Just a brief note asking if any of IBS participants have seen this site: http://www.fatcareport.com/ I had posted a link on my own blog a few months ago, and “Boston Tea Party” suggested that I share it with the rest of you. I had forgotten about it. Thanks Boston.
@Jefferson D. Tomas
Thanks for posting that. And for you following the success of the IGA momentum Here is the Treasury site.
Not so much, is there? They only show 3 at years end! UK poodle with Denmark and Mexico joining the ‘Coalition of the Willing Dupes’. 🙂
Denmark was a major accomplishment–they will be finding all of the people that hide their Money in the most highly taxed nation in the World!!!!
Thanks for this Jefferson – compilation of a lot of articles I no longer have. Some of the links aren’t working.
New project for Tweeting!
I don’t know if renounce is going to reblog his post here, but I just came across his article here about Cook v. Tait (outdated supreme court decision from 1924 that as far as I know is the only time citizenship-based taxation was considered by SCOTUS):
http://renounceuscitizenship.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/does-cook-v-tait-really-mean-that-citizenship-based-taxation-is-constitutional-in-all-cases/
*A review of Cook v Tait would need to follow similiar reasoning used in Brown v Board of Education.
In 1893 the SCOTUS ruled in Plessy v Ferguson that separate and equal was not a violation of the constitution, in 1954 the court ruled specifically that in Brown v Board of Educaton that separate was inherently unequal primarily because of funding and administration of the coloured school system.
As a first step, it could be argued that for dual-citizens the US not only offers no services but cannot offer any protections when a dual-citizen is in the country of the second citizneship whether as a visitor or a resident. This fact is openly stated in the US passport.
@patricia Your analogy is interesting, but I think that the most important difference is that in 1924, dual citizenship was not tolerated by the US government. So we can guess that Cook did not have Mexican citizenship. But we don’t know any other details, for example did the taxpayer in 1924 (Cook?) pay Mexican income taxes at the time? What was his real status in Mexico? We do not have all of the facts about Cook’s situation. Another question, why has nobody challenged this decision up to now?
my govt class memory tells me that first, someone must be legally indictted based upon that specific principle, then defend ones self based upon the principles one is arguing about. Appeals would have to be filed in successfully higher Courts until reaching a Court with sufficient authority over the decision. Somebody needs to get themselves charged, then some of us will be dead Before the rest of the story happens.