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
At last, one of the parties has promised to repeal FATCA if elected.
The Green Party platform pledges:
We will repeal as unconstitutional the Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). It essentially deprives any Canadian with US connections (even those short of dual citizenship) of full rights to privacy and treats them as a lesser Canadian.
In addition, the Green Party vows:
We will also repeal Bill C-24 which allows the minister of citizenship to revoke citizenship. Other threats to Canadians will be eliminated with the repeal of Bill C-51.
The Green Party says It’s Time to Restore Democracy. Amen.
Thanks to Tim for sending this to several of us.
I like what I see. Now if the Greens only had a chance of forming the government. At least we know Elizabeth May and the Greens are in our corner and still fighting for us.
In Oct 1993, the very angry voter annihilated a Conservative Party by reducing its previous 156 seat majority down to just TWO MP’s. It is time to do it again!
Funniest thing I've seen/heard for days. My stomach hurts…LOLre in power and
https://t.co/izvcXVvZ7k https://t.co/V7i7LUJlNH
— Patricia Moon (@nobledreamer16) September 7, 2015
The Twitter world erupted in a purely juvenile frenzy late last night due to the CBC Marketplace video linked in the above tweet. In spite of the vulgarity, the creativity of those oppposed to the Harper Government came out in full force, united against #peegate. Then came #CPeeC, #PeeMHarper #PeeParty #UrineinTrouble and so on. With graphics guaranteed to split your sides. Why on earth would mature people stoop to such raucous behavior?
The answer is that on all levels, the Harper government demonstrates how lucidrous it is that they have managed to stay in power for 10 years and equally strongly, why everyone in Canada has to choose intelligently on October 19. #VoteABC is really, really important!
On one level, this last little charade has made Canada the laughingstock of the world. Here’s the NYT at 1:33 pm this afternoon (updated to add the already put-down scandal regarding another candidate Tim Dutaud). The AP also picked up on this late last night/early this morning. #Peegate was trending at #2 in the US before I finally made myself go to bed at 2 am.
*****
Don't worry, Chris Alexander. We'll get back to you once the #PeeGate fun is over. #elxn42
— Luke Savage (@LukewSavage) September 7, 2015
Then there was the #SyrianRefugeeCrisis, symbolized by the picture of little Aylan Kurdi; a truly horrible and gut-wrenching thing to see. While the media reported all kinds of angles, the (Canadian) Twitterworld jumped on an interview on CBC’s Power and Politics with The Hon. Chris Alexander, the current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Rosemary Barton completely destroyed Mr. Alexander, no other way to describe it.
Alexander, the Conservative candidate for Ajax, responded to the question by saying the migrant death toll numbers “have been growing for years.”
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
Closely following on the heels of their previous announcement that the $2,350 fee for renunciation — twenty times as high as in other developed countries — “protects” the human right to change nationality, the folks at the State Department have announced that they’ll be extending that “protection” to people who relinquished U.S. citizenship under 8 USC § 1481(a)(1) through (4) and seek to obtain Certificates of Loss of Nationality documenting that fact as well.
In the latest Schedule of Fees for Consular Services to be published in the Federal Register on Tuesday (80 FR 53704, 53707), Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy or one of his ghostwriter minions proclaims:
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.
If you do not need a CLN in the first place, nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act requires you to obtain one to document your loss of US citizenship, and people who relinquished before 4 June 2004 did not have to report their relinquishment to the State Department in order to end their status as U.S. tax subjects either. However, FATCA regulations and IGAs require people with U.S. indicia to show their banks a CLN or provide a “reasonable explanation” of why they do not have U.S. citizenship.
See this earlier post for discussion of what banks might accept as a “reasonable explanation”, and let us know if you find a bank which will accept the absurd price-tag as an explanation of why you don’t have a CLN.
As we’ve discussed previously, 8 USC § 1185(b) once only required that a U.S. citizen hold a “valid passport” when departing from the United States, without specifying which country’s passport. That held true even when Congress extended the passport requirement to peacetime (but removed all penalties for violating it) in 1978.
That only changed when Congress passed the bipartisan Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994; thenceforth, the requirement was for a “valid United States passport”, thus theoretically denying dual citizens and other U.S. citizens who’d managed to obtain non-U.S. travel documents the right to depart from the country on their other passport. The U.S. didn’t then and still doesn’t actually have officials physically checking the papers of most outbound passengers to see if they’re U.S. citizens with only foreign passports, but as mentioned last time, they’re making moves in that direction.
In any case, the way the U.S. passport requirement became law is rather amusing. The first bill which included it was introduced in the Senate right before the summer recess in 1993, giving Congress no time to review it. Kennedy and Simpson — the sponsors of that bill — lied about the extent to which it agreed with earlier Congressional intent and misleadingly implied that the provision had been included in other bills in previous sessions of Congress, while also warning of potential lawsuits if their bill failed to pass. Finally, they ended up shoving the passport provision into a similar House “technical amendments” bill the following year.
The latest NICS report shows a new total of 31,525 records in the “Renounced U.S. citizenship” category. That’s an increase of 552 since last month, and 4,285 since the beginning of the year. (Using the old ratio of four or five non-renunciant relinquishers for every six 8 USC § 1481(a)(5) renunciants, that suggests a total of around 800 to 900 people giving up U.S. citizenship by any means last month, and 7,000 to 8,000 since the beginning of the year).
The above chart depicts the year-on-year growth in the number of renunciants added to NICS (i.e. the number of renunciants for the most recent twelve months, compared to the number of renunciants from two years ago). As you can see, growth has been picking up again in a big way after a relatively flat period last year.
It’s now been nearly one full year since the State Department started charging American emigrants twenty times the fee in any other developed country in order to exercise the human right to change their nationality. In a recent Federal Register notice (discussed by the Wall Street Journal, and also in comments here at Brock), State finally deigned to respond to all the objections to the cash grab: they claimed that this sudden change was necessary to comply fully with the laws on renunciation, despite the fact that the relevant statutes haven’t changed in over a quarter of a century and the most recent development in case law consisted of a rebuke to the State Department for arbitrary and capricious refusal to recognise a relinquishment. They also further asserted that the fee hike demonstrated their commitment to protecting human rights.
[The following responses are to FATCA Letters to Leaders and MPs (March 2015)]
PART 1 — the NDP Party response
…cross-posted from Lynne Swanson post at MapleSandbox: NDP Party Response to Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty (ADCS-ADSC)
“I have just received a response to ADCS on the letter we sent to the leaders five months ago. Here is the reply from Murray Rankin.
RE: US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)
Thank you for writing to share your ongoing concerns regarding the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between Canada and the United States designed to implement FATCA in Canada.
New Democrats are deeply troubled by the implications of FATCA and the associated IGA, and we are closely monitoring the litigation your organization has commenced against the Government of Canada.
From the beginning, many organizations raised the alarm that the IGA for the implementation of FATCA in Canada may violate the privacy rights of Canadians and could be subject to constitutional challenge.
The NDP has repeatedly raised concerns about the FATCA agreement that was negotiated behind closed doors and rushed through Parliament without proper consultation or examination.
Previously, New Democrats called on the Conservative government to acknowledge the broad concerns expressed by Canadians and civil society organizations regarding the implementation of this IGA. We asked the Conservative government to agree to remove it from omnibus Budget Bill C-31, which granted the Minister of National Revenue sweeping powers to make any regulation necessary to carry out the agreement.
It is my belief that the decision to rush this legislation through Parliament was reckless and, as a result, it lacks the safeguards needed to protect many of the rights that Canadians so dearly value.
New Democrats have repeatedly questioned Conservatives in the House of Commons and at the Standing Committee on Finance. It became abundantly clear that the Conservative government has very little understanding of the consequences of FATCA and has been tone deaf regarding the very real concerns of hundreds of thousands of Canadians.
Moving forward, New Democrats remain committed to ensure that Canadians’ voices are heard and that our laws are consistent with the constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Canadian sovereignty more broadly.
A New Democrat government will order a full and urgent review of the FATCA IGA to identify and address all measures that threaten the constitutional and privacy rights of all Canadians.
We will seek to reopen the IGA for renegotiation with the United States in order to address the serious concerns of Canadians and ensure that their rights are protected. We will do so in an open and transparent manner – instead of the secretive manner pursued by the Conservatives.
More broadly, we will ensure that all proposed legislation is subject to a more robust screening to ensure compliance with the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Conservatives have failed to uphold this duty, with the result that, in many instances, litigation was initiated that could have been avoided.
As noted above, New Democrats continue to closely watch the progress of your litigation against the Government of Canada.
We also understand that many people across Canada are now directly facing the consequences of the agreement. New Democrat Members of Parliament will continue to assist individuals access the information and resources they need regarding how the FATCA IGA affects them.
Please feel free to contact me with any concerns you may have.
Sincerely,
Murray Rankin
NDP Candidate for Victoria
NDP Deputy Critic for National Revenue “
****************
PART 2– the Liberal Party response
…also cross-posted from Lynne Swanson post at MapleSandbox: Liberal Party Response to Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty (ADCS-ADSC)
“Because I posted the reply from the NDP via Murray Rankin in its own thread, I am doing the same with the Liberal response to ADCS via Justin Trudeau.
Dear Ms. Swanson:
Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your concerns regarding the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).
The safeguarding of personal privacy has become an increasingly important issue to all Canadians. The government’s move to ensure that information is reported 2 the U.S. through Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and not directly from the banks was a positive step; however, the implications of having the CRA report to a foreign government about Canadian citizens are still troublesome. The Liberal Party of Canada believes that the Conservative government’s efforts to safeguard the personal privacy of Canadians have been inadequate.
While the United States has the right to target tax evaders using offshore accounts, targeting hard working Canadians who pay taxes is unfair. 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.
Thank you once again for writing to me; I always appreciate it when Canadians take the time to share their concerns with me. It is through such exchanges of ideas and opinions that I can best represent not only my constituents, but all Canadians.
Sincerely
Justin J.P. Trudeau “
Parliamentary Question: Legality of intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) on #FATCA http://t.co/8cdVyeQ0NT @SophieintVeld
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) August 31, 2015
The above tweet references:
Member of the European Parliament Sophie in ‘t Veld (ALDE/D66) tabled written questions to the European Commission about the legality of intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) on the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).
You can find the questions here:
