exchanges of information are subject to strict confidentiality rules,” reads the e-mail sent by Lebouthillier’s office…
Lebouthillier’s position has angered groups that have been fighting the deal such as the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty, which is asking the courts to declare it unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, two Liberal cabinet ministers who had criticized the deal to transfer banking records in the past are no longer calling for it to be scrapped or changed.
Speaking on the way into a cabinet meeting Tuesday, Treasury Board President Scott Brison and Transport Minister Marc Garneau rallied behind the position adopted last week by Lebouthillier.
Brison, who sharply criticized the deal and tried to have it amended when he was Liberal finance critic, said the Liberal government has to work with the agreement negotiated by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.
“The previous government negotiated with the Americans on this and we have certainly inherited the situation we have,” Brison told iPolitics. “At the time, the previous government could have negotiated more effectively. The question is where are we now and it is a difficult one to deal with retroactively.”
In 2014, Garneau accused the IRS of trying to get the Canada Revenue Agency to “do its dirty work” through the deal – a deal he now supports. “I take the position that our government is taking now and has been expressed by the minister of revenue,” he said Tuesday…”
elizabeththompson@ipolitics.ca
Identified by JC: https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/media-and-blog-articles-open-for-comments-part-3-of-3/comment-page-41/#comment-7345612. Brock commenters are there; comments are open (closed on previous of Elizabeth Thompson’s posts on this).
Brison, Garneau endorse deal to share Canadian banking records with IRS
Two Liberal cabinet ministers who had criticized a controversial agreement to provide Canadian banking records to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service now say they support the deal.
Speaking on the way into a cabinet meeting Tuesday, Treasury Board President Scott Brison and Transport Minister Marc Garneau rallied behind the position adopted last week by Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier, supporting the deal struck under the Harper government that saw 155,000 Canadian banking records shared with the IRS last September.
Brison, who sharply criticized the deal and tried to have it amended when he was Liberal Finance Critic, said the Liberal government has to work with the agreement.
“The previous government negotiated with the Americans on this and we have certainly inherited the situation we have,” Brison told iPolitics.
“At the time, the previous government could have negotiated more effectively at that time. The question is where are we now and it is a difficult one necessarily to deal with retroactively.”
In 2014, Garneau accused the IRS of trying to get the Canada Revenue Agency to “do its dirty work” through the deal – a deal he now supports.
“I take the position that our government is taking now and has been expressed by the minister of revenue,” he said Tuesday.
The controversy centres on an agreement worked out between Canada and the U.S. in the wake of the U.S.’s decision to adopt the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which pressured financial institutions around the world to reveal information about bank accounts in a bid to crack down on tax evasion by U.S. taxpayers with foreign accounts.
…
A second transfer of records to the IRS is scheduled for September 30, 2016.
While prominent Liberals, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, criticized the information sharing deal before the election, last week, Lebouthillier defended it.
“Minister Lebouthillier wants to reassure Canadians that all exchanges of information are subject to strict confidentiality rules,” reads the e-mail sent by Lebouthillier’s office.
“The CRA ensures that tax cooperation with its foreign partners is done in a manner fully consistent with privacy rights in Canada. It is important to note that Canada and the United States have a long history of exchanging tax information in a fair and responsible manner, going back to 1942.”
…
etc., etc.
More later…
Thanks for continuing to shine the light for ALL Canadians to realize, Elizabeth Thompson! We need Canadian MSM to do the same.
Obama has the nerve 2 criticize Castro on human rights – perhaps a visit 2 Guantanamo would clear this up for POTUS? https://t.co/EoGOtW2zrI
— Patricia Moon (@nobledreamer16) March 22, 2016
I received a call from a friend this evening, who was extremely agitated by news that Obama had criticized Cuba for its record on human rights. I asked that it be repeated because I was certain I had not heard correctly. But, it was true and as this information was comprehended I was outraged; how could anyone who knew what had gone on at Guantanamo have the audacity to criticize anyone? I guess it is just too much to expect Mr. Obama (who promised to close Guantanamo in the first year of his presidency) to actually GO AND SEE that hellhole. He is not planning to visit the troops stationed there either. Trump complains that no officials were at the airport to greet Obama. Obama’s omission is much greater IMHO. If he did go, no amount of sanitized editing could erase the damage already done. Not going suggests an admission of guilt. What ashtonishes me is that no one inside the U.S. seems to care. They are indifferent to it now, all they hear is that this is needed for their protection so they turn a blind eye.
From The Toronto Star:
“We continue, as President Castro indicated, to have some very serious differences, including on democracy and human rights,” said Obama, who planned to meet with Cuban dissidents Tuesday. Still, Obama heralded a “new day” in the U.S.-Cuba relationship and said “part of normalizing relations means we discuss these differences directly.”
Castro was blistering in his criticism of the American embargo, which he called “the most important obstacle” to his country’s economic development. He also pressed Obama to return the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, which is on the island of Cuba, to his government.
But when an American reporter asked about political prisoners in Cuba, he pushed back aggressively, saying if the journalist could offer names of anyone improperly imprisoned, “they will be released before tonight ends.”
“What political prisoners? Give me a name or names,” Castro said.
Cuba has been criticized for briefly detaining demonstrators thousands of times a year but has drastically reduced its practice of handing down long prison sentences for crimes human rights groups consider to be political. Cuba released dozens of prisoners as part of its deal to normalize relations with the U.S., and in a recent report, Amnesty International did not name any current prisoners of conscience in Cuba. Lists compiled by Cuban and Cuban-American groups list between 47 and 80 political prisoners, although Cuban officials describe many as common criminals.
The Executive Branch budget says “I’ll gladly take your hamburger today, and maybe earn some revenue to pay back in 2020” —-it definitely won’t be paying back on Tuesday.
This submission was made by a guest and based upon many posts in Isaac Brock. Its author hopes to be called to witness or hopes that press might pick up the information that the U.S. govt is getting duped by their own bureaucracy into the exorbitant current costs of implementing extra-territorial taxation–in pursuit of rainbows and while fighting windmills. We also hope that the press will notice the quantity of our submissions.
Please send in YOUR submission today. Two lines, 2 paragraphs, 2 pages—anything. Tell them that the consumption tax is great, the flat tax (as written) is disastrous, and that CBT must be eliminated immediately. You have the rest of today according to Washington D.C. (Eastern) time. Submission instructions are in previous post.
@LizT1 Some interesting comments by Privacy Commissioner & SCOC ignored b4 passing of the #FATCA IGA https://t.co/t30Ch8SS38
— Patricia Moon (@nobledreamer16) March 20, 2016
Some might find it interesting that members of the Canadian Senate had concerns regarding the #FATCA IGA and one of them, Hon. Pierrette Ringuette, moved that Part V be deleted in its entirety. Ms Ringuette lives in a border town and perhaps we should be in touch with her. At the very least, along with Murray Rankin, Nathan Cullen and others, I now link the three Senators supporting a deletion of Part V of the IGA legislation with Canadian legislators who are worthy of their seats.
There are two issues raised in this material that I think need investigation. One is a comment of Hon. Joseph A Day:
I will refrain from talking about what transpired prior to Bill C-31 being received by this chamber and referred to our committee for consideration. It’s now back as a result of the consideration that took place.
I have yet to read all of the transcripts of that time period and have no idea what Mr. Day is referring to. Perhaps it has nothing to do with C-31 but if it does, it suggests something was not as it should have been. I think it probably does given her says “It’s now back.” Does anyone know?
And another by Senator Ringuette, speaking of a statement made by Privacy Commissioner Daniel Thierren:
But now that the Supreme Court has ruled that this information deserves a high level of privacy, the government needs to take C-13 and S-4 back to the drawing board, he said.
This is discussed below. I don’t remember any of this; perhaps I just never saw it and/or it seemed so hopeless given HOC clearly was going to pass C-31. However, now it seems very important.
The focus of this post is simply this last section of the debate (i.e., the portion beginning with Senator Ringuette); our general discussions have tended more toward the HOC FINA meetings and I think it is notable that there were strong objections within the Senate, to the #FATCA IGA legislation.
Continue reading
