134 thoughts on “We Delivered! Monumental Submission to Senate Finance Committee! #Fight CBT”

1. Of course, the term “citizenship-based taxation” must be used when discussing how countries around the world tax, because it is the obvious choice as a contrast to “RESIDENCE-based taxation”. I think “taxation-based citizenship” is clever, however, and it MIGHT be useful in other contexts (individual authors will be able to determine which term suits their purposes best).
   If nothing else, it made me smile.

2. @Calgary; Check the following out as it applies to your son.

   Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

   1. States Parties shall recognize the rights of persons with disabilities to liberty of movement, to freedom to choose their residence and to a nationality, on an equal basis with others, including by ensuring that persons with disabilities:

   a) Have the right to acquire and change a nationality and are not deprived of their nationality arbitrarily or on the basis of disability;

   http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=278

   Your sons rights are clearly violated!!!

3. @Calgary, I just had the opportunity to read the UN Complaint as part of the packet……BRAVO to all of you.

   Two lines in the complaint helped further sharpen my thoughts.

   “Citizenship is not by consent in the United States; rather it is a status conferred by law that may only be shed by the filing of intrusive forms, typically with the payment of fees.”

   AND

   “However, its vast majority are included in the class solely owing to their national status as US citizens, a status that has been and continues to be conferred upon them by the US without their consent and, even in many cases, without their knowledge.”

   What does this clarify and how is the fog cleared?

   The UN Declaration of Human Rights states “Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
   (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.”

   Therefor, imposing nationality on a person without his/her consent and/or knowledge would be violation of their human rights.

   Can Latvia make me a national/citizen with neither my consent nor knowledge? NO

   Also notice that it states “a nationality” which is singular not plural.

   The problem is that America is exceptional and who would say no to receiving such a precious gift, I think there are court cases that use such language.

4. @George
   Seemingly, US citizenship was a precious gift back during WW2. Now it is used as an excuse to confiscate wealth.

5. George,

   It seems my son and others without *requisite mental capacity* could renounce — but not with influence or help from anyone (like me, a mother). My son might be able to renounce with a lot of influence and a whole lot of assistance from his family. Further, a parent, a guardian or a trustee cannot act on such a person’s behalf, even with a court order. He, or any other like him, would not be doing anything like that without influence and assistance. How in the world would such a person know about any of this, the importance for them, their entrapment into a citizenship and its consequences of a country they have never lived in? To me, that is immoral. To me, that is entrapment into the abyss of continued costly years of assistance from the US tax compliance industry — for little or no taxes actually owed.

   And, then, there is the little problem I have with the US IRS getting any tax collected on a Canadian (or any other country) registered disability account that saves for their future needs.

   Why does the US think this is legitimate and ethical? Why would the UN Human Rights Committee?

   I have tried to discuss this discrimination with Canada, but to deaf ears! See: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/05/23/canadas-registered-disability-savings-plan-rdsp-canadas-finance-minister-flaherty-responds-regarding-this-as-well-as-the-resp-and-tfsa/comment-page-3/#comment-1233596

   It is apparent the US THINKS my son’s (or anyone like him) so-called acquired US citizenship trumps the citizenship ofthe country in which he was born and has always lived. (And, Canada seems to agree!?!) I see it MUCH differently and that is why I cannot shut up on this issue — NOT just for my son, but for all such sons and daughters and families who do not need this BS in their already complex lives providing a decent life for their family member(s) with some special needs.

6. Because our April 15 submission was very large and I had to send parts of the submission to the Senate Finance Committee in three different emails, I was concerned that the files might not have been received. For the record, today (April 20, 2015) I spoke to a SFC person and received phone confirmation that all seven parts had been successfully received and that staffers are already starting to “wade” through the submissions. The SFC person would not tell me how many submissions had been made. Our submission was made to the International Tax working group as the primary and cc’d to all of the other SFC working groups and to the individual staffers that we met in DC.

   The face to face meeting with the staffers took place at 10:00 a.m. on April 9 and lasted one hour. At 12:00 p.m., in a meeting that I emphasize was pre-arranged, John and I met with Jim Butera, our attorney in DC, to discuss next steps. That afternoon, before we flew back to Toronto, I took John to the National Portrait Gallery to “visit with” the portraits of all of the American presidents. I left the gallery wondering whether any of the presidents might have considered that we had sufficient “value” that would warrant some attention.

7. @Stephen:
   Considering the fact that George Washington fought a very long war to secure the very rights and freedoms we fight for in this effort today, I am sure both he and John Adams as well as Thomas Jefferson would be staunch supporters of our cause.
   Particularly George Washington. Because he knew all too well as a fighting man what sacrifices were and are made to secure the right to ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’.
   I am not sure Stephen if you know, or if John and the others know how much we appreciate all the hard work you all have undertaken. Words cannot adequately describe how grateful we all are. I know it seems that with the slow progress of the funding it seems that enthusiasm is waning. I suspect that some stumbling blocks have been placed surreptitiously in the way of the smooth receipt of donations. But, of course,that is speculation only. But it DOES make one wonder.
   Just as we all wondered about how determined the Conservative government was to quietly and quickly pass the IGA. Obviously, efforts are at work to make these things happen worldwide so it would seem reasonable that efforts are at work to thwart the success of our ADCS .
   What I am most impressed with, Stephen and John, et al, is the entire effort that is multi-pronged and exquisite in every T crossed and I dotted. It is outstanding and worth ten times the cost we are funding today.
   Thank you, Stephen.
   And God Bless you all. Every breath you take is a blessing from God. May you all be ever kept in HIS care.
   As George Washington himself was protected throughout his long war on the battlefield to secure freedom by God and the Angels, so may THEY protect you and John and Trisha and Gwen and Ginny and all who work so hard and strive so carefully on our behalf.
   May GOD bless us all!

8. And of all the presidents who knew and appreciated the ‘value’ Stephen of how hard you are working to secure our freedoms and liberty I believe that: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan would have not only a fuller appreciation of the ‘value’ of our efforts but fought their own quiet war against those within their own government of the day to thwart the very efforts THEY made to secure the ‘value’ of man and his desire for freedom and liberty. And two of them paid the ultimate price for those efforts.

9. May I second FuriousAC, may God Bless You All.

10. @ FuriousAC
    So many times your words have hit the mark perfectly and you did it again. I’ve always been amazed that someone who is a perfect fit for a particular purpose steps up when we need it. Needed research — got it. Needed graphics — got it. Needed good writing — got it. Needed legal knowledge — got it. Needed emotional support — got it. The list goes on. Then we needed a team to go to Washington — got that too. It really is amazing!

11. @FuriousAC:

    “The Unanimous Voice of the Continent is “Canada must be ours; Quebec must be taken.” (John Adams~1776. While serving as a delegate to the Continental Congress)

    “The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent.” (Thomas Jefferson~1812. In a letter to Colonel William Duane

    What Jefferson and Adams failed to accomplish is now happening more than 200 years later,

    “Congress has spoken.” (Mike Allen. Canadian Member of Parliament to Finance Committee May, 2015)

    We certainly fell for all the indoctrination that was pounded into our heads as kids. How did “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” and “All men are created equal” work out for the slaves owned by many of the first 18 Presidents?:

    Of the first five presidents, four owned slaves. All four of these owned slaves while they were president.

    Of the next five presidents (#6-10), four owned slaves. Only two of them owned slaves while they were president.

    Of the next five presidents (#11-15), two owned slaves. Both of these two owned slaves while they were president.

    Of the next three presidents (#16-18) two owned slaves. neither of them owned slaves while serving as president.

    Those slave-owning Presidents included Washington and Jefferson, but not John Adams.

    And, of course, the Founding Fathers did not think women were even worth a mention.

    This disconnect between the constitution and reality continues today, including with CBT and FATCA, That is why we must continue to fight for what is right.

    I agree with you about Stephen, John, Tricia, Gwen and Ginny. They are carrying the torch for the continuing fight for justice.

12. @Blaze:
    The founding fathers in writing the Constitution intended for the words therein to be for all people, not just the privileged.
    Slavery of many including Africans and ‘indentured ‘ servants, mostly impoverished and white not to mention children, sold into that form of slavery for seven years, during which one might be free. Many did not become free , indenturing’ themselves further for various reasons or having died while in servitude.
    While the words of the Constitution are inspiring and was the ideal, as it continues to be today, they were not enough to convince the southern colonies to sign the Constitution and the Founding Fathers knew that although the ideals were preferred they could not form their new nation without all the colonies signature.
    Slavery was abhorrent and continues to be yet even today, in one form or another around the world.
    Slavery and the slave trade was not abolished until 1833 in England, thanks in large part to the work and sacrifice of William Wilberforce.
    It is interesting to note the timeline of the quotes in your comment were from the years during which the War of 1812 waged and the new nation was determined to rid itself of England’s subjugation and for good or ill, the outcome was one they knew was important for their survival. That it turned out the way it did served to preserve both the autonomy of both the US and Canada, for which we must be thankful.
    There are many, many areas of criticism for which the US is susceptible without question but to indict the Founding Fathers for the continuation of slavery both personally and nationally is not to recognize the fact that it was an issue of the times they had to deal with carefully for the new nation to even get off the ground let alone continue to exist. And that it took many years and a civil war to ‘settle’ the issue with many millions of Americans fighting with all their might for the abolition of slavery along with their Canadian counterparts engaging in various efforts not the least the Underground Railway.
    Yet, regarding Washington in particular, the history shows a dichotomy
    of thought on Washington’s slaves. He had them and he had many of them. On his death the number at Mount Vernon was listed at 318. His will determined they should be freed.He was the only Founding Father who owned slaves to do such a thing.
    He had wanted to ‘be quit of Negroes’ in 1778 but felt he was unable to do so as it would mean breaking up his own with the ‘dower’ slaves from his marriage to Martha Custis.
    They had married and intermingled and by law the ‘dower’ slaves would have to be sent back to the estate of Martha’s late former husband.
    It would have meant ‘breaking up families’ which he was loathe to do.
    Yet, as President he signed laws and initiatives that ensured slavery would continue , if not in whole , certainly in increments. And it makes one wonder that as President why he did not initiate his own Emancipation Proclamation. Except that after fighting for the new nation’s birth for 7 long and arduous years it may have been that he did not want to risk the upheaval and war that act would most assuredly bring.
    All goes to show, I suppose to say, that our heroes of that time were human beings after all and they were a product of their times as much as the times became a product of them.

13. As with Washington, so with Lincoln. Perhaps not personally but certainly concerning the Congress each had to deal with.
    Washington’s congress wanted to declare him King. He refused such and was eternally dedicated to the form of government they had created.
    For Lincoln, he also had a war to fight and many were fleeing the country to avoid doing so ( who in their right mind would not contemplate such, certainly in light of the horrendous brutality).
    They needed money to fight that war and were determined to get it especially from those fleeing. They also drew in the Irish with promises of citizenship should they agree to fight and they did.
    Far from the most desired in the world it has been on the one hand a bludgeon and the other a carrot stick, hung appealingly to lure in those gullible to become a different kind of slave to the desires and intentions of THAT Congress.
    I am sure we can all appreciate the parallels to our problems with these entities today!

14. http://www.c-span.org/video/?c3908876/democrats-abroad-charlotte-2012

    — remember this?

15. I believe that this is the residence-based taxation proposal that was just submitted (April 2015) by American Citizens Abroad (ACA) to the Senate Finance Committee working groups:

    https://americansabroad.org/files/4914/2957/0000/proposal-for-submission-to-senate-finance-april-2015.pdf

16. Just read the ACA proposal in full. I’m glad it focuses heavily on RBT, since so much attention is focused on FATCA in other reports, so this one provides some balance. Sadly, I believe the Senate Finance Committee will see a report from ACA as coming from self-interested expats. But nevertheless, it is a good statement.

17. @ Barbara
    RE: the ACA SFC submission
    I didn’t like this part — not much help to long departed non-compliants (true number unknown but could be millions) … as far as I can see.

    RBT would be an option available to Americans abroad who have resided three years as bona fide overseas residents under Section 911 of the Internal Revenue Code, who have been U.S. tax compliant and who have an established tax home abroad.

    And then there’s an annual form to fill out. How long before they increase its complexity and then apply $10K penalties for foot faults?

18. I just read the ACA submission that Stephen Kish posted immediately before this comment, and I see no mention at all about the vast majority of us……..those that are NON_COMPLIANT with current arrogant regulations. No relief is in sight. With both that and the suggestion that some form of annual return must still be signed and sent to the USG, I just don’t see any obvious end to the current tax slavery. You’re still “owned.” I was hoping ACA could do better than this. Oh well……

19. I just saw this absolutely god awful article praising FATCA and CBT

    http://civilrightslawjournal.com/issues/25.217.pdf

20. Here is the author of the above article’s Google+ page.

21. Written by a grad student, with as yet no real-world experience. All theory-based.

    When a citizen is paying minimal taxes, as far as policy is concerned, all that is left for critics to argue are issues of fairness and administrative problems.

    Although policy concerns have their place, they are not legal reasons for opposing the current system of citizenship-based taxation.

    I invite the author, once she has received her degree, to move outside the US and spend the next couple of decades working, trying to take out and pay a mortgage so she can buy a home to raise her family in, trying to save and invest for retirement and her kids’ education, and most importantly, trying to understand how to follow all the restrictions that will be placed on her ability to live a normal life like anyone else in that country, and especially, trying to satisfy all of her tax reporting obligations correctly with no help from the IRS whatsoever.

    Then, once she has some idea of what real life is like, she is free to opine on the significance of mere “fairness and administrative problems.”

    Incidentally, Ms. Kossachev:

    However, an American citizen residing in a country that taxes income pays little to no United States income tax because the foreign tax on foreign-source income is credited against the citizen’s income tax liability dollar-for-dollar. Conversely, a United States citizen who resides in a nation that finances public activity through a general sales tax pays the full rate of the United States income tax because the foreign sales tax payments are neither deductible nor creditable. Both citizens receive the same benefits, yet they pay a different tax rate because of inadequacies in our tax system to recognize discrepancies in foreign tax systems and carve out exceptions accordingly. The Code’s treatment of nonresident citizens seemingly undermines arguments in favor of worldwide taxation of United States citizens based on the benefits theory.

    Good, you at least managed to spot one problem. And your solution is:

    That is where communication and negotiation among countries regarding tax treaties becomes crucial. When representatives from two countries gather to discuss tax systems they have the ability to determine differences in their respective systems and then reach a conclusion as to how to compromise tax rates or which tax system should prevail. This ensures that a citizen is not fully taxed by each country and there is an attempt at eliminating double taxation.

    Hint: look up the the term “savings clause.” Then go rewrite your paper. Tax treaties as currently written do NOT solve the problem you mentioned for US citizens abroad. Or did you perhaps mean, but forget, to include a proposal to rewrite tax treaties in order to fix this problem? (Was this published in a refereed journal? The referee must have been asleep at the switch here.)

22. “Uprooting nearly a century of precedent simply cannot be justified” — isn’t this the kind of argument used against civil rights, the end of slavery, women’s rights? Never mind. A century? How many Americans abroad in 1920 filed taxes?

    Citizen-based taxation implies duplication of tax obligations, and double taxation. This is not a normal or sustainable situation, except when, for “nearly a century”, you can ignore it. What FATCA has done, remarkable effectively, is make citizen-based taxation something we can no longer (easily) ignore.

    Therefore the root of the problem has now been made obvious: citizen-based taxation. FATCA should only concern US residents.

23. “HomlanderThink” and the FATCAsphere”

    I have broken one paragraph on page 24 of the law student article into three paragraphs and bolded the sections that reveal much about the “Orwellian doublethink” that has now become “HomelanderThink” of today.

    Although privacy violations are a very grave concern, individuals agree to surrender certain privacies, particularly information about their financial assets to the IRS, in exchange for citizenship status and its accompanying benefits.

    Truly incredible. Yesterday there was some discussion on this blog about “Taxation based citizenship” vs. “citizenship based taxation”. This law student seems to be suggesting that obligations to the IRS are what U.S. citizens give to the U.S. in exchange for citizenship. This idiot doesn’t comprehend (all the academic quotations notwithstanding) that citizenship does NOT come from the U.S. Government. It comes from (in most cases the 14th amendment) which means that the government cannot unconstitutionally burden citizenship.

    In Afroyim (the same court that decided Cook v. Tait) ruled that Congress cannot do things that result in the forcible destruction of citizenship. If nothing else, the above statement seems to suggest that U.S. citizenship means one and only one thing: IRS. And as good “homelander citizen” of the “Land of the Free” he supports this. In the U.S.A. of today:

    “Freedom is slavery”.

    If a certain tax and its implementation are constitutional, then the government has supreme authority to impose it on all of its citizens. FATCA is no more than a check that taxes are imposed on all individuals equally, particularly those living abroad or those who have assets abroad.

    Well okay, the only problem is that the tax code that punishes “ALL things foreign” applies to Americans abroad whose lives are “ALL things foreign”. In other words, one can’t be both a “tax compliant U.S. citizen abroad” and have any kind of life.

    What about the effects on people who are NOT citizens? What about the effects on the financial systems of other countries? What about the effects of imposing these costs on the citizens of other nations who can’t afford them?

    This strikes me as one of the most moronic, insular statements I have ever heard in the “FATCAsphere” (and that’s saying a lot). It’s so Orwellingly ignorant, that it confirms that in the “HomelanderThink” of today that:

    “Ignorance is strength”.

    From this perspective, FATCA furthers the constitutional notion of equality under the law. It is a tax regime that simply attempts to redistribute the tax burden where it belongs, thereby providing benefits for everyone at a relatively lower cost. This Comment will not delve further into the Fourth Amendment privacy concerns associated with information sharing and international application, but for the purposes of FATCA, privacy is ensured by a secured exchange system between countries with extensive treaties and IGAs.

    The writer focuses on both “extensive treaties” AND “IGAs”.

    Re IGAs:

    As we all now, the FATCA IGAs were imposed under threats of economic sanction. They are NOT friendly agreements. They remind me of the scene in Godfather 1 where the suggestion was made:

    “Either his signature or his brains will be on this contract”.

    Extreme acts of aggression indeed.

    Re: Treaties

    Well, as @Foo notes, this person either does not understand or does not know about the “savings clause”. The “savings clause” gives the U.S. the right to impose U.S. taxes on the residents (and in many cases) the citizens of other nations. Therefore, the insistence of the “savings clause” is actually an act of “warlike aggression”.

    One can only conclude that in “HomelanderThink” of today that:

    War is peace.

    But, hey, let’s cut the author some slack. Clearly no practical experience with the matters that he writes about. The author should try to live outside the United States as a “tax compliant U.S. citizen”.

    The result would be captured by more of the wisdom of @Mark Twain who I a sure would say:

    “When I was 14 my father was so ignorant, I couldn’t stand to have him around. By the time I turned 21, I was amazed at how much my father had learned in 7 years”.

    There is certainly nothing in this article that a dose of reality wouldn’t cure.

24. @Barbara @Stephen Kish @Embee @Pierre D

    Remember that ACA is very clear in its mandate. It represents ONLY those who are Americans abroad. Therefore, I would NOT expect a proposal from ACA that considered the concerns of “accidentals”, “non meaningfuls” or “pure accidental tax chattels”. So, in evaluating the ACA submission we must consider their perspective.

    IMHO the ACA proposal is very helpful because it proposes very concrete and precise steps to achieve RBT. I other words, it tells Congress how to get there and attempts to address the Homelander concern of NOT wanting people with money to be able to leave America (yes it’s true).

    All tax proposals are from “self interested somebodys”. That’s what the legislative process is about.

    Key point is that ACA provides a very precise answer to the question:

    What exactly do you want?

    First, they provide an answer.

    Second, the answer they provide addresses the concerns of those they claim to represent – those who claim to be and believe they are “American citizens abroad”.

    Third, the answer they provide does seem to me to anticipate and respond to Homelander concerns.

    Fourth, the ACA submission works well in conjunction with other submissions.

    https://americansabroad.org/files/4914/2957/0000/proposal-for-submission-to-senate-finance-april-2015.pdf

25. UCA: highly entertaining and exact analysis. Made me want to reread Orwell. But Godfather and Mark Twain quotes highly appropriate too! Thanks.