LM has posed the following query to readers. It is another true life scenario in which the Canadian government and Canadian banks have put certain Canadian citizens at risk by promising to expose them to the US Federal government.

OK Brocker folks, I have a situation and need support /answers / information.

I invest with a Canadian FFI (for example, RBC-Dominion) and just got a W-8BEN from them that “has to be” filled out and signed; otherwise, they will no longer allow me to trade/invest with them. I spoke with my investment counselors associate (who knows my situation totally and has discussed much about FATCA with me) and told her I found it outrageous that I should be required to sign a US IRS form to say to my Cdn investment firm that I am not a US citizen. They (the FFI) got this exact same information from me back in 2013 via a “Substitute W-8BEN” when I transferred all my accounts there and I would be happy to sign an additional “Substitute W-8BEN” from them now. I’d even be willing to provide a copy of my CLN.
My recollection is that the IGA includes wording that allows Canadian FFIs to use their own equivalent of a W-8BEN (in this case, the “Substitute W-8BEN” with a page heading of XYZ Wealth Mgmt, ABCD Securities”) rather than the actual US form (which has, at the top “Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service”, so that any signature is “under penalty of perjury” to the US).

I don’t intend to perjure myself or in any way lie, but is it required, under Cdn law now, that I must sign a US legal document to prove that I am not a US citizen to my Canadian financial institution? I would hate to lose my investment advisor of many years but this has really angered me and I’m sure I am not the only one who will be getting this document to sign now that the FFIs are beginning to look more thoroughly at “established” accounts.

Any advice / information / links to the part of the IGA stating that FFIs are not required to use the US form / etc would be very greatly appreciated.

NOTE: From Mark Twain’s earlier comment at Brock, re who to contact:

If you are interested in letting Nightline chronicle the days leading up to your renunciation, please contact Geoff Martz at geoff.martz@abc.com or private message Keith to discuss further.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/AmericanExpatriates/523975671101843/?notif_t=group_activity

************
Also passed on to me by email, another notice from Keith Redmond:

FYI from Republicans Overseas: “Ben Carson will host a conference call with Republicans Overseas country chapter leaders worldwide to announce his support for our FATCA lawsuit and FATCA repeal on Oct 30.”

If you are a Canadian citizen, you have the opportunity, and IMO the responsibility, to vote in the October 19 Canadian federal election. Certainly if you reside in Canada, and (with some restrictions I won’t go into here) even if you don’t.

This is Canadians’ opportunity to pass judgment on whether the government of Stephen Harper has stood up for Canada, for Canadian values, for Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and for Canadian citizens. And to decide whether maybe some other party should be given the chance to govern our country, for the better (we all hope).

My personal advice is to vote for anyone other than the Conservative in your riding, either the candidate most likely to defeat the Conservative candidate, or if you can’t figure out who that might be, perhaps the party leading in the national polls as of today (the Liberals) and hence with the most credible chance of getting more seats than the Conservatives and hence forming our next government. Or, if you have an incumbent MP who isn’t a Conservative and whom you respect and like, vote for that incumbent.

If you can’t bring yourself to vote for anyone other than a Conservative, but are appalled at Stephen Harper’s idea of governance of Canada, take former Progressive Conservative Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador Danny Williams’ advice, and just stay at home and don’t vote this time around. Ignore that absurd recommendation by the Globe and Mail, which said the Conservatives deserve another mandate but Harper doesn’t. In our parliamentary system you can’t make that distinction, it makes no sense. Harper is the Conservative leader, if the Conservatives really wanted to they could have deposed him but didn’t, and trying to say the Conservatives aren’t to blame for Harper’s style of governance is utterly ridiculous. They’re all joined at the hip.

But VOTE. If you’re eligible to vote in this election and don’t, IMO you’ve lost any right to complain about the outcome.

cross-posted from: Repeal Fatca.com

Source RepealFatca.com | filed in News | Author James George Jatras

Ten days shy of two years after I was told via letter that Treasury would give “expedited treatment” to my FOIA request for records related to FATCA “Intergovernmental Agreements” (IGAs), they finally have begun to be delivered. This follows persistent and determined intervention with the Department by Congressman Bill Posey (R-FL8), a respected member of the House Financial Services Committee who has been the leading voice on the Hill questioning the IGAs’ legal authority.

As indicated in the cover letter from Ryan Law, Treasury’s Director of FOIA and Transparency, additional documents may be provided following State Department review.

The initial tranche of documents can be downloaded in PDF format here. Note that I have not reviewed or modified these documents. This is a “raw dump,” and I rely on readers to review them and notify me at repealfatca@gmail.com and the interested public of anything of significance.

Mr. Law’s letter to me dated October 9, 2015, which I received via email on October 14, can be downloaded in PDF format here.

Jim Jatras
Editor, RepealFATCA.com

Does this sound familiar?

From the 15 October Globe and Mail.

Louise Arbour

Louise Arbour is former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, former international war-crimes prosecutor, former UN human rights commissioner.

“When he retires from his post, the Governor-General of Canada will have his bank accounts subjected to heightened scrutiny. So will his parents, his spouse and his children, for the next 20 years. So, too, will the Chief Justice of Canada, all Supreme Court and appellate court judges, ambassadors, counsellors, deputy ministers, generals, past and present, and all their family members. They should expect calls from their bankers asking questions about the sources of deposits and other transactions. And if one of their children happens to have a joint account with a third party, all that would have to be explained to the bankers who are required by law to exercise such vigilance.

“Why is this happening? Because all of these people have been designated as “politically exposed domestic persons” (PEDP) under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. Why should they be subjected to this intrusive procedure for 20 years after they leave office? No idea. And why should their children also be under this regime for 20 years? Equally puzzling.

“In fact, I can think of an answer. It’s because all this was put in place with no one having any idea it was happening. This is hardly surprising given that it was buried in the massive omnibus budget bill of 2014 known as Bill C-31. Equally troubling, most people wouldn’t care anyway…”

Full article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/caught-in-a-useless-bureaucratic-nightmare/article26813887/

“We are here; we are not going away; as Canadians we expect the protection of the Canadian government.” This is what the new government in Ottawa needs to hear from us in less than a week’s time. If (God help us) we still have the old prime minister, he needs to hear from us … again.

Let’s muster together our letter-writing forces and fill the incoming prime minister’s inbox on his first day in office. Our issue needs to be front and centre in his mind, not on the back-burner. We have languished there long enough.

The new prime minister needs to be reminded that under the terms of the FATCA IGA (p. 18) signed by the Canadian and US governments the Agreement is to undergo further consultation between the parties before the end of 2016. He needs to know that we expect him to request certain changes to the Agreement to bring it into line with what the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms demands. Reference to birthplace as an acceptable indicium of US citizenship needs to be removed as well as reference to the reporting of account balances. Only an account’s earnings are relevant to income taxation and therefore it is only earnings that should be reported. These are but a couple of examples from the long list of grievances that we hold against the FATCA IGA.

It would have been easier if these things had been hammered out during the negotiations with the United States before the IGA was signed in the first place but this would have required the exercise of statesmanship of an order sorely lacking in the Conservative government. Instead of achieving a workable compromise we got complete and total acquiescence. We need to respectfully call on the new prime minister to now be that expert statesman who is needed to reverse the damage done by such a wholesale capitulation to unreasonable foreign demands.

Let’s make each and every one of our voices heard once again before our new PM is barely seated at his desk.

Someone sent me this letter and asked me to post it. It is a timely reminder that the current government is not doing all that it can do to avoid the extraordinary rendition of the financial information of Canadian citizens to the IRS.

2015-09-21 Letter – Cullen to CRA-Fin re FATCA

This may be of interest to Canadian citizens living outside our borders for more than five years. If you are able and willing to travel to the last riding in which you resided in Canada, with proof of your ID, your Canadian citizenship, and of your residence in that riding (an old utility bill or tax assessment from CRA might do that trick), you can in fact vote either in advance poll or on election day.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elections-canada-expat-sault-ste-marie-vote-1.3266434

Maybe bring a printed copy of the above CBC story with you.

Your chance to help vote Harper into the oblivion he and his government so richly deserve. For more reasons than I have space to list here, but we can start with the FATCA IGA for openers.

When it comes to compliance there is a lot of confusion as to:

• • what day does loss of citizenship occur and

• • what roles do f8854 and a

• • Certificate of Loss of Nationality play?

The filing requirements are explored in two posts by John Richardson here and here.

Renunciation is one form of relinquishment – It’s not the form of relinquishment, but the time of relinquishment

BRIEF SYNOPSIS

Before June 3, 2004 (before the creation of the “Tax Citizen”)

The date of your “expatriation”was determined solely by the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

June 3, 2004 – June 16, 2008 (after the creation of the “Tax Citizen”)

You continued to be treated as a “U.S. person” for tax purposes UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE until you gave “notice” of your “relinquishment” to a government agency. For this period part of the “notice” was filing Form 8854 with the Internal Revenue Service. In other words, there was no way to cease to be a “U.S. person” for tax purposes until you had notified the IRS.

After June 16, 2008 –

A.The issuance of a CLN is confirmation that the State Department has agreed that you have relinquished U.S. citizenship. A CLN is a confirmation that you have met the “notice requirement” under the Internal Revenue Code.

B. The CLN is one way (a self-certification is also possible) to satisfy “foreign banks” that you are NOT a U.S. person for tax purposes under the Internal Revenue Code. (In other words, a CLN is a “sufficient” but not a “necessary condition” to prove non-USness.

Read more HERE

*****

1. Is the loss of U.S. citizenship for nationality purposes dependent on having a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (“CLN”)?

The answer is absolutely not.
349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act specifies conditions under which one relinquishes U.S citizenship.

2. Is the loss of U.S. citizenship for tax purposes dependent on having a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (“CLN”)?

Prior to June 3, 2004 – NO for either immigration or tax purposes
June 3, 2004 – June 16, 2008 – NO for either immigration or tax purposes.
After June 16, 2008 – No for immigration purposes – It is necessary as a confirmation of having met the “notice requirement” to end U.S. citizenship for tax purposes

3. What is the role of a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (“CLN”)?

For Immigration and Nationality Purposes – no relevance whatsoever

For Tax Purposes – The Internal Revenue Code

The accusation of U.S. citizenship is triggered by various indicia (U.S. place of birth, U.S. residence, U.S. phone number, etc.). The U.S. “place of birth” is the most dangerous indicia. Those with a U.S. place of birth can rebut the accusation of U.S. citizenship with either:

A. The CLN; or

B. A “Self Certification” (that must meet specific requirements) documenting why:
– the person has relinquished U.S. citizenship; and
– does NOT have a CLN.
A denial of U.S. citizenship will generally require proof.

In general, those who have relinquished U.S. citizenship under the Immigration laws of the United States prior to June 3, 2004 are more likely to be able to “self certify” that they are NOT U.S. citizens even though they do NOT have a CLN. This position is consistent with the August 2015

4. Why is the Certificate of Loss of Nationality (“CLN”) of value?

It’s simple. Unless you live in the United States, life as a U.S. citizen abroad, in a FATCA, FBAR and CBT world, will be an endless source of anxiety and difficulty. A Certificate of Loss of U.S. Nationality is becoming one of the most sought after documents in the world today.

5. What is the role of a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (“CLN”) in a FATCA inquisition?

June 16, 2008 – Present

IF (you relinquish U.S. citizenship under the Immigration and Nationality Act) THEN
You continue to be treated as a “U.S. person” for tax purposes UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE until you give “notice” of your “relinquishment” to a government agency. The “notice” requirement is NOT to the IRS, but to the State Department. (See S. 877A(g)(3) and S. 877A(g)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.) Once “appropriate” notice is given to the State Department you cease to be a U.S. taxpayer from the date the notice is given (on a prospective basis).

Read more HERE