# FATCA fun with Canadian financial institution



## Nononymous

FATCA begins to rear its ugly head.

I've had some correspondence with the family broker, with whom I hold a few modest retirement savings accounts that are not reportable under FATCA. They would like me to confirm or deny US citizenship (of course he knows, my mother probably told him) and if I do confirm, provide an SSN. 

I requested clarification and asked what will happen if I don't cooperate, and stated:

With the RSP exemption I was actually quite pleased by how the IGA turned out. I am however less pleased by the fact that Canadian financial institutions are proactively collecting citizenship information from clients who do not hold reportable accounts - for me that's really the crux of the matter.​
Stay tuned!


----------



## StewartPatton

Interesting, thanks for letting us know.

The general treatment of a "recalcitrant accountholder" under the pure FATCA regs is as follows: (i) the RA is withheld upon at 30%, (ii) the RA is reported to the IRS, and (iii) the RA's account may be closed. 

Canada is a special case with its IGA and other unique arrangements with the IRS. Also, each bank is sort of feeling around at this point since FATCA is new and we are in a two-year "transition period." So, what will actually happen between you and your bank is anybody's guess really--please keep us informed.


----------



## Nononymous

If I'm an "RA" in Canada with a non-reportable RSP account, then: surely (i) can't apply; (ii) shouldn't apply because nothing is reportable to the IRS anyway; certainly (iii) is a possibility.

If one did have a reportable account, I imagine that being RA raises lots of flags, so that's a status best avoided.

The point I'm gently making to the bank is that I don't like them collecting this information proactively for clients without reportable accounts. I don't have complete confidence that it won't be shipped over the border (I'm non-compliant on tax and FBAR, by choice). It's nothing to do with FATCA, as I understand it, but rather their own internal compliance procedure. Of course they're just trying to protect themselves against the day when I win the lottery and suddenly have reportable accounts.


----------



## StewartPatton

There is no such thing as a "reportable account" in FATCA. You seem to be using that term to refer to an account with a balance under $50,000, but that's not how it works. Rather, a bank is allowed to choose to ignore accounts under $50,000 when looking for U.S. accountholders, but the bank is not required to do so, and it may be easier for the bank to blast out letters to everyone instead of taking the additional step of cutting out sub-$50,000 accounts.

Stated another way, it would be perfectly in keeping with FATCA for a bank to report a U.S. or recalcitrant accountholder to the IRS, even if that person's account never crosses the $50,000 mark.

Also, the "you can choose to ignore it if it's under $50,000" rule only applies to banks with respect to traditional bank accounts such as checking/savings/term deposits ("depository accounts"). It doesn't apply to brokerages or other institutions that have accounts through which you hold securities ("custodial accounts").


----------



## Nononymous

My understanding of the US-Canada IGA is that all Canadian tax-protected registered savings accounts (RRSP, TFSA, RESP etc.) are exempt from FATCA reporting - regardless of the balance. They are of course still subject to all sorts of other reporting requirements (FBAR and various IRS forms) for US citizens.

That's what I have with this brokerage.


----------



## StewartPatton

Aha, OK, gotcha. Like I said above, Canada is a special case, and my comments didn't take those special circumstances into account. 

I responded as I did just because I've seen some people cling to that $50,000 threshold like a life preserver, but it doesn't work that way under raw FATCA. Thanks for the education.


----------



## Nononymous

Well I now have some doubts myself. I'm going to meet with the family broker next week and ask about the consequences of both cooperation and non-cooperation. If giving them my SSN shuts them up and the information is never shared with the US, that's easiest for now (there may one day in the hopefully distant future be a situation where an inheritance forces me into action because that money will be reportable). 

The alternative I'm looking into is moving the investments to a smaller credit union, some of which are completely exempt from FATCA due to size. (This doesn't solve the inheritance problem, unless it all goes straight to my wife, whom I would then have to trust. Faking my own death is also an option, though not an easy one.)


----------



## Bevdeforges

StewartPatton said:


> Aha, OK, gotcha. Like I said above, Canada is a special case, and my comments didn't take those special circumstances into account.
> 
> I responded as I did just because I've seen some people cling to that $50,000 threshold like a life preserver, but it doesn't work that way under raw FATCA. Thanks for the education.


Actually, the Canadian Bi-lateral Agreement is remarkably similar to the French one and a couple others I have skimmed through. (Just to figure out if France got a better or worse deal.) It seems pretty clear that they aren't terribly interested in small, "local" (i.e. non-international) banks, nor in most forms of tax-free savings type accounts.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## Nononymous

That's what I assumed, that the IRS doesn't much care about smaller institutions or tax-protected savings. To me this is more an issue of institutions taking a one-size-fits-all compliance approach and collecting citizenship information where they don't "need" to.

If that information never leaves the bank, I could probably cope, but I'm not 100 percent comfortable with it being on file. 

As a customer, you can push back - refuse to cooperate (and likely be fired) or take your business elsewhere. Or at least register your protest before meekly submitting.


----------



## jbr439

Nononymous said:


> My understanding of the US-Canada IGA is that all Canadian tax-protected registered savings accounts (RRSP, TFSA, RESP etc.) are exempt from FATCA reporting - regardless of the balance. They are of course still subject to all sorts of other reporting requirements (FBAR and various IRS forms) for US citizens.
> 
> That's what I have with this brokerage.


That is my understanding as well. Under the US-Canada IGA, Canadian tax-sheltered accounts such as RRSPs, TFSAs, RESPs, etc are not reportable.


----------



## BBCWatcher

The simplest way to view this reality is that _you are not a party to these agreements_. Consequently you have absolutely no control or say in what is and is not reported about your accounts. You have no direct recourse if the foreign government or a bank exceeds their minimum reporting commitments.


----------



## Nononymous

That's basically my concern. There's nothing to stop my bank asking all its clients for citizenship information and dumping that data on the US government, regardless of which accounts are reportable.

Which means my options are to leave (voluntarily or otherwise) or hand over the data and cross my fingers that the bank keeps it internal, until such time as I have a reportable account.


----------



## BBCWatcher

Or become U.S. tax and financial reporting compliant. Or renounce U.S. citizenship, probably after a period of compliance. Or let whatever happens happen and not set foot in the U.S.

There are lots of options, actually.


----------



## Nononymous

Yes, that is the larger set of options. In the context of bank policy and willful non-compliance, the subset of options is smaller.


----------



## maz57

Well, the renunciation option just got more expensive. The fee for swearing the oath to get a CLN jumps from $450US to $2350US as of September 12.

Hmmmm, the current US passport fee is $135, CLN is now $2350. Does that mean a CLN is worth 17 times more than a US passport?


----------



## BBCWatcher

Fun fact.... If you assume that a U.S. passport has a service life of 9 years -- that's about right since most countries don't accept passports with less than 6 months before expiration -- then a CLN is equivalent to 153 years of U.S. passports.

This fee hike I assume is due to the "user pays" fetish that pervades the U.S. federal government in the past couple decades. There's one party that at least pretends "taxes" can never be raised -- funny how that means only income and corporate taxes -- but that same party thinks "user fees" are fabulous. (Guess who and who does not find such fees to be burdensome, in income/wealth terms. I'll give you one guess.) So, to keep government functioning, here come the fees and fee hikes.

It probably really does cost about $7 million per year (~3000 times $2350) to handle CLNs when considering all associated costs and overheads. That's actually a very believable cost figure in those terms. It's an extremely rarely invoked service, and so the unit cost is bound to be comparatively high. Even so, I'm not a fan of onerous user fees in general. It's a bad way to fund most government services, including this one, in my view. When I get the opportunity I factor this view into my voting and other forms of political participation.

Somewhat relatedly, there's been quite a bit of recent press reporting about Ferguson, Missouri, including the fact that local police departments and municipal governments in the area derive a big percentage of their total budgets -- in a couple cases greater than half -- from fines: parking tickets, traffic citations, asset forfeitures, penalties on top of penalties (late charges, interest), etc. This system of revenue collection is deeply regressive. They're fixed fees, but police pull over primarily local residents driving beat-up cars (for example), i.e. poor people. And this system of revenue generation is understandably causing deep resentment and mistrust of the police and other local officials. This is the sort of resentment and mistrust that festers and grows with "user fees." I'm not saying the CLN fee hike on its own materially contributes to these attitudes, but I am saying the whole fee-based revenue system ought to be challenged, contained, and reduced. This is not a good way to fund government.


----------



## Bevdeforges

maz57 said:


> Well, the renunciation option just got more expensive. The fee for swearing the oath to get a CLN jumps from $450US to $2350US as of September 12.
> 
> Hmmmm, the current US passport fee is $135, CLN is now $2350. Does that mean a CLN is worth 17 times more than a US passport?


It's odd, but in looking for information on this, all I can find are quotes and articles from the various business publications. The Consulates and Embassies don't seem to have picked this up (or at least aren't publishing anything about it - I suppose to avoid a "last minute rush"). 

In any event, all it does is make "flying under the radar" that much more attractive.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## Pacifica

@ Bev,

Dept of State’s notice regarding this fee hike can be found at these links:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions[regulation_id_number]=1400-AD47
click on “PDF,” which brings you to the Federal Register for August 28th;

or at http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2014-20516_PI.pdf
This PDF is easier on the eyes as it contains just this particular notice and in larger type.


----------



## maz57

BBCWatcher said:


> It probably really does cost about $7 million per year (~3000 times $2350) to handle CLNs when considering all associated costs and overheads. That's actually a very believable cost figure in those terms. It's an extremely rarely invoked service, and so the unit cost is bound to be comparatively high.


That is, I believe, the stated reason for raising the fee for processing a renunciation. When you compare your (very plausible) estimated cost with what might be involved with processing an original passport application, it seems to me that the passport should probably be more expensive, not less. (As far as rarity goes, it can't be all that rare judging from the backlogs at the Canadian Consulates. There are generally no appointments left in 2014.) 

State Dept. has said it subsidizes passport issuance because they believe there is "a public benefit" in doing so. They have now decided they will no longer continue the similar subsidy for renunciations because it has been determined there is no such public benefit. (Naturally the "cost" of such a process has largely been created by the US government itself because of their onerous rules.) There is no reason CLNs couldn't be done online in this day and age. Curiously, the large fee increase only seems to apply to Consular renunciations. There continues to be no fee for documenting prior relinquishing acts, a process which seems to me would require more Consular resources than a cut and dried, on the spot, oath.

Regardless of the reason, the new fee presents yet another hurdle to those who wish to shed their US connection and exit the system forever. It certainly conflicts with the US's own Expatriation Law of 1868 which states that a person has an inalienable right to expatriate and a government cannot erect unreasonable barriers to prevent the exercise of that right. Its obvious to me that the US hates its expats, treats them shabbily, and has now dreamed up another punishment for those who are sick of it and want to leave forever. Charging for exercising basic rights is deplorable and is not what a civilized society does. Imagine the uproar if that $2350 was a poll tax, but they can get away with this because it only affects expats who nobody cares about anyway.

None of this would really be an issue if it were not for FATCA. The IGAs signed by countries around the world have now placed a premium on the possession of the CLN, (the new anti-passport). Their citizens with a US connection now have to spend considerable time and money getting a CLN in order to enjoy the same rights as their citizens without that US taint. (And I'm not talking about exiting the US tax system and being done with the IRS. That's another issue entirely. I'm talking about the right to access basic banking services and investment options and have a normal financial life in one's chosen country.) You have to wonder at what price the creation of counterfeit CLNs will begin. Or maybe people will simply start sending signed, notarized, sworn statements by registered letter to DC and expatriate themselves without utilizing US Consular "services". Would a local bank accept such sworn statement? Who knows? Canada's IGA allows "plausible" reasons for not having a CLN. $2350.00 US seems plausible enough to me.


----------



## diharv

maz57 said:


> That is, I believe, the stated reason for raising the fee for processing a renunciation. When you compare your (very plausible) estimated cost with what might be involved with processing an original passport application, it seems to me that the passport should probably be more expensive, not less. (As far as rarity goes, it can't be all that rare judging from the backlogs at the Canadian Consulates. There are generally no appointments left in 2014.)


I agree and would not be surprised if this extremely rarely invoked service numbered 3000 in Canada alone.The federal register does not reflect this however as only renunciations , not relinquishments are listed in the name and shame list thus vastly understating the numbers of expatriations. As for the quadrupling of the cost being a deterrent, the act of becoming a citizen of another country with the intent of relinquishing US citizenship takes care of that issue. I went in with the intention of being $450 poorer but the officials steered me to relinquish rather than renounce so I left with my money . By becoming a citizen of another country I relinquished my US citizenship. Worded that way it does not seem as bad as taking an oath of de-allegience . Today I gave my investment advsor a copy of my CLN and he was very happy.I'm "compliant" anyway but I just want to be able to say with 100 percent certainty that I am not a US person , not anymore.


----------



## Bevdeforges

I think it's safe to say that the consular staff is often far more sympathetic to the needs of us expats than the rule-makers back in the US. It's certainly the case here in Paris, including even the IRS office staff.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## Nononymous

On a related note, I was at the bank (RBC) today setting up a child account and noticed a "US birthplace" checkbox on the application interface. Dang.


----------



## byline

Nononymous said:


> My understanding of the US-Canada IGA is that all Canadian tax-protected registered savings accounts (RRSP, TFSA, RESP etc.) are exempt from FATCA reporting - regardless of the balance. They are of course still subject to all sorts of other reporting requirements (FBAR and various IRS forms) for US citizens.
> 
> That's what I have with this brokerage.


Ah, OK ... I think this answers a question I had in a different thread.


----------



## CanadianMoose

byline said:


> Ah, OK ... I think this answers a question I had in a different thread.


For RRSP's and RRIF's look into IRS Form 8891, according to the latest updates to the US-CAN tax treaty you are apparently supposed to report them as well as your contributions to them using that form. Any other assets may require you to also fill out Form 8938.


----------



## byline

CanadianMoose said:


> For RRSP's and RRIF's look into IRS Form 8891, according to the latest updates to the US-CAN tax treaty you are apparently supposed to report them as well as your contributions to them using that form. Any other assets may require you to also fill out Form 8938.


Form 8891 was indeed completed for my RRSP.


----------



## CanadianMoose

Nononymous said:


> On a related note, I was at the bank (RBC) today setting up a child account and noticed a "US birthplace" checkbox on the application interface. Dang.


Were they asking if you the parent/guardian had a U.S. birthplace or the child? If it's for you, then it may be for 'current' tax purposes since in U.S. tax law the parent has to claim their child's bank holdings as their own until the child files their own taxes, if it's for the child then I don't see what would happen other than the banks compiling a list for the U.S. government to match up with taxpayers from Canada in the future haha


----------



## Nononymous

CanadianMoose said:


> Were they asking if you the parent/guardian had a U.S. birthplace or the child? If it's for you, then it may be for 'current' tax purposes since in U.S. tax law the parent has to claim their child's bank holdings as their own until the child files their own taxes, if it's for the child then I don't see what would happen other than the banks compiling a list for the U.S. government to match up with taxpayers from Canada in the future haha


It didn't come up. I was opening a child account attached to our account for a visiting exchange student, with a German passport. I just noticed the checkbox on a screen as we were checking the details for spelling mistakes etc. - not sure when or how it applies.

It's my understanding that these questions will be asked for new accounts, and slowly phased in for existing. Probably when you call the bank with problem and they do the "may we update your personal data?" schtick to check for new jobs or phone numbers, they might ask this. In which case I intend to lie. (To my friendly Canadian bank, not to the big scary US government.)

I think it's only an issue now with the brokerage because they deal with much larger sums of money (not mine, of course, but others) so have stricter compliance rules, and I'm pretty sure my mother told the broker about my citizenship at some point.


----------



## Nononymous

I had a thought. When Canadian financial institutions request citizenship information for FATCA compliance, and you don't want to cooperate, how about claiming that you've renounced and producing a fake CLN? There are examples online, it would be dead easy to forge.

South of the border, I'm sure that doing this to deceive the US government would be a capital crime. But doing it in Canada to deceive a Canadian bank, what might the penalty be?


----------



## Bevdeforges

Wait until they start asking for the information. Depending on the bank, they may or may not make much of an effort to comply. I know I went into my bank for something else, decided to show them my nice, new French carte d'identité and just asked them to take my US nationality off the record "now that I'm French." No muss, no fuss, no bother. (OK, it helps that I bank at a small-ish regional bank with no ambitions of opening up a US branch office.)
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## Nononymous

Of interest to dual US citizens in Canada:

https://www.vancity.com/PrivacyAndSecurity/YourPrivacy/FATCA/

It appears that Vancity, a very substantial credit union, will not report account information under FATCA as long as you are a Canadian resident. (You must be a BC resident to join.)


----------



## StewartPatton

Nononymous said:


> Of interest to dual US citizens in Canada:
> 
> https://www.vancity.com/PrivacyAndSecurity/YourPrivacy/FATCA/
> 
> It appears that Vancity, a very substantial credit union, will not report account information under FATCA as long as you are a Canadian resident. (You must be a BC resident to join.)


Yep, looks like they have registered as a "Local FFI," which is one type of "registered deemed-compliant FFI." It provides a much easier compliance route for FFIs that meet several requirements, such as: (i) the FFI only does business in its country of organization, (ii) the FFI is required by such jurisdiction to determine if its accountholders are residents or not, and (iii) 98% of the FFI's accounts are held by residents of such jurisdiction. It's nice that someone realized the marketing benefits inherent in such status.


----------



## Nononymous

You need to dig a little and ask them, but I'm finding more credit unions in Canada that have this status. Now I just need to find one that will handle a small investment portfolio, in addition to regular banking, and we can live FATCA-free.


----------



## StewartPatton

Nononymous said:


> You need to dig a little and ask them, but I'm finding more credit unions in Canada that have this status. Now I just need to find one that will handle a small investment portfolio, in addition to regular banking, and we can live FATCA-free.


Until the FATCA rules change, and these types of entities are required to provide info about all of their U.S. account holders.

But then you can just photoshop something up and be FATCA-free once again . . .


----------



## maz57

StewartPatton said:


> Until the FATCA rules change, and these types of entities are required to provide info about all of their U.S. account holders..


Well, to change the FATCA rules, Treasury would have renegotiate all of those IGAs. Not saying it won't happen, but certainly not anytime soon. Besides, if the IRS is getting nothing, how would they know there is something they might have gotten if the rules were different? 

The IRS will be choking so much on the information they get from the larger institutions they won't be worried about the small fry. And how would those Local Client Base institutions know their customer had a US connection in the first place?

Hopefully FATCA will crater before any of this comes to pass.


----------



## Nononymous

Who knows what the future holds, on this one? I can't imagine that small, local credit unions are a huge target for the IRS. 

Indeed, the better approach might be sneaking one past a major bank, using a fake birth certificate.


----------



## Nononymous

The more irritating issue for me is that small credit unions farm out the trading and investing to companies like Qtrade, which likely have a different standard for FATCA compliance. (They do for their own customers; I assume it would be the same for a credit union customer.) Their own RRSP offerings are minimal, just GICs.


----------



## FilingLate

Nononymous said:


> The more irritating issue for me is that small credit unions farm out the trading and investing to companies like Qtrade, which likely have a different standard for FATCA compliance. (They do for their own customers; I assume it would be the same for a credit union customer.) Their own RRSP offerings are minimal, just GICs.



PS i just got a W9 form from tdcanada they want me to say either i will file taxes in Canada or US otherwise they will report to CRA.
I will be filing out the W9 form perhaps next week.
Hopefully by then my sdop will be filed properly by the accountant i have hired who is still procrastinating.

Thanks


----------



## Nononymous

You live in the US so that's not too surprising, or onerous.


----------



## FilingLate

Nonomous do you know what happens if one doesn't fill out the W9 form?
just wondering


----------



## Nononymous

Nope. 

Probably somewhere on the spectrum between "nothing at all" and "very, very bad" is my guess.


----------



## FilingLate

Well i should be done with filing my taxes this week so since i am already informing the irs about my bank account through Fbar i will fill out the W9 form.
this is so ridiculous so time consuming so costly
Jeez


----------



## StewartPatton

FilingLate said:


> Nonomous do you know what happens if one doesn't fill out the W9 form?
> just wondering


The bank would be required to treat you as a "recalcitrant accountholder," which means that they report you to the IRS (or CRA here, I guess), withhold on you, and may close your account.


----------



## maz57

In view of the fact your account is at TD Canada, it looks as though they are aware you have some sort of status in the US. TD Canada's default position would be to report account details to the CRA. They seem to be giving you the opportunity (via W-9) to clarify your situation and report to the US instead. 

It doesn't seem outlandish to expect to pay tax to the US if you live and work in the US. Your situation is apparently the opposite of most folks on this forum; i.e. you are a Canadian in the US vs. a US citizen in Canada. Is it possible that the tax treaty allows TD Canada to report (and possibly withhold) to the IRS if you don't pay tax in Canada? I don't see anything too sinister here.


----------



## BBCWatcher

I think SP is correct. You'd at least be subject to withholding on the account, perhaps worse. A truthful W-9 filing gives you _preferential_ tax treatment -- the most preferred treatment of all (exemption from withholding) outside of illegal tax evasion.


----------



## Nononymous

Cheery FATCA critique in our national organ:

Sweeping U.S. tax crackdown inflicts heavy collateral damage - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Nononymous

Also, nice to see that the article made a point of highlighting Vancity and other credit unions' competitive advantage in providing FATCA-free banking services for Canadian residents of any citizenship.


----------



## Bevdeforges

I LOVE it! They normally refer to these "sweeping tax laws" as "The Accountants and Tax Attorneys' Full Employment Act" but perhaps we should amend this to "The IRS Scam Artists' Full Employment Act" in honor of the latest developments.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## maz57

While the G&M article didn't tell us anything we didn't already know, its nice to see a headline that comes a little closer to actual reality vs. the usual "New IRS Crack Down Aims at US Tax Cheats". A great many people who don't read much more than the headlines might now start to understand how FATCA is turning into a global boondoggle.

One of the many comments, however, made me sit up and take notice. This person explained how FATCA enforcement even in Canada was mathematically impossible. He/she mentioned they knew someone in the cross-border accountancy/tax business who told him they could process at most about 25 cases a year because of the complexity. Multiply that by maybe 200 qualified professionals (definitely not a job for H&R Block) total across Canada, and you get about 5000 cases per year. Divide that into the 500,000 to 1,000,000 USPs in Canada and you come up with 100 to 200 years to clear the backlog. Even if the math is totally inaccurate and it "only" takes 25 years it is still a mess. And if the Canadian lawsuit succeeds in throwing a wrench into the gears, who knows? A judge just might decide to throw an injunction over the whole thing until it gets sorted out.

At the receiving end, the IRS is totally unprepared to process the flood of raw data FATCA will bring in, let alone the piles of tax returns sent by panicked USPs and their cross-border professionals trying to get compliant. I suspect that is why the "streamlined" deals keep getting better. Unless the IRS is able to get one of their rickety computers instead of a human to handle all of these submissions, they will all be working overtime for the next century. Conclusion: if you don't like the current deal, wait for a better one. I expect their final deal will be something like: "send us anything, as long as you don't actually lie it will be good enough".

Me, I'm going to sit back with the popcorn and enjoy the show. (And I'm particularly going to enjoy watching the VanCities of the country eat the big banks lunch. I fully expect the big guys to go whining back to the government about how they have been put at a competitive disadvantage.)


----------



## diharv

Nononymous said:


> Cheery FATCA critique in our national organ:
> 
> Sweeping U.S. tax crackdown inflicts heavy collateral damage - The Globe and Mail


A decent article but with zero new content or information. I enjoy the comments more than the articles themselves normally because the authors to me are usually idiots , especially when they use wording such as "come clean " to describe US citizens coming into compliance. Yes , we are all dirty and guilty and should come forward with heads bowed and confess. This is not the first article on this topic written by this jerk , you think he would know better. EVERY article written looks to be all about scaremongering . You wonder what's in it for the mainstream media to do this.


----------



## Nononymous

The comments are always fun. 

Personally I think the deal will get better and better as reality sets in. We've already seen this over the past three years - pity the poor fools who were bullied into OVDI during the first wave of press coverage. At the rate things are going it won't be long before you can write "I swear I've owed you nothing" on a napkin, signed and dated with SSN, and that'll be enough to renounce (if you can afford the fee). Non-compliance still looks like the right path for me.

Right now my situation is quite manageable. My bank asks no questions, and if they do, I can move to a "local" credit union with zero FATCA reporting for Canadian residents. (Some small risk that I'd be reported as a "suspicious" account closure by the bank, I suppose.) All my investments are RRSPs, thus exempt from FATCA reporting as well. 

My only concern is having "inherited" the family investment advisor with a larger firm (without the parents, I would be an order of magnitude too poor). Their compliance procedures are stricter than necessary. The advisor, who I'm sure knows that I'm a US citizen, has asked me to confirm it and provide an SSN. I've said that I won't do this since my RRSP accounts are not reportable. It seems a stretch that they'd classify me as "recalcitrant" if I'm not subject to reporting anyway. They may just fire me instead. 

Should I be cut loose, the only potential frustration going forward is that the credit unions tend to have very simple investment products (term deposits) and anything more complex is farmed out to specialized financial institutions, which likely follow regular FATCA compliance and might require proof of non-US-citizenship to open a new account (this is where a bald-faced lie or forged birth certificate might prove itself useful).


----------



## diharv

Nononymous said:


> The comments are always fun.
> 
> Personally I think the deal will get better and better as reality sets in. We've already seen this over the past three years - pity the poor fools who were bullied into OVDI during the first wave of press coverage. At the rate things are going it won't be long before you can write "I swear I've owed you nothing" on a napkin, signed and dated with SSN, and that'll be enough to renounce (if you can afford the fee). Non-compliance still looks like the right path for me.
> 
> Right now my situation is quite manageable. My bank asks no questions, and if they do, I can move to a "local" credit union with zero FATCA reporting for Canadian residents. (Some small risk that I'd be reported as a "suspicious" account closure by the bank, I suppose.) All my investments are RRSPs, thus exempt from FATCA reporting as well.
> 
> My only concern is having "inherited" the family investment advisor with a larger firm (without the parents, I would be an order of magnitude too poor). Their compliance procedures are stricter than necessary. The advisor, who I'm sure knows that I'm a US citizen, has asked me to confirm it and provide an SSN. I've said that I won't do this since my RRSP accounts are not reportable. It seems a stretch that they'd classify me as "recalcitrant" if I'm not subject to reporting anyway. They may just fire me instead.
> 
> Should I be cut loose, the only potential frustration going forward is that the credit unions tend to have very simple investment products (term deposits) and anything more complex is farmed out to specialized financial institutions, which likely follow regular FATCA compliance and might require proof of non-US-citizenship to open a new account (this is where a bald-faced lie or forged birth certificate might prove itself useful).


And if you do ever get outed , so what ??!! What can they do ? Just refuse to play their game. Likely you will never hear anything for several years if ever , and if you do there is always a shredder.


----------



## Nononymous

That is one of the things I'm considering, is even worth bothering to worry about being reported under FATCA, given the amounts involved it would likely remain buried under a large pile of paper for several decades. Then add in the fact that nothing can be collected in Canada and it's not really a concern.


----------



## maz57

You guys are cracking me up! Rock on, refusniks, rock on!


----------



## diharv

Well I'm not a refusnik as I am fully invested in the compliance route but I will cheer for Nonony from the sidelines and chip in my two cents now and then. If years down the road I can say that damn I wasted alot of money then so be it. I should ignore it all now except at tax time but I can't resist seeing how it will all play out . I'm interested in seeing how it turns out also for another member here who awhile back posted that she has never filed a return ever , renounced and sent in an 8854


----------



## maz57

diharv said:


> I'm interested in seeing how it turns out also for another member here who awhile back posted that she has never filed a return ever , renounced and sent in an 8854


Theoretically, if one's income was below the filing threshold, one could file nothing and still truthfully answer yes to the question about five years of compliance on 8854. Phil Hodgen recommended filing zero balance returns anyway just to start the SOL clock.


----------



## diharv

maz57 said:


> Theoretically, if one's income was below the filing threshold, one could file nothing and still truthfully answer yes to the question about five years of compliance on 8854. Phil Hodgen recommended filing zero balance returns anyway just to start the SOL clock.


Love his blog! Tons of useful info that one could potentially pay 1000's to a lawyer here for. I've got several articles earmarked for when I file my exit returns next year .


----------



## StewartPatton

diharv said:


> Love his blog! Tons of useful info that one could potentially pay 1000's to a lawyer here for. I've got several articles earmarked for when I file my exit returns next year .


Tons of info, definitely. Whether any of it is true and actually applicable to your paeticular situation is something only a lawyer can tell you. 

People don't pay lawyers for info, they pay them for their judgment on how the law should apply to a particular set of facts and the best course forward in a particular situation.


----------



## maz57

StewartPatton said:


> Tons of info, definitely. Whether any of it is true and actually applicable to your particular situation is something only a lawyer can tell you.


It's the ideas that count, even if some are wrong or not applicable. The more awareness of the issues a person has before actually walking into that law office, the better the chance of that lawyer addressing them all properly. In other words, help that lawyer help you. Get it all out there; the lawyer can advise on what's correct and what's applicable.

Back when I had my business we used to call certain customers "mister I've got a secret". Those were customers who withheld critical information, either because they mistaken thought it wasn't relevant or because they thought if they didn't mention it the problem would go away. Such customers wasted a lot of my time (which I charged them for) to discover things that could have been disclosed in the initial interview.


----------



## Nononymous

That's been the plan thus far: refuse to answer citizenship questions from Canadian banks, or lie to them when necessary.


----------



## StewartPatton

Nononymous said:


> That's been the plan thus far: refuse to answer citizenship questions from Canadian banks, or lie to them when necessary.


. . . and then brag about your cunning plan on the internet.


----------

