Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 91-105 of 179
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Finance committee  It wouldn't just be their investment income on the contributions they have made, but their income derived from the Canadian taxpayer-funded contributions to those accounts would also be considered taxable income by the IRS.

May 13th, 2014Committee meeting

Scott BrisonLiberal

Finance committee  Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the parts of Bill C-31 related to tax havens. We support the implementation of several measures that aim to go after tax cheats using tax havens that were announced in the 2013 and 2014 federal budgets, which are contained in Bill C-31.

May 8th, 2014Committee meeting

Dennis Howlett

Finance committee  And contributions made to RESPs, RDSPs, and TFSAs by the Canadian government would be considered taxable income by the IRS?

May 6th, 2014Committee meeting

Scott BrisonLiberal

Finance committee  However, that does not apply to penalties outside of the tax system, and it also does not apply to citizens. For any dual citizen who might be discovered and assessed U.S. tax liability, the treaty does not allow assistance and collection in relation to that person because they are a Canadian citizen.

May 1st, 2014Committee meeting

Brian Ernewein

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1  Speaker, there are many complex aspects of this omnibus legislation. Certainly, even the title, FATCA, foreign accounts taxation and compliance agreement, is one of the most complex. It certainly would, as the hon. member stated, affect people who have no idea whatsoever that they could be caught in this broad ambit of people who are considered U.S. persons, people like me who were born in the United States but have nothing to do with the United States, who in my case has never lived there as an adult, but purely as a Canadian citizen and renounced U.S. citizenship.

April 3rd, 2014House debate

Elizabeth MayGreen

Taxation  Mr. Speaker, the American government should be congratulated for going after offshore tax dodgers. However, our own government's feeble attempt pales by comparison. Unfortunately, thousands of law-abiding Canadians are now being unnecessarily harassed by the IRS using laws intended to catch U.S. tax cheats.

October 20th, 2011House debate

Hoang MaiNDP

Taxation  Mr. Speaker, thousands of law-abiding Canadians are being made to feel like criminals by the U.S. IRS. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have received a letter from a constituent in my riding. His wife has been working and paying taxes in Canada since 1968 and has only had a Canadian passport.

October 4th, 2011House debate

Alex AtamanenkoNDP

Finance committee  Maybe I'd have to give my Canadian taxpayer ID, which is typically our social insurance number, and which is quite controversial. But in any event, then they would have the payment and the taxpayer ID, and a software program, either in the United States or in Canada, could quickly be run to see if I had disclosed that information—the interest income—on my Canadian tax return.

June 17th, 2013Committee meeting

Prof. Arthur Cockfield

Taxation  Mr. Speaker, the United States Internal Revenue Service is going after innocent Canadians The IRS is now going after Canadian citizens who have been playing by the rules, living and paying their taxes in Canada, in some cases for decades. It is going after them for thousands of dollars.

September 29th, 2011House debate

Hoang MaiNDP

Finance committee  However, the government should be able to measure the CRA's efforts and results in capturing tax evaders. To that end, I did a very unscientific survey by searching the term “tax evasion” in the Canadian Legal Information Institute case law database. The search obtained 670 results, representing all of the Canadian court cases from 1900 that mention the phrase “tax evasion”.

February 26th, 2013Committee meeting

Robert Kepes

International Trade  It wants so badly to surrender control of Canada's perimeter to the Americans but it is getting nothing back: no pipeline; no relief from buy America rules; U.S. entry fees imposed; marine taxes threatened; Canadian taxpayers attacked by the U.S. IRS; country of origin labelling still a problem; softwood lumber still a problem; nothing back for killing the Canadian Wheat Board; no market access guarantees.

November 15th, 2011House debate

Ralph GoodaleLiberal

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns  With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) response to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA): (a) according to the government’s analysis, do the FATCA provisions comply with the provisions of the Convention Between Canada and the United States of America With Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital and its amending Protocol (2007); (b) how many citizens from the United States of America will be affected by FATCA, (ii) are there specific Canadian exemptions to FATCA; (c) has Canada negotiated with United States Treasury officials or the IRS following the announcement of FATCA provisions, (i) at what time was the government made aware of these provisions, (ii) how long did it take Canada to respond to the initial creation of FATCA and its implementation, (iii) are there ongoing negotiations in this regard; (d) will Canada inform dual citizens about FATCA and, if so, (i) how, (ii) at what time, (iii) what department or agencies will be responsible; (e) has the government conducted any studies or mandated a task force to look into how much FATCA will cost Canadians and, if so, what are the cost implications resulting from the additional regulations and demands, (i) for the government, (ii) for the CRA, (iii) for Canadian banks, (iv) who will absorb these costs, (v) are there other types of non-financial costs such as efficiency or fairness reductions; (f) which Canadian civil liberties associations or other types of association has the government met with to discuss the privacy implications of FATCA and what actions will the government undertake to protect the fundamental civil liberties of all Canadians in this regard; (g) according to the government’s analysis, do the FATCA provisions comply with the provisions of the Privacy Act or the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, and if so, which department undertook this assesment; (h) in order to discuss the implications of FATCA, who within the government has met with (i) Canadian banks, (ii) other financial institutions, (iii) insurance companies; (i) how many complaints has the CRA received regarding FATCA, (i) what are the main complaints, (ii) what has the CRA done concerning these complaints, (iii) what department at the CRA is in charge of dealing with complaints of this nature, (iv) will the CRA cut Full-Time Equivalents from that department or reduce its funding, (v) has the office of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsman looked into the matter; (j) has Canada ever studied the development or implementation of a process similar to FATCA to improve tax compliance involving foreign financial assets and offshore accounts; (k) who will be most affected by FATCA and have concerns been raised by entities such as, but not limited to, (i) interests groups, (ii) stakeholder groups, (iii) hedge funds; and (l) will FATCA affect different saving vehicles such as, but not limited to, (i) Registered Retirement Savings Plans, (ii) Registered Education Savings Plans, (iii) Registered Disability Savings Plans, (iv) Tax-Free Savings Accounts?

March 14th, 2012House debate

Hoang MaiNDP

Finance committee  Having said all that, to respond to your question, I think some of the principles behind FATCA could be imported to a broader multilateral agreement—again, automatic information exchange. Also, importantly, we'd have to have a system to ensure that taxpayer identification numbers were relatable by each country; in other words, you can tie the income to an actual human being. Combine that with protections for taxpayer rights, traditional protections offered under Canadian law, and I think that would be a very good idea.

February 14th, 2013Committee meeting

Prof. Arthur Cockfield

Business of Supply  -based multinationals to invest in Canada, perhaps even offsetting the higher cost of the Canadian dollar. That is wrong. Tax cuts are of little attraction. In fact, U.S.-based companies, unlike most foreign multinationals, are taxed by the IRS on their global income. Therefore, profits that are not reinvested but are repatriated are hit with a higher rate back home, not the Canadian rate.

February 8th, 2011House debate

Bonnie CrombieLiberal

Natural Resources committee  Most of my analysis is based on American tax returns because the IRS requires greater disclosure than the CRA. The $300 million is from roughly 850 grants that I've traced from ten foundations. In addition to these foundations, an additional dozen or more American foundations have granted substantial funds to Canadian environmental groups.

February 9th, 2012Committee meeting

Vivian Krause