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.
Jack Townsend seeks to cure punishment with more punishment.
@Neill, well, I don’t recommend visiting me in the pokey since, that puts you in harm’s way too.
Running to Canada to avoid paying your fair share is out of the fry pan into the fire. So it’s a hilarious suggestion. What should we call ourselves? I settled on the New Loyalists. But that’s far too tame. Someone once called a me a “ringleader” but that’s too generic.
Well, we`re expats. We have left and for that reason we already are not “admired”. We`re suspect from the get go.
I have just written about something similar and it is included in this comment. Civil Disobedience is a public action used by Mahatma Gandhi, to confound the British in making the decision on Indian Independence.
in the 1940’s, which proved quite successful; I would even suggest it could be used against FATCA.
THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A GOOD CITIZEN
Taxation always comes to a focus, or ‘crunch’. Somehow you find yourself owing on some special project or specification.
One is always called on to do some service for your country, your neighbourhood, your service club, your special group of friends. I am not considering an individual friend; that is a special case that you deal with on a case by case basis. Then you are called to pay your taxes, which you do as willingly as you can.
I have lived in Jamaica for around sixty years, and I am a Jamaican citizen which my dad chose in 1965. I came from India when I was an infant, consequent to the fracas of 1947 between India and Pakistan; which the British in all their wisdom split between Muslim and Hindu, causing a great loss of life and property. I was then considered a “Commonwealth Citizen”.
India would have been have become the largest Muslim nation on earth today, and I wonder, would the status of Islam be so controversial? I doubt it.
Jamaica has been good to me, and I have always with served with pride and consideration, and my Jamaican peers have applauded my efforts. One of my friends, a CID Detective Inspector retired, calls me a ‘’’law-abiding citizen.”’
Is it wise to renounce your citizenship to avoid paying taxes? Once you are born in a country, you are until you die a citizen of that country, and your responsibilities remain, this is what I believe. When you were born, the State took care of your needs; so when you start to pay taxes it would be your responsibility to pay your share of the financial burden of the state; this is only just.
For this reason, many countries at one time did not recognize the dual citizenship of an Individual. Today the world is globally inclined and that situation may have many exceptions: If they do, and you have dual citizenship, where do you pay your taxes?
They are many persons that might migrate from one country to another, for many reasons; marriage, opportunity, education, and professional status. They must decide to which country their loyalty applies? Clearly, I believe that the country in which they earn the most income, have a family and profession, and possessions. ( If you do not like living in any country, you get the “hell” out, and find your own island.)
When you live in a climate that is inimical, you leave. Then when that country resumes stability, do you go back? Many persons do, and that is a reason that Governments create monsters laws like FATCA, because you have liabilities to both countries. So do you make the decision to get out now? It is your prerogative, but I suggest you take your new wife and children, and your cheque-book.
There may be one exception to this rule, one that applies to Corporations. They will tend to find the most profitable place to operate, whether the jungles of Borneo, or the frigid zones of Green-island, whatever is better for the bottom-line. But moving plant, offices, and personnel from country to country is no joy.
It is my opinion that increasing taxation should be a function of consumption, and the user or consumer must pay whatever it takes to acquire an item, when he buys it.
(566 words)
©Ramesh Sujanani
20/08/2014
Clearly Canadians are a scourge of tax paying Americans.
You’re all ‘aboot’ to expatriate. Playing ‘hockey’ from the IRS. Wilfully ‘iglooing’ your FinCen obligations.
In short a bunch of maple moochers.
@Ramesh Sujanani
Good essay.
In my view there are three main kinds of citizenships–and only the first of them should be taxed:
There is the country where one lives as an adult where one has one’s adult responsibilities. These include one’s spouse, one’s children, one’s job, and/or one’s other significant adult relationships. It is basically the country where one’s adult productive years or most of those years are spent. If we’re going to tax income, this is the country where income should be taxed–because this is where most of someone’s lifetime earnings are earned.
Next there is the country where one grew up–and where one may still have various family members such as parents or siblings. This country is ALWAYS important emotionally–it is where your roots are. Even if your renounce or relinquish that citizenship, that simply means that one’s present day responsibilities lie elsewhere. The past is always important and always carried emotional weight. If someone claims that they no longer have any emotional ties to the country where they grew up, I quite simply won’t believe them. However, emotional ties by themselves shouldn’t be taxed–unless of course one still lives and works in the country where one grew up.
Finally there are the accidental citizenships–these are basically countries where someone has either never lived, past or present, or left very early in childhood. These citizenships carry far less emotional weight and are usually more of a curiousity–more of an honorary citizenship–at least until someone tries to tax them. But these citizenships, too, shouldn’t be taxed.
@Petros – I don’t believe you need to be a fugitive from justice. I’m not a lawyer, however, I do check into legal items from time to time. In fact if someone doesn’t file, it’s effectively tolled and the six years don’t apply.
My concern is with other offenses someone could be charged with such as failure to file (which could be tolled because you’re not present in the US).
The USG wouldn’t gain much from the exercise if even any taxes so it would only probably be the preserve of an overzealous Federal prosecutor, but then again we’ll dealing with the US.
BC_Doc: Thank you for mentioning the UN Declaration of Human Rights. As of today, the UN committee which reviews all formal human rights complaints has concluded its bi-annual 5-day meeting and the status of our Complaint, filed on August 7, should be made known in the coming days. The writers of the complaint identified, in the CBT, FBAR, FATCA situation, violations of 16 of the 30 articles of the Declaration.
@Muzzlednomore
So lets say the UN does consider american CBT a human rights violation. What happens then? Can the UN make America change to RBT?
If the UN acknowledges the complaint, Russia will make hay with it. China will make hay with it. India, Brazil, Iran, Syria, will denounce the US for its abuse of its citizens. Jack Townsend will say these complainers are not admirable.
@Dash,
I’d tend to believe them as I don’t see what the motivation for lying about one’s emotions would be. But if someone lied about the fact of having been born in/lived in/grown up a country (if it’s the US), I can think of practical reasons one might do that these days.
@pacifica777
“I’d tend to believe them as I don’t see what the motivation for lying about one’s emotions would be.”
There are many reasons–most of them private and not related to legal or formal issues–for keeping one’s emotions private. I’ve never met anyone who I’ve spent significant time with in person–as opposed to just on the Web–who doesn’t still have strong emotional ties to their birth country–especially when they still have close family there. BTW negative emotional ties (eg anger) are still strong emotional ties.
“But if someone lied about the fact of having been born in/lived in/grown up a country (if it’s the US), I can think of practical reasons one might do that these days.”
True but unconnected with someone’s emotions.
Dash wrote:
“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.”
Polly wrote:
“The problem is, the law needs to be changed. CBT has to become RBT.”
I agree with Dash and Polly’s points. However, it should be expected for the US to argue that it has RBT and that every citizen is considered to be a “Resident for Tax Purposes,” no matter where they live.
Yup, the US really is that twisted. I remember the Obama administration adamantly denying that it was going to war when it was bombing Libya. Instead, it was claimed that the US was merely conducting kinetic military operations — amazing what the spin doctors can do with words!
Jack Townsend wrote: “I will just say that Rosa Parks did her civil disobedience in the open.”
Then according to Jack’s logic African American slaves should have just stood there in shackles and “do their civil disobedience in the open” because being a runaway slave would not be admirable.
@Joe Blow | The effect is that the U.S. treats its persons tax resident abroad US resident for U.S. tax purposes (Not really completely true because of the tax treaties if you are tax resident elsewhere the country you are resident in gets first “dibs” in regards to taxation of income and assets in that country).
The countries of the world have agreed through their tax treaties to this US CBT treatment, by not saying otherwise in the “agreements.” Tax treaties are then to US citizenship based taxation what IGA’s are to FATCA. The tax treaties facilitate US citizenship based taxation in effect making it the law of the resident country. So there must either be changes in US tax law, the tax treaties, or both.
Lawsuit Mark II may be against Canada for the Canadian-US tax treaty.
@dash, I have had, until this debacle, no emotion for my birth country. I find it impossible to have emotion for a country I left as an infant, have no memory of as a resident, and my parents were not citizens of. There was no transmission of that country’s culture to me by residency or through my parents. My parents culture came from a life in Canada, in the city in which I now sit. The only cultural impact the US has had on me has been through entertainment (tv, movies). Even in books I have had a tendancy to spend more time with Canadian and European fiction, as opposed to US fiction.
I feel a strong emotional tie to my grandmother’s and great-grandparents’ homeland of Wales, even though I’ve never been there. They transmitted some of their Welsh culture to me through their actions, their stories, their language, their foods, their morals, and their visiting family members.
Of course I’m angry now, but anger at arrogance and attempted extortion by a foreign country is NOT an emotional tie to a country, even if one was born there.
@The Mom
Like I said there is little emotional connection when you left in infancy.
But if someone grows up in a country, I would find it really hard to believe there are no emotional ties there.
Ancestral ties are a bit of a wild card depending in part on how the older generation itself may have felt about the “old country”.
@The Mom
It does surprise me a bit that your parents didn’t share stories of their time in the US like your grandparents and great grandparents did when it came to Wales.
Their time in the USA may have been brief, but you were born then–seems like kind of an important brief time.
But as I also said these matters tend to be private so I’ll understand if you don’t wish to share more.
@JoeBlow
Former African American slaves who made it to Canada via the Underground Railway were no longer African American slaves. In fact they were no longer African Anericans. They were African Canadians. Just sayin’.
Ie in the South they were slaves. In the North they were runaway slaves. In Canada they were free.
@Dash, there were a few comments on the US, but fewer stories. My father joined the US Navy in the tumultuous early 60s. He lived in a border town, they were recruiting. They sold thmselves as having a shorter enlistment and better pay than the Canadian forces. Many young men at that time joined US firces from the Canadian side, it was not uncommon. It’s always interested me that he didn’t have to renounce his Canadian citizenship, but that’s another story.
From comments my father made, he was quite unhappy with the racial divide in the service, and in American society in general. We’re not talking Hippie, he was born just before the Boomers.
Two stories my mother told horrified me. The first was of an ill baby, turning blue, and being refused by an emergency department, and the mother told to use the base hospital (didn’t live on a base).
The second I was just old enough to form my first few words, it would have been mid 60s. Dad was at sea all the time, I barely knew him. Mom had me in a cart in Kmart, and a sailor in his dress whites was walking towards us. I, apparently, started happily screaming DA DA DA! The man, Mom said, looked at her absolutely terrified, turned and left the area. Mom grabbed me, and fearfully raced out of the store. He was black.
Until I was about 10 years old (mid 70s), I thought that when a tv show came on one of our three channels (all American) and words at the bottom of the screen said “black and white”, that meant both black and white people could watch that show. So yeah, I guess some of the US DID rub off on me. It wasn’t from home or my Canadian family.
Please excuse my spelling, I’m a horrible iPad typist.
I forgot to add that my father had initially planned a career in the navy. By the time his original enlistment was up, my parents couldn’t get out of the US fast enough for their liking.
“Of course I’m angry now, but anger at arrogance and attempted extortion by a foreign country is NOT an emotional tie to a country, even if one was born there.”
Profound words, the Mom. Thank you.
More contemplation on Jack Townsend’s concerns that we “expats” are doing our civil disobedience in hiding as opposed to “good American” civil protesters who do it out in the open:
When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus she was in a public place, on the bus, with dozens of other people. She could hardly have avoided performing her act of civil disobedience in public. It was where she was and where her stand needed to be taken.
When African Americans were refused service at the Woolworth’s lunch counter they were in a public place. While it is true that, as opposed to Rosa Park’s act this was a planned demonstration, it was a public situation that these individuals chose in order to draw as much attention as possible to their cause.
In our case, we find ourselves accused of not filing tax returns to a government to which we do not believe we owe a dime. Filing taxes is generally a process undertaken at one’s desk in one’s own home entirely sequestered from the prying eyes of the general public. Therefore, the act of not filing them is equally private.
Jack Townsend is trying to carry water in a very leaky bucket.