[We now have a NEW POST taking us up to February 1, 2015. This post will be retired from service.]
THE AUTUMN 2014 UPDATE
Dear Donors,
Together, we reached our goal of $100,000 to pay the November 1 legal bill 11 days ahead of schedule!
Thank you Canadian donors from coast to coast and our friends from around the world for your generosity, support and determination — and especially for not being afraid.
The name of our non-profit corporation is the “Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty.”
We were very deliberate in including in our name the word “sovereignty”, which forms a cornerstone of our Claims against the Government of Canada.
Canada and dozens of other countries throughout the world gave into a bully because their “leaders” were afraid of harm caused by a trading “partner” — and they gave their sovereignties away.
Help us convince by example the Leaders and Governments of all countries worldwide that they should return their sovereignties back to their Peoples.
Please continue to support our lawsuit.
“Alone we can do so little. Together we can do so much.” (Helen Keller)
— Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen, and the ADCS-ADSC team
Chers donateurs,
Ensemble, nous avons atteint notre but d’amasser 100 000 $ pour payer notre facture légale du 1er novembre 11 jours d’avance !
Un gros merci à vous, donateurs canadiens, et à nos amis de tous les coins du monde pour votre grande générosité, soutien et détermination. Et surtout pour votre courage.
Le nom de notre organisme sans but lucratif est « l’Alliance pour la défense de la souveraineté canadienne ».
Nous avons choisi délibérément le mot « souveraineté » puisqu’il constitue la base fondamentale de nos revendications envers le gouvernement du Canada.
Le Canada et des dizaines d’autres pays se sont pliés devant l’intimidation des États-Unis parce que leurs « leaders » ont eu peur des menaces de notre « partenaire » commercial. Ils ont donc vendu leur souveraineté à rabais.
Aidez-nous à convaincre les dirigeants et les gouvernements de tous ces pays qu’ils se doivent de remettre leur souveraineté à leurs peuples.
S’il vous plaît, continuez à soutenir notre cause.
« Seuls, nous pouvons faire si peu. Ensemble, nous pouvons faire beaucoup. » (Helen Keller)
— Ginny, Gwen et toute l’équipe de l’ADCS-ADSC
DONATE to www.adcs-adsc.ca (ADSC en français).
Lol! @Anne Frank – my capital gains when I left at age 5 were a few slices of cheddar cheese and some carrot sticks. The USG can tax me 30% of that…what’s that come to? 😛
FWIW, this is what I recall reading about Savarin – it’s a bit fuzzy so take with the appropriate grain of salt.
Savarin renounced prior to Facebook’s IPO. At that time Savarin would have had Facebook options and/or Facebook shares. Since this was pre-IPO the actual value of these options and/or shares would be 1) possibly somewhat tricky to calculate, and 2) likely much less than the post-IPO value. Since Savarin would have been able to afford the best tax lawyers and accountants it is likely his lawyers and accountants would have been able to minimize the value of these options and shares. Thus, by renouncing prior to Facebook’s IPO, Savarin was able to get away with paying much less tax on these options and/or shares than he would have paid post-IPO.
Like I said, this is what I recall reading.
Something else I read (different article) was that Savarin would probably never be able to get a visa to visit the US again.
@Dash
Not everybody who contributed is Canadian. If any money is left over ( which I doubt anyway) then I`d like to see it handed over to Bopp for their case. Or to somehow undo CBT. But not to just any old charity.
@Ann Frank,
Savarin had already been out of the country for a couple of years. The US wants gains from the time he became a US person till the point he renounced. You have to file a form to set the basis when you become a US person. They will apply the exit tax to anything he purchased while not being in the US. They apply the tax to much more than gains you made in the US. You can’t deduct any of the tax from future payments so it’s a double tax. It’s evil.
@tdott,
So the future value of some asset he had could be worth a lot more than what it was at exit time. They put capital gains taxes up, they put income taxes up, they put regulatory burden through the roof, they put the chance that a simple mistake costs you a ton through the roof, they made life had to be an American abroad.
I can I say one bad thing about a guy that avoids this crap? I can’t. The politicians are evil. Remember who wants his blood. When Schumer gets hit you can bet your life you will be collateral damage.
If you don’t stand with Savarin then your standing with the people that gave you FATCA and all your other problems. Remember that’s all to hurt people with money.
@Neill
Well said. Somehow I think wealthy people are all being dumped into the same bucket as the Wall Street crooks.
“Accidental Americans”
It has nothing to do with the legalities concerned but I’ve always been a bit bothered by this term, at least in certain cases where it is applied.
If a couple is living in the USA–regardless of their own status–and they have a kid, there is nothing accidental about it. They had sex and that was their choice–not an accident at all.
The term “accidental American” might more appropriately be used in some other cases, though. For example–someone born in Canada to parents originally from the US who may not have known their kid would be a US citizen. Or a Canadian mother sent to a US hospital at the last minute to give birth.
But when a couple makes a planned decision to have a baby on US soil, I have a bit of a problem with the term “accidental American”.
@Polly
I think it would need to be thought through very carefully. Sending it to Bopp would mean transferring the money to the USA which some might object to given the whole nature of these donations–even if it is going to a good cause in the USA.
But a surplus of money doesn’t, in practice, seem to be a problem we have to deal with just yet.
What would the opposite of an anchor baby be?
I hold no contempt for Savarin at all. His tenure at Facebook appears to have finished so he moved on to the next chapter in his life, formally checking out once he left. If there was a tax planning motivation, it was created by the US Tax Code.
I do believe that the media exposure surrounding his case hasn’t helped our situation.
@Bubblebustin
“What would the opposite of an anchor baby be?”
The opposite of an “anchor baby” would be an “accidental American”.
I’m just not that big on either term–I get the concept but these aren’t the terms I would use.
@Domino
I have no idea what Saverin is actually doing in Singapore. But Singapore is a bit of a happening place for tech entrepreneurs and his reasons for moving there probably had little to do with tax.
Dash, I think you’re comparing apples and oranges regarding people born on US soil. Yes, there are some who deliberately “use” the US law about being born on their soil being granted citizenship to what they consider their advantage. We’re talking about a different type of person: those who chose to use a service of a US business (hospital) because it was most convenient at the time.
The intents are entirely different, although I could understand the difficulty in differentiating the two.
@PierreD
“We’re talking about a different type of person: those who chose to use a service of a US business (hospital) because it was most convenient at the time.”
I’d agree with referring to someone in that situation as an “accidental American”.
I don’t agree with calling someone who is the result of a planned pregnancy and birth to a couple living in the United States an “accidental American”.
@Dash – to my mind, the “accidental” term does not refer to the intentions of the parents or the circumstances of their child’s birth, as much as it refers to the “accidental” nature of the citizenship of the person born in the US and with no real ties to the country, other than it being their place of birth.
Of course there wouldn’t even be such a term if the US practiced RBT like everyone else.
@GwEvil
I think the term “clinging US nationality” which has sometimes been used on here describes the situation much more accurately than does “accidental American”. The latter term seems to suggest that there are certain people who are more worthy of our support than others–namely the ones who can somehow call themselves “accidental”. The former term refers to anyone who may be claimed as a US citizen or other US person but no longer (or never did) want that status. It is a more inclusive term that reaches out to everyone affected by FATCA as opposed to just certain groups who are considered “accidental” enough.
At the very least, I think if the term “accidental American” is going to be used as much as it is, it should be defined more clearly.
Dash 1729
My parents spent a long weekend in Buffalo, I was born 5 weeks early. There was no plan for me to acquire American citizenship. Accidental American, may not be the best terminology, the term inadvertent American might be more suitable.
@Sid
I do like the term “inadvertent American” a bit better.
Basically my point is that the term “accidental American” has outlived its usefulness. Since there seems to be a special effort to reach out to “accidental Americans” almost everyone who doesn’t want to be American is going to call themselves an “accidental American”–and point to circumstances beyond their control as to why they are considered Americans by the USG–so the term has lost any value.
I don’t believe that the term ‘accidental American’ refers to the birth planning intentions of the parents. I’ve always thought that it refers to the unintended consequences of US citizenship law. The fourteenth amendment was intended to widely ensure the protections of citizenship under a simple and non-discriminatory rule: birth on US soil. This was just after the civil war, so there was strong political will to enshrine the rights of emancipated slaves, which might have been subject to derogation without this constitutional protection. I don’t believe any congressman at that time considered issues such as anchor babies, student visas or temporary work permits. Those who acquire US citizenship under such circumstances are considered to have done so by accident because it wasn’t the intent of the constitutional amendment; even if it was the intent of the parents to exploit it.
I have never seen the term ‘accidental American’ used outside of a tax discussion, so it could be an acknowledgement of the tax consequences that were accidentally imposed upon those who were not considered by Justice McKenna in Cook v Tait or the drafters of PFIC & FBAR.
If a planned birth on US soil constitutes a taxing right, then the parents of ‘planned Americans’ who return home should be taxed on their worldwide income until the child turns 18 or 21, at which point the child should be given the right to affirm or relinquish their citizenship, along with all its rights and obligations.
@Domino
“Those who acquire US citizenship under such circumstances are considered to have done so by accident because it wasn’t the intent of the constitutional amendment; even if it was the intent of the parents to exploit it.”
That’s a valid point and I can see why from a certain perspective such citizenship would be considered “accidental”.
However the term is being used more and more broadly on here and is definitely being used in other contexts. For example, if someone is born in the USA as a 7th generation American–but then their family permanently emigrates to Canada while they are still a child–I believe such a person is being called an “accidental American”–despite the fact that I’m sure those who drafted the 14th amendment would have INTENDED such a person be considered a US citizen.
I’d be pretty comfortable with a definition of “accidental American” to mean someone born in the USA where neither parent was a US citizen or permanent resident at the time of their birth. But if the term gets expanded to essentially mean everyone who is considered American but doesn’t want to be, it loses its usefulness.
If anyone is ever speaking to legislators in Canada, or the US about extraterritorial CBT, you might want to mention this bill ABLE and how CBT makes any parallel benefit (ex. the Canadian RDSP) impossible for those living outside the US – directly at the hands of US legislators, the US Treasury and the IRS.
See;
Achieving a Better Life Experience Act (ABLE)
https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/647/cosponsors
Schumer, likes to pose for media ops to demonstrate his humanity, and his support for this bill and for some individuals with disablities.
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/09/schumer_backs_bill_for_tax-fre.html
http://www.autismspeaks.org/news/news-item/sen-schumer-and-autism-speaks-push-passage-able-act
Yet, he will not act to assist the very same population of those deemed US citizens with the very same disabilities if they are UScitizens living outside the US ( ex. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/u-s-fatca-tax-law-catches-unsuspecting-canadians-in-its-crosshairs-1.2493864 ) and thus ‘US taxable persons’ living outside the US. He supports the destruction and harvesting of the RDSP in Canada via FATCA and the FBAR and the treatment as ‘foreign taxable trusts’. He supports the erosion of even the principle via steep accounting fees to report them on the 3520 and 3520 A. He tacitly supports the FINCEN instruction for children – and presumably those also deemed legally incompetent for intellectual/neurological/psychological reasons to file their own FBAR (see online instructions) directly to an agency meant for criminals. He and his fellows do not assist however those very same children and those very same individuals with disabilities who are deemed legally incompetent to renounce, or to have guardians renounce for them, nor to benefit from the grants, benefits and tax exemptions that their own home government and country provide as supports from non-US tax revenues. He and his fellow US legislators will not lift a finger to help them with any US provisions.
Schumer and the rest of the sponsors of the US bill are hypocrites of the worst order if they speak, vote and act in ways which continue to burden the disabled in Canada and around the globe, yet sponsor ABLE.
So much for the ‘benefits’ of involuntary US citizenship that US tax academics like Kirsch and others use as the rationale for CBT.
This is why this is going to turn into a PR and diplomatic nightmare for the US with more exposure.
The hypocrisy and injustice becomes more and more obvious – and the consequences a lot easier to convey.
It will keep many of us in this fight even though we have ourselves expatriated.
There are many neurological/psychological and intellectually disabling conditions which effect Canadians (ex. see ‘Mapping Connections: An understanding of neurological conditions in Canada; The National Population Health Study of Neurological Conditions’ http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cd-mc/mc-ec/index-eng.php for only a few of the many possible examples ) and those around the globe and which would prevent them from being able to renounce, but as deemed UStaxable persons outside the US will ensure the US extraterritorial double taxation and confiscation of their legal local disability benefits, savings and erode the balance via expensive accounting fees and potentially confiscatory draconian penalties (ex. FBAR, 3520/A, PFIC forms if in Canadian mutual funds).
Support the ADCS challenge now!
Money left over the Charter challenge:
Left over money is hardly a problem at this time, as others have noted. But suppose we win the Charter challenge and there is money left over. In the event we win, it is possible that one or more Canadian financial institutions will choose to go it alone and become FATCA compliant, in defiance of Canadian privacy legislation, in particular PIPEDA (Personal Information and Protection of Electronic Data Act). In short, they turn over personal information directly to the US. What do we do? Remedies are complicated and involve an ombudsman, but ultimately could entail taking the institution to court, seeking damages. This is one, possibly one of several, possible outcomes of defeating the FATCA IGA. I see fighting such action, should it occur, as chapter 2 in the saga.
@NorthernShirke Money left after the challenge. I think the ADCS budget will be fully spent for some time. I believe Stephen has other ideas for other lawsuits yet is putting all the focus on the Charter Challenge for now. Another legal action could be against the Canadian government for the Canadian-US tax treaty which only protects the sovereignty of Canada in a very limited way.
On a lighter note – today happens to be my hero, the real Laura Secord’s, 239th birthday. By some crazy coincidence (or maybe not) it is also my birthday. However I am not nearly as old as she is.
@LauraSecord
A very happy birthday. I saw the google doodle on Laura Secord birthday.
May you have many healthy and happy ones to come.
Happy Birthday, @ LauraSecord and many thanks for your contribution to the War of 2012. Wonder when this one will end? May the Brock force be with Arvay, Butera and Bopp.