#americansabroad living in Canada face #IRS tax deadline http://t.co/4K1dMgSSjt – from the media and the #FATCA compliance industry!
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) June 12, 2013
You may want to get over to today’s article in the Toronto Globe and Mail and add your thoughts. I would say it is one more in a long series of weak articles that seems to miss the point(s). Perhaps you can help educate.
It begins with:
The deadline for Americans living in Canada to file a tax return with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service is less than a week away, but not everyone is scrambling to get their paperwork in order.
You can guess the horror that follows!
There is one comment that seems to make some sense:
12:41 AM on June 12, 2013
As per the usual custom with the Globe’s coverage of this issue, it neglects to point out that “Joe” doesn’t have anything to worry about as long as he stays out of the US. CRA will not pursue IRS claims for tax or penalties against a Canadian citizen in Canada. And Canadian courts have so far refused to rule in favour of the few cases the US has tried to bring against people like Joe.
And as far as renouncing his US citizenship — the US will try to insist that Joe pays the piper before they let him go. If his estimated cost for doing that is $50,000 just in accounting fees, plus whatever tax they decide he owes, he should simply give them the middle finger and steer clear of the border.
Why is there no sense of outrage over how the US treats “accidental” Americans like Joe? If we’ll send an Eritrean consul packing because he’s trying to extort from Canadians a 2% diaspora tax, why do we let the US ambassador stay in the country?
Thank you for catching that.
I just heard back from my lawyer. He hasn’t heard of anyone being stopped at the border and asked about their US tax filing status. Were those two renouncers stopped at the border and asked specifically about US taxes, do you know?
Sorry–all that I was told (about two months ago) was that two individuals were stopped at the BC (Blaine?) border because they renounced. I don’t know if they eventually made it through or if they were asked if they renounced because of taxes.
Re my hypothesis, I’m hoping that this wording is better:
“Taking measures to defend oneself in this way, there is the potential for at least one direct negative consequence: there would be one less voice to express the atrocities against us. It may be sauve que peut, but we then become party to allowing the crime to perpetuate itself through our own act of self-preservation; to silence ourselves when we instead should be publicly speaking out against it regardless of the consequences of doing so.”
Thank you for letting me know how you felt about it.