Tag Archives: FATCA IGA

Federal Court Of Appeal Upholds Trial Decision Ruling Canada/US FATCA IGA Is Constitutional

Circa 2014

In June of 2014 the plaintiffs in the ADCS (“Alliance For The Defence Of Canadian Sovereignty”) lawsuit launched their legal challenge to the constitutionality of the Canada US FATCA IGA. The proceedings have gone through a Federal Court hearing in 2015, a second Federal Court hearing in 2019 and the Federal Court Of Appeal hearing in 2022. It has been a “long haul” and the plaintiffs (Ginny, Gwen and Kazia) – true unsung heroes in life – deserve the thanks of all Canadians.

On September 21, 2022 the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the trial decision (which ruled against the plaintiffs).

In other words, the US FATCA law continues to be endorsed by the Canadian courts as being the law of Canada too.

Every human being is a minority somewhere. US citizens living outside the United States are a minority wherever they live. Furthermore, because of FATCA (the tool to enforce citizenship taxation) they will ALWAYS have fewer rights than others in their country of residence. What is astounding is that the United States is ensuring that it’s own citizens are subject to discrimination! Such are the effects of citizenship taxation.

The advancement and protection of the rights of minority groups is always a marathon and not a sprint. It requires the relentless dedication to the goal of achieving justice. At this moment I would like to recognize and thank Patricia Moon, Carol Tapanila and Stephen Kish for their tremendous efforts, personal sacrifices and focus on this cause.

It’s also important and appropriate to recognize the support of the hundreds of anonymous people who contributed financially (in some cases their pension payments) and in other cases their encouragement that this legal challenge was necessary.

The next decision is whether to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court Of Canada.

I will write more about this in the next few days. What follows is a copy of the decision.

A-370-19_20220921_R_E_O_OTT_20220921132516

Those wishing to better understand the history, purpose and progression of this lawsuit might go here:

The @ADCSovereignty #FATCA Summary Trial Book of Posts – Law Students Edition

John Richardson

August 29 Letter From US Treasury To Dutch Government Reinforces Commitment To Impose US Citizenship Tax On Dutch Residents

________________________________________________________________

The world as of September 2022 … The following tweet (which generated a very lively discussion) references a letter sent by US Treasury to the Dutch Government.

The letter includes statements that bear on:

– the Dutch banks and their FATCA obligations

– FATCA

– Citizenship taxation

– the US commitment to imposing US taxation on Dutch residents who happen to be US citizens.

The main point of the letter seems to be to give the Dutch banks a “Blessing From Their US Overlords” that a notice of FATCA non-compliance will not presumptively follow from allowing US citizens (who live in the Netherlands) to have basic depository accounts (to receive pay and pay bills).

But, let’s get real. Under no conceivable interpretation of the FATCA IGA could the fact of having US citizen customers (with or without SSNs) cause the Dutch banks be in noncompliance with their FATCA obligations.

The Dutch banks simply do NOT want to deal with US citizen clients.

This sentiment is entirely reasonable and is a natural consequence of US regulatory overreach. The letter from Treasury is asking that the Dutch banks accept the worst of both worlds. First, to allow Dutch residents, who happen to be US citizens, to have a bank account at a bank of their choosing. Second, to behave in a way that is contrary to the business interests of the bank (as having US citizen customers certainly is). The arrogance displayed in Treasury’s letter is sufficient reason to be wary of having US citizen clients period.

The FATCA IGAs don’t require the Dutch banks to close “US Accounts”

1. As per the clear terms of the US/Netherlands FATCA IGA, Dutch banks are perfectly free to exempt all “depository accounts” with balances of less than $50,000 USD from FATCA obligations.

2. Even if the Dutch banks were in breach of FATCA obligations, the breach is of no consequence unless US Treasury (A) notifies the Netherlands of that non-compliance and (B) gives them 18 months to cure the noncompliance. (It’s perfectly obvious that Treasury can simply issue a proclamation that residents of the Netherlands are exempt from FATCA. But, history indicates they are not willing to do this!) In other words: FATCA noncompliance is not the problem. It’s Treasury’s reaction to FATCA noncompliance that is the problem.

Therefore, it’s clear the reluctance to have US citizen customers is not principally motivated by a concern of FATCA noncompliance. It’s because the US Government has ensured that US citizens are “toxic (taxic) carbon life forms” and it’s better to avoid them. The “toxicity” (taxicity) is caused by US citizenship taxation – specifically the US attempt to impose worldwide taxation on US citizen Dutch residents who live and pay tax in the Netherlands. In other words: the problem is caused by US citizenship taxation and not by FATCA.

Note that the following updated sentence reflects a change from the original sentence to reflect the comment below

Nevertheless, the threat of bank account closures and the need to respond to the immediate harmful effects of US citizenship taxation (including FATCA), have caused many Americans abroad including accidental Americans in the Netherlands, France and elsewhere to concentrate on the effects of citizenship taxation (FATCA) rather than on citizenship taxation itself. (See the comment below …)

Continue reading

Be Careful Of Faulty Logic Claiming FATCA And The CRS Are Similar: Seven Ways They Are Not

Prologue

For those more interested in logic than in FATCA, you will find a discussion of the logical fallacy here.

Introduction

Last week I participated in a group discussion about FATCA and its effect on Accidental Americans. It’s difficult to have a discussion about FATCA that doesn’t include the CRS (“Common Reporting Standard”). Neither FATCA nor the CRS is well understood. That said, an introduction of the CRS into a discussion about FATCA detracts from a consideration of how FATCA impacts Accidental Americans (and others). Furthermore, there is a generalized assumption that the CRS is a positive development. Associating FATCA with the CRS enhances the “illusion” that FATCA is also a positive development.

In part, the discussion assumed that:

– FATCA (U.S. “Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act”) and the OECD CRS (“Common Reporting Standard“) were similar kinds of information exchange agreements; and

– To attack/criticize FATCA would be to criticize and have the effect of weakening the CRS.

These are absurd claims which are based on faulty logic. The faulty logic is that because FATCA and the CRS overlap in one aspect that they are functionally equivalent in intent, effect, purpose and other aspects. The argument appears to be based on the following reasoning:

Continue reading

The FATCA IGAs Do Not Impose An Obligation Of Reciprocity On The United States

Introduction – The Question

Over the past few months, in unrelated contexts, I have heard the question asked:

Is FATCA reciprocal?

For example the Judges hearing the appeal in the ADCS FATCA Canada lawsuit asked (clearly assuming that it did) whether the FATCA IGAs imposed reciprocal obligations on the United States. Surely it must, they assumed. Recently the head of a FATCA fact finding mission asked in a meeting of individuals the same question. In neither case was a clear “yes or no” answer provided. Some participants were adamant that there WAS reciprocity. Others were adamant that there was no reciprocity. Some simply didn’t know. This post is an attempt to analyze the facts as they pertain to FATCA, consider whether the FATCA IGAs prescribe reciprocity of obligation and ultimately explain why there is NO meaningful reciprocity of obligation.

Some Important FATCAoids

The 2010 Statute

FATCA was signed into law by President Obama on March 18, 2010. The general provisions are found in Chapter 4 – Sections 1471 – 1474 of the Internal Revenue Code. The statute is coercive and is a US demand, under threat of sanction, that non-U.S. banks deliver information, about the bank accounts of residents of their country, to U.S. Treasury. The statute contemplates a one way flow of information to the United States without ANY reciprocity from the United States. (Any discussion of “reciprocity” must take place within the context of the FATCA IGAs.)

The 2014 Implementation Of FATCA Via The IGAs

The implementation of FATCA (via the FATCA IGAs) began (in many countries) on July 1, 2014. Because the statute does obligate the United States to provide any information to other countries, any obligation of reciprocity must be found in the IGAs.

Non-U.S. countries are required – pursuant to the FATCA IGAs – to transfer information about the holders of local financial accounts in their country to the United States of America. Notably the vast majority of account information transferred to the United States is information about accounts held by tax residents of the transferor country. In other words: pursuant to the FATCA IGAs, account information is transferred about accounts located in a country where the account holder actually lives to a country where the account holder does NOT actually live! To put this in context, imagine the following scenario:

You have a neighbour in a Canadian small town, who earns his income in Canada and pays tax on that income to Canada. That income is deposited into a bank account at a branch located in his community. That neighbour may be having his bank account information transferred to the United States. How could this be you ask? Surely this must be a mistake? The answer is “No it is not a mistake”. It’s the result of Canada enacting a U.S. law (“FATCA”) on Canadian soil. Pursuant to that FATCA law (described in numerous CBC articles), the transfer of account information is required because your neighbour was either born in the United States or was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen parent. So what you ask? Surely the circumstances of a person’s birth shouldn’t mean that a country where they don’t live has access to their banking information in the country where they do live? Wrong again. It’s about tax residency and about the U.S. unique definition of tax residency. You see, the United States defines any U.S. citizen as a tax resident of the United States (regardless of where that citizen lives). By defining “tax residency” in terms of citizenship, the United States is claiming that the tax residents of other countries are U.S. tax residents. U.S. citizens are subject to all (tax, forms and penalty) the provisions of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. But wait you ask! My neighbour lives in Canada, pays tax in Canada and is a tax resident of Canada! (In fact the FATCA IGAs allow the United States – by tying the definition of U.S. citizen to U.S. law – to define ANY individual in Canada as a U.S. tax resident.) Yes, it’s true. Pursuant to the FATCA IGAs the United States is claiming Canadian tax residents as U.S. tax residents. This means that the United States is claiming the right to impose U.S. taxation on the Canadian employment income, earned by residents of Canada, which is already taxed in Canada. Yes it’s true.

Continue reading

Identity theft in a #FATCA and #CRS World: The Role Of the U.S. Social Security Number

Introduction

Her thoughtful post includes:

FATCA Security Risks with Sensitive Data
The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, commonly called “FATCA” has caused Americans abroad to be fearful of security risks when their personal financial information is reported by non-US financial institutions or foreign government agencies to the IRS. FATCA reporting will include the name, address and taxpayer identification number of each US account holder at the financial institution; the account number; account balance and value; the account’s gross receipts and gross withdrawals or payments; and other account related information requested by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has expressed concerns with the security of data transmission as mandated by FATCA.  In September of 2014 the IRS issued a fraud alert to all international financial institutions that are complying with FATCA. Scam artists posing as the IRS have fraudulently solicited financial institutions seeking account holder identities as well as financial account information.  Financial institutions directly registered to comply with FATCA, and those in jurisdictions that are treated as having an IGA in effect to implement the FATCA provisions through their home governments, have already been approached by parties impersonating themselves as the IRS. The IRS now has reports of incidents from various countries and continents.

The most significant piece of information that a U.S. citizen discloses to a “Foreign Financial Institution” under the FATCA IGAs is his/her TIN (“Taxpayer Identification Number”) AKA his “Social Security Number”.

Continue reading

Part 12: What God Hath Wrought – The #FATCA Inquisition (Review, Identify and Report on “U.S. Persons”) – Including US residents who are citizens of France and other nations!

Introduction – FATCA and U.S. residents
In Part 10 of this series of FATCA posts, I discussed the meaning of “U.S. Person”. The vast majority of people affected by FATCA are non-U.S. residents. That said, FATCA can affect U.S. residents who are citizens of other nations and have bank accounts in the United States. In some cases, the “due diligence” rules under the FATCA IGAs are making it difficult for citizens of other nations to keep access financial services (including bank accounts) in their country of citizenship. This topic is sure to gain more and more attention.
FATCA and Swiss citizens who are resident in Switzerland
 


FATCA and French citizens resident in the USA
 


The above tweet references a post at Frenchmorning.com which I was alerted on Keith Redmond’s AmericanExpatriates Facebook group. Although the post is in French you can get a rough translation with Google Translate*.
I was first alerted (in hindsight very obvious problem) by a French politician.
Here is the problem:

  1. FATCA forces French banks to hunt for customers with U.S. indicia.
  2. French citizen (and likely permanent resident of France) is living in the United States. He could be living in the United States under a number of different visas, including a “Green Card” (permanent resident visa). In addition, he might be a France/USA dual citizen.
  3. Because of a U.S. address or phone number, he washes up the shores of the “FATCA inquisition”.
  4. He is threatened with account closures and all the other disabilities that are common in Europe.
  5. He may not be able to pay his bills because of the FATCA related bank account problems.
  6. He may or may not be required to file U.S. taxes.
  7. If he is required to file U.S. taxes, he may or not be filing U.S. taxes.
  8. Either way he has a problem with his French bank.
  9. If he has a Green Card and attempts to move back to France, he may be subject to the S. 877A “Exit Tax”.
  10. Which is why the French Politician commented that “Many of our French citizens are currently “in prison in America”.

The time has come for Governments around the world to protect their citizens from the United States of America. Fortunately, France has recently taken the lead. To be specific: France has established an inquiry into how U.S. extra-territorial legislation affects the sovereignty of France.
_______________________________________________________________
* Here is the current attempt by Google to translate the French article:
Continue reading

Part 10: What God Hath Wrought – The #FATCA Inquisition (Review, Identify and Report on “U.S. Persons”) – But only those "Born In The USA"

The purpose of this post is to highlight:

  • who are the targets of the “FATCA inquisition” under the FATCA IGA; and
  • who will not turn up in the “FATCA inquisition” under the FATCA IGA.

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.
S. 7701
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(1) Person
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
account;
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.

2. Citizenship
“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
SSRN-id2717367

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

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


See the post referenced in the above tweet.
 

Part 9: What God Hath Wrought – The #FATCA Inquisition (Review, Identify and Report on “U.S. Persons”) – "Place of birth", the Canadian teenager and the new account


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:

  1. 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!
Screen shot 2016-04-20 at 7.12.33 AM
For comments on the above “TD Green Chair” see the following post at the Isaac Brock Society.
 
#youcantmakethisup
 
 

Part 15: What God Hath Wrought – The #FATCA Inquisition (Review, Identify and Report on “U.S. Persons”) – @RepealFATCA on: Why the Canadian banks supported the #FATCA IGA


Jim Jatras of RepealFATCA.com has been a long time opponent of FATCA. He has also been one of the best (if not the best) educators on what FATCA is really about. He spoke at the original “FATCA Forum“, (organized and sponsored by Canada’s Progressive Canadian Party) in 2012. He recently granted an extensive FATCA interview with U.S. tax law firm IRSMedic. Mr. Jatras has an unusually broad understand of FATCA, the American political process and how FATCA could ultimately be defeated.


The above tweet references a letter to the Toronto Star that includes:

Canada’s capitulation to this expensive, invasive and anti-sovereign demand is unnecessary. Canada has many tools to resist FATCA, from World Trade Organization and legal challenges to reciprocal, dollar-for-dollar withholding of payments to U.S. institutions. A “no” from Canada could itself doom FATCA in light of growing U.S. domestic opposition. A FATCA repeal bill has been introduced by Senator Rand Paul, a leading 2016 presidential prospect. The Republican Party, which recently approved a resolution advocating FATCA repeal, will continue to control the House and likely will capture the Senate this year.

What follows are two of his best interviews.
Jim Jatras – 2016


Jim Jatras – 2012