For a country which has a history of resisting American imperialism, i.e., banning the U.S Nuclear powered Navy from its ports, times have changed.
Today, New Zealand is moving steadily by stealth towards passive acceptance of a FATCA IGA. It gets no media coverage, and has no visible, on the ground, opposition. Nothing concerning the detrimental impacts of FATCA has broken out in public media, and I think it is fair to say, that Kiwis generally have no idea what is happening (not withstanding Osgood, Moby and Pukekonz comments on IBS).
The only thing that gets active and vocal resistance in New Zealand is the Trans Pacific Pact, which is rightfully seen as “not about ‘free trade’, but about corporations subverting national sovereignty!” So, Corporations subversion of NZ sovereignty is a concern, but the U.S. Government doing it via FATCA gets not a mention.
The other issue that incites Kiwi passions, is the KimDotcom illegal spying drama. If you are not familiar with that story, here are 10 pages of search results you can explore. These two issues (KimDotcom and TPP) should cultivate fertile ground for FATCA resistance, but no connection has been made in any media article I have seen.
A while back, the IRD put up notice of FATCA requirements on its website without fanfare. We posted about it here. However, you will be hard pressed to find any media coverage of FATCA. You can do a FATCA search on the New Zealand Herald and come up with nothing. Search on Stuff.co.nz. Only two articles appear, and the last was in May 2012.
So safe to say, that Kiwis are as uninformed about FATCA as homeland Americans.
That said there has been some correspondence via a dual citizen I know, who has been providing input and asking question of the IRD working group who were charged with the task of negotiating with US Treasury the terms of their surrender to the IGA.
Below (with his permission) is the latest response that show the IRD bureaucracy mindset and the frustration of the author. It is followed by the list of questions he originally posed along with the response he has been given:
He writes:
“I am still in correspondence with Todd McClay, the Minister of Revenue. After he replied to my original letter describing NZ Citizens (deemed US persons) as “US taxpayers habitually resident in New Zealand“, I wrote a lengthy reply stating that was an insult to NZ citizens etc. I also explained the ways in which taxes will be levied (Capital Gains, Self Employment tax, PFIC, Obamacare etc.).
I just received a response and …… more of the same. Here are the relevant paragraphs:
“The remainder of your letter questions whether New Zealand should be entering into an IGA and raises specific concerns regarding how the US tax code will impact on US taxpayers living abroad (including in New Zealand). As I have mentioned previously, an IGA will not alter the tax obligations of US taxpayers. However, an IGA will significantly reduce the compliance costs that New Zealand businesses would otherwise have to incur through the FATCA legislation taking effect. It will also clarify exemptions from FATCA reporting.
Legislation enabling New Zealand financial institutions to comply with their IGA obligations is scheduled to be introduced to Parliament prior to FATCA obligations taking effect. As an interested member of the public, you are welcome to contribute to the select committee process for that bill so that your views are considered by the committee”
So, it’s fairly obvious where this is going here. His continued classification of New Zealand citizens as “US taxpayers habitually resident in New Zealand” makes me very angry, but I may have reached the point of giving up with this guy.”
My Comment:
If there is going to be any resistance to a pro-forma acceptance of FATCA IGA legislation, some of the estimated 60,000 U.S. Persons living in New Zealand will have to wake up from their slumber. Right now, I don’t see any public activism about to break out in New Zealand. There is no plan to raise awareness or slow up the acceptance of what should be unacceptable. The same can be said for Australia. The majority of NZ banks are Australian owned, and while they hated FATCA when passed, they have lobbied hard for the IGA. What they want, they seem to get.
If anyone has any additional insights into any resistance to FATCA in the Pacific, please add your insights here. On the hopeful front, I have not heard that Pitcairn Islands or New Caledonia are rushing to sign a FATCA IGA but as their French or English masters decide, so they will go. I wonder what Fiji, Solomons, Vanuatu, Tonga, Niue and the Cook Islands are doing? How do they cope with these regulations and compliance?
Now for the previous communication.
Here is the correspondence and questions this Kiwi has raised which are good ones for anyone to use to ask any government official in any country contemplating signing a FATCA IGA:
In an email of 30 July 2013, he asked Inland Revenue the following questions:
1. How does the proposed FATCA legislation plan to circumvent the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993, which forbids discrimination on grounds of National Origin, including citizenship?
2. Has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted on the implications of passing FATCA legislation into New Zealand law?
3. What is the estimated cost of implementing the FATCA legislation to the New Zealand Taxpayer?
4. What benefit will New Zealand receive in return?
In a followup email of 5 August 2013, he asked the following 21 questions, which expand on the four questions above:
1. Has New Zealand sought the advice of legal experts on the potential conflicts of the proposed IGA with the New Zealand laws referred to above?
2. If so, what has their response been?
3. If such consultation has not occurred, does New Zealand plan to seek such advice prior to the signing of any IGA?
4. Has the Human Rights Commission been notified of the intent to introduce legislation that will conflict with the New Zealand laws referred to above?
5. If so, what has their response been?
6. Has the Privacy Commissioner, or any other legal authority, been consulted on potential conflicts of the proposed IGA with that section of the Bill of Rights and other provisions contained within the Privacy Act?
7, If so, what have their responses been?
8. If such consultation has not occurred, does New Zealand plan to seek such advice prior to the signing of any IGA?
9. Has New Zealand considered the safety and security aspects of such a database falling into the wrong hands, and the possible effects on those New Zealand citizens identified as ‘American”?
10. How can New Zealand guarantee the protection of this information once it has been transmitted outside of its control?
11. Does New Zealand realise that the data collected and sent to the IRS may be shared with other US government agencies for purposes unrelated to taxation, with no further consultation or agreement?
12. If so, is it considered acceptable to expose the personal and financial data of New Zealand citizens in such an unconstrained manner?
13. What is the estimated cost of implementing the FATCA legislation to the New Zealand Taxpayer?
14. What financial benefit will New Zealand receive in return?
15. Is New Zealand aware that the US Treasury has no authority to provide reciprocal reporting?
16. Is New Zealand aware that the IGA is not a treaty or a treaty amendment subject to approval by the US Congress?
17. Does New Zealand plan to sign the IGA in the absence of firm legislation from the US providing the promised reciprocity?
18. Has an estimate of the revenue that would be raised by such reporting been performed? If so, what are the estimates?
19. Is New Zealand aware of the potential taxes, fines and penalties that may be levied on New Zealand citizens (and therefore the NZ Treasury) as a result of the US “diaspora tax” which will be enforced using FATCA? If so, have these costs and the effect on the persons involved been factored into the equation?
20. Will New Zealand inform the US and the New Zealand public that it will not enforce the collection of taxes and FBAR penalties on New Zealand citizens, in the same manner that Canada has done?
21. As part of the negotiation, has New Zealand considered requesting a streamlined renunciation process, free of the fear of penalties or exit taxes, for New Zealand citizens who wish to formally renounce their unwanted US citizenship.
Inland Revenue is treating your questions as a request for information under section 12 of the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA).
Here was the IRD Response which lead to the final email answer which was posted at the beginning of this post.
Given that your 21 specific questions appear to build on the first four more general questions, I will respond by answering your specific questions. This is on the understanding that my responses will also adequately cover the issues raised in the initial four questions.
Where a single response can cover a number of questions, I have grouped your questions to accommodate this.
Where information is being withheld, the reasons for doing so are stated.
Legal advice
Regarding questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Response:
Any documents related to Inland Revenue’s risk analysis of FATCA data security are being withheld under section 9(2)(f)(iv) of the OIA on the basis that internal systems to receive, accommodate and transmit FATCA data have yet to be fully developed. The issues are therefore still under active consideration by officials and Ministers.
However, any exchange of information with the United States pursuant to an IGA would take place under Article 25 of the Convention between New Zealand and the United States of America for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income (referred to as the double tax convention or DTC), as amended in the 2008 protocol. Article 25(2) provides:
“Any information received under this Article by a Contracting State shall be treated as secret in the same manner as information obtained under the domestic laws of that State and shall be disclosed only to persons or authorities (including courts and administrative bodies) involved in the assessment, collection, or administration of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, or the determination of appeals in relation to, the taxes referred to above, or the oversight of such functions. Such persons or authorities shall use the information only for such purposes. They may disclose the information in public court proceedings or in judicial decisions. ” [Emphasis added by IRD]
Implementation costs
Regarding question 13. What is the estimated cost of implementing the FATCA legislation to the New Zealand Taxpayer?
Response:
Documents related to implementation costs of FATCA-enabling legislation (and any IGA) are being withheld under section 9(2)(f)(iv) of the OIA on the basis that work is ongoing. The issues are therefore still under active consideration by officials and Ministers.
Financial Benefit
Regarding question 14. What financial benefit will New Zealand receive in return?
Response:
Inland Revenue considers that it is not possible to accurately predict the financial benefit of entering into an IGA. A high-level cost/benefit analysis was undertaken as part of obtaining Cabinet approval to enter into IGA negotiations. The relevant parts of this Cabinet paper are publically available on the Treasury website www.treasury.govt.nz, at Publications > Information Releases > Budget Information > Budget 2013 > Other Papers Votes I to R > Revenue > 4 October 2012, Cabinet Paper, Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).
Because this paper is already publicly available, I am refusing this part of your request under section 18(d) of the OIA.
Reciprocity
Regarding questions 15-17 Is New Zealand aware that the US Treasury has no authority to provide reciprocal reporting? Is New Zealand aware that the IGA is not a treaty or a treaty amendment subject to approval by the US Congress? Does New Zealand plan to sign the IGA in the absence of firm legislation from the US providing the promised reciprocity?
Response:
These questions relate to the internal implementation of FATCA and any IGA by the United States. Inland Revenue is proceeding on the basis that the IGA will be a “treaty” and does not consider it appropriate to question the sovereign right of the United States to enter into and implement international agreements. International agreements are negotiated on a good-faith basis on the assumption that the parties will be able to implement their terms. We do not hold any documents that address these questions. This part of the request is thus refused under section 18(e) of the OIA, as such documents do not exist.
Revenue Raised
Regarding question 18. Has an estimate of the revenue that would be raised by such reporting been performed? If so, what are the estimates?
Response:
Please see my response to question 14.
United States taxes
Regarding question 19. Is New Zealand aware of the potential taxes, fines and penalties that may be levied on New Zealand citizens (and therefore the NZ Treasury) as a result of the US “diaspora tax” which will be enforced using FATCA? If so, have these costs and the effect on the persons involved been factored into the equation?
Response:
Other than the high-level cost/benefit analysis set out in the Cabinet paper referred to above, we do not hold any documents that address this question. This part of the request is thus refused under section 18(e) of the OIA, as such documents do not exist.
New Zealand respects the United States’ sovereign right to impose taxes in the manner it best sees fit.
Inland Revenue considers it important to note that FATCA and any IGA will not alter existing taxing rights. The DTC with the United States attempts to prevent double taxation on income and, as noted above, already provides for the exchange of information.
Enforcement of Penalties
Regarding question 20. Will New Zealand inform the US and the New Zealand public that it will not enforce the collection of taxes and FBAR penalties on New Zealand citizens, in the same manner that Canada has done?
Response:
The ability or otherwise of Inland Revenue to collect taxes on another country’s behalf will depend on the wording of agreements reached between countries. Information related to IGA negotiations with the United States is being withheld under section 6(a) of the OIA on the basis that its release would be likely to prejudice the international relations of the New Zealand Government. <b>Inland Revenue notes that the United States DTC does not contain a general “assistance in the collection of taxes” article.</b> However, the actual effect of the DTC, including whether the DTC is superseded by other arrangements, is a legal question. <b>The Government’s strategy for addressing the [superseding] question you have raised is currently being considered by officials.</b> Therefore, any documents detailing the nature of these discussions are being withheld under section 9(2)(f)(iv) of the OIA.21.
<b>As part of the negotiation, has New Zealand considered requesting a streamlined renunciation process, free of the fear of penalties or exit taxes, for New Zealand citizens who wish to formally renounce their unwanted US citizenship.</b>
Inland Revenue considers that the renunciation of United States citizenship is a matter solely for the United States to determine. We do not hold any documents that address this question. This part of the request is thus refused under section 18(e) of the OIA, as such documents do not exist.
[emphasis added by Just Me]
Concluding comments
Inland Revenue anticipates that some of the documents that are currently being withheld may no longer be subject to the relevant OIA provisions if legislation giving effect to any IGA is enacted. As part of the legislative process, the lead agency (in this case, Inland Revenue) is generally required to produce a regulatory impact statement setting out why the legislative solution suggested is preferable. It is also expected that any such legislation will be subject to review by a select committee that will be open to public submissions.
Review
If you do not accept our decision on the information being withheld, you may make a complaint to the Ombudsman and ask that this decision be investigated and reviewed. The Office of the Ombudsman can be contacted at PO Box 10152, The Terrace, Wellington 6140, or via its website, www.ombudsnnen.parliament.nz.
Alternatively, you may have the decision reviewed by a review officer who reports directly to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. Choosing the internal right of review does not preclude you from subsequently seeking a review by the Ombudsman, should you be dissatisfied with the department’s internal review. To request an internal review, please write to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, PO Box 2198, Wellington 6140, setting out the details of your complaint.
So in addition to being considered “a tax evader”, I could also be considered a “US taxpayer habitually resident in Canada!?!?!?” Because that is where it seems this is going.
The only reason I am a “US taxpayer” is because I was born within the borders of that clusterf**k of a country! My parents were Canadians living there on a work visa!! I am a Canadian taxpayer habitually resident in Canada!!!
So NZ is throwing common folk with the unfortunate affliction of American citizenship under the bus then? I guess Canada will be coming along next.
I guess I might as well just tattoo my Social Security Number on my forearm so everyone knows I am pariah, because you couldn’t tell I am a “US taxpayer habitually resident in Canada” just by looking at me. I mean, I’m a nice guy, I might as well make it easy for the FATCA Gestapo.
Well I won’t be a citizen of the US soon (appt. is in mid nov.), and this news makes me even more confident ditching the US is the best decision I could possibly make. As far as NZ, we can only hope Key and National get the boot soon before they turn us into a corporate run mini-USA. Stop the insanity…
The story of FATCA needs to break out in New Zealand. Since the NZ MSM won’t touch it then what about the alternative media? Vinny Eastwood in Auckland reaches both sides of the Pacific with his American Freedom Radio podcasts. Would it be worthwhile contacting him with a suggestion of someone to interview? It isn’t his style to research a topic but he is pretty good at getting information out of his guests by asking the right questions.
http://www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com/
On a different note, I just watched a little gem of a movie made in 1942 (Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy) called “Keeper of the Flame” (it’s on youtube). Quite amazing how relevant aspects of the plot are to the America of today.
The reason FATCA flies under the radar almost everywhere is because it is universally presented as a mechanism for catching rich tax cheats, much like the War on Terror is pushed as a solution to terrorism. It’s really all brilliant marketing by proponents of Big Gov’t (or of tyranny I would say).
It’s the media’s job to present the facts but unfortunately they’ve been asleep for the past 30 years.
@all
I would hate to have a tattoo of my social security number on my arm. I am thinking of designing an arm band like the jewish peope wore under hitler to ID them as Jews. I am thinking in the band be yellow and a star like the US flag but it would be red, white and blue striped. Anyone else have any suggestions on the armband?
The questions sent to the NZ government are good. I am thinking of replacing new zealand with canada and sending questions to Canadians government. Maybe the Globe and Mail, National Post and other media.
what is every ones opinion on this.
The NZ reponse is infuriating and robotic. There is no heart and soul in the answer. NZ citizens of American birth or connection might ss well be animals to the New Zealand government.
Time to get on with our goal to alert as many people ss possible. Maybe wear shirts or sweatshirts that id us as AP. Put up eye catching posters that explain FATCA . We are all over the world so we need to think out of the box.
At least Jim Flaherty recognizes us as also being Canadians. Thank you everyone who’ve made sure that our government is hearing us – the value of that can’t be overemphasized! We need to up our roar, not only for Canadians, but for all USP’s whose government’s are throwing them under the bus. Please, anyone who hears of a media event in the Vancouver area that’s even remotely connected to government – let me know. There are a few of us here who can be rallied.
I like this:
New Zealand respects the United States’ sovereign right to impose taxes in the manner it best sees fit.
What a bunch a crap. Can you ever imagine John Baird saying he respects the sovereign right of Eritrea to impose taxes as it sees fit.
@Just Me,
Thank you and your NZ author for this information. This parallels what we’ve seen proclaimed before by disingenuous apologists for FATCA – ex. US power to make its own laws, etc. and the casting of those in an autonomous country as US person first and foremost – denying the primacy of their status as citizens and permanent residents of a NON-US country – all very familiar wording and tactics. Expect that FATCAnatics in Canada and elsewhere are following suit. I wouldn’t be surprised if the US negotiators have even issued talking point sheets and advice that IGA countries can parrot to their subjects.
The bs about the US reciprocity is stunning in the face of the mounting evidence of US lack of authority (and true intent to deliver) for any real reciprocity – ex. the Florida and Texas bankers lawsuit. The bs about those in NZ being first and foremost US persons is stunning. They cunningly avoid the issue of NZ joint account holders who are NOT in any way US persons. I believe that this is because this is a weak point. They also cunningly avoid the question of how someone born in NZ and therefore an NZ citizen by birthplace, and an NZ taxpayer by residence can have that NZ status overridden by a US decree – which the answer from NZ does. The data protection issue is obviously sidestepped. If the data is compromised, they will just shrug and blame the US. And we’ll never be able to track what happened to the data – so there will be no repercussions or accountability anyway.
Basically, NZ is throwing its citizens and residents under the bus – at the behest of the banksters.
How very, very interesting to see a sovereign and supposedly autonomous nation like NZ more supportive of the sovereignty and concerns of the US, and parroting the primacy of US defined status over and above the sovereignty, interests and human rights of NZ and its citizens, taxpayers, voters and residents.
It might work in NZ and countries where there are fewer US persons – sad to say, but I am hoping that it will not work here in Canada because we are many more, and because protecting Canada from US aggression and domination are far more salient and sensitive political issues with a longer history (ex. War of 1812).
Maybe the angle that will work in NZ and other countries with fewer deemed ‘US persons’ is the embarassment that is sure to result if Canadians hold out, and NZ gives in. The concerns are all the same for democracies with strong human rights charters and privacy laws.
The wording re the supposed protections of the double tax treaty is very interesting – to me it equivocates – because they know full well that just as in Canada, the tax treaty with the US contains US provisions that allow it to assert the right to tax those abroad as it sees fit and however it chooses to define a ‘taxable person’. The FATCA IGA process has cast that into high relief as well as to fully illustrate how comprehensive a net the US intends to create re ALL assets – including those like retirement plans and life insurance – where NO actual income can or has been received – since they are contingent on future events – retirement and death. And, it is glaring bs to say that the IGA does not go beyond EXISTING US tax obligations – since it includes assets that are either post-tax already, or are non-taxable, or are only future taxable. It does not confine itself merely to taxable interest earned.
@northernstar;
You are absolutely spot on re;
“The questions sent to the NZ government are good. I am thinking of replacing new zealand with canada and sending questions to Canadians government ” All those questions are salient for Canada and Canadians.
They all apply equally to Canada.
May the renunciations and relinquishments continue for those who can. The bs from the NZ government is the same bs we can expect FATCA and US apologists to offer us – no matter where we are in the world. Even if FATCA is defeated, the US will come back with something else in the same vein eventually. There is no sure cure for this US disease and oppression except excision – getting rid of US citizenship.
This is my letter recently sent to NDP MPs: Mulclair, Nash, Rankin, Scott
It confronted the issue of considering American citizenship to be the dominant and defining nationality of the many long-term Canadian citizens whose ties to the U.S. are actually remote.
Some of this might be applicable in NZ.
Dear Minister,
Thank you for response regarding FATCA. I am pleased that Murry Rankin wrote to Minister of Finance James Flaherty regarding FATCA and a possible Canadian Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). I’m glad the NPD is taking a strong stand on this pressing but under-reported and opaque issue.
There are a many good reasons to object to FATCA. My comments are focused on an especially worrisome aspect of a Canadian FATCA IGA. It would be the first Canadian law to create two distinct classes of Canadian citizens based upon birthplace: those born in the U.S. vs Canadians born anywhere else. My objections are based upon the Canadian Charter and the dubious legal standing of “U.S. personhood” thrust upon unwilling Canadian citizens. The concept of a “U.S. person” has no legal standing or precedent in Canada; it is a remote claim based solely upon the law of a foreign state.
Action item: I urge the NDP to seek the counsel and opinion of legal experts regarding the legal status and conflicts with Canadian law of any FATCA IGA. The NDP’s own Craig Scott is a leading human rights law expert. Peter Hogg has expressed strong opinions on this matter. And leading constitutional litigator Joe Arvay is aware of FATCA issues as well. Ask their opinion on this as a matter of law.
The administration of FATCA – specifically discrimination in banking and finance based upon “indicia of U.S. birthplace” – is currently unlawful in Canada under the Charter and Human Rights laws. Only an act of Parliament can enable FATCA here. However, a Canadian IGA to enable FATCA would be the first law in Canadian history to discriminate against an entire class of Canadians based upon birthplace. Canada’s estimated 1,000,000 so-called “U.S.-persons” are a significant constituency – this issue could directly effect a significant percentage of Canada’s population.
Those discriminated against include many long-term Canadian citizens who do not consider themselves “dual citizens”. According to US law they relinquished their US citizenship by swearing the Canadian citizenship oath, only to be considered repatriated ex post facto by FATCA. It also impacts Canadians who were born in the US while their parents were visiting, or through cross-border hospital arrangements, and even the Canadian-born children of US-born Canadians.
At the heart of this matter is the issue of considering American citizenship to be the dominant and defining nationality of many long-term Canadian citizens whose ties to the U.S. are actually very remote.
Noted constitutional expert Peter Hogg has spoken strongly against FATCA. In a letter to Department of Finance Mr. Hogg warned that a FATCA agreement with the United States would likely be unconstitutional and in violation of Section 15 of the Charter. He wrote: “To the extent that any implementing legislation adopts provisions similar to those found in the Model IGA, in my opinion, the legislation would violate S. 15 of the Charter… The source of this problem is the fact that the Model IGA requires financial institutions to treat people differently based on such innate characteristics as place of birth or citizenship…” His full letter is here: https://www.greenparty.ca/multimedia/2013-03-13/peter-hogg-letter
The U.S. government is asking the Canadian government to create two classes of Canadian citizens and residents. The first class: those who have a right to private banking information, and a right to not be discriminated against because of their national origin. The second class: Canadian citizens and permanent residents who are also so-called “U.S. Persons”, who would lose these rights. And the selection of the people for the second class (in other words, who is a “U.S. Person”) is made in a foreign state.
The attribution of “U.S.-person-hood” or “U.S. tax residency” based solely upon a U.S. place of birth is the “fruit of a poisoned tree” – and that poisoned tree is national origin discrimination. It is dubious and remote to claim that a Canadian citizen who was born in the US decades ago, and subsequently has no concrete tie of residence or economic activity in the US, is somehow a “U.S. tax resident”. It is a remote and unusual claim because it is based solely on foreign law, and it is imposing this foreign definition upon certain citizens of Canada, and is not it based not upon economic nexus or residency. The concept of “U.S. person” put forth by FATCA is built upon a foundation of sand: national origin discrimination.
The Canadian Human Rights Act governs chartered banks in Canada. “Ethnic or National Origin” is a prohibited ground for discrimination. Canadian banks clearly should not be asking their customers where they were born, or treating Canadians born in a one certain country differently from any others.
Additionally there is a strong precedent in Canada that when foreign laws conflict with Canadian law, a Canadian bank must comply with Canadian law. Also, the effect of foreign law is a business risk that Canadian banks take on voluntarily.
In Van deMark vs. Toronto Dominion Bank [1989], a Canadian high court decision established two important principles:
– in a conflict of laws, Canadian law has primacy over the laws of foreign jurisdictions where the bank also does business; and
– Canadian banks may not act as foreign revenue collectors or enforcers.
On behalf of all Canadians – no matter where born – I urge the NPD to continue to press our government for transparency and accountability on this urgent matter.
@Just me – very interesting post which addresses so so many issues.
First thing that strikes me is that, Mr. McClay believes that citizens US citizens are the property of the state. After all, they are nothing but life forms who are “wandering free” in New Zealand. In a manner similar to the Fugitive Slave Act, New Zealand is willing to return U.S. property to the Government of the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850
What’s interesting is that he by implication, he is saying that New Zealand citizens are NOT the property of any Government. If New Zealand citizens were the property of New Zealand, then he would NOT be willing to return New Zealand to the United States. @Badger notes that New Zealand fails to acknowledge that those born in the U.S. are citizens of New Zealand. With respect I disagree. He DOES recognize that U.S. persons may be citizens of New Zealand. The difference is that New Zealand does NOT regard its citizens as slaves. Therefore, he is simply saying that the U.S. is free to treat its citizens as property/slaves.
So, there you have it. Finally, a recognition of what is obviously the truth:
All men are created equal except those born in the U.S. who are owned by the U.S. government.
I maintain that U.S. citizens, by virtue of being the property of the U.S. have far less value, in every way, as citizens of any other country. In fact they are a liability to anyone who comes into contact with them. They carry an IRS discount wherever they go. They are Trojan soldiers, which by virtue of their U.S. ownership are used to attack countries from within. This is the simple truth.
The United States was founded on slavery, has defined by Slavery and in the most perverse and insidious way possible has interpreted the 14th amendment (which was designed to give slaves equal citizenship) to create equal slavery for all. That’s the simple #FATCA of the matter.
On this note, I notice the opening of a new movie today: “Twelve years a slave” which should give new meaning to U.S. citizens abroad.
http://arts.nationalpost.com/2013/10/17/12-years-a-slave-reviewed-all-roads-lead-to-oscar-for-steve-mcqueen-film-that-shows-rather-than-tells-the-evil-of-slavery/
New Zealand has decided to participate in – “FATCA Hunt” – the greatest sport of the Obama presidency.
So far, Americans are not required to wear clothing to identify themselves as the slaves that they are. But, this may well come as @Northernstar suggests in her comment at 7:32 a.m.
Since FATCA Hunt has begun, U.S. persons abroad must play the “Expatriate Games” – in other words:
Get thee to a consulate and renounce!
The question of renouncing U.S. citizenship is really one of deciding whether to be a free man or whether to be U.S. property. If you choose to remain U.S. property you have only yourself to blame. Those deciding to remain U.S. citizens are deciding they want to be U.S. property and can expect to be treated as property.
If there is anybody out there who is wants a Green Card:
Be very careful of what you wish for.
In closing, have a look at the post written by this unsuspecting person:
http://themovetoamerica.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/expat-finance-bank-accounts-building-credit/
She invited comments to her post.
Question 21:
21. As part of the negotiation, has New Zealand considered requesting a streamlined renunciation process, free of the fear of penalties or exit taxes, for New Zealand citizens who wish to formally renounce their unwanted US citizenship.
Inland Revenue is treating your questions as a request for information under section 12 of the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA).
is a very important question to put to the Government of Canada. There are simply too many U.S. citizens in Canada to ignore this.
Unfortunately, New Zealand is too small a player to stand up to the US. As someone else noted, Canada is the make-or-break case. Failure to make a Canada-USA IGA will undermine FATCA implementation elsewhere.
The very least they could do for those countries who are signing on is to eliminate all FBAR requirements for long term expats and all FBAR penalties. There is no good reason for FBAR to even apply to those with no U.S. holdings or U.S. assets and who have not lived there for decades.
FBARS are the problem with FATCA as is CBT. FATCA cannot be fair to any nation other than the U.S. as long as the U.S. practices CBT. To me that’s the bottom line. Why any nation is agreeing to this while it is so lop sided in favour of the U.S. astounds me. The very first thing every other nation should have demanded was that the U.S. play by the same rules as everyone else. Period. After all they are insisting the rest of the world follow their law so why not demand the U.S. follow the laws of all other reasonable nations and stop CBT or no FATCA IGA at all.
@AtticusinCanada
Are you seriously asking American to follow “international norms”? Surely you jest. 🙂
@NorthernShrike – You may be right that Canada is make or break FATCA.
@USCitizenAbroad..I checked out the expat site and added my comment to be aware of FATCA. and so did @Em..as well. 🙂 The young woman there is married and joining her husband from UK . She was polite and replied to our comments that she will make sure she knows what she is doing and will keep records. (it is easier to enter the spiders web than to leave it.)
Also the movie Twelve Years a Slave opens tonight….I wish I lived in a city that had movie theatres. 🙁
I would go see it for sure. We have a 2 movie theatre in the next time that must be opened since movies first started. LOL…
@Wondering , I took some of your email writing and sent it to the usual government MPs I send to. It is very well written.
@Just Me, I took your 21 questions that were sent to the NZ government and replaced Canada/Canadian with it. leaving out the last sentence about Inland Revenue…Excellent questions.
I wonder who and what will be the response. MP Mulcair is replying to me with the usual “On behalf of Thomas Mulcair, we would like to acknowledge receipt of your email.
Please be aware that our office receives a large volume of correspondence every day which means we cannot always respond as rapidly as we would like.
If you would like information about our team of New Democrat MPs or our policies, please visit our website at http://www.ndp.ca.
Thank you for taking the time to write.”
No other responses…But they all must be getting their desks in order…School is back in session.
Keep up the fight, my friends
I am consulting with my sewing friend about the star armband. I may be wearing it soon to get attention to get people to inquire about it.
@Atticus In Canada
I agree with you every bit, and so does every Canadian I talk to…We must get our friends to contact their MPs.
@USCitizenAbroad mentions question 21 which has this response:
QUESTION: As part of the negotiation, has New Zealand considered requesting a streamlined renunciation process, free of the fear of penalties or exit taxes, for New Zealand citizens who wish to formally renounce their unwanted US citizenship?
RESPONSE: Inland Revenue considers that the renunciation of United States citizenship is a matter solely for the United States to determine.
This will also be the response of Canada. NZ and Canada need to be pushed to make the response that at the very least they will consult immediately with the US to streamline the renunciation process and kill the exit tax (meant to be punishment) in order to protect the well-being of their citizens who happen to be US persons.
When all this FATCA bul***it started in 2010 my gut feeling this would all boil down to citizenship and the rights of citizenship.
My prediction is dual US / NZ citizens resident in NZ will eventually bring a discrimination case which will ‘carve out’ resident NZ citizens from ‘data discrimination.’
How can a Gov’t justify discriminating one NZ citizen with transfer of his banking information to the NZ Revenue which is then sent to the IRS and another NZ citizen who is also a dual citizen of another country doesn’t.
As the legalities of FATCA are unwound I believe in future data of resident dual citizens (or in the case of Europe the EU) will not have their data transferred to the IRS. Only US citizens with sole American passports will take the brunt of FATCA.
There are so many issues with this….RBT v CBT, discriminating resident dual citizens v resident single citizens, discrimination by place of origin, discrimination by citizenship, it goes on and on.
Something has to give.
@all
Thank you for your comments regarding the situation in New Zealand. As disgusting and nauseating as the response from the NZ government officials is, I agree with @northernshrike that it would be very difficult for a country such as New Zealand to take the lead in rebutting FATCA.
The US approach to FATCA is one of “divide and conquer”. Individually there are not many players who can make a stand. There are countries such as China and Russia who could, but they have comparatively few US persons and would probably meet little domestic resistance if they signed an IGA in return for some other US concession.
One would hope the EU could collectively mount a challenge but this seems unlikely as they are fragmented and turncoats such as the UK (my birth country…ugh) have already sold out.
You all already know it, but Canada really is the “make or break” country for the US over FATCA. The only country with a politically significant percentage of USP and a Human Rights Charter as a barrier to implementation.
Keep up the good work everyone!
@pukekonz how long did it take for you to get an appointment to renounce? I know someone who has been trying to get a phone call from the consulate to make the appointment for three weeks now.
Just Me: All questions proposed above can be used by all of us to write letters to our local government and media and be posted to forums and other things locally to bring attention to the matter, correct?
note also that the punishments from USA for Responsible Officer (and any other FATCA punishments hidden in any nook or cranny of any related law), with a ratified IGA become enforced (forced) by New Zealand law. Without an IGA, a bank decides if it is to be an FFI and expose its REsponsible Officer to US punishments. As the IGA is ratified, then the government drequires that some schmuck in the bank is persoanllly answerable to US laws.
Gubbermints & banks ought to take their responsibility to know what it is that they are signing up for. What lies behind FATCA and FBARS today in the future is an infinite basket of unknowns and uncontrollables.
In contrast, FATCA, which had been debated in other forums as a separate bill, and had been slipped into 2010 HR 2847 in the middle of the night, and few even read it Before the whole package was passed. No risk analysis there, either.
@taxconfuzaled
Absolutely they can be used! That is why they are posted. Anything here can be reproduced for your needs in this battle. No attribution is necessary. Copy and paste! 🙂
NZ WikiLeaks scoop: NZ, US in trade battle – via @nzherald http://nzh.tw/11156737 When are you also going to wake up to #FATCA dispute????
So far Kiwis have not made the connection between their concerns over sovereignty loss from TPP (Trans Pacific Pact) and similar loss with FATCA. However, I did see a good cartoon in the NZ Herald about TPP that could easily be substituted for FATCA…
Cartoon: The TPP explained
Just change the caption for Canada…
The Canadian FATCA IGA explained
Quote bubble: “By June 2014, Canadian Bankers will be able to jump through this hoop!”