Forbes is reporting that two Canadians have filed a suit to block FATCA:

"The Canadian citizen plaintiffs claim to be entrapped in U.S. citizenship. They were both born in the U.S., but left the U.S. at age five to live in Canada. They never obtained a U.S. passport or developed meaningful ties with the U.S. Even so, the case says they are considered ‘tax cheats’ by the U.S. because they are not ‘IRS compliant.’

“I am a proud Canadian. Why is my government branding me with being a potential U.S. tax evader merely because of my place of birth – and turning my personal information over to a foreign government’s jurisdiction?” said Ms. Hillis. Ms. Deegan says “This was not the Canada our brave Fathers of Confederation envisioned. FATCA destroys our unity and we cannot permit the loss of our sovereignty.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwo...-of-u-s-names/

Yes, the Isaac Brock Society has more on it here.

http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/06/01/its-time/

Wall Street Journal also has an article on the Canadian Fatca lawsuit called "Expats in Canada Sue Over U.S. Effort to Collect Taxes Abroad". It is available to subscribers but here are the first paragraphs. It would be grand to see the plaintiffs succeed in their lawsuit:

"A group representing American expatriates is taking legal action against the Canadian government for its role in implementing a U.S. law designed to clampdown on tax evasion.

The lawsuit, filed in the Federal Court of Canada in Vancouver Monday, challenges the constitutionality of a Canada-U.S. intergovernmental agreement reached in February that forces domestic banks to comply with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA. The law requires Canadian banks to share account information about U.S. citizens with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service via Canadian tax authorities.

"My own Canadian government has betrayed me," said Gwendolyn Louise Deegan, 52, a Toronto resident and graphics-design-business owner who is one of two plaintiffs spearheading the suit, which is being funded by the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty and names the Attorney General of Canada as the defendant.

The plaintiffs allege in the lawsuit that the Canada-U.S. intergovernmental agreement violates certain provisions of the Constitution Act of 1867 and the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Specifically, the court filing contends that the "collection and disclosure" of accountholder information "engage the privacy and property rights of individual accountholders," which are matters of provincial jurisdiction."

Not sure how many here are aware of it, but the US-CH FATCA agreement not only addresses bank accounts, but insurance accounts (policies) as well. My wife (US-CH dual) has received a request from AXA-Winterthur for her US tax ID and a signature consenting to their sharing her info with the US. The letter says if she doesn't reply, they'll share her info anyway, indicating that she's «uncooperative»(!).

The agreement says "Cash Value Insurance Contracts and Annuity Contracts with a balance or value of $250,000 or less as of December 31, 2013" are "Not Required to Be Reviewed, Identified, or Reported Unless the Reporting Swiss Financial Institution elects otherwise..."

So AXA-Winterthur appears to have "elected" to report everything, since the value of the policy in question falls well below the $250,000 threshold.

__________________
"Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant

So what is the attitude to take, if the Swiss Bank / Insurance company has not asked about the US citizenship yet and for that do not know about it?

Should I step forward and tell them and risk to have the account closed? Or just stay put and see if they ask me? Will the IRS report back to the Swiss companies that they have found an account in the tax forms that has not been reported by them?

For me, I will keep quite and hope they do not ask me, before I had my appointment at the embassy.

Many Swiss citizens with a US connection will not be identified by their banks and financial services companies as US Persons because Swiss identity documents do not show place of birth. In any case, it is not always obvious that a particular individual has US Person status (that s/he did not properly divest of a green card or file the proper tax document (Form 8854 etc.) Furthermore, many persons born abroad to a US citizen will not, themselves, be US citizens (there is a presumption in US law of alienage in such a case) unless that US citizen attests (and, if required, proves) qualifying residence in the USA.

The OECD, Council of Europe and EU movements towards cross-border enforcement of tax claims, coupled with FATCA and other innovations, create a situation where, should the IRS make a claim, it is incumbent on the target person to prove lack of status and lack of liability in US courts. This is bizarre, but unless a tax treaty (like the US-Canada one) excepts citizens of the target state from cross-border collection procedures, that's how it is. Here's a good analysis of UK policy and forthcoming practice: http://www.taylorwessing.com/news-in...012-07-16.html

The most frightening issue is the inclusion of penalties and interest in cross-border collection. While it's not yet clear that FBAR and Forms 5471 (foreign corporations), 3250 (foreign trusts), etc. are included, the penalties for mistakes or default of these are so draconian as to bankrupt many foreign-resident US Persons, including many who do not know that they have any US Person status.

The fear by many Swiss and other non-US financial operators of draconian penalties has led to demands for proof on non-US status. We cannot know where this will lead: some say that it is extortion by the USG, based on need on the part of foreign financial operators to be able to clear funds in the US and to handle US investments. How the story ends will depend on discretion on the part of the US Treasury. I always thought it was a peculiarly French thing for a bureaucrat or policeman to be able to say to a target person, "Monsieur, vous êtes en situation irrégulière." Come to find that the country that so lionizes the Marquis de Lafayette has taken on this attribute too.

It remains to be seen how far the Swiss and other foreign governments will go in asserting the existing international-law rule that a country of nationality of a dual (or multi-) national person may treat that person, when on its territory, as if s/he were solely its national.

An editorial in the Windsor Star (Canada) supporting the FATCA lawsuit:

"Let’s hear it for Ginny Hillis, a 68-year-old retired Windsor lawyer who this week told both the IRS and Canada Revenue Agency to pound salt.

She and a woman from Toronto have done what no politician in this country has had the guts to do, which is tell the U.S. government it has no right to know anything about the personal finances of those born stateside but legally residing here.

“I’ve never worked there. I’ve never studied there. I’ve never earned any income there,” said Hillis, whose only connection is the fact she was born in Detroit and lived there until the age of five.

She, like almost a million other U.S.-born Canadian residents and those with dual citizenship, is at the mercy of an agreement signed in July between CRA and the IRS, which forces Canadian banks to provide Ottawa with all kinds of “relevant” banking information about them. The feds then turn that information over to the IRS so it can weed out tax cheats — or so the story goes.

It’s all done under the guise of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, and it’s inconceivable to us that our government would so willingly breach our charter rights by becoming the bag man for a foreign government."

The rest of the editorial is at this link:
http://blogs.windsorstar.com/opinion...-fighting-hero

The FATCA plaintiff, Ginny Hillis, has a pair of something that Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf doesn't have.

This point is very incorrect. Not sure where you are getting this from and if you are Swiss or not.

Have you renewed a swiss passport recently? Funny isn't it that the new biometric passports, required by whom? , require the swiss to put in the place of birth, which of course is not printed on the passport, but which is on the chip. Beware, you have been warned.

Further, the most official swiss document I know of is the red family book, and indeed the place of birth is clearly there as well, for all members of my family.

I think you're both right: Banks don't have to see a passport (an identity card is enough), and I doubt that any of them have chip readers even if you were to hand them a passport.

__________________
"Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant

I do not see any cause for you to be sarcastic. In fact my current Swiss passport, issued just last April, makes no mention of place of birth. And since I do not have a chip reader I wouldn't know what data are stored there. I do know that various State authorities, when biometric data began to be included, averred that there was nothing in the chip that did not appear elsewhere, i.e. no secret information. But they would say that, wouldn't they.

There is something ironic about this whole matter. In the mid-1980s there was intergovernmental discussion about the relevance of including place of birth, and the GAO (now the US Government Accountability Office but then called the General Accounting Office) queried various countries. Switzerland "Expressed reservation that it would be contrary to international efforts to standardize passports": http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-87-201 (see p. 14 of the report).

I imagine that you are aware that "biometric passports" were impressed on the world by the USA, home of so much exorbitant legal jurisdiction, in this case through its visa waiver program.

I don't have a "red family book"; I do have a computer-printed Famienausweis, not all that different from my parents' typewritten Familienschein dated 1963.

I wrote: "Switzerland "Expressed reservation that it would be contrary to international efforts to standardize passports", meaning of course non-inclusion of place of birth would be so contrary.

This at a time when Swiss passports did not include that information.

Clue: when you applied for it, in addition to giving your fingerprint, which also does not appear in it, you also had to give your actual place of birth, as we did.

Tom

Or specifically verify this information that they so cleverly input for you

I was not being sarcastic. My point only is the following--if my children were to present their swiss identification, to open a bank account, fly on a plane or whatever, the two pieces of official idenfication they have are swiss passport and family book, both of which have place of birth (albeit one has it biometrically). At present they do not have swiss id cards.

Thus, I think one should be especially prudent when dealing with banks, travelling to the US, etc... that indeed this information is quite readily available, or more so than what first meets the eye. The fishing expedition has been long underway for a very long time... unfortunately

Canton Bern's "Swiss E-Pass 10" passport flyer states: "On the chip are stored in addition to the portrait photo and the identity data also two fingerprints." I interpret identity data (Ausweisdaten) to mean the personal data that is printed in the passport.

"Auf dem Chip werden zusätzlich zum Gesichtsbild und zu den Ausweisdaten zwei Fingerabdrücke gespeichert."

http://www.pom.be.ch/pom/de/index/zi...eizer_Pass.pdf

Lucky for all of those who do not have an US birthplace, even though being a US citizen. At least those persons will not be found very easy using any Swiss Document.

No, I had to give it.

Tom

Family book no longer exists, and place of birth is NOT listed on the Heimatchein (which my daughter needed to present when registering at the Swiss consulate in CA).

Why don't they have an ID card? That's the one document my kids have ALWAYS had.

Tom

A Swiss consular officer told me that inasmuch as I had ordered and paid for a Familienschein he had access to it (or at least the data on it) on his computer system. I don't remember now why the issue arose. But he had told me I needed to obtain one for some reason and then when I said I had it at home he just looked it up.

I had thought that border posts and Population Offices had access to this sort of information also, but that is apparently not the case. I was interviewed driving a foreign-registered car into Switzerland by a customs officer and he went away with my documents for some time; I assumed that he was able to confirm somehow my foreign domicile but if he could it wasn't from any computer record. And I was once convoked by my local Population Office at my Swiss residence and I had to get an attestation of domicile from the consulate where I was registered to justify my status.

As it happens my EU driving licence shows my place of birth but nothing else I carry does so. I see that my wife's Swiss licence does not show her POB.

Good article picked up from the IBS website on America throwing it's weight around.

http://www.europac.net/commentaries/..._weight_around