This article on the need for funding U.S. highways shows just how far Congress will go to claim revenue neutrality while still spending money. Instead of raising the gas tax and charging people who use the roads for maintaining them it is easier for Congress to raise taxes on people who can’t fight back.
This is the same poor thought process that gave rise to F.A.T.C.A.. Instead of paying to help veterans by looking to savings in money that was being spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq it was decided that the money would come from a constituency that had nothing to do with rusbank.net the problem but conveniently also couldn’t fight back and who no one would defend, EXPATS.
Congress keeps finding increasingly absurd ways to avoid raising the gas tax
For all their effort, they’re still a financial basket case.
Re: Raise $7.7 billion through tax compliance measures and other assorted policies.
We have had hints that part of this is on expats. I tried to find the “smoking gun.” Not obvious. Let’s dig it out – and how does that $7.7 billion total up?
@JC: Passport revocation for people without SSNs is in there, in Section 52102 at pages 914–920. (Archive.org link because Senate website blocks various proxies, VPNs, Tor, etc.). On the bright side, I guess that means McConnell has given up on trying to put it into the customs bill.
There’s also another provision to move the FBAR due date up to 15 April (but with extensions possible like normal tax forms) in Section 52105, at page 929.
I was under the impression that those “tax compliance measures” are to threaten to revoke the passports of any slob the IRS deems to owe money. And since only a statistically unmeasurable tiny number of Homelanders have passports, that means this measure is directed at, of course, guess who?
@Eric @Barbara
New discrimination:
See Eric’s link page 914 line 15.
Revocation or denial of passport in case of certain unpaid taxes.
Subchapter D of chapter 75 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end of the following new section…If the Secretary receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that any individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000…for which a notice of lien has been filed in public records. might be limited only for return travel to the US..they indemnify themselves from mistakes.
I imagine FBAR penalties may be included in debt. Public notice sounds nice, yet I have found these taxing authorities dumb on finding you and like to send to old US address.
So there was some thought if you live outside the US as there is limitation for return to US. If you live in the US and you have a big tax debt you are not excluded from the US, thus the discrimination.
Or it could be part of the terror tactic – US virtual financial Berlin Wall – that may be used selectively yet you many never know. Anyone in OVDP may have fear as the penalties and fines pile up. I suppose they wanted to deny Boris Johnson entry into the US for not paying tax on his London home – so now they come up with this.
Lets remember Tricia Moon figured she could have been up for $455,000 in penalties. If today she could have been denied entry into the US if she had a US passport.
“might be limited only for return travel to the US”
That means a special passport is valid for one entry into the US but not valid for any other purpose.
I guess they would use it for someone that they want to harm a little bit less than they did to Bobby Fischer.
“a big tax debt”
A big ALLEGED tax debt. After transporting the person beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences[*], at the victim’s own expense since the proceeding is civil not criminal, the IRS might or might not concede that the victim didn’t owe anything, but the victim is still screwed.
[* phrase copyright July 4, 1776 by the thirteen united States of America]
Good news: the House hates the Senate highway bill
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/249019-senate-highway-bill-faces-house-roadblock
@Eric, thanks for that note about the proposed change to the FBAR due date “There’s also another provision to move the FBAR due date up to 15 April (but with extensions possible like normal tax forms) in Section 52105, at page 929.”
. Just after that is this other item with a proposed change re a filing date extension for the Form 3520 – also very relevant to those ‘abroad’:
…….”…..(11) Taxpayers filing Form 3520, Annual Re13
turn to Report Transactions with Foreign Trusts
14 and Receipt of Certain Foreign Gifts, shall be al15
lowed to extend the time for filing such form sepa16
rately from the income tax return of the taxpayer,
17 for an automatic 6-month period beginning on the
18 due date for filing the return (without regard to any
19 extensions).”
https://web.archive.org/web/20150723041629/http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/7311e4f6-04eb-43b1-a5c2-7586dee4e805/edw15730.pdf#page=929
Looks as if part of the impetus behind the proposal to change the reporting/extension dates for the FBAR Form TD F 90-22.1 and Form 3520 came from the AICPA http://www.aicpa.org/Advocacy/Tax/Pages/duedatesproposal2010.aspx
Perhaps of interest:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/daniel-mcadams/the-us-war-on-your-passport/ (<== see text at link for hyperlinks within the story below)
US War on Your Passport Continues
By Daniel McAdams
July 24, 2015
Just the other day we wrote about a US House “suspension” bill that would give the Secretary of State the authority to cancel your passport if he decided that you had “aided” an organization that he rules is terrorist. There is no definition of what “aided” means, no chance to dispute the Secretary’s decision, no trial or presentation of evidence, and in fact any evidence the government has can be classified as secret so that you may not see it. In effect the Secretary of State can unilaterally consign you to internal exile and there is nothing you can do about it.
Because Members of the US House were too cowardly to go on record voting for such an anti-American piece of legislation, the bill passed by a voice vote.
Today the US Senate plans to one-up its counterparts on the lowlier side of Capitol Hill. Buried inside the US highways funding bill is a provision to revoke or deny issuance of a US passport to anyone who has a large outstanding tax debt to the US Internal Revenue Service. According to a Senate Finance Committee summary (PDF) acquired today, the measure provides for:
"Revocation or denial of passport in case of certain unpaid taxes. This provision would authorize the Federal government to deny the application for a passport when an individual has more than $50,000 (indexed for inflation) of unpaid federal taxes which the IRS is collecting through enforcement action. It would also permit the Federal government to revoke a passport for such individuals. Before revocation, however, the Federal government would be allowed to limit a previously issued passport only for return travel to the United States or to issue a limited passport that only permits return travel to the United States. The provision would be effective on January 1, 2016, and is estimated to raise $0.398 billion over 10 years."
As can be seen from the summary, this measure threatening to imprison Americans within (or outside) US borders is simply viewed as a means by which to raise revenue. The hoped-for increase in revenue coming from this threat is considered an “offset” to the money being spent on the highway bill — in other words the threat to imprison US citizens within their own country or freeze them out is considered appropriate incentive to force them to pay what the government claims it is owed.
Unconvinced that the US government would do such a thing? Check the bill coming to the Senate Floor. Section 52102 of the Highway Funding bill, to be taken up by the Senate today, states:
"If the Secretary receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that any individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport pursuant to section 52102(d) of the Transportation Funding Act of 2015."
Tax “deadbeats” will be either denied entry into the United States or forbidden from leaving the United States.
The use of citizenship rights as a weapon against Americans is becoming increasingly common as Washington is ever more desperate for control of its passport holders.
The last time Ron Paul ran for president, the mainstream media ridiculed him for claiming that the US government’s border control strategy is most likely designed to keep Americans from leaving the country rather than to keep illegals from entering. These two measures within a week’s time pretty clearly confirm what was once laughed off as a “paranoid” view that the US government was building a virtual Berlin Wall to keep its citizens from departing. Perhaps that is why this year a record number of Americans are renouncing their passports and getting out of the country…while they still can.
Thanks to my colleague Norman Singleton for his research on this bill.
looks like Congress will pass a 3 month stopgap highway bill which, as far as i can see, includes no passport provisions. however, seems to include change in due date for FBAR to apr 15
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20150727/BILLS-114hrPIH-HwyAndVetsXtn.pdf
If the passport provision had been proposed during the reign of Timothy Turbotax Geither, he would have scraped by under that 50,000. figure. And come close or over IF he hadn’t been let off scot free WITHOUT any pesky penalties for multiple failures to report and pay what he owed to the IRS. Just to remind you, Geithner owed the IRS major bucks, but was made Secretary of the Treasury anyway, paid NO penalties – and proceeded to preside over the OVDI crusades and beginning of the current jihad and enforcement campaign against all those living outside the US, as well as the rolling out of FATCA – taking the opportunity to abuse us regularly in the media and PR media releases as ‘tax cheats’ and ‘evaders’.
In this article from 2009:
“………..the Senate Finance Committee made public concerns about Geithner’s tax obligations, which resulted in his recent payment of $42,702 in additional taxes and interest for tax years 2001 to 2004. In addition, the committee’s report on the matter says that in 2005 Geithner employed a housekeeper for about three and a half months after her ability to work in the U.S. had lapsed.
Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., described Geithner’s errors as “serious,” but he said they were “honest mistakes” that “do not rise to the level of disqualification.” Baucus also said Geithner corrected the problems as soon as he learned of them. The Montana Democrat wants to have a confirmation hearing on Friday because he says it’s important to have a Treasury secretary on “day one.” Obama’s inauguration takes place Jan. 20.
But Geithner’s tax troubles are more worrisome for his confirmation than Baucus lets on–and not just because the Internal Revenue Service is part of the Treasury Department.
According to the Senate committee’s report, Geithner “recently filed amended tax returns” for each tax year from 2001 through 2006. However, the report doesn’t specify when these returns were filed, leaving open the question about how long Geithner knew about the improprieties before he fixed them.
On Dec. 5, Obama’s transition team told Finance Committee staff that Geithner hadn’t paid social security or self-employment taxes on income received from the International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2004, the report says. Three years ago, the IRS audited Geithner for tax years 2003 and 2004, which resulted in him paying back taxes and interest–but no penalties–totaling $16,732.
However, Geithner voluntarily amended his 2001 and 2002 returns only after Obama expressed interest in nominating him to the Treasury post. The total bill this time: $25,970………. “…………
1/13/2009 ‘Geithner’s Tax Troubles Are Serious’
http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/13/treasury-geithner-obama-biz-beltway-cx_bw_0113geithner2.html
Then there is Charlie Rangel, I don’t even know what his bill would have come to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rangel#Taxes_on_Dominican_villa_rental_income
Who do you think would be called on to pay into the ‘war tax’ he’s proposing? http://www.newsmax.com/US/Charles-Rangel-military-draft-war-tax/2015/03/20/id/631560/
Remember the history of US income tax, and of CBT – both connected with raising funds for war.
Just like the Obamacare tax on investments expats are subject to (depending on threshold http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/taxes/us-expats-in-canada-face-new-obamacare-health-care-tax/article7372249/ http://blogs.angloinfo.com/us-tax/2013/11/11/us-citizens-abroad-and-obamacare/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/10/pf/taxes/us-expat-kids-citizenship-tax/ ), you just know that those of us living outside the US (but deemed US taxable citizens) will be for sure targeted to contribute our “fair share” in the currency of our children’s lives and our family earnings and savings to this latest proposed US tax – Rangel’s “war tax”;
http://rangel.house.gov/press-release/rangel-introduces-bills-require-military-draft-and-tax-times-war
Rangel’s proposal to tax in lives and savings for spend for US wars:
“Rangel’s Draft Act requires all men and women between the ages 18 to 25 to register for the Selective Service System and for the reinstatement of a lottery to draft them into the military whenever an authorization on the use of military force or declaration of war is in effect. According to the Selective Service System, there are currently nearly 16 million men registered within the Selective Service System. By requiring women to register, Rangel’s bill would double the number of U.S residents available for military service. It would also be in line with the Pentagon’s updated policy to include women in combat.
The War Tax Act requires that current and future war funding be paid for with revenue increases. A permanent federal income tax, made possible by the 16th Amendment in 1913, was employed to help defray the costs of America’s involvement in World War I. In 1968 a temporary 10% surtax was imposed to offset the escalating costs of the Vietnam War. Taxes were raised in 1990 in part to pay for deficits increased by the first Gulf War. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are a major exception to this tradition. Together they are variously estimated to have cost us cost from $4 to $6 trillion–the most expensive wars in our history…… ”
http://rangel.house.gov/press-release/rangel-introduces-bills-require-military-draft-and-tax-times-war
Sigh…
concurrent with: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jul/29/michael-moore-film-where-to-invade-next-us-government-war.
Thanks for that link @calgary.
Now if only Moore would also SATIRIZE the methods of raising funds to pay for those wars and keep the military industrial complex in profits.
He says;
“…“The issue of the United States at infinite war is something that has concerned me for quite some time, and provides the necessary satire for this film,” said Moore in the Periscope broadcast. …”…
And I would add, the mandatory draft of all those deemed to be ‘US persons’ roped into the “infinite war” in order to keep it afloat.
To me it is prime material for satire that a kid born in the far reaches of the planet, ex. Mongolia, to a parent possessed of the US citizenship stain could be extraterritorially tapped for life to pay for US wars, and if Rangel got his way; drafted to sacrifice his/her limbs or life in service of something that he – and now she – has had no actual representation or voice in the US about.
Let us also remember that repeatedly, when stats are published about how many in Congress or the Senate actually had war experience
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/04/members-of-congress-have-little-direct-military-experience/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/by-the-numbers-veterans-in-congress/ or had children serving in wars, very few of those ‘lawmakers’ did.
When I said;
“he mandatory draft of all those deemed to be ‘US persons’ roped into the “infinite war” in order to keep it afloat. ”
I meant “..the mandatory draft of all those deemed to be ‘US persons’ roped into the “infinite war” in order to keep it afloat THROUGH US extraterritorial taxes – AND if Rangel had his way, also, via a draft, the lives of the children of US citizens living and perhaps born – “abroad”
The draft proposal doesn’t go far enough. Remember, the US was obligated by treaties to fight for both sides in the war over the Falkland/Malvinas islands. The US Civil War pales by comparison. The US should have pitted American vs. American until none were left alive.