October
1996
the
CEN-TAPEDE
david ingram's US/Canadian
Newsletter Pages 187-194
Free US / CANADA TAX AND IMMIGRATION Questions on ROGERS
Cable Page 187
BORN IN AMERICA!! - BANNED FOREVER FROM AMERICA! Page 187
NEW DEPARTURE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Page 187
UIC / CUSTOMS declaration checks catches UIC vacationers (SERIOUS
consequences) Page 187
CANADA A TAX HAVEN COMPARED TO UNITED STATES Page 188
ANOTHER REAL ESTATE WARNING Page 188
BILL CLINTON / BORIS YELTSIN SUMMIT Page 188
REPORTING OFFSHORE ASSETS OVER $100,000 at cost Page 189
OPINION to VANCOUVER SUN - Leave limit at $100,000 - 10 x's U.S.
limit Page 189
UNITED STATES PENALTIES - EXTREME Page 190
105 year old U.S. woman penalized $10,000 Page 191
CONFUCIUS SAYS - when man (opinion) is good Page 192
TDF-90 Form (failure to file - $500,000 fine plus
5 years jail) Page 193
PARKING METER LAW (income tax enforced same way)
Page 194
Two Important quick tips from the new act to pay attention
to:
1. Michael Jacobsen's
and Dennis Olsen's office (featured Jan 1995 CEN-TAPEDE)
quickly pointed out that one can only collect Social Security benefits now,
if the payments "into" the plan were made while a LEGAL working
resident of the U.S. This provision literally disqualifies millions of
illegal immigrants who have been working in the United States and paying up
to 15.3% of their income into U.S. Social Security.
2. Greg Boos'
office (featured July 96 CEN-TAPEDE) pointed out in a press
release that our March 95 warning has come to pass. From now on, if you
give up your U.S. citizenship, you may not ever go back to the United
States. Not for a funeral, not for a wedding, not for a vacation. Greg
further points out that if one tries to go, their vehicle can be seized. Terry
Preshaw (Feb 96 CEN-TAPEDE) called to point out that
this only applies if you have renounced to avoid U.S. gift, inheritance or
income taxation, a fact I should have seen on Greg's original notice to me.
U I C WARNING.
REVENUE CANADA is running a
computer check of persons who have filed customs declarations against UIC
claims back to 1993. What this means is that if you were collecting U.I.C.
in the summer of 1993 or 94 or 95 and filed a customs declaration to claim
your one week exemption amount, expect a bill for the U.I.C. you collected
plus a 100% penalty plus interest. They hope to recover some $200,000,000
from individuals who collected UIC benefits while on vacation. A preliminary
"test run" found 257 "hits" out of 16,800
"names" run. This is a 1.53% fraud rate. If this could
affect you, you should come forward voluntarily and save fines and penalty.
Under federal law, first time offenders must
reimburse the payments they were not supposed to receive and pay an
equivalent amount as a fine.
The following started off as a
note to Rafe Mair and Chartered Accountant Russ Wilson
(582-7270) who were doing a program on the offshore situation which requires
Canadian TAX RESIDENTS to report their offshore holdings to REVENUE
CANADA when the total cost of their offshore holdings exceeds $100,000. The
program was too short and over so fast that I did not get a chance to send
it while they were on the air. I then expanded it and sent it to the SUN for
their OP/ED page. I have no idea whether it will be used or not. However, it
is obvious from the publicity given to large groups of new Asian immigrants
who are protesting this legislation and threatening to LEAVE Canada,
that there is a very one-sided argument going on in the media at the moment
and the "other" side needs to be explained. And I certainly do
NOT want to tarnish a whole group with my comments. I doubt if more than 1%
of over-all Asian immigrants would even consider going back. It is
unfortunate that two or three vociferous accountants, one life insurance
agent, and one particular radio media person have made such a fuss, that one
would think that every Hong Kong immigrant is going back to Hong Kong.
However, some have said they are going and some have left. Their departure
is having a negative effect on Vancouver real estate prices. Read on for
another fact that will further affect their decision.
On October 1, 1996 all
departing residents will have to report their world wide assets if over
$25,000. There is a deemed disposition of all assets and accrued capital
gains are taxable. the main difference is that shares of your private
Canadian Corporation are no longer exempt. The departing resident will now
have to post security on the share of his or her private corporation. Note
that this new regulation is retroactive to Jan 1, 1996.
These new offshore
reporting requirements are just bringing Canada in line with the United
States. Up until now, CANADA HAS BEEN A TAX HAVEN compared to the U.S.
ANOTHER REAL ESTATE
WARNING
In spite of the lowest
interest rates in 40 years, real estate is not increasing in value
anywhere in Canada. Things are looking up in the Golden Horseshoe of
Ontario, but the rest of Canada is in "malaise". The
number of resales is generally up over last year, but actual resale prices
tend to be lower. We are "spent out" in BC and we can still expect
further declines in prices of specific houses and resales. DO NOT, under any
circumstances, make an offer to buy a new property without putting in a
clause which makes your new purchase "subject to the sale of your
old home". In 1992, I predicted that our Real Estate market
would fall. This was because of two factors.
1.
There was too much product in the pipeline. This has proven to be true. A lot of new
construction projects have gone down 20 to 30% since their original sales in
1990, 91, 92, and 93 and there is likely a six year supply of condominiums
in the lower mainland. (See April and May 96 CEN-TAPEDES for
specific addresses).
2. In 1992, Several
Asian (usually Hong Kong) clients were returning to Asia after getting their
Canadian citizenship.
If they stayed in Canada, they would have to start paying tax on their world
income. This was because immigrants are given a five year window during
which they do not have to pay tax on their world wide income. They were
having a problem deciding whether to keep their big, expensive homes in
Canada or sell. For the most part, they held on to the houses in Canada
and some Taiwanese started coming and taking up the slack. Now, those
individuals, many whom had already left, are selling their Vancouver
homes to prove that they do not live in Canada. That is driving down
the price of big single family homes.
CLINTON - YELTSIN
SUMMIT
(WHY DID THEY KEEP
THEIR VANCOUVER HOUSES AS LONG AS THEY DID?)
I think a large part of the
decision to keep their homes, revolved around the Boris Yeltsin / Bill
Clinton Summit which was held in Vancouver in April, 1993. Up to
this time, Canada was just a place to escape to without the heavy tax
problems associated with U.S. citizenship. The Summit gave CANADA and
particularly Vancouver, a lot of "face". If you had said you were
in Vancouver, everyone suddenly knew where you were.
If
you are having trouble with this concept, sit back and think about Japan,
China, India, England, France, Australia, Russia, New Zealand, Germany and
Greece. Vancouver is full of people from these countries, but unless you are
a geography nut, I defy you to correctly identify the correct placing of
London and Liverpool, Edinburgh and Glasgow in the United Kingdom;
Melbourne, Brisbane, Darwin and Sydney, let alone Cairns, Australia; Aukland,
Christchurch and Wellington, New Zealand, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima (famous
bombs), Kobi (earthquake - we should know where that was,
shouldn't we) and Nagoya, Japan; Bejing, Shanghai, Hong Kong and
Kowloon, China; Bombay, Calcutta, and New Delhi, India;
Athens, Greece; and how about Dublin and Belfast. My brother-in-law
is from Belfast and I have to think twice to remember whether Belfast is Northern
Ireland or part of the United Kingdom (it isn't), and what about
Cork and Dublin, where are they?
Until Bill Bennett's
EXPO 86, Vancouver was just a big port "somewhere". After
EXPO, it had an international flavour. Clinton and Yeltsin
gave us a "position" or "face" which lasted a couple of
more years and very "subtly" encouraged a lot of people to
"stick around" for a while.
However, when the immigrant's
five year "tax free trust" time is up, it is often time to
go for those who only came to CANADA as an escape valve and whose
heart is still "back home". And, to be sure, the new regulations
make it that much more likely.
Prior to the new regulations,
Revenue Canada was not in a good position to figure out how much money one
had out of the country. And, if the limit is raised from $100,000 to
$1,500,000 as has been suggested, that will still leave Revenue Canada in a
second fiddle position.
A person's life style
allows taxing authorities to determine expenditures. If people spend
capital, it is not taxable. If people spend "income from capital",
it is taxable. If the limit was $1,500,000, it would be theoretically
possible for a person to claim that they were bringing in $50,000 of capital
a year (forget about inflation here please) for 30 years without having any
taxable "earned" income.
With the presently proposed
$100,000 limit, a person could only bring in $50,000 a year for two years
and would then have to be dealing with "income". It is obvious,
that the lower $100,000 limit makes it easier to control offshore wealth and
will ultimately reduce the overall tax burden for those who are properly
paying their taxes now.
REPORTING CRITERIA IS
THE ACTUAL "COST" OF THE ASSET
It is important to remember
here that the reporting legislation is "draft" legislation and
still subject to change. For instance, one of the provisions is that it is
the "cost" of the property out of the country that must be
reported.
Therefore, if you were lucky
enough to buy the waterfront lot next to the country club at Cape
Coral, Florida for $12,500 (I sold it in 1968) in 1968 and it is now
worth $1,250,000 U.S. (it is), you do not have to report it because you only
paid $12,500 plus $25,000 for the house and that is less than $100,000
Canadian.
Of course, the immigrant
may be in the same position, having paid $50,000 for a printing company
in Frankfurt or Hong Kong in 1968 and never paying another dollar into his
company. Theoretically, that ownership does not have to be reported even if
worth $15,000,000 now. Of course, he does have to report his income from the
company and if he sold the company, any capital gain would be taxable.
Again, Canada makes this
easier on the immigrant and only taxes the immigrant on the increased value
after immigration. i.e. if paid $50,000 and it was worth $12,000,000 upon
immigration to Canada and sold three years after immigration for
$13,000,000, Canada only wants tax on the $1,000,000 earned AFTER coming to
Canada and will give a tax credit for any tax paid on 75% of that amount to
the country where the asset was located.
The United States,
on the other hand, would tax the immigrant on the entire $12,950,000
profit although it would also give credit for the tax paid to the
other country. However, using Hong Kong as an example and assuming a 15% tax
in Hong Kong, the U.S. Federal Government would want another 13% on the
whole $12,950,000 and 43 states would also want a piece of the pie.
In addition,
the United States would require the Immigrant Shareholder of Offshore
companies to fill out a 5471 form for each offshore company of which he
is a shareholder of 10% or more or acquires 5% more of in a year.
Failure to file this form for each company can have fines of $25,000
assessed as $1,000 for the first 90 days late and $1,000 every 30 days to a
maximum of $25,000 per year. That is correct. If you had three companies and
had not filed the required forms for 1990 and they had been asked for, but
you did not pay any attention or the notice was sent to an old address, you
could be liable for $75,000 for 90, $75,000 for 91, $75,000 for 92. - If you
do not understand this, see pages 135 and 136 of the Nov, 1995 CEN-TAPEDE.
See page 88 of the March, 1995
edition of the CEN-TAPEDE for another explanation of the
"departure / arrival" tax valuations between the two countries.
The Following is what was
actually sent to the VANCOUVER SUN with a couple of additions.
It started off much shorter to fit into the "OPINION
COLUMN" format.
October 19, 1996
To:
OPINION - VANCOUVER SUN - by fax to (604) 732-2323
From:
david ingram - (604) 657-8451
Re:
Offshore Reporting of Assets if cost over $100,000
Present Canadian income tax
law allows immigrants to Canada to put their wealth (hide their worldwide
income with) into an offshore trust for the first five years of their new
life in Canada.
Only after
five years, does the income generated within these five year "immigrant
trusts" become taxable income in Canada.
This allows someone to
immigrate to Canada, live almost "Canadian income tax free"
for five years in Canada (just long enough to get their Canadian
citizenship) and then leave to go anywhere they can. When they give up
their Canadian RESIDENCY, they no longer have to worry about paying tax to
CANADA on their worldwide income.
As Victor
Matlarek (Globe & Mail Investigative Reporter, 5th Estate, book
"GUT INSTINST") said, in many cases, immigrants from Hong Kong
were set up with phoney Canadian "prescence" to qualify for their
citizenship, even though they were not even in Canada.
The
Immigrant who leaves and their family can then come back to Canada because
of their Canadian citizenship at any time they want.
In 1992, 1993 and 1994 our
office had at least 38 clients move back to Hong Kong under these
circumstances. It was BEFORE the present reporting of offshore assets
was even proposed.
Why??
They can! with no repercussions!!!!!!
In many
cases, they have not been able to find gainful employment in Canada.
In other
cases, there was no real intent to live in Canada. Canada was simply an
"escape valve" and this was evidenced by the fact that mom, dad or
both spent as much time as possible in Hong Kong "looking after
business" while still officially living in CANADA just long
enough to qualify for Canadian citizenship..
It
wasn't the climate!
It is important to note the
reason SO MANY Economic Immigrants came to CANADA instead of immigrating to
the United States:
1.
The U.S. has, for as long as I remember, required the worldwide reporting
of all accounts totalling more than $10,000. i.e. each account has to be
reported if their combined total is more than $10,000 U.S. and this includes
RRSP's in Canada, security accounts in Hamburg, and seized bank accounts in
Tehran. If the immigrants to Canada had gone to the U.S. under
"their" Investor Immigrant program, they would have had to
report their offshore accounts and companies from day one.
2. The U.S. taxes its
"CITIZENS" on their worldwide income no matter where they live. CANADA
only taxes "residents"
i.e. persons who are usually physically present IN CANADA.
Therefore, if
the HONG KONG immigrant had gone to the United States (instead of Canada),
he or she would not get their world wide income exempted for the first five
years.
AND, if the
U.S. economic immigrant leaves the U.S. with their new U.S. citizenship, they
are still taxable IN/TO THE UNITED STATES on their worldwide income for the
rest of their lives no matter where they live and for as long as
they remain a U.S. citizen and for ten years later if they give up their
citizenship to avoid U.S. gift, income, or estate taxation.
United States PENALTIES ARE EXTREME
AND APPLIED LIKE PARKING TICKETS
Remember the PROVINCE
newspaper front page picture on Wednesday, Oct 2, 1996. Ms Manon
Chouinard, 8 months pregnant, was shown shackled to a hospital
bed for SIX DAYS for unpaid parking tickets. The real kicker was that she
does not have a driver's licence (does not drive), DID NOT GET THE PARKING
TICKETS HERSELF, and, did not even own the car. She had allowed
someone else to register a car in her name. Over the years I have bailed
three people out of jail for unpaid parking tickets. One in Winnipeg and two
in Vancouver. (I add this part so that you do not think I am picking on
Quebec). If I am sounding like a WASP here, let me assure you that I still
want Parliament to pardon Louis Riel.
However,
setting Louis aside for the moment, the penalties for not reporting a single
foreign bank account to the United States Treasury Department are up to
$500,000 PLUS 5 years in jail. (see sample U.S. TDF-90 form on page 193)
By Contrast, Canada's
penalties are pegged at $500 per month for two years and then an additional
10% of the value of the undeclared asset. Please note though, that if there
is an "advisor" involved, the penalty will also be applied against
the advisor.
And, DO NOT
THINK THE PENALTIES ARE JUST THERE FOR SHOW! Two of these penalties I know
of personally were assessed against:
1. A 105 year old (North
Vancouver) woman (and U.S. citizen) was given a $10,000 fine by the U.S.
government for not reporting her Royal Bank account in Edgemont Village
in North Vancouver. (You did read that correctly, the U.S. citizen in Canada
must still report worldwide income and accounts to the U.S. government on an
annual basis.)
2. A 68 year old woman
was sent to jail for 6 months and paid a $60,000 fine for not reporting her
offshore accounts to the U.S. Government.
NEW
SUPER "DUPER" PENALTY
In addition,
the new U.S.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND
IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996
which
President Clinton just signed two weeks ago on Sept 30, 1996 states that a
citizen who gives up their U.S. citizenship to avoid their worldwide
income tax when they do not live in the U.S. is FORBIDDEN to ever
return to the U.S..
That is
correct. They may not go back to the United States for business, not for a
wedding, not even for a funeral (unless it is their own).
AND, if they
try to cross the border by car, their (or friend's) car will be seized. This
is the same situation which applies if you try to enter the United States
after a criminal conviction in CANADA. Even a Canadian "Conditional
Discharge" which leaves no criminal record in Canada, bars you from
entry to United States without obtaining a specific waiver from the U.S.
Justice Department.
O P I N I O N
In my
opinion, after 31 years in the field of taxation and 30 in the specific
field of international income taxation, although unpopular, Paul Martin's
proposals are not unreasonable in the North American climate.
Many of our
clients and many other Canadians have Offshore ASSET PROTECTION TRUSTS for
varied and legitimate reasons. They report their income and have no
problems.
The present
pressure on the Federal Government to delay the implementation and / or to
increase the limits to $1,500,000 is an unwarranted and unreasonable
pressure. My opinion will prove unpopular with many of my existing clients
and I am sure with a lot of my readers.
However, I
would refer those who do not like the opinion to the great Chinese
philosopher, CONFUCIUS. He was once asked, "CONFUCIUS,
is it good when all the people in town like a man?" CONFUCIUS
said, "NO!" He was then asked, "Is it good when all the
people in town hate a man?" CONFUCIUS said,
"NO!" He was then asked, "when is it good then?"
CONFUCIUS
SAID, "IT IS GOOD WHEN THE GOOD PEOPLE LIKE HIM AND THE BAD PEOPLE DO
NOT LIKE HIM!"
There is no
LEGITIMATE reason that a person who is ALREADY reporting their worldwide
income should have any problem with reporting the assets which helped
generate that income.
There
are, in fact, already hidden penalties for hiding these assets. I have a
situation on my desk right now. A widow client has found paperwork showing
that her husband had an offshore account with East Asia Corporate
Services (BVI) Ltd. in Tortola, in the British Virgin Islands.
Even though
the widow has documentation that would indicate there is at least $10,000
and likely more on deposit with that institution, East Asia has refused to
give any details for over 10 months.
EAST ASIA
claims privilege and bank secrecy. If this sounds familiar, I refer you to
the present situation where survivors of the HOLOCAUST are trying to get
back "dad's" money from a Swiss Bank.
This is
likely the 100th such situation I have seen in 30 years (only 3 a year, but
still a lot). The reason is simple. When someone hides it from the
government, they usually end up hiding it from their heirs.
david
ingram
