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.
FATCA by the numbers
7 billion persons live outside the US, of those
7 million persons some with the flimsiest connections to the US are claimed as US taxable persons, roughly
70, 000 homelanders were found to be avoiding taxes using foreign accounts
FATCA implementation will affect the price of all financial transactions, personal cheques, savings account
commercial letters of credit, interbank fees the list is endless. These cost will be downloaded to everyone;
individuals, business and charities. Trickle down economic theory implies that even the poorest of the poor will be affected through the increased cost to aid groups
FATCA is collective punishment on a global scale, if this does not meet the criteria justifying civil disobedience than nothing does.
Thomas Jefferson told the Virginia House of Assembly, extremism in defence of liberty is no vice
If Jack Townsend had lived in the 19th century he would have defended the legality of slavery. Why? Because the law is the law. Heck, he probably would have been a slave owner himself.
and lets not forget that we don’t admire them either!
There is ONE BENEFIT to FATCA:
At some point, many relevant USPs will be identified. This, maybe in conjunction with a FOIA, should lead to a more accurate asessment of numbers of USPs abroad. The 7 million number thrown about is quite a rough estimate.
And to Jack I say:
you have been a bit liberal in the past using the word “bullshit” – it’s time to respon that your understanding of civil disobedience is exactly that. Shame on you!
Looks like Peter got Patrick Martin’s attention:
http://tax-expatriation.com/2014/08/22/will-the-irs-treat-a-usc-or-lpr-who-purposefully-refuse-to-file-u-s-income-tax-returns-and-information-returns-the-same-as-tax-protesters/
@The Mom
Thanks for explaining a bit more about your family’s situation.
I’ve always gathered that in past generations, it was relatively common for young Canadian men to join the US military, and I’ve never quite understood what the draw was. I guess it was as you described: if it worked out, it could lead to a long, successful military career. And if it didn’t work out (sounds like this was your dad’s situation, when it came to the prospect of living in the US) at least the commitment was less than in the Canadian military.
@Dash, he would have been a fine military career man, he just picked a country that had a culture that didn’t fit his beliefs. He should have joined the Canadian navy, but as high school students I would imagine the US navy sounded more exotic and interesting to them. Unfortunately. There were also a lot of local boys that joined the US Airforce, because there was a base not far from here.
@The Mom
As an American citizen it is my duty to offer a comment that may make some people on here–perhaps even you–extremely uncomfortable. But I offer it anyways:
Thank you to your father for his honorable service to America.
Who does he think he is speaking for ALL Americans and what they do or do not “admire” I spoke with my uncle about my situation. A Korean War vet and two time Vietnam vet about my situation. He replied in my place he’d do the same thing, said I was strong and he was proud of me. I’d say he was as much an American as Jack Townsend ever was or will be.
Secondly, who is hiding? Some of us have been all over the media speaking out. He hasn’t got a leg to stand on and making demeaning remarks has been done whenever someone stands up against a wrong. What part of, most of us will not now nor would we ever owe actual tax to the U.S. does he not understand? He’s got a lot of nerve pronouncing upon all creation what all Americans think or do not think. I’ll leave him with some wise words my American mother once said to me when I was spouting off about the plight of American teenagers. “My dear, you do not speak for every single American teenager.” Jack Townsend, you are NOT the voice of America. You cannot on one hand speak about duties and such and then tell us we have no right to a voice unless that voice is one you agree with.
Atticus, I didn’t choose to mention this, but there are a lot of Americans who think that those who fled to Canada did do something right and courageous. There is a lot of dissent on that subject–or perhaps Townsend never watched MASH or All in the Family. And you are right–those of us who are activists have been out in the open with our protest and I certainly am. He should have at least exempted me from his criticism, since I was very much out in the open about my civil disobedience (without giving details, to be sure).
But one thing is for sure–with Americans like Jack Townsend around, I am getting really sick of my former country.
Another classic Jackism:
Jack Townsend • a day ago
If the foreign country is demanding to seize your account, why is that the U.S.’s problem. Nothing in U.S. tax law requires foreign country seizure of foreign accounts.
The U.S. does not punish people for U.S. citizenship. It does require that they pay, as Justice Oiiver Wendell Holmes famously said, that they pay the costs involved. If those people don’t want to pay the costs, then they can renounce. Pretty simple. But the U.S. does not force renouncement on any one. They may their own decisions. If U.S. citizens living abroad want to renounce for whatever reason they choose, then that is OK with me and with the U.S. Government, so far as I know. Just renounce and be done with the U.S. Pretty simple. And fair.
But don’t keep your U.S. citizenship and not pay the dues required.
Jack Townsend
And another one:
Jack Townsend • 2 days ago
Again, this is policy argument that the law should be changed. I don’t think it is an argument that persons with policy disagreements are free to ignore the law as it is written.
In a democracy (or even in any civilized society), people have to conform to rules of society (in this case laws) simply in order for the society to function. I would be concerned about any rule that permitted persons to pick and choose which laws they should follows.
I have no vested interest in citizen based taxation other than that, the country’s duly elected representatives, enacted that system and therefore I am bound to follow it. I have no position on whether Congress should change that law. But, however one comes out on the policy, I don’t think that particular citizen based taxation policy issue rises to the level of the types of things where we can feel morally compelled at any level not to obey the law.
Jack Townsend
Earth calling Jack Townsend: Expats don’t have duly elected representatives in US congress and they don’t live in the same society as homelanders. What law school did you say you are teaching at?
@X
Yeah-isnt it great that other people decide what happens to your money? Don’t we love laws that demand we give them our wealth? Isn’t it just WONDERFUL that a democracy can vote to hand over other people`s money? Every person who was complicit in confiscating the wealth of jews during the Third Reich made himself morally guilty – and morally a criminal. And they always use the excuse “but I was just following the law.” = “I was just following orders”. And many actually did follow the orders for fear of being shot themselves if they didn’t. There is actually something morally wrong with those at the top who make these decisions and campaign for passing such laws. Sometimes – don`t we have to know better? Especially those making the laws should have a moral compass and not decide to pass a law which robs others, without offering any service for it in return. It`s easy math- but somehow low hanging fruit is just too enticing.
Jack Townsend not having any opinion about CBT tells me all I need to know about him – that he doesn’t wish to judge laws for their morality. This makes him less than human, IMO. Maybe he’s a robot.
This US tax lawyer distorts reality by pretending the situation is ‘simple’, when the existence of his very blog and teachings are all about how complex US tax law is:
“…If those people don’t want to pay the costs, then they can renounce. Pretty simple. But the U.S. does not force renouncement on any one. They may their own decisions. If U.S. citizens living abroad want to renounce for whatever reason they choose, then that is OK with me and with the U.S. Government, so far as I know. Just renounce and be done with the U.S. Pretty simple. And fair.
But don’t keep your U.S. citizenship and not pay the dues required….”
We and he knows that it is far from ‘pretty simple’. And not even in the same universe as ‘fair’. And that the exit provisions make it abundantly clear that it is NOT ‘alright’ with the US government to renounce. Otherwise they wouldn’t have enacted laws which have the effect of strip searching everyone before they ‘leave’.
“Dues required” make US citizenship into a rarefied club which only those inside the US can maintain. Like an exclusive gentleman’s club. A commodity which only some people can afford. A commercial transaction – you pay and we let you have it. A capitalist view of citizenship. No grand ideals, no concept which transcends the economic realm. No philosophical musings involving ethics, or justice. Apparently, US citizenship is something to be bought and sold. If we inherited it via a parent or birthplace, we must pay to keep it or pay to excise it. If we can’t afford the installments, our assets will be levied and seized to pay.
And as usual, absolutely no logical or reasoned rationale for why US citizenship requires “dues” and “membership” to be paid, wherein all the rest of the globe – the majority in population, territory and time honoured practice do NOT treat their citizens as the US does. And, our NON-US country of residence provides services to us where we reside and pay taxes, whether we are citizens or not.
US tax law is obviously a worldview and ideology, akin to a religion as practiced by gurus who must believe without question. Questioning it is wrong, seditious, traitorous, ungrateful, criminal, etc.
And civil disobedience apparently must pass muster by a practitioner of the status quo who says that if we aren’t willing to be publicly crucified or stretched on the rack, our protestations are illegitimate and thus our claims of harm are not worthy of objective examination.
I doubt that famous practitioners of civil disobedience applied to the authorities for official approval before commencing their campaigns of protest.
Jack wrote in reply to Lynn Swanson: “If the foreign country is demanding to seize your account, why is that the U.S.’s problem. Nothing in U.S. tax law requires foreign country seizure of foreign accounts.” His response to her comment shows an incredible level of obtuseness, apparently not realizing that the foreign country that Lynn was referring to is the USA.
http://www.boston-tea-party.org/
Did these pre-Americans send to England for the King’s permission before the Boston Tea Party? Did others who resisted less publicly, but weren’t at the harbour not also practicing civil disobedience if they weren’t there? Does Jack take the position that the law of the time was the law and so those in Boston harbour should just have quit the English colony if they were being treated unfairly, and gone elsewhere instead? Shouldn’t they have continued to pay and pay without protest because the law said that it was a ‘fair’ price for their membership in the English empire? Wasn’t it their duty to remain and serve the King’s pleasure no matter what? Wasn’t the law the law then? Not to mention that their sovereign served by order of God – and not just the English parliament. Shouldn’t they have just shut up and obeyed no matter how large the harm and burden was imposed on them from afar? Didn’t their choice to disobey one law make them lawless tax protesters?
Are all the US history books wrong in their treatment of this foundational protest lauded in US history? Were the abolitionists wrong? The Underground railroad? Suffragettes? Civil, gay and women’s rights activists?
According to Jack they should all have just shut up and pay their ‘dues’.
The British view of the Boston Tea Party:
http://www.boston-tea-party.org/british-view-new.html
“Highly burdened by taxes themselves, the British were merely asking the colonies to bear the expense of their own administration and defense..”……..
……..”……..Thanks to the political and physical difficulties of conducting such a huge overseas operation, the world’s greatest power was defeated by a ragged band of revolutionaries. But the loss of the American colonies, as formalized by the Treaty of Paris in 1783, was taken by the British with characteristic aplomb — rather as if a group of businessmen were closing down an unprofitable branch, it was said.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerable_Acts
“The Intolerable Acts was the American Patriots’ name for a series of punitive laws passed by the British Parliament in 1774 after the Boston Tea party. They were meant to punish the Massachusetts colonists for their defiance in throwing a large tea shipment into Boston harbor. In Great Britain, these laws were referred to as the Coercive Acts.
The acts took away Massachusetts self-government and historic rights, triggering outrage and resistance in the Thirteen Colonies. They were key developments in the outbreak of the American Revolution in 1775.
Four of the acts were issued in direct response to the Boston Tea Party of December 1773; the British Parliament hoped these punitive measures would, by making an example of Massachusetts, reverse the trend of colonial resistance to parliamentary authority that had begun with the 1765 Stamp Act. ”
I think that FATCA is an ‘Intolerable’ and ‘Coercive’ Act.
@ Petros
Get out your ukelele and sing along with Elvis. I changed my “Moodys Blue” parody into “Townsend Blue” for you. Hope it helps with what I know is a frustrating exchange with Jack Townsend (aka now “Townsend Blue”, in reference to a certain “blue pill” symbolizing the “blissful ignorance of illusion”). Furthermore, we all admire you and Jack doesn’t know “jack sh*t” about the FATCA attack and its ultimate blowback.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCNfVmbBXHQ
Townsend Blue
Well it’s hard to be a victim
Of the FATCA system
That’s changin’ all the time
Though I’m sure I’m gonna win
Townsend won’t give in
Gets stranger in my mind
Yeah it’s hard to figure out
What it’s all about
But it’s rotten through and through
It’s too complicated maybe
So colour him shady
Townsend Blue
Oh Townsend Blue
Tell me am I gettin’ through
I keep hangin’ on
Try to show you’re wrong
But I never do
Oh Townsend Blue
Tell me who I’m talkin’ to
You’re like a cloudy day
And it’s hard to say
What’s drivin’ you
Well when reason comes he’s wincing
For reason is convincing
That he needs to think again
His arguments unwind
Just like a ball of twine
On a spool that never ends
Just when I think he will concede
His articles proceed
To show he cannot bend
To change his view
It’s too complicated maybe
So colour him shady
Townsend Blue
Oh Townsend Blue
Tell me am I gettin’ through
I keep hangin’ on
Try to show you’re wrong
But I never do
Oh Townsend Blue
Tell me who I’m talkin’ to
You’re like a cloudy day
And it’s hard to say
What’s drivin’ you
Nice, Em. Thanks.
I love the parodies @Embee! And envision Canadian grannies with ukes singing them in inappropriate places where we are considered importunate, inconvenient, embarassing and unwanted. Oh yes, and un-admired.
Jack Townsend • a day ago
“Your points are excellent policy points. I again urge all readers to make their policy points in forums where someone might be able to move the issue forward.”
Okay Professor Townsend, would you be so kind to direct us to forums where someone might be able to move the issue forward? You are in the loop with these so-called policy maker/shapers, so how can we get in contact with them?
We are not anecdotes. We are not myths. We are real people with no voice in congress and our lives are being destroyed because of it. So Jack, if you have an ounce of compassion inside you, please help us get in contact with the right people.
@ badger
It’s a bizarre form of therapy for me to loudly sing along to a youtube video using my version of the lyrics. I only do this when alone in the house though because my “singing” is audiologically unappealing (got some rhythm but I’m tone deaf). Rest assured that Mr. EmBee’s ears were never harmed in the making of any of my parodies. He’s in Mordor right now, heading to a memorial for his dear Uncle, so I’ve got many days ahead to sound off to my heart’s content. BTW he had no problem crossing the border. He didn’t even have to pull out the copy of his CLN. Phew!
My father-in-law, a native Oklahoman served in Burma during WWII. Fought with Merrill’s Marauders against the Japanese. Came out of Burma as a US Army Corporal. Seeing the United States as money grubbing as it was, my father-in-law (if he was still alive) would have told my wife to get out of the country, renounce and keep our money safe. Even though he fought the Japanese, he would have recognized that his grand-children were half-Japanese-Canadian and he would have fought to protect them. To him family would have always come first.