Talk:FATCA agreement between Canada and the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contested wp:csd deletion[edit]

This article is not duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic. I have tried to add the material to the article mentioned by the nominator, but it seems the nominator does not believe this info should be available to Canadians. See:Talk:Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act#Overuse of Wikiproject Tags. He has also reverted all references to FATCA from several other articles for the last couple of weeks. He seems to do nothing else on Wikipedia except follow my every move. XOttawahitech (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I had been online more the past week, I probably would have looked through your edits, as the ones I've looked at are not helpful to Wikipedia. "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commnts in regards to wp:AfD[edit]

I've commented on the deletion page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FATCA_agreement_between_Canada_and_the_United_States. It may be possible the resolve the issue of adding reference to FATCA on the other articles at the same time. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonpatterns: I am open to ideas – how can we add information to all other relevant articles? See for example Scotia Bank and Royal Bank of Canada where user: Mrfrobinson with the help of user:Moxy have been reverting just about anything added. Also, please keep in mind that this page is likly to be deleted soon. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is another case of you trying to push a POV. You have refused to enter discussion on those talk pages about why it should be included on every page you think it affects. While you seem to be taking this position of "it will be deleted" and "save this someplace if you want it remembered Scotia Bank and Royal Bank of Canada". You need to understand how community consensus and collaboration work. For instance your user page has a running total of deleted edits "1,697 of Ottawahitech's donated edits to Wikipedia have been deleted.". Maybe if you tried to work with others are edit established articles with proper encyclopedic facts rather than trying to use Wikipedia as a soap box. The mainstream media is responsible for informing Canadians of facts and events, Wikipedia is responsible for creating a encyclopedic record of notable facts and events. Wikipedia is not a place to post an article about every event or a spin on an event. Why not try building on the actual FATCA article about the agreements instead of posting things about "the IRS will have you information" or the "cost of FATCA to a certain bank". Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty?[edit]

It's still not a treaty. It's a protocol under the existing US-Canada income tax treaty (which probably should have an article, having some unique features not in any other United States income tax treaty.) It's not subject to ratification by the United States Senate; it may require or already have a bill passed by the US legislature and signed by the President. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to explain this in the AfD but was met with opposition. It is not a treaty and you are right the US-Canada tax convention should have an article! I am a health science expert not a tax expert so I am probably not the best to start that article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

As discussed in the AfD discussion i propose that we merge this with Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. Mrfrobinson (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been done, in the section Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act#Reaction in Canada. Nothing more should be said. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And it's gone from there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge tags now applied. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't merged, it was taken out under the premise that it was "opinion" by the same editor wanting to merge these two articles. FATCA has much wider scope between the Canada and US than most other countries the US has such an agreement with, and Canadian political criticism and contexts are of a certain kind; I see no reason to support such a merge.....especially because said editor is working vociferously to remove as much about this from as many articles as possible....quite a long ways from sports medicine, that's all I can say, given the amount of energy being spent on this little censorship project. And no, that's not anti-WP:AGF and it's not WP:NPA, it's a WP:DUCK situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs) 08:21, February 25, 2014‎

Nonsense. It's short enough that I can say that it is clearly nonsense, rather than there being some possibility of a grain of truth. I don't know who you think is "the same editor wanting to merge these two articles", as there are at least 5. If you cannot supply diffs, it should be considered an WP:NPA. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Arthur Rubin: Would you be kind enough to spell out what exactly is clearly nonsense? Also who are the five editors that you claim support the merger – I see only you and user: Mrfrobinson in support? XOttawahitech (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FATCA_agreement_between_Canada_and_the_United_States you would see the people in question that support a merge. Since there appears to be a consensus for a merge (between AfD and here) I will go ahead and start tonight. Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually looked at the sources you would find that 1) there is an opinion article being used and 2) the actual wording of the text that was added was purely opinion. Wikipedia is NOT a news paper and not a place for original research. It isn't censorship, but we have standards that if we don't uphold will cause us to fail. We already are not seen as a reliable place for information, if we start using poor sources or opinion based sources then we have lost before we even started. Also your post is clearly a NPA but after reading your responses to people giving advise on your talk page I will decline to even touch that subject. Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty, convention, agreement[edit]

In international agreements, these terms are often mixed; and countries apply their own, but varying definitions. I didn't full understand what was meant by "it is stilll a convention, not a treaty", which might well be the case under us and/or canada definition, but the cat system certainly does't distinguish. Also things like the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention are considered a convention in the cat system, even before entering into force; also because the cat-system may use a wider definition just to increase the quality of grouping… That's why I added the cats... L.tak (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a "convention", either. It's a "protocol" under the existing US-Canada Tax Treaty (formally known as "UNITED STATES - CANADA INCOME TAX CONVENTION"), which is a treaty, and should have an article of its own. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it can be read like that (although for e.g. the Netherlands it will be a protocol under 2 conventions: the tax treaty and the OECD-COE convention on mutual assistance in tax matters); but that doesn't change my view regarding the categories; we also treat the Kyoto Protocol (a protocol under UNFCC as a treaty; category wise...) L.tak (talk)
OK, I concede the point. Whether or not a treaty, it acts like one. The article needs some more work, and I still think a merge is appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification here, I recommend reading the article on the treaty / IGA controversy, which I linked months ago to the main FATCA article; it is by a U.S.-born professor of tax law resident in Canada, Allison Christians: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2280508 Seniorexpat (talk)

New refs from google[edit]

I found the following refs on google but don't have the time to update the article - hopefully someone else will:

Thanks, XOttawahitech (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General comment[edit]

I don't know where to begin in describing how poor quality is the information in this entry. Even the title ("FATCA agreement between Canada and the United States") gets it wrong. A better title would be "Canada-United States inter-governmental agreement on implementation of the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act in Canada". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.32.130 (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know what is the good thing? Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit... So instead of describing the quality, you are welcome to become part of it. That having said, you are partly right, that the entry is based to much on news reports, while I'd say the title is not incorrect: it is a common name, where you stated the formal name... L.tak (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Sun: U.S. tax laws, politics pushing more dual citizens to renounce citizenship[edit]

Some excerpts from http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/u-s-tax-laws-politics-pushing-more-dual-citizens-to-renounce-citizenship:

  • more dual U.S.-Canadians are considering renouncing their U.S. citizenship…The rise in inquiries adds to a steadily growing number of Americans who have renounced since Uncle Sam began forcing banks worldwide in 2014 to disclose accounts held by people born in the U.S. or to American parents. In 2008, just 231 Americans who held two passports quit the U.S. Last year, the State Department published the names of more than 4,200 who had renounced in 2015…there are 800,000 to 1.1 million Americans living in Canada as dual citizens or as landed immigrants. Marino says as many as 94 per cent of Canadian-resident U.S. citizens likely owe no U.S. income taxes…Taxes can still be levied against high net worth filers, gifts, estates and capital gains on things like property…the U.S. government’ decision in 2010 to bring in the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, known as FATCA, coupled with reporting requirements and threats of jaw-dropping fines and penalties for non-compliance even for those who owe no taxes, has driven more dual citizens to consider abandoning their U.S. citizenship…The tax law, which came into effect in 2014, and new U.S. Internal Revenue Service filing requirements have helped spawn a lucrative worldwide tax compliance industry of lawyers and accountants who help navigate the byzantine U.S. tax code. In many cases, clients are people who never knew they had to file U.S. tax returns and who have not applied for U.S. Social Security Numbers or passports…In September, 2015, the Canada Revenue Agency gave the IRS the names of 155,000 account holders…“FATCA makes it a lot easier to find you,”…“We have people come in here with unbelievably high anxiety who ask if it is true that they could be fined or owe taxes.”…“…it is the cost of compliance every year (that is driving interest). Paying lawyers and accountants thousands of dollars every year to file returns because you are a U.S. citizen is not a fun exercise for most Canadian-resident U.S. citizens,” …she faced annual tax preparation and filing fees of more than $1,000, even though she’d never worked or voted in the U.S. and didn’t hold a U.Ss social security card…“OK, I was born in the U.S.  But why would I want to belong to a country that will change its laws retroactively and will be really harassing its citizens,”…“I decided it was better to pay the $12,000 and get out, because I expect I will live longer than 12 years and I will recoup the cost.”…0The U.S. government charges an “exit tax” at a certain level of net worth, $2 million. In Vancouver’s hyper-heated real estate market, the capital gains on a house could push net worth for a modest-income applicant over the line. Applicants can find themselves having to pay up to 50 per cent of the value… “There is nobody madder at the U.S. in this world than me,”… “The viciousness with which they went after people, scaring and threatening them, made me sick.  I have no regard for the U.S. government.”…two groups, including the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty, that are suing the U.S. over FATCA and the Canadian government for going along with it. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

New rules about reporting the sale of homes[edit]

Bill Morneau has just announced new measures that will require ALL sales of homes in Canada to be reported to Canada Revenue Agency. Has anyone seen any wp:RS talking asbout this in relation to FATCA? see: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ottawa-unveils-new-housing-measures-to-slow-foreign-real-estate-investment/article32206297/ Ottawahitech (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FATCA_agreement_between_Canada_and_the_United_States&oldid=1207188733"