# Global blowback to FATCA



## Ladyhawk

This has just been posted on the Isaac Brock Society site:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/b...nced.html?_r=2&ref=global-home&pagewanted=all

Word of the IRS's grotesque invasion of peoples' personal property, privacy and freedom to live and travel where they will, and its attempt to press foreign banks into helping them round up tax cheats even if it means violating their own local laws, is getting more and more attention.

It seems pointless to try and comply with this when things may change between now and 2013.


----------



## somerfugl

Ladyhawk said:


> This has just been posted on the Isaac Brock Society site:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/b...nced.html?_r=2&ref=global-home&pagewanted=all
> 
> Word of the IRS's grotesque invasion of peoples' personal property, privacy and freedom to live and travel where they will, and its attempt to press foreign banks into helping them round up tax cheats even if it means violating their own local laws, is getting more and more attention.
> 
> It seems pointless to try and comply with this when things may change between now and 2013.



Thanks for posting the link to this article. Here is a quote from the article:
"_More extensive searches will be conducted mainly in the case of private banks, or individuals holding assets exceeding $500,000, she said, though the details are still being worked out. Ms. Corwin said the United States would not be asking any institution “to affirmatively ask every one of their account holders the nationality question.”"_
So why are Canadian banks starting to ask account holders their nationality?


----------



## somerfugl

Ladyhawk said:


> This has just been posted on the Isaac Brock Society site:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/b...nced.html?_r=2&ref=global-home&pagewanted=all
> 
> Word of the IRS's grotesque invasion of peoples' personal property, privacy and freedom to live and travel where they will, and its attempt to press foreign banks into helping them round up tax cheats even if it means violating their own local laws, is getting more and more attention.
> 
> It seems pointless to try and comply with this when things may change between now and 2013.


Here another quote from the above article:
"_American Citizens Abroad, an advocacy group, estimates the new form will add three hours to tax preparation. Considering that the law provides harsh penalties for even unintentional errors, the organization says it is “simply not realistic for a vast swath of the normally law-abiding filer community unable to afford the expensive services of a professional tax adviser.”_
I was going to file myself since I can't afford an accountant. However, maybe I should keep hiding because of the "harsh penalties for unintentional errors???" I want to renounce, but then the IRS will be after me. What an incredible trap!
"_
_


----------



## rivka88

*hot air blowback*



Ladyhawk said:


> This has just been posted on the Isaac Brock Society site:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/b...nced.html?_r=2&ref=global-home&pagewanted=all
> 
> Word of the IRS's grotesque invasion of peoples' personal property, privacy and freedom to live and travel where they will, and its attempt to press foreign banks into helping them round up tax cheats even if it means violating their own local laws, is getting more and more attention.
> 
> It seems pointless to try and comply with this when things may change between now and 2013.


Most of the blowback has been hot air -- the action seems more in line of how can we help you. The EU is proposing to collect the information for the IRS; circumventing national privacy laws.


----------



## Ladyhawk

somerfugl said:


> Here another quote from the above article:
> "_American Citizens Abroad, an advocacy group, estimates the new form will add three hours to tax preparation. Considering that the law provides harsh penalties for even unintentional errors, the organization says it is “simply not realistic for a vast swath of the normally law-abiding filer community unable to afford the expensive services of a professional tax adviser.”_
> I was going to file myself since I can't afford an accountant. However, maybe I should keep hiding because of the "harsh penalties for unintentional errors???" I want to renounce, but then the IRS will be after me. What an incredible trap!
> "_
> _


You are not alone. The IRS turns expats into criminals, fugitives or abused serfs. How is the US government different from 16th century monarchs whose taxation policies were capricious and confiscatory and primarily used to fund their endless wars?


----------



## Guest

*Fatca?*

I bought my husband an HD TV for Christmas and was trying to set up the new service. I was shocked when the CSR asked me for my drivers license number. I asked her why she needed it and received a rather unclear answer. She indicated I could provide other forms of ID and so I asked which ones whereupon she said, credit card information, Passport info, *Citizenship*. I said I wasn't prepared to give that to her and she said, "okay, next time...."

*Citizenship????* Has anyone else been asked for this outside of financial institutions? WT*?


----------



## johnpg

nobledreamer said:


> I bought my husband an HD TV for Christmas and was trying to set up the new service. I was shocked when the CSR asked me for my drivers license number. I asked her why she needed it and received a rather unclear answer. She indicated I could provide other forms of ID and so I asked which ones whereupon she said, credit card information, Passport info, *Citizenship*. I said I wasn't prepared to give that to her and she said, "okay, next time...."
> 
> *Citizenship????* Has anyone else been asked for this outside of financial institutions? WT*?


No. And I find this very disturbing.


----------



## Ladyhawk

nobledreamer said:


> I bought my husband an HD TV for Christmas and was trying to set up the new service. I was shocked when the CSR asked me for my drivers license number. I asked her why she needed it and received a rather unclear answer. She indicated I could provide other forms of ID and so I asked which ones whereupon she said, credit card information, Passport info, *Citizenship*. I said I wasn't prepared to give that to her and she said, "okay, next time...."
> 
> *Citizenship????* Has anyone else been asked for this outside of financial institutions? WT*?


On two occasions I have been asked for my Social Security number when opening a charge account at a US store. Both times I refused to give it since the SSN was never intended to be for ID purposes, and anyway why would a retail store need it? 

It could be simply that businesses need more than a credit card these days to ensure that they get paid - maybe to check your credit rating? I have also been asked for my Drivers License number from time to time. Some places have a policy of asking for 2 pieces of ID before they give you credit. Probably something to do with the increase in identity theft. But I do think that people should challenge anyone who asks for personal ID and ensure that they have a legitimate need for it before you give it. 
.


----------



## Guest

I was asked for my Social Insurance number 10 years ago when opening an account at a video store...of course i didn't give it out.

I use this example to show it is not something new that has happened since this whole IRS thing.


----------



## Bevdeforges

Ladyhawk said:


> On two occasions I have been asked for my Social Security number when opening a charge account at a US store. Both times I refused to give it since the SSN was never intended to be for ID purposes, and anyway why would a retail store need it?


Normally, you need a SSN in the US in order to access a person's credit records. That's probably why you would have been asked when applying for a department store charge - though these days most stores know better than to ask. (Some department stores will open a credit card based solely on your driver's license - but it has to be a US driver's license. Found that one out the hard way.)
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## Guest

Mach7 said:


> I was asked for my Social Insurance number 10 years ago when opening an account at a video store...of course i didn't give it out.
> 
> I use this example to show it is not something new that has happened since this whole IRS thing.


But the thing is, I've had an account with this company for over 20 years, so I see no need for them to ask me for any identification. I still find it odd that Rogers would even mention _citizenship._


----------



## Guest

*Use of SIN*

I've been retired for a number of years, and I freely admit I'm not au courante with any legislative changes since I retired (1999). However when I was working in the federal government I had a fair bit to do with the Income Security Programs folks and hence got to know a fair bit about the legislation concerning Social Insurance Numbers in Canada.

At the time I was working with Income Security Programs (until they moved from what had been Health and Welfare Canada over to wherever they are now, in 1993) the legislation concerning SINs was quite clear. NO ONE can "require" you to provide them with your SIN except an employer (for income taxation reporting purposes), a financial institution (for reporting to Canada Revenue Agency as appropriate), and certain federal benefit programs. 

No store has any right to your SIN, nor does any commercial vendor, nor as far as I know does a credit bureau. If in doubt, see this weblink:
Who can ask for my SIN and when don't I have to provide my SIN? which lists the legally sanctioned (and in fact required) uses of SIN.

This web link does mention circumstances where provision of a SIN is not legally required and is strongly discouraged, though (I think this has changed) there are no legal penalties for someone insisting on getting it from you. A video club could conceivably deny you a membership if you refuse to provide a SIN, in which case I'd suggest giving the club a choice of reconsidering your position or you'll take your business elsewhere and find someone who doesn't "require" a SIN.

Do note however that no US government agency (including IRS), nor the agency of any other government, have any right to your SIN. At least not as I can see on the website or in my understanding of legislation. (What our current federal government is prepared to throw under a bus if the US pushes them may be another story ... but afaik SIN isn't one of those things, at least not that they've owned up to in public.)

As an addendum: no business or service in Ontario can discriminate on the basis of citizenship, according to the Ontario Human Rights Code. However I've been advised by email that citizenship questioning/reporting under FATCA does not, in the view of the person at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal who answered my email, contravene the Ontario Human Rights Code as banking is in their view outside their jurisdiction. (I also got the same story from the Canada Human Rights Commission; I'm not agreeing with their position, I think it's indefensible, but this is in fact what they told me.) So anyone hoping to fight FATCA on human rights grounds re citizenship is probably going to be urinating into the wind, if you'll pardon the expression ... maybe "facing an uphill battle" is a nicer and more gender-neutral way to put it.


----------



## pwdunn

Schubert said:


> As an addendum: no business or service in Ontario can discriminate on the basis of citizenship, according to the Ontario Human Rights Code. However I've been advised by email that citizenship questioning/reporting under FATCA does not, in the view of the person at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal who answered my email, contravene the Ontario Human Rights Code as banking is in their view outside their jurisdiction. (I also got the same story from the Canada Human Rights Commission; I'm not agreeing with their position, I think it's indefensible, but this is in fact what they told me.) So anyone hoping to fight FATCA on human rights grounds re citizenship is probably going to be urinating into the wind, if you'll pardon the expression ... maybe "facing an uphill battle" is a nicer and more gender-neutral way to put it.


If you refuse to fill out the W9 for the IRS, the Canadian Bankers Ass. says that the bank could refuse to open an account for you and you could have your existing accounts closed.

If you do not complete IRS Form W-9 or provide your consent to disclose information to the IRS, your financial institution may refuse to open an account or may be required to close existing accounts. Otherwise, your financial institution will be required to withhold a tax of 30% on any U.S. source payments1 that you receive and send this money to the IRS.​
Now that in my opinion is discrimination on grounds of citizenship or place of birth (i.e., nationality) and this sort of thing is worth a test case. Imagine if the person was from Pakistan or an African country! Zuccherro81 dug up the fine for this: $200,000 . See Canadian Bankers Association Declares War On U.S. and Dual Canada U.S. Citizens – Suggest Accounts To Be Closed | The Isaac Brock Society


----------



## somerfugl

Schubert said:


> I've been retired for a number of years, and I freely admit I'm not au courante with any legislative changes since I retired (1999). However when I was working in the federal government I had a fair bit to do with the Income Security Programs folks and hence got to know a fair bit about the legislation concerning Social Insurance Numbers in Canada.
> 
> At the time I was working with Income Security Programs (until they moved from what had been Health and Welfare Canada over to wherever they are now, in 1993) the legislation concerning SINs was quite clear. NO ONE can "require" you to provide them with your SIN except an employer (for income taxation reporting purposes), a financial institution (for reporting to Canada Revenue Agency as appropriate), and certain federal benefit programs.
> 
> No store has any right to your SIN, nor does any commercial vendor, nor as far as I know does a credit bureau. If in doubt, see this weblink:
> Who can ask for my SIN and when don't I have to provide my SIN? which lists the legally sanctioned (and in fact required) uses of SIN.
> 
> This web link does mention circumstances where provision of a SIN is not legally required and is strongly discouraged, though (I think this has changed) there are no legal penalties for someone insisting on getting it from you. A video club could conceivably deny you a membership if you refuse to provide a SIN, in which case I'd suggest giving the club a choice of reconsidering your position or you'll take your business elsewhere and find someone who doesn't "require" a SIN.
> 
> Do note however that no US government agency (including IRS), nor the agency of any other government, have any right to your SIN. At least not as I can see on the website or in my understanding of legislation. (What our current federal government is prepared to throw under a bus if the US pushes them may be another story ... but afaik SIN isn't one of those things, at least not that they've owned up to in public.)
> 
> As an addendum: no business or service in Ontario can discriminate on the basis of citizenship, according to the Ontario Human Rights Code. However I've been advised by email that citizenship questioning/reporting under FATCA does not, in the view of the person at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal who answered my email, contravene the Ontario Human Rights Code as banking is in their view outside their jurisdiction. (I also got the same story from the Canada Human Rights Commission; I'm not agreeing with their position, I think it's indefensible, but this is in fact what they told me.) So anyone hoping to fight FATCA on human rights grounds re citizenship is probably going to be urinating into the wind, if you'll pardon the expression ... maybe "facing an uphill battle" is a nicer and more gender-neutral way to put it.


I was told the same thing by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, even though it says clearly in the Canadian Human Rights Act that no one can discriminate based on national or ethnic origin. I don't understand how banks can get away with what they are doing e.g. If you refuse to fill out the W9 for the IRS, the Canadian Bankers Ass. says that the bank could refuse to open an account for you and you could have your existing accounts closed.


----------



## Ladyhawk

somerfugl said:


> I was told the same thing by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, even though it says clearly in the Canadian Human Rights Act that no one can discriminate based on national or ethnic origin. I don't understand how banks can get away with what they are doing e.g. If you refuse to fill out the W9 for the IRS, the Canadian Bankers Ass. says that the bank could refuse to open an account for you and you could have your existing accounts closed.


I am cross-posting this from the Human Rights thread because there is a convergence on discussing this and I would like opinions on this. Here is what I am asking:

This raises a question: supposing I wish to, eg, move some money from a bank account which I have in the US up to my bank account in Canada. Supposing that the bank then asks me about my citizenship, I say I am Canadian, and then they ask further about whether I have US citizenship, and I refuse to say, and I refuse to fill out their WBEN or some such form. This would make me a "recalcitrant" customer.

According to the Canadian Bankers Association pamphlet, "If you choose not to provide this additional documentation upon request, at a minimum, your financial institution *will be required* to withhold a tax of 30% on U.S. source payments that you receive and send this money to the IRS."

I question whether this is actually legal right now. Is there any law in Canada which would either compel or permit a bank to hold back 30% of my money much less send it to the IRS? This is not a tax vis a vis the taxation treaty, nor is it a fine. Even after FATCA is implemented, it is a voluntary program in Canada and has no force of law. Therefore the bank would only be able to close my account (maybe), but certainly not withhold my money and send it to the IRS.

In this case I am transferring my own money between accounts. Perhaps it would be different if I were selling an investment or tapping into interest or dividends? But the pamphlet says it can do this even if there is "an indication you might be a US person". Having an account at a US bank might trigger this question, even though I am sure many non-US Canadians have one. I am concerned about what I would and could and have a right to do or not do right now, if my bank were to ask me about this today.
.


----------



## Bevdeforges

Ladyhawk said:


> According to the Canadian Bankers Association pamphlet, "If you choose not to provide this additional documentation upon request, at a minimum, your financial institution *will be required* to withhold a tax of 30% on U.S. source payments that you receive and send this money to the IRS."


If you're transferring funds from an account in your name in the US to an account in your name in Canada, I don't believe this would be considered the sort of "US source payment" that would be subject to the 30% withholding. It's just a transfer of funds between accounts. The transfer would be subject to the usual reporting rules - but a transfer between accounts with the same owner isn't a "payment" at least not in the tax sense. 

Now, if you were receiving a payment from a US company into your Canadian account, then the 30% withholding would probably apply (at least under the new rules). Or, if you were transferring funds from your US IRA (self-saving retirement account) - which is taxable on withdrawal - if you didn't confirm that you hold US citizenship, they (meaning the US institution holding the IRA) would have to withhold 30%. As a US citizen, you can have them withhold whatever you like against the taxes you will owe on the withdrawal.

And, as it is, if you have a US brokerage account, they already withhold 30% or so on all payments of interest or other earnings in the account if you're considered a "foreign person" (or non-resident alien).
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## pwdunn

Bevdeforges said:


> If you're transferring funds from an account in your name in the US to an account in your name in Canada, I don't believe this would be considered the sort of "US source payment" that would be subject to the 30% withholding. It's just a transfer of funds between accounts. The transfer would be subject to the usual reporting rules - but a transfer between accounts with the same owner isn't a "payment" at least not in the tax sense.
> 
> Now, if you were receiving a payment from a US company into your Canadian account, then the 30% withholding would probably apply (at least under the new rules). Or, if you were transferring funds from your US IRA (self-saving retirement account) - which is taxable on withdrawal - if you didn't confirm that you hold US citizenship, they (meaning the US institution holding the IRA) would have to withhold 30%. As a US citizen, you can have them withhold whatever you like against the taxes you will owe on the withdrawal.
> 
> And, as it is, if you have a US brokerage account, they already withhold 30% or so on all payments of interest or other earnings in the account if you're considered a "foreign person" (or non-resident alien).
> Cheers,
> Bev


I don't think this is right. Let's suppose you are a recalcitrant account holder. So you sell a stock in the United States and have it funds put into a US account instead of into a Canadian brokerage account. Now you just transfer the funds to your Canadian account. No withholding? What is a pass-through payment? This website says it is a matter of debate.

The Mexican government was worried that wire transfer payments from Mexicans working in US would be subject to withholding when transferred to loved ones in Mexico.


----------



## Arlington

*inheritance transfer*



PetrosResearch said:


> I don't think this is right. Let's suppose you are a recalcitrant account holder. So you sell a stock in the United States and have it funds put into a US account instead of into a Canadian brokerage account. Now you just transfer the funds to your Canadian account. No withholding? What is a pass-through payment? This website says it is a matter of debate.
> 
> The Mexican government was worried that wire transfer payments from Mexicans working in US would be subject to withholding when transferred to loved ones in Mexico.


Yesterday my sister transferred the remaining half of my inheritance from the US to my investment account in Canada. Nothing was withheld for the first half or the second half (the total inheritance left to heirs was below the inheritance tax threshold). I did have to supply my social security number to the US bank doing the transfer. 

By the way, my investment advisor has a cool way to convert US funds to Canadian. He puts the US $ into a US money market fund which also has a Canadian money market fund. He then transfers the US fund to the Canadian fund. The whole thing costs me about $60 instead of the $4000 to $6000 I would have lost on a currency exchange. 

I'm relieved to have my inheritance in Canada and I'll be more relieved later today when it is in Canadian funds. Nice, too, that our dollar is under $ .98 US.


----------



## pwdunn

Arlington said:


> Yesterday my sister transferred the remaining half of my inheritance from the US to my investment account in Canada. Nothing was withheld for the first half or the second half (the total inheritance left to heirs was below the inheritance tax threshold). I did have to supply my social security number to the US bank doing the transfer.
> 
> By the way, my investment advisor has a cool way to convert US funds to Canadian. He puts the US $ into a US money market fund which also has a Canadian money market fund. He then transfers the US fund to the Canadian fund. The whole thing costs me about $60 instead of the $4000 to $6000 I would have lost on a currency exchange.
> 
> I'm relieved to have my inheritance in Canada and I'll be more relieved later today when it is in Canadian funds. Nice, too, that our dollar is under $ .98 US.


It's good to get it now before January 1, 2014 when the 30% withholding begins.


----------



## Arlington

PetrosResearch said:


> It's good to get it now before January 1, 2014 when the 30% withholding begins.


I was thrilled to get all of it in 2011. My sister was scrambling to get this done for me before year end. I feel some sense of relief . . but not completely. Still worried about my sons, the accidental Americans.


----------



## Bevdeforges

PetrosResearch said:


> I don't think this is right. Let's suppose you are a recalcitrant account holder. So you sell a stock in the United States and have it funds put into a US account instead of into a Canadian brokerage account. Now you just transfer the funds to your Canadian account. No withholding? What is a pass-through payment? This website says it is a matter of debate.
> 
> The Mexican government was worried that wire transfer payments from Mexicans working in US would be subject to withholding when transferred to loved ones in Mexico.


The way I learned it - if you sell a stock in the US and put the funds in a US account, the broker you sold the stock through would do the 30% withholding (based on whatever information he did or didn't have about your basis in the stock you just sold). That's how it works with my husband's US brokerage account. Money is still sitting in the US, but the withholding has already been done.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## AmTaker

Arlington said:


> By the way, my investment advisor has a cool way to convert US funds to Canadian. He puts the US $ into a US money market fund which also has a Canadian money market fund. He then transfers the US fund to the Canadian fund. The whole thing costs me about $60 instead of the $4000 to $6000 I would have lost on a currency exchange.


This is very interesting. The money fund in question, did it actually give you a competitive rate and waive conversion fees ? Otherwise they sometimes bake fees into conversion rates.


----------



## pwdunn

Bevdeforges said:


> The way I learned it - if you sell a stock in the US and put the funds in a US account, the broker you sold the stock through would do the 30% withholding (based on whatever information he did or didn't have about your basis in the stock you just sold). That's how it works with my husband's US brokerage account. Money is still sitting in the US, but the withholding has already been done.
> Cheers,
> Bev


30% of what? The gross sale of the stock? Is it a French broker or an American broker?

You see it doesn't work like that between Canada and the United States (not yet any way). The first time they withhold 30% of the gross sales of a stock (as required under FATCA), that would be the end of Canadians buying and selling US stocks on US exchanges.


----------



## Arlington

AmTaker said:


> This is very interesting. The money fund in question, did it actually give you a competitive rate and waive conversion fees ? Otherwise they sometimes bake fees into conversion rates.


No conversion fees. It was a transfer between money market funds within the same investment group - Fidelity Investments. The US $ bought an equivalent amount of CDN $ and the fee was $60. 

I stumbled upon Norbert's Gambit which is the same idea but carries more risk in timing. I presented that idea to my broker and he said he'd come up with the money market fund exchange and used it previously with great success. 

Timing is an issue with that as well as there is no control as to time of day and where our dollar is compared to the US. In August that was a big issue . . today not as much.


----------



## Ladyhawk

PetrosResearch said:


> 30% of what? The gross sale of the stock? Is it a French broker or an American broker?
> 
> You see it doesn't work like that between Canada and the United States (not yet any way). The first time they withhold 30% of the gross sales of a stock (as required under FATCA), that would be the end of Canadians buying and selling US stocks on US exchanges.


There is tax withholding of some US derived income like dividends when you invest through a bank or investment firm. It is withholding of the income derived, based on whatever tax rate you owe according to the tax treaty with that country.
See this:
http://www.ritceyteam.com/pdf/withholding_tax.pdf

Scroll down to see this:

"*Withholding Tax for Canadians Investing Outside Canada*
Withholding tax rates for Canadians investing in foreign countries will depend upon the
tax laws of the foreign country invested in as well as whether or not there is a reciprocal
tax agreement.
Investing in the United States
The United States is the most popular foreign destination for direct investment dollars for
Canadians. Generally speaking, the withholding tax rate on income is 25% but because
we have a treaty with the US, this rate is reduced.
_The withholding tax rate for US investments by Canadians is 15% for interest and
dividends. However, this withholding tax can be claimed as a foreign tax credit on their
tax return to reduce the effect of double taxation._
Exceptions to the 15% rate are noted below:
US Source Interest Income:
The withholding tax rate is 15% except on the following:
• US Federal, State and Municipal Bonds
• Certain US corporate bonds-each situation is different and should be assessed by the
client’s tax advisor
• Interest earned on bank or S&L deposits
US Dividend Income
The 15% rate on dividends is not reduced any further under the treaty for individuals.

And the IRS has information on this:
Publication 515 (2011), Withholding of Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Entities

This is why if you use a bank or investment firm to handle your investments, they need your SSN and I think you may have to fill out the WBEN or the other one.


----------



## pwdunn

Ladyhawk said:


> There is tax withholding of some US derived income like dividends when you invest through a bank or investment firm. It is withholding of the income derived, based on whatever tax rate you owe according to the tax treaty with that country.
> See this:
> http://www.ritceyteam.com/pdf/withholding_tax.pdf
> 
> Scroll down to see this:
> 
> "*Withholding Tax for Canadians Investing Outside Canada*
> Withholding tax rates for Canadians investing in foreign countries will depend upon the
> tax laws of the foreign country invested in as well as whether or not there is a reciprocal
> tax agreement.
> Investing in the United States
> The United States is the most popular foreign destination for direct investment dollars for
> Canadians. Generally speaking, the withholding tax rate on income is 25% but because
> we have a treaty with the US, this rate is reduced.
> _The withholding tax rate for US investments by Canadians is 15% for interest and
> dividends. However, this withholding tax can be claimed as a foreign tax credit on their
> tax return to reduce the effect of double taxation._
> Exceptions to the 15% rate are noted below:
> US Source Interest Income:
> The withholding tax rate is 15% except on the following:
> • US Federal, State and Municipal Bonds
> • Certain US corporate bonds-each situation is different and should be assessed by the
> client’s tax advisor
> • Interest earned on bank or S&L deposits
> US Dividend Income
> The 15% rate on dividends is not reduced any further under the treaty for individuals.
> 
> And the IRS has information on this:
> Publication 515 (2011), Withholding of Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Entities
> 
> This is why if you use a bank or investment firm to handle your investments, they need your SSN and I think you may have to fill out the WBEN or the other one.


Thanks for that enumeration. I've traded stocks and sold put options in the US. In some cases, the dividends have had withholdings (the last time was about five years ago). But only a few cents are withheld from sales of stocks or options. As I said, the day that 30% is withheld from non-compliant FFIs for gross sale of stocks, is the day that Canadians stop trading in the US markets. 30% is punitive when it comes to sales of stocks--especially since the amount of capital gains (the taxable portion) is not known to the institution doing the withholding.


----------



## Omater

Ladyhawk said:


> This has just been posted on the Isaac Brock Society site:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/b...nced.html?_r=2&ref=global-home&pagewanted=all.


I plan to write to the authors of this and any other publication that writes a column such as this. I wonder if we all responded to these articles that they might be encouraged to keep writing them?


----------



## pwdunn

Omater said:


> I plan to write to the authors of this and any other publication that writes a column such as this. I wonder if we all responded to these articles that they might be encouraged to keep writing them?


One of the reasons for the recent media attention to our issues is that people like "Just Me" and CAFREEB have tirelessly contacted the media whenever they can to congratulated them when they write an article on a subject, then in their communicaton to the author, will add a perspective or two. (Win them over with honey not vinegar--something I have to learn how to do).

Also, point them to the Isaac Brock Society any chance you get, in comments and on online sources that permit it, where we have a growing base of resources for journalists and victims caught up in this affair.


----------

