Is Globe and Mail Recycling Old News? Why?

U.S. Delay in Tax-Evasion Crackdown Heartens Ottawa said a headline in last week’s Globe and Mail.
Tiger forwarded me the link to the article in the Globe’s mobile edition which gave September 6, 2012 as the publication date. But, when I accessed on the Globe’s regular website, it gave a publication date of July 14, 2011 with an Update of September 6, 2012.
Most of the comments on the G & M website are from July, 2011.  I think most of us were still blissfully unaware of this issue then.
The information in the article says Flaherty is “glad” the reporting date for FATCA has been delayed until 2014.  However, I don’t think that had occurred yet in July, 2011.  I think this information was several months old by September 6. 2012.
Are Tiger and I missing something?  Is there any new news in this story?  Has anything happened relating to FATCA in the past week to cause Globe and Mail to publish this September 6–and for Mr. Flaherty to be “glad?”  Tim, do you have any information about any new updates or delays?  Does anyone else?
In any case, Mr. Flaherty sure seems to be a jolly fellow these days.  He was “happy” about the streamlined regulations and is “glad” about the reporting delay for FATCA.
Well, I won’t be either “happy” or “glad” until Mr. Flaherty once and for all says Canadian banks must adhere to Canadian law and Canadian law will not be changed to accommodate a foreign government.  Mr. Flaherty’s silence is just making me mad.

15 thoughts on “Is Globe and Mail Recycling Old News? Why?

  1. Interesting. The comments made by the CBA President, Terry Cambell, are certainly an addition the original. By the sound of it, the Canadian government’s pregnant silence may be about to give birth to something. I haven’t heard anything except from John Weston MP requesting information relating to the Canadian Government’s 2013 Pre-budget submission I made in August, and now this article you posted. Thanks.
    “Mr. Flaherty suggested a delay is not enough” would lead the reader to believe that our government is not rallying behind the FATCA decree.

  2. It is a new or at the very least update article however, the “news” that the original implementation date of July 1 2013 has been moved to January 1 2014 has been rumored/suspected for a couple of months and I believe MP John Weston of West Vancouver actually indicated this to a constituent back in June(Others such as Jim Calvin at Calvin on Fund Tax have also basically said that it is a pretty sure bet the July 1 2013 date is going to be pushed back). Having said that Steven Mopsick claims this isn’t true that in fact the July 1 2013 date remains in place except for countries that have a signed an IGA.

  3. @Tim: I’m still confused about what is new. It was my understanding the regulations released a few or several months ago said banks must confirm whether they will comply by 2013, but they are not required to report or withhold until 2014. Am I wrong about that?
    If that understanding was correct, then what is new here? It still says FFIs must identify and withhold in 2014. Or, has my brain just been completely fried by all of this? (I readily admit that is a very distinct possibility!)
    If there is new information in this article, I’m somewhat surprised other media have not picked up on it.
    @Bubblebustin’: A healthy baby of Canadian sovereignty with 10 fingers of Canadian law and 10 toes of the Canadian Charter would make me very happy. Somehow, I still worry a miscarriage of justice is being planned. We must remain diligent to make sure that doesn’t happen.
    Call me a Nervous Nellie, but the oft-repeated statement of Mr. Flaherty that “Canada will continue to work with our American neighbours on a solution that both countries will find agreeable” does not instill confidence in me. Neither does Terry Campbell’s comment about the “helpful reprieve” to relieve some of the “time pressures.” Where are statements about Canadian laws in Canada must be followed?

  4. @Tim
    John Weston wrote this to me on June 26, 2012:
    ” While we’re pleased the US has taken note of concerns we’ve expressed on behalf of Canadians by delaying FATCA’s implementation until 2014, clearly this only a first step”.
    Your continuation of the birth analogy is brilliant, lol.
    Yes, an outright condemnation of FATCA by Flaherty would go a long way to alleviate our nervousness, but I’m not in the political diplomacy business. I think we should all make a grass roots attempt in creating an opposition to FATCA by writing to any and all Canadian fringe magazines and newspapers that deal in politics to get their readers all fired up against this attack on Canadian sovereignty! Forget about all those dumb ass*s in Congress, we need Canadians with pitchforks (allegorically speaking).

  5. Flaherty says, again,
    “Canada is home to an estimated one million Americans and dual U.S.-Canadian citizens,”
    I AM NOT AN AMERICAN. I AM NOT A DUAL US-CANADIAN CITIZEN. If FATCA does not affect me, where is the statement to that effect to put my mind at ease. Is he again insinuating that because we were born in the US we can never shed US citizenship?

      1. You’re right Flaherty didn’t say dual citizen in that article. However, he did use the D word in his letter to me, even though I began my letter by saying: “Like Prime Minister Harper, I am Canadian and only Canadian.”
        He seems to have bought into the dual rhetoric as much as everyone else–making us into second class Canadian citizens.

  6. @all,
    I just don’t trust them to stand up to the Americans. On the one hand it is possibly a good thing that we have not read that Canada has signed onto FATCA, but on the other hand our government officials or CBA making reference to DELAYS in the implementation does not give me much confidence.

    1. Perhaps delays are ways of buying time to get FATCA repealed (crossing fingers). This is a potentially explosive situation for the Canadian government in so many ways. If there is ever a time for diplomacy it is now.

      1. A couple of thoughts:
        1. I actually don’t think Canada really cares that much about how FATCA effects other countries. It is mainly interested in Canada.
        2. Canada and Flaherty I suspect would rather enjoy “special treatment” of getting exempted from FATCA while every other country on the planet has to comply.
        3. There is a long history going back to Sir John A of Canada desiring “special treatment” from the US and sucessfully obtaining it on many occasions. The original Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA were both essentially examples of “special treatment” for Canada. Older examples would be the income equalization tax, the Auto Pact, NORAD, the reporting of Canadian held accounts in US banks(but no other country) to Canada, the US Visa exemption for Canadian citizens, preclearance at airports, even the original recognition of Confederation by the US in 1869 etc.(The rumor that Canadian OVDI submissions are being “held” in Austin would be another example) In fact to the extent their was oppostion to CUSTA in 1988 in the US it was among the same civil service types who brought FATCA in on the basis again that Canada was getting unfair “special treatment” from the US.
        4. On the otherhand CUSTA(Canada US Free Trade Agreement) had a lot of backing from the Texas Republican Party elite such as James Baker, and George Bush Sr who saw it as a first step to free trade between the US and Mexico which they were strongly in favor of. In fact Ronald Reagan when he ran for president the first time in 1976 wanted free trade with Canada and Mexico and sent to campaign emmasaries to Ottawa to test the waters.

  7. @Tim: Wouldn’t the existing Canada-US treaty be considered to be a special agreement where income from residents of each other’s countries is reported (and has been for decades).
    Based on that, it would seem to me the US could save face by pointing to the long-standing effective “reciprocity” between the two countries and could therefore exempt Canada from FATCA.
    In fact, my letter from Associate Vice-President FATCA at TD said “While the FATCA guidelines issued by the IRS will apply to all non-US financial institutions around the world, there is also the possibility that the Canadian and U.S. governments could negotiate a bilateral agreement that would define the requirements that would apply to Canadian banks specifically.”
    I have no idea what this means or if it even means anything, but I was intrigued it was in the letter.
    Is your sense that the existing treaty gives Canada an edge or a disadvantage on FATCA? Is your sense we have had the silent treatment for months because something positive is happening for Canada or is it because US is just not budging?

  8. The delay in actually knowing what is going to happen with FATCA is likely driving us all up the wall.
    Has anyone noticed that many mutual fund prospectus’ now have a FATCA
    I’ll try to find one and post it later

  9. @ Tim
    This is from CI investments. TD Mutual Funds has a much longer statement, but I couldn’t cut and paste it.
    Pursuant to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act of 2009 (FATCA), starting in 2013, unitholders of the funds may be required to provide identity and residency information to the funds, which may be provided by the funds to U.S. tax authorities in order to avoid a U.S. withholding tax being imposed on U.S. and certain non-U.S. source income and proceeds of disposition received by the funds or on certain amounts (including distributions) paid by the funds to certain unitholders.
    Many mutual funds with “Canadian” in their name have a % of US based investments so would presumably be affected by FATCA.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *