Taxation #AmericansAbroad: Citizenship taxation vs. Residence taxation: M. Kirsch – B. Schneider May 2/14 Toronto
https://t.co/KTe7wnQaNG
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) March 2, 2015
Video also Here
“Revisiting the Tax Treatment of Citizens Abroad:Reconciling Principle and Practice” M.Kirsch
“THE END OF TAXATION WITHOUT END: A NEW TAX REGIME FOR U.S. EXPATRIATES”
SSRN-id2186076_Schneider
Bernard Schneider- April 15, 2013 letter to the Ways and Means Committee
B.Schneider2-Ways&Means
With thanks to Embee for the articles
“Conceptually” was a common adverb in these discussions. The speakers are ivory tower academics who do not have to live the out the consequences of the laws. Schneider at least was against CBT.
I wish everybody would stop using the euphemism of “CBT”. It’s an extraterritorial violation, pure and simple. It is in violation of human rights treaties (as has been discussed before on this website), and violating basic tenets of international law dating from Charlemagne.
Wasn’t this a debate from almost one year ago? It just feels like nobody is listening.
I’m an hour into the recording.
Professor Kirsch confuses rights with benefits.
Taxes pay for benefits (e.g. roads, education health care).
Right of return and right to vote are rights (human rights)– he calls them a benefit of USC.
Taxing expats and Accidentals for these basic human rights is a no-no.
Forcing people to either pay for these two rights or renounce their USC is a human rights violation (the US did after all sign on the the UN Declaration of Universal Rights).
@Polly
“It just feels like nobody is listening”
That is because they are NOT.
Nor will they unless forced to do so.
VERY easy for Canadian government to defend Eritreans because their government does not have the clout the US government has. Yet their defense of Eritreans is exactly how they should have reacted to ANYONE who is being targeted in the same was sans warrants or any justification of any kind IN Canada. They were very quick to come before the microphone and tout their defense for them. But it turned out to be very selective indeed.
IMO ACA likes to talk A LOT and do very little. Consider the time it took for this video to arrive from the bowels of who knows what basement archive !
And consider that CBT is completely unjustifiable in any context whatsoever just as @antifacta says :
“violating basic tenets of international law dating from Charlemagne”
And @Petros states: “The speakers are ivory tower academics who do not have to live out the consequences of the laws”
EXACTLY!
I have begun to think we need human interest stories in abundance from those whose lives and freedom are threatened by FATCA in Canada and around the world. Such as the TED stories seem to do.
And the more the better.
Academics can talk all day long while people’s eyes glaze over because if it does not hit them where they live they are not interested. Yet, the consequences of FATCA have far reaching implications for every individual and their families living in Canada ( and around the world) but in the context of the ADCS lawsuit we are funding and supporting the stories of real people is the catalyst needed to push this over the top. Both as regards funding and public sentiment.
Deleted from the video were my brief remarks as “academic host”, John Richardson’s questions and comments, the talks provided by the other speakers detailing the harm, ACA Jackie Bugnion’s good remarks, questions (all reasonable and courteous) from the audience, a vote (typically a part of a formal academic debate) that I asked for from the audience on the Question (CBT vs. RBT) and the results of the vote.
So this is the sanitized version, omitting the gritty parts that might compel the viewer to side with one speaker’s POV over the other.
We’ve already reached the tipping point, Mr Kirsch.
There are a lot of his ideas in the Obama proposal, don’t you think? Make people decide where their loyalties lie. Rubbish.
Yes, this is the sanitized version
I want to see it all, Stephen. So, thank you, ACA Global Foundation for this portion — I want to see now ACA Global Foundation publish the remainder as Part II to the May 2nd proceedings.
I will NEVER agree with Mr. Kirsch’s view, or ACA’s or anyone else’s, of the benefit of passing US citizenship to children. FULL STOP. That should be a CHOICE or a CLAIM by the person, not an entrapment into an obligation to a country one has no part of and the cost to relieve oneself of the consequences.
NOTE: Kirsch even says … whether you acquire it, foisted upon you at birth if you were born outside the US, but nonetheless it is a VOLUNTARY, to the extent you can get rid of it, it is a VOLUNTARY statement where you are identifying yourself as part of the United States community. …identifies you as a VOLUNTARY member of US society … gives children a much stronger *in* as a member of society?
What part of the word, VOLUNTARY, does Mr. Kirsch not understand? Does VOLUNTARY not mean one has a CHOICE or a CLAIM? VOLUNTARY — to the extent you can get rid of it?????????????? My son and others like him, those *without requisite mental capacity* cannot get rid of it, Mr. Kirsch, ACA, and DOS. If I had wanted my son to have an *in* as a member of the [EXCEPTIONAL] US society, I would have registered his US Birth Abroad. I do not want for myself or my son to have any membership in any elitist country like the USA who thinks they have the right to tax persons who have absolutely no connection with the US other than by accident of their or their parents’ birthplace. What a load of *exceptional* BS!
If Residence-Based Taxation is not possible for the U.S. (for whatever reasons) and since Citizenship-Based Taxation ENTRAPS (especially for those without the *requisite mental capacity* to understand and be able to renounce and for whom a parent, a guardian or a trustee cannot act on such a person’s behalf), no *Accidental American* / *Incidental American* should be caught up in this immoral absurdity. They had no choice where or to whom they were born.
With CBT, they need, rather, the RIGHT to make a choice or a CLAIM to US citizenship when they are deemed adult AND with requisite mental capacity, with full knowledge of all of the consequences as well as the rights that would give them. With ENTRAPMENT into all of the obscene consequences of CBT, it should ONLY be an OPT-IN to US citizenship, not an OPT-OUT as we have now — and it should be retroactive.
Could that not make sense to any US lawmaker with any sense of morality? If not, I want to know how they justify such entrapment into the consequences of US Citizenship-Based Taxation against all logic.
@antifatca re stop using CBT.
Keith Redmond on Twitter suggested a name change to:
Jingoistic Based Taxation.
Definition provided: Jingoism: The feelings and beliefs of people who think that their country is always right and who are in favor of aggressive acts against other countries. Extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy.
Other possibilities:
Hegemony Based Taxation
Extraterritorial Based Taxation
Maybe nominations and voting at IBS would make good sport.
We are way beyond where Mr. Kirsch is because we have to live it. He said he would see it as a problem IF people were giving up citizenship due to compliance burdens. What part of too poor to stay American does he not get? This is not an academic problem nor do we need lengthy discussions as to whether or not people need to navel gaze about what their citizenship means to them. The facts are that people ARE being shoved out the door regardless of what “citizenship means to them.” He completely misses that point except for one comment at the end and even then it sounds like he would be concerned IF that were happening. Mr. Kirsch, it has been happening for over three years. Where have you been?
He is operating from the premise that everyone has an equal choice to keep citizenship or not. In the current situation they certainly do not. The U.S. has priced citizenship out of the market for some FATCA targets. What are you advocating that those who can afford to should sit down and think really hard if they are “truly” a citizen or not? Because for those who do not have the cash it simply isn’t a luxury they can afford. What if their conclusion is that they DO value their citizenship but, their family cannot comply with the burden regardless of their feelings?
Most of us are not academics, we are real people with real lives and real families and you are suggesting many of us in our later years in life choose to keep or give up citizenship based on some airy fairy navel gazing concepts. It’s happening because we cannot afford to keep it or some of us never considered ourselves American in the first place. In the cases of cannot afford to keep there simply is no “choice” involved and no amount of navel gazing to inwardly decide how you “feel” about your citizenship will change the facts for you. I am glad you’re open to the idea that the burdens IF they are so high they cannot be complied with would be wrong but, you are far behind the realities of our lives.
@JC: RSBT– Runaway Slave Based Taxation.
Does anyone know who funds ACA Global Foundation?
Hmmm … I’d like to see the parts @ Stephen Kish says are missing, although I can guess the results of the vote. I don’t think Michael Kirsch even mentioned non-citizens caught in CBT (those pesky holders of GCs) but at least Bernard Schneider was aware of their existence. It isn’t just citizenship-based taxation; it’s also attempted taxation of non-citizens, no longer residing in the USA. And let’s face it, FATCA is the evil weapon by which the USA is exerting control over all the financial institutions in the world. Wait until they find out that a GIIN is as deadly as an SSN.
Embee, you are right. The entire time I was listening to Mr. Kirch’s “value of citizenship” argument I was thinking “What is the value of being targeted by taxation when you are NOT even a citizen?” That would include many, many people. Spouses, business partners, Green card holders. Again, these situations ought to be front and centre in any argument and not just cursorily considered while we drone on about the value of citizenship.
Let’s get real about the realities people are facing here. The first order of business when forming such an opinion as Mr. Krisch has would be to actually count and speak to the people involved and not sit in some academic office thinking about these issues to yourself and then forming a strong opinion. Even taking into consideration everything he said the entire argument falls apart when you have to consider all the non citizens caught in this CBT/FATCA web. What about them?
@Atticus,
Kirsh, and all those who support “CBT” (whatever the fuck that is) need to define what is a “real American” (whatever the fuck that is), so that we can all be clear on this.
Obviously, to be a “real American”, and thus subject to “CBT”, is to be very special. so special in fact that to be one, means you are subject to financial obligations and restrictions that no other person on the planet is subject to.
@JC
Keith came up with the term after I suggested we look for a replacement for “citizenship” in CBT on the American Expatriates Facebook page post that covered the DA FATCA Task Force in Washington. Clever, but won’t get us very far in Washington.
I am 39 mins into the video. Up to now I am hearing a whole lot of “conceptually speakings” and “I thinks” from Kirsch in his desperate attempt to justify the “value of being a member of the US tax slave community.”
I am now at the part where he is talking about how difficult it is to enforce RBT.
One thing I find interesting is that Kirsch openly acknowledged the weakness of the benefits claim as a justification for CBT (basis of Cook vs Tait) as well as he criticised the Reed Amendment and Name and Shame list.
One part I thought was actually humorous was how Kirsch indirectly blamed ACA for perpetuating CBT because ACA actively helps non-resident Americans vote and obtain citizenship for their children born outside the US. Kirsch “thinks” such activity serves as proof that Americans living outside the US are active participants of US society and therefore should be taxed. A lesson for ACA — no good deed goes unpunished!
ooops “,” not “.” thanks admin.
I kind of prefer SBT for Slave Based Taxation.
@Walt, SBT is more accurate, but CBT is more politically correct, as long as you don’t dig too deep which most don’t ever do.
Perhaps those who attended can fill in some of the important blanks.
We remember what was asked.
For example:
Kirsch was asked by the audience, but was not able to explain how it is that individuals can be deemed by the US to be too legally incompetent (due to psychological, intellectual, developmental disabilities, etc. – many from birth) to understand and demonstrate their understanding of the concept of citizenship sufficient to renounce/relinquish it (thus being forced to remain US taxpayers FOR LIFE) – AND YET the US and his fellow academics remain adamant that those individuals (and mlnors) are receiving ‘benefits’ of US citizenship, and ‘participate’ in the ‘life of the community’.
In addition, if those deemed legally incompetent due to a chronic condition, or due to immaturity (minors), then how can the US Treasury and IRS deem them competent and autonomous enough to be responsible for filing their own FBARS (see current instructions at FINCEN that minors should file their own). If these individuals are too immature or legally incompetent to renounce/relinquish US citizenship, then they are also too immature or legally incompetent to perform the duties demanded by the US of those it defines and traps through extraterritorial parent/birthplace/citizenship based taxation.
If one is incompetent to comprehend and thus exercise the duties of a citizen, then they are too incompetent to comprehend and exercise the responsibilities and burdens of a ‘US taxpayer for life’. And, further, they are too incompetent for ‘wilfulness’.
And as for ‘benefit’, the US provides NOTHING for these vulnerable individuals. Rather, it taxes and penalizes and BURDENS them by laying claim extraterritorially to the NON_US benefits that NON-US taxpayers and governments and families provide via grants, and other supports (such as taxing/penalizing the RDSP and RESP as ‘foreign trusts’).
Kirsch had no answer for this scenario.
If I can see the contradiction (and I did not attend an Ivy League university or receive training as a lawyer), then I have to conclude that Kirsch et al can also see the contradictions but conveniently choose not to address them.
On another note;
Another thing I’d like recorded for posterity about that day is that MP Murray Rankin attended for the whole/most of the day and made himself available to members of the audience who wished to speak with him – and actively welcomed our comments.
@WhiteKat, the other thing that really bothers me about Kirsch’s argument is that he keeps talking about CBT and the “value’ of citizenship. He never once makes the leap that other nations who have RBT also have citizens abroad how value their citizenship every bit as much and yet are not burdened with this ridiculous CBT notion!
He acts as if ONLY the U.S. has ever thought of the value of citizenship. All this arguments FOR CBT could easily be made for nations that value their expat population, whose expat populations value their citizenship and yet somehow they manage to do this withOUT CBT! Is he saying that France whose expats have two government representatives have expats who don’t value their citizenship equally to the U.S. because they do not practice CBT?
Not only is he really stretching to make his argument about “what citizenship means” but, he is neglecting to notice that all other nations seem to allow their expats to be presumed to have the requisite patriotism without somehow equating that with how much they are able to spend to keep their citizenship.
Thanks, badger, for putting here part of what was conveniently removed from the video!
I want to see these great academics at a loss for answers to all of the questions you and others asked and didn’t get answers for.
And, I want the answers — for my family and for many others around the world.
************
Also — isn’t it interesting that *Comments are disabled for this video* at YouTube?
The description there is:
Atticus,
It is all in the definition of *exceptional USA* — every pore, every brain cell, every breath. All other lesser countries be damned.