UPDATE November 18 2015:
Poll Added at end of Post – Please Vote!
USCitizenAbroad, responding on Brock to a comment from @Andy05, makes the very provocative argument that our friendly cross-border tax professionals, who live with us in our own communities, are really “‘bounty hunters’ who receive a “cut” for turning their victims over to the IRS.”
These are strong words.
Wikipedia teaches that a “bounty hunter” is a person who captures fugitives for a monetary reward (bounty) and is sometimes called in the United States a “fugitive recovery agent”.
Is USCitizenAbroad correct? Here is USCitizenAbroad’s argument:
“@Andy05
A thought provoking comment indeed. Towards the end you write:
Of course many of those cases — like Sidney Jaffe — involve bounty hunters. And if the USG privatises tax collection we might see more of that, perhaps combined with ne exeat republica writs like those served on the Barretts.
Actually, the USG has privatised tax collection. Person after person has said that they have called the IRS and the IRS response has been: “you must consult a tax professional for the answer to that question”.
What this means is that the the “tax professionals” both (1) MAKE THE LAW and (2) ENFORCE THE LAW.
Some thoughts on each.
(1) Tax Professionals MAKE THE LAW
We can see the attempt of some tax professionals to MAKE THE LAW on the issue of the proper way to interpret the Exit Tax provisions of S. 877A of the Internal Revenue Code. I am reminded of the following post that appeared earlier this year – 26 U.S. Code §877A – The “Exit Tax” rules: Do you see them as applying “prospectively” or “retrospectively” or both? :
This is an excellent example. The post discusses two groups of tax and legal professionals with conflicting views of whether the U.S. Exit Tax rules would apply to someone who relinquished U.S. citizenship prior to 2004. The consequences are staggering. One group argues that the rules are retroactive. The other group argues that the rules are prospective. That said: if enough tax professionals treat the rules as being retroactive, the rules will (in application) become retroactive. This is how tax professionals MAKE THE LAW. (Significantly this means that whether one pays an “Exit Tax” will NOT depend on what the statute means, but on how your choice of tax professional interprets (or chooses to interpret) the law).
(2) Tax Professionals ENFORCE THE LAW
This is quite obvious. People go to a tax professional for assistance with taxes and compliance. After having interpreted the law, the tax professional will then enforce the law on the client. In fact, the tax professional is likely to ENFORCE THE LAW in a manner that is least advantageous to the taxpayer and most advantageous to the IRS. This is the penalty (or “tax/form premium” that one pays for using the “tax professional”). Remember that all tax professionals are dependent on the IRS for their livelihood. Although you pay the tax professional, the the tax professional is working for the administration of the Internal Revenue Code (i.e. the IRS).
Tax professionals are in private business. They are NOT government employees.
So, what is actually happening here is this:
The combination of an Internal Revenue Code that is incomprehensible coupled with an IRS that is overworked (and probably doesn’t understand the rules of international tax any better than you do) has created a system where:
1. The IRS has downloaded the interpretation/creation and enforcement of U.S. tax law to PRIVATE “tax professionals”; who
2. “Take a cut” (in the form of their fees); for
3 Turning the person over to the IRS (which collects taxes).
Sounds to me as though the IRS has ALREADY privatised enforcement of the U.S. tax system and that the “tax professionals” are “bounty hunters” who receive a “cut” for turning their victims over to the IRS.
It’s about “People”, “Forms” and “Form People” …
Looks to me like the IRS is already using “Bounty Hunters”, or am I missing something here?
@Stephen wrote: “What this means is that the the ‘tax professionals’ both (1) MAKE THE LAW and (2) ENFORCE THE LAW.”
It is even more frightening than that, at least as far as the U.K. is concerned. The ICAEW Code of Ethics (“Professional Behaviour – to comply with relevant laws and regulations and avoid any action that discredits the profession”, etc., etc. http://www.icaew.com/en/technical/ethics/icaew-code-of-ethics/icaew-code-of-ethics ) has been explained to me by an accountant who does many U.S. tax returns as requiring him to see to it that every client complies with U.S. as well as U.K. tax law.
That, of course, is frightening and it is why I always tell people this: “If you are seeking advice and have reason to believe you may be noncompliant in U.S. tax matters, then you should consult a lawyer, not an accountant, and your lawyer should retain (i.e. hire) a tax accountant under a ‘Kovel letter’ that preserves privilege and confidentiality.” (One alternative is to use an attorney-CPA in the USA, but I have no idea whether an attorney-CPA with expertise in cross-border matters is affordable.
I would question your statement that (I think you mean) “interpreting” the law equates to “making” it. On the other hand I’ve seen plenty of professionals inventing tax law to suit their own financial interests. Not least in the promotion of OVDP, etc. It’s a great pity that expat compliance issues have become so profitable for the professions that clients get a bad deal. And quite often bad advice.
(It is, I guess, a challenge for professionals — and for ambassadors too — to put their client’s (in the latter case, their country’s) interests over their own profit and advancement.)
One frightened expat a year or two ago told me she had felt threatened by that tax accountant when he raised the issue of OVDP. At a quoted cost of tens of thousands of dollars that she didn’t have. She felt that he was threatening to turn her in if she did not cure her noncompliance. (Whether she correctly understood him, I wouldn’t know.)
Fear is, of course, the stock in trade of all tax agencies in administering (“enforcing”) self-assessment tax laws. As you said.
The U.S. Tax code has more pages and more words than the King James Version of The Holy Bible. There is no way that anyone or any group of people could possibly know what it say or what it means. The congress just keeps adding pages every time they call it “tax reform”. There is no way to be accurate so each accounting firm waits for the”regs” to be issued on how to fill out the forms. That book is only 20 pages and leaves out all the ”special circumstances” . The specials are the earmarks that are slipped in after the discussion and just before the vote. Only the lobbyist and the congressman knows what they mean and indeed that they exist. The tax break they represent is given to the special clients accountants to use for one client and one client alone. A generous campaign contribution is expected and is always tendered. He won’t get it again after the next election unless a new contribution is passed thru the lobbyist.
For all the above and the fact that the IRS is an ongoing criminal enterprise that will not and indeed cannot be reformed, I recommend to every expat and to all fair minded people that the IRS must be disbanded and the Federal Tax Code erased and the FairTax which is a 20 page code, be passed. This gives all expats a break, it would bring hundreds of companies back home, along with the 22 trillion dollars that will stay overseas until they can bring it home tax free. Every product has accounting and taxes added into the price and that would come out. Approximately 20 million people who depend on the Marxist Income Tax for a living would need to get meaningful work. Taxes would be collected by the states along with the state sales tax , and they will retain 1% for their trouble and send the rest to the U.S. Treasury—NO IRS NEEDED–NO IRS AGENTS NEEDED—NO TAX ACCOUNTANTS NEEDED-NO TAX PREPARERS NEEDED—NO TAX FORMS NEEDED—NO MAKING US ALL CRIMINALS–Expats please write your house speaker Ryan and ask him to move the FairTax Bill HR25 to a vote. he won’t unless the rest of us stand up and demand it.
Of course that is an insult to the honourable profession of bounty hunting.
@Petros
lol
I think I’ve made it clear with my past sniping at compliance condors that my answer to the question would be YES. It’s a known known that corporations and organizations with clout influence the making and passage of US legislation for their own gain and benefit. Complexity is what the compliance condors need in order to feed on the bones of their cowering clients. Complexity in the US tax code is also a known known so I’d say they got exactly what they wanted. Quelle surprise? NO.
Yes, yes, yes
One must keep in mind that except for a very few types of accounts, the IRS has offered absolutely ZERO guidance as to how the universe of foreign (i.e. non-US) accounts should be treated under the US tax code. I know from personal experience that phoning the IRS is useless. (As in: “That’s too hard a question. Consult a tax professional”.)
I also know that depending on which “tax professional” you consult, you will get a different answer. In the absence of clear guidance, speculation reigns supreme. In my mind that means you might as well do the research, do your own taxes, and go with the interpretation which most benefits your personal situation. That is exactly what I did and I haven’t heard a peep out of the IRS. (Is a TFSA a trust? Who knows, least of all the IRS.) Nobody at the IRS understands any of this either because they are all Homelanders, remember?
So yes, the professionals are making it up as they go along simply because there is no guidance from the IRS. The world is full of so-called experts that don’t know what they are talking about, yet they must present themselves as experts to justify their hefty fees. None of this is surprising when you consider how many different tax codes there are in the world. The IRS can’t possibly keep track of them all. Yet another reason why CBT is a total failure.
My take? Don’t own US assets, don’t invest in US securities, and ignore the whole stinking pile. Don’t pay the condors and above all, don’t pay the IRS. Ditch US citizenship ASAP. Don’t do or file anything which makes you stand out from the crowd. Above all, don’t let the bastards ruin your life.
Quote of the day?
A problem comes in when one consults a “tax professional” – or must consult a tax professional because of the unfathomable complexity – who may not give the benefit of the doubt on tax interpretation, not give consideration of fairness, and is obligated to not incline toward mini civil disobedience of interpreting something completely unfair in one’s financial interest. Then one gets “on the hook” as reported one year or a string of years then no so easy to cease.
‘I always tell people this: “If you are seeking advice and have reason to believe you may be noncompliant in U.S. tax matters, then you should consult a lawyer, not an accountant, and your lawyer should retain (i.e. hire) a tax accountant under a ‘Kovel letter’ that preserves privilege and confidentiality.” (One alternative is to use an attorney-CPA in the USA, but I have no idea whether an attorney-CPA with expertise in cross-border matters is affordable. )’
I think for 99% of us, consulting a lawyer and having the lawyer retain a tax accountant is equally unaffordable as an attorney-CPA with expertise in cross-border matters. Maybe it would take 2 months’ salary instead of 6 months’ salary, but it’s still unaffordable.
No doubt some folks will take a look at this and think the “inflamatory Brockers are at it again.”
There is something in humans that prohibts them from speaking plainly or honestly or I-don’t-know-what-the-right-word-is. So the simple reason people embellish is to try and be “louder” than the part people are trying to deny is there. That certainly does not make it incorrect.The “scapegoats” in this situation depends upon which side one is on. We can’t blame the IRS because they don’t make the laws. But the IRS does create programs and presents them as if they are laws. OVDP was NEVER the law. The only law is one has to file a tax return if a certain threshold is met. END OF STORY.
Who says a CLN is a legal requirement? The compliance industry. (Not before June 16, 2008; after, yes)
Who threatens us with the Reed Amendment, which is an unenforceable law? The compliance industry.
Who has the gaul to suggest your past relinquishment is invalid? The compliance industry (as if tax lawyers know anything about citizenship law).
I could go on and on but my point is there is really only one group who gains from this miserable situation and is the compliance industry. We lose. The banks lose. Why not call a spade a spade? Bounty hunters works for me.
Here are some interesting descriptions given by “respectable” people of what FATCA means (some of these are prior to the IGA):
http://maplesandbox.ca/2014/canadian-protections-from-irs/
“…called FATCA “extraterritorial” and “unwarranted” He said FATCA “would turn Canadian banks into extensions of the IRS and would raise significant privacy concerns for Canadians.”
Spoken by the former Minister of Finance, the late Honorable Jim Flaherty
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fatca-tax-deal-forces-canadian-banks-to-send-info-to-irs-1.2690039
When Canada’s banks reopen for business on July 2, they will begin formally operating as informants for the United States Internal Revenue Service — the IRS.
http://www.greenparty.ca/en/statement/2013-01-28/backgrounder-canada-and-fatca
January 28, 2013
IRS Tax Collection: Evasion of the US or Invasion of Canada?
chrome-extension://bpmcpldpdmajfigpchkicefoigmkfalc/views/app.html
x2-radio April 27, 2014
FATCA legislation is predicated on the faulty assumption that foreigners throughout the world with no predisposition to favor the U.S. will react positively to its attempts to convert them into unpaid IRS agents.
Fully, fully agree! We did the very painful OVDI, which involved hiring a lawyer, who hired the CPA’s. Still cost us a fortune for relatively little actual tax owing. We then abandoned our greed cards, hooray!
The following year, we needed to complete only our Singapore taxes, we’d always dealt with one of the “Big 4” cross border accountants. I asked friends and acquaintances, “Could you please refer me to your accountant?” and the response I got was always the same, blank looks, “huh?”, “what do you need an accountant for?”, “Do you have a big business?”, etc, etc, etc. You see, as I quickly learned, in Singapore, it takes no more than 5 minutes online to do your taxes! The typical average person doesn’t need an accountant. Furthermore, calling the tax department is actually pleasant, you get to a person right away, and they’re actually really helpful! It would be really good if the US and Canada, as well as a host of other countries could learn from this! Tax collection made easy??? It’s not science fiction folks, it can really happen!
On another note, when we were dealing with a cross border, Big 4 accountant, she didn’t look or sound American, so I asked her. I was very surprised to hear that she was Singaporean, and only Singaporean, and had never even been to the US! I suppose though we should give the IRS credit for creating a whole worldwide secondary industry of US tax accountants; whatever would these bean counters do if they didn’t have the IRS to create jobs for them?
Stale trope or a farcical second-time-around — take your pick.
Bounty Hunter
“There is something in humans that prohibts them from speaking plainly or honestly or I-don’t-know-what-the-right-word-is.”
26 USC section 6702(a) as confirmed by telephonic statement from the IRS, court rulings, and
IRB 2005-14, https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb05-14.pdf
“Rev. Rul. 2005–18, page 817. […] The ruling emphasizes to taxpayers and to promoters and return preparers that striking or altering the jurat in a manner that negates its validity invalidates the return.”
Even if you know that some attachments to your return are false (e.g. a falsified form W-2 from a US employer) or some numbers are estimates (e.g. form 1116 containing an estimate of accrued Canadian tax because a limited partnership refused to provide information to flow through the Canadian-sourced portion taxable in Canada from the non-Canadian portion not taxable in Canada), it is illegal to speak plainly or honestly. The law requires you to sign the preprinted jurat without alteration. Fortunately 26 USC section 7206(1) only punishes wilful perjury, not coerced perjury.
Furthermore, US District Court for the Central District of California denied my motion for leave to tell the truth. US Tax Court ruled that two different letters from the IRS were duplicates of each other, so if I testify that the two letters were different then Tax Court can jail me for contempt of court. US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the IRS rejected a refiled return in which I complied with all requirements stated by the IRS (e.g. see the above paragraph about perjury) and the IRS continues to insist that they accepted that return, but if I testify that the IRS accepted it then the Federal Circuit can jail me for contempt of court. I moved for leave to tell the truth in District Court but they denied. If they ever let me testify I guess I’ll have to commit perjury in court too. I hope I’ll swear to tell the truth “so help me court” rather than “so help me God”.
Yes indeed, there is something in humans that prevents me from speaking plainly or honestly. I sure wish I’d known to renounce earlier.
“We can’t blame the IRS because they don’t make the laws.”
Congress makes statutes, courts make case law, and the IRS makes revenue rulings, all of which have the force of law. Code of Federal Regulations has the force of law too; I forgot who makes them.
@Norman
I was referring more to calling out the tax compliance industry; the ones who can say “FATCA, the gift that just keeps on giving….” What exactly is wrong with pointing out what andy05 said; that he’d seen “plenty of professionals inventing tax law to suit their own financial interests.” We get criticized for calling them out for exactly what they are. Which is ridiculous. Some have (and still are) making gobs of money off people THEY are responsible for scaring the hell out of………..
“We can’t blame the IRS” was meant sarcastically. We most certainly can (and many of us do) blame the IRS for OVDP/OVDI. Here is the very first post from renounceusitizenship on Brock on Dec 12, 2011. Brock was exactly 2 days old. for anyone who wasn’t around back then and has trouble understanding why some have such vitriolic tirades/intense anger, take some time to read up on what OVDP was like; what the IRS and the compliance industry did with that, is nothing short of criminal.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2011/12/12/we-cant-trust-the-irs-but-can-we-trust-the-accountants-and-lawyers/
I made a narrow escape from bein coerced into OVDI by a compliance condor OVDI back in 2011. Instead, I found a seemingly sympathetic tax accountant who put me through a ‘loud’ quiet disclosure which was, in fact, an early ‘streamlined’ submission.
I still wound up paying around $25,000 in fees to this ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ plus over $10,000 in taxes from PFIC taxation on my locally -owned mutual funds.
An attorney subsequently explained to me that if I had used a kovel arrangement, that I would probably have been able to have submitted amended returns just using schedule D for dividends and capital gains instead of pfic form 8621, via software, as we were talking about relatively modest amounts.
I might have had to pay an attorney $5000 or even $10,000 but would have saved so much in accounting fees and double taxation. But on the other hand, I could have wound up with a tax attorney (especially if U.S.-based) who might have branded me a tax cheat and coerced me into OVDI; I think of the likes of Steven J Mopsick or Jack Townsend.
I suppose I wound up drawing a middle straw. I also regret with hindsight that I didn’t go ahead and relinquish my U.S. citizenship when I became a British citizen back in 2007. At least things are so much simpler for me now. Money is replaceable too though I’ve had to set back my retirement plans by approximately 7 years, which is painful.
I also will always feel betrayed by the U.S. and all the fear I’ve suffered….it is also heartbreaking that I was effectively forced by circumstances to forfeit my birthright to be able to lead a normal life here.
@Norman: The hierarchy of US primary and secondary legislation and their codification (CFR is a codification of secondary law published in the Federal Register) is explained at http://loc.gov/law/help/statutes.php
@maz57 wrote: “I also know that depending on which ‘tax professional’ you consult, you will get a different answer.”
Indeed. At one time, reliance on professional opinion was a defence to penalties. I have the feeling this is less so today: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/9/prweb9860766.htm
Tax authorities talk to each other, comparing enforcement notes and ideas for recommended legislation. In the UK today they have a “pay now, litigate later” law that is bankrupting some who were conned into tax shelters by major accounting and law firms: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11865618/HMRC-uses-new-powers-on-contractors-I-was-told-to-pay-30000-within-90-days.html
There are millions of Accidental Americans abroad who doing nothing. In the end they may be the best off. Those who threw away their passports, refused to pay exorbitant fees and taxes for renunciation, and rely on the impossibility of pursuing them among millions, and upon defiance and denial, for safety.
As I have said over time, the only thing one has to fear is fear itself. And just think: how perverse it is that some couples are divorcing so that their future newborns will not acquire American citizenship at birth.
@Andy05 and @Maz57, this is just the thing: that ‘depending on which tax professional you consult, you’ll get a different answer.’ I would thus suggest that, one should choose the accountant who will interpret most favorably to that client’s particular situation.
I also wonder if hiring an accountant anonymously through a kovel arrangement would make both the client and tax professional more willing to take an aggressive interpretation rather than the ‘safer’ approach that would inevitably be more in the IRS’s favour. For example, the attorney could suggest that ‘I can’t legally officially recommend for you to file your tax returns the ”simple” way (vs. the PFIC malarkey) but we can tell you what other Expats in a similar situation have been doing and getting away with.’
Another reason why I believe with hindsight that I could have successfully amended my returns the ‘simple’ way is because I could have claimed that I didn’t realize about PFIC taxation; after all, there was nothing about form 8621 listed in Publication 54 for Expats on how to file tax returns.
It’s such a racket, all this.
@Andy05
So, far you have been correct. I would add that, those Americans abroad who have been hurt the most, are the ones who have tried the hardest.
Case in point:
@Tricia Moon describes how bad things were in 2011 when there was only OVDI. Those who did the “right thing” and tried to “come clean” early did not have the benefits of the later Streamlined programs, etc. The harder they tried the worse the damage to them was. Those who are new to this topic really should learn about what was happening in 2010 and 2011 and most of 2012.
But, I digress (as important as that digression is).
Those who are in Group 2 are renouncing because they are in the U.S. tax system and realize that they can’t survive in the U.S. tax system. A heart breaking example may be found at Robert Wood’s blog here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/08/15/dear-mr-president-why-im-leaving-america/
Those who have not seen this gut wrenching article should read it. It had over 175,000 views and and a number of insightful comments.
The point is that those Americans abroad who are not U.S. tax compliant will NOT solve their problems by entering the U.S. tax system. They will simply create a new set of problems with even greater pressures. They will conclude that it is NOT possible to remain an American citizen.
Those who are in Group 1 are frightened because they are NOT U.S. tax compliant. They may or may not have good reason for this fear. But, as described above they will still have plenty of problems when they enter the U.S. tax system and surrender to the United States “prison of citizenship-based taxation” (Google “citizenship based taxation”)
What Americans abroad need to understand is that they do NOT have a problem of taxes. It’s a problem of trying to comply with U.S. laws (“It’s U.S. law”) as a U.S. person living outside the United States.
Now, although I am trying to be sympathetic to the plight of the tax professionals, it is important to remember that:
The tax professionals may know what the rules are, but they have NO CLUE what the rules really mean in your life. For example, they know that Americans in Canada must pay a 23.8% capital gains tax on the sale of their principal residence. What they don’t seem to get (or choose not to get) is that this means that Americans abroad are denied the primary retirement planning asset available to other Canadians. They don’t understand that this means that Americans (who are also Canadians) in Canada are prisoners of their neighborhood. They can’t simply sell their house and take that money and move to a new house. They have to pay the U.S. government to do so. There are many many more examples. So, whatever you do:
Do NOT believe that these tax professionals have any idea of what these rules mean to you!
Renunciation of U.S. citizenship is the ONLY way to solve your problems (and I recognize how costly that can be). Almost all people who divorce wish they had done so earlier. Almost all those who renounce U.S. citizenship wish they had done so earlier.
Now back to the problem of the tax professionals. One must appreciate how few “tax professionals” know anything at all about (1) all the rules in the Internal Revenue Code that apply to Americans abroad (2) how the individual country treaties may modify those rules and (3) how the IRS interprets the application of those rules. The truth is that it’s not an easy job. The tax professionals are almost required to err on the side of the most favorable interpretation to the IRS. They will never get into trouble for filing too many forms. But, they can create problems for filing too few forms. What are they supposed to do? So, although they are not likable, I can understand the problem from their perspective. But, you need to understand that it is very hard for them to act SOLELY in your best interests.
Also, the U.S.rules are so complex (American exceptionalism at its finest) that most people cannot understand them on their own. So, what are people supposed to do? They don’t know how to talk to the IRS. So they get the tax people to talk for them. It reminds me of the Catholic Church before the reformation. The only way to talk to God was through the priests. It’s just that many of the priests were corrupt and had no special insight. At present the only way to talk to the IRS is through the tax professionals. But, many of the tax professionals are …
Your only solution is to ditch the U.S. citizenship. Sooner or later you will reach that conclusion.
Moderators: What about a “poll” asking people to choose among the following two questions:
Choose which of the these two options is better for Americans abroad:
1. Being U.S. tax compliant
2. Not being U.S. tax compliant.
That said, never forget that compliance with the law is essential!
@USCitizenAbroad: I have observed that those who have been hit hardest by the encroachment of Mordor and its Uruk-Hai (a.k.a., compliance condors) are those who have come under their counsel and have done what these goblin-human cross-breeds have required of them. Those who have done nothing are much better off.
Seems to me that all professionals need to be kept at a healthy distance. Let’s just imagine that they are honest and reasonable (…). OK. But they do their job. You see a gastroenterologist, she probably will do a colonoscopy, not just for money but because that’s what she does, and she diagnoses colon cancer every week, so she wants to be safe and not miss one.
You see a tax professional, or, worse, a lawyer, same thing. They cannot advise you to withhold information or ignore rules. You will get the colonoscopy. And sometimes they will find cancer. But the difference is this cancer, if undetected, might never have manifested itself. You could live long and die happy without having found your fiscal cancer.
The best thing is to re-read Petros’ 7 points (in one of the sociopath posts – one is “die happy”). The idea here is to get the USG out of your hair. If ignoring things doesn’t work you need to comply.
That’s tough. Costly. Dangerous.
Your best interest is to “comply”. That means feeding the USG the forms it wants. But you must maintain control of the process. The best is to do it yourself. If that’s not possible (too time-consuming), get a professional and go in very gently. You feed the professional information, but you control what information. It helps to be informed thru other channels beforehand.
Things must be simplified for easy digestion by the professional and the IRS. Planning ahead counts too. Selling a house? Does the IRS really need to know? It will if you tell your lawyer/tax preparer. But what if the proceeds go directly to paying off a mortgage, and the rest sort of evaporates? Who needs to know? Etc. This is not cheating, since you are fully compliant in your country of residence. It’s just survival. Why spend thousands trying desperately to comply when spending a few hundred on basic form filling will do?
“Die happy” is the acknowledgement that as we are mere mortals the IRS only has a limited time in which to capture us in its snares.
It’s all so convoluted and twisted. I’m so relieved that I’m out.
Can compliance condors influence estate lawyers? If the decedent, a Canadian citizen with no US assets, was born in the US, but relinquished her American citizenship and had a CLN as proof, will some estate lawyers still (try to) apply US estate and tax law to the estate? If the surviving spouse, who is the beneficiary of the estate, was also born in the US, also relinquished, and also has a CLN, could some lawyers (try to) manage and tax the estate and the beneficiary’s inheritance according to US law? Could the lawyer ask for proof of US tax compliance?
@Petros
You write:
I have had the same observation – small world. I note the use of the world “required” in your comment. Worth remembering that:
– the tax professionals are supposed to be working for you and NOT the other way around
– their judgment is not presumptively better than your judgment
– their interest is not the same as your interest
Read the wisdom of @Fred above.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/11/17/are-cross-border-tax-professionals-really-bounty-hunters/comment-page-1/#comment-6862507