In addition to Justice Martineau's denial of
injunctive relief and dismissal of the request for summary judgment
in Hillis and Deegan v. The Attorney General of
Canada, as discussed in our previous post, U.S. citizens residing in
Canada received more disappointing news on September 29, 2015, when
Judge Thomas M. Rose of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio denied a motion for a preliminary
injunction, which in part, looked to enjoin the U.S.
Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service
from enforcement of various provisions contained under the FATCA
Senator Rand Paul had joined six other plaintiffs in
filing this lawsuit on July 14, 2015 , which, in part, challenged
the validity of the FATCA related IGAs that the U.S. has signed
with Canada, the Czech Republic, Israel and Switzerland.
In his judgment, Judge Rose concluded that Senator Rand Paul did
not have standing in his challenge to the offshore financial
account tax enforcement measures enacted in FATCA and was not
likely to succeed on the merits in the case. He noted the
plaintiffs' contention that the "heightened reporting
requirements" imposed by FATCA and the Canadian IGA
violate the Fifth Amendment rights of "U.S. citizens living in
a foreign country" and should therefore be enjoined.
In response to this assertion, Judge Rose concluded that:
None of the challenged provisions
single out U.S. citizens living abroad. Instead, all Americans with
specified foreign bank accounts or assets are subject to reporting
requirements, no matter where they happen to live. The
provisions Plaintiffs contend discriminate against 'U.S.
citizens living abroad' actually apply to all U.S. taxpayers,
no matter their residence. Plaintiffs argue that '[i]n
practice, the increased reporting requirements for foreign
financial accounts discriminate against U.S. citizens living
abroad,' ... suggesting a claim of discrimination based on
disparate impact. But it is well-settled that 'mere disparate
impact is insufficient to demonstrate an equal protection
violation.' Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 481
(6th Cir. 1995); see also Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 244-45
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Under the Income Tax Act, the Employment Insurance Act, and the Excise Tax Act, a director of a corporation is jointly and severally liable for a corporation's failure to deduct and remit source deductions or GST.
Under the Income Tax Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Canada Pension Plan Act and the Excise Tax Act, a director of a corporation is jointly and severally liable for a corporation's failure to deduct and remit source deductions.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).