![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 February 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 03:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
I found the following refs on google but don't have the time to update the article - hopefully someone else will:
Thanks, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
Some excerpts from http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/u-s-tax-laws-politics-pushing-more-dual-citizens-to-renounce-citizenship:
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
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 February 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 03:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
I found the following refs on google but don't have the time to update the article - hopefully someone else will:
Thanks, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
Some excerpts from http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/u-s-tax-laws-politics-pushing-more-dual-citizens-to-renounce-citizenship:
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