I see that the House has finally passed a bill that would automatically grant green card status to anyone foreign graduate of an American university whose degree is in one of the so called S.T.E.M. (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) disciplines. Now given the strident attitude that the Congress has displayed towards any U.S. person who voluntarily gives up citizenship and their accusations of “traitor”. It really makes you wonder how these Congressmen/women would view a person from another country who would so easily be seduced to take up permanent residence in America?
Don’t these people owe something to their country of birth that is just as deep as what it is claimed a U.S. person owes to the U.S.? It should be noted that these foreign students can in no way be accused of being “ungrateful” to the U.S. government, since many of them have actually paid a hefty sum for the priviliege of attending a U.S. educational institution. There are actually some U.S. educational institutions that would not be able to survive if it weren’t for their foreign students. Many top U.S. universities have programs that actively court foreign students.
Will the U.S. Congress also attach to these green cards a full disclosure document detailing the very unique tax obligations that are a part of becoming a U.S. person? Are these people simply expected to “know” about Pub. 54 and the other IRC’s?
Thankfully the article says that passage of this bill is not likely and I hope that the author is right. The idea that America should go about topbankinfo.ru poaching students from other countries- some of those countries being poor countries- would be another new low for American exceptionalism.
Thank you for underscoring that @bubblebustin. It will help many readers to read that and know that that is an option that the TAS is clearly and proactively stating ““it also would accept cases referred by a congressional office or those where “the taxpayer specifically requests and insists” it do so.” “
And as for the concept of’Truth in Advertising’ as applied by the IRS to expats, and re the claims of US Ambassador Jacobson (“we are not unreasonable”…):
Certainly
the IRS have given no reason for anyone to trust them any more than
before, or demonstrated any actual evidence of reasonableness. If they had, as we know, and as the TAS has said, they’d
get more people coming forward in order to get past this burden, (and renounce).
There seem to be fewer public statements from the IRS making threats to send us to the guillotines, but that
doesn’t mean they’ve changed their core approach – only that perhaps
they realized that repeatedly stating that we’re all of us pre-judged to be criminal
money-launderers, terror-funders and drug lords may not be effectively selling us
their bill of goods (come forward willingly all you ‘criminals’ living
abroad, so that we may chop off your heads now, when you comply, rather
than later – if you don’t comply). I was hoping that the on the record
compelling evidence of their public pre-judgements would be prejudicial
against them – since it demonstrated that even the faint semblance of fairness and due process was
not their aim or intent. Instead, they said ‘Off with ALL their heads’ BEFORE any
evidence was considered. And that is with the full consciousness that there
would be many instances where no actual tax could be assessed –
as protected by the FEIE, or Foreign tax credits. So, they had to be relying
on the fact that in order to live, we all have bank accounts. All bank accounts
of those living abroad would tend to be ‘local’ = non-US = IRS deemed
‘foreign’ = big FBAR and FATCA fundraising opportunities.
Entrapment, and being pre-judged guilty before the fact.
It is now 3 months since the September 1st start of that ‘new streamlined compliance process’, and far as we know, the IRS has not provided any clarity or guidelines on
how people can transfer from the OVDs and VD processes into the
‘Streamlined compliance process’, for those who might have otherwise qualified, although some blogs
seem to be implying that more may be able to use that process than the
guidelines initially seemed to allow for (ex. some flexibility available on the
eligibility criteria).
For example, if they were to be
sorting some of the krill and minnow cases out – and rolling them over
into the Streamlined process, then some may not need to go to the TAS at
all – depending on how they were treated. But the complete lack of any
information and transparency may be discouraging people from doing that,
and instead, may continue to do the quiet or going forward paths.
No-one can afford to jump into the uncertainty and drawn out unknowns of
even the so-called ‘streamlined’ quicksand without the usual costly
professional advice, and what advice will be given when the
professionals have no clarity on the new path and it’s results?
Too bad that there is no US body willing to find the IRS guilty of applying an illegal presumption of guilt over an entire class of people (those millions living outside the US) and thus declare their whole processes invalid. Even the OVD and VD programs can’t be truly considered ‘voluntary’ if the IRS and practitioners told everyone – no matter how benign, not to file quietly – which as Scott Michel and others have pointed out was the traditional way of dealing with minor footfaults and others with minor issues. If other practitioners are still saying that going forward, or quiet filing is still viable for those with good facts who are willing to take the chance of an audit, then why not just make this more straightforward and achievable? There must be a valid legal concept that applies when a ‘voluntary’ contract is not truly voluntary if the choice is like this one:
http://youtu.be/8lN4TSslz-0
a line of prisoners files past a jailer]
Coordinator:
Crucifixion?
Prisoner:
Yes.
Coordinator:
Good. Out of the door, line on the left, one cross each.
[Next prisoner]
Coordinator:
Crucifixion?
Mr. Cheeky:
Er, no, freedom actually.
Coordinator:
What?
Mr. Cheeky:
Yeah, they said I hadn’t done anything and I could go and live on an island somewhere.
Coordinator:
Oh I say, that’s very nice. Well, off you go then.
Mr. Cheeky:
No, I’m just pulling your leg, it’s crucifixion really.
Coordinator:
[laughing] Oh yes, very good. Well…
Mr. Cheeky:
Yes I know, out of the door, one cross each, line on the left.
from Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes
And, even if we lose on stopping or delaying FATCA, I think the US is losing. I think the IRS and Treasury thought they would pick us off one by one, and terrify the rest. I don’t think they counted on IBS appearing.
*I hope you don’t mind badger, but it’s just too good not to put up! 🙂
Below is what we were and are not to be afforded – evidenced by the statements of the Treasury department and IRS officials – on the public record, in their official statements to the press, and other audiences:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
“Presumption of innocence” serves to emphasize that the prosecution
has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt (or some other level of proof depending on the criminal
justice system) and that the accused bears no burden of proof.[14] This is often expressed in the phrase innocent until proven guilty, coined by the English lawyer Sir William Garrow (1760–1840).[15]
Garrow insisted that accusers be robustly tested in court. An objective
observer in the position of the juror must reasonably conclude that the
defendant almost certainly committed the crime.[16]
The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal instrument created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals.[17] It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial.[18………….”
And, if under FATCA, we are to be forced to waive our privacy rights in Canada, and the purpose is to enable any and all the stated and unstated aims of the US Treasury and IRS – whose presumption is that all of us with non-US bank accounts are so very likely to be criminals, as to necessitate automatic close and consistent surveillance and reporting, to be subjected to an extraterritorial US oversight, layered on top of existing Canadian banking and other related laws, then all the millions of us are presumed to be criminals before the fact, to be monitored by the US for life – in a manner not applied to those who are not by accident of birth or parentage, deemed US taxable persons in Canada. Though
also Canadian citizens and longterm permanent residents, this state of being and burden may be passed down to us, and to our children, and those minors and those with intellectual or mental disabilities may not change this status – under US law. As adults, we may change this status only by undergoing rigourous cleansing of our sins through paying 450. to the State Department, and providing 5 years of tax and financial reports, swearing that we have done so, and passing through the purifying flames of IRS scrutiny, perhaps to be awarded a CLN – to be provided for scrutiny for the rest of our days, when crossing the US border with our non-US passports, and to be held on file with our banks and all other financial institutions – forever, and ever. Confessing to our sins through OVD, though we paid taxes once already to the country where we live, owe zero or minimal double US tax, and only have legal local bank accounts, may also absolve us – but only if we profess guilt, pay a fee on all our worldly goods, endure 365 – 500 days of psychological torment, pay professional advisors equivalent to more than our annual salaries, and lastly, but not least, pay a confiscatory, draconian and entirely disproportionate and involuntary donation to the US national debt.
Also from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
“In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
states: “Any person charged with an offence has the right to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and
public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal”…..
……”Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship.”…….
…”The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
article 11, states: “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the
right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence”.”…..
Thanks @UncleTell. Need some laughs to dispel the gloom. The satire is a little too close to reality though!