At one time Jack Townsend seemed to be sympathetic to the plight of innocent so-called Americans abroad. Lately, however, he seems to have forgotten that we even exist:
U.S. Forfeits Over $480 Million Stolen by Former Nigerian Dictator (8/7/14)
He gets right down moralistic in this post. I think lawyers are better arguing law than they are morals–but because there is sometimes a relationship between law and morals, I suppose he feels qualified to make moral statements:
Of course, the human race is communal. If not, we would not have a human race today. Throughout most of our history, wealth was transparent to the community — maybe not in the sense of finite bottom-line net worth, but the trappings of wealth were physical. We knew who the guys with wealth were and, in a sense, we knew how wealthy they were. And we could assess the community’s coherence and bonding by how people contributed to the community and were rewarded for doing so. With secret financial institutions for hiding wealth, we lose that ability to assess and, as a community, demand what is best for the community.
So, as readers who have read this far, will know. I think transparency is a good thing. FATCA is a good thing. And the global initiatives it and the U,S. spotlight on tax havens have spawned are good things.
I disagree. To begin with, Jack Townsend seems to reject Constitutional privacy rights. The Fourth Amendment has a history in English common law. Fourth Amendment derives from legal tradition summed up in the expression: “Every man’s home is his castle”. This expression meant that a man’s wealth was none of the king’s business nor even the community’s business. Mr. Townsend thus seems to reject the tradition that created the Fourth Amendment, which made private property truly private. The basis of private property, however, is even older. It goes back to Moses, who brought forth the tablets inscribed by the finger of God, “Thou shalt not steal.” “Thou shalt not covet.” The king needs an inventory of the citizens assets because he covets it, and because he covets it, he will eventually steal it–biblical examples of covetousness followed by theft include King Ahab’s theft of field of Naboth (1 Kings 21) and King David’s adultery with Bathsheba and subsequent murder of her husband Uriah the Hittite. FATCA is about laying bare the assets of citizens abroad so that the USA can more easily take what would otherwise be out of sight and out of mind. FATCA thus presents deeply troubling ethical breeches of centuries old legal tradition.
My response on his blog was as follows–if he approves it, it will eventually show up there:
This example of kleptocracy as you have applied it to FATCA is an example of the maxim, “Hard cases make bad law.” The kletocracy of a Nigerian dictator hardly justifies the terror of millions of alleged citizens of the United States who are resident abroad in their countries of citizenship but having clinging US nationality. FATCA, as it is currently being implemented, strips millions of alleged Americans of their citizenship rights in their countries of choice: for example, the “accidental American” who is a Canadian citizen living in Canada. They no longer enjoy equal protection but their governments or their banks, forced by the US Treasury, will rat out to the IRS their innocent and necessary financial accounts in their home and country of citizenship.
I know many people living in fear because they have no easy way to come into compliance with the IRS–many of them see IRS offers to come into compliance as merely different forms of tyranny. FATCA is not good. FATCA is evil, because these people are innocent, hard working taxpayers here in Canada who receive no benefits of US citizenship.
And besides, the forfeiture of 480 million in this case is accomplished without FATCA: “Through the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division denies kleptocrats like Abacha the fruits of their crimes, and protects the U.S. financial system from money laundering.” I.e., FATCA is not even in the picture. You can accomplish these kinds of goals without making bad laws that destroy the lives of millions of innocent people.
I stopped reading and posting ever since he censured my comments. All that I wanted was that he made the effort to generalize less, but he didn’t like that. Oh well, there are better things to read out there.
I’ve also been reluctant to comment, particularly since he revised his comment policy. Today I made an exception–though I wonder if he will approve it. It is a risk to take the time to comment if it is not approved–it is a waste of my time.
Well, the readers at Isaac Brock probably outnumber those on his blog.
I am taking a wild guess here….I think he WON’T approve your comment! lol
For me, the hypocrisy is almost too much to bear. They want “transparency” while keeping those trusts anonymous in Delware. Just like they love their NSA knowing who is screwing who, but are outraged when Snowden tells some of their secrets to others.
Gwevil, So far you’re right.
Polly: That is a good point about transparency. First, let the government be transparent. They are civil servants not masters, and therefore they have no right to privacy.
Petros:
You must understand that for lawyers law usually is tantamount to morality.
Townsend seems to be saying that it’s important for Society to know who the guys with the money are. Why? Well obviously so the rest of society can confiscate it. That’s why FATCA is necessary – a sacred instrument of the confiscation of wealth.
To find out who the guys with the money are, he should just look at his client list. They are the one’s who will retain him (assuming that they don’t read this comment).
Anyway, I can’t figure out whether his comment is more stupid or more funny.
Kind of reminds of the old “Bud Lite” ad:
Is it “less filling” or does it “taste better”?
For all the pretzel logic being used to defend his position I don’t see in there anywhere that everyone including those inside the U.S. should have to turn over their banking information to the treasury every year. You know in the interest of transparency and knowing who the guys with the money are and all. How anyone can defend FATCA knowing full well the damages it has caused is beyond me but, it certainly isn’t based on morals.
@Petros
It was a real eyeopener form to see the civil servants in Switzerland. They were FRIENDLY and helpful and they understand full well that they are for the people. I never experienced that in any other place- it was like a breath of fresh air.
YES- governments should be transparent. They should practise what they preach.
Well, he has approved your post, Petros. And he is sympathetic to “minnows” caught in the OVDI/P mess.
While he’s off in left field when it comes to the relevance of FATCA to Nigerian (and other) kleptocrats, he was recently quite critical of the IRS misapplying the law with respect to “reasonable cause” and FBARs.
Perhaps it’s too much to expect lawyers to come out publicly against existing law. That would likely undermine their effectiveness as lawyers. Not a good idea to saw the branch you are sitting on….
I, for one, appreciate the help he has given, even if I don’t agree with him on everything.
@GwEvil, it seems our good friend decided my comment was worthy of his blog. But that’s as it should be. I cited the maxim, “Hard cases make bad law.” No response yet from Mr. Townsend.
@USCitizenAbroad, yes, lawyers and especially politicians may regard their positive law as morality. But this is where the idea of natural law comes to play–which suggests that nature itself has laws that supercede any man-made, positive laws like FATCA. Thou shalt not steal , Thou shalt not covet, are natural laws superseded in legislated law. This renders FATCA immoral. In order for positive law to be moral it must be in conformity with natural law.
Congress can pass laws that say the government is permitted to murder and steal. Murder and theft remain immoral notwithstanding.
I consult Townsend’s blog as an academic reference/resource. But I disagree with the professor.
Jack Townsend is a statist and socialist. He considers privacy to be a privilege reserved only for the government, which has a duty to redistribute (steal) wealth from productive people and give it to the idle.
As for expats, Jack considers the horror stories as merely “anecdotes,” which is the same as Robert Stack and his “myths.”
FromtheWilderness, I agree. Townsend talks about “bullshit” structures done to evade taxes, but never talks about anything the IRS does as “bullshit”, at least to my recollection. He is sometimes criticial of the IRS to be sure, but never accuses them of “buillshit”.
PEOPLE make laws- unless of course the laws are hidden from view and then imposed. I always think of the laws in Germany 1939. Jewish doctors are no longer allowed to treat patients, jews must now wear a yellow star etc etc. These were also laws. I too think that lawyers should use their training to fight unjust laws. And they should do it for free. They should make a ruckus against anything which goes against the constitution.
Polly I hear you and agree that lawyers should use their training to fight unjust laws — and anything that goes against any country’s constitution and bills of rights. But, can we realistically expect they should do it for free? We are fighting this here “for free” but we are the ones who are the collateral damage — others don’t have our same incentive, even if others are or will be affected though not so directly and they don’t yet know it. We have to convey to others the immorality of it — whatever lawyer is not going to do that (or at least I don’t think so).
@Calgary411
If justice is a question of being able to pay for it – where does that get us? They could perhaps band together and create a united front against these injustices- taking a load off each other and working together. I keep hearing “but its the law!” and I keep answering “but its a BAD law!” – but nobody hears me.
I`m guessing that the real problem is when people who have studied law and are in charge of upholding the constitution and bill of rights have sold their souls.
Jack Townsend replied to Peter’s comment. Some excerpts:
“I think your point is not that FATCA is evil, but the U.S. tax system’s feature of taxing expats who get no (or little) benefit from the U.S. is evil. FATCA is just a means of implementing that policy firmly imbedded in our tax system. Whether FATCA is the best implementation is perhaps debatable, but that and similar implementing regimes will have to be worked on to smooth out the rough edges.” — is Jack actually starting to get it?
Nope. Just when I thought he might be, his statist default switch flipped back on:
“But again, your complaint is not FATCA unless you are saying that expats would not pay their tax except for some regime like FATCA. Then they are not quite so innocent taxpayers. They simply disagree with the tax system and choose not to engage in it.”
Jack is hopeless. To him, rape victims “are not quite so innocent.”
Anyone with that practitioner’s level of understanding and real experience with the US tax system who can dismiss CBT and FATCA’s design, implementation, internal and external paradoxes and perversities, injustices and dangerous caprices as merely ‘rough edges’, and the serious effects already readily apparent on those claimed by the US as ‘taxable USpersons’ is determined to be an apologist for the system as it stands – no matter what evidence of harm and so-called ‘unintended’ consequences are right up in their face. Such a person has deliberately averted their gaze from the ethical, moral and real harm that the US is causing, which we have only seen the beginnings of on a global scale as FATCA really begins. Is it willful blindness?
As an addendum – does Jack think that the urgency and repeated warnings and recommendations by the IRS Taxpayer Advocate as to the problems clearly identified so far with CBT, FBAR, etc. are not robust proof of the harm already experienced by those abroad deemed ‘taxable USpersons’?
If he respects Nina Olson’s intelligence and insight into the serious flaws in the system, why does he think that FATCA can be excused – as it only exponentially magnifies the problems already identified in the reports to Congress. He continually pushes responsibility for relief and recourse onto the ACA and other expat organizations – and those living abroad, yet he knows full well that many are not even US citizens, and that even those who are may have no contact with the US at all, and no ability to vote from afar. Many may not even speak English.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Bottom line about Jack Townsend? He believes his own bullshit.
“Throughout most of our history, wealth was transparent to the community”
Just what “community” is he talking about? Why does it include those on other side of the world from him?
What Jack advocates here is the U.S. maxim: THINK LOCALLY, ACT GLOBALLY.
When I was little my parents taught me not to flash my money around. Discretion is a part of my culture. Discretion is actually quite contrary to transparency.
What Jack means by “community” quite obviously is the state, and hence, Wilderness above called him a “statist”. The US constitution however says that the federal government only has a right to transparency with regard to a person’s wealth, if it can show reasonable cause and obtain a warrant. Otherwise, discretion is the better part of valour.
@Polly
Do you mean sort of a Hippocratic Oath for lawyers?
One good thing is we’d have fewer bad lawyers.
@Bubblebustin
Wouldnt that be heavenly? They really should be held to some kind of standard and have to take an oath.
Jack Townsend mentions that he represents clients in the OVDI process. Who in their right mind, after reading his comments, would hire him, knowing his first loyalty is to the State .