We then started with this video:
The emphasis on how bizarrely the indicia rules could be interpreted began to be a framework of the discussion.
We then heard from Professor Allison Christians. She studied tax law in the US and has an LLM from New York City University. Point was made that this university has some sort of monopoly on producing international tax lawyers.
*At first, FATCA seemed like a reasonable proposal to deal with tax evasion as the US, along with other major European countries, were experiencing a disappearing tax base with the upper tier of taxpapers escaping their obligations.
*10 years ago, OECD began to promote state-to-state cooperation, which again, seemed a “reasonable” reaction to this situation
**Govts don’t want to hit the middle class “coming and going;” i.e., taxing them on their income and then taxing them again on what they spend on consumption. VAT-GST-HST, etc. The upper tier evades and the lower tier has nothing to pay.
* Law pulls everything into it’s lane – i.e., not just the top tier/tax evaders but also everything “foreign”
*PFFI has two choices:
1) seek waivers which results in giving whatever info the bank asks with consent to disclose to the IRS OR
2) close the accounts
*Important to note – this is NOT a CLOSED agreement; the IRS/US has carte blanche to ask WHATEVER they want WHENEVER they want (later)
*A recalcitrant PFFI will have 30% withholding on it’s US source cash flow; interest, dividends and property; property worth $1000 sold for a loss at $800; however, FATCA will withhold 30% of that $800.
*at all levels/pass-through-pmts i.e., not just the PFFI of the US Person but the FFI that sends to the PFFI, etc. Building in a withholding succession.
*The “get out of jail free card” is the IGA
*packaged as information exchange, the current Treaty already covers this; we have low financial privacy with regard to CRA who also has restrictions with what it can and cannot do with our information; we should have a HIGHER right with respect to a 3rd party
*with US and Mexico already having IGA, 2/3 NAFTA is already signed on and danger of Canada being swept in
*We MUST recognize/emphasize that FATCA is INCONSISTENT with our domestic law
*It violates Canadian Autonomy (as opposed to sovereignty); sovereignty is a problematic, binary concept, law of contestation. Use AUTONOMY instead
*it violates a USC’s mobility
*Canadian citizens are not given a choice since the FFI’s have already chosen for us
*THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT-just like in litigation, the goal is not necessarily to win; we must do what we need to do to ‘WIN THE PUBLIC RHETORIC” i.e., get attention in the PUBLIC COURT
*Revenue Code – can elect to be treated as a US company (or taxpayer); parity
*there is no parity between a dual in Canada and a dual in the US
*Case studies where a statute may look facially neutral but challenged by “intl” law
*? USC violated via Constitution with restriction on leaving?
*who is already over-reacting to IRC-US conservatives
*4 things we can do
1) FATCA = a US treaty override
similar to 1986 Branch Profits Tax
“later in time law” concessions where legislation will trump Treaty
2) doing it now with FATCA statute; PFFI has to waive any rights under ANY Treaty; ex subsidy claim under WTO or NAFTA or FTAA; not just the double-tax treaty
*an attempt to get USC’s abroad to relocate
*an IGA acknowledges the need to waive rights under all treaties; no competent govt would agree to such; FATCA does override the double-tax treaty
*YOU DON’T HAVE TO WIN YOU JUST HAVE TO MAKE IT EXPENSIVE AND GET PUBLIC AWARENESS (ex the reciprocity issue)
2) Possible violation via NAFTA (but trumped by IGA?)
3) NB US has at least 20 FTA’s which amount to defacto subsidies for US institutions
4) International law – customary laws being violated; a sovereign nation has the right to regulate in it’s territory and the power to protect the privacy of it’s own people
*Avoid use of the term citizenship-based taxation; all countries do this with tie-breakers in their treaties; point out US is doing something OTHER than citizenship taxation
*re-think the charade of cooperation; Canada gets nothing, the PFFI gets nothing; pure extraction, no quid pro quo
*under no circumstances should Canada sign an IGA; PFFI challenge any bank signing away their rights who then, sign away yours
*there will be an ongoing cost to saying “NO”
*problem with arguing FATCA violates NAFTA is treaty override-SAY IT IS and DEMAND the government (Canada) to say IT’S NOT
IT IS a tax treaty override and it IS a privacy override-which are we to give up?
*discussion of 6 indicia and truly bizarre ways in which can be interpreted (too long to go into here but Allison did a superb job of showing these, which will be on the video)