If clicking on a link brings you to the wrong page of the comment thread, CLICK HERE to get to its current page.
UPDATE December 23, 2017: Please see the following post for the latest information: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2017/12/15/un-human-rights-complaint-quadruples-its-signatures/
UPDATE November 28, 2017:
Also, see MuzzledNoMore’s updated post, United Nations Human Rights Complaint: Seeking Advice and Additional Signatures
**************
UPDATE November 23, 2017:
UN Complaint Final July 29 2014 – updated links November 23 2017
**************************
UPDATE JANUARY 10, 2017:
From MuzzledNoMore:
Just letting everybody know that we’re still waiting to hear from the UN about the status of our Complaint. With any luck we’ll have the matter taken care of within the next few months by the new Republican administration in Washington. Who knows? Maybe the UN is watching and waiting to see what happens as well. In any regard, the UN has informed us that it can take up to three years for a Complaint to reach the stage at which it will be considered or rejected.
If a “domestic” solution is possible, there will be no need for the UN to address the issue. When we filed the Complaint nearly two and a half years ago we could never have believed that repealing FATCA and switching to residence-based taxation would have made it to the 2016 Republican Party Platform. Now it remains to be seen if the party will follow through with its promises.
**************************
UPDATE MAY 21, 2015:
Today we received official confirmation from the United Nations Human Rights Council that our Complaint has been received and is in the queue pending approval (or not) for admittance into one of the Working Groups. The next session of the Working Group on Communications is scheduled from 17 to 21 August 2015. Further information will be shared with us after that date.
**************************
UPDATE NOVEMBER 6, 2014:
From MuzzledNoMore:
We have finally received confirmation that our Human Rights Complaint against the United States has been received by the United Nations. This is great news! But let’s not pop champagne corks just yet. There is no indication that the Complaint has been read or considered for acceptance into the complaints process in any way. That is all yet to come. But we have made a huge step forward! That deserves a few cheers all round … even without the bubbly!
UPDATE OCTOBER 27, 2014:
Permission has been given a university researcher to access to our UN Human Rights Complaint to analyze ethical assumptions on FATCA. That access will be used for academic purposes, content not to be released (as the UN has not yet acknowledged receipt of this UN Human Rights Complaint).
We view as a significant step that this document will be studied for moral dimensions and ethics. We continue to anticipate the time we will be able to publicly release contents of the Complaint, likely AFTER the next scheduled meeting to review such complaints, sometime in April 2015.
*********************
UPDATE SEPTEMBER 10, 2014:
“JC” commented, and he’s right:
Whenever that text for the human rights complaint comes out that, I believe, will be a big help at raising awareness.
The text of the Human Rights Complaint will be published when we know the UN has received and considered it. There has been no confirmation that our submission was considered for the meeting in August (…our submission was sent just before the August meeting so, just by number of other submissions received before ours, our Human Rights Complaint may not have been considered in the time allotted). It looks like the next UN meeting to consider Human Rights Complaints is scheduled for April of 2015 — that Committee meets twice a year.
In the meantime, our fundraising must be pinned to its stand-alone legal claim and importance which absolutely addresses our human rights issues.
Donate Now: http://adcs-adsc.ca/
***********************
August 7, 2014 UPDATE:
The Human Rights Complaint has been submitted. Thank you to those who worked on the document and made this happen. A very special thank you to all who came forward to put your names on this important document. We had a total of 41 signers, representing the countries of Canada, Germany, Japan, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Estonia, Switzerland and Belgium.
****************************
August 5, 2014 UPDATE:
Note: there is a confidentiality clause in the document that your name / nationality / country be kept confidential. My name and address will be the only one that might not be confidential. I wanted to share with you two notes waiting for me this morning:
Hi Carol,
I am very disappointed that more people did not come forward and sign this document, I do not understand why people are afraid to speak up for what they believe. People are so afraid of the bully acts of the USA, We must stand together, I am asking all people that the US government deem US citizens to step forward and stand up against the US and the Harper government for allowing FATCA into the Canadian banking system.
I am not on facebook or twitter. I give you permission to post this.
Disappointed
XXX
Hi Carol,
I am surprised that so few people have signed. This makes me uneasy. People must be frightened. Do you expect repercussions against the signers? At the moment I don’t have the strength to deal with any more troubles. Would you please put a hold on my name until I can evaluate your assessment of possible repercussions.
Thank you,
YYYY
I answered YYYY:
Absolutely. I can take your name off the list of signers if you are not comfortable with that — you must be OK with your decision. We will probably be sending the Complaint on Thursday, August 7th .
No, we don’t expect any repercussions against any of the signers. We will ask for confidentiality in one of the clauses.
As with everything else of this with this (persons on blogs, getting together for protest, etc.), people are afraid to step forward. The US weapon toward its people always is FEAR. That is what we see here. That is our biggest obstacle and what may defeat us in the end.
Dr. Stephen Kish, Chair of the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty signs his name on behalf of the millions of *US Persons* Abroad who are afraid to sign.
Thanks, YYYY.
FEAR: the most effective tool the USA has at its disposal is at work in all we see regarding US Persons Abroad coming forward in unison to fight the good fight. If anything defeats us, it will be our FEAR.
As you all know, I fear too for my son’s name to be out there as it is my duty as a parent to protect his best interests. Because of my own fear, I went through all the complex back US tax filings through use of professionals in the US compliance industry. That was my choice as I could absolutely not do it myself and I so wanted this behind me, to stop the leak of my hard-earned retirement funds to be passed to the US IRS. I’m still in this game. I replied to a commenter at Isaac Brock yesterday and Stephen Kish picked part of what I said to update the ADCS-ADSC Charter Challenge post yesterday:
UPDATE August 5, 2014 (http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/06/01/its-time/)
Carol, an ADCS-ADSC Board Director, explains why she donated to this lawsuit:
The purpose of the lawsuit, to me, is to stop the obscene injustice of all of this, regain rights waived by the Canadian government’s implementation of the US FATCA IGA, thereby putting the financial institutions before individuals and families who are being criminalized!
I’m in for that just as I’m on this blog, hoping people learn from all of the stupid mistakes I made along the way — I don’t want others to make those same mistakes.
It’s about people getting their lives back, along with their dignity and their mental and physical health and to stop the the handing over to the US a good portion of what they’ve saved for their retirements.
It is about wanting Canada to remain a sovereign country, not taken over by the USA. It’s about what I think is right and not wanting to silently stand by and let this happen. It’s because I believe in free speech and don’t want to be shamed into not speaking out, at this point especially for other families who have a family member with some developmental disability or some other ‘mental incapacity’.
My update for now and my regards to all,
August 2, 2014 UPDATE:
Thank you very much for everyone who has corresponded to me at calgaryfouroneone@gmail.com to request the password and give permission for your signatures to be added. Your supportive emails are wonderful.
He is what we have for signers to the Human Rights Document:
18 – Canada
2 – UK
1 – Australia
1 – Belgium (US/Dutch Citizen)
1 – Denmark
1 – Germany
1 – Japan
1 – Switzerland
Note that one of the Canadian signers is Dr. Stephen Kish (Canadian, US)–signing personally, and on behalf of the “Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty” Board of Directors, and the millions of U.S. persons living abroad who are too frightened to sign this document.
Also waiting to hear back from 4 in Canada (one from Quebec) and one from New Zealand.
*********************
July 30, 2014 UPDATE:
Here is the FINAL Human Rights Complaint, available to those that are considering signing. To access the password for this document, contact and request from calgaryfouroneone@gmail.com.
Each person sending a request will receive a copy from calgary411 “in Confidence” with the CLEAR understanding that it is NOT to be published. For anyone who wants to have another person read/sign the document, that other person also needs to obtain it through the Isaac Brock Society or Maple Sandbox channels. Signatures will only be accepted from those who have gotten the document through calgary411. This stipulation is necessary to keep some lid on the proliferation of this information.
We will announce when we know the timing for the agency committee looking at this document for review. We will update on this post any feedback from the agency as it is received.
This document is the collaboration of contributors to both blogs and took over a month to write, discuss and edit in consensus with a group of 15 who have vetted and approved it in its entirety. It stands as presented to them. Bloggers can have their say but there will be no further changes to the document. It is what the agency says that matters.
Sign if you are in agreement and can do so by providing to calgaryfouroneone@gmail.com your name and your nationality and/or country of residence. The Human Rights Complaint will be submitted electronically. Submitters’ names and nationalities will be typed onto the lines provided on page 1. No physical signature is required.
If you are not comfortable with the document, you do not have to sign.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.
*******************
Two dedicated individuals who participate at both the Isaac Brock Society and the Maple Sandbox blogs have prepared a comprehensive Human Rights Complaint that will be submitted on behalf of all *US Persons Abroad* the world over. Others offered suggestions on how that information should best be presented in the constraint of number of pages allowed for the Complaint. We appreciate the legal eye and suggestions for going forward with this Complaint from Professor Allison Christians.
The document now complete, I have been asked to post an announcement on their behalf. Unfortunately, because of their personal situations, they cannot lend their names to the document and this will be the end of Phase I, produced for all of us, with their great care.
I so appreciate the incredible work that has gone into this on behalf of all of us. Here is what they say:
A group of writers from the Isaac Brock Society and Maple Sandbox blogs has prepared a document that challenges citizenship-based taxation (CBT) as a violation of internationally recognized human rights. This document will be submitted as a formal complaint to a major international human rights organization within the next ten days.
Any readers who would like to support this effort by “co-signing” (having their names added to the list of those filing the complaint) should so indicate by sending an email to: calgaryfouroneone@gmail.com.
****************
The Canadian writers of the complaint hope to make this a truly international effort. Bloggers from all over the world are welcome to lend their names to this historic document. Signers do not have to be US Persons.****************
Signers should feel comfortable with using their own names (pseudonyms are unacceptable in this instance) and should provide their nationality and/or country of residence as well.
Please see a more recent posting regarding this UN Human Rights Complaint. We are seeking additional signers. Thank You!
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2017/11/17/united-nations-human-rights-complaint-seeking-advice-and-additional-signatures/comment-page-2/#comment-8062234
Fodder for UN complaint? Non-US non-profit boards writing USpersons out of eligibility to participate on board;
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2018/01/11/treasury-department-responds-so-to-speak-to-rep-bill-poseys-fatca-letter/comment-page-3/#comment-8104698
I and perhaps others contacted the IRS TAS on this and other issues in the past as a ‘systemic’ problem via SAMS ( https://www.irs.gov/advocate/systemic-advocacy-management-system-sams ), but it was not acknowledged by them. The US government is interfering with our rights to participate in our local civic, community, professional and voluntary organizations (boards, fundraising committees, etc.) by demanding that those with co/signing authority on local non-US bank accounts – even non-personal ones where the USperson has NO monetary interest or benefit, and where there is NO economic connection to the US (other than the birthplace/parentage/status of the USP) be reported on FBAR.
I don’t think this was posted at IBS before?
Worster, William Thomas, Human Rights Law and the Taxation Consequences for Renouncing Citizenship (March 20, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3073563 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3073563
Contains useful arguments, and cites UN sources (which might be particularly convincing in this instance of a complaint to the UN itself), though a significant flaw is that it dismisses without any sufficient consideration or any exploration at all, the plight of those deemed legally incompetent (dismissed entirely without any apparent thought on the part of the author ; “Having a certain mental capacity seems a minor inconvenience. “….. , pg. 16) and minimizing the plight of minors – which can result in a situation where an entire family could not truly be free of the burden of US extraterritorial taxation and reporting and penalty regimes, and fully exercise their rights to expatriate wherever a dependent (ex. a minor or those deemed legally incompetent) is not able to be free – since their right to expatriation are either delayed by the US until age of majority (a delay of 18 yrs), or denied entirely, for life in the case of those with a chronic or prenatal/postnatal condition which rendered them legally incompetent).
Does discuss the exit tax and the size of the administrative fee for renunciation as unconstitutional / illegal barriers to the right to expatriate.
The Worster article was just posted at SSRN in late November 2017 (and you probably have already seen his previous one from 2010 Worster, William Thomas, The Constitutionality of the Taxation Consequences for Renouncing U.S. Citizenship (June 22, 2010). Florida Tax Review, Vol. 9, No. 11, 2010. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1628568 )
Thanks for that, Badger – very interesting.
I wish some academic would write a companion article discussing whether international law should continue to require the would-be renunciant to meet conditions set by the clinging country – such as claiming that a person cannot lose citizenship until they pay a large price to buy the clinging state’s authorization.
If there was an agreed international standard for determining whether a person has renounced a citizenship, life would be a lot simpler for USCs and dual Australian politicians.
We know who wouldn’t agree though.
@Plaxy, I agree. If there was an internationally recognized human right to expatriate and an enforceable standard, then individual political regimes might be discouraged from erecting whatever barriers they see fit.
Of course, the US (and some other regimes) wouldn’t sign on, and would resist anyway.
And someone needs to write an academic paper focussed on those who are delayed or completely denied the right to get rid of clinging state tentacles. I understand why it is complicated re minors, and parental power, but I don’t get why Worster and others are so very quick to dismiss the situation of those deemed legally incompetent and minors. Those are dependents. Some are dependent for decades, or for life. If families are responsible for the wellbeing and support of minors and those with disabilities that render them incompetent, then how is it that the state can continue to hold them hostage even when the rest of the family can manage to become free (IF they all can afford to renounce – a big if given the US fees multiplied by several individuals in a family).
The burden on those deemed legally incompetent is a life sentence – and we know that the US provides NOTHING to support them – NO benefit whatsoever, and in fact claims the right to extraterritorially tax their disability benefits and savings. With no recourse since they can never renounce.
Why is that not a crime worth writing about.
Indeed. It’s a question worth asking him (Worster).
@plaxy, good suggestion.
I see that his background includes international law, and experience at the UN.
http://law.slu.edu/william-thomas-worster
Actually, after mulling it over, I’ve come round to thinking that an agreed international standard to determine whether or not a person has renounced might be worse than the status quo.
A dual citizen of Country A and Country B is only subject to the laws of Country A while in that country’s jurisdiction. As long as a USC avoids entering the US and avoids committing an extraditable offence, they’re safe.
Conditions for satisfying an agreed international renunciation standard could be considerably more onerous.
badger – Contact details for the Hague University of Applied Science:
https://www.thehagueuniversity.com/contact/contact-offices
No email address unfortunately.
Thanks @plaxy.
And perhaps you’re right about the international standard perhaps turning out to be more onerous – and possibly for most people in the world unecessary. But some internationally recognized recourse appears to be necessary where countries like the US erect unreasonably high barriers to expatriation, or make it impossible to ever renounce (ex. those deemed legally incompetent or countries which won’t recognize any type of renunciation at all) and if they are also going to claim and try to enforce extraterritorial burdens such as CBT which they create as inseparable from the citizenship status they have burdened the individual with – even outside of their national borders.
Fortunately, they can’t enforce their law outside their jurisdiction, and they seem to know that and not try.
Citizenship or non-citizenship – fraught with perils, pitfalls and barriers not under control of individuals;
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/lost-canadian-winnipeg-mom-1.4487107
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/19/labor-mp-david-feeney-tells-high-court-he-cannot-find-citizenship-papers http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/katy-gallagher-case-reaches-high-court-as-dual-citizenship-saga-continues-into-2018-20180116-h0jgpk.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/08/rohingya-muslims-170831065142812.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/upshot/census-citizenship-hispanics-immigrants-mistrust.html
Yes – though none of those cases is about clinging citizenship, US-style.
True, just recent examples about the power states wield – or try to where citizenship is concerned.
Speaking of which, here’s Eritrea in the news again;
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2018/01/the-netherlands-expels-top-eritrean-diplomat-over-diaspora-tax/
Interestingly, “…Eritrea has imposed the 2% tax on its nationals in other countries since 1994. However, research by the Dutch government last September, which focused on the tax in seven European countries, found problems with both the legal basis and the way the tax is collected…….”
I wonder if the Dutch report’s findings re problems with the ‘legal basis’ of the Eritrean diaspora tax might have some commonality with aspects of US extraterritorial CBT being legally suspect.
We already know that Canada should expel the US’s ambassador, so now we know the Netherlands should too.
Now we know how helpful knowledge is. Or ethics. Etc.
badger – “ wonder if the Dutch report’s findings re problems with the ‘legal basis’ of the Eritrean diaspora tax might have some commonality with aspects of US extraterritorial CBT being legally suspect.”
It would be interesting to read that report,
The US tax and the Eritrean tax both seem to me (not a lawyer obviously) to be legally dodgy but in very different ways.
The US pretends all citizens are resident in the US, in order to impose RBT on all USCs everywhere.
Eritrea imposes a flat 2% tax on Eritreans outside Eritrea, but I don’t know what the legal rationale is, or what is the basis for determining who is Eritrean, or whether there is any procedure for becoming free of the tax.
As far as collection goes, it seems Eritrea uses illegal methods while the US relies on insane laws within its borders and treaties elsewhere; and that, plus the US dominance, is the reason other countries “respect the right of the US” to screw its non-resident citizens but expel Eritrean diplomats.
It would be very interesting to know more about the basis for the Eritrean diaspora tax.
Unofficial translation of the Dutch report:
https://martinplaut.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/the-long-arm-of-the-eritrean-regime-official-dutch-report/
Very interesting, and casts light on the ways in which the diaspora tax differs from US CBT.
@plaxy
Yes there are significant differences, but there is one major commonality:
“There is, however, a large silent group: they are afraid, keep their mouths shut and do not want to stand out.”
Granted the US isn’t threatening anyone’s physical safety in demanding it’s tax, but both the US and Eritrea use varying degrees of intimidation to collect tax from its diaspora. The US doesn’t need to demand its diaspora tax through its embassy, as it has tax treaties with other nations that do this. Also, it’s only a matter of time before a US expat will be denied a passport for the non-payment of US taxes. The intimidation increases, albeit slowly, but it is intimidation nonetheless.
Hence, the above mentioned group.
BB – I would describe the US threats and demands as bluffing.
US CBT is presented as compulsory but is actually voluntary. The more you learn about them, the less you’re scared.
Eritrean diaspora tax is presented as voluntary but is actually enforced (through illegal coercion). The more you learn about them, the scarier it gets.
Both nasty, but different kinds and degrees of nastiness. After reading that report I’m quite glad I wasn’t born in Eritrea.
“The US doesn’t need to demand its diaspora tax through its embassy, as it has tax treaties with other nations that do this.”
Actually it doesn’t. Don’t file and don’t invoke the treaty and they’ll leave you alone.
“Also, it’s only a matter of time before a US expat will be denied a passport for the non-payment of US taxes.”
Don’t file and don’t invoke the treaty and they’ll leave you alone.
Also – US CBT is not a diaspora tax. It’s US RBT. They just deem all US citizens (and their income/assets) to be taxable in the US – exactly like that Cook v. Tait judge who ruled that the property in Mexico could be taxed by the US Federal Government because it couldn’t be taxed by any other jurisdiction within US territory.
I wouldn’t want to be a refugee from anywhere. A whole different set of dynamics happen when people are forced from their countries. A lot of this illegal coercion comes from Eritrea’s diaspora itself (homelanders abroad) who are evidently supportive of the Eritrean government for whatever reasons.
A diaspora tax, whether it legal or collectable or not, is fundamentally wrong. The extortion fee the US charges to get out may be better than not being able to renounce at all, is still unavaible to the majority who’d like to renounce.
The fact that the US diaspora tax is uncollectible is not enough for many. Whether one feels intimidation or not is not the point – the US uses intimidation to enforce its diaspora tax.
“A diaspora tax, whether it legal or collectable or not, is fundamentally wrong. The extortion fee the US charges to get out may be better than not being able to renounce at all, is still unavaible to the majority who’d like to renounce.”
I agree that requiring renunciants to buy a CLN is fundamentally wrong, but it’s not a diaspora tax.
I don’t think we have any data on how many USCs want to obtain a CLN but can’t because of the price. It seems unlikely that they constitute the majority of those who have renounced or want to renounce. The price rise didn’t seem to cause a marked fall in sales, as I recall – I coukd be wrong.
“The fact that the US diaspora tax is uncollectible is not enough for many. Whether one feels intimidation or not is not the point – the US uses intimidation to enforce its diaspora tax.”
Apart from the amnesty programmes, I’m not aware of the US taking any action at all against a non-filing USC with no US-source income/assets living outside the US. They can’t do it, and they don’t try to, as far as I’ve heard.
People need to realize that the US doesn’t have the power to “come after them”, so that they won’t feel intimidated and can make a free decision about whether they want to file or not, and about whether they want to renounce or not.