Are you Canadian but born in US?

[mcHAPPY]

Were you born but left US at early age, never returned to live, and never held US passport?

Prepare to be fooked.

Canada created the controversial information-exchange program so Canadian financial institutions could comply with disclosure requirements under a new U.S. law called the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) while remaining in compliance with Canadian privacy laws.

U.S. tax law requires all so-called “U.S. persons” to file U.S. tax returns, and FATCA was put in place to help collect all taxes owed to the U.S. government. The definition of “U.S. person” is very broad and includes so-called “accidental Americans” who have no real connection to the United States — sometimes because they were simply born there while their parents were traveling, or because they had American parents but left the country at a very young age.

FATCA penalizes non-U.S. financial institutions who refuse to submit information about non-resident U.S. persons to the IRS, but Canadian banks can’t disclose such information without violating Canadian privacy laws. As a result, Ottawa struck a deal in which banks could disclose information to Canada’s tax authority, the Canada Revenue Agency, which is able to collect private financial information. The CRA would then pass this information to the IRS, the U.S. tax authority, each year in September. The agreement is supposed to kick in this month. Court records state that the first exchange of information is to take place on Sept. 23.

Deegan was born in Washington State in 1962, but moved to Canada as a child in 1967. Hillis was born in the U.S. in 1946 and moved to Canada with her Canadian parents in 1951. Neither have lived in the U.S. since arriving in Canada as children, and neither has held a U.S. passport.

http://business.financialpost.com/le...-s-under-fatca


Land of the free my ass.

Economic slavery.

[Apollo]

Well yeah. Don't pay your property tax and find out what truly is yours.

You don't live in the states, you don't do business in the states, you're not a U.S. citizen, hell maybe you've never even been to the states since shortly after birth but still, you must file a tax return? But lets say you don't file, then fines are levied against you and you essentially you can never go back to the states without facing legal reparations?

You know what this sounds like? It sounds like something probably targeted at fairly new expats. The number of people leaving the states as the economy descends further and further into certain doom is growing. I remember reading an article about it a few months back but I can't remember where... Anyway, those are the people they're probably primarily going after.

There are people who see what's coming as soon as the Fed inevitably raises interest rates(now, this month, or in 2016). It will burst multiple bubbles and they're trying to move their assets, and business outside the US to partially shield themselves from it; they're in defense mode.

[raptors999]

Well yeah. Don't pay your property tax and find out what truly is yours.

You don't live in the states, you don't do business in the states, you're not a U.S. citizen, hell maybe you've never even been to the states since shortly after birth but still, you must file a tax return? But lets say you don't file, then fines are levied against you and you essentially you can never go back to the states without facing legal reparations?

You know what this sounds like? It sounds like something probably targeted at fairly new expats. The number of people leaving the states as the economy descends further and further into certain doom is growing. I remember reading an article about it a few months back but I can't remember where... Anyway, those are the people they're probably primarily going after.

There are people who see what's coming as soon as the Fed inevitably raises interest rates(now, this month, or in 2016). It will burst multiple bubbles and they're trying to move their assets, and business outside the US to partially shield themselves from it; they're in defense mode.

US citizens being unable to get non-residency status has been around a long time. The Americans don't believe people might not want to be US residents even for tax reasons or choose the US as the non-primary citzenship

[mcHAPPY]

Well yeah. Don't pay your property tax and find out what truly is yours.

You don't live in the states, you don't do business in the states, you're not a U.S. citizen, hell maybe you've never even been to the states since shortly after birth but still, you must file a tax return? But lets say you don't file, then fines are levied against you and you essentially you can never go back to the states without facing legal reparations?

You know what this sounds like? It sounds like something probably targeted at fairly new expats. The number of people leaving the states as the economy descends further and further into certain doom is growing. I remember reading an article about it a few months back but I can't remember where... Anyway, those are the people they're probably primarily going after.

There are people who see what's coming as soon as the Fed inevitably raises interest rates(now, this month, or in 2016). It will burst multiple bubbles and they're trying to move their assets, and business outside the US to partially shield themselves from it; they're in defense mode.

The US government is desperately trying to shake loose every dime and nickel they can. Obviously as we approach yet another debt ceiling hike and possible government shutdown the expenditures far surpass the revenue.

Going after people who left the country at 5 years of age, never to return? That is ridiculous and wreaks of either total abuse of power or sheer desperation. I believe it is both.

What many people in government fail to recognize is government consumes, it does not produce.

[Bendit]

The US government is desperately trying to shake loose every dime and nickel they can. Obviously as we approach yet another debt ceiling hike and possible government shutdown the expenditures far surpass the revenue.

Going after people who left the country at 5 years of age, never to return? That is ridiculous and wreaks of either total abuse of power or sheer desperation. I believe it is both.

What many people in government fail to recognize is government consumes, it does not produce.

And why is the govt. of Canada cooperating in this matter? Once a Canadian leaves and derives his/her income eg. in the US it matters not to the CRA.

[Apollo]

The article suggested there would be penalties for Canada is they were uncooperative.

[Bendit]

The article suggested there would be penalties for Canada is they were uncooperative.

Oh I dont know about that....all I seemed to find was weak kneed capitulation by our government...

FATCA penalizes non-U.S. financial institutions who refuse to submit information about non-resident U.S. persons to the IRS, but Canadian banks can’t disclose such information without violating Canadian privacy laws. As a result, Ottawa struck a deal in which banks could disclose information to Canada’s tax authority, the Canada Revenue Agency, which is able to collect private financial information. The CRA would then pass this information to the IRS, the U.S. tax authority, each year in September.

Struck a deal? wtf is that....in return for what? From the writing what I see is Ottawa circumvented ("struck a deal") existing law where the Canadian banks could NOT directly pass on private data to a foreign entity.

If the shoe were on the other foot and a US citizen were to approach their Rep. or Sen. for help (eg. Ted Cruz) he'd be screaming about independence and jurisdiction and sovereignty.

Hope they take the case further to the SC.

ps...in defence of your comment I agree there was some strong armed tactics used threatening Ottawa on other bilateral matters like some dicey nafta interpretations. They bully well.

[rocwell]

The article suggested there would be penalties for Canada is they were uncooperative.

I wonder what Canada is getting from 'Mericans for cooperation.

[stretch]

The Canadian government is throwing American ex pats under the bus. There is a option to relinquish the American citizenship birth right but Uncle Sam wants $2400 USD to go through that process.

[Apollo]

If you don't represent a material number of votes then they don't care unless you kick up a big public stink.

[slaw]

Oh I dont know about that....all I seemed to find was weak kneed capitulation by our government...



Struck a deal? wtf is that....in return for what? From the writing what I see is Ottawa circumvented ("struck a deal") existing law where the Canadian banks could NOT directly pass on private data to a foreign entity.

If the shoe were on the other foot and a US citizen were to approach their Rep. or Sen. for help (eg. Ted Cruz) he'd be screaming about independence and jurisdiction and sovereignty.

Hope they take the case further to the SC.

ps...in defence of your comment I agree there was some strong armed tactics used threatening Ottawa on other bilateral matters like some dicey nafta interpretations. They bully well.

They struck a deal because they had no choice. Canadian banks do business in the USA and they need to comply with FATCA. Even the Swiss buckled. The government had to do a deal or else every Canadian bank would be non-compliant and would be shut out of the US.

Not sure why you're on about Ted Cruz. FATCA was the baby of congressional Democrats and was signed into law by Obama. What does Ted Cruz have to do with it?

[Bendit]

They struck a deal because they had no choice. Canadian banks do business in the USA and they need to comply with FATCA. Even the Swiss buckled. The government had to do a deal or else every Canadian bank would be non-compliant and would be shut out of the US.

Not sure why you're on about Ted Cruz. FATCA was the baby of congressional Democrats and was signed into law by Obama. What does Ted Cruz have to do with it?

Lets be clear here...my remarks were made with the backdrop of the "accidental" Americans in mind in the piece now resident in Canada since the age of about 5 or thereabouts. I am unsure about this but such individuals dont have the ability to challenge or renounce the definition of citizenship bestowed on them (they do not possess a US passport, wish to be known as nor even visited). For all practical purposes they are Canadian only.

I used Cruz as an example (an extreme one of course...and ironically he was born in Canada!) of the jingoistic loudmouth pol who would have surely (as he did with Ms Davis in Kentucky) raised at least a "mild" ruckus to further his standing among the supporting citizenry. As far as I know there is no quid pro quo on the deal. It is in fact the big stick. Do exactly as we say. When it comes to important international agreements especially one involving money and security Americans care not about political affiliation...they are hard bargainers). What can I say Obama is not a details person sometimes (disappointing) ...maybe Harper could have whispered in his ear on some occasion.

On principle I support the underlying reasoning for FATCA ...far too many tax evaders and off shore bank accounts (the Swiss were the worst abettors) evading scrutiny of possible money laundering and supporting terror activities. But examples like 2 older ladies getting nicked on what is possibly their retirement accounts? Surely our government could have arranged for some accommodation under the dragnet. And the threshold for reporting is $50k ...a relative pittance these days imo.

You will be pleased to know that the Republican party is committed to repeal FATCA. I wonder why?