The 14th amendment of the constitution …
The 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution reads as follows:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Citizenship and equal protection
Does the citizenship penalty paid by powerlessness #americansabroad violate the 14th amendment? Strict scrutiny? http://t.co/IjIhctbx1A
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) July 10, 2013
What follows is a quote from Bernard Schneider’s submission to the Ways and Means Committee:
“Generally, U.S. expatriates are treated like U.S. residents and taxed on their worldwide income. However, U.S. expatriates should be compared not to U.S. residents but to nonresident aliens. But for their citizenship or immigration status, U.S. persons abroad would be treated like nonresident aliens, i.e. generally taxed at a flat rate of thirty percent on U.S. source income that is not effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business and at the regular graduated rates on income that is effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business, including on gain from the sale of real property interests in the United States. In addition, net capital gains would not be taxable unless they are fixed or determinable annual periodic income. Needless to say, the foreign source income of nonresident aliens is not taxed by the United States. In most cases expatriates could engage in the same economic activities in the United States as nonresidents without paying the higher taxes for which residents are liable. The difference between the tax imposed on nonresidents and that imposed on expatriates constitutes part of the “citizenship penalty” paid by U.S. persons abroad.”
Note particularly the last sentence that reads:
“The difference between the tax imposed on nonresidents and that imposed on expatriates constitutes part of the “citizenship penalty” paid by U.S. persons abroad.”
I don’t think I have seen this expressed as clearly as in that sentence.
The “Citizenship Penalty”, the 14th Amendment and “Equal Protection”
The “citizenship penalty” deserves consideration. Both US citizens abroad and non-resident aliens are non-residents of the U.S. The fact that the U.S. citizen pays higher taxes, because of U.S. citizenship, is arguably a violation of the “equal protection” clause of the 14th amendment. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that “citizenship classifications” are “suspect classifications” and that they can be upheld only if the government can demonstrate a compelling state interest. Why should US citizens abroad pay a penalty because of their citizenship?
You can read the complete posts and argument here.
The implications of the words “Are citizens of the United States …”
#Afroyim, 14th amendment and the forcible destruction of citizenship for #americansabroad http://t.co/Dc3hxqr6mY
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) July 10, 2013
Justice Black’s closing directive was:
Citizenship is no light trifle 268*268 to be jeopardized any moment Congress decides to do so under the name of one of its general or implied grants of power. In some instances, loss of citizenship can mean that a man is left without the protection of citizenship in any country in the world—as a man without a country. Citizenship in this Nation is a part of a co-operative affair. Its citizenry is the country and the country is its citizenry. The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.
The U.S. Government, U.S. citizens abroad and the forcible destruction of their right to RETAIN U.S. citizenship
U.S. citizens abroad are living under siege. A wonderful express of this comes from Jackie Bugnion in her submission to the House Ways and Means Committee on Tax Reform. She said:
In 1776, the United States declared independence because the mother country on the other side of the ocean was imposing taxes on the colonies for the benefit of England. Resentment started when Britain tried to enforce the Navigation Act after 1763. Resentment increased with the Stamp Act in 1765, a way for Britain to tax the colonies. The British Tea Act of 1773 led to the Tea Party and we all know the outcome – the American Revolution and independence crying out “no taxation without representation”.
Today, the estimated 7 million Americans resident abroad, of whom the majority are long-term overseas residents in high tax OECD countries, face a comparable situation. Their representation in Congress is non-existent in reality. Americans abroad amount to only 1 to 2% of the votes in any particular state; Congressmen and Senators have ignored their tax issues. The unjustified myth that Americans abroad are wealthy and disloyal restricts a rational approach to the problems because of political image issues.
Citizenship-based taxation (CBT) has existed ever since the federal income tax was adopted. Despite CBT being an anomaly involving double taxation, taxation of phantom gains and explicit tax code discrimination, it was grudgingly tolerated by Americans abroad because it was essentially voluntary, most often involved little tax or no U.S. tax liability and basically was not enforced. In particular, the FBAR filing requirement was so obscure that even the big four accounting firms were not aware of the filing obligation dating from 1970 and failed to inform Americans abroad of the need to file the FBAR.
Since 2001, a series of legislative events have radically changed the situation:
In 2001, the Patriot Act made anything foreign suspect, including Americans residing overseas.
In 2004, Congress, under the Jobs Act, drastically increased the FBAR civil and criminal penalties to confiscatory levels, creating a disguised form of taxation on assets held overseas.
In 2006 administration of the FBAR reports was transferred to the IRS for enforcement.
In 2006 the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act (TIPRA) extended the Bush tax cuts and included a compensatory revenue raising provision that reduced the benefit of the foreign earned income exclusion, limited the foreign housing allowance and pushed Americans overseas into higher tax brackets, thereby increasing U.S. tax liabilities for many Americans abroad.
In 2008 the law relating to renunciation of U.S. citizenship was revised under Section 877A and introduced an Exit Tax on wealthy individuals (defined as “covered”). The law also provided that Americans who inherit from estates of former “covered” U.S. citizens are subject to U.S.
inheritance tax with no exclusion. This outrageous discriminatory provision aims to discourage renunciation of citizenship, but in fact penalizes children of former U.S. citizens for an act they did not commit. In practice, it encourages the children to also renounce their U.S. citizenship. In 2009 the IRS launched its initiative against tax evasion linked to foreign assets through the Overseas Voluntary Disclosure Programs and a threatening public relations campaign. While it justifiably targeted U.S. resident tax evaders, it simultaneously trapped Americans abroad who necessarily have foreign assets. The IRS’s one size fits all policy and bait and switch tactics led to abuses of Americans abroad which inspired sharp criticism from the National Taxpayer Advocate.
In 2010 FATCA was slipped into the HIRE bill with no debate in Congress and no cost/benefit
analysis. FATCA aims to provide the door that closes the fiscal trap by requiring foreign financial institutions to report to the IRS on assets held overseas by U.S. persons. It effectively cuts off many Americans from foreign financial institutions which find it too onerous to maintain American clients. FATCA creates a barrier to free movement of capital and people. In 2012 S.3457 proposed to grant the IRS the authority to have a U.S. passport cancelled or not issued if the IRS determined that the individual owed $50,000 or more U.S. tax.
In 2012 the Ex-patriot Act, S.3205, proposed to deny any “covered” expatriate re-entry into the United States, with retroactive effect for ten years prior to enactment of the law. The Reed
Amendment of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act already
allows the United States to deny entry of former citizens into the United States. In 2013, S.268 was introduced; it compounds difficulties created by FATCA.
In 2013 the Senate Finance Committee included in its tax reform recommendations a provision which would grant the IRS authority to cancel a U.S. passport for tax collection purposes.
This stream of legislation and proposals categorizes Americans abroad as suspected criminals seeking to escape U.S. taxes. Congress has outdone George III and has turned the United States into a fiscal prison, including legislation which is deemed anti-constitutional under the Fifth Amendment1 and is contrary to Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.2
The foundation of the U.S. fiscal prison is citizenship-based taxation. Americans working and living abroad carry a ball and chain of dual taxation throughout their entire lives up to and including death.Americans abroad already pay taxes in the country where they reside and receive governmental services.
The additional U.S. tax obligation creates inevitable incompatibilities and discrimination and even requires Americans abroad to break foreign exchange control laws to pay U.S. taxes.
A revolution among long-term overseas residents is now underway. Five years ago, Americans abroad never talked about renunciation of citizenship. Today, it is a common topic in the press and among the community abroad. For more and more individuals, renunciation is the only solution to an intolerable situation created by the U.S. imposing its laws beyond its borders. The United States is literally destroying the community of Americans abroad, which plays an essential role in representing U.S. interests and goodwill overseas. The United States is shooting itself in the foot.
While the absolute number of renunciations, currently around 2,000 a year, is insignificant compared to the average annual U.S. citizenship naturalizations of 680,000, renunciations have multiplied seven times over the last four years. So far we have seen only the tip of the iceberg if CBT remains in force.
Today’s situation leads to serious hidden prejudice for the United States. U.S. exports are far below where they should to be because citizenship-based discourages U.S. companies from deploying U.S. citizens overseas to sell U.S. products; the law makes them too expensive. U.S. tax law and FATCA create insurmountable barriers for small and medium-sized companies to establish beachheads abroad to develop exports. The loss represents millions of U.S. jobs, hundreds of billions of dollars of exports, billions of dollars of U.S. tax revenue, and an unsustainable trade and budget deficit. Americans married to a foreign spouse, who represent about a third of the Americans resident abroad, now hesitate to register their children born abroad with the U.S. Embassy. The hot thing among young adults in their twenties is to renounce U.S. citizenship; they are aware of the impossible web of U.S. regulations that restrict job opportunities and personal freedom. Pushing away the young generation of Americans abroad is an immense loss to the United States. In prior generations, many highly educated multi-lingual American children returned to the United States, founded companies and created jobs in the U.S.
Adopting RBT will stop this revolution immediately. RBT law needs to be drafted in the spirit to allow free movement of individuals to leave and return to the United States, to reinforce the competitiveness of Americans and the United States overseas, to provide a simple, non-penalizing transition to RBT for the community of Americans already overseas, to ensure that Americans abroad are not subject to FATCA and FBAR, to adapt existing bilateral tax treaties and enter into new tax treaties so that withholding tax rates on U.S. source income are reasonable and to ensure that Americans abroad who have the majority of their assets in the United States (retirement funds, pension funds, real estate) are not disadvantaged under RBT with regard to either income or estate taxes.
I thank you for the opportunity to comment and hold high hopes that your bi-partisan efforts will lead to the constructive tax reform so necessary for Americans residing abroad.
Sincerely yours,
Jacqueline BugnionTo quote again:
The United States is literally destroying the community of Americans abroad, which plays an essential role in representing U.S. interests and goodwill overseas. The United States is shooting itself in the foot.
While the absolute number of renunciations, currently around 2,000 a year, is insignificant compared to the average annual U.S. citizenship naturalizations of 680,000, renunciations have multiplied seven times over the last four years. So far we have seen only the tip of the iceberg if CBT remains in force.
The forcible destruction of U.S. citizenship
The decision of Justice Black in Afroyim v. Rusk states that the forcible destruction of U.S. citizenship is unconstitutional. Jackie Bugnion’s “plea” to the Ways and Means Committee is as clear a statement of the destruction of U.S. citizenship that there could be.
You can read the complete post and argument here.
An added reason to switch to RBT
It would take years to get this issue before the Supreme Court. That said, I believe that certain aspects of “so called” citizenship-based taxation may be in violation of the 14th amendment. It is possible that this could, influence the consideration of whether to switch to RBT.
@Neill, have you asked your lawyer how many ODVI cases he handled?
I am surprised that he thinks the IRS will just waive the in lieu of penalty within OVDI.
Please let us know when that happens. Experience of people like you are important to help those inside the program (and outside) to make decisions regarding their case.
All the best.
Pingback: Tax compliant #americansbroad with mutual funds should renounce before becoming a covered #expats | U.S. Persons Abroad - Members of a Unique Tax, Form and Penalty Club
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society
Numerous questions for me.
I plan to stay in the US. My children are US citizens. I came here for a job that turned out great and I have done very well here.
Yes we have sold all our PFIC’s in 2010 and 11. Doing the default calculation (well a rough back of the envelope calc) shows to be likely worse but not drastically worse than the modified MTM calc. The problem is the very high marginal tax rates on the gains. The costs of getting this done for taxes would likely be high as well.
Our PFICs didn’t generate much in the way of dividends. They just grew in value since they accumulate.
My lawyer handles a vey large number of these cases.
I am looking at 75k 27.5% penalty but opt out penalty could be something like $120k. An agent looking at my tax returns is going to know I can pay this easily. The agent will see considerable sophistication in my portfolio in my self prepared tax returns. There is no way I am going to bow and scrape to these people like I see in the submissions that have been posted.
I have a minnow prior life but you can’t use that to describe my current position.
This is the tax Obama wants people like me to pay. They are going to take it.
@Neill: This is the tax Obama wants people like me to pay. They are going to take it.
At stake is legitimate post-tax money that dates from well before you moved to the US and which has no US connection whatsoever. For the US to take it now is confiscation, not tax. Fight them.
Just Me and NTLisa, do you think that paying for a limited consult with someone like Jack Townsend (or ?) would be another option that you might recommend to Neil to think about in his situation?
Neil, I am remembering that Just Me strategically got a consultation with a very knowledgeable and skilled US tax lawyer only at the most significant junctures in his decision making process in the 2009 OVD ordeal – one of which was whether to opt-out, or to accept the penalty offer the IRS put forward after intervention by the Taxpayer Advocate. Things have changed in many ways since that OVD, and also since September 2011. They continue to change behind the scenes, and we are not privy to any of it except what leaks out. Some IRS agents are also not aware of this – it keeps changing. The situation is in flux. Would it be worth it – though expensive, to get a limited second opinion consult – just on the one particular issue – like the current climate in OVDI, and the likelihood that your lawyer is correct in thinking that there is a good chance that the “…..IRS will just waive the in lieu of penalty within OVDI”? If I remember correctly – Just Me consulted someone like Jack Townsend (?), who has been so very helpful on his blog, and who is very obviously not trolling for clients, and who has demonstrated that in his comments – including to ij, Not that Lisa, Sally and Moby. It would be expensive, but you could limit it to an hour or two, perhaps, and so know better what exactly you were paying for the consult.
Just Me, and Not that Lisa, does that sound like another practical possibility in this scenario – particularly if Neil thoroughly reviewed the opt out materials that NTLisa has just recently shared as an example of an effective reasonable cause argument in general, and the very helpful relevant and supporting IRM section references? A major benefit is that as the TAS was involved in that case, it is an example of how well crafted and written a submission like that can be. Reading and re-reading it and the IRM sections would mean that you would better understand also what any second opinion might be based on regarding making a reasonable cause argument on opt out – and what you might face outside of OVD.
It is hard to see the way forward to paying any more in this than your current lawyer’s fees, and the IRS penalty – whatever it might be, but in a way, it also might be that to pay for a second opinion on a limited issue or two might be cost effective in relief from extortionate IRS penalties, or to give you additional peace of mind (whatever you chose afterwards) that you did all you could to know that your final decision was the best you could see clear to making without a crystal ball.
@Not That Lisa,
Just wanted to say thank you again for sharing the research, writing and clarity of your submissions as an example to inspire others reading here. That is such a boon to all readers who need to think about how to make their reasonable cause and non-willful arguments – and refer to relevant sections of the IRM. Thanks to you and Just Me, and Moby and ij and Sally, and others who have shared here – whether on opt out, or settlement, or who are still in the process, have helped countless people you’ll never even know about. It also is an interesting resource for those who like Neil, will already have US tax lawyers crafting such submissions – as it serves as a basis of comparison, and a foundational example.
Watcher, They are thieves and sucking from the economies of other countries. They have no shame.
I agree with badger, Not That Lisa — thanks for all the priceless information the lot of you have contributed regarding your OVDI / opt out experiences. You have helped so many!
@Watcher.
It’s all confiscation. I get people who hear me rant how evil the IRS is. How they just want to take your money now. They basically tell me I have a tin foil hat on. Then I lead them through the informational 3520 and tell them how the IRS takes 20% of your money even if no taxes are due. Or the FBAR rules with 10k / account / year or the FATCA forms. People are stunned that such things exist. They must still not believe me at some level since they haven’t checked 3520 themselves etc.
Neill and Watcher.
That is just what we’re up against — others cannot conceive of the things that are happening in the name of the US IRS. That we are looked upon as fools for what we say to warn others is a thousand lashes.
@Neill,
I hear you. A few years ago I was in a situation that resembles yours in some ways. I saw what was coming down the pike — HEART in my case — and simply left the US. I saw no justification at all for the US taking a large chunk of my retirement savings, with retroactive effect. At the time friends and colleagues saw this as an over-reaction. Perhaps still do. Now, though, I see how things might have turned out had I not done so.
I suppose I should feel relieved that I got out when I did, and congratulate myself on my previous foresight. I don’t feel that way, though. What I feel instead is profoundly depressed that what I feared might happen to others, but hoped might not, is happening to you. I am really sorry you have to deal with all of this.
For what it’s worth, I moved my work from the US to the UK relatively seamlessly. I still do the precise same job as before, for the same multinational employer, but now out from under the jackboot heel of the US government. Because of bone-headed policies like HEART (and PFIC, and FBAR, and now FATCA) the US lost two highly qualified professional workers, and two decently sized investment portfolios to boot. My family simply turned in our green cards and left. A bullet dodged but no other particular gain to us. A definite loss to the US, though.
@Watcher,
I may know you. Your story is the same as another guy I worked with. He is who I got the idea that the exit tax violates the tax treaty from. I worked for the big G then.
For me I was working in the states and didn’t really want to exit. I feel it’s like a trap now but I don’t really want to leave. I only came for the job and had no real need to leave my home country. Like most of the US abroad they probably did it because all of a sudden there was an opportunity and you thought you might think about it for the rest of your life if you didn’t try the adventure.
@badger, @calgary411 – Thanks for the kind words. I am going to refrain from offering any opinions on legal advice to anyone as I obviously did not choose well for myself. I will admit to a having a certain disdain for lawyers that colors my view and therefore, I prefer to limit my focus to discussions of the facts of my experience.
@Not That Lisa, Just Me, ij and others, yes, thank you.
Bagder is spot on.
@Neill, I feel it’s like a trap now but I don’t really want to leave.
I felt likewise. Really. But five years after I bit the bullet I am genuinely happier than I was in the US. The creeping feeling of permanently fighting a kafkaesque bureaucracy run completely amok has mostly gone. But also — and unfortunately for you — I see that I made the right choice.
I take no pleasure in watching the US rot from within and being forced to create and then justify ever more extreme policies to stop the productive and successful from leaving, but it is at least a bit more comfortable to be watching it from a foreign shore. In every sense, the US’s loss is other countries’ gain. And I live in one of the other countries.
@Neill
Five thoughts:
1. Agree completely with Watcher at 11:57. This is completely about confiscation of your assets. Frankly, I think you have a moral duty to fight. Obama is “going to take it” only if you let him.
2. After two days of reading your comments, I am convinced that you are too focused on penalties. Focus on establishing “reasonable cause” which will mean zero penalties. This is of course part of the fight described in point 1.
3. Hate to sound like a broken record but you need a separate and independent calculation of the PFIC situation (and everything else).
4. I think you should take Badger’s suggestion very seriously. Looking at your comments in their totality, I think you need a second legal opinion and perhaps a third opinion.
5. That second opinion should start from the presumption of your innocence and NOT from the OVDI presumption of your guilt. Yesterday you quoted FAQ 17 to justify your being in OVDI. FAQ 17 needs to be interpreted in the context of the overall purpose of OVDI which is described in FAQ 2.
FAQ 2 asks the question:
Q. “What is the objective of this initiative?”
A. “The objective remains the same as the 2009 OVDP – to bring taxpayers that have used undisclosed foreign accounts and undisclosed foreign entities to avoid or evade tax into compliance with United States tax laws.”
I would suggest that the words “have used” suggest the purpose of the undisclosed accounts or entities was to avoid or evade taxes. Note this does NOT say: “owe tax by virtue of having undisclosed foreign accounts and entities”
irs.gov/Businesses/International-Businesses/2011-Offshore-Voluntary-Disclosure-Initiative-Frequently-Asked-Questions-and-Answers
FAQ 17 is to be read in the context of the overall purpose of the program. Everything you have said strongly suggests that you are NOT the kind of person this was intended for. You probably should not have entered OVDI and you could well be a strong candidate for an “opt out” where you can argue “reasonable cause” and get zero penalties.
An objective reevaluation of our situation could save you a lot of money. Do NOT let the Obama’s “Thug Government” confiscate your assets!
@USCitizenAbroad
I appreciate what your saying and I will think about it. A number of people here have been assuming I haven’t read stuff they point me to but I have.
There are multiple things going on. First I am already in the hole by a great deal of money by normal peoples standards. Maybe $10k CPA fees, $20k lawyer fees, $36k tax + penalties + interest and of course months of my life I will never get back. Not That Lisa spent I think she said $40k and a huge amount of time to mount her defense. Time is worth money and I can earn a lot if I don’t spend the time crafting a ‘term paper’. We all know people who will spend $3k to fight a speeding ticket. Even if you didn’t think you were speeding there is still the lower cost option of paying the fine.
My situation is my taxes are incredibly complex even before PFIC. They are double so with it. Getting a second opinion would cost me a lot maybe and I don’t think it would be fair to get one under the assumption that I wouldn’t use their service but use the free review.
I don’t think I stand much of a chance of getting no penalties. My tax returns show a guy using options, tax loss harvesting, IRA to Roth IRA conversions, After tax 401k to Roth 401k conversions, deferred compensation. municipal bonds and loads of other stuff. There are going to see a guy who knows a lot about US tax law and they won’t believe I didn’t know about PFIC (of course nobody does because it’s so obscure and of course it affects so many). My lawyer thinks there are things I have done that don’t look squeaky clean even if they are.
A co worker went to another firm because he suspected his life insurance was a PFIC. I explained to him what he needed to prove to escape this. This other firm wanted to go forward by giving all his 30 years of gains to the IRS. They thought the IRS might just settle for all the gains and leave him alone. In the end he did what I said and he was tax exempt until withdraw.
@Neill
You know your facts better than anyone ever will. So, you should do what you believe is best. I certainly agree with your factoring the time aspect into this.
These kinds of decisions are a combination of law, tax, emotions and time. It seems to me that what is most important here is that it is your DECISION and not your REACTION.
@USCitizenAbroad, I do not believe that the ACLU shares your opinion on the constitutionality of US citizenship-based taxation penalties on US persons abroad.
Two weeks ago I asked the ACLU, through my home state of Washington where I am a voter, to help me and seven million US citizens abroad (ACLU prefers large numbers) contest the Reed and the IRS 8854 covered expatriate tax, which I argued contradicted the US constitution. Today’s response:
“Dear Mr. IRS Compliant Forever,
Thank you for contacting the ACLU of Washington regarding your concerns about the tax penalty upon U.S. citizens residing abroad.
We regret that the ACLU cannot advise or assist you in this matter. The ACLU is a private non-profit organization that seeks to protect individual liberties, particularly those rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. The ACLU is supported solely by membership dues and private donations. Because our resources are limited, we are unable to participate in every case that raises a civil liberties issue, or to act as a general legal service provider.
Please understand that our inability to assist with this issue is not a judgment on the merits of the matter, but simply a reflection of the ACLU’s limited resources and multiple priorities.
While we regret our inability to assist you, we wish you the best in your efforts.
Legal Intake Department
ACLU of Washington
http://www.aclu-wa.org
Join Our E-Mail Activist Network”
[Note that the terms “individual liberties” and “US Constitution” are included in this negative response.]
Discriminated against by the ACLU. Too bad they didn’t say WHY we don’t merit the allocation of funds.
I got an almost identical response to the ACLU one from Liberty in the UK when I asked them about the state sponsored discrimination the UK was going to carry out against US persons in the UK when they disapplied their data protection and data privacy rights that every other UK resident had. They did, however, more specifically say that they felt FATCA was a tax issue and they had no expertise in tax.
@bubblebustin; re, “Discriminated against by the ACLU. Too bad they didn’t say WHY we don’t merit the allocation of funds.
I agree. And if they had said more, or at least have asked for more information it would stop me from thinking that like the rest of the US, they just don’t see those who live outside the US as of any concern – even when the injustice we are fighting is at the direct hands of the US government – injuries it asserts as it’s purview to inflict on us – specifically based on our defined status as ‘US citizens’ and ‘US taxable persons’. However, many of those affected – as Chris and others rightfully remind us – are US residents, and new immigrants with pre-existing homeland accounts, and it very much looks as if the US has deliberately and willfully chosen to continue to let them fall into the FBAR trap and FATCA sinkhole – because it continues to choose NOT to preventively educate for ‘compliance’ – but to grab onto the opportunity to assess penalties levied on assets that historically pre-dated any US connection as well as any US tax liability.
The ACLU perhaps does not see how new immigrants to the US, and new citizens can look forward to being destroyed financially at the hands of the IRS and Treasury, who have NO incentive to help them comply, or to give them notice of the convoluted BSA law, so that they can dissolve or reconfigure their homeland assets BEFORE they enter the US and become subject to the FBAR ‘n FATCA fundraiser.
It apparently has no time, incentive or funds to consider their civil rights, or ours.
New immigrants join us living outside the US as being of no concern to homeland US residents – except and until we are a source of funds to tap.
@IRSCompliant
Re:
“@USCitizenAbroad, I do not believe that the ACLU shares your opinion on the constitutionality of US citizenship-based taxation penalties on US persons abroad.”
I don’t read it that way. They just don’t want to get involved. US citizens abroad are not deserving of recognition or assistance. Haven’t you heard?
You are nothing but a tax cheat.
I doubt they even took the time to understand the argument.
USCitizenAbroad –
I agree. The American Civil Liberties Union is all too happy to stand its ground and to stick its exceptional head in the sand.
@USCitizenAbroad and @usxcanada, I agree with you both but wonder, if ACLU would/could speak honestly to us, what it really thinks about the constitutionality of the citizenship penalties. We will never know.
I had actually expected a different negative response based on info in the website: “Sorry, but you live out of state and we do not provide any assistance outside of Washington.”
The fact that the response did not explicitly say this, MIGHT (but not necessarily) mean that ACLU accepted my argument that as a voter in Washington state (even though I reside elsewhere), I did have some rights per ACLU. —Or perhaps ACLU did not want to come right out and say that I have no rights (this I would pursue).
In the end it made no difference.