156 thoughts on “MORE: Toronto, Friday – May 2nd, Forum / Debate on CBT (Citizenship-Based Taxation) vs. RBT (Residence-Based Taxation)”

1. Doug Dirks, CBC Calgary Homestretch, interviewed Alex Marino of Moodys Gartner about why “duals” are renouncing the US citizenship. He talked about pro’s and con’s, drastic increase (doubling) of their clients in the past year and that the Calgary Consulate is also overwhelmed. Says things will likely heat up closer to and after July 1st. Described ways one can be considered a US citizen and how they feel upon renunciaton: a range from remorse and great U.S. patriotism to ecstatic to be out of this and looking for the closest place for (as George says) for an adult beverage to celebrate the occasion.

   “Disgusted” (who cannot log onto our site for some reason) wonders who with some clout among our professionals could speak to Doug Dirks on air who could explain the loss of privacy, unconstitutionality of the IGA, cost to all Canadians, Charter Challenge and the Toronto Forum? Stephen Kish, John Richardson, Peter Dunn, Lynne Swanson, Allison Christianson, other?

   or: Homestretch Twitter: @cbchomestretch

   I’ll send I sent an email to homestretch@cbc.ca (borrowing from my post and comments and those of “X”, “From the Wilderness”, “disgusted”.

   From: caroltapanila
   To: homestretch@cbc.ca
   Subject: Attention: Doug Dirks re U.S. CITIZENSHIP RENUNCIATIONS as discussed this afternoon with Alex Marino, Moodys Gartner
   Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014

   Why are there so many U.S. citizen renunciations? Loss of privacy, unconstitutionality of the IGA Canada negotiated and signed behind closed doors, cost to all Canadians, faux reciprocity promise – and the following.

   On May 2nd there will be at the University of Toronto a Forum / Debate on Citizenship-Based Taxation (which the U.S. has) VS Residence-Based Taxation (which the rest of the world, except Eritrea, has). ‘This is the first public debate — worldwide — devoted to this important topic.’

   If the U.S. updated their tax law to Residence-Based Taxation, FATCA would not be the problem it is for people now defined as ‘US Persons’ in other countries, many of them away from the U.S. for decades with no plans to return. We who are part of the Canadian fabric and pay our taxes to Canada are being criminalized in the U.S. search for “Tax Evaders” (who are, generally, those who RESIDE in the U.S. and send their untaxed money offshore – they ARE criminals). The Canadian government just buried the FATCA intergovernmental agreement implementation into the budget implementation omnibus bill, C-31. The Canadian government now defines us “Americans who happen to live in Canada.” ** The recently invented legal term in the IGA’s, “US Resident for Tax Purposes,” clearly implies that expats are not considered U.S. Residents for anything else other than for taxation. There is no benefit of U.S. citizenship for those who have chosen to make their lives in Canada. (For those who plan to return to the U.S., a different story, and they must go through the hoops of yearly U.S. taxation compliance and foreign bank account reporting as they now fully realize their U.S. citizen responsibilities no matter where they live and work.)

   **Many of these Canadians (now referred to as “Americans who happen to live in Canada”) chose to become naturalized Canadian citizens, for me in 1975 — they are Canadians.

   **Many of these Canadians were born and raised in this country, never registered with the US, never lived or worked in the US, never had any benefit from the US — only Canada. One of those (and many just like him) Canadians born in Canada to US citizen parents is my 40 year old son. My son happens to have a developmental disability and as he would not understand the concept of “citizenship” (as in US citizenship-based taxation), he cannot renounce his *so-called* automatically acquired US citizenship and must not have the influence of anyone else to do so. The U.S. Department of State / U.S. Consulate regulation is also that for a person with a ‘mental incapacity’ (which would also include someone with age-related dementia), a parent, a guardian or a trustee for that person does not have the RIGHT to renounce U.S. citizenship on that person’s behalf, even with a court order. This segment of Canadians is ENTRAPPED into U.S. citizenship and the responsibilities and cost of administration for U.S. tax returns and “foreign” account reporting each year at great U.S. professional tax accounting (and often law) expense.

   What would be the opinion of any Canadian taxpayer, knowing that a portion of his/her Canadian taxpayer money that goes toward my son’s (and others like him) Canadian and provincial disability benefits and the Canadian government contributions to Registered Disability Savings Plans (RDSP) was being passed along to the U.S. IRS? As the “Holder” of my son’s RDSP that is just what I paid U.S. taxes on when I owed nothing to Canada. I have renounced my U.S. citizenship in 2012 (the one I was warned by the U.S. that I would be losing when I became a Canadian citizen in 1975) and now have my Certificate of Loss of Nationality to show my local CANADIAN “foreign financial institution” in which I have used as any other Canadian. U.S. law changes and will continue to change.

   **Many of these Canadians were born in the U.S. to Canadian parents, returning to Canada with their parents days later, infants, or as children and they have always been what should only be – Canadians.
   That the government of Canada will not stand up to protect these fellow Canadians is deplorable. Even Canadian spouses and business partners can be affected (as can Canadian snowbirds who “snowbird” too long in the U.S. without filing the proper IRS forms). Canada is saying we are second-class to any other Canadians, discrimination by “U.S. national origin”. They are saying Canada is no longer a SOVEREIGN country that makes its own law and does not allow the law of a foreign country to come in to take precedence over Canadian law.

   I’d say a good many of U.S. Persons in Canada feel betrayed by the U.S. and now by the government of Canada. Many feel U.S. foreign law being implemented in Canada will set a dangerous precedent of discrimination by national origin and loss of human rights for a segment of Canadians who will no longer have the same protection as all other Canadians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What nationality will then be next? There will soon be announced the organization that will accept donations for a Canadian Charter Challenge, we feel this so important for ALL CANADIANS, especially for the precedent being set.

   …and then there is the process after renunciation (cost USD450 BTW), including filing of IRS Form 8854, to certify one is compliant with requisite number of years U.S. tax compliance and reports, including a statement of Net Worth, to determine if one will be deemed a “Covered Expatriate”. Or, if this is not filed, anyone (even a pauper) would be deemed by the U.S. a “Covered Expatriate”.

   [ That one would be deemed a “Covered Expatriate” is another way to entrap. Consider:

   Citizenship based taxation (CBT) is America’s “PECULIAR INSTITUTION.” So was SLAVERY. According to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_institution:

   “(Our) peculiar institution” was a euphemism for slavery and the economic ramifications of it in the American South. The meaning of “peculiar” in this expression is “one’s own”, that is, referring to something distinctive to or characteristic of a particular place or people. The proper use of the expression is always as a possessive, e.g., “our peculiar institution” or “the South’s peculiar institution”. It was in popular use during the first half of the 19th century, especially in legislative bodies, as the word slavery was deemed “improper,” and was actually banned in certain areas. ]

   Carol Tapanila
   Calgary, AB

2. Em wrote:

   To go right to the heart of the beast, to CBT, is brilliant. All we ever seem to look at is its infamous FATCA fangs. I can hardly wait to watch Deckard1138′s video of the event.

   Hi all, just an update on the recording of the May 2nd Forum. As the official sponsors and organizers, ACA has now assumed complete responsibility for audio-visual support for this event, including any video recording, editing and dissemination via YouTube. My offer to provide independent coverage similar to that of last year’s FATCA Forum has been declined, though I still plan to attend the event as a member of the audience. Like all of you, I also look forward to seeing the very important video recordings of the event. I believe they will document a truly historic debate and panel discussion which should be seen and heard around the world.

3. Re: stupidity vs. malice.

   When it comes to CBT, can’t it be both?

4. That’s too bad, Deckard. We know the excellent quality of your work. I am glad you are attending and will look forward to your input to others here, including me.

5. @ Deckard1138
   I hope they do as well as you did with the Toronto forum. I don’t want to miss as much as I did with the CCLA privacy symposium.

6. To call my wife a “Canadian who happens to be a US person” Infuriates me. For the Canadian government to call her that make it even worse. It shows how much Canada values it’s good Canadians. She is one of Canada’s citizens other countries would be happy to have as theirs, yet, Canada is ditching her rights as a Canadian. The Canadian government can go to hell! This should be a huge fight for OUR Canadian Citizens, EVERY one of them.

7. For those without the time or inclination to read his paper, keynote speaker Dr. Bernard Schneider ‘gets it.’

   “Allegedly tax-motivated renunciation of U.S. citizenship has long elicited strong reactions, particularly in Congress where expatriates are an easy target, and these provisions [877 &877A] are designed to punish allegedly tax-motivated renunciations of citizenship….

   “However, this understanding [that it is appropriate to react and punish] reverses reality. In most cases, renunciation is driven not by a desire to escape taxation unjustly, but by the unjust imposition of taxation. U.S. taxation of long-term expatriates and accidental, nominal, and unaware citizens is unjustified; they should not have to renounce their U.S. citizenship in order to escape U.S. tax and reporting burdens. …. More fundamentally, the use of citizenship as a jurisdictional basis for taxation of nonresidents is unsound because it distorts and devalues citizenship. Worldwide taxation of, and the ever-increasing compliance burden on, nonresident U.S. citizens constitute a real and increasing citizenship penalty.”

8. I plan to go to the debate and pay at door in Canadian dollars. It is a six hour drive for me but I will not miss this very important and exciting event.

   I have never heard of “Peculiar Institution”. I think CBT fits this term perfectly.

9. @Em and From the Wilderness, thanks for that reminder of the “we’ll send the Marines to get you fallacy.” and FAQs about US Embassy Evacuation Assistance.

   The US consular official presiding over my expatriation process cited the help of the US government in an emergency as a ‘benefit’ I would no longer enjoy.

   I asked how likely it was that such a scenario and ‘benefit’ would arise in my permanent home country of Canada, and the official just looked at me. Plus, as it had already been established that I was a Canadian citizen as well, it was the case that I would have been eligible to ask the Canadian government for help if I was abroad and so not solely dependent on the US anyway.

   @calgary411, I promise to do my best to see if a question based on your son and others in the same situation can be posed in order to educate the audience as well as the presenters. I too am eager to hear their response.

   @George, even for 1924, I think it was pretty arrogant, as they also stripped away the US citizenship of US citizen women who married foreigners until 1940 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/04/03/franken-so-sorry-for-that-terrible-law-100-years-ago/ “In the early part of the last century, during the rush of European immigration to the United States, Congress stripped citizenship from any American woman who married a foreigner. The little-known Expatriation Act of 1907 stayed on the books until 1940, so even after women won the right to vote in 1920, those who were married to a non-American could not exercise that newfound right.” . So apparently back then, the very existence of US citizenship was of benefit no matter where a USP might reside, and so they must pay US taxes from abroad, but also, back then a US resident UScitizen female who married a foreigner could be legally stripped of their US citizenship against their will – even if they resided and paid taxes in the US. They wielded US citizenship laws as a blunt weapon.

   This is why I believe that we’ve passed beyond incompetence, ignorance and ‘unintended consequences’. For example, the addition of their ability to impose a NON-willful FBAR penalty is more recent. And it has not been altered though practitioners warn that it is confiscatory and may be unconstitutional. I agree with Em, we are firmly in the realm of malice. There has been more than enough opportunity for the US IRS and Treasury to do this differently, but entreaties have fallen on deaf ears. In fact, they are deep in the heart of willful territory now.

10. @Native Canadian “To call my wife a “Canadian who happens to be a US person” Infuriates me.”

    I am not Canadian and that infuriates me that your wife is called that by her government!!

    It is also fallacy for most Brockers to be considered Americans in Canada!!

    By way of example, Does your wife have in her possession a valid permanent residence card/visa issued by the Government of Canada? I suspect NO. Ergo, if she is an American in Canada as Harper proclaims then she must be an illegal migrant!!

    Everyone in Canada is one and only one of the following;

    1.) Temporary Visitor.

    2.) Permanent Resident or pending same.

    3.) Citizen of Canada

    4.) Illegal Immigrant

11. @Shovel, I try to give most the so called benefit of the doubt.

    I have stated many times on these boards that the big problem was when the courts got involved and stripped away our right to get rid of US Citizenship!! I believe that life was better when there was a series of expatriating acts.

    I think they have the cart before the horse. A modified Form 8854 would be palatable if it was required for an expat to renew his/her US passport. And further that travel to the USA on a foreign passport was an expatriating act.

    This has become a burning building and we are all looking for an exit. Some people can jump out of a window, some have respirators, others need tall doors.

12. @Badger, “I asked how likely it was that such a scenario and ‘benefit’ would arise in my permanent home country of Canada,”

    I spat my coffee on the keyboard. LOL LOL

    In my case I have the right to ask my own country for help and after that, any EU Country.

    And to be blunt, I do not like the taint of any US taint!! It is dangerous to have any US taint.

13. Pingback: Cook v. Tait 15: Why did the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Vietnam and Myanmar adopt CBT? To maintain control? | U.S. Persons Abroad – Members of a Unique Tax, Form and Penalty Club

14. @Badger

    Great comment on the Cook v. Tait issue. I took your comment and incorporated it into one of my posts here:

    http://renounceuscitizenship.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/the-soviet-union-bulgaria-vietnam-and-myanmar-adopted-cbt/

    It is the 15th in a series of “Cook v. Tait” posts – you may find some of the posts will provide the basis for further questions on the CBT issue.

    Thanks for a truly great comment on the Cook v. Tait question.

    The truth about Cook v. Tait is that it was a stupid decision at the time and is a completely irrelevant decision today. Justice McKenna’s decision is simply held out to “close off” discussion about CBT. People cite Cook v. Tait as somehow proof that the issue of CBT has been settled.

    Some additional thoughts on Cook v. Tait:

    1. In 1924 the world was very different and the whole idea of what taxation was was different. At that time taxation was about taxing income. Now, taxation is about a number of other things. Justice McKenna did NOT appreciate the “tyranny of forms”, PFICs, CFC, FATCA, etc. Therefore, one could reasonably argue that Cook v. Tait is irrelevant. The decision has no applicability to the world today.

    2. Although Cook v. Tait is not a well written decision, it seems to be saying that U.S. sovereignty (in a political and jurisdictional sense) ends at the U.S. borders, but that the U.S. jurisdiction over U.S. citizens extends to where the person is. Assuming the truth of this statement, this clearly means that, according to Justice McKenna, the U.S. cannot invade the sovereignty of other nations with its tax laws. In 2014, CBT is clearly used to impose taxes on any country that has a U.S. citizen residing in it. Think of the simple example of: in Canada if a U.S. citizen sells a principal residence, then that person must send part of the gain to the IRS (which is clear theft from the Canadian economy).

    I can foresee a day coming very quickly that “U.S. persons residing in Canada” will NO LONGER be permitted to own any property, on which the U.S. imposes tax and Canada does not! Honestly, “U.S. persons in Canada” should NOT be permitted to own a principal residence in Canada. I suspect (Shades of the 1930s) as horrible as this sounds, that it may be coming!

    Therefore, help me with this, can’t one argue that, if Cook v. Tait is relevant at all, that:
    Cook v. Tait says that the U.S. CANNOT have tax laws that impose on the territorial and political jurisdiction of other countries.

    3. On its most basic level (as the Schneider article makes clear) U.S. tax law imposes a “U.S. citizenship penalty” on U.S. CITIZENS who live outside the U.S. Non-U.S. citizens who live outside the U.S. are given preferential tax treatment. In other words, U.S. tax laws discriminate based on citizenship. Cook v. Tait (decided in 1924) predates the aspect of the law of equal protection which makes classifications based on citizenship subject to the strictest scrutiny.

    See:

    http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/88-alienage-and-nationality.html

    Obviously, 14th amendment considerations were never considered (should somebody be treated worse by the U.S. government because they are a U.S. citizen?) in Justice McKenna’s decision. I suspect that “equal protection issues” would have to be considered in a rehearing of Cook v. Tait.

    4. Speaking of the 14th amendment “Everyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen …” In 1967 Justice Black in Afroyim ruled that Congress cannot make laws that result in the “forcible destruction of U.S. citizenship. What might this mean?

    In 2014, U.S. citizenship for those who live outside the U.S. is a truly frightening thing to have. U.S. citizens abroad are being hunted, stalked and terrorized (as is obvious to the readers of this blog and others). They are being destroyed through a combination of terror tactics and life control. The simple truth is that U.S. citizens abroad feel that they are being forced to renounce. They are forced to renounce. The fact that many are willing to pay lots off money (in the form of the exit tax) is proof of the desperation, fear and terror.

    Anyway, you get the point which is:

    For reasons 1 – 4 (and others) I am fairly certain that Cook. v. Tait would never be decided the same way today. It’s nothing more than an ignorant, anachronistic decision which is nothing more than a historical curiosity.

    Finally, (as Cook v. Tait 14 makes clear) there is nothing about Cook v. Tait that is in related to the U.S. practice of taxing Green Card holders who don’t live in the U.S. The taxation of Green Card holders is NOT justified by anything in Cook v. Tait. As has been said by others, CBT (which applies to much more than citizens) is a system that the U.S. employs to tax non-U.S. residents on income not associated with the U.S. It is outright theft and can no longer be tolerated by the rest of the world.

    Although, the U.S. does have the right to make its own tax laws, it does not have the right to tax the residents of other countries.

15. George. My wife has Canadian citizenship since birth. She has the certificate which states that. This is why the statement really infuriates me. To be CANADIAN since birth and to be told you are a second class Canadian says Canada wants Canadians for taxes only. Where the hell is HER protection? I know where mine is and it is on our reserves. This government is corrupt garbage.

16. The PECULIAR INSTITUTION of Citizenship-Based Taxation needs to be put to rest. Imagine the international outrage (and perhaps even a call for a new UN resolution/more sanctions) if the Assad Regime in Syria announces a new income tax on all refugees fleeing the civil war.

    That is exactly what the United States did when it set the precedent for CBT during America’s civil war.

17. And Tina Turner is like America`s Sweetheart. Doesn’t anybody ask themselves what REALLY caused her to give up her US passport? Like- they can force her to leave the ranks too and think nothing of it? Of the WHY? I`m wondering if one couldn’t engage her as a beacon in this fight for justice? She would certainly be heard if she became more vocal- more than any of us. Has anybody sent her any of this information? Has anybody asked her if she would help? What about ACA?

18. @Badger, you should have mentioned to the neanderthal at the Consulate that the United States may not protect citizens of Canada who are living in Canada, whether or not they are US citizens. But many American boneheads believe that they are protecting all of Canada. That means that they ultimately believe they have the right to protect all Canadians.

    Given our geographic situation, the most likely invader of Canada is the USA. When the American marines land in Canada to annex it, are they really going to protect US citizens living here? The last couple of years have shown us that we need to be protected from the United States not by the United States.

19. Definition of CGT/FATCA – The USG gains possibly $8B (not this non sense of $100Bs by US peddlers Levin cand Schumer) per years, but loses $1 trillions of goodwill from US ex-pats and other citizens around the world. FATCA will become as much as a symbol as McDonald’s but for all the wrong reasons. The USG will be seen as a money hungry arrogant entity that tries to tax the world and gives nothing in return.

20. If America’s Founder’s knew what was going on today they would be rolling in their graves at the betrayal of their Revolution.

    No Taxation without Representation was the battle cry of the American Revolution. Having the possibility to vote for a senator or congressman in a State where the expat no longer lives and the senators/congressmen is NOT representation. Senators/congressmen couldn’t care less about people who no longer live in their state nor do they have any interest in affairs occurring outside the US (other than people like John McCain who runs all over the world looking for wars to start).

    As for FATCA, it is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

    Amendment IV:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    And FBARS are a clear violation of the 8th Amendment.

    Amendment VIII:
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

21. Thank you USCitizenAbroad for the valuable reprise of Shadow Raider’s comments http://renounceuscitizenship.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/the-soviet-union-bulgaria-vietnam-and-myanmar-adopted-cbt/ regarding the history of CBT – AND the fact that it was NEVER the standard or norm in the world. SR provides the invaluable references to early determinations that extraterritorial taxation of people residing abroad on their assets and property that was located where they actually resided, and NOT located in the precinct of the extraterritorial taxing authority is unjust and insupportable;

    I recommend that everyone read and reread ShadowRaider’s comments that end with; “…In sum, CBT has nothing to do with being antiquated or pre-industrialized. The few countries that ever adopted it did so as a punishment, illegitimate control, or as an inadvertent copying mistake that was later fixed. I repeat: the vast majority of countries, developed or not, never used CBT because they easily recognized that it would be unfair….” http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/04/01/parliamentary-finance-committee-chair-and-conservative-mp-james-rajotte-on-fatca/comment-page-1/#comment-1346154

    The US has a heavily vested interest in relying on a US decision that rationalizes picking pockets from afar – or extorting protection money from our home/host country via confiscatory economic sanctions which have NO connection with any possible tax ‘owed’ to the US.

22. I very much hope to be able to make this event. I can’t say that I am expecting a whole lot in terms of debate since a rational defender of CBT will be pretty hard to find. Two aspects of the question do interest me:
    1. Obviously CBT is the heart of the matter here. Without that, FATCA would be an annoyance – would cost billions to banks everywhere, benefit none and cost us all a few pennies more in service fees per year, but would not be noticed by many but policy wonks. While CBT is the core of it, CBT has languished for about 90 years of “don’t ask, don’t tell” benign neglect. Executives posted overseas doubtless had to deal with it, but nobody else filed, knew they had to file or, frankly, were subject to more than a bit of grumbling from the IRS if they ever moved to the US and started to file tax returns again. Something changed in the 1996-2008 time frame. There were a couple of high-profile expatriations and Schumer et al fashioned a dozen laws to “punish” them. A quote on one of the links in this thread above (about Cook v Tait) is from Schumer saying that “10,000 people have emigrated from the United States in the last decade and not been punished. That is about to change” (paraphrased). Of course Schumer has his facts way, way wrong. Canada alone receives about 10,000 US-sourced immigrants every two years or so. His poor accounting skills aside, I find it quite interesting that Schumer feels quite comfortable in plainly expressing the view that emigrants from the US are deserving of PUNISHMENT by reason of that fact alone. Remember, the US self-image is as a land of immigrants and every immigrant to the US is an emigrant from somewhere else and if the rest of world took it upon themselves to punish their expatriates as systematically as the US attempts to do, the last 200 years of US history would have been quite a bit rockier. How much longer would the US have taken to “fill up” if its immigration agents in the 19th Century had been banned, arrested or required to front exit taxes for the huddled masses they packed on to ships bound for the Golden Mountain? The US has had an expatriation act on its books for more than a hundred years enshrining the right of expatriation as a fundamental human right. How, with that “official” background lionizing the virtues of emigration/immigration the collective consciousness of the US could have shifted to the point that a pandering politician like Schumer feels that he can score points by turning his country’s founding myths on their ear is surely a matter worthy of some analysis! I might suggest that the US collective consciousness is infected with a pervasive sense of decay, decline and denial that is at odds with the brazen, “can-do” positive self-image of the “Greatest Country on Earth” (trademark registered!). Somewhere in that complex national psychology lies the root of the evil that 8 million US expats are being impaled upon.
    2. The reticence of the entire world to pursue its own self-interest vis a vis this “peculiar institution” of CBT is something I find quite hard to explain. This is a topic that I should think Alison may have some interesting views to express. Yes, the US is a bully. Yes – one can go on with negative descriptions till the cows come home. Yet, FATCA was not laughed into irrelevance by the court of world opinion. It’s not as if the US threatened to invade countries if they didn’t adopt it. Their proposed economic sanctions were certainly eye-popping, but any sophisticated analysis would have shown them to be self-destructive threats that would very likely harm the US at least as much as their intended targets. Any semblance of global condemnation and solidarity would have crushed FATCA in its infancy and most should have had ample reason to do so based ENTIRELY upon the externalization of compliance costs to foreign financial institutions (whose increased US compliance expenses result in tax deductions in their home country, I might add). The prospect of facilitating ANY transfer of domestic revenues to the US Treasury should have turned any self-respecting Finance Minister or Chancellor of the Exchequer running for the barricades as few issues should be more central to the self-interest of a modern nation state than protecting its tax base. The entire web of international tax treaties is premised on exactly that and is entirely premised on intricate rules for allocating fiscal rights based on source of income and residency. The US arriving on the scene demanding ANY assistance for CBT makes each and every “US Person” in the rest of the world a fiscal trojan horse, leaking tax revenues on a non-reciprocal basis. The international tax system would break down if all adopted it. FBAR alone would virtually empty the bank accounts of all historically “non-compliant” US Persons overnight if the world gave the tiniest assistance to the US in imposing it with no reciprocal benefits whatsoever. I am mystified as to the willingness of the globe’s financial powers to simply be cowed by this without calling an obvious bluff. The US is still an important economic power, but by no means as dominant as it was 60 or even 10 years ago.

    While I said two points caught my interest, setting them forth has raised a third: the capacity of the US to adopt one principle for itself and demand the rest of the world adopt another all the while imagining there are principles being consistently applied is indeed fascinating. There is a fancy word for that – syncretism (believing in two contradictory things at the same time). I have often mentioned the expulsion by Canada of the Eritrean diplomat caught trying to enforce that country’s CBT system (at the princely rate, I believe of 2%) inside Canada. My research into that shows that the ORIGIN of the action was a United Nations resolution condemning Eritrea in which the US ambassador to the UN appears to have played a leading role, apparently without cracking one of those patented, Putinesque smiles when he says one thing and does another. The scene from Casablanca comes to mind (“I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here”). In a prior generation, the entire Western world united in thwarting the Soviet bloc’s attempt to enforce its CBT system on refugees, calling it a human rights abuse and contrary to public policy, etc. The US was at the forefront of that fight while having laws that purported to do precisely the same thing to its own diaspora. None of our countries assisted the Soviets in that game yet all of those same countries are passively acquiescing in this one?

    I do hope Joe Arvay gets a feisty judge willing to roll up his or her sleeves on this one when it gets to court!

23. Awesome commentary — thanks, Anne Frank!

24. The creation of America can essentially be attributed to a revolt against the British Empire’s effort to implement CBT on its long-term expats (American colonists).

    After losing control of what is now America, the Brits have clearly learned their lesson and stick with RBT.

25. @petros, re; “The last couple of years have shown us that we need to be protected from the United States not by the United States.”

    Exactly. And sad that the Canadian federal government of our day isn’t performing its duty of care to all those within Canadian borders, and fiduciary duty to protect Canadian earned and sited assets, as well as the Canadian fisc. Ridiculous that individual Canadians will have to take on their own government in order to force it do what they are sworn to do; “Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee….”.

    @Anne Frank,
    Enjoyed your commentary. And would also love to get an answer to; “The reticence of the entire world to pursue its own self-interest vis a vis this “peculiar institution” of CBT is something I find quite hard to explain….”….

    Exactly what is the bargain with the devil that Harper and his Conservative MPS made?