I once got trapped in enemy minefield w/ no good choices -getting hit w/ #FATCA felt like that says Bopp plaintiff http://t.co/8TauWmjamr
— ADCSovereignty (@ADCSovereignty) March 11, 2015
US Army major in 1st Iraq War = plaintiff in Bopp suit-forced 2 choose:: USC or arduous penalties http://t.co/6WYdc16xQ7 #FATCAMarriage
— Patricia Moon (@nobledreamer16) March 11, 2015
Rand Paul pushes repeal of #FATCA despised by Americans living abroad http://t.co/RxZ5kCSvhG via @washtimes Plaintiff in Bopp suit named
— ADCSovereignty (@ADCSovereignty) March 11, 2015
“Introducing Major (ret.) Roger Johnson: Major Johnson is the first Republicans Overseas FATCA lawsuit plaintiff and RO Worldwide Vice President for Eastern Europe. He served in the First Gulf War and received a Bronze Star for valor. As a combat veteran, he wrote a blank check made payable to “The United States of America” for an amount of “up to and including his life.” Now he is fighting for all expats’ constitutional protections and the pursuit of happiness.“
FatcaFantastic! What a great choice! Can hardly imagine the American public dissing him as a traitor or tax cheat.
Excellent article in the Washington Times. And I love the comments section, where the idiots saying, “Duh, if you’re Murrican then you gotta pay taxes, what’s the problem” are getting slammed with (mostly) articulate comebacks.
And a great choice for plaintiff. Wow. Does this mean another lawsuit to donate to?
OK, this longtime Dem is getting ready for a first: voting Republican. Oh well, I had libertarian sympathies anyway.
@Fred – I am solidly a single issue voter. For me, the party that helps us fix this disaster gets my support and donations.
Good credible choice. However, it has to be said Major Johnson is somewhat trapped in the US system because of his military federal pension. To raise to the rank of major, it’s likely he stuck around longer enough to qualify.
I love the uneducated ‘duh, you’re Merrican’ comment. It shows the typical Homelander mindset.
We need an EU lawsuit next. I believe the argument that because ‘An EU Government signed the IGA, it has unfairly burdened EU citizens with US connections vis-à-vis other EU citizens. Unless other EU citizens have their data reported to a non-EU government, and that non-EU government taxes on the basis of CBT, IGAs signed with the US presents an unfair burden.”
Roger this and that.
http://cz.linkedin.com/pub/roger-johnson/1/739/1a5
Yayyyy! The stuff is finally hitting the fan bigtime. What a great choice in a plaintiff! I trust that the Major will soon be joined by others as well.
@don “Unless other EU citizens have their data reported to a non-EU government” Maybe this is the whole point of governments accepting this. Governments wants all the information.on everyone. U.S. taint is just the opening of the door.
This is shaping up to be a very good week, this and Shadow Raider’s report from DC:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/07/23/shadow-raider-is-rewriting-the-united-state-internal-revenue-code/comment-page-21/#comment-5726121
Keep up the momentum!
@Cheryl – I say non-EU because in the EU there’s the Savings Directive and share info between EU state which is fine. They’re in the EU.
FATCA is work in progress and the final rules have not been written by the courts.
There is strong support in the E.U. for information sharing. E.U. Governments dream of knowing all about bank accounts everywhere. One has privacy for personal financial dealings within one’s country, but not for personal accounts abroad (an amusing paradox. And a FATCA IGA will eliminate that privacy because your friendly local government is the intermediary transmitting your bank data to the IRS — and if you think they aren’t going to have a look on the way, I have a bridge you may be interested in buying). In a way, this is like the US, but in a much more relaxed way, so far.
Because FATCA and similar means to make financial privacy a thing of the past (uh, I mean to fight againt tax evasion) are popular among politicians and the public, they will not go away, I think.
Therefore the lawsuit we all support here, and the Bopp lawsuit, may help against the more egregious consequences of these laws, but in the long run there will be tight financial control by governments everywhere. I sincerely hope Rand Paul is successful, but let’s face it, he is against the tide. All this is along the lines of NSA information gathering too.
Which is why the root of the evil is citizen-based taxation. Without it, FATCA and similar schemes will continue, but double taxation and the ridiculous persecution of Americans abroad would cease.
@Fred – Any EU lawsuit (as the Canadian one) will have to be based on discrimination.
Hopefully a member country of the EU will find itself defending an IGA in the Europe Court of Justice.
Of course to bring a suit you would have to have a EU passport to make the claim an IGA is unfairly burdening you as an EU citizens which other EU citizens in some sort of similar circumstances do not have to bear.
So is every resident EU citizenship with dual citizenship having their tax information sent outside the EU? No
Is every EU citizen with dual citizenship being denied financial services? No
Is every EU citizen with dual citizenship being discriminated against financially by other EU citizens? No
Is every EU citizen with dual citizenship being denied access to government tax free opportunities? No
Is every EU citizen with dual citizenship being ask over and over that they’ve renounced their other citizenship when interacting with EU financial institutions? No
Is every EU citizen with dual citizenship being taxed (while resident in the EU) by another non-EU country on their income, capital gains, pensions, etc? No
The way to get an IGA struck down isn’t complaining about Uncle Sam wanting to tax you, but make a case the IGA places an unfair burden on you as an EU citizens and other EU citizens are enjoying advantages that you can’t take part in.
In other words you want a level playing field. EU Governments, and EU banks can’t deny discrimination in the above questions.
@Don
“Good credible choice. However, it has to be said Major Johnson is somewhat trapped in the US system because of his military federal pension. To raise to the rank of major, it’s likely he stuck around longer enough to qualify.”
Not necessarily. He could have made Major in 10 years and most likely would have made Lt. Colonel before hitting the 20 year mark for retirement.
Most likely he is not a retiree, but then again I could be wrong and he is renouncing even at the cost of losing his military pension, which would really suck.
@Walt
RO in their announcement state he’s retired.
There’s no doubt in my mind that all of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit will be exemplary citizens, tax compliant and as pure as necessary to suit the cause of defeating FATCA (no slight intended Stephen Kish). How this factors into the plight of the majority of expats who by contrast aren’t tax compliant, represented, and the bigger issue of citizenship-based taxation will soon be discovered. The GOP has yet to prove how dedicated they are to residency-based taxation, but I’m hopeful that with the recognition of the need to go to residency based taxation by the committee on tax reform, things might actually change for the better. Here’s hoping!
Why would he lose his pension if he renounced? Why shouldn’t he be entitled to his pension no matter where he lives or what citizen he is? He earned it.
@Polly
My understanding is that he wouldn’t necessarily “lose” it. But he would have to report it as if it paid out all at once which increases his “gain” and makes him more liable for owing Exit Tax. Which of course amounts to an equivalent of “losing” since it is likely a large portion of it has yet to be drawn.
@Don –
Indeed.
I have dual citizenship, and have been thrown out by one bank. But not found out yet by my 2 other banks (!). One even sold me a mutual fund (before I became aware of FATCA, that is before Deutsche Bank closed my accounts in June 2014). My personal problem is that I am not yet tax compliant with the US, and would probably not be a poster child for legal action. However if/when I am found and discriminated against by my current remaining banks, I would indeed consider legal actions on discriminatory grounds.
I believe that political pressure from the EU could make the US back off, I just don’t believe that political pressure is there yet.
@Polly and Tricia Moon
A retired US military officer who renounces his citizenship forfeits any benefits derived from his military service. Looked this up several years ago, it is in the military compensation manual. Never found out if it also extends to social security benefits earned while in the military
@patricia &Polly
Sorry. It did not occur to me that a vet would be treated differently than any other citizen . That strikes me as incredibly harsh. Particularly for someone who put his/ her life on the line.
Unbelievable. Just disgusting.
Yes disgusting but not surprising.
Since the Civil War CBT has been about punishment and control. It is not about taxes.
FATCA just puts that punishment and control on steroids with the full cooperation of our own Canadian and other governments around the world.
Wow, Patricia! “A retired US military officer who renounces his citizenship forfeits any benefits derived from his military service. Looked this up several years ago, it is in the military compensation manual. Never found out if it also extends to social security benefits earned while in the military.” This man put his life on the line and his government rewards him with a trap.
I’m going to add this revelation to my collection of addenda (if needed) to the UN Human Rights Complaint.
@Bubblebustin, You ask how the Republican Overseas (RO) FATCA lawsuit will represent the majority (80%?) of non-resident U.S. citizens who are not IRS compliant if all of the plaintiffs are IRS compliant (or like me, suspect that they MIGHT be “IRS compliant” — who really knows for sure?).
Jim Bopp, the U.S. attorney makes the final decision on all plaintiffs (as did our attorney Joe Arvay in Canada) — but I suggest that if any “U.S. person” who is IRS non-compliant (e.g., cannot afford to become compliant and cannot afford to “renounce” from U.S. citizenship and IRS obligations; disputes loss of privacy etc.) is interested in being a plaintiff in the RO lawsuit they could send an email to Solomon Yue at RO and discuss.
My understanding is that plaintiffs in the U.S. lawsuit are not subject to payment of part of the Government’s legal cost should the courts decide against us. This is unlike the situation for Ginny and Gwen in Canada who have placed themselves at high personal financial risks for costs. By the way, I hope that donations will pick up soon to keep their lawsuit alive.
I’m sure the Democrats will find a way. My father-in-law served in Burma against the Japanese (against my relatives from Japan) and his daughter still gets called a “tax cheat”.
But to spit “tax cheat” at a veteran is pretty much a “no-no” when it comes to the Republicans. Whatever else, it’ll be a “fight to the finish”.
We can never, never, never give up. The tyrants in Washington must be defeated. No matter what.