As posted by CitizenshipSolutions.ca and suggested by JC for a post at Brock:
Jackie Bugnion and Roland Crim, Directors
American Citizens Abroad, Inc.
Nov. 23, 2014
Thank you, Mayor Boris Johnson, for Speaking for Many
The ending may not go down well for all. Part of the ending paragraph:
To all its Members, and indeed all Americans living overseas, American Citizens Abroad recommends strict observance of the law.
@JC, “In the commentary a lot recently, one theme is that Boris Johnson is a US citizen and he should pay his US taxes. ”
I have since spoken to many homelanders and they all think Boris is a USC nothing else.
They do not understand he has a UK Passport.
Homelanders can not relate to clinging nationality, its you have one citizenship.
I have had people ask, How can he be British with a US Passport? That was coming from educated individuals.
Another person thought it was so nice a USC could be Mayor of London and wanted to know if it was just a ceremony position.
I would guess a majority of homelanders think Boris is a USC hiding out in London with the rich and famous. And not paying his fair share.
Similarly, I had an ongoing discussion with “diamond jim” the past couple of days http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/11/29/london-mayors-irs-bill-shows-the-absurdity-of-the-u-s-tax-system/#comment-1719406571. After as much as suggesting to me I was a tax evader (and, of course, my son as well) in both the US and Canada, diamond jim finally concedes my son is *OK* but certainly not Boris Johnson or anyone born on US soil. DJ was born in Canada to US parents and says he’s been filing his taxes and FBARs (correctly?) for 30+ years. I told him that he too was an “Accidental” and that it would behoove him to make sure about his filings and that if what he will be asked when he opens any new bank account in Canada. He seems very pro-Obama.
What is the mental block involved that these people cannot see the injustice of this?
@Calgary411
“What is the mental block involved that these people cannot see the injustice of this?”
Because in Johnson’s words, it’s “outrageous”. I would add the words “It’s so overreaching as to make it incomprehensible to any person who believes America stands for freedom and equality.”
@George
The very worst message Boris could send would be to comply without the purpose of renouncing his citizenship. I’d love to see him relinquish somehow, saying, oops, my bad. I guess I wasn’t one of you after all!
Way to put it, The Mom.
bubblebustin,
You’ve answered the question well. And so has the Lord Mayor — outrageous and incomprehensible.
Kudos for at least partially turning Diamond Jim around — not a 180 but certainly a 45 degree turn. With people as stubborn and deliberately dense as he is, that is quite an accomplishment. However, more importantly, all your reasoned arguments will be useful for those who still retain the ability and morality to bypass all the skillful propaganda out there and use their own brain. Sorry, but all I could do yesterday was follow along with up-arrows periodically. We’re still digging out from the weekend snowstorm and we are bone weary. Best news for us today is that the town snowplow just appeared to clear our road to snow freedom.
Thanks, EmBee.
Glad the snowplow has arrived for you and Mr. EmBee — and that you had a little time to look at that article in between all the digging out. Calgary is now “chinooking” so temperatures will rise and snow will melt (and re-freeze at night). It’s a beautiful sunny day here and right now just -2C, without the Chinook cloud cover of yesterday. Take care!
The ACA is trying to change the system from within. As such, it has constraints on it that don’t apply to entities like ADCS or IBS which are attempting to effect change from without. Personally, I don’t hold much hope for the ACA achieving anything in the short or medium term, but I give it credit for trying. And although I think that the use of the word “strict” was unnecessary, I really don’t think an organization that is attempting to effect change from within has much choice but to adhere to the rules of the system.
To those who have a problem with the ACA advising compliance, what would you have ACA say instead? That people should not comply if they don’t want to? Do you think ACA would be given even the time of day next time it tried to speak to a Congressman, Senate committee, or whatever re tax matters if it advised people that compliance was optional? Democrats would label the ACA as “American Cheats Abroad”, and Republicans wouldn’t want to be associated with an organization that literally promoted non-compliance. ACA would have no insider friends in its battle, and I really don’t see how ACA would have any hope without insider allies.
In this battle, ADCS and IBS are the guerrilla forces, whereas ACA is the regular army – the methods are different, but the goal is the same.
Like I said before, they could have used the words “we don’t advise our members to break the law”. The “strict observance” is what I take giant exception to. Besides, who are they to tell nominal citizens who have nothing to do with the US, to “strictly observe” their foreign law?
“All Americans living overseas” means, in their minds, Accidental border babies and nominal Americans because the US claims them. I beg to differ. The US does not own me. They are foreign, and their law stops at their border.
to “The Mom ” on your post…..December 1, 2014 at 11:30 pm
“True Americans may want to go home someday. I AM home, my place of birth does not change that”.
from your mouth to God’s ear. thank you for this post. it set off a great bell in me of what I had been feeling for decades and which FATCA finally forced the issue: the UK is my home where I will retire and where I will die.
for decades I have worked/lived/loved here in UK -gained higher qualifications self funded (3x masters degrees), been ill in all senses and got healthy again, been made redundant several times, bought and paid for my house, scrimped and saved to retrain for an IT career, paid taxes for 30 years, and volunteered for decades in transport campaigning, residents associations and animal charities. .
I love the USA but my life is here in UK . like many, I suspect, I am worn down…I feel sadness , profound sadness at what I have been forced to do[renounce] and the way the USA is killing its golden geese ambassardors . I direct my rage towards saving up for contributions to ADCS and educating everyone I speak to about the bitter injustice of CBT.
Non surrendur non iudicabis. Erit ergo justitia historiam uno tempore.
@crystal London
Thats the way I feel most of the time. Just battered. And hopeless. I get my hopes up when I read about legal action- Mr Bopp is going to nuke those irrational and unconstitutional penalties – and then nothing happens. And instead of any rational change, America just gets stronger in its outrageous demands. And as SadintheUK writes- it seems that all governments are trying to get in on the foreign assets money grab.
Honestly people- what have we accomplished? ANYTHING?
@GwEvil
So you’re saying that ACA’s official position should be that certain USCs abroad should comply (e.g. ACA members), but other USCs (e.g., accidentals and nominals) should feel free to not comply? Is that a correct interpretation of what you’re saying or am I misunderstanding?
@tdott I would think that gwevil is pondering if a citizen of x should comply with the demands of a foreign government any foreign government
I may be corrected but gwevil does not consider itself to be abroad nor an american
American citizens abroad should comply with all laws of the country whose passport they are abroad on require
Polly and crystal
I relinquished pres fatca for other reasons and it took several years to put this all behind me
I was over the sadness and very bad treatment
This has all been brought back emotionally now being a second class citizen having to prove I am not a usc because of an indelible pob
Crystal what you say you love no longer exists its the past and its gone
I hope that helps you as it helps me
@tdott – the ACA’s official position is of no consequence to me, but I’d appreciate if they didn’t take it upon themselves to try to dictate “Strict” observance to anyone but their own members. They can take a position of passive “advice” not to break laws, but don’t try to become some sort of enforcement arm to the world of their foreign laws.
@george
I totally get that. Wouldn’t be donating if I didn’t. However, I don’t think it’s realistic or beneficial that the ACA’s position should be anything other than toeing the party line w.r.t. compliance.
ACA should perhaps say that persons who consider themselves American citizens and also live abroad (temporarily) need to follow the US law as they do consider themselves US citizens. They will want to be able to one day return to their homeland to live. Their life facts and their country is not the same as mine.
I made my choice to renounce in 2012 to be able to get a CLN and as clean a break as I can (and thought I had) from the US. I made my choice not to be a US citizen subject to the whims of a country that is now foreign to me. I had thought I lost my US citizenship as I was told in 1975 when I became a Canadian citizen. Oh, the many mistakes I made when I learned all about the newer facts of US citizenship.
My Canadian-born son who the US may define as a US citizen is, to my mind, only Canadian. As well, since he has no requisite mental capacity to renounce any such US-defined US citizenship and a parent, a guardian or a trustee cannot act on his behalf, he would neither have that same requisite mental capacity to enter himself, without influence from anyone else like a parent, a guardian or a trustee, into the assembly line of obtaining a US social security number, passport for tax and FBAR compliance year after year — ENTRAPPED, with no way to renounce such a US-defined US citizenship (if I accepted the absurdity of doing so on his behalf) for whatever amount of US dollars to any US tax compliance lawyer or accounting professional. My family will stay on our side of the border, leaving other family in the US, and hope this is a done deal.
@Tdott, your description of ACA hit the nail on the head. I attended tonight’s earlier ACA meeting here in London via live webinar. They brought up the main issues but emphasised the desire for full compliance with several condors speaking. They emphasised though that they’re ultimately hoping for RBT or at least same-country exceptions for expats.
Two things that stood out were ACA’s avoidance of even discussing renunciation because they want to work within the system; and the condors’ emphasis that non-wilfulness is admittedly not black and white but that the IRS is generally accepting most expats’ assertion of non-wilfulness for ordinary financial planning so are broadly encouraging Streamlined for ‘99.9%’ of expats coming back into compliance. Their concensus was that negligence would normally be deemed non-willful and even used examples similar to mine such as ISA income not having been declared on the U.S. Returns.
They also quite sensibly mentioned that those towards the darker end of the spectrum should definitely seek legal advice via a kovel agreement to ensure anonymity if considering a loud disclosure such as OVDI to avoid risks of criminal charges.
My impression is that the compliance industry is officially ambivalent about quiet disclosures, especially now that Streamlined is available. OVDI rightly seems appropriate only in more extreme instances of what might seem obvious evasion.
However, I also gathered that none of these accountants or US-friendly investment houses such as Maseco would be affordable for people on modest incomes/assets. It seems that US citizenship is becoming too burdensome and expensive to maintain if one no longer has any realistic plans to return.
@Chrystal London, I agree how heartbreaking and cruel it seems to have been effectively forced to give up my birthright but that the UK is now my home and where I’ll be spending the rest of my days.
I also was pleased that they made mention of Roger Conklin and regret of his recent passing.
@tdott
“In this battle, ADCS and IBS are the guerrilla forces, whereas ACA is the regular army – the methods are different, but the goal is the same.”
I get your point but IMO ACA kisses the asses of their friends in Congress too much. They should be more assertive and not so friendly with the Democrats i.e. advocating “same country exemption” bandaid and burying the controversial CBT debate video.
The Dems have an agenda of protecting CBT, FATCA and FBAR and ACA is unwittingly helping them nurse those destructive policies along.
@Fromthewilderness, you may be right. Though they have contacted Congress and FINCEN about the issues, the ACA meeting still primarily focussed on the absolute necessity to get compliant because it’s the law. They emphasized how they now have a comprehensive list of 1634 crossborder accountants and of how they’ve even been in discussions directly with the IRS would, in turn, will be producing lists of fully-qualified preparers.
Perhaps when we respond in interviews and comments to articles we need to stress this is a citizenship and nationality issue, first and foremost. Readers, and government seem to get so hung up on tax evasion and passports.
For example:
97.96% of my life has been physically in Canada.
100% of my life I have been a Canadian citizen.
2.04% of my life has been physically in the US, as an infant.
0% of my life I have held a US passport.
0% of my parents’ lives were they US citizens.
0% of my education or work history was in the US.
100% of my education and work history has been in Canada.
0% of my life I have represented myself as a US citizen.
100% of my life I have represented myself as a Canadian citizen.
Allegiance to US: 0%
Benefit from the US: 0%
Tribute I will pay to US: 0%
Drag me off to court, IRS.
@The Mom,
I have cited in my post your comment, dealing with the imposition of unwanted citizenship without consent. You words could be describing the Plaintiffs of our lawsuit.
Excellent, The Mom!!
@Stephen Kish, I would have offered myself as a plaintiff or witness, were it not for certain rebellious choices I have made.