— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) March 20, 2016
Update June 19, 2017:
The Department of Justice sued Mr. Pomerantz in Seattle. The purpose of the lawsuit was to get a judgment against Mr. Pomerantz. Interestingly, the Government lost the lawsuit for reasons unrelated to the substance of the issue. The Government failed to plead the facts that it needed to succeed in the lawsuit.
A full discussion of the ongoing adventures or Mr. Jeffrey Pomerantz and Mr. FBAR is here.
The FBAR Chronicles continue …
First, A Public Service Announcement – Mr. FBAR Get’s A New Filing Due Date
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) March 16, 2017
Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.
My thoughts are that:
Were it left to me to decide whether we should have FBAR without outlaws, or outlaws without FBAR, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.
Unfortunately, Mr. FBAR has become the new symbol of American citizenship. Furthermore, Mr. FBAR disproportionately affects the local bank accounts of Americans abroad – becoming (in effect) a form of “domestic terrorism” against U.S. citizens living outside the United States.
Mr. FBAR As Applied To The Canada U.S. Dual Citizen …
"Canadian banks are NOT required to report "U.S. accounts" less than $50,000 under FATCA, but…" — John Richardson https://t.co/a97wFrQbfW
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) April 25, 2016
The above tweet references a comment I left at an Ipoltics.ca article.
The truth is that …
Canadian banks are NOT required to report “U.S. accounts” less than $50,000 and certain other accounts under the IGA. Nevertheless, some banks may be reporting these accounts anyway.
This conclusion follows from an examination of (A) the terms of the IGA and (B) Part VIII of Canada’s Income Tax Act, which is the Canadian legislation to implement FATCA.
Part A – Beginning with the IGA which is the master “agreement” (either your brains or your signature will be on this contract)
1. We must refer to the U.S. Canada FATCA IGA.
We look to the definitions section to understand what is a “U.S. Reportable Account”.
Introduction – FATCA is really about extending the U.S. tax base into other nations …
In other words, FATCA is more about the “creation of taxable income” than it is about the “taxation of existing income”. This point was also made in my “Tax Haven or Tax Heaven Series“.
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) February 15, 2016
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) February 12, 2016
— ADCSovereignty (@ADCSovereignty) February 11, 2016
The purpose of this post is to highlight:
There are four parts to this post:
Part A – Who is a “U.S. Person” and how are they defined?
Part B – The FATCA IGA doesn’t hunt ALL U.S. persons. It is designed to hunt primarily for people who were “Born In The USA”
Part C – But, those “Born In The USA” may not actually be U.S. citizens or may have NO connection to the United States – Meet Tina
Part D – The FATCA IGA has been interpreted by the Canada Revenue Agency to NOT hunt “Green Card Holders” resident in Canada
Part A – Who is a “U.S. Person” and how are they defined?
If the purpose of FATCA is to hunt for “U.S. Persons”, “U.S. person” includes “U.S. citizen”, and the FATCA IGA’s state that “U.S. Citizen” is defined under the Internal Revenue Code, we must ask:
Who does the Internal Revenue Code define as a “U.S. Person”. The definitions are found in S. 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code.
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
(30) United States person The term “United States person” means—
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
(B) a domestic partnership,
(C) a domestic corporation,
(D) any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph (31)), and
(E) any trust if—
(i) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust, and
(ii) one or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust.
(50) Termination of United States citizenship
(A) In general
An individual shall not cease to be treated as a United States citizen before the date on which the individual’s citizenship is treated as relinquished under section 877A(g)(4).
(B) Dual citizens
Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an individual who became at birth a citizen of the United States and a citizen of another country.
(b) Definition of resident alien and nonresident alien
(1) In general For purposes of this title (other than subtitle B)—
(A) Resident alien An alien individual shall be treated as a resident of the United States with respect to any calendar year if (and only if) such individual meets the requirements of clause (i), (ii), or (iii):
(i) Lawfully admitted for permanent residence
Such individual is a lawful permanent resident of the United States at any time during such calendar year.
(ii) Substantial presence test
Such individual meets the substantial presence test of paragraph (3).
(iii) First year election
Such individual makes the election provided in paragraph (4).
(B) Nonresident alien
An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States (within the meaning of subparagraph (A)).
(3) Substantial presence test
(A) In general Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, an individual meets the substantial presence test of this paragraph with respect to any calendar year (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as the “current year”) if—
(i) such individual was present in the United States on at least 31 days during the calendar year, and
(ii) the sum of the number of days on which such individual was present in the United States during the current year and the 2 preceding calendar years (when multiplied by the applicable multiplier determined under the following table) equals or exceeds 183 days:
In the case of days in: The applicable multiplier is:
Current year 1
1st preceding year 1/3
2nd preceding year 1/6
(B) Exception where individual is present in the United States during less than one-half of current year and closer connection to foreign country is established An individual shall not be treated as meeting the substantial presence test of this paragraph with respect to any current year if—
(i) such individual is present in the United States on fewer than 183 days during the current year, and
(ii) it is established that for the current year such individual has a tax home (as defined in section 911(d)(3) without regard to the second sentence thereof) in a foreign country and has a closer connection to such foreign country than to the United States.
(6) Lawful permanent resident For purposes of this subsection, an individual is a lawful permanent resident of the United States at any time if—
(A) such individual has the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, and
(B) such status has not been revoked (and has not been administratively or judicially determined to have been abandoned).
An individual shall cease to be treated as a lawful permanent resident of the United States if such individual commences to be treated as a resident of a foreign country under the provisions of a tax treaty between the United States and the foreign country, does not waive the benefits of such treaty applicable to residents of the foreign country, and notifies the Secretary of the commencement of such treatment.
The Internal Revenue Code mandates that “U.S. Persons” are subject to U.S. taxation. “U.S. Persons” include both individuals and entities.
Individuals – include U.S. Citizens, Green Card Holders and those who meet the “substantial presence” test.
Entities – include a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
Part B – FATCA doesn’t hunt ALL U.S. persons. It is designed to hunt primarily for people who were “Born In The USA”
Here is why …
In a recent paper McGill Professor Allison Christians notes that:
Perhaps surprisingly, FATCA’s identification method does not align with the statutory construction of the US Person population described above/ The misalignment is evident when comparing the three US Person categories to the FATCA indicia meant to alert financial institutions to the possible existence of a US Person. The misalignment continues to the verification phase, where taxpayers are asked to furnish various negative proofs of their status as US Persons, as Tina was asked to do. By examining the identification and verification processes, we begin to get a sense of the population actually being targeted by FATCA to enforce US taxation and financial reporting requirements on nonresidents.
FATCA has financial institutions searching for US Persons by looking for the following “indicia” of status:
1. account holder is identified as a US citizen or resident;
2. birthplace in the United States;
3. a US telephone number;
4. a US residence or mailing address;
5. standing instructions to transfer funds to a US based
6. Indications of a power of attorney over the account to a
person with a US address;
7. a “care of” or hold mail address as the sole address.
In addition, where indicia are not present, a “responsible officer” must certify as to any knowledge of an account holder’s status as a US Person, and must monitor its accountholders for possible changes in circumstances.38 Other than the first factor on the list, the FATCA indicia do not align with the three categories of US Person as defined by § 7701.
“Citizens” are the second category of US Person described above. Only two of the indicia have any direct bearing on one’s status as a citizen, namely, the account holder’s identification as such, and her birthplace in the United States. The first of these indicia confirms the voluntary nature of the nonresident citizen’s acquiescence to her status. Announcing oneself as a US citizen to a non-US bank seems to be the clearest indication that the account holder is in fact a US citizen and therefore a US Person for tax purposes.44
Birthplace in the United States, however, highlights a major difficulty in imposing citizenship taxation. A person born within the territory of the United States is usually entitled to birthright citizenship, with few exceptions. 45 That is why Tina is automatically a citizen, without any independent action on her part or that of her parents. However, the definition of a citizen in US law is complex and is subject to widespread misunderstanding by those who receive the status by birthright but have never lived permanently in the country. 46 Moreover, citizenship can be changed by the individual through relinquishment 47 or renunciation.48 In the past, it was possible for a person to relinquish her citizenship automatically upon naturalization in another country.49 However, the US Supreme Court rejected this position and reinstated citizenship once thought lost.50 Today, the individual must display intent in order to lose citizenship status.51
The interplay of these immigration rules with taxation on the basis of citizenship is subject to intense debate and certainly exceeds any scope of common wisdom.52 In the past, expatriation would have automatically negated a person’s citizenship status for tax purposes; at present, it does not.53 Indeed, the definition of citizen for tax purposes is potentially circular in the application.54 These complications attending to birthright citizenship are sufficiently detailed and specific to the individual that they create legal uncertainty that is not answered in the tax law, let alone in FATCA indicia.
pages 15 – 17
Part C – But, those “Born In The USA” may not actually be U.S. citizens or may have NO connection to the United States – Meet Tina
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) January 26, 2016
Allison Christians is the H. Heward Stikeman Chair in Tax Law at McGill University in Montreal, where she writes and teaches in the area of national and international tax law and policy. You can follow her on the Tax, Society & Culture blog at taxpol.blogspot.com or on Twitter (@taxpolblog). She delivered the following speech at the International Conference on Taxpayer Rights in Washington on November 18.* * * * *
I would like to tell you a story about the taxpayer’s right to know what the law requires of her and to have the law administered fairly. This is just one story based on things happening now, but it is a common story. I’m telling this story instead of giving an exposition on the underlying legal texts because sometimes the rules are too complicated and too technical for anyone to really understand, even tax lawyers. Moreover, reading the law itself doesn’t explain what isn’t written on the books, which can matter more in how things play out in human terms. As you will see, the implementation of the law gives rise to a taxpayers’ rights issue — one that wouldn’t be clear from reciting the law alone.
The story I am going to tell you is about a woman named Tina. She’s Canadian. She is 62. Tina is nearing retirement age and has been a cautious and diligent person all her life, carefully saving for her old age following the textbook investment advice that tells us we should invest in low-load pooled investment vehicles — mutual funds — and hang onto them for the long term.
Tina isn’t buying and selling investments, following market trends, or taking risks. She doesn’t have time for that. Tina is married with two kids and lives in the family home she bought with her husband some 30 years ago. She’s hanging in for slow and steady, reliable, low-risk growth, planning for retirement in Canada. As a child, Tina occasionally took a trip down to the United States. Visiting Florida in February is still a tempting prospect, given the harshness of Canadian winters, but Tina has only dreamed of that kind of vacation so far. She is careful with her money, plans to live on her savings, and doesn’t want to burden her kids.
One day, Tina finds the following letter in her mailbox. It’s from her neighborhood bank where she has been banking all her adult life, where she has her checking and savings accounts.
Read Tina’s story and the story of all Tina’s at Tax Analysts.
Part D – The FATCA IGA has been interpreted by the Canada Revenue Agency to NOT hunt “Green Card Holders” resident in Canada
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) April 20, 2016
See the post referenced in the above tweet.
FATCA Hunt: "Review, Identify, Report" on possible "USness" in acct of Canadian born teenager https://t.co/Pf3tuNFMOK – Beware of RBC Way!
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) January 17, 2016
The above tweet references the following interesting comment on the Isaac Brock Society.
I think you’ll appreciate this. One of my minor children has some money saved up from baby sitting and odd jobs. The amount is now large enough that she asked me to help her invest the sum for down the road. So off we go to my favourite discount brokerage, RBC Direct Investments to open an investment account for her. Because she’s a minor, the account has to be opened as “BC_Doc In Trust For Canadian Born Teenage Daughter.”
So we get logged in to the RBC website and proceed to the application screen. So far so good. Then the Unaskable Questions start getting asked:
1) Trustee– Are you a U.S. Citizen or a U.S. resident for tax purposes?
a) Dare to click “Yes” and up pops a notice, “To comply with regulations, you will be presented with a W9 form with your application package.”
b) Social Security Number (SSN)– Write it down heren Now consider yourself officially marked and packaged for the IRS. Good luck sucker.
2) Is the Beneficiary a U.S. Citizen or a U.S. resident for tax purposes?
a) Go ahead, I dare you– click “Yes”– Guess what, you’re going to receive another one of those tasty W9 forms so we can serve your minor up to Uncle Sam as a tasty treat.
b) Social Security Number (SSN)– welcome to our data base kid. If you’re lucky, in a few years, we’ll draft you and send you off to some country whose name you can’t pronounce to die so that a bunch of Homelanders can get fat sitting on their couches while they watch Netflix and oil their guns.
3) How many countries is the beneficiary a resident of for tax purposes?
Reason– You may have told us you’re only Canadian but it really doesn’t matter what you think kid– if the U.S. says you’re American, then by God, “Congress has spoken.”
a) Beneficiary’s country of residence for tax purposes?
4) Beneficiary’s country of birth?
a) Select your country of birth– by now, you know where this is headed. It’s part of a new U.S. policy called, “Leave no (ex-pat) American behind.” Even if they don’t want to be American. Or consider themself to be American. Or didn’t even know they were American.
The appropriateness of the “place of birth question” …
Here is the part of the FATCA IGA that governs “due diligence” requirements for new account openings – (Annex I – Part III – Starting on page 26).
III. New Individual Accounts
The following rules and procedures apply for purposes of identifying U.S. Reportable Accounts among Financial Accounts held by individuals and opened on or after July 1, 2014 “New Individual Accounts”.
A. Accounts Not Required to Be Reviewed, Identified, or Reported
Unless the Reporting Canadian Financial Institution elects otherwise,either with respect to all New Individual Accounts or, separately, with respect to any clearly identified group of such accounts, where the implementing rules in Canada provide for such an election, the following New Individual Accounts are not required to be reviewed, identified, or reported as U.S. Reportable Accounts:
- A Depository Account unless the account balance exceeds $50,000 at the end of any calendar year or other appropriate reporting period.
2. A Cash Value Insurance Contract unless the Cash Value exceeds $50,000 at the end of any calendar year or other appropriate reporting period.
B. Other New Individual Accounts.
1. With respect to New Individual Accounts not described in paragraph A of this section, upon account opening (or within 90days after the end of the calendar year in which the account ceases to be described in paragraph A of this section), the Reporting Canadian Financial Institution must obtain a self-certification, which may be part of the account opening documentation, that allows the Reporting Canadian Financial Institution to determine whether the Account Holder is resident in the United States for tax purposes (for this purpose, a U.S. citizen is considered to be resident in the United States for tax purposes, even if the Account Holder is also a tax resident of another jurisdiction) and confirm the reasonableness of such self-certification based on the information obtained by the Reporting Canadian Financial Institution in connection with the opening of the account, including any documentation collected pursuant to AML/KYC Procedures.
2. If the self-certification establishes that the Account Holder is resident in the United States for tax purposes, the Reporting Canadian Financial Institution must treat the account as a U.S. Reportable Account and obtain a self-certification that includes the Account Holder’s U.S. TIN (which may be an IRS Form W-9 or other similar agreed form).
3. If there is a change of circumstances with respect to a New Individual Account that causes the Reporting Canadian Financial Institution to know, or have reason to know, that the original self-certification is incorrect or unreliable, the Reporting Canadian Financial Institution cannot rely on the original self-certification and must obtain a valid self-certification that establishes whether the Account Holder is a U.S. citizen or resident for U.S. tax purposes. If the Reporting Canadian Financial Institution is unable to obtain a valid self-certification, the Reporting Canadian Financial Institution must treat the account as a U.S. Reportable Account.
It has been confirmed that TD Canada Trust has sent a “FATCA Letter” to an 8 month old baby!
For comments on the above “TD Green Chair” see the following post at the Isaac Brock Society.
FATCA is about withholding and reporting. The basic principle is that a financial institution will:
1. Withhold payments unless the “RIR” (“Review, Identify and Report”) rule has been satisfied; and
2. The individual or entity has “reported” his or her possible U.S. status.
It’s that simple. That said, there are some “entities” that are NOT required to report. It is possible that a Canadian “not for profit” (that meets certain requirements) may be exempted from the burdens of FATCA compliance.
In other words, it is possible that the world may still include (other than Algonquin Park) certain “FATCA Free Zones”.
This issue was discussed in the following memo from KPMG.
The KPMG memo includes:
Both the FATCA Regulations and the IGA describe various entities whose obligations under FATCA are reduced or eliminated.
A Canadian not-for-profit entity would generally be classified as one of the following “Excepted NFFEs” under the FATCA Regulations:
1. A “Section 501(c) Entity,” which includes such things as charitable organizations, corporations holding title to property for exempt organizations, civic leagues, social welfare organizations, certain associations of employees, labour, agricultural and horticultural organizations, business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, social and recreational clubs and certain credit unions;
2. A Canadian non-profit organization (NPO; as that term is defined in the FATCA Regulations) that is established and maintained in Canada exclusively for educational, charitable, scientific, artistic, cultural or religious purposes if:
a.The NPO is exempt from income tax in Canada;
b. The NPO has no shareholders or members with a proprietary or beneficial interest in its income
c. With certain limited exceptions, applicable Canadian law or relevant formation documents of the NPO do not permit its income or assets to be distributed to, or applied for the benefit of, a private person or a non-charitable entity; and
d. Applicable Canadian law or formation documents generally require all assets of the NPO to be distributed to another NPO or
the Canadian government on its liquidation or dissolution.
3. An active NFFE. An NFFE is active if less than 50 percent of its gross income for the preceding taxable year (calendar or fiscal) is passive and less than 50 percent of its assets produce, or are held for the production of, passive income (based
on a weighted average percentage of such assets tested quarterly). For this purpose, passive income includes dividends, interest, rents, royalties, and similar amounts, as well as net gains from sales of assets that give rise to passive income.
If it qualifies as an Excepted NFFE, a not-for-profit entity may avoid FATCA disclosure obligations (and penal withholding) by providing payors of US-source withholdable payments with a certification of its status as such.
Not-for-profit entities should be prepared to certify their classification on updated documentation (i.e., Form W-8BEN-E)
when requested by a US withholdingagent. For these purposes, the definitions in the Regulations continue to be controlling.
Yes, it’s true there are “FATCA Free Zones” left in the world. Who could use a “not for profit” for tax evasion? Certain “non-profits” (like Algonquin Park) may be a “place of refuge” for those “U.S. Persons in our midst” (only kidding, it’s vital that ALL “US Persons” be identified).
Thank God for Canadian “not for profits”!
On May 13, 2014, Calgary lawyer Roy Berg appeared as a witness before the House Finance Committee in Ottawa. His testimony was in relation to Bill C – 31 AKA Canada’s FATCA implementation legislation which was called:
CANADA–UNITED STATES ENHANCED TAX INFORMATION EXCHANGE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
This legislation was for the purpose of the Canadian Government complying with Canada’s FATCA obligations under the IGA. The text of the proposed laws is at the end of this post.*
I will let Mr. Berg’s testimony speak for itself. It is interesting in at least one significant respect. Mr. Berg’s testimony illuminates the problem when the U.S. and Canada define the same term in different ways. I remind you that under the Canada U.S. FATCA IGA, that each country is free to interpret the agreement. See for example S. 2 of Article I of the Canada U.S. IGA which reads as follows:
Any term not otherwise defined in this Agreement shall, unless the context otherwise requires or the Competent Authorities agree to a common meaning (as permitted by domestic law), have the meaning that it has at that time under the law of the Party applying this Agreement, any meaning under the applicable tax laws of that Party prevailing over a meaning given to the term under other laws of that Party.
Note the problems created by definitions.
Mr. Berg’s testimony included:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
My name is Roy Berg. I’m a U.S. tax lawyer with Moodys Gartner. I was born, raised, and educated in the U.S. I practised in the U.S. for 17 years in tax law before immigrating to Canada three years ago. Therefore, I think there are very few individuals who have more personally and professionally vested in this issue than I do.
On March 9, 2014 our office submitted extensive analysis and commentary to the Department of Finance regarding our concerns about the draft legislation, and on April 10 we submitted a brief on these concerns to the committee. I will be happy to elaborate on any of the materials we have submitted, as they’re quite detailed and quite specific.
Before I summarize our comments on the draft legislation, however, I want to emphasize that we do agree with the Minister of Finance that entering into the IGA with the U.S. was beneficial to Canada. Had Canada not entered into the IGA, Canadian financial institutions would have faced the unenviable dilemma of either complying with Canadian law and risking FATCA’s 30% withholding tax or complying with FATCA and risking violating Canadian law.
Unfortunately, as FATCA is drafted and the IGAs are designed, there is no middle ground. Those are simply the facts. Life under the IGA is better than life without the IGA. As Senator Patrick Moynihan of the U.S. said, “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts”.
The committee is likely going to be aware of rather jingoistic hyperbolic rhetoric admonishing Finance for ceding Canadian power, ceding sovereignty, and also encouraging Canada to stand up to FATCA. As the committee hears such comments, we encourage it to remember that FATCA is U.S. law, and the way it’s designed, it’s enforced not by the IRS, not by the Treasury, but by the markets themselves. In that, it is like a sales tax. The withholding obligation is on the person making the payments.
While the IGA is unquestionably beneficial to Canadians, the legislation before you requires refinement, specifically in the manner in which a financial institution is defined under the legislation. The definition is actually much more narrow in the legislation than in the IGA, the intergovernmental agreement.
The Department of Finance disagrees with that assertion. The Department of Finance believes that the definition of financial institution under the legislation is consistent with that in the IGA. However, in our briefs and in our submissions to Finance, we go through the legal analysis to support our position.
One thing I believe the Department of Finance does not disagree on is that the definition of financial institution is more narrow in the regulations and the implementing legislation of other FATCA partners. Therefore, the definition of financial institution for certain Canadian financial institutions will be different under Canadian domestic law from what it will be under U.S. domestic law, for example.
This difference will likely lead to unintended and unnecessary withholding of certain Canadian trusts that otherwise have no U.S. connections at all, for example, a spousal trust created at death, where the spouse, the beneficiaries, and the trustees have no U.S. connections whatsoever, and the only connection would be a U.S. bank account.
In that case, under Canadian domestic law, that trust would be defined as a non-financial foreign entity, whereas in the U.S., it will be defined as a foreign financial institution. Payments coming out of the U.S. to that Canadian trust will be subject to withholding, because under U.S. law, when there’s a discordance between the stated classification of the entity and the classification of the entity under U.S. law, there is mandatory withholding.
*What follows is Part 5 of Canada’s Bill C-31 – The Canada–United States Enhanced Tax Information Exchange Agreement Implementation Act – the Bill which is the enabling legislation to implement the Canada U.S. FATCA IGA – signed by the Harper Government.
In previous posts I have described how the FATCA Inquisition has been used to determine whether the beneficial owners of various associations (PTA) small businesses (New Zealand law firms) are U.S. persons. I note that the great American FATCA Inquisition is being used to target the world. To put it simply:
All of the world is required to:
Yes, the “RIR” objective really is that simple.
This post is somewhat more technical. In this post I am going to explain exactly how and why the Canada U.S. FATCA IGA requires that “U.S. Persons” be subjected to the “RIR Inquisition”. I will then show how the principle applies to U.S. “smoking them out” methodology which is the purpose of the IGA. But, first things first.
Implementing the objective – A two step process
Step 1 – Signing the IGA: Establishing the terms of the relationship between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States
The IGA provided the legal framework and objectives for the U.S. imposition of FATCA on Canada. It was signed on February 5, 2014. Under the IGA Canada agreed to assist the United States in its hunt for “U.S. persons”. The IGA is a broad agreement which provides the general rules for the relationship between Canada and the United States. A key provision of the IGA is that Canada will change it’s domestic laws to make the hunt for “U.S. persons” (as defined from time to time by the U.S. Internal Revenue Code) mandatory.
It is the IGA that provides the framework for “FATCA Hunt”. Those who have not read the Canada U.S. FATCA IGA can read it here.
Step 2 – Establishing the terms of the relationship between the Government of Canada and it’s financial institutions – Canada changes it domestic laws to force Canadian banks to hunt for those with a U.S. place of birth
In May 2014 the Government of Stephen Harper added Part VIII to the Income Tax Act of Canada. In general terms, Part VIII of the Income Tax Act was to:
For example S. 162(6) of Canada’s Income tax reads:
Failure to provide identification number
(6) Every person or partnership who fails to provide on request their Social Insurance Number, their business number or their U.S. federal taxpayer identifying number to a person required under this Act or a regulation to make an information return requiring the number is liable to a penalty of $100 for each such failure, unless
(a) an application for the assignment of the number is made within 15 days (or, in the case of a U.S. federal taxpayer identifying number, 90 days) after the request was received; and
- (b) the number is provided to the person who requested the number within 15 days after the person or partnership received it
To summarize – Part VIII of Canada’s Income Tax Act:
A. Answer all questions that are part of the “FATCA Inquisition”
B. Answer all questions truthfully
C. Either ADMIT to being a “U.S. person” or DENY being a “U.S. person”.
Once again, I remind you that the fact that someone is a Canadian citizen residing in Canada is NOT a defense to the accusation of being a “U.S. person.
How does Canada comply with Part VIII of the Income Tax Act of Canada? What are the “made in Canada” rules for the FATCA Inquisition?
Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Canada U.S. FATCA IGA allows (in general) for each country to interpret various provisions of the IGA. To be specific it reads:
2. Any term not otherwise defined in this Agreement shall, unless the context otherwise requires or the Competent Authorities agree to a common meaning (as permitted by domestic law), have the meaning that it has at that time under the law of the Party applying this Agreement, any meaning under the applicable tax laws of that Party prevailing over a meaning given to the term under other laws of that Party.
The Canada Revenue Agency created its own set of guidelines for precisely how the financial institutions are to implement the broader objectives of FATCA Hunt. Those guidelines are here.
FATCA Canada Guidance gdnc-eng
Never forget that the guidelines are made pursuant to the broad terms of the IGA. Canada’s domestic laws that are to assist the United States with the implementation of the IGA.
Summary: Understanding FATCA …
When in doubt about how to interpret the Canada’s domestic laws, one should look to the provisions of the IGA. As a reminder, here is the Canada U.S. IGA which was signed on February 5, 2014.