Jack Townsend says that civil disobedience is only really justifiable in the case that there is a possibility of jury nullification, but no jury of US citizens would find a tax evader Canadian citizen “not guilty” for shirking the US tax code. Furthermore, he says that Americans don’t admire those who do their disobedience in hiding. I offer here the continuation of our discussion:
Mr. Dunn,
I understand the concept of civil disobedience, but that does not mean that we are entitled to only obey laws of our liking and disobey the rest. All of society would be in shambles if that were the case -‘- we may not like tax laws, hence we don’t report or pay, we may not like laws that say we cannot have nuclear weapons, hence we stock up on nuclear weapons, and so on. That is pure anarchy.
Specifically, in a tax context, in your imagination, every tax protestor in the world would be honorable to disobey the law. Yet, tax protestors routinely suffer society’s civil and criminal consequences of disobeying the law. All you are saying is that you and others with similar views are just tax protestors. I do not see any honor in that.
If you don’t like the system the U.S. has, then do what you did — expatriate and surrender your U.S. citizenship and then go somewhere else that has laws that you are willing to honor. (Although, I guess your theory is that, you can pick and choose which laws of Canada you will obey, as well; maybe at some point the citizens of Canada through their government representatives may have something to say about that).
And, to close the loop, I do know about civil disobedience. Depending on context, conduct which you call civil disobedience can be honorable or not honorable. I think you know where I stand on someone making the unilateral choice not to report and pay U.S. tax. The U.S. tax systems gives U.S. taxpayers plenty of opportunity to vet their complaints to Congress (the proper focus) or even in the Courts where in a civil or criminal case the jury could be asked to exercise its power of jury nullification to bless such civil disobedience. My experience with juries is that no jury — let me repeat, no jury — of U.S. citizens would find the sympathy required to exercise its inherent power of jury nullification.
So, if you are looking for sympathy or support for such notions, you won’t find it from me. There are any number of other blogs where you can get the echo feedback chamber you seek, but I hope the bulk of my readers do not sympathize with these notions.
Jack Townsend
Petros responded:
On a final note, since this is not an echo chamber and you will soon dismiss my contrarian views as kooky: may I please remind you that Canadian citizens tried in an American court for alleged form crimes committed in Canada would be travesty of the sovereignty of Canada, not to mention a violation of Constitutional rights. Please consider my post on this subject from 2012. A kangaroo court it would be, and it would be against the fundamental principles of justice which the Founders of the United States shed their blood to protect.
Of course US citizen juries would find me guilty. But no jury of my peers would find me guilty for illegal accounts at my local Ontario branch.
Rosa Parks, by Jack standard of honourable civil disobedience, who have been condemned by an all white jury. So I would be condemned by an all US resident/citizen jury.
Jack Townsend responded:
I will just say that Rosa Parks did her civil disobedience in the open. Failing to file tax returns or omitting income required to be disclosed is not the type of civil disobedience that we so admire in this country.
I guess the analogy is from the Vietnam war era when persons who disagreed with the war refused to be drafted into service. Some in the U.S., refused and bravely took the punishment the law meted out. Others fled to, say, Canada. The type of civil disobedience we admire is the former and not the latter. Applying that to the tax return situation, the person who disagrees with U.S. taxation of expats and is willing to go to jail to express his or her disagreement is in a different category from those who just disappear from the IRS radar screen, either wholly by not filing returns or partially by omitting income.
Jack Townsend
I responded:
Viet Nam is an interesting analogy, precisely because some of those who fled, whom Jimmy Carter pardonned, became Canadian citizens, and as a result lost their US citizenship. Then in 1986, that a Supreme Court decision unilaterally reinstated that citizenship. Now neanderthal border guards tell these Canadians who try to cross the border that they must cross with a US passport, and further, without informing of them that they have a right to expatriate–this creates a US citizenship trap. It seems the Federal Government is now more interested in revenue from these people whom you do not admire.
I have to say however that Viet Nam is a very good example of bad policy decisions that are not worth dying for. The US lost 58,200 military personnel and then left the country to the Viet Cong, and subsequently millions of Vietnamese were either killed or had to flee South Viet Nam. Since they let these South Vietnamese victims become homeless or dead anyway, the America casualties were wasted. So while you may not admire those who did not waste their lies on a policy mistake, at least many if not most of them are still alive and well in Canada, paying their taxes to our government, being productive and exemplary citizens of their new country.
Somehow I doubt that you really have much admiration for Irwin Schiff. I do. Also I love Wesley Snipes. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But I don’t recommend that people become martyrs. However, your critique does not apply to me because I have been public about my civil disobedience, even as you have seen on this page, which I am sure that the IRS probably has an eye on–I’ve been told by a 30 year IRS veteran that the IRS monitors my activities at the Isaac Brock Society. So my open defiance is on behalf of all the Canadians for whom you have no admiration.
My punishment is not being able to return to the US. To be sure, I did once last summer to search my father who, as a result of his Alzheimer’s disease, disappeared in the Alaska wilderness. So apparently, the IRS is too busy to have issued a warrant for my arrest.
I come from a family migrants: my maternal grandfather did once return to the East after emigrating from Korean. The Dunns never returned to Scotland. Yet Scotland and Korea never tried to tax them after they left. And finally, one of us no longer really welcome nor admired in the land of his birth.
I actually recommend that people never present themselves to the IRS. As Christian historian, I will mention that the early church frowned upon those who gave themselves up to the Romans for martyrdom.
Perhaps in my upcoming trip to Europe the USA will have me arrested by one of the countries I’ll be visiting. That is a frightful idea. I have to say the lack of admiration is mutual.
I guess we should comply as an act of disobedience?
I think he’s saying that if you want to really do civil disobedience, you have to face the wrath of the justice system. I question that. Americans generally don’t admire Irwin Schiff and Wesley Snipes either.
@Petros
His first letter suggests that your options are to comply or renounce if you don’t like the rules. He and others who suggest we “just renounce” don’t seem to understand that being forced to renounce US citizenship due to US policies is in itself an act of civil disobedience and our punishment from the US government for choosing to live outside the US.
Aren’t you already suffering the wrath of the US government by having to renounce in order to thrive outside the US?
Townsend would have told Rosa Parks to stay at the back of the bus, ’cause that’s the law.
Good conclusion, isaac, that could be pointed out to Mr. Townsend. Get to the back of the bus, Rosa, that’s the law. What would happen to Rosa in today’s US atmosphere?
My punishment is that I chose not to visit my Dad before he disappeared. I live in now in involuntary exile because I’m not sure just how vindictive the current US government will be, nor do I trust not to be made part of knock down game or a victim of a police shooting. I don’t think the land of my birth is safe place to be.
Jack iff we don’t protest how will this situation be made right? All your arguments are without merit.
i am willing to face the wrath of the americans
i am here in canada.
i am a canadian citizen
come arrest me in canada for failing to follow an american law if you will uncle sam
i will never set foot in america again
i will never go near an american consulate
i can not fiscially afford to become american tax compliant.
i am 100% canadian tax compliant
come find me uncle sam i dare you 🙂
That’s right Petros, you continue being made to pay for your so-called “freedom”. We place way too much emphasis on the freedom aspect of renouncing here. We should be viewing each renunciation as an act of civil disobedience against a repressive government, and calling it as such! We should be mourning each renunciation as evidence of a level of persecution that leaves it’s citizens with little other choice than to renounce.
More than 800 people last quarter paid a citizen’s ultimate price in protest to their treatment by the US government. Why are we not considered heroes?
Following the logic that only those who are openly defiant re civil disobedience are to be admired, I wonder what advice Jack would have for those victims of US extraterritorial CBT and financial reporting – who like minors and those deemed legally incompetent the US prevents from renouncing (the only remedy he prescribes for those abroad who bear the burden of CBT). They do not have the agency or power or resources to disobey on their own behalf (though the current online FBAR instructions say that CHILDREN should file their own!). Where is their remedy? Is he advising that they or their parents come out to the IRS, obliterate their own and their family savings (ex. RESPs for education, RDSP and disability benefits), take the IRS to court, or go to jail?
@bubblebustin, In the War of 1812, the Loyalists who shot at the Americans invaders were considered the enemy by people like Townsend.
We are the new Loyalists. So far our protest to the invasion of 2012 has been peaceful.
@Petros,
I thought you renounced and hence were compliant? Surely you can’t expect to get any problems just being vocal about how bad the rules are? I have wondered if by going through OVDP I might become a target for additional tax audits. These would be costly in time but since I really only have reported income now (W-2, 1099-DIV etc) and minimal deductions there isn’t any money there if they found a mistake. They would have to expend a lot of money to even find a mistake that exceeds what they could conceivable get.
This still applies: http://www.iexpats.com/fatca-critics-fears-arrest-by-us-authorities/
I may have returned to the USA last summer, but that was in utter desperation considering the situation. Normally, I don’t think it is prudent for me to return:
Now we know what fraternity Jack belonged to. Petros, I think what he means, is that he has offered you an invitation to pledge.
@Calgary 411
” What would happen to Rosa in today’s US atmosphere?”
As black women defying the law in America today, Rosa Parks would probably be arrested by a heavily armed SWAT team operating out of armored personnel carriers. You can see these militarized cops in the media coverage of Ferguson, Missouri.
She might face the risk of being killed by police as well. Recently, an unarmed black person, Eric Garner, died after being placed in an illegal “choke-hold” by the ever vigilant New York City Police Department.
Mr. Garner’s crime? Suspicion of selling loose “un-taxed” cigarettes on the street.
In Garner’s case, the penalty for a petty civil offense was summary execution by the police.
@Petros,
My understanding was there is a gap in the expatriation law such that you must only be chapter 26 compliant and not 31 and so you could escape FBAR penalties by expatriating. This was the reasoning I saw on that jello shots tax guys web site whose name has been paged out in my brain.
While it might be fun to come and visit you in the pokey I think you may be safe.
Neill,
Phil Hodgen: http://hodgen.com/blog/ (Jello Shots on the right-hand side)
Neill, that doesn’t mean that the IRS won’t recommend to Justice to arrest me on 31. I am fully expatriated, at least to my knowledge. But that doesn’t free you from potential criminal charges for crimes committed. Now, the statute of limitation is six years, so presumably that will expire at some point, unless they change the law.
Now normally, if you are just simply quiet about your FBAR non-compliance then you wouldn’t have anything to worry about. But I blab my mouth off to reporters. So I could potentially become a target.
@Petros – be careful about the statute of limitations, for the clock to run you have to be in a position to be caught (ie inside the US). If you’re residing outside the US, then the prosecutor could potentially ask the court for a tolling provision against the 6 year limitation.
In other words when you leave the US, the clock stops on the statute of limitations until you return.
Now whether the Federal Government would go all through that bother for less tax liabilities is a matter of debate, but the threat is real.
Yet another reason why CBT needs to be abolished.
@Don, I am not a fugitive from justice, at least as far as I know. So tolling doesn’t apply to me.
Jack Townsend doesn’t strike me as the most inspiring guy in the world to talk about, so I won’t have that much to say in this thread. However let me say that in talking about juries, I feel that we are talking about the wrong thing. We should instead be talking about (and, ultimately, rejecting) extradition. Before a Canadian ever faced a jury in the US, they would first need to be extradited. One of the fundamental principles of extradition is that the alleged crime must be a crime in both countries before extradition can be considered. Canada has no equivalent to CBT.
So I would certainly hope that if someone were accused of US tax evasion based solely on CBT–ie no other ties that might justify classification as a US resident and US taxation–that Canada would refuse extradition.
Has there ever been a case where Canada has extradited someone to the US to face tax evasion charges where the alleged tax liability seems to arise solely from a CBT issue?
The problem is, the law needs to be changed. CBT has to become RBT. Until then, all expats are considered criminals, and no matter what the courts actually might think (if they were so informed) the “law” would still have to be upheld.
@Petros,
So sill a chance to see you in the pokey then.
I think it’s pretty clear you’re a fugitive from justice. Everybody knows that all the tax cheats run away to Canada to avoid paying their fair share.
In Britain we talk about the ‘Costa del crime’ since loads of robbers escape to Spain to avoid prosecution.
We need an equivalent catchy title for tax cheat Canada.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
and
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Citizenship based taxation (without representation), in my opinion, violates Art. 13, S2– an ex-pat American is never really free from the UG government. Even long gone, he or she is perpetually hounded to the ends of the earth by the US government. One is also not really free to return to the US when one risks financial penalties, confiscation of wealth, and criminal prosecution for supposed “non-compliance.”
Furthermore, forcing its non-resident citizens to relinquish or renounce their US citizenship as a result of the above is a violation of Art 15, S2.
In my opinion, the US government is violating the human rights of US ex-pats.
Jack Townsend, through his blog, appears to support this practice:
“I think what the Canadian / U.S. persons are really complaining about is the U.S. tax regime. That is a complaint they are entitled to make and, if they feel strongly enough, withdraw from citizenship.”
Everyone has the right to return to his country. But the United States taxes the right of return. The power to tax is the power to destroy.