This post appeared on the RenounceUSCitizenship blog.
This is the Truism I take away from Steven: “The people around the world who stand to profit from FATCA are not thinking much about government intrusions into the private lives of the world citizens.”
“Them’s the
FATCAsFACTs”, as they say.Although, they may think it is a ‘business and growth opportunity’ others see it as a pending financial disaster for the World’s economy. Who is right? I think the latter, but we shall see. I could be wrong.
FATCA and US fiscal imperialism threaten to sink global economy
In all due respect to 30 year IRS vet, I think he may have his perspectives twisted (which comes from his background?) when he thinks that profiting off the backs of the government regulatory tit is “free enterprise/free market system at work.” Rather, it represents the worst of unprincipled and amoral aspects of human nature at work. These actions are not based upon free enterprise/free markets, but on artificial markets based upon dubious legal assertions.Free markets do not require or accept extortion as their engine of enterprise.
I can think of other examples of so called free enterprise ~70 years ago, where other“hard-working, serious, responsible business men and women who were on their way up in their companies” were probably attending conferences on how to ramp up manufacturing and supply of cattle cars for another freight train in another era that he would not be so willing to celebrate. He would not like that comparison, and maybe it is a bit hyperbolic, but the same human nature principle is at work.
More recently, there was an army of war profiteering “hard-working, serious, responsible business men and women” contractors, attending conferences in Vegas to learn how suckling off the “free enterprise” of ‘War Contracting Gone Wild’ could benefit their companies. They didn’t want to get left out of the ‘business and growth opportunity’that an amoral and unnecessary war provided. What if the government threw a contractor party to support its misguided war effort at that time, and no one came? I blame the compliant and willing contractors co-enablers as much as the government initiators for the sad legacy we left in Iraq.
Maybe in fairness to Steven, what he is saying, is yes, human nature is responding to an artificial market that would NOT exist, except for US hubris, financial imperialism and extra-territoriality. I don’t think I would be citing the FATCA Compliance Industrial Complex’s (FCIC) “hard-working, serious, responsible business men and women” as an example of ‘supply and demand’ in action that Adam Smith would identity or praise.
Although I certainly agree that “Free markets do not require or accept extortion as their engine of enterprise”, the Mopsick post raises an even larger issue. Mr. Mopsick has and continues to make an enormous contribution to the discussion of FATCA, FBAR and U.S. tax compliance in general. Some of the best thinking on these topics may be found in the “Mopsick Trilogy” – a series of posts that he wrote about the compliance problems facing US citizens abroad. His posts are a unique blend of raising questions and answering questions. In this case, his post has raised an important issue.
The issue is that, in the America of today, laws have become a substitute for morality. A society where laws have become a substitute for morality, is a society that is past the point of “no return”. This is where “Form Nation” – AKA The United States of America – finds itself today.
“Form Nation” – A country structured by laws and not by men
In the beginning we had the ten commandments which were expressions of the fundamental principles of justice. The ten commandments reflected principles which were for the common good. Gradually legislatures began to create laws. In the early stages of society, these laws were specific applications of fundamental principles of justice and for the most part these laws continued to be for the common good.
What is in the common good is not necessarily what is good for specific individuals. Those specific individuals who control the political process have strong incentives to act in their interest at the expense of the public interest.
Once legislatures saw how easy it was to create laws, they began to create laws which were NOT for the common good but were to benefit specific individuals at the expense of the common good. That’s how the Internal Revenue Code and regs grew to 17,000 pages. It’s simply incredible. Mr. Romney pays low tax on is “carried interests” and U.S. citizens abroad pay confiscatory taxes on their mutual funds “PFICs”. Not only is this unfair, but it’s a wonderful example of how laws are passed to benefit the individual at the expense of the common good.
But, it gets far worse. Who exactly are the legislatures? Democracy in the “Form Nation” of today is controlled by two private clubs. You will recognize them as the Democratic and Republican parties. Not only are they private clubs, but they have the intellectual dishonesty to rely on public funding for their existence. Their job is to campaign and to stay in power. Why? Because they will profit from being power. Those of you who have seen the Movie Chicago will remember Mama Morton singing “reciprocity“.
If you have the money you can get the ear of a Congressman. If you don’t you can’t. If you are the mutual fund industry you can lobby to get the PFIC laws passed. If you are the Romney’s of the world (and I still believe he would have been a better president) you can lobby to get your “carried interest” laws passed. As Fareed Zakaria has noted, the system is corrupt at it’s core. A large part of the problem is the way the political system works in the United States. There is nobody who represents the voters. The elected representatives (and they are not really elections because of a lack of choice on the ballot) are in business for themselves. Their business is in passing laws that benefit themselves or their clients. This is the only reason that the IRC and regs grew to 17,000 pages. To put it simply: elected representatives are in the business of making laws.
It’s laws, laws and more laws!
The United States of today is burdened by so many laws that:
– everybody is in violation of some law (show me the man and I will show you the crime);
– the complexity of the laws means that people cannot even understand what they are required to do (the FBAR rules are a weird combination of the enabling statute, the regs and the form itself);
– people are forced to pay lawyers for an opinion on what they may be required to do (lawyers have become the modern day “priests”;
– the sheer volume of laws means that enforcement is largely discretionary (will the IRS enforce FBAR penalties or not?);
– the focus on laws leads to a presumption of criminality (the fact that US citizens abroad are subject to so many laws means they must be guilty of something);
– the moral foundation (if any) of the law becomes irrelevant. The original purpose of the law becomes irrelevant. All that matters is the mechanical application of the law. Nobody ever imagined that PFIC rules, Foreign Trust rules of the FBAR rules would be used to unleash a “reign of terror” on US citizens abroad. On the “Homelander Front”, do you really believe that Martha Stewart deserved incarceration? Of course, the good old USA has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
Laws have become a replacement for morality. Laws are the only standard for morality.
If you are not in violation of the law, you are not immoral.
If you are in violation of the law you are immoral.
(If the U.S. is really concerned about the “crime rate” then maybe it should reduce the number of laws.)
Conclusion: The US does not have laws that are fair.
“Form Nation” – A country governed by those who decide when to apply the laws and in relation to whom! (A government of tyrants)
In the context of the laws, the laws are not applied equally
President Obama commented that Mr. Geithner should not be punished for a mistake commonly made. It was okay for Timothy Geithner, a man with the money to get accurate tax advice, to file inaccurate tax returns. It is NOT okay for US citizens abroad to fail to file or to file inaccurate tax returns.
Conclusion: The US does NOT have fair application of the law.
1. The United States of today is country where laws are passed by members of private clubs, which have no incentive to benefit the common good and every incentive to benefit themselves at the expense of the common good.
2. The laws are so numerous that every person in the United States is in violation of something.
3. The laws that passed carry no presumption of morality and simply have no moral force.
4. The laws (regardless of content) are enforced in an unpredictable and unfair way.
The result is that people live in terror of the government.
As Jefferson said:
When people fear the government there is tyranny. When government fears the people there is liberty.
So, what’s all this got to do with #FATCA and the Mopsick post?
FATCA is the “gift that keeps on giving” (well to the compliance industry that is). As Mr. Mopsick confirms, the concern of the industry in on the fact of the law. What does it say? What does it require? As Mr. Mopsick reports:
Many readers of this blog will be disappointed to hear this report. The people around the world who stand to profit from FATCA are not thinking much about government intrusions into the private lives of the world citizens. That is the furthest thing from their minds. These folks were all good students, in effect, knowing full-well that there was a new body of rules and regulations on the table which they needed to learn and master.
The implication is that the “good students”, those “hard-working, serious, responsible business men and women who were on their way up in their companies”, the “best and the brightest” (are they really that bright?) should be concerned with embracing the new morality, getting in tune with the “new world” caring about the implications of their conduct. That’s exactly what happens when law becomes a substitute for morality. Just Me compares this mentality to another time in history when he notes that:
I can think of other examples of so called free enterprise ~70 years ago, where other“hard-working, serious, responsible business men and women who were on their way up in their companies” were probably attending conferences on how to ramp up manufacturing and supply of cattle cars for another freight train in another era that he would not be so willing to celebrate. He would not like that comparison, and maybe it is a bit hyperbolic, but the same human nature principle is at work.
Interesting analogy. What is the purpose of FATCA? What are the moral underpinnings of FATCA? Has anybody ever asked the question? Clearly nobody in the world of the FATCA compliance industry. They would be afraid of the answer!
But, that’s what happens when law becomes a substitute for morality. Many of you are concerned about what reason to give for renouncing your U.S. citizenship.
Why not just say:
I do not wish to be a citizen of a country where law has become a substitute for fairness and morality!
I just a short while ago put this comment on your site, USCitizenAbroad. You’ve hit the nail on the head for me — law instead of / substituting morality …
You ask the most relevant questions:
and the answer for me and many others (But, that’s what happens when law becomes a substitute for morality):.
Many of you (us) are concerned about what reason to give for renouncing your U.S. citizenship.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/03/21/aca-calls-for-support-of-residency-based-taxation-rbt-in-house-ways-and-means-tax-reform-efforts/comment-page-2/#comment-241670
@Calgary
The comment you reference includes your saying that:
“If only others really, really understood, we could (or I could) leave the anger behind and live my remaining years without the nagging worry in the back of my mind that my son’s situation (and me as the trustee of his finances) will be “caught” / that I am / we are criminals.”
Some thoughts on this:
1. From the perspective of the US EVERYBODY is a criminal because crime is NOT linked to morality but is linked to the violation of a statute and everybody in in violation of some statute. But to be called a criminal by the US government (in most but NOT all cases) is like:
Being called ugly by a frog.
2. The more interesting question and I believe this should become a discussion thread for its owns therapeutic/exploratory sake is:
“What can we do to put the anger behind us?
This is a major problem and you are right that this cannot be understand unless you have gone through it. As you know, my view of this (not shared by all), is that our problems are because of the Obama administration. That said, I explained this to a “Homelander relative” who shrugged her shoulders and voted for Obama. My point again is that this can be understood only by those who have experienced it. This includes the lawyers/accountants who see this (even the most sympathetic of them) as a “feeding frenzy”.
3. At some point though, one must make the decision to live. On a personal note, I feel that I am soon reaching the end of what I feel I can contribute to this discussion and my relationship with the US will be finished. The goal will then be to leave it behind (on an emotional level), but still be willing to help those who need it (of which there will be no shortage). At the very least, those affected by this are going to need specialized counseling (and probably for a long time – of course they will have no money to pay for it).
4. I mentioned that this could be understood only by those who have lived it. The reasons for this include:
– the complexity of the abusive institution that is called citizenship-based taxation
– the definition of it as a “tax issue” instead of a “human rights issues” which it most surely is (it’s not citizenship-based taxation that is the problem per-se, it’s the way that it is applied to U.S. citizens abroad) To define this as a “tax issue”, is like Orwell in 1984, calling the torture chambers the “Ministry of Love”. The threats and complexity of citizenship-based taxation are analogous to and the taxation version of “water boarding” (perhaps that’s why it is applied only to those outside the U.S.).
– the myth of the U.S. being a just, free, democracy (the bigger the lie, the more likely people will believe it) You might ask yourself: “How do you like freedom now?”
– and most importantly the fact (as noted repeatedly by USXCAnada) that U.S. citizens are not well liked (the result of U.S. government policies). Therefore, I almost think that (until people realize that it may affect them) that they are happy to see U.S. citizens who are being abused.
– the strong sense of having betrayed by a country that most of were loyal to. It hurts to find out that (in many ways) those who preached the gospel of anti-Americanism were right (the fastest growing pocket of anti-Americanism is now US citizens abroad) The election of Obama was not:
“Change you can believe in” it’s more like:
“Change you never could have believed!”
It’s a combination of all those things.
On a personal note, I want to acknowledge how effective and unrelenting you (and others – particularly those who have been here since the beginning) have been in turning this blog into a forum that I believe is at least acknowledged and read.
Remember (as Tim has said repeatedly) that this is a marathon and not a sprint.
Have a good weekend!
What can I say (and why can’t I shut up?). Thank you always, USCitizenAbroad, and for all of your wisdom to all of us here!
@USCitizenAbroad
“On a personal note, I want to acknowledge how effective and unrelenting you (and others – particularly those who have been here since the beginning) have been in turning this blog into a forum that I believe is at least acknowledged and read.”
Ditto, for me.
I may not comment much on IBS, for I don’t feel I have the expertise, but I read and think about everything. And I have passed on the information to other dual citizens I know who are suffering in silence. Although this comment would be better put in a different forum, many of us in Canada are ready for a Charter fight as long and as exhausting as that might be.
Here is Mr. Mopsick’s Linked in Posts:
http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=4118437&type=member&item=89057726&qid=3719fc9e-ecfe-433a-8133-cdae8dbc1825&trk=group_search_item_list-0-b-ttl&goback=%2Egmr_4118437
FATCA Red Herring
There is one “red herring” which should be given the lie: the silly idea that FATCA tries to force U.S. law on others. FATCA does nothing of the sort. The key is the IRC which says to avoid the 30% tax, an FFI has to contract with IRS (under U.S. law) to follow the rules, and agree to name the people who are enriching the foreign bank while enjoying their wonderful banking services
@Mark Twain
James Jatras referred to this comment once and said (this is a paraphrase) something to the effect that:
FATCA doesn’t look like a Canadian law to me!
We are all a product of our life experiences. Cut him some slack. He has spent his whole life in the IRS. To his credit he has publicly opposed citizenship-based taxation – a metamorphosis that I call: “The Mopsick Miracle.”
The truth is that Mr. Mopsick is an ally in our cause. It’s just that he doesn’t always seem like it. He opposes citizenship-based taxation. He supports FATCA. They are NOT inconsistent thoughts.
Back in May of last year, Steven Mopsick has been invited to serve as a member of American Citizens Abroad (ACA) Professional Tax Advisory Panel (PTAC).
http://mopsicktaxlaw.blogspot.com/2012/05/american-citizens-abroad.html
He ends his post by “I am eager to be involved in this group and fight for the rights of Americans living abroad.”
That’s not the impression I got when I read his summary of the FATCA conference in Miami. There seem to be a pretty obvious conflict of interest between what he wrote in this post and the interests of ACA which is to repeal FATCA.
@Chris
That is not entirely true. Mopsick opposes citizenship-based taxation but supports FATCA. Because of the former he is a valuable ally.
I wonder what his position would be on the following:
FATCA does not apply to any US person in his/her country of residence.
I don’t see Mopsick’s positions as all that simple.
In addition, this may surprise you but:
I think Richard Harvey might be an ally on the question of abolishing citizenship-based taxation. He is a person who is obviously proFATCA but my read of him is that he is ambivalent on citizenship-based taxation. Watch him carefully in the great FATCA debate in Switzerland. He made a comment about citizenship-based taxation that suggested to me that he was open to be persuaded. I think somebody should contact him (I am thinking of doing it).
@USCitizenAbroad … why are YOU constantly bringing up the name Mopsick here and his so called contributions. (He is not even mentioned in Jack Townsend list of tax lawyers) Is he your friend or are you related to him ? Are you on his payroll or his promoter ? . I am looking for balance here and a wide variety of topics,names,cases and news but it is getting kind of obvious how YOU keep bringing this specific name up here OVER AND OVER ! “The Mopsick Miracle.” …. what are YOU smoking ?
There are least 20 other good tax lawyers out there you could mention or engage at IBS in a spirited discussion but no and I quote …The truth is that Mr. Mopsick is an ally in our cause,,,,, yeah right … the truth is that dozens of potential customers have and could come from here with nice retainer checks !!
@USCitizenAbroad
I often wonder how Richard Harvey sleeps at night. FATCA is going to harm many USP’s and their families only because of citizenship based taxation. What we are seeing now in renunciations is just the tip of the iceberg, in my view. At some point you’d think the well-being of the very citizens the law is supposed to serve would take precedent over the enforcement of the law itself. But then, any nation that functions properly would never have passed a law like FATCA in the first place.
I wonder if he would be honest with you in any response he might have to your letter.
@Mike Tarrantes
I don’t mean to jump in and answer for USCitizenAbroad, but given the time zones, I will just say this.
Steven has a history on IBS that predates your involvement here. I have had much disagreement with Steven on this blog before he quit commenting, (won’t bore you with past links) but I do have an appreciation of his perspective which has evolved somewhat since his first engagement. Even I still watch for and read what he has to say, as I get views and some insights I don’t get elsewhere. So, I personally do try to keep the communication open with respectful but opposing exchange. There are others who are not so willing, and that is ok too.
That said, no one here is a promoter, marketer or on his payroll, so you can rest easy. His posts do give opportunities for countering some of the conventional wisdom out there in the FCIC, and his positions are aligned with American Citizens Abroad regarding Citizenship taxation. He does have concerns for how new immigrants coming to America have been handled by the IRS in the OVDI. We are NOT aligned in terms of acceptance of FATCA as an unstoppable freight train which we should all jump on and make money from. On that we agree to disagree.
Now, it is my bedtime.
Cheers
@Just Me
You were writing while I was writing my answer to Mike which is as follows:
@Mike Tarantes
Re your comment:
@USCitizenAbroad … why are YOU constantly bringing up the name Mopsick here and his so called contributions. (He is not even mentioned in Jack Townsend list of tax lawyers) Is he your friend or are you related to him ? Are you on his payroll or his promoter ? . I am looking for balance here and a wide variety of topics,names,cases and news but it is getting kind of obvious how YOU keep bringing this specific name up here OVER AND OVER ! “The Mopsick Miracle.” …. what are YOU smoking ?
There are least 20 other good tax lawyers out there you could mention or engage at IBS in a spirited discussion but no and I quote …The truth is that Mr. Mopsick is an ally in our cause,,,,, yeah right … the truth is that dozens of potential customers have and could come from here with nice retainer checks !!
________________________________________________________
Mike:
I don’t know Mopsick – have never met him. I am neither his friend nor his promoter. You also have noticed that I have never recommended his legal services.
I suggest that you do a backward search for Mopsick threads on this blog. Mopsick was a major contributor to this blog for quite a long time. He was one of about three lawyers (Michael Miller and Roy Berg being the other two) who have taken the time to offer their insights into the problems facing U.S. citizens abroad. (Sure they are trying to generate business, but every commenter on this blog does it for their own interest.) You will notice that Mopsick has had numerous discussions with participants on this blog. His participation ceased last fall. You will also notice that participants on this blog (and MapleSandbox) have been heavy comenters on Mopsick’s blog.
At the beginning you will see that Mopsick was either indifferent to or in favor of citizenship-based taxation. After a series of very long, heated and (sometimes) nasty exchanges with people on this blog (some of the nastiest being with me) he had the courage to change his mind and oppose citizenship-based taxation. The ability of people on this blog to change his mind was a major, major achievement of the Issac Brock Society!
Following his “change of mind” you will also see that Mopsick made an effort to offer strategic advice to this blog on how to deal with the government to begin the process of changing citizenship-based taxation. He also offered his services “pro bono” to one or two members of this blog. When he established his own blog, he wrote a series of posts that were very sympathetic to the plight of U.S. persons abroad – what I call the “Mopsick Trilogy”. You can be sure that his posts will carry more weight in the world of public opinion than mine or yours. I reference is posts because I want them read!
Other than Phil Hodgen (whose contributions have been enormous, but who has not been a direct contributor to this blog), Michael Miller (who has been a major contributor to this blog – thanks Michael), and Roy Berg (who has been less consistent but very helpful – thanks to you Roy): Mopsick (for all his faults) has been the member of the FCC/Tax lawyer complex who has:
– actually taken a position in favor of abolishing citizenship-based taxation;
– offered the most advice (formally and informally without fee) to individual members of this blog;
– written strong blog posts in support of U.S. citizens abroad and especially Green Card Holders in the US whose lives have been destroyed by this.
For that reason he has been and continues to be an “ally on the issue of citizenship-based taxation”. Where he has NOT been an ally is on the position of FATCA. At the moment he is so “into FATCA” that it looks like many have forgotten his positions on citizenship-based taxation.
Now, to your “suggestion” that I am somehow promoting Mopsick or his services. Again, if you take the time to go through some of the posts on this blog, you will see that I have written a number of posts that have been more critical of Mopsick than any other contributor on this board – by far more critical!
Most of my criticism of him has been in relation to (what I consider) to be his presumptive use of OVDI/OVDP to bring people into compliance. Take the time to see the posts I have written on this topic.
Example: “The Conscience of a lawyer and FBAR Fundraiser” See also some of the very very antagonistic exchanges between Mopsick and me on “compliance issues” in general – very antagonistic.
You mention the list of lawyers on Jack Townsend’s blog. Question: How many of them have taken the time to post on this blog? Other than Roy Berg (who is on the list) and Michael Miller (not sure if he is on the list) “Jack’s list” has not been here.
Now, why do I reference Mopsick when I am not promoting him (a read of my posts on compliance will make it clear that I am not)?
The answer is simple. This blog and others are populated by a bunch of minnows who need help and who need to be heard. The more lawyers who will take the time to contribute – the more perspectives we hear – the better off we are. Mopsick has a long history with the IRS. The IRS reads this blog. When Mopsick says something people in positions of power/discretion are more likely to listen. If you say something they won’t care.
So, the public evolution of Mopsick from supporting citizenship-based taxation to opposing it (what I called “The Mopsick Miracle”) is something that the IRS and other lawyers will see.
Now you may think this has no value, but I see this as having considerable value.
Frankly, although the reasons for his departure from this blog were inevitable, the blog is weaker without him. With Mopsick participating the blog has more credibility (and more of the balance that you claim you want) than with just you or me participating. The goal is to encourage the participation of the Mopsick’s of the world.
You (in so far as I know) are a newer commenter here. I invite you to read my comments about Mopsick (particularly if you are really interested in balance) in the context of the history of this blog from the beginning.
For the record (if it matters), I don’t know Mopsick, don’t care about his business, in the past have disagreed with his “OVDI centered” approach for getting people into compliance, and have been extremely angered by comments that he has made (including his latest blog post).
Perhaps you see him as the enemy. Assuming this were true, I remind you of the scene from the “Godfather”:
“You keep your friends close and your enemies closer”.
If you want I will give you links to the posts I am talking about. You will see that his contributions have been very substantial.
Anybody who opposes citizenship-based taxation is an ally of the Isaac Brock Society – regardless of their position on FATCA! In that spirit, I encourage Mopsick’s continued opposition to citizenship-based taxation.
So, that’s my response to your comment.
@just me ….I do have an appreciation of his perspective …. that is fantastic 🙂 but I rather have someone elses (tax lawyer) perspective here as well , since I have been reminded now many times of Mopsicks perspectives.
….I personally do try to keep the communication open with respectful but opposing exchanges….. of course absolutely 100% agree but than he should join in as a commenter and except opposing views as part of a democratic but open discussion – which he is not and I take offense that his “brand“ gets published here over and over (free advertising is nothing against this) ….He does have concerns for how new immigrants coming to America have been handled by the IRS in the OVDI…. yes I agree and he should but I have seen also many times how he constantly defends the (his)“Service“ (classified information 🙂 ) when it was realy not appropriate or over the top. It just rubs me the wrong way when there are many others out there that someone who quit communicating with IBS participants already last year gets so much free press here.
@Bubblebustin
In the video, he says something to the effect that those who want to abolish citizenship-based taxation need to offer a revenue neutral alternative. In the video he also says something to the effect that the US has the right to protect its tax base.
In a later report on that debate, he said something like “we need to figure out what to do about US citizens abroad”.
Added together, I don’t see any commitment from him toward citizensip-based taxation per se. I know one commenter here (hope you are reading) has had some exchanges with Harvey that were civil/interesting and suggested a wilingness to listen.
What we must remember is this: FATCA was not initially motivated by an attempt to enforce citizenship-based taxation and was not initially aimed at US persons abroad. It’s just that this is the group that was most affected by it.
@USCitizenAbroad ……. The more lawyers who will take the time to contribute – the more perspectives we hear – the better off we are….. of course I agree that is a given ,but there are many other tax lawyer blogs out there which you could reference & link to. It looks to me that every blog entry from Mopsick is copied to IBS but what about all the others out there (national and international) If your actions should be interpreted that your would like to invite Mopsick back to contribute via comments here that is fine by me but I take offense in other motives.
@Mike
What are the other motives you are suggesting? I just spent 20 minutes detailing the history of Mopsick on the blog. The reason that people comment on Mopsick is because of his lengthy and substantial history of comments/posts on the blog. Do any of those who comment on him like him? I don’t know? Are they promoting him? Certainly not.
If you feel that because Mopsick (or any other lawyer is referenced here) that somehow others should be – then go ahead and do it. But, I am not going to. Why? This is NOT about lawyers. It is about finding and nurturing the support of those who oppose citizenship-based taxation and/or FATCA.
Anyway, with respect, I am finished with this topic. Let’s move on.
Mospick was the one who suggested that if you had not had contact with the IRS for 35 years you were foolish to make such contact. Good enough for me. He did not like the video I made however.
@USCitizenAbroad … This is NOT about lawyers….. EXACTLY !!
but Yes ,lets move on !
@USCitizenAbroad, good comments. Thanks for reminding of the history.
Yes, Steven Mopsick’s trilogy wall very well written, and a plea for US citizen abroad as well as immigrants to the US. But his actions are somewhat orthogonal to what he writes. Even if he is compassionate with minnows in our situation, he doesn’t consider anything else than OVDI to come into compliance, even for minnow who owe the IRS next to nothing, as long as it’s not ZERO. I personally contacted him.
Same for FATCA, given that citizenship based taxation is law, how can you endorse nonsense FATCA, with the destruction that comes with it, especially if they have a financial interest in it.
Maybe the problem is that we don’t see what Steven has done as part of his involvement with ACA and that’s the problem. Is his trilogy and a other sympathetic article in tax notes his main contribution, or given his long history and high position in the IRS, is he still talking to high ranking people there to try to provide an now outside perspective and make things change in the best interests of everyone? We don’t know.
If some people who are not commenting here anymore haven’t made him reconsider his participation on this blog, maybe we would know more.
Tax evasion needs to be adressed, and FATCA is a try at it. But everyone would agree that when a law trying to address a legitimate problem creates more destruction both from a people point of view and financially, it needs to be repealed – not accepted. One can make the parallel with Obamacare. Everyone agrees the health care system is broken here, but I don’t know if the Affordable Care Act is the right approach to it.
Same with FATCA: even without citizenship based taxation, I am not sure that FATCA would be successful because of its unilateral stick-no carrot approach. I doubt that the response of the FFIs and foreign government would be much different. Citizenship based taxation has nothing to do with the closure of bank accounts of Americans abroad. It has to do with the coertion used to try to impose uniterally a law that negatively impacts FFIs with no benefits to foreign governments. I don’t think this would change even if the US abolished citizenship based taxation and I think the negative consequence would stay.
Abolishing citizenship based taxation would lessen the impact on America People abroad, but I don’t know if it would solve their banking issues. They would not be afraid of fines or travelling to the US like it’s the case now.
The US method of negociating is wrong. They must stop the threats to try to get what they want.
Leading by example might be a better approach. Start imposing FATCA like measures on their own banks to identify non resident alliens and tax them, or put in place what is needed to report their revenue to their respective governments. Then they’ll be in a better position to negociate. Right now, they’re using threats because they don’t have anything to offer in exchange and to get their way. In the end, it might blow up in their face, when foreign governments and FFIs turn away from US investments and the dollar altogether to limit their risk to the bully approach.
Great points, Chris. FATCA inflicts collateral damage on USP’s abroad from not one but two sources, the bank’s defensive position in reaction to it and through citizenship based taxation. FATCA, the gift that keeps on giving.
USCitizenAbroad –
You say: Other than Phil Hodgen (whose contributions have been enormous, but who has not been a direct contributor to this blog)
Wetware fail! Not true. Take care with those bold assertions.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/07/08/8854-encore/comment-page-1/#comment-32488
BTW
Have others who are not on Linkedin, tried the link that Mark Twain posted above? I am curious if you can see it without being a member of that particular group? It says it is protected.
If not, I can reproduce some of the comments have been made.
On his Red Herring post, I just responded with this…
http://mopsicktaxlaw.blogspot.ca/2013/01/living-with-fatca-uncertainty-what.html
Steven Mopsick wrote in a follow-up comment:
“I have an enormous amount of respect for constitutional scholars and the constitutional FATCA issues being raised in good faith all over the world. My reaction is this is a legal issue which will not be resolved until after many, many years of litigation and controversy.”
I tried to reply, even using my Google account, as follows:
“What wonderful news for legions of constitutional and international taxation lawyers who won’t ever have to go hungry or worry about putting their kids through college.”
and was rebuffed thusly:
COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG ARE RESTRICTED TO TEAM MEMBERS.
Presumably we, the great unwashed, are not team players and no longer worthy of participating in direct discussions with the Lord of Hypocrisy himself.
I’m sorry, but as valuable as Mr. Mopsick’s earlier contributions may have been, his recent behaviour and observations have done nothing to advance the cause of anti-FATCA, anti-citizenship-based taxation warriors. Mr. Mopsick is ultimately a sell-out, pure and simple. He arrived at the proverbial fork in the road and chose the turn doubling-back towards Mordor. While perhaps it’s not my place to judge him, history will.
@ Deckard1138 …. thank you,thank you, well put. I do not believe he ever left Mordor
The problem with America today is that too many mothers realized their dream of having a lawyer for a son.