I hope that they don’t fear us at Isaac Brock Society and put us in a parallel category with the “Sovereign Citizen” and “Freeman” movements because the only thing we want is to pay our taxes in, and only in, the countries where we live. We don’t claim to be immune from the law (our local laws in the countries where we live apply to us) we just claim that US jurisdiction does not apply to us abroad! Most of us live in sovereign nations that are independant from the US.
Here is a 60 Minutes show about Sovereign Citizens. They say the Feds consider them domestic terror threats. Again, I would hope they realize that minnows, ostriches and other of us abroad at are not the same. We are sensible people who obey the laws where we live, pay taxes where we live, vote, etc.
What a sad story. Isaac Brock Society DOES NOT advocate the use of violence in pursuing its agenda, otherwise I WOULD NOT BE HERE! I follow Brock in order to learn about any and all legal means to address the challenges we face. That is why I demanded the ear of John Weston, my Member of Parliament, and will continue to pursue all other legal and political means available to me in resolving my current predicament. I feel you’ve contaminated Brock just by posting that!
@JDT: The IRS and other law enforcement agencies closely monitor the internet, popular blogs, and anything else fringe groups and crack pot organizations put out in the public domain. Anything which might be considered evidence of criminal activity such as suborning or inciting others to ignore the law for example, on the grounds that taxes are illegal, screw ball theories about gold being the only legal tender, and crack pot arguments like the IRS has no authority to collect taxes because certain amendments to the Constitution were not legally enacted, are guaranteed to get a second look by government criminal agents.
It would be sad if either the Canadian or the U.S government were to put the Isaac Brock Society in the same category as Sovereign Citizens. For the most part, the discourse on these pages doesn’t come close to the kind of conduct which crosses the line beyond free discourse, lively debate and a fair exchange of ideas.
That doesn’t mean the IBS is not on the IRS radar.
For the most part, government agents are smart enough to distinguish between bluster, posturing, and mere rhetoric. But people like @Petros do no service to the organization by going on and on about casus bellis, acts of war, and “man-the-barricade” type hyperbole. At one point, @Petros asked on one of these pages, “Heck, I was banned from the Expat Forum for telling jokes about moderators, don’t you think there might be some in the government who see what I’m doing and are not laughing about it?”
The answer to that question is most definitely “yes.” My guess is the IRS doesn’t think @Petros is in the least bit funny.There is probably a good chance that someone in the US government is paying attention anytime someone mouths of about the IRS and “natural law. ” The “natural law” argument is an old one which Special Agents have been hearing from tax protestors for many years.
Saying things like, the IRS is committing an act of war It is a little like making a joke about a bomb seconds before passing through an airport screening device or perhaps more like putting a target on your back with a sign that says, “please kick me and then ask me what I think about the IRS.” Maybe a little “out there,” but definitely not funny.
More importantly, talking about FATCA and FBARs as “acts of war” just makes you look silly and it surely detracts from the good solid research and analysis and opinion which appear from the overwhelming majority of people who post on the IBS site.
30 Year IRS Vet
Uh oh. I feel a long rebuttal post coming from Petros 🙂
My personal opinion is it makes no sense to get mixed up with “tax protesters” or other people of that nature. They actually do exist outside of the US in countries like Canada and their arguments are just as silly. There seems to this weird fascination among Canadian tax protesters over this 1950s court of case called Lord Nelson Hotel even though numerous courts have ruled it has nothing to do with the Income Tax Act of Canada.
Most “tax protesters” live in the US and don’t want to pay any tax even where they live and detract from the real issues being brought up here which FATCA, FBAR, Access to Banking services, who is a US Person, nationality law, double taxation etc. The arguments that NEED to be made here are at not all unreasonable in fact many US government entities such as the Congressional ways and means committees, and the Joint Committee on Taxation have been quite willing sit down with people from American Citizens Abroad and hear their arguments so to speak. Generally I don’t think the House Ways and Means Committee or the JCT spend much time with “tax protesters”. Here at IBS we need to be more overtly politically. There are lot of smart people at JCT, US Treas, and the Congressional Committee committee staff that can study taxation proposals till the cows come home but they don’t really make the decisions in DC. The other angle is of course the one in Ottawa and other foreign capitals(ACA doesn’t get involved in lobbying non US govts) where at least in Ottawa the message is getting through from a lot of commenters and visitors here.
I can see why in the case of high net worth individuals like athletes, entertainers, and big time business people the US feels justified in imposing citizenship based taxation. Most of these people would not make the money they do if not for the US and it’s system for generously rewarding people who are the best at what they do.
But when you apply the same rules to ordinary people living in other countries, the burden is too much. We pay high taxes in countries like Canada and if citizenship based taxation is going to be imposed on us we should have the right to say sorry but we can’t afford dual citizenship.
@omghesstillanamerican
Hopefully Petros is off for the day. I guess the question is whether people want to complain(which is what going on when people talk “soveriegn citizens” and such is doing)or actually get some changes in policy made. If the goal is to get Ottawa to be more proactive they aren’t going to make arguments to DC about “acts of war” or “soveriegn citizens.”
They can pay a capital gains tax upon cessation of US residence. You basically make everyone fill out form 8854 at the end of their final year living in the US. Easy system
If you look at the people renouncing yes they are probably above average in income but they aren’t the super rich. In Canada most of the richest Canadian citizens live in the country even though they could move to some place like the Bahamas and not pay any income tax. Its not to say they aren’t “some” who are living in places like Bermuda et all for tax reasons but it generally is not the “super rich”.
To the US’ credit the 2008 law expatriation tax law is actually “better” and cleaner than the previous system which tried get “covered expatriates” to continue filing for ten years even though they were no longer citizens. To be fair the old system was legally dubious but to their credit they changed. My understanding is that Congress was leaned on heavily by the staff at the Joint Committee on Tax to make 2008 law changes.
You’re right Tim. If we go to war with the US, that will last about 2 seconds and we’ll lose.
It may take some time but I have to believe the agitation this is causing between the two governments isn’t worth what little tax revenues are involved. Canada is a small fish and the US is the whale. It doesn’t really do them much good to fight us.
Steven:
I think what you are saying is good common sense advice — don’t let the rhetoric inadvertently get you in trouble with someone.
But there’s an important context to this issue that I don’t think you’ve grasped yet; and it is what motivates some of those over the top comments you see from time to time. FATCA is an extra-territorial imposition of US law on foreign institutions, and through them on their entire client base — because it is that entire client base (not just so-called US persons) that is going to shoulder the burdensome costs of going along with FATCA. This goes beyond the US insistence on citizen-based taxation (contrary to the practices of the rest of the civilized world) and gets into making the rest of the world help the IRS enforce its domestic law.
Because this is an extra-territorial imposition, most people on this site are far more concerned with complying with Canadian law, not the laws of some foreign government. So when the IRS cruises this site looking for lawbreakers — maybe it needs to do so in the context of “Canadian” lawbreakers. Of course the IRS couldn’t care less about Canadian laws being broken, right?
Here’s an example from the past that might explain why people gets their knickers in a knot when the US does this kind of thing. In a legislative process very very similar to the way FATCA was foisted on us all, the US passed piece of legislation some decades ago called the Helms-Burton Act. I forget what this POS was attached to –something very important most likely. But it had the effect of imposing US law regarding Cuba on citizens of other countries that were quite happy to trade/consort with Cuba. Canadians were actually thrown in jail over this, and it put Canadian (and many many other foriegn companies) in the position of having to comply with US law or suffer some serious consequences when dealing with the US. Sherrit-Gordon was the most affected.
Other countries, including Canada, got so PO’d about this attempt to make them comply with US law, that they specifically passed legislation making it illegal (in Canada) to comply with Helms Burton! But to this day, executives from Sherritt Gordon are at risk of arrest if they have the misfortune to land on US territory.
I have argued many times that the way to beat FATCA is for countries to do a Helms-Burton on it. It would take only one (like Canada) to draw a line in the sand and I suspect others would follow. In some respects, I’m hoping that the IRS and US Treasury are completely stonewalling Canada and other nations in the ongoing discussions on FATCA implementation, because ultimately the frustration will force Canada and others to do the right thing.
@Tim, “Non-U.S. citizen, nonresidents can now annually visit the U.S. for 120 or more days without becoming taxed as U.S. residents (under the pre-2008 rules, visits to the U.S. for more than 30 days during any of the 10 years following expatriation caused the individual to be treated as a U.S. resident for that year).”
@Arrow
Helms Burton is rather interesting story. First a lot of the really onerous provision are have been waived by the US president every six months since the law was enacted. However one part that has never been waived is the travel ban on certain non US individuals from entering the US. Technically I believe only five people are on this list but two of the five are Canadian in particular businessman Ian Delaney and his wife Catherine or Kiki(Their kids until the turned 18 were also banned from the US). Kiki Delaney having nothing to do with her husbands business is quite accomplished in her own right and for example has served on several advisory panels for Flaherty and the Department of Finance. Ian Delaney just recently was appointed by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty to clean up the air ambulance service ORNGE in Ontario(which has undergone a major scandal). My final comment though will be not to shed too many tears for the Delaney’s as they are incredibly rich and politically connected in Canada. There also I bit of rumor which I don’t think Delaney has ever denied that he was purposely trying to get on the “blacklist” in order to ingratiate himself with the Cubans. My suspiscion is the US really didn’t want to blacklist a Canadian over someone from Spain or Mexico however Delaney shoved it their face.
Historically the US and Canada had an “understanding” on Cuba policy for many years. For example under “Canadian” law it is illegal to export US made products to Cuba but is legal export Canadian made products to Cuba. However, the 1990s the US Congress essentially tried to overturn the previous arrangements dating back to the 1960s with a series of laws essentially over the objections of the executive branch essentially trying to make the US embargo more extraterritorial. Previously it had really be centered on banning US made goods from Cuba. In that era a US company such as GE could actually make products in Canada without US content and sell them to Cuba.
@bublebustin
As I said the old law was MUCH more onerous. The difference is the new law is better for minnows whereas the old law was better for whales for had big prospective capital gains tax bills that they could simply wait out for ten years(I.e. like the Getty’s and other super rich people)
Tim
Fascinating — I knew some of that, but not all. But the history of that spat is largely unappreciated in the US. I wonder if Steven understands yet that it is this attempt to impose US domestic law in other places that gets people’s dander up. You kinda wonder how the US would react if other nations responded in kind. They are getting a little taste of it through DATCA and it will be interesting to see if they back off on that and jeopardize their little 5-nation FATCA clique. Wonder if those Congresscritters are even capable of making the connection.
@Arrow
I remember just like it was yesterday when the US tried impose the “no fly” list on domestic Canadian flights that passed into US airspace even if only far a small distance and often over places like Maine and North Dakota. All the Canadian media at the time were quite adament that Canadian airlines would have no choice but to comply because the US was the US(This was back in 2005 much closer to 9/11). The then transport minister Jean Lapierre stated that if necessary domestic Canadian flighs would have to stay in Canadian airspace for their entire duration rather than comply(which would be more expensive and time consuming for airlines) and Canada if necessary would impose a “Canadian” no fly list on any domestic US flight passing through Canadian airspace such as Boston to Minneapolis. No one knew who would be on the Canadian no fly list but one joke I heard was that it would be every member of the US Congress. The US in the end decided to back down.
@Arrow
Here is an article from back in that time period
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/U.S._wants_to_impose_its_%22no-fly%22_list_on_most_Canadian_domestic_flights
@30 Year IRS Vet – I do agree that inflammatory language can inflame, but particularly for many of us minnows out here, the act of filling out a form incorrectly, because we are presumed guilty by what we thought to be our government, can ruin our entire lives. And the Establishment really does not give a flying ****.
The quotes from politicians from both sides of the aisle in the US about Americans living abroad are belligerent, and I would wager there aren’t many who would come to our defense if genuine mistakes were made. What the various expat requirements represent is taxation without representation – our absentee votes almost never get counted in elections, anyway. And these requirements can impede our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
As someone alluded to earlier FATCA will affect everyone – I understand that the cost to banks for remaining FATCA-compliant, once they are established, has been estimated to be $10 per account per year (that’s all bank accounts not just the bank accounts of American persons.) And Commissioner Shulman has shown no inclination of actually scaling back the provisions of FATCA (only delaying them,) no matter what representations are made to him. I suspect that once all the foreign banks get the infrastructure in place for FATCA, it will then be expanded to include all American persons, and not just those with accounts >$50k.
It is really sad for people to have to contemplate giving up citizenship because of the risks posed by the potential costs to making an honest mistake on a form can ruin one’s entire life.
Funny. I thought Petros was the smartest person here. I was sure that the IRS and US Congress would hire him to reformulate their laws.
I guess someone smarter will hire him then. Too bad for the IRS and US Congress.
@All,
Personally, I like ‘listening to’ the different viewpoints on this site. We certainly don’t all agree with each other. I like it that Steven Mopsick posts his opinion – sometimes I see his point and other times, I might want to scream because I think something like “why oh why, can’t he see our point”. For the same reason, I have always liked reading OP-Ed pieces in the media expressing different views – perhaps the NDP view and/or the Conservative view.
I have two sisters living in the United States. At times when I visit them, I think to myself: Were these two people raised in the same house? One sister will only allow CNN to be on and the other sister, only Fox News. (You can imagine the dinner table conversation between the two of them). I have asked both of them at different times, ‘how can you have an informed position if you don’t listen to the other side?’
I think we all must remember why this site got started and the great service it is doing for most of us posting here. You know, I raised three sons, all adults now. You might be able to imagine how loud and boisterous the house became at times. So to all posting on this blog, I will say what I used to say to my three boys – “Look, can you just try to get along and if you can’t let’s just pretend that you are!”
How much does everyone want to bet that Mr. Mopsick is going to get ridiculed (by Petros) just like he did yesterday for having the same feelings as almost everyone about the racist video?
Like my name states I am Annoyed at Mr. Mopsick getting thrown under the bus by Petros continuously for saying the facts. He helps us all on this blog, yet Petros is trying to chase him off.
Just like everyone else, I can’t wait for him to fire back. People, please have Mr. Mopsick’s back, or we might lose his feedback that we all so desperately need.
I would like to think that the IRS would understand why expats and accidental Americans feel resentful about the citizenship-based taxation and onerous reporting requirements. It is awful that they often have to rely onexpensive specialist accountants due to the complexities of the US tax code and is frustrating that many can’t take advantage of domestically tax-efficient investing/saving that’s available to others where they live. It’s even more frightening that many may have their local accounts closed or find it difficult to open up new accounts due to being US persons.
It’s unfair that they face taxation without representation. But the law is the law. Unlike Petros, I am not about to get myself blown away by sticking my neck out. I will anonamously express that I am very upset about it but feel resigned to it, myself.
I have pragmatically concluded that sometimes life is not always fair and that in the meantime will have to comply and pay my taxes ti the US when they arise plus budget for the professional fees. However, though I have warned him about being a ring leader, I agree with him that we need to be willing to write letters and express how we feel so that hopefully there will eventually be reform. But in the mean time, the law is the law is the law…
@monalisa
There are those on this site who have made a decision to ‘keep’ their U.S. citizenship and perhaps also a citizenship of another country. That is their right. There are perhaps others on the site, who have lived in another country as U.S. citizens only. That is their right.
Yesterday, I spoke to a client who has lived in Canada for 40 years and has never become a Canadian. She could not believe that 40 years ago, I became a Canadian knowing that I was “irrevocably” giving up my American citizenship.Quite honestly, I had the sense that she was appalled at me. However, it was my right in 1972 to make the decision to become a Canadian and renounce my U.S. citizenship.
I agree with you “the law is the law”. We might not agree with ‘citizenship’ taxation, but as long as it is the law of the U.S. then those people who choose to remain U.S. citizens have an obligation to file U.S. taxes. Those of us who many years ago decided to ‘relinquish’ or those who today decide to ‘renounce’ should not be obligated to file U.S. tax returns.
Re: “The law is the law.”
After Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give her seat to a white man on a bus in Montgomery Alabama in 1956, she asked the police officer “Why do you all push us around?” She remembered him replying “I don’t know, but the law’s the law, and you’re under arrest.”
Rosa stood up for what was right by remaining seated. She helped change the course of history by doing so. I hope we are all standing up for what is right by resisting the IRS and Congress in whatever peaceful way we can.
I am not and never will be a “sovereign citizen” as described here in this video. I am, however, a responsible citizen of a sovereign nation called Canada. I firmly believe I have no obligation to the foreign government which told me clearly, firmly and directly 40 years ago that I was permanently and irrevocably renouncing my citizenship by making the voluntary and informed choice to become a Canadian citizen.
@Blaze
Well said!
@Tiger and @Blaze, I appreciate where you’re coming from, given that you believed you had relinquished your US citizenship when you chose to become Canadian all those years ago. This is also a very Canada-centric site, whereas I am a dual citizen living in the UK so have loyalties to both countries. I suppose I feel almost like I have two spouses and thus have obligations to both. As a result, I feel with hindsight that I should have kept better informed about my filing and double tax obligations so blame myself to a large extent for the complications. I realize that I differ in my opinion to the majority here.
@Tiger, I do agree that we should be allowed to renounce but that in doing so, accept that it could have harsh consequences rather like in an acrimonious divorce. I haven’t yet decided if it’s something I’m willing to go through, especially as it’s essential that I can continue to travel there to visit my aging parents. But again, I realize there’s a difference between relinquishing and renouncing (which is perceived by the Us government as being far more of a rejecting act).
@monalisa
I do understand what you mean that ‘renouncing’ might be perceived by the U.S. government as ‘far more of a rejecting act’. However, I would think that by the time someone makes the decision to ‘renounce’, they don’t really care if the U.S. government feels rejected. At the same time, I believe that someone like my client who seemed appalled that I had relinquished, obviously is no where near wanting to renounce and therefore should not do it.
When I became a Canadian in 1972, I did it for several reasons. I desparately wanted to be able to vote in my country of choice (Canada). I was not allowed to do that until I became a Canadian. Also, at that time, the Viet Nam War was being fought every night on my T.V. screen and in my living room. I was hearing about friends of my brother who did not make it home. I had most definitely become more Canadian than I was an American. I had even mastered the “eh”. so common to Canadians. So I was more than ready to relinquish my citizenship.
One thought I have had many times in the last two months, is: “I am glad that my mom has died”. I appreciate how difficult it would be to not be able to visit her. I respect your desire to be able to continue to visit the States to see your aging parents. That is very important.