This seems to be a class action suit, based in Delaware, against FATCA.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/12/16/class-action-lawsuit-forming-against-fatca/
Martin Armstrong may be brilliant. He also spent seven years in prison for contempt of court relating to security fraud charges, only released in 2011. Delaware of course is a notorious tax haven. Do we want to approach him, be associated with him? Maybe, maybe not. Such an association could confirm our enemies in their opinion that we are tax evaders.
OR…is he just forwarding contacts to the lawsuit already underway in DC?
@ Stephen Kish
Sounds good to me.
@Shadow Raider
“Really, folks? Another FATCA lawsuit? Is no one interested in challenging the root of the problem, CBT? I finally got one constitutional lawyer interested, here in DC.”
I think the constitutionality of of taxing expats falls down right in the preamble. The United States can NOT possibly provide for the “general welfare of nor common defence of” people who don’t live in the United States, i.e. expats.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html
Any idea of where the Bopp efforts are going?
http://www.bopplaw.com/fatca-takedown
@Kish how would you at ADCS feel about sister organizations springing up in other countries with take-off names such as Alliance for the Defense of Swiss Sovereignty (ADSS) with corollary French and German acronyms? The charters would presumably be similar.
@Jefferson,
Bopp: My understanding is that the Republicans Overseas FATCA lawsuit effort needs about $90k (probably somewhat less now). Once they have the money Bopp will initiate the lawsuit quickly, in about 30 days. My personal feeling is that it is highly likely that this will happen.
Sister organizations: I continue to be disappointed that there are no “sister organizations” to ADCS in at least one country outside the U.S. I spoke to attorneys in different countries (including Switzerland) hoping to get something started but nothing developed. You need a lot of money for litigation but you also need the OK from the law firm that often is representing “our” adversary (the banks).
I think Shadow Raider’s idea of challenging the constitutionality of CBT is a good one. I still cannot understand why Bopp isn’t going after CBT.
@ Samuel Adams
Maybe it’s like sabotaging a dam when all you have is a drill. If you can get a hole in the dam the force of the water escaping will enlarge the hole until eventually the dam collapses. Of course it speeds up the process to have more than one hole in strategic locations. FATCA is the enforcer of CBT so getting the FATCA IGA annulled in Canada and FATCA repealed in the USA could very well lead to the collapse of the damn CBT. The usxcanada “realist” would say, “Nonsense, you are dreaming!” (only he’d say it in crypto-speak) but if hope keeps me going for awhile longer then I’ll be grateful for that. I’m an OAP now so awhile longer is all I need but we need to do all we can for those who face a future which will be a lot longer than “awhile”.
@EmBee
Thanks for your thoughts… similar to mine… can’t break the big problem… but if u keep hammering at it… it will start to crack… then u can kick that sucker open.. I wonder why no one is going after the IRS & Treasury since I don’t think they have the legal authority to contract these contracts. I am looking at an item called John Doe Warrant… I didn’t realize one can use that to hunt for people… to ferret them out… so basically… everyone is guilty & they are looking to put names to these people… very strange…
I agree with ShadowRaider, I’d like to see more emphasis on getting rid of CBT than FATCA. Yes, FATCA has its own problems, and I support efforts to do something about it, but even if FATCA were eliminated tomorrow, it would not solve a single problem that my family faces. It would not remove PFIC treatment of local retirement accounts, and it would not remove the pre-existing rules that prevent access to US-based vehicles for me. It would not prevent taxation/double taxation of local unemployment or child care payments, it would not prevent the sale of my house being double taxed, and in general would not stop the US from sucking money out of my local economy on the fiction that it provides some kind of service to me in exchange.
I guess don’t really understand how the “hole in the dam” theory is supposed to work. Suppose we get FATCA repealed or curtailed somehow. How does that help eliminate all the other injustices of CBT? If anything, I expect it will reduce pressure to get rid of CBT, with Democrats Abroad, Republicans Overseas and other groups simply sitting back and saying, “hey, we got rid of that FATCA problem for you, what are you complaining about?”
So yes, I’ll help work on doing something about FATCA, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that FATCA is a side-skirmish, and not the main battle.
@ foo
It was just a theory. I’d love to know how we tackle CBT head on but that’s one very big nut to crack. I want to see the death of CBT as much as you and most Brockers do. Shadow Raider has proven that the part of the US tax code that deals with CBT can be redone to switch the system to RBT but first there has to be the will to do it and someone in Congress willing to take the lead. IMHO Congress is so self-serving and so corrupt that it would take something quite extraordinary to force it to develop the reason and sense of justice to put RBT on the agenda. Right now they are salivating at the prospect of WW3 which would give us all so much more to worry about than CBT.
@EmBee,
CBT is a big nut, but we crack it the same way other nuts have been cracked.
Voting rights for women, desegregation, same-sex marriage… all issues that were big nuts to crack, and looked hopeless when the movements started out, but through persistence and a burning desire for justice on the part of the proponents, the opposition was eventually worn down.
Now, this is not to make any value comparison between the magnitudes of those various issues. I’m just saying the process is the same, as it is for changing any law. A sufficiently pissed-off minority has to make it a point to not shut up and not go away, and eventually, if their cause is inherently just, the reasonableness of their argument will cut through the misconceptions and willful ignorance that initially keeps people from thinking about their arguments seriously.
I already see a significant change in how our stories have been picked up in various media outlets. The comments sections have gone from 90% “don’t let the door hit you in the backside, you tax-evading quislings,” to 90% “CBT is ridiculous.” The word, and consciousness, is slowly getting out. The more people who are forced to think about it, the more will gradually come to our way of thinking, until at some point critical mass is achieved, and RBT is signed in with commentary on how it is long-overdue.
I just hope it happens before my ability to wait is over.
@FOO, “Voting rights for women, desegregation, same-sex marriage… all issues that were big nuts to crack, and looked hopeless when the movements started out, ”
Not trying to rain on your parade but none of those issues involved $$$$$$.
CBT is all about taking someone elses money.
We view it is a moral issue because it makes zero sense to force otherwise decent human beings to spend $plus in compliance expenses so the USG can receive $minus in tax.
This is why I have been preaching on IBS that the problem is a citizenship problem first.
IF ditching citizenship that is unwanted or redundant in a simple straigtforward manner at no expense is a human right, which I believe it is then the tax compliance issue becomes moot.
@Brockers/@Foo, instead of fighting CBT I would actually prefer the battle line being legislation to make it easier to expatriate.
AFROYIM v. RUSK dealt with voting in a foreign election as a FORCED expatriating act. What was declared unconstitutional was not voting in the foreign election rather it was being stripped of USC involuntarily.
8 US Code 1481 (A) amended by adding in;
(8) voting in a foreign election after attaining the age of 18 years.
So the 8 US Code 1481 (a)(8) would then read;
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(8) voting in a foreign election after attaining the age of 18 years.
—–
This would withstand Supreme Court scrutiny because the loss of USC would be voluntary and personal. It would be on the level of relinquishing because you took a job working for the German Post!!
The upside is that it would make it very easy for all accidentals to relinquish without cost.
That makes life a lot easier for everyone to get out of dodge and it should be politically appealing. 🙂
Who on earth/USA would object to such a proposal?
Regarding ‘taxation without representation’ which U.S. expats/persons basically have now, how about Michele Bachmann’s idea of an ‘At-Large-State’ which would have representation in Congress:
http://adobochronicles.com/2014/09/15/michele-bachmann-proposes-to-create-51st-u-s-state-for-american-expatriates/
She wants to move to Istanbul, Turkey, to be able to run for Congress of such a state, and has recently introduced legislation (Sept., 2014) to create what would be the 13th largest state of the USA, the un-represented 7-8 million persons who live outside the US and are being terrorized with FATCA, CBT, etc.
Yankee Refugee,
Others here may want to have a 51st at-large-state outside the US which would have representation in Congress.
Ms Bachmann perhaps wants her cake and to eat it too by living in Istanbul, Turkey and being able to run for Congress. To me, on the outside of the US, it appears another step to more ‘US take-over of the whole world’.
Michele Bachman is certifiable. She is a perfect fit for the U.S. congress.
About the Adobo Chronicles, the source of the Bachman story:
THE ADOBO CHRONICLES is your source of up-to-date, unbelievable news. Everything you read on this site is based on fact, except for the lies.
@Yankee Refugee, calgary411, That article is satire. No one is proposing representation for Americans abroad.
@all, I want to believe that Republicans Overseas are being honest, but they are way too focused on FATCA. I can’t help thinking that they are doing this more for the banks and wealthy US residents with actual foreign bank accounts, and using Americans abroad as an excuse. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they are just misinformed and disorganized, as Republicans usually are. I’m not sure.
I’m still against FATCA even for US residents, because it’s disproportional, unilateral, ineffective and unnecessary. But to me CBT is worse. My main constitutional argument is based on discrimination, and I have also written one based on the general power to tax. The courts could easily rule against either one, but I think the discrimination argument is stronger.
@Shadow Raider
Yes, the Michelle Bachmann article was satire! However the point that if all the expats/USP were counted they would comprise the 13th most populated state was an eye-opener.
I have a friend who was born in the UK (but now lives in Canada) who was shocked when I explained to her about CBT and FACTA. She said that the UK doesn’t tax or require forms from it’s expats and because of that she felt that the UK was more ‘civilized’. Pity the U.S.A. is on the same level of barbarity as the ‘other’ CBT country in Africa.
@Shadow Raider
I often wonder if we’re being used by the Republican Party to protect those you’ve mentioned.
Some of CUNA’s anti-FATCA literature is suspect:
“The IRS FATCA regulation also requires U.S.-based financial institutions to conduct due diligence and tax withholding on international funds transfers. This requirement is not present in the FATCA statute passed by Congress.
CUNA believes that these requirements are making it difficult for U.S. citizens living overseas, including credit union members, to maintain access to financial services in America.”
http://www.cuna.org/Stay-Informed/News-Now/Washington/CUNA,-World-Council-letter-precedes-passage-of-FATCA-amendment/
Without FATCA, access to US financial institutions would still remain a problem because of the Patriot Act. Why is their sole concern for maintaining our US accounts when the real problem is banking where we live because of FATCA?
Thanks, Shadow Raider. I didn’t take the time to read the article — could though imagine such a ridiculous plan taking place.
@ShadowRaider,
I read your constitutional argument against CBT:
Nice. This answers the “horizontal equity” arguments in favor of CBT: the proper comparison for a US citizen abroad is not to a US person inside the US, but to a Non-Resident Alien.
I like it.
@George:
If I expatriate, I don’t want to see other, un-expatriated US citizens where I live taking money out of our local economy to pay tribute to some government on the other side of the planet that does nothing for residents here — and wouldn’t have the jurisdiction to do so even if it wanted to.
So I still put the priority on abolishing CBT.
That said, and now noticing that I am being quoted in the ADCS donations post, I want to make it clear that I do support the ADCS fight against Canada’s acquiescence to FATCA, and have sent them donations (one should be arriving soon). I don’t even live in Canada, but I want to help the brave litigants on principle. I just agree with ShadowRaider that rather than having lots of different FATCA lawsuits, I’d rather see one FATCA lawsuit (the ADCS/ADSC one), with other efforts being directed towards accomplishing RBT. In particular, the abolition of CBT is where I’d like to see Democrats Abroad and Republicans Overseas direct their energies.
@Shadow Raider
I think your constitutional argument is awesome. I also agree with you about being suspicious that RO and the Bopp team are too focused on FATCA when we all know that CBT is the real problem for non-resident Americans. US banks will fight against reciprocity and use expats as part of their argument against FATCA.
I am very much in favour of allying with RO against FATCA and FBAR but if the Bopp team is sincere about wanting to help expats they will include CBT as part of their portfolio.
Be that as it may, I think you are definitely on the right track, especially with the comparisons made with residents of Puerto Rico, Samoa, Virgin Islands etc.
I would only expand more on the lack go benefits expats are able to receive such as unemployment insurance and food stamps. I would also go into taxation without congressional representation. Granted, Wash DC residents have taxation without representation but they have unimpeded access to and use of all public goods and services that congress spends tax money on, i.e. US highways, roads, dams, bridges, schools, hospitals, fire, police, courts, national parks, power grid etc. In other words, Cook vs Tait needs to be torn to pieces.
To top it off, I think it needs to mentioned how the creation of America is the direct result of Great Britain enforcing citizenship based taxation on its expats in America. Moreover, the intended purpose of citizenship based taxation during the civil war was to punish people for leaving. I really think the argument needs to include some historical and national perspective beyond only court cases.
Once again, awesome argument. I wonder if it can be launched without having to pay all these high retainer fees like ADSC has to pay in Canada.
Is there a good reason why the general power to tax argument cannot be combined together with the discrimination argument?
The constitution reads:
“The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”
1.) Pay the Debts: Expats don’t use the public goods and services that are paid for with Debt.
2.) Provide for Common Defence: Expats don’t live within US borders and therefore not within the territory that is being commonly defended. If expats are ever evacuated by the US they have to pay for it directly anyway.
3.) General Welfare: Expats are not eligible for medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance, welfare and food stamps.
So what then is the reason for taxing them other than punishment for leaving a la Abraham Lincoln’s decree against civil war refugees?