American Citizens Abroad has posted an update with information concerning their efforts to replace Citizenship-based Taxation with Residence-based Taxation. They are also calling for testimonials about how legislation is affecting you and for your support in by writing the Tax Committee directly responsible for tax reform and asking for the implementation of RBT.
Update on Residence-Based Taxation RBT – August 2014
ACA has been hard at work in Washington, DC bringing RBT to the attention of the legislature and the Administration. ACA has met with all the members of the Americans Abroad Caucus, and the Ways & Means and Senate Finance committees. ACA has been asked by the committees involved in tax reform to provide our input on the tax treatment of Americans living and working overseas. We are proud that ACA is now the government “go to” source for information on many of the issues affecting overseas Americans, and we regularly submit comments to government hearings on issues important to our membership.
Media attention on the issues of overseas Americans is growing. More and more major media outlets like Bloomberg, CNN, Forbes, Time, Politico and others are talking about RBT and FATCA. Much of this attention is due to the ACA commitment to bringing the issues of overseas Americans to the attention of the media. ACA is regularly solicited for interviews and quoted in the media.
ACA was the first overseas organization to advocate for “Same Country Exception” for FATCA and the first to develop a specific detailed proposal for Residence-Based Taxation (RBT). ACA is pleased to see that other organizations such as Democrats Abroad and Republicans Overseas have picked up our messaging on FATCA and taxation and are also advocating to the Washington legislature and the Administration on this subject.
ACA’s Comprehensive Compliance Procedure was the basis of the recent IRS Streamlined Foreign Offshore Program, which allows a low- to no-risk process for Americans overseas to become tax compliant.
In addition, ACA was able to get a special provision inserted first in a number of Intergovernmental Agreements and then in the FATCA regulations, requiring local overseas banks not to discriminate against Americans if they want to qualify for certain types of favorable treatment. ACA is one of the few, if not the only, organization representing Americans abroad that has the expertise and working relationships to permit it to work on a technical level like this.
ACA continues to advocate on behalf of Americans living and working overseas and the organization is truly the Voice of Americans Overseas. ACA is listening to you and Washington is listening to ACA.
Send us your testimonials on how current legislation is affecting you. These testimonials are important to our advocacy work but even more important is your work in contacting your own Congressional representative. We ask you to write to your representative today and let him or her know your thoughts and personal experience, and please send a copy to ACA as well.
You can also support our work by writing directly to the Tax Committees responsible for tax reform and asking for RBT. Go HERE
In all your communications to Congress, if you need to use a US residential address, use your last known address in the United States, the same one from which you are registered to vote.
Damn, gotta admire ACA’s tenacity here and MaryLouise, their rep in D.C.. I only had 1 week in Washington talking to the pols and that was quite enough for me. 🙂
That said, honestly these days I am putting my money on the court cases and what I would really like to see is ALL the diaspora organizations UNITING (ACA, AARO, FAWCO, Chambers of Commerce, American Clubs and so many others) and publicly getting behind the court cases in the US and in Canada and a possible EU one.
Alas, what I can see from this press release is that this is NEVER going to happen and Americans abroad are going to lose.
Yep, losing the faith here, folks…
@Victoria
You write:
I assume you mean that the various groups will not “get behind” the court challenges.
You then go on to say “Americans abroad” are going to lose.
There are a number of aspects to this.
It appears that ACA has made a decision to NOT (at least publicly) support the FATCA court challenge in Canada. (For that matter, not a single one of the other groups you mention have either.) Some thoughts.
First, ACA has made it clear that it is an organization that supports “Americans”. “Americans” don’t renounce U.S. citizenship. Americans do NOT oppose the U.S. government, etc. “Americans” focus on “political solutions”. Americans don’t pursue legal remedies. Americans would never renounce their citizenship. As much as I respect ACA’s tireless work, fantastic research and good advocacy, I believe that ACA is wrong on this point. The reality is that America was founded on those who renounced British citizenship, etc. A second reality is that without change there will NO “Americans abroad” remaining for ACA to represent.
Second, what does one mean by “Americans abroad?”. The Canadian lawsuit is hugely supported (and I suspect funded) by people who do NOT want to be American and who believe that they are NOT American. They are supporting the lawsuit because they are accused of being American when they don’t believe they are. They are “Americans abroad” from the perspective of the United States (if you were born in the U.S. then we own you). They are NOT “Americans abroad” from the perspective of groups like ACA. In other words, ACA (by disassociating from those who want to renounce) are NOT actually a group that represents all those the U.S. government deems to be Americans abroad. To put it another way: ACA represents ONLY those born in the U.S. who want to be American (a shrinking group).
Third, President Truman used to say, and Ronald Regan adopted the principle that:
“We can accomplish anything if we don’t care who gets the credit.”
I agree that that the ACA press release sounds more like an ad for ACA than anything else. I wonder who wrote the press release and I wonder about was the intended purpose. I hope that ACA is not (and it sounds like they may be) attempting to distance themselves from other groups and individuals who have worked so hard and tirelessly to draw attention to the injustices of U.S. taxation and FATCA. ACA is a good organization and they are certainly the “longest running” organization in the business of assisting Americans abroad. It is precisely because of their “recognition” in Washington that they should support the many other groups and individuals who have worked so hard, tirelessly, with little or no money, etc.
Fourth, you conclude that “Americans abroad are going to lose”. The truth is that, those Americans abroad who have attempted tax compliance, have already suffered such enormous damage to their finances, their mental health, their physical health, etc. that even a win (change to RBT) will not restore them to their “Pre-Obama State”. But, this is a much broader issue. It is an issue that is bigger than any one person. This is why you cannot be “losing the faith”. At the present time, there are individual losers, there are individual winners (think the tax compliance industry). But tomorrow is different.
A great American Homelander once said:
“Whether you think you can do it or whether you think you can’t do it, you are right either way.”
At the end of the day “Americans abroad are going to win”. It’s just that not every American abroad will win.
I will express this principle in a very simple-minded and familiar way:
“Yes, we can!”
@USCitizenAbroad, All very good points and thank you for so much for making them. I am, alas, sitting here (and have been for months) in a state of frustration with all the groups representing Americans abroad. I see both lack of unity of purpose and internal politics (and bickering) between the different organizations. ACA is not even close to being the “longest-running” org here (that honor goes to FAWCO) and the successes ACA is claiming in this press release were all joint efforts with a number of different organizations (and people) working very hard to get that much (and precious little it is) out of the US gov. Until recently all the diaspora orgs were very careful to give credit where credit was due and to recognize the work of other organizations on common projects. I agree with you 100% that so much can get done if no one cares who gets the credit but when one org appears to be distancing itself (and that is exactly how it is perceived) and tries to grab the sole credit for joint work, well, how exactly are they to respond? And the answer is that publicly they say nothing while the links between the orgs deteriorate more and more and everyone goes his or her own way.
This is disastrous for Americans abroad who are putting their faith in these orgs. Not one has a large enough membership base to come even close to being “the voice of Americans abroad”. These are small (and I mean REALLY small) orgs with little money who have had to fight like demons TOGETHER to get to the point where they can now get a moderately polite and pleasant reception in Washington. If they cannot work together now then frankly I don’t think there is a chance in hell that any of them will succeed in Washington.
What would I like to see? All of these orgs locked in a room and told that they can’t come out until they fix the issues they have with each other.
I speak as a member of ACA, AARO and FAWCO and frankly I am this close to not re-upping my membership with any of them.
@Victoria
Thanks for sharing your thoughts/perceptions. You are in Europe where many of these groups are based and I know that you actively support them. So you see this more clearly and (understandably) take the frustration personally.
But, the very fact that you are linked to all of them, (if you will take this in the spirit I intend it) puts you in a special position to perhaps build some bridges. I encourage you to do this.
I was thinking about this the other day. I am not even certain who all of these groups are. What about creating something called “U.S. Persons Abroad United” which would at least identify them and perhaps bring them together.
I really don’t understand (and maybe you can help me with this) what the “issues” are that they have to fix.
I also think that the time has come for groups like (and specifically) Democrats Abroad to articulate their purpose in a public way. At first blush, one would think that they are there a group of Americans abroad (who just happen to be Democrats) that are there to assist Americans abroad. It has become clear that they are simply a branch of the Democratic Party. They are there to further the goals of the Obama administration.
Anyway, could you please explain what the issues among these groups are?
The simple fact of the matter is that:
Any person born in the United States is under attack by the United States.
That should be enough to unify these groups.
At some point I think, it may be necessary to accept that groups like ACA are actually subversive. Most of the members are American living abroad, some of whom have accepted the citizenship of other countries. Perhaps they thought they were being subversive by having link to Isaac Brock Society on their website, at least before their recent restructuring. But actually, it is subversive to place one’s first loyalty to America, as Victoria put it: “[ACA] is an organization that supports “Americans”. “Americans” don’t renounce U.S. citizenship. Americans do NOT oppose the U.S. government, etc. “Americans” focus on “political solutions”.”
When do such people, whose loyalty remains first and foremost to the United States, start becoming subversive of the countries in which they live? Here is an example: they actually advertize on behalf of the cross border specialists–but if I asked to pay for a link to Isaac Brock Society, which would defend the sovereignty of Canada and other nations, I seriously doubt that the current leadership would accept. So they are actively working to undermine their countries of residence by openly promoting compliance.
I had to make a choice between my Canadian family and a foreign government–foreign to my family, foreign to the community in which I live, and foreign now to me. So I obtained Canadian citizenship to acknowledge that I belong now to this community here, and not some alien nation to which I once had ties. Then, I went into the US Consulate and told them I can’t be a dual citizen, because at some point I would have to choose between my loyalty to my family and my local community, and my loyalty to the United States. I decided that I could not, I would not, I should not be a subversive in the country in which I live.
@All
I think this would be an appropriate time to share a reply I received from ACA nearly three years ago when I reached-out to them about their communications strategy. This was also just a month or so before we established the Isaac Brock Society. I very much appreciated Marylouise Serrato’s response, which amounted to as much of an ACA mission statement as I’ve ever seen. Three years on, their philosophy and modus operandi remains pretty much the same.
I realized right away that the concerns and interests of US expats who do NOT consider themselves to be American citizens would never fully intersect with those of the constituency which ACA purports to represent. There would certainly be large areas of common interest, but there would also be hard firewalls that clearly separate some very divergent points of view, particularly with regards to relinquishment and renunciation.
Here, then, is the exchange:
@Deckard,
Similarly, the Republicans Overseas, although willing to litigate against FATCA, would not promote any changes in the U.S. citizenship laws or IRS tax code regulations that could make it easier for U.S. citizens to “renounce” — even though RO recognizes that there are many who clearly should not be U.S. citizens.
It will take a group like ADCS to push for these changes — in court.
Victoria, you have worked so hard way over there. I am sorry for the turmoil you’re facing right now as we don’t all come together with the same purpose.
My personal take is that any organization that does not completely condemn the archaic CBT that is destroying people’s lives while the rest of the world practices RBT, I cannot support. I have had my personal conversations with representatives of a couple of the organizations you refer to, none of them really ‘getting’ what I had to say about “entrapment” of those like my so into US citizenship. Of course, I had expressed my views previously at http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/05/22/victoria-is-first-up-aaro-recap-video-of-overseas-americans-week/, so I won’t repeat them here. I especially appreciated foo’s wise (common-sense!) words re:
I will never forget Andy Sundberg’s works that I read here at Isaac Brock nor will I ever forget Patric Hale’s answer to this comment I made when he died: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/09/01/andy-sundberg-passes-away/comment-page-1/#comment-51329
Patric’s comment back to me I will never forget: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/09/01/andy-sundberg-passes-away/comment-page-1/#comment-51363
uhh so whats the update on RBT??, they never get to the point, this reads like an ad for the ACA
Long ago I sent the ACA an email suggesting to set up a working group to explore ways to mount a legal challenge in the European Courts. The response was something like this “we must stay apolitical and not be seen to be working against the interests of the US.”
The US won’t change CBT or FATCA unless it thinks the economy is being adversely affected. In other words it’s hitting the US in the pocket.
Why couldn’t the ACA remain publically apolitical and set up a separate working committee to leverage all their European contacts to get a legal challenge to FATCA moving?
The ACA has worked on citizenship, taxes, and social security problems, but quite honestly their biggest problem is FATCA.
Citizenship problems? Who in European really wants US citizenship anymore? FATCA killed that.
Taxes? I believe all those non-compliant ex-pats have bigger problems than going to Washington trying to get the 3.8% Obamacare investment tax overturned or other minor tweeks.
Social Security? Ex-pats were screwed by Reagan 20 years ago when they lost have their SS. The biggest problem with retirement is not being able to take advantage with oversea investment opportunities and your pension income being classed as passive so the FEIE doesn’t apply.
For an ex-pat, FATCA is Problem No. 1 everything else pales.
In view of FATCA, is the ACA’s original mission still valid? Should it update its mission to reflect the hostile environment that ex-pats now live under because of the US Congress’ actions? Should the ACA now have on its homepage an idiot’s guide on renouncing US citizenship?
The original mission of helping children denied US citizenship, people being denied SS benefits, spouses getting green cards, is simply not as relevant as FATCA.
ACA isn’t going to get a ‘Second Country Exception’ which essentially is trying to overturn CBT. Congress won’t do it and give those ‘tax cheats’ any leeway. It’s not going to happen.
The ACA’s new mission should be working as a conduit between the EU and the US considering a majority of its members are probably dual US / EU citizens. The old mission of flying the US flag abroad, working with the US Congress to make changes in particular pieces of legislation, and staying apolitical but pro-American simply doesn’t reflect the post-FATCA world we now have to live in.
ACA please change.
I know it’s a bit early for Halloween, but here’s another way to look at it:
ACA and other “traditional” overseas organizations represent the last of a dying breed – self-described Americans trying to survive as Americans in a New World Order under FATCA.
On the other hand, Isaac Brock Society, Maple Sandbox and ADCS mainly represent a breed which has already “died” (expats who no longer identify or have ever self-identified as Americans) and which the US government, like Dr. Frankenstein, is desperately trying to re-animate for its own nefarious purposes.
Soon the distinctions will blur and we will ALL effectively be undead – doomed to be controlled by an American mad-scientist government with the obsequious help of a worldwide army of compliant Igors in the form of our home governments.
Yes, pretty horrifying all right.
Whatever factions we have here, it would only be a total imbecile who would not invest in the Republicans Overseas effort to challenge the unconstitutionality of FATCA in court. At that point, it is totally irrelevant whether republican or democrat, renunciant or not. At that point – everybody should see the significance of funding the fight against FACTA in an american court. It would be crazy not to help to fund this last and most serious attempt to end the horrors and injustice – no matter which party one adheres to or which side you are on. Canadians have their own agenda against their own human rights violations and rightly so. It is about Canada and their sovereignty and charter of human rights. But the true death thrust would be at the US Supreme Court level which would help everybody in the whole world. I dont know- but maybe that will be the point when we all come together. Because I agree that the different factions are indeed diluting and hinders the effort to be a serious cause worth recognising.
(And I could very well imagine that even democrats abroad would help to fund Bopp, even if they had to do it anonymously. Unless of course they don’t believe that Bopp can win the case for unconstitutionality?)
Adding to the excellent points raised by Petros, Deckard and others, I offer the following opinion:
If you actually consider yourself to be a US citizen and want to remain one, and live outside the US, organizations like ACA are your cup of tea, and you should support them. If you think it will make any real difference (I share Victoria’s and others’ pessimism on that point), sure, give them a testimonial.
If like most folks I know who are involved in this site, or who are posting on it at least, you do NOT consider yourself to be a US citizen, haven’t for years if ever as an adult, and have utterly no desire ever to become a US citizen and consider your sole loyalty, allegiance and citizenship to be that of some country other than the US (like Canada, still and God willing), then ACA isn’t for you.
Are you and do you personally consider yourself to be (and wish to remain) an “American citizen abroad,” or not? It boils down to that, I think.
I’m intrigued to hear of a possible EU court challenge, that would be great if it happens. In the meantime, in Canada the only hope for those whom the US considers to be US citizens and who don’t want that, is the court challenge. Please donate at the ADCS website (see the pinned main post on the home page of Isaac Brock or Maple Sandbox for details and a link). IMO that would be a far better use of your money than blowing it on an ACA membership, unless of course you actually do consider yourself to be an American Citizen Abroad. If so, good luck to you, you’re going to need it.
ACA’s continued advocacy for FATCA with a “SAME COUNTRY EXEMPTION” only addresses one of the symptoms of the cancerous problem of CBT. If a same country exemption is granted, it will only help PROLONG THE LIFE OF CBT, which is not in the interest of Americans living abroad.
Not only does “same country exemption” work against achieving the goal of RBT, it does nothing to help Americans or tainted persons who live in one country, but work in another and bank in both. This is the case for many people living within the European Union or for those who work in unstable countries but do their retirement planning elsewhere.
This is why I view ACA as an ally of sort, but I get a bit hot under the collar whenever they toot their horn about being the “go to guys” for Americans abroad.
As long as ACA continues to advocate for “same country exemption” as a solution for CBT, they are falling far too short of their self-professed claim of representing the interests of “all” Americans abroad.
BTW, where the hell is the famous CBT debate video?
Wow, wonderful comments. This is why I love IBS – lots of debate, lots of different viewpoints. To be brutally honest, this is the ONLY place I feel “empowered.” 🙂
I am reading Nancy Green’s latest and sweet serendipity she talks about CBT – that is a discussion about CBT back in 1913!
Americans abroad were howling then, too and they had some heavy hitters leading the challenge – businessmen though the American Chambers of Commerce. For their efforts they were given foreign tax credits (1918) and the foreign earned income exclusion (1926).
So if Green is correct and the fight against CBT is roughly 100 years old, I have a question: What about this fight today in 2014 has changed things so that we believe that it is possible to kill CBT now or in the near future? What is the strategy here? More of the same? More letters, testimonials, pilgrimages to Washington, proposals beautfiful presented and flawlessly argued? Where is the evidence that these things will make a difference? Where is the progress?
It’s a serious question. And, yes, Calgary, I am getting tired. So many efforts out there and while I am absolutely convinced of the good intentions of all the people working so hard to fight FATCA and CBT, I am running out of wallet (those dues plus money I want to contribute to both the Republican and ADCS lawsuits) and will. 🙂
@Victoria. Since 1913! Wow. Didn’t know that.
Yes you raise a very serious question. If after 100 years people are still having this discussion, what hope is there that the US is really going to abandon CBT?
IMO the larger and more important fight is to stop the contagion at the US border, cold, and make sure a) US law remains where it belongs, insider US borders and not outside those borders (same rule as applies to all other countries on this planet), and b) that other countries don’t get the stupid idea of adopting CBT because the US thinks it’s a good idea or because of US bullying.
Thanks, Victoria.
We all have to decide how our limited money is best spent — at least I do. Mine will be toward litigation. It is the ONLY thing that makes sense to me.
For anyone still deciding how to best spend for the good of ALL US-defined *US Persons Abroad*, check out all pages of Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty website, http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/. It is about a lawsuit brought in Canada, but it is an example for what other countries can do and, if we win that our Canadian rights are not to be waived with extraterritorial U.S. law, it should make litigation in other countries more effective. Read all (and view the video on the “In Parliament” page) and donate if you agree. This lawsuit is for Gwen and Ginny and you!!
@Schubert, ADCS represents the interests of all people living in Canada, whether they want to keep or not keep citizenship in other countries.
@Bullwinkle. Good question. I send an email to the ACA Global Foundation once a month requesting an answer. My next email will be sent September 1, but why don’t you give it a try:
info@acaglobalfoundation.org
@Victoria, You ask for the best strategy that will kill CBT in the near future. Although the experts tell me this will not work, I like the litigation approach. ADCS is now exploring various options.
CBT is never going away unless American’s Abroad have their OWN congress critter representing them. Someone who knows the issues inside out and sits in there and advocates for us. There are seven million U.S. citizens abroad. That is bigger than some states yet we have this scatter shot representation that adds up to NO representation. We’re big enough to have a representative and yet we do not. ACA, AARO, and the rest are scattered too and tiny and they are not there all the time. We have no one in D.C. who even bothers to consider how “U.S. law affects Americans abroad.” They didn’t bother to set up that committee and they are not going to do it until they have made it so burdensome to live abroad that nearly all expats except those who can afford it will have to renounce. If the U.S. congress ever has it’s OMG moment…WE forced all these people out, then maybe we’ll get some representation. So far *crickets*
CBT is immoral but, it is SO ingrained in the psyche of Americans including those in congress that to oppose it brings gasps of shock from home landers including law makers. They have no idea at all. Going back to listen to the CSPAN debates held in 1995. It is very clear they have only the myth of the rich overseas tax cheat from which to launch any discussions. It’s lala land and sadly in congress that is the only depth any discussion is given, it’s their starting,middle and end point when making laws that affect us.
I wanted to keep my citizenship and could not. Simple as that. Well, not so simple since the entire would seems to despise duals but, you know family on two sides of any border makes things sticky and difficult. Frankly, I now wish 35 years ago I had told my spouse we’re not moving outside the U.S. because if I had done that none of THIS b.s. would be happening. Little did I know and the U.S. needs to hand out a booklet if you are even thinking of leaving as to how you’ll be treated forever after. Young and dumb was I then, with my head full of stars and heart full of adventure. bah humbug.
This lawsuit could bring attention to the this issue world wide and embolden other nations to push back collectively. That is the only thing that will get the U.S. to even think about getting rid of CBT. They do not care about expats one little bit but,might respond to other world powers saying “wait a damn minute here.” Especially with law suits and NO reciprocity forthcoming. I’ve begun to mockingly push and advocate for FATCA to be applied to everyone inside the U.S. too because after all it is such a great idea!! What could possibly go wrong with all three hundred something million Americans giving over their bank data to HLS, IRS and treasury. The U.S. has made a law that criminalizes some Americans and not others with NO evidence of wrong doing. What’s good for the goose is good for the U.S. homelander. I am pushing for them to put their money where their mouth is and turn over all their bank info involuntarily to the above agencies every year. That way you know, no one can have a yard sale and not report it on their tax forms as I am positive MANY are doing! Those tax evaders!
Americans think every horrible thing done in their name is okay until it is done to them. I don’t think CBT is going anywhere and faced with that reality the goal is to donate to this law suit and at the very least make Canada follow it’s own Charter of Rights and own laws. Let other countries support it too and follow with their own law suits. First step goal.
Victoria – we are about a million people in Canada with some link or another to the US. While I am sure there are some that would not mind keeping it the same way they keep old family pictures on the mantle, anyone who has reviewed the situation even cursorily will rapidly come to the same conclusion that I think you have: the US is not going to change its core policies that make life all but completely impossible for any long-term residents with any but the simplest of financial situations to tolerate.
I can hardly speak for all Canadians affected by this issue, but my sense is that a very, very large number simply want to be left alone by the US and have nothing further to do with them. They are saddened, disappointed, angry – pick your emotion – that a country with whom they (once) had some form of bond has sought so callously to harm or oppress them; sadder still that getting ANY traction in the homeland press to address the problem is virtually and politically impossible. However, they simply want a simple, no fault divorce (or annulment!).
If the ACA were worth its salt, it would ALSO address this constituency. The US will not have good relations with its disapora for as long as it seeks to forcibly retain unwilling members in a club they neither want to join nor claim membership in. These are overwhelmingly middle class, ordinary folks who never knew they had anything to comply with, never complied or entered the system and now simply want a graceful exit without complication. A wiser country might search for a way to keep them as free ambassadors. We are way past that – it is almost no exaggeration to say that many would sooner be ambassadors for North Korea than the US the way anger has been allowed to fester and boil up. I’m sure they will eventually calm down but the hurt that has been generated is pretty real and deep. It is, at any rate, academic. The “don’t let the door hit you on the way out” crowd IS representative of public sentiment in the US and there is no conceivable means of reasoned debate on an issue that no actual voter can be bothered to consider let alone care about.
The litigation route offers at least some prospect of inserting a burr of sufficient and persistent pain that the US might conclude that creation of a path to a mutual parting of the ways is the path of least resistance. Some simple and even feasible policy options: (i) End the exit tax for anyone who was permanently resident outside the United States on the day it was introduced; (ii) re-draft the FBAR regulations in accordance with the EXISTING statute to exclude same-country long term non-resident accounts and/or simply exclude accounts in non-tax haven jurisdictions (both possible without any input from Congress and well within the stated intent of existing statutes); (iii) provide retroactive amnesty for any FBAR filings not due under new regulations; (iv) permit CLN’s to be applied for and delivered by mail similar to Canada (and deal with the persons under disability problem the same way OTHER disability issues dealt with via a guardian or similar avenue); (v) provide a window to apply for a CLN and amnesty for anyone who applies and satisfies simple criteria for long-term non-residence and relinquishment; (vi) if politically you can’t live without CBT, then simplify it for the taxpayer and the IRS by permitting the filing of “own country” tax returns for anyone long-term resident in OECD countries (every one of whom has higher tax rates) – even provide a simple, graduated tax based on “own country” tax paid with a cap at some low level (say 2% or 3% of foreign tax paid). The above would remove the stress, anxiety and everything else for 99.99% of all persons afflicted with US connections. It would offer fairness, efficiency and might even raise more revenue than the existing system. Those prepared to submit could do so on a reasonable basis with almost nil enforcement cost going forward and the irritant in US relations with allied countries AND its diaspora would be either removed entirely or reduced to insignificance.
Were the ACA or any similar organizations worth their salt, they would advocate policies along the above lines. If they were strategic, they would recognize the litigation as a helpful tool in attaining a global and humane realignment of US relations with this group of both willing and unwilling citizens.
The status quo offers zero chance of a humane settlement. Litigation offers some.
as always, a short PS: Even if litigation doesn’t prod the US into embracing a humane realignment of its relationship to the diaspora, it will at least provide a means to allow some segment of the diaspora to live in relative peace and security from invasive and extraterritorial US over-reach. That may be all that can be achieved unilaterally, but it is better than nothing.
The history, degree of involvement, and passion of Victoria lend special weight to her comment.
Just the name of American Citizens Abroad yokes three always-ugly words together into a phrase that has evolved into an unconscionable conceptual atrocity.
Years of struggle with authorities by would-be representatives — be they governments, courts, organizations, associations, vaporware “societies” [ahem] — lead only to the fundamental reality:
Sauve qui peut!
To extract a few bitter drops from pervasive historico-mythical kneejerks.
On a gasping globalized planet, where every border is fenced by documents, there is no possible destination for an underground railroad. (Maybe still North Korea? Bon voyage.)
Never let yourself utter the name Rosa Parks without a Trayvon Martin echo. Veneer always peels. Perceived victories are the hoodwinks of states. Gird for eternal skirmish.
The weapon of choice in the arsenal of Uncle Sam’s IRS battalion is neverending uncertainty, a sadistic regime ensconced on the tribute of pitiful tax slaves.
@UScitizenabroad, Just realized that you asked about the “issues” that the different orgs have. That’s a good question and here’s one that I think is obvious.
Those testimonials.
Ever notice that EVERY org is asking for them?
So what happens to them? Or more precisely what DOESN’T happen.
They aren’t shared. That’s right. Every org has it’s own little “bank” of stories and they are never put together in one grand database accessible to all. Instead you have one org that puts them together and transmits them for its purposes and then another org stops by (often at the same agency or person) and delivers another set of stories and so on and so forth. (Similar problem with the various polls floating around.)
So at the end of the day what’s the result here? I’d say the UG gov should be very relieved – multiple orgs to deal with and there is clearly no communication among them. Yowza! No need to “divide and conquer” they’ve already done it to themselves.
Worse this also happens when these orgs go to see the different agencies and politicians. Zero coordination – one org can see a pol (or an agency) one day and then another org can stop by 6 months later and org B has no idea what pol/agency said to Org A.
So how about this instead? A common database of testimonials. A minimum of coordination so that we don’t get played in D.C. Allow for and respect differences but actively seek common goals/projects.
Stuff like that.
By nature they should all have limitations which ought to be understandable. I think you need to cut them some slack and accept them for what they are. It sounds like they aren’t perfect–some internal strifes and some good old boy atttitudes.
But what do you expect? ACA collects 70 bucks from anyone who wants to give it to them. They are lucky that they get enough to have any office at all. Surefly the other ones do the same. Most of the people in the organizations are not different than soccer club volunteers—-they put in some time when they have it. Most of it is volunteer. For a volunteer organization, the objective is to do some work for the organization if you don’t like what is going on.
What else is available? DA which is an official arm for the promotion of the Democratic Party. RO is a 401 organization registered with the party, led by a very small group of people who are focused upon FATCA CBT FBAR. AARO FAWCO are just volunteer orgs. Brock is a website, as is Sandbox. And ADSC is a small group with a wide base of donators who are primarily pursuing litigation.
That’s all there is. There isn’t anything more. We better figure out a way to keep them cause there should as heck isn’t a darn sh_t in any government that is doing any work.
Oops. Sorry. Obama Barack is working for Americans Abroad.