I will let you tell me. Is this article in Tax Connection “relevant to folks” or is it “fear mongering?”
Please read both the article and the comments and tell me what you think. The reason I ask is Brian Mahany sent me a direct e-mail after reading my comments. His subject line was Fear Mongering? The message was
I try to post articles that are relevant to folks, not engage in fear mongering. Don’t shoot the messenger; we are not advocates of FATCA.Comments are appreciated. If you wish to write something for TaxConnections I am sure readers would find it interesting and I am sure the publisher, Kat Jennings, would post it for you.Brian
My reply was:
If you’re not doing fear mongering, why don’t you inform Canadians about the fact CRA does not and will not collect for IRS. Why don’t you tell them IRS has no jurisdiction in Canadian courts for tax collection? Why don’t you tell them IRS cannot prosecute in Canadian courts Why don’t you tell them many of them can get backdated CLNs with no further obligation to IRS?I asked you a couple of those questions after you posted at Maple Sandbox–where we do not usually allow advertising. You did not respond.
His reply back to me was:
Lynne-Thank you for your reply. I don’t write about these things because I am not a Canadian lawyer and have no idea whether they are true. As I suggested, write something from the Canadian perspective.Regarding Maple Sandbox, I am not a subscriber so I don’t see comments.Brian
Brian says he’s not a subscriber here. Yet he commented under Things to Consider Before You Contact a Lawyer thread, but didn’t respond to questions there.
So, back to the question. Was Brian’s article fear mongering or relevant information that might be helpful to folks?
10 thoughts on “Relevant to Folks or Fear Mongering?”
About 2 or 3 weeks ago I demanded that Pacifica delete any web links to these blood suckers. I felt newbie may be entrapped. Why don’t you revisit that issue with her. I am really not interested in trying to track down that thread but Pacifica & Calgary 411 should remember.
Remember that I have been the biggest proponent of beating the system. In fact some people may complain that I used the UK Facta (I always said it was the worse case scenario) which is much worse than ours.
on more thing
Try on line application to Canadian Tire financial
You see before you submit the data is stored in USA. Do not submit I wrote on Petros story at Issac Brock to check this out in January. I also pointed out that Computershares Canada the transfer agent for most companies and Provincial Bonds keeps it info in USA. If you hold certificates of stock and bonds computershare Canada will send you dividends,
Will someone write about this it may be more helpful than political rants.
Roy Berg has an article on TroyMedia:
in which he says, ‘…we find ourselves in FATCA-Land where logic and proportion, while recognizable, are unfamiliar’. and he ends with,
‘Just as Alice couldn’t go back to the person she once was, neither can we go back. FATCA has changed the global banking, business and tax landscape – and more changes will follow’.
I would argue about the logic & proportion being recognizable, but I take his point. I’ve very afraid he’s right in predicting more changes. Now that our govt has failed to protect us, the U.S. will just continue to demand more and more.
Well, I tried to leave a few comments for Brian but it’s another one of those sites where you have to give all your details before posting. There’s a limit to how much personal data I want to leave scattered all over the internet.
What I wanted to tell him was that once you have renounced it’s not difficult to undo; it’s impossible.
He was also talking about FBAR failure being a felony. Well we don’t have felonies here in Canada so not filing one isn’t anything at all! That kind of sounds like fear-mongering to me. At the end of the day, FBAR is just a lousy piece of paper; Canadians aren’t impressed with them and neither is the Canadian government.
By the way, Brian (if you’re reading this) I got rid of my US citizenship a while back as well. I do believe you when you say you aren’t a fan of FATCA. Only the insane ideologues in your disfunctional government are. I’m sorry to say it but FATCA is your problem now. But give it a few years and the problem will fix itself; there won’t be any US citizens left who live off the plantation!
They can say you did not file regular taxes.
But Canadian court will not enfoce foreign taxes which I assume includes not filling.
More from Brian Mahany. He says anything in an accoun needs to be reported if bank knows you are a US person–even under $50,000.
This is reporting on Barbados using Canadian example.
Relevant to folks or fear mongering? You tell me.
The debate between Brian and me continued. Here it is:
What an idiot.
You might have been a bit too hard on the ‘fear mongering’ charge, as every attorney in America does that because the IRS is a FEARFUL organization. It is the U.S. Concentric view, that U.S. Law trumps everything else, and circular 230 makes them promote that vision. They ALL do it, so it is almost an exercise in futility to get them to accept the charge and see otherwise. They will NEVER admit it, as shown in your exchange. The problem of course is YOU, having too much free time…. LOL That is a classic!!!
I am not trying to criticize you, but frankly, I have learned that your argument will never resonate with them, and like using ‘Nazi’ references, even if valid and true, it turns folks off to your message. At least that is what I am learning from my ‘too much free time’ 🙂
Sadly, Canada’s capitulation to FATCA and the whimpering acceptance of the Dominance of U.S. Citizenship (personhood) in Canada, just re-enforces their point and vision.
The practical effect of Circular 230 is that although the client is paying the bills the lawyer (or accountant) is actually working for the IRS. Being found to have violated Circular 230 is career ending event; there’s no way any one of them would even suggest something something that isn’t strictly by the IRS book.
That’s the reason lawyers pushed benign actors into the OVDP when a simple quiet disclosure would have done the trick with no issues.