Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Threatens to Sell 750B of USA Assets Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill

 Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill
Photo
President Obama at a Sept. 11 ceremony in 2015. The Obama administration argues that the bill would put Americans at legal risk overseas. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times      



WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
 
The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill’s passage, according to administration officials and congressional aides from both parties, and the Saudi threats have been the subject of intense discussions in recent weeks between lawmakers and officials from the State Department and the Pentagon. The officials have warned senators of diplomatic and economic fallout from the legislation.
 
Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.
 
Several outside economists are skeptical that the Saudis will follow through, saying that such a sell-off would be difficult to execute and would end up crippling the kingdom’s economy. But the threat is another sign of the escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States.
 
The administration, which argues that the legislation would put Americans at legal risk overseas, has been lobbying so intently against the bill that some lawmakers and families of Sept. 11 victims are infuriated. In their view, the Obama administration has consistently sided with the kingdom and has thwarted their efforts to learn what they believe to be the truth about the role some Saudi officials played in the terrorist plot.
 
“It’s stunning to think that our government would back the Saudis over its own citizens,” said Mindy Kleinberg, whose husband died in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 and who is part of a group of victims’ family members pushing for the legislation.
 
President Obama will arrive in Riyadh on Wednesday for meetings with King Salman and other Saudi officials. It is unclear whether the dispute over the Sept. 11 legislation will be on the agenda for the talks.
 
        


A spokesman for the Saudi Embassy did not respond to a message seeking comment.
 
Saudi officials have long denied that the kingdom had any role in the Sept. 11 plot, and the 9/11 Commission found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.”
 
 But critics have noted that the commission’s narrow wording left open the possibility that less senior officials or parts of the Saudi government could have played a role. Suspicions have lingered, partly because of the conclusions of a 2002 congressional inquiry into the attacks that cited some evidence that Saudi officials living in the United States at the time had a hand in the plot.
 
Those conclusions, contained in 28 pages of the report, still have not been released publicly.
 
The dispute comes as bipartisan criticism is growing in Congress about Washington’s alliance with Saudi Arabia, for decades a crucial American ally in the Middle East and half of a partnership that once received little scrutiny from lawmakers.
 
Last week, two senators introduced a resolution that would put restrictions on American arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which have expanded during the Obama administration.
 
Families of the Sept. 11 victims have used the courts to try to hold members of the Saudi royal family, Saudi banks and charities liable because of what the plaintiffs charged was Saudi financial support for terrorism. These efforts have largely been stymied, in part because of a 1976 law that gives foreign nations some immunity from lawsuits in American courts.
 
The Senate bill is intended to make clear that the immunity given to foreign nations under the law should not apply in cases where nations are found culpable for terrorist attacks that kill Americans on United States soil. If the bill were to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the president, it could clear a path for the role of the Saudi government to be examined in the Sept. 11 lawsuits.

The Big Four in Saudi Arabia’s Government

Brief background information on the most powerful figures in the kingdom, and how they stand in the sometimes complicated order of succession.
Obama administration officials counter that weakening the sovereign immunity provisions would put the American government, along with its citizens and corporations, in legal risk abroad because other nations might retaliate with their own legislation. Secretary of State John Kerry told a Senate panel in February that the bill, in its current form, would “expose the United States of America to lawsuits and take away our sovereign immunity and create a terrible precedent.”
 
The bill’s sponsors have said that the legislation is purposely drawn very narrowly — involving only attacks on American soil — to reduce the prospect that other nations might try to fight back.
In a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill on March 4, Anne W. Patterson, an assistant secretary of state, and Andrew Exum, a top Pentagon official on Middle East policy, told staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that American troops and civilians could be in legal jeopardy if other nations decide to retaliate and strip Americans of immunity abroad.
 
They also discussed the Saudi threats specifically, laying out the impacts if Saudi Arabia made good on its economic threats.
John Kirby, a State Department spokesman, said in a statement that the administration stands by the victims of terrorism, “especially those who suffered and sacrificed so much on 9/11.”
 
Edwin M. Truman, a fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said he thought the Saudis were most likely making an “empty threat.” Selling hundreds of billions of dollars in American assets would not only be technically difficult to pull off, he said, but would also very likely cause global market turmoil for which the Saudis would be blamed.
 
Moreover, he said, it could destabilize the American dollar — the currency to which the Saudi riyal is pegged.
 
“The only way they could punish us is by punishing themselves,” Mr. Truman said.
The bill is an anomaly in a Congress fractured by bitter partisanship, especially during an election year. It is sponsored by Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, and Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York. It has the support of an unlikely coalition of liberal and conservative senators, including Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, and Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas. It passed through the Judiciary Committee in January without dissent.
 
 
“As our nation confronts new and expanding terror networks that are targeting our citizens, stopping the funding source for terrorists becomes even more important,” Mr. Cornyn said last month.
The alliance with Saudi Arabia has frayed in recent years as the White House has tried to thaw ties with Iran — Saudi Arabia’s bitter enemy— in the midst of recriminations between American and Saudi officials about the role that both countries should play in the stability of the Middle East.
 
 
But the administration has supported Saudi Arabia on other fronts, including providing the country with targeting intelligence and logistical support for its war in Yemen. The Saudi military is flying jets and dropping bombs it bought from the United States — part of the billions of dollars in arms deals that have been negotiated with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf nations during the Obama administration.
 
 
The war has been a humanitarian disaster and fueled a resurgence of Al Qaeda in Yemen, leading to the resolution in Congress to put new restrictions on arms deals to the kingdom. Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, one of the resolution’s sponsors and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that Congress has been “feckless” in conducting oversight of arms sales, especially those destined for Saudi Arabia.
“My first desire is for our relationship with Saudi Arabia to come with a greater degree of conditionality than it currently does,” he said.
 
 

Monday, April 18, 2016

Boycotts of Mississippi and North Carolina are 'fundamentally undemocratic,' says scholar Molly Sauter

Boycotts of Mississippi and North Carolina are 'fundamentally undemocratic,' says scholar

Molly Sauter is a PhD candidate at McGill, and the author of "The Coming Swarm: DDoS Actions, Hacktivism, and Civil Disobedience on the Internet."
Molly Sauter is a PhD candidate at McGill, and the author of "The Coming Swarm: DDoS Actions, Hacktivism, and Civil Disobedience on the Internet." (Provided by Molly Sauter)
Listen 6:27 Molly Sauter, PhD candidate in communications studies at McGill University, thinks anti-LGBT laws are horrible. 
But she also thinks it's horrible when corporations boycott states that impose anti-LGBT laws. 
While many Canadians are applauding boycotts by companies like Apple, and artists like Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams, Sauter says it sets a dangerous precedent. She wants everyone to remember that corporations aren't people, they don't get a vote, and therefore should not be applauded for attempting to change the law — even if it's a law you want changed. She explained her arguments to The 180's Jim Brown. 

The full interview is available in the audio player above. The following portions have been edited for clarity and length. 
What's wrong with corporate boycotts, like the ones we're seeing in North Carolina right now? 

The problem with corporate boycotts of states that have bigoted or unjust laws, is that they're fundamentally undemocratic. When you have a corporation that has a great deal of economic power, and it uses that power to intervene directly in the legislative process, it is stepping outside the bounds of what we believe democracy is, which is: that in a democratic society, the basic unit of power is the citizen, and the citizen's vote.

But if corporations, which don't have votes, which at least in many interpretations of democracy shouldn't have speech rights, when those entities are able to exert power over a democratically elected legislature in order to change laws, then that means we've now stepped outside the democratic process and are instead dealing with a much more fundamentally oligarchical and neo-liberal system. 
Bryan Adams
Bryan Adams, seen at the April 3 Juno Awards show in Calgary, is just one of the musicians who cancelled shows in the U.S. south to protest anti-LGBT legislation. (Mike Ridewood/Reuters)

Now, Bruce Springsteen is a citizen with a vote, and he's also one of the big musicians who cancelled a concert in protest of these new laws. What's your take on that?  

As private citizens, they can hold whatever political rules they want, they can certainly say whatever they want, they can certainly go out in public and state their displeasure at these laws, which are, in fact, horrible. But at the point where they're cancelling concerts, these large-scale stadium concerts, and using their power as essentially very powerful economic oligarchs and corporations, to remove money and jobs from the state, that's where I start to have a problem. 

The show that Bruce Springsteen cancelled in Greensboro, North Carolina, cost that venue over $100,000 in refunding tickets, in people who weren't able to work that night. It cost the city of Greensboro all of the business that would have come with people coming in to see the concert, in terms of restaurants, hotel sales, and travel. 

So these decisions are fundamentally economic decisions. They're decisions based in the market. And because they're based in the market, and because they're economic, they are fundamentally outside the democratic process. 

While I am personally a very big fan of Bruce Springsteen, and I'm happy that he feels that the North Carolina bathroom bill is a violation of human rights, he could just have easily not thought that. His political opinions could have been opposite to that.

And so, while on a personal political level I feel that objections to these laws are fair and accurate, and that these laws are a violation of human rights, it's not the job or the position of powerful economic forces to use their economic power, which is fundamentally beyond that of the citizen or the individual, in order to affect changes in the legislature outside of a democratic process. 

Now, especially since the Occupy protests, we've heard a lot of concern about the power of corporations, and I imagine that a lot of those people, who were concerned the most, are among those cheering the most this week, as all of those big companies actually fight for positive social change, change that they can agree with. What would you say to those people? 

It's very easy to agree with people who are on your side, and it's very easy to fall into a mindset of "well in this case, the ends justify the means," but I disagree with many of these corporations in terms of environmental policy, or trade policy, or surveillance policy, or other areas where they've exerted lobbying power and suasion over the federal law making process. And just because they're on the right side of history today, doesn't mean they'll be on the right side of history tomorrow.   

Click the blue 'play' button to hear Molly Sauter's conversation with Jim Brown.

Monday, April 11, 2016

Government of Canada cracks down on tax evasion HOW CANADIAN are our Financial Institution??? I want to Know!

Bloggers note: How thoroughly will the Big 6 Banks and the Professional Auditors and Accounting firms will be investigated ....How Canadian see patriotic are those Banks and Firms..I wanna know...The Senate Banking Committee...

FOLLOW THE MONEY: IS CANADA MAKING PROGRESS IN COMBATTING MONEY LAUNDERING AND TERRORIST FINANCING? NOT REALLY Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce

SEE  78 page report:
 http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/411/banc/rep/rep10mar13-e.pdf

Government of Canada cracks down on tax evasion

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=1049689&crtr.tp1D=1&_ga=1.236390977.1722274525.1460387386&utm_source=mediaroom&utm_medium=eml

April 11, 2016 Ottawa, Ontario Canada Revenue Agency
The Government of Canada has committed to crack down on tax evasion and tax avoidance. Most middle class Canadians pay their fair share of taxes, but some wealthy individuals avoid taxes by hiding their money in offshore tax havens. This is not fair and it needs to change. These wealthy Canadians should not be able to buy their way out of paying the income tax that they owe.
Today, the Minister of National Revenue, Diane Lebouthillier, announced that the Government of Canada will invest over $444 million to enhance the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) ability to detect, audit, and prosecute tax evasion – both at home and abroad.

Detection

Since January 2015, the CRA has collected information on all international funds transfers over $10,000. Building on this new capability, Budget 2016 provides the Agency with the ability to more fully examine potential tax evasion across an entire jurisdiction. The first to be investigated will be the Isle of Man – additional jurisdictions will follow.

Audits and Investigations

In order to combat tax evasion and tax avoidance, the CRA will create a special program dedicated to stopping the organizations that create – and promote – these tax schemes for the wealthy. This will result in a twelve-fold increase in the number of tax schemes examined by the CRA. This team will apply penalties and refer cases for criminal investigation, where appropriate.
The federal investment will give the CRA the ability to hire more auditors and specialists. This will increase the number of examinations focused on high-risk taxpayers – from 600 per year to 3000 per year – and will bring in $432 million in new tax revenue. In addition, the new government funding will help the CRA bring in 100 additional auditors to investigate high-risk multinational corporations, a strategy that will collect an additional $500 million in revenue over five years.

Penalties and Prosecution

To make sure these investments deliver results, the CRA will embed legal counsel within investigation teams, so that cases can be quickly brought to court. Taken together, the CRA will use the latest investigative tools and technology, paired with larger investigative teams, to detect more cases of tax evasion that result in the appropriate charges, fines, and penalties.
In addition to this unprecedented investment, the Minister also announced a number of concrete steps that the CRA will take, including:
  • bolstering international collaboration to fight tax evasion,
  • creating an independent advisory committee on offshore tax evasion and aggressive tax planning; and
  • beginning work to estimate the tax gap, so that Canadians and Parliamentarians have confidence in the fairness of the tax system.
The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, made a commitment during the campaign to strengthen the CRA and its ability to crack down on tax evaders. Today’s announcement delivers on that promise.

Quotes

“Our government has promised Canadians a tax system that is fair and responsive to their needs. The unprecedented investment made in the CRA’s activites through Budget 2016 will fundamentally change our ability to identify and pursue both domestic and offshore tax evasion and avoidance. That means a tax system that is applied fairly to all and delivers real results.”
“Our government is working hard to give Canadians greater confidence that the tax system is fair to everyone. Those who hide income and assets offshore or try to evade or avoid paying the tax they owe will be identified and will face consequences.”
- The Honourable Diane Lebouthillier, P.C., M.P., Minister of National Revenue

Quick facts

  • New funding to crack down on tax evasion and fight tax avoidance is expected to return $2.6 billion in revenue to the Crown over five years.
  • Electronic Funds Transfers to the Isle of Man totalled $860M in a 12 month period and the CRA has assessed the risk for all 3000 funds transfers involving approximately 800 taxpayers. The CRA will expand its analysis to other jurisdictions as well as financial institutions of concern this year with a second project set to begin in May 2016.
  • This year, through the Voluntary Disclosures Program, the CRA is on track to identify $1 billion in income that would otherwise have been hidden. That is an increase of almost 400% over the last six years. More information on the program is at: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/voluntarydisclosures/

Associated Links

HOW CANADIAN ARE OUR BANKS AND ACCOUNTING FIRMS and Auditors 

I WANT TO KNOW

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

UpDate on > #TWU #BMO Trinity Western case heads to Nova Scotia court of appeal Barrister's society says covenant violates Charter of Rights as it pertains to sexual orientation

#TWU #BMO 

Trinity Western case heads to Nova Scotia court of appeal

cbc masthead logo

Trinity Western case heads to Nova Scotia court of appeal

Barrister's society says covenant violates Charter of Rights as it pertains to sexual orientation


By Blair Rhodes, CBC News Posted: Apr 06, 2016 6:39 AM AT Last Updated: Apr 06, 2016 9:38 AM AT

Two things you're never supposed to talk about in polite company: sex and religion. Those two subjects collide head-on this week at the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.
The province's highest court is being asked to rule in a case that pits a small private university in British Columbia against the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society.
The issue is if graduates from a proposed law school at Trinity Western University in Langley, B.C., should be allowed to practice law in Nova Scotia.

The NSBS takes the position that they should not.
Trinity Western is a Christian university. As such, it requires students and staff to abide by its community covenant. That covenant includes a provision that students abstain from sexual intimacy "that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman."

"We would say that the community covenant, in that respect, really has nothing to do with wanting to push away members of the LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender] communities," said Trinity Western's Amy Robertson, who's in Halifax for this week's court hearing.
"We do welcome LGBT to Trinity Western who want to be part of our Christian community. There are gay people at Trinity Western who find it sort of a safe, respectful place to be," she said.

Equality versus freedom of religion

The barristers' society says that covenant violates the Charter of Rights as it pertains to sexual orientation.
"So there's the obvious issue that's at stake here which is the balancing of freedom of religion versus the balance with equality rights," said Jill Perry, president of the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society, on Tuesday.

The society has already lost the first round in this battle.
In January of last year, Justice Jamie Campbell of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruled the society exceeded its authority by saying it would refuse to allow Trinity Western graduates to practice law in Nova Scotia.

"The extent to which NSBS members or members of the community are outraged or suffer minority stress because of the law school's policies does not amount to a grant of jurisdiction over the university," Campbell wrote in his decision.

"There is a difference between recognizing the degree and expressing approval of the moral, religious, or other positions of the institution," he added.

Perry says Trinity West's covenant is the sticking point. "We cannot just sign off on an institution that has this discriminatory admissions policy."

This appeal is being closely watched. Fourteen groups have intervenor status at this hearing, and they run the social and religious gamut, including the Catholic Civil Rights League, the Attorney General of Canada, the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Secular Alliance.

'Space to disagree'

Robertson said the university community is well aware of the scrutiny.
"The very fact that this is all happening sort of necessitates that Trinity Western students will be sensitive to these issues," she said.

"We're a university where we pride ourselves on academic freedom. There's space to disagree. There's space to discuss."

As the appellant, lawyers for the NSBS, will be first to argue at this appeal. A spokesperson said that could take four hours or more, depending on the number of questions from the five-member panel of judges hearing the case.

Intervenors who support the society's position are expected to go next, followed by the lawyer for Trinity Western and then intervenors that support the university.

Similar cases are making their way through the court systems in Ontario and British Columbia. The Nova Scotia case is the first to make it this far.

Both sides say given the level of interest and the importance of the issues, they would not be surprised if this dispute ends up before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Standing Committee on Finance #BMO see last Paragraph #Movemymoney #Boycottbanks that are Shaftting Canadian tax payers

14,388
 
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&DocId=6054727&Language=E



Standing Committee on Finance                                   
 




NUMBER 111 
l
1st SESSION 
l
41st PARLIAMENT 



EVIDENCE


Thursday, March 21, 2013


[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

  (0845)  

[English]


    I call this meeting to order. This is meeting number 111 of the Standing Committee on Finance.
 
    Orders of the day are pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), continuing our study of tax evasion and the use of tax havens.
    We're very pleased to have six witnesses before us this morning. From BMO Bank of Montreal, we have vice-president and senior consultant, Mr. Jean Richard.
 
We have from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Mr. Steven Blackburn, vice-president and chief anti-money laundering officer. From HSBC Bank Canada, we have Mr. Scott Bartos, senior vice-president and chief compliance officer. From RBC Royal Bank, we have Mr. Russell Purre, deputy chief anti-money laundering officer. From Scotiabank, we have vice-president Nanci York. From TD Bank Financial Group, we have the head of global anti-money laundering compliance, Carmina Hughes.
 
 
    Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here this morning. We will proceed in the order I introduced you. We'll have each witness present an opening statement of five minutes, and then we'll proceed to members' questions.
 
    We'll begin with Mr. Richard, s'il vous plaĆ®t.


[Translation]


 
    Distinguished members of the committee, Mr. Chair, on behalf of BMO Financial Group, I'm pleased to join my colleagues from other financial institutions to assist in your discussion of tax havens and tax evasion. As you know, my colleagues from the other financial institutions mainly focus on this issue from a perspective of Canadian and international compliance.
 
 I offer a different kind of expertise, which concerns our financial institutions wealth management advisory relationship with its individual clients who have domestic, national and sometimes international financial interests.
 
 
    As you have already heard from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, the CIBC, and as you will hear from my other colleagues at the table, BMO, just like the other financial institutions, does not advise clients to fraudulently avoid the payment of tax, either in Canada or elsewhere. And of course, just like any other Canadian bank, we have policies and procedures that ensure that our employees comply with both the letter and spirit of the law they are subject to. My colleagues will be able to discuss that with you. That is why we believe it is important to tell you about the services we provide for our clients.
 
 
    First, we are aware that as a financial institution, we must not give our clients legal or tax advice. We recognize that advice of that kind falls exclusively within the realm of the private practice of law and tax consultancy, a practice that is limited to lawyers and accountants. Only law firms and accounting firms may give opinions to their clients, be they private individuals, corporations or public organizations.
 
We therefore never give our clients opinions on legal or tax matters. Our role relates to the management of our clients' high net value estates and focuses on matters relating to their family, protecting their lifestyle, investing for retirement, estate planning, business continuity, and philanthropy.
 
    Our role is limited to identifying their needs and informing them about the difficulties and the rules and the strategies available in their particular situation. For each of these areas, tax issues are an unavoidable corollary to achieving maximum effectiveness.
 
To that extent, our mission is to make sure that our clients are informed about the tax opportunities and risks they encounter and are therefore able to seek out the professional support that will enable them to improve their situation. It is inherent in my responsibilities to ensure that our clients obtain the advice they need in order to achieve their objectives effectively. This means that in my role at BMO, I bring together the knowledge and experience of our teams of experts to provide assistance to the bank's investment advisors, to help them create sound wealth management plans for their clients.
 
 
    BMO's investment advisors don't just look at tax, of course. They draw on our resources, for the exclusive benefit of our clients, by tackling the questions we have described, in order to provide them with an integrated and multidisciplinary wealth management solution. This includes all aspects of managing, protecting and transferring wealth, investment strategy, insurance, estate planning, retirement planning, cash management, planned giving, powers of attorney, trusts and wills.
 
 
    Our information includes the tax aspects. However, they are only incidental to the myriad of supports we offer our clients. We work exclusively within the laws that are in force and within the limits they impose. Our goal is to make sure that our clients are not the victims of bad advice or of the risky or improper use of tax rules. Our aim is always to protect our clients and not put their personal situation at risk, and thus destroy our relationship of trust.
 
    This committee will know of the myriad of excellent programs that are in place to give Canadians the opportunity to be tax efficient within the fiscal policies decided by Parliament. The RRSP, for instance, has long been one of the most successful retirement savings tools ever developed in Canada. There are many other tools that operate alongside it.
 
    BMO Financial Group is a strong supporter of the recent creation of new instruments that have the dual advantage of supporting Canadians who are saving for retirement, through tax relief, while helping to achieve an important social goal: financial security for our fellow Canadians in retirement. New tools such as the tax free savings account, or TFSA, the voluntary retirement savings plan, or VRSP, disability savings plans, and for some time now, education savings plans, have been added to the fiscal tools put in place to help achieve clear public objectives.
 
    The function of our wealth management service is to make sure that our clients take advantage of the opportunities that Canadian tax policies offer and avoid the traps that can be hiding behind the shiny returns or the smoke and mirrors. Our function is to inform them and encourage them to explore the opportunities available to them with their legal and tax advisors.
 

  (0850)  
    At the international level, we also have to ensure that our clients do not fall into traps, whether because of double taxation when they hold assets or property outside Canada, estate taxes on their property if they have heirs who reside outside Canada, or any other complexity that arises when different legislation intersects, whether in relation to the personal nature of liability for tax, the economic basis of tax liability or conflicting rules. International tax advice is intended primarily to avert the dangers of double taxation.
    The same is true for foreign nationals who invest in Canada...




    Mr. Richard, I am going to ask you to finish, please.




    I am at the end, Mr. Chair.
    The same is true for foreign nationals who invest in Canada, who do not want to see the capital they have invested in our economy penalized by the impact of Canadian tax liability on income from Canadian sources, while at the same time being taxed in their country based on citizenship or residence. Our role is therefore to inform our clients and make them aware of the options, within the rules.
    Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, BMO Financial Group is pleased to be here to discuss international taxation questions with you.

#BMO Stocks TODAY MARK MY WORDS SELL NOW while it high #Movemymoney


2013 Parliamentary committee    READ ON ..
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&DocId=6054727&Language=E


#BMO APRIL 6 2026

Debt Crisis was Created by Politicians and Central Bankers - Godfrey Blo...