I am very proud to participate in (what I believe to be) the first ever conference organized to debate issues surrounding “citizenship-based taxation”. The conference has been organized by “ACA Global“. The conference was reported on the Maple Sandbox blog as follows:
The Supreme Court of Canada has declared its independence from the Harper Government. This is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for a successful legal challenge to a FATCA IGA.
The recent Globe article includes:
Last week, the Supreme Court offered a declaration of its independence, reminding the Prime Minister that its power is constitutionally entrenched, not subject to his whims or arrogance. In pushing a highly controversial choice on the court, the PM tried to retroactively rewrite the rules via one of his much-criticized omnibus bills. The court’s stinging rebuke was applauded by pundits and editorialists across the land.
Many people are confused about the difference between renouncing U.S. citizenship and relinquishing U.S. citizenship. To put it simply:
There is ONLY “relinquishment” of U.S. citizenship. “Renouncing U.S. citizenship” is just one way of relinquishing. This is described in S. 349 of the INA.
I refer you to an interesting post at the Isaac Brock Society. For those having trouble understanding the different ways one can “relinquish”, I recommend this post and (more importantly) the comments.
It all started back in 1961, when Phyllis Michaux, an American woman married to a Frenchman and living in France since 1946, found a friend in a similar situation. They began talking about the future of their children, their American and French citizenship and wondered whether there were other women “out there” in a similar position.
They had a question and an idea. The question was, “How many people are affected by the citizenship law 301(b)?” At the time under section 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1960, children born overseas of one American parent would lose their American citizenship unless they lived five consecutive years in the United States between the ages of fourteen and twenty-eight. Essentially, the children would have to move to the United States sometime before their twenty-third birthday to retain their American citizenship. The idea was to find out how many families were affected. This they did. And they did a lot more along the way.
See Phyllis Michaux – The Unknown Ambassadors
To go directly to our submission to Canada’s Department of Finance on Canada’s FATCA IGA click here.
As you are aware of February 5, 2014 the Government of Canada signed an FATCA IGA with the United States Treasury. The agreement obligated the Government of Canada to change certain laws in Canada to assist the Government of the United States in locating “U.S. persons”.
Canada’s Minister of National Revenue, Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, confirms in an email to a constituent, that the agreement was for the purpose of assisting Canada’s banks. The text of her email includes: