Prologue – November 2014:
Boris @MayorOfLondon Johnson interviewed on Diane Rehm show about his U.S. capital gains tax bill http://t.co/JPqoHzb05H
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) January 23, 2015
Boris Bows – January 2015:
London mayor bows to ‘outrageous’ demand to pay US tax bill – http://t.co/MuJY3rV3Ka http://t.co/ylcQPe8RJN via @FT
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) January 22, 2015
The article from the Financial Times includes:
Mr Johnson has previously said he wanted to renounce his American citizenship but that it was “very difficult to give up”.
The clearance of his debt to the US government should remove the major obstacle to him renouncing his American passport, but his spokesman refused to comment on whether he would now do it.
Mr Johnson’s decision to pay up was taken grudgingly but will ensure that his visit to the US — intended to drum up investment for London — is not dogged by questions about his tax affairs.
All US citizens, including those with dual citizenship, are legally obliged to file a tax return and pay US taxes wherever they are living. Capital gains tax on the sale of a primary residence is not applied by UK tax authorities, but is levied in the US.
Mr Johnson’s troubled relationship with the land of his birth emerged last November on a tour of the US to promote his new biography of Winston Churchill, when he revealed he had been hit with a demand for capital gains tax.
Asked whether he would pay it, he said: “No is the answer. I think it’s absolutely outrageous. Why should I? I haven’t lived in the United States since I was five-years-old. I pay my taxes in full in the United Kingdom, where I live and work.”
London Mayor Boris Johnson is the author of – The Churchill Factor – a book about Winston Churchill. While on tour in America, Mr. Johnson announced that he would NOT pay a U.S. tax bill on the sale of his London residence. This announcement was particularly newsworthy. After all, the plight of Boris Johnson is the same as the plight of any “U.S. born person” who has tried to live outside the United States. They will learn that the U.S. regards them as “property” and not as “persons”. Those born in the U.S. do NOT have rights as human brings, but have only such rights as the U.S. allows.
Boris has bowed. He has acknowledged U.S. jurisdiction over him.
What does this mean for Boris? What does this mean for the U.K.? What does this mean for the world?
The end of the beginning …
I am reminded of an oft quoted remark by Winston Churchill:
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
The article generated a number of comments of interest, including:
Well done Boris. You are a great model for other politicians to follow. Great to see that he has put the interests of his adopted country ahead of his own selfish interests. May he go far?
________________________________________________________________________
I was so hopeful Mr. Johnson would have had the courage to stand up to this bullying and protect assets that belong in the UK. He was the poster child for the hypocrisy being a UK citizen placed against the backdrop of the American Revolution. The scene I wrote had him dumping Starbucks coffee in the Thames! Guess the 7.6 million US deemed tax slaves living abroad must look for another hero.
Such a shame, he was perfect and I actually thought he had the guts to do it.
_________________________________________________________________________
The US scheme (in both the US and UK senses of the word) taxes not only US citizens resident in other countries but also the countries in which they reside. Why these countries put up with this virtually unique transfer of their national incomes to the US is beyond me. They should pass laws forbidding the payment of such taxes.
Boris is NOT only the latest casualty, he is the greatest casualty …
Boris Johnson is the latest casualty of those with the bad luck to have been “Born In The U.S.”
The “Boris Johnson Chronicles” have provided:
– low grade entertainment (I am sure that there are plenty of “envy specialists” in around the world who believed that Boris should be punished “just because”)
– hope for those 7.6 million persons attempting to live their lives outside the U.S., with diminished value based on their “IRS Discount” and subject to “IRS Persecution”
– pain for Boris Johnson and his family (I feel particularly sorry for the family – don’t marry a U.S. citizen!)
– publicity for the U.S. policies of attempting to levy taxes on the residents of other countries
AND ESPECIALLY
– confirmation of the obvious fact that the U.S. believes it has ownership over anyone born in it’s borders.
The clear lesson and message for all “U.S. Born” people …
Boris Johnson has “bowed” to President Obama, the U.S. Congress and the IRS. He has bowed deeply, respectfully and humbly. He has publicly agreed that he is subject to U.S. control wherever he may live in the world. He has assisted the President Obama in transferring “after tax” British capital to the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Johnson’s decision must be respected.
After all Boris Johnson never chose where he was born.
That said, Boris Johnson has agreed to become a conduit to facilitate the transfer of U.K. capital to the U.S. Boris has “set an example”for all U.S. born people. He has confirmed that their obligations to their “Birthland” are primary, permanent, and should receive priority.
The message is clear: If even Boris bowed, what hope is there for me?
It’s the end of the beginning. What should this mean for Boris and his future? What’s the next step?
I certainly understand WHY Boris agreed to pay his “tribute”. Yet, Boris Johnson is one of the few people with the resources and moral capital to fight the immorality of U.S. tax policies. But, he didn’t. If Boris didn’t, how could anyone else?
But, let’s not forget that:
Likes the quote: "To those whom much is given, much is expected." http://t.co/toSOJ35HDv via @goodreads
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) January 22, 2015
Boris Johnson is the Mayor of London. He is a U.K. politician. It’s reasonable that he be held to a reasonable standard of behavior. Boris Johnson simply cannot be in a position where his is required to obey the laws of a foreign power. Boris has bowed. He has acknowledged his helplessness and his servitude. He has confirmed that he will both:
– accept that the U.S. has jurisdiction over him; and
– comply with whatever U.S. demands of him.
The conclusion for Boris Johnson is that …
Boris Johnson must resign his position as Mayor of London. He simply cannot both be the Mayor of London and the loyal and humble servant of the United States of America. One cannot both be the “Mayor of London” and assist in the transfer of U.K. capital to the U.S. Treasury. It’s a sad thing. But, the conclusion is inescapable.
Salvation lies only in renunciation of U.S. citizenship …
Boris must publicly announce his intention to renounce U.S. citizenship. He must then follow through in a public way. His obligations to the people of Britain demand nothing less. Only after he has renounced, will he be able to proudly say:
The name’s Johnson, Boris Johnson.
Without a CLN, he is nothing but U.S. property. It is not possible for him to serve in British Public Service.
The broader conclusion is that …
No Governments can allow “U.S. Born” people to run for or serve in public office. To do so is to cede the sovereignty of the nation to the United States of America.
The broader implications of a “U.S. place of birth” need to be considered by all governments.
@Tricia Moon, yes the advantage he had with his first expatriating act was lost when he likely got bad professional but high priced advice.
I tend to agree with many on this board that if you can relinquish instead of renouncing, then relinquish. There is the money but also there might be less resentment from a homelander perspective.
I have raised the issue of Boris with the Labour Party and believe it should be a campaign issue against him until he is no longer a USC owing any thread of allegiance to the USA.
Well we now see Boris is just another pussy withering and wimpering to US horse dung
@Polly
If the motive for FATCA, BIGCAT,HELLCAT, ALLEYCAT and the forced signings of IGA’S is to keep the dollar the dominant world currency, then it is a textbook example of fixin’ somethin’ that ain’t broke!
Call me a hopeless romantic but wouldn’t it be far wiser of the United States to keep the dollar as the dominant world currency by simply making the dollar the most attractive choice in a world of competing, alternate currencies as opposed to using the “big stick”? After all, wasn’t the US economic system based originally in organic free market capitalism where beautiful, wonderful competition made it the most powerful economy in the world in less than two hundred years?
My point being that if America got back to practicing, once again, the natural laws of economics that made it so successful in the first place then the US wouldn’t have to use other, er, more persuasive methods to maintain currency dominance.
Uncle Sam may live to regret all this unsavoury coercion business one day. At sixty-one, I may not live to see it but that day will come and it won’t be pretty.
CBT means Boris is part of an economic fifth column extracting wealth from the UK, the Logan Act limits his abilities to represent his constituents to those positions which support US polocies
@ExpatEric
Well, this wouldn’t be the first time that they used the tax law to prop up the dollar. This was definitely a motivation in the 1960s and the timing of the Bank Secrecy Act makes me really suspicious that this might have had more to do with impending collapse of the dollar in the 1970s (see Nixon Shock) rather than organized crime. As we have seen from the last week, it isn’t ironclad bank secrecy or even interest rates that makes Switzerland an attractive place to keep money when the going gets tough.
@Trish
Thanks for pointing out that he can’t relinquish. I was thinking that he might if he became an MP again, but it sounds like that opportunity has passed.
@Publius, he can relinquish if he is elected and becomes an MP again.
There seems to be a disconnect between Boris Johnson’s brash public statements and his subsequent actions.
After he was prevented from flying to the US using a British passport with a US birthplace, he raved in a heated article (frequently quoted here) that he was “renouncing” US citizenship forthwith.
Then he quietly obtained a US passport with no fanfare.
Now he has raved publicly about not paying a foreign capital gains tax assessed on sale of his London home. This seems to indicate that he had been filing some kind of US tax return and received some kind of assessment. This seems odd for someone who had previously been outraged about unwanted imposition of US citizenship, and who also had a solid case for relinquishment due to holding British political office.
Now his minions cryptically announce the “matter is settled.”
My impression is that Mr. Johnson will blurt out whatever comes into his mind, than actually do whatever suits his interest. Winston Churchill he ain’t.
Don’t look to Boris for leadership in this matter; look to the plaintiffs and organizers of the ADCS Charter Challenge – and look to yourselves.
As I noted in another thread I don’t see any reason why Boris should resign, and it is difficult to see why politicians like Boris who are in a similar situation to Brockers would support us if we don’t support them. And demanding their resignation is hardly supporting them.
I do think that Boris should take the next step and renounce–if he doesn’t do so within a reasonable time period it might make more sense to ask him to explain himself. But all indications are that he has taken an appropriate first step.
Perhaps a clue as to why he complied may be found at the following web site:
http://www.international-adviser.com/news/uk/boris-johnson-bows-to-fatca-demand
Here it says:
“On tour in America promoting his biography of Winston Churchill…”
If he entered the USA with a USA passport with the intention of accepting employment in the USA–and promoting a book, however briefly, is considered employment for immigration purposes–then he SHOULD be paying US taxes. However I get the sense that Boris didn’t fully understand until recently–much like many Brockers–the implications of his status. Now that he understands more clearly he should renounce but I see no need to pressure him to resign.
@Wondering
“Don’t look to Boris for leadership in this matter”
Of course not. He’s the mayor of London so not even at the appropriate level of government to serve as a major player in the fight. But if he paid up only grudgingly as opposed to willingly accepting US jurisdiction, he still has value as a future, small, ally in this fight and there is no reason to try to force him out of office.
@ Dash1729
As I wrote earlier, it doesn’t matter to me if Boris resigns. That’s for his constituents to mull over. However I really, really wonder if there are London city accounts which are at risk of exposure to IRS scrutiny because of Boris’s FBAR/FinCEN obligations. Hopefully there are not but as Mayor of London you could imagine him having signing authority over something requiring a report to his US masters. Obviously I don’t know how it works in a mayor’s office but I’m certainly curious.
@EmBee
“However I really, really wonder if there are London city accounts which are at risk of exposure to IRS scrutiny because of Boris’s FBAR/FinCEN obligations.”
Actually if this were the case I’d be in favor of him resigning. But I don’t think it is usually the mayor of a city who has signing authority over the city’s bank accounts. If I’m wrong, however, and Boris has authority to directly take money out of London bank accounts then certainly that would be a big concern.
Just a thought that, as a check and balance security measure, it is not likely that any one person would have sole signing authority in whatever municipality or corporation.
@Calgary
And generally would be someone in the finance area not the mayor himself
@calgary411
“Just a thought that, as a check and balance security measure, it is not likely that any one person would have sole signing authority in whatever municipality or corporation.”
Yes and often a relatively junior person will have authority to sign for small amounts with a more senior person having to countersign larger cheques. If Boris needs to personally sign on the bank account ever, it is a problem FBAR/etc wise.
Right that is, Dash.
From the Tax Analysts re: Boris Johnson’s submission to his US tax masters:
http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Features/265E3EBA79BDB7CD85257DD60057EDED?OpenDocument
Bill Hayden’s father was born in California. Doesn’t it mean that the IRS considers a former Governor-General of Australia a “US person”? How many more politicians of other countries have links to the United States?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Hayden
William George “Bill” Hayden AC (born 23 January 1933) is an Australian politician who was the 21st Governor-General of Australia from 1989 to 1996. He was previously the Leader of the Labor Party and Leader of the Opposition from 1977 to 1983, and served as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade under Prime Minister Bob Hawke from 1983 to 1988. Earlier he had briefly been the Treasurer of Australia under Gough Whitlam in 1975.
Indeed, while I don’t enjoy the idea, it will be interesting to see if the rich and powerful (Saudi princes, the politician mentioned by EllenDownunder, …) get entangled in this mess.
I’m not holding my breath, though. The rich and powerful are 1/ well informed and prepared to avoid messes like this; 2/ connected enough to be “handled with care” if they do find themselves caught in the net; and 3/ have ressources to either settle or fight.
Nigel Green has also responded to Boris Johnson’s capitulation:
http://www.nigel-green.com/2015/01/23/boris-johnson-bows-to-fourth-amendment-violating-fatca/
I left the following comment, and would encourage others to chime-in as well:
Thanks, Deckard, for the Nigel Green link and your comment there.
Keeping on subject, here is a radio interview, Keith Redmond — explaining the *Boris Johnson* phenomenon and CBT and FATCA implementation in countries outside the US: http://radio.foxnews.com/2015/01/26/american-expat-keith-redmond-on-why-some-americans-abroad-renounce-us-citizenship/, his interview about our plight as Americans overseas on The John Gibson Show broadcast on Fox News Radio from Thursday, 22 January 2015. It is a must-LISTEN AND PASS ON.
@calgary411
That’s a great interview – one of the clearest explanations about the effects of FATCA and CBT I’ve heard, Too bad so few Americans are listening, but maybe they’ll start to wake up soon.
@calgary411
Thanks for finding that interview. Keith Redmond was outstanding. I put a mention of this on the Media and Blog thread hoping to catch some more readers.
Not only did Keith Redomond do a great interview, over on Twitter he came up with this … FATCA — Find And Tyrannize Citizens Abroad. He’s on a roll!
How about Find and Torment….? ( Those were Nina Olson`s words )
FATCA =
Nina Olson’s Find and Torment Citizens Abroad
OR
Keith Redmond’s Find and Tyrannize Citizens Abroad
Interchangeable and great descriptions to add to those we already have come up with!