Peter W. Dunn has never filed an FBAR form. The recent refusal by guardians of the temples in India to expose their gold holdings to their government provides an analogy for why he refuses: no government requires an inventory of a person’s assets unless it is preparing eventual seizure. But by common law, a man’s home is his castle.
In early 2010, after I decided to relinquish my US citizenship, I was casually browsing the 1040NR booklet that the IRS sent out to me every year. That is when I first learned about FBAR and its potentially extortionate fines and criminal sentences. I was dumbstruck. While I, as a naive son of the United States born in Chicago to two citizens, had filed my tax returns to the IRS every year, never owing a thing, I had never heard of FBAR. I still have never even looked at an FBAR form. For I realized that I could not fill out one of these forms without being seriously screwed–not just me, but also my wife who is not even an American but a Canadian born on Canadian soil to two Canadian parents.
This is a matter of trust. If I had continued in my naivete about the intentions of government, believing that the United States is largely benevolent, then I suppose I could have just followed the IRS instructions in the 1040NR booklet, to file delinquent forms with a letter explaining why I had failed to file in the past, trusting that the IRS or the Justice Department wouldn’t throw the book at me. But in my anxiety, I decided to investigate whether the IRS would show lenience to those making such a disclosure of non-compliance in years gone by. I stumbled upon Phil Hodgen’s blog and read the voluntary disclosure stories of many Americans abroad who received extortionate disclosure settlements. These stories fully dissuaded me from ever filing an FBAR. I had taken the red pill and no longer believed the virtual world that United States had created in the minds of its people, that it was the freest country in the world. It had become a diseased and ravenous predator, seeking to devour its own citizens abroad.
My rationale for deciding that I could not trust the IRS with the banking information required in the FBAR form was just this: If they threw the book at those who were in an amnesty program, how much more were they going to destroy those outside the program? This OVDP raping and pillaging of US citizens abroad continues to this day. The most recent story that I heard a few days ago was of a disabled Canadian resident whose Canadian-based US lawyer had unscrupulously made her sign documents entering her into the OVDP in 2009, and the settlement fines, which she paid, has destroyed her life savings. Thanks to the IRS, she will now nothing preventing her from becoming a burden to the government of Canada and thus to all Canadian taxpayers. (This is a good reason to pass a law forbidding US lawyers from practicing tax law in Canada–they are spies for the United States and destroyers of the wealth of law-abiding Canadian residents).
After reading Hodgen’s blog, I felt that the injustice was so severe that I wrote an article, in collaboration with Monty Pelerin, for the American Thinker, “When government turns predator“, but I asked Monty to use his pen name alone, not giving me credit. He kindly agreed to protect me. My thinking was that if the Feds knew that I’d written an article explaining the FBAR jihad of the Obama administration, they could charge me of willful violation of the FBAR requirements, which had higher fines and the possibility of criminal indictment. Once, however, the honourable Jim Flaherty announced that Canada would not collect FBAR fines, I realized that my assets were safe from the IRS. I came out in the open with my knowledge of FBAR and later publicly confessed my refusal to ever file an FBAR.
What I don’t really understand is why so many of my fellow Canadians, even Brockers (our affectionate name for regular readers and contributors to this website) have filed FBARs, out of the blue as it were, because many had never even filed their US taxes before the Canadian media made them aware of the IRS’s expectations. (This made the Canadian media an accomplice, or better a collaborator, of Obama’s IRS). In India, the government has recently asked the temples to provide them with an inventory of their gold. The majority of temples have refused, claiming that the Indian people have donated this gold to honour their gods and that the government has no right to it. The Indian assumption is correct. The only reason that any government would require that its citizens provide them with an inventory of assets is in case it decides to seize them. It is the preparation for eventual theft. Thus, English law retained the concept of a “man’s home is his castle”. In principle, the king had no right to enter, inventory or seize the contents of man’s castle, unless there was reasonable cause, i.e., the suspicion that the castle owner had broken a law. This right over one’s castle was enshrined into United States law in the Fourth Amendment.
The guardians of the temples in India believe that their government is desperate and that is why it wants an inventory of the gold assets of the temples. Reason dictates that the United States has begun to insist upon the FBAR law, after many decades of neglect, only because it has fallen into financial morbidity and is therefore desperate to find new sources of revenue.
In July I flew to Alaska in an urgent search for my missing father, and I was not arrested. Now that I think that my father has disappeared forever, I have no further reason to enter the United States again before the FBAR statute of limitations (six years after my relinquishment of US citizenship in 2011, i.e., 2018). So I can openly defy the United States with even greater impunity. Those of you who are less vocal have nothing at all to worry about, provided your assets are in Canada. So this is what I have to say to the United States Federal Government regarding FBAR filing requirements:
[While the common expression begins with a four-letter word beginning with "F", discretion and good manners prevents me from actually writing it here--but as my wife always says to me, "Consider it said!"]