This post ends with the following question:
Are Americans really “so beaten down, so subservient, so fearful of authority that it complies with the most horrific and undemocratic “laws” and is unable to unite and simply say NO, collectively.”
I invite you to express your answer in this poll:
Perhaps you could consider this question while reading the following post.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Re: US Tyranny and Terrorany "People are developing resistance and figuring out there is not much the U.S. can do." https://t.co/Vakr3uya4g
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) December 3, 2015
The above tweet references the following comment from @Homelander_NOT on Robert Wood’s blog.
Yet another punitive measure that will further the creation of a US Berlin wall plus make life more complicated for Americans/”U.S. Persons” abroad. Other recent moves which demonstrate the tendency of the U.S. government to repeatedly “do the wrong thing:” ” Is US considering not publishing #USExpatriation list anymore? If yes, efficiency or embarrassment?” https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/12/01/2015-30366/proposed-collection-comment-request-for-information-collection … (not at all sure that is what implied by this tweet I received) and Executor liability for U.S. income tax and penalties, interest, etc., may extend to you if you were aware that the decedent owed the U.S. treasury for say tax from unfiled tax returns.http://www.taxconnections.com/taxblog/good-to-know-part-3-from-larry-stolberg-cpa-ca/#.Vl79_PmrTIV . For such an “ advanced” nation, the U.S. seems not to understand basic psychology. The more one tries to restrict somebody, the more they are likely to be resisted. If it is true the Name & Shame List’s days are numbered, it won’t be of any consequence. Who reads the Federal Register anyway? Personally, I could care less if they kept an ongoing list published in the NYT and like many, consider it a badge of honor. Proof of being a ‘real’ American if you will. And more nonsense/confusion for an executor (really? even an “alien one? Just how would they enforce that?). Or is it more along the lines that no one can even imagine someone having the gall to not obey the exceptionalistic conditioning that can only be dumped by experiencing the rest of the world? It is a well-documented problem that the IRS does not have records for expats; even with FATCA there are likely to be many pieces of undeliverable mail. Yes the IRS cares not and will continue to follow their own procedures. I expect thousands upon thousands to simply ignore those letters. People are developing resistance and figuring out there is not much the U.S. can do. Other than count on the fact that such folks will surely want to come to the U.S. so “we’ll get them at the border.” Lots of people are figuring out the better choice is simply to go elsewhere for vacations and have family visits where the expat families are. All of this is pathetically sad. All this grief for insistence on filing forms to show there is likely no tax owed-when everyone KNOWS its the big fish living in the U.S.that all this effort should be expended toward. Again, such a very basic, basic thing that eludes those running the most dominant, most fortunate country on earth. I remain puzzled that this is what has happened to the country I grew up in and in spite of awareness of its many flaws, still loved until FBAR.
It’s interesting that the recent linking of passport restrictions to tax compliance has received little discussion at the Isaac Brock Society. To me, this suggests that Brock is largely populated by those who:
1. Do NOT consider themselves to be U.S. citizens (meaning they don’t care about a U.S. passport anyway); and
2. Are primarily concerned with the effects of U.S. extraterritorial tyranny and U.S. terrorany on Canadian citizens.
It’s the opposite in Europe where the Facebook groups (at least here and here) have included much discussion about the upcoming passport restrictions. The usual lobby groups, have done their usual letter writing, with the usual response (nothing) from the USA.
U.S. citizenship and the U.S. passport …
The State Department takes the position that a U.S. passport is proof of U.S. citizenship. It is an “incident of U.S. citizenship”. What is the meaning of U.S. citizenship? What does it mean when one holds a U.S. passport?
Bubblebustin recently asked the following question:
@USCitizenAbroad
Isn’t the current Congressional enforcement of CBT in fact resulting in the destruction of US citizenship we are seeing today, the justification for these laws derived from the notion that citizenship is based in taxation, or, “Taxation-Based Citizenship”?
Congress has turned what it means to be a citizen on its head, the result of which is that the citizen becomes the servant of the government, as opposed to the reverse. CBT is like a splinter that until now one could ignore, but because of irritating acts of Congress is now festering to the point of becoming life threatening. Unfortunately because citizenship and taxation are intertwined as such (Cook v Tait) the citizen must remove him/herself from the splinter instead.
Are we dealing with “citizenship-based taxation” or with “taxation-based citizenship”?
Since the 2004 creation of the “Tax Citizen” (as described by Virgina La Torre Jeker), U.S. citizenship and taxation have become one and the same. Taxation = citizenship and citizenship = taxation (without specifying the “incidents of taxation”).
The new meaning of U.S. citizenship – Taxation isn’t everything, it’s the only thing
In 2013, U.S. tax lawyer, Stephen Mopsick opined (while acknowledging the problems of FATCA) on the meaning of U.S. citizenship. On June 30, 2014 (largely in response to his post) I wrote the following post on Brock.
July 4 Reflection: Meaning of "Being an American" vs. "Being one of those #Americansabroad" https://t.co/d3tAQemx0N via @@IsaacBrockSoc
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) December 3, 2015
It included:
As we approach the 4th of July – Independence Day – one must ask whether the there is a difference between “Being an American” and “Being an American Abroad”. Another year has passed.
– the formal relinquishments of U.S. citizenship continue to grow
– the informal relinquishments of U.S. citizenship (run and hide) are going through the roof
– the rollout of “FATCA Hunt” is forcing Americans abroad to hide their “USness”
– the U.S. Congress has shown no interest in freeing Americans abroad from the “prison of citizenship-based taxation” – AKA taxation based on place of birth
Tomorrow July 1, 2014 marks the Official start of FATCA Hunt.
As Americans abroad contemplating the arrival of Independence Day:
What are your thoughts on the MEANING of being an American abroad?
What message would you like to send to America this Independence Day?
I encourage you to go and reread the comments to this post.
Leading to: The role of the passport in “facilitating” “taxation-based citizenship” …
A. History of the control of movement through the passport
U.S. Passport as Instrument of Control https://t.co/d0iP8nvkRS – History of the use of the passport as an instrument to prevent travel
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) December 3, 2015
The above tweet references a Brock post from USXCanada. It includes:
The extraordinary Mrs. Shipley: how the United States controlled international travel before the age of terrorism
Connecticut Law Review 43:3 (Feb 2011) 819-888http://uconn.lawreviewnetwork.com/files/documents/JeffreyKahn43Conn.L.Rev.819.pdf
[389 footnotes] Career civil servant Ruth B. Shipley acted as chief of the Passport Division of the U.S. State Department from 1928 to 1955. Shipley personally reviewed every passport application, and prior to 1958 Supreme Court decision, her actions were subject to no judicial review. Shipley denied passports to Paul Robeson, Arthur Miller, Linus Pauling, and “many other” Americans during the 1950s. Kahn’s article explores how Shipley acquired such power and how the US passport became an instrument to prevent rather than permit travel. A backgrounder opening (825-842) provides a history of travel controls from 1789 to the Shipley era. Originally the passport was “a document [issued by the country that the traveler sought to enter] that granted a foreigner permission to pass into or out of a country’s ports” (825) — the opposite of what the passport came to be. Kahn concludes that current administration of U.S. citizens has achieved the Shipley effect through authority “diffused among intelligence analysts in multiple agencies who now compile watchlists of people deemed too dangerous to travel.” In this environment, judicial review is crippled by “the traditional deference accorded to national security and the sometimes secret processes by which that government interest is secured” (887).
B. The passport application as a means to notify U.S. Treasury of the existence of Americans abroad
There is NO DOUBT that that passports are now linked to tax compliance. For the past several years it has been common knowledge that passport applications and renewals were being used to notify U.S. treasury of the existence of Americans Abroad (as discussed in this post by MopsickTaxLaw). Until now, the passport application has been used to notify U.S. Treasury of your existence. That was then. Now as discussed by Rober Wood and others , the IRS can “in effect” deny you a U.S. passport.
C. The denial of a U.S. passport to those (including Americans abroad) who “owe” U.S. taxes
Americans abroad are the most likely to be affected by these incredibly punitive measures. Most Americans abroad are in a position where they:
1. Don’t know they are required to pay U.S. taxes; or
2. Can’t understand the rules they are asked to comply with.
Because the Internal Revenue Code penalized all things “foreign”, Americans abroad are particularly susceptible to penalties and IRS tax debts. The effect of this measure is that eventually (we all know how things get worse and worse) many Americans abroad will be denied U.S. passports. This means that they can’t travel to the USA (as is required by law) on a U.S. passport. Perhaps they can risk travel on another passport.
At a bare minimum, it is very risky for a U.S. citizen to live outside the United States if he/she has ONLY a U.S. passport.
Conclusion: The future of U.S. citizenship abroad …
It’s over. U.S. citizenship citizenship is now synonymous with taxation. Taxation is a code of taxes, reporting requirements and rules of life control that:
1. Cannot be understood by the average person (except with the assistance of “tax professionals” of questionable competence); or
2. Is of a level of complexity that compliance is almost impossible; or
3. Is such those who can comply will find that U.S. tax compliance makes living life outside the United States impossible.
And now, the Government of the United States – that “Great Citadel of Freedom and Justice” claims the right to deny you the right to travel from or to the United States. Seems to me that you can either (1) realize that compliance is impossible or (2) take whatever steps are necessary to renounce.
The true Obama Legacy is the destruction of “U.S. citizenship abroad”. Of course, that’s change you can believe in!
The teaching of Cook v. Tait is that the U.S. Government somehow benefits its citizens wherever they may be. That was in the era of “citizenship-based taxation”. In new era of “taxation-based citizenship”, it has become clear that the sole purpose of the citizen is to benefit the government.
The question is: why have Americans allowed this to happen? Why has there been no resistance?
"What astonishes all of my “foreign” friends is how passive, obedient and fearful US people are of their government" https://t.co/1Lfa7lI5fu
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) December 3, 2015
The above tweet references the following comment from the Maplesandbox blog.
As a former U.S. citizen, who renounced just in order to survive, as my four non-U.S. business partners gave me an ultimatum, either get rid of your U.S. citizenship, which was contaminating our totally German business and subjecting our company’s accounts to U.S. Treasury and IRS scrutiny, or you must sell your shares and leave. This all started upon the advice of our German bank, who said that they wouldn’t deal with our accounts if there was any American/’U.S. Person’ involvement? Not to mention the personal impact on my mortgage, on my bank closing all of my investment accounts and everything else that every reader here knows all too well.
What amazes me most, and also amazes all of my personal and professional friends, all of them non U.S. persons, is how obedient and conforming the organizations supposedly representing the interests of U.S. citizens abroad are. With all that has happened, and especially now, subsequent to the Senate Finance Committee’s “report” on tax reform, paying nothing but contemptuous lip service to the plight of US citizens abroad, it should be more than obvious that U.S. Citizens abroad are of absolutely no relevance for lawmakers and legislators in Washington. Yet, the attitude of all of the organizations supposedly looking out for and fighting for the rights of US citizens abroad has been to follow a very respectful path of presenting the case for change, as if they were dealing with a fair democratic system, that respects equal representation and justice. They look ridiculous, all of them! When I read that Democrats Abroad have been trying to push the “bandage” fix of ‘Same Country Exception’ for more than four years, with no result, I say that this is absolutely pathetic. When I see American Citizens Abroad sending endless delegations to Washington, year after year, and even opening an office there, only to see the interests of overseas Americans relegated to a footnote, with no action proposed n the recent Senate Financial Committee report, I would think that they should be embarrassed and ashamed, as they should be. It has taken the group Republicans Overseas over one year to formulate an intended lawsuit, which has been postponed endless times, with a “promise” to file it next week, I say that they too have not approached this in the right way. Too much damage has been done in the interim.
What astonishes all of my “foreign” friends is how passive, obedient and fearful U.S. people are of their government, especially when confronted with such outright injustice, literal extortion and destruction of their financial well being and that of their families and business partners. Even the ever law abiding Germans wouldn’t put up with any of this and they would probably, en masse, as one lawyer friend told me, simply refuse to cooperate with any of this Byzantine filing of forms and endless intrusions into their privacy and that of their families and business partners. They would collectively refuse and file class action suits against the authorities behind these injustices worthy of a fascist totalitarian regime. Perhaps the Germans understand better than the Americans what this sort of thing leads to, when a society becomes so beaten down, so subservient, so fearful of authority that it complies with the most horrific and undemocratic “laws” and is unable to unite and simply say NO, collectively. Until Americans fight to recover some form of democracy and fairness, the ravages of FATCA will be but one in a coming litany of similar such abuses. To continue believing that they are dealing with democratic institutions and that reason and fairness will prevail is nothing but a naive attitude that will lead them nowhere, as we can now see with the recent Senate Finance Committee report.
I have bolded the last paragraph of this comment. Are Americans really “so beaten down, so subservient, so fearful of authority that it complies with the most horrific and undemocratic “laws” and is unable to unite and simply say NO, collectively.”
@Norman Diamond
Not trying to pick a fight, but the situation you wrote about on the tax court throwing out a FBAR related case, would it prevent the IRS from pulling a passport for FBAR fines? Or would the person who lost their passport have to go to court in the States before getting it back?
@heidi
That is definately worth looking into. I can not remeber, but I believe that there is something that stands in the way. I was getting things in place to do just that when something made this seem unabtainable. Is there not any provision that links my spouse’s assets to my own for the exit tax?
The issue I partially recall may be on the Japan side of this, but I’m thinking there was at keast one roadblock on the US side of this.
“I can easily imagine a completely inocent and fully compliant (if this is in fact possible) expat having their passport yanked for taxes incured in their name by someone else using their ID”
It could be done by Monica Hernandez and cohorts embezzling someone’s withholding, framing them for fraud, getting penalties assessed before the victim can even find out why, and assessing additional penalties for every effort that the victim undertakes to try to find out what the reason was for the penalties.
“I have not been so troubled by the theft of my ID as I do not live in the States”
Don’t count on it. Identity theft has been a big problem in Japan for centuries.
“the situation you wrote about on the tax court throwing out a FBAR related case, would it prevent the IRS from pulling a passport for FBAR fines?”
I don’t know. If the new law only allows revoking passports for tax related penalties (Title 26) then FBAR penalties wouldn’t count towards passport revocation. If the new law allows revoking passports for anything (e.g. Bobby Fischer playing chess in the wrong country) then it probably doesn’t matter which agency does the revoking. If the new law doesn’t give Tax Court jurisdiction over passport revocations then it’s not going to get jurisdiction either way.
“Or would the person who lost their passport have to go to court in the States before getting it back?”
Catch 22. The person can’t go to the States and therefore can’t ever get their passport back.
@Norman Diamond I imagine interest and penalties part of tax debt. I have renamed FBAR Passport Revokation.
@norman Diamond
My point is that whoever stole my ID in the States is not using it in Japan. I know that there is a long history of that in Japan, but as far as I know, it hasn’t happened to me yet.
How is it a catch 22? If say I had my passport revoked, I would be deported back to the U.S. .
common themes in all these discussions is the law as written and the law as applied.
As many misapplications of various laws are discussed here, can any law as written be counted upon to protect us?
In other words, I think it doesn’t matter at all what the law does, all that matters is what they will do with the law.
“I imagine interest and penalties part of tax debt. I have renamed FBAR Passport Revokation.”
Interest on tax owed, penalties on matters related to taxes, and interest on penalties, are all Title 26 USC and are surely involved in passport revocation.
Does the new law say that FBAR passport revocation also exists, i.e. a non-tax penalty in Title 31?
“I know that there is a long history of that in Japan, but as far as I know, it hasn’t happened to me yet.”
Surely you know the difference between “as far as I know” and “certainly”. Even in the US.
“How is it a catch 22? If say I had my passport revoked, I would be deported back to the U.S.”
Japan would try to deport you, but if the US doesn’t allow you to enter without a US passport then Japan will be frustrated. Maybe you’ll be jailed until Iceland or Equador or Russia gives you permission to enter.
“As many misapplications of various laws are discussed here, can any law as written be counted upon to protect us?”
That depends on how a court is feeling during any particular era. Can’t be counted on but can happen at random.
@NormanDiamond
The new tax law doesn’t say anything about non-tax debt. ACA mentions, though, in its position paper from mid-November on passport revocation:
“3) The issuance of liens and levies in the IRS collection process is not free of mistakes, and exorbitant fines and penalties can arise without culpability. Federal tax liens are normally issued in the absence of judicial oversight. Corrections to erroneous tax assessments sometimes have to be made and the actions of IRS collections officers are in many cases successfully challenged. Under the penalty provisions set forth in
FBAR and FATCA legislation, one could easily surpass the US$ 50,000 minimum for simply having failed to declare two accounts over a three-year period. Many American citizens, particularly those overseas, were innocent of any intent to break the law, and had been unaware of the FBAR filing requirement which was unenforced for many years.”
The 2011 GAO report that kicked this all off was focused on wealthy individuals who owed tax, a few of whom lived overseas. Disconcertingly, that report also found that two of the passports they examined had been issued to people who were dead at the time.
@JapanT
If you were a wealthy person who had given his wife lots of money in the past and were close to the covered expat limit, they might be interested in your wife’s assets, but that is clearly not your situation. I doubt they would come after you if you just sent FBARs in going forward, especially since they are about to get more data than they can handle on people who are much wealthier and are now prosecuting genuine cases of tax evasion going back decades.
This is also a policy that didn’t really work in the past because the departments didn’t talk to one another, which still seems to be a problem. The whole passport revocation idea seems to be some member of Congress’s poorly thought out little brain fart. ACA notes in their recent email: “Apparently, neither IRS, including IRS Collections, nor Treasury Department is pushing for this. The State Department, including the Bureau of Consular Services, apparently was not consulted.”
Just read this on an expat FB page:
“It helps if the IRS revokes your US passport because you owe more than $50,000 in back taxes. E.Q. The IRS sent me by mail ( fortunately I got it even though the address was wrong) a demand for $100,000 tax bill BECAUSE they LOST the foreign tax credit pages. Had I not received the demand in the post – I would have lost my passport if this would have been law then.”
@JapanT
http://hodgen.com/expatriate-without-filing-fbars-sure-thing/
Phil Hodgen also deals with division of assets prior to renunciation on another of his blogs
“Under the penalty provisions set forth in FBAR and FATCA legislation, one could easily surpass the US$ 50,000 minimum for simply having failed to declare two accounts over a three-year period.”
But again, an FBAR penalty isn’t a Title 26 penalty, so the question depends on whether the new law only applies to alleged tax debts or to all kinds of allegations. I’m not sure if FATCA adds something that might actually be in Title 26.
“one could easily surpass the US$ 50,000 minimum for simply having failed to declare two accounts over a three-year period”
One can easily surpass the US$50,000 threshhold by having their US withholding embezzed by IRS employees including Monica Hernandez, not knowing about the embezzlement, getting fines imposed for frivolousness without knowing why, and getting additional fines imposed for frivolousness for every effort undertaken to try to find out why. Those are Title 26.
“The IRS sent me by mail ( fortunately I got it even though the address was wrong) a demand for $100,000 tax bill BECAUSE they LOST the foreign tax credit pages.”
If you read a few TIGTA reports you’ll expect that the foreign tax credit pages were corruptly altered by identity thieves working in the IRS, not simply lost.
In my case the IRS’s identity thieves did the opposite. They corruptly CREATED records of large foreign tax credits where my actual declarations were $0.00. They did it to cover up their corrupt alterations of my Forms 1099 which reported US withholding.
A Tax Court judge told me IRS employees are poorly trained, they get confused by facts, so honest declarations of facts impede the administration of US taxes, and that’s why honest declarations get penalized for frivolousness. Well, it seems IRS employees are trained well enough to alter whatever forms they need in either direction in order to embezzle the money.
Ron Paul on passport revocation – mistakes and direct targeting by IRS will be made:
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/december/06/will-the-irs-take-your-passport/
@Bubblebustin No mention of expats in Ron Paul statement.
No direct mention, JC, but he claims many Americans will be denied due process when the dysfunctional and vindictive IRS takes on this function. Unfortunately no comment section on his site, but you can weigh in here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/3vry7e/ron_paul_will_the_irs_take_your_passport/
http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/36678/Ron-Paul-IRS-to-Confiscate-Passports/
Title 26 is irrelevant, if it is just a “tax lien”. “tax lien” is not itemized as to whether it occurs from Sec 26 or sec 31, it’s just a lien from the tax dept (IRS)
I think also that someone made a point of a fraudulent return being made in one’s name, with a $50k refund. (as I understand) The person that owns that social security number is responsible for paying that $50k back to the gubbermint and then waiting for the FBI to recover the $50k from the criminal, which is when heck freezes over.
Much to my relief re passport revocations and SSN’s, State Dept can now deny a passport application devoid of a SSN and revoke a passport containing a fraudulent one, but won’t revoke one already issued without one:
http://tax-expatriation.com/2015/12/08/president-obama-and-congress-pass-law-that-will-require-department-of-state-to-deny-a-u-s-passport-for-a-seriously-delinquent-taxpayer/
‘Title 26 is irrelevant, if it is just a “tax lien”. “tax lien” is not itemized as to whether it occurs from Sec 26 or sec 31, it’s just a lien from the tax dept (IRS)’
US Tax Court disagrees with you. There are legal procedures for tax liens and they’re controlled by Title 26. US Tax Court refused to take jurisdiction over an FBAR issue because it’s Title 31.
“State Dept can now deny a passport application devoid of a SSN and revoke a passport containing a fraudulent one”
What if an SSN is fabricated in order to comply with a ruling of US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where the court requires an SSN be reported even when the SSA has neither granted nor rejected an application? As long as the fabricated SSN isn’t used for the purpose of fraud, can the passport be issued?
Otherwise it’s still Catch 22. Without a US passport you can’t travel to the US to get an SSN, and without travelling to the US to get an SSN you can’t get a US passport.
Our exile is complete, Norman.
What-if I am dual citizen, naturalized US citizen? Lets say I keep continuing running my overseas business and banks without any US indicia, so that those institution never find out that I am a US person in fact. If I refuse to do any paperwork with the US going forward, what are the odds that uncle sam will ever find about me? Lets assume that in my case I have never mentioned any foreign assets on any tax form yet.
Re: Forbes Article
Love how the compliance industry tries to instill fear. In the Forbes article comments section the author hints that Canada may at some point revoke Canadian passports of US persons.
Here’s a smoking gun in the IRS’s hunt for revenue abroad.
Increasing tax compliance of Americans living abroad is a matter of overcoming obstacles as noted in this 1998 GAO report:
“Conclusion:
The extent and impact of nonfiling abroad remain largely unknown, due to uncertainties in the data we identified on the U.S. population abroad and returns filed from abroad. However, some evidence suggests that nonfiling may be relatively prevalent in some segments of the U.S. population abroad. And the revenue impact, while unknown, could be significant even though it would be reduced by available exclusions and credits.
IRS’ ability to identify and collect taxes from nonfilers residing abroad is restricted by the limited reach of U.S. law in foreign countries, particularly U.S. laws on tax withholding, information reporting, and IRS’ authority to collect taxes through liens, levies, and seizures. However, IRS has not fully explored the usefulness of passport application data as a means of identifying potential nonfilers abroad and gauging the extent of the problem. Also, some of IRS’ filing instructions may confuse some taxpayers and cause them to erroneously believe they are not required to file.
The usefulness of passport data in identifying nonfilers abroad has been limited because IRS has not (1) enforced the requirement for applicants to provide their SSNs and other information and (2) obtained data on the applicant’s occupation or, in some cases, country of residence. While passport applications contain no income information, the occupation and age data could help identify individuals residing abroad who are more likely to have income above the filing thresholds, provided IRS could reliably distinguish applicants residing in foreign countries from those who are merely tourists. The cost of obtaining additional data elements on occupation and country of residence would be offset to some degree by savings from the reduced volume of data processed if IRS carries out its plan to restrict the data to applicants residing abroad and exclude tourists who now account for the bulk of the data IRS receives.
IRS had difficulty enforcing the requirement for applicants to provide SSNs and could find it difficult to enforce requirements for additional information on the applicant’s occupation and country of residence. However, IRS said some of the difficulty in enforcing the SSN requirement, before abandoning such efforts, stemmed from its self-imposed constraint of not sending inquiries to applicants unless their SSN could be determined from other sources.
Another factor that could contribute to nonfiling abroad is the ambiguity in IRS’ filing instructions for Forms 1040 and related guidance, such as Publication 17. The current language could be misinterpreted to mean that income qualifying for the foreign earned income or housing expense exclusions does not need to be considered in determining the filing requirement.
IRS has undertaken an initiative—the Mideast Project—to improve filing compliance among U.S. citizens residing in one region abroad and is now attempting to identify other geographical areas where such efforts may be beneficial. As of December 1997, IRS had obtained foreign data from 10 countries, but these did not include the 7 countries where the State Department estimated that the largest U.S. populations reside. IRS officials expect to obtain data on about 80 percent of the U.S. population abroad and release a draft report on their results in the summer of 1998. IRS has not analyzed passport application data to help identify countries where nonfiling among U.S. citizens may be particularly severe, and missing SSNs currently limit the usefulness of the data for this purpose. While our review was under way, IRS began efforts to make greater use of passport data from individuals residing abroad and is exploring ways of reinstating a program to penalize applicants who do not provide their SSNs.
In its May 4, 1998, report, Treasury suggested that the revenue impact of nonfiling abroad may be limited by the foreign earned income and housing expense exclusions and foreign tax credits. We note that, while the revenue impact is unknown, it is not necessarily rendered insignificant by available exclusions and credits. The report did not recommend any IRS actions for improving tax compliance abroad, but it noted that IRS’ ongoing demographic project may identify countries where additional compliance efforts are warranted. The report also discussed several factors limiting the usefulness of passport application data.”
Fast forward to the post-FATCA world of 2015. Tax now trumps Constitution:
…”Passport application forms include a statement noting that an SSN must be provided if the applicant has received one, subject to a $500 penalty. However, the State Department does not deny passports to applicants who do not provide an SSN, as it relies on other proofs of an applicant’s citizenship. Whether it could do so is unclear. Denying a passport to a U.S. citizen for failure to provide an SSN could raise a constitutional issue, based on our review of relevant court cases. In particular, the Supreme Court held that the right to travel is a fundamental liberty and government restrictions on it must conform to the due process provisions of the 5th amendment.”…
https://isaacbrocksociety.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/1998-treasuryirs-report-on-us-citizens-abroad-and-expatriation/
@norman Diamond
Had been doing too much Brocking and not enough working, had to get caught up.
““I know that there is a long history of that in Japan, but as far as I know, it hasn’t happened to me yet.”
Surely you know the difference between “as far as I know” and “certainly”. Even in the US.”Of course I do. I also know that there isn’t such thing a “certainty”, especially in this context. What I do know is that I have never had to undergo a more than usual (for gaijin) process of proving my Identity whereas I do in the States solely due to the fact that I am a victim of identity theft.
Until now, I had very little reason to worry about what someone else was doing in my name in the STATES as I am clearly not present there. Now the possibility, added to others, of “owing” taxes in the U.S. Based upon the activities of those who may be using my ID and losing my passport over it is truly troubling.
I down loaded the law but have not had the time to read it in detail but there seems to be a provision to allow return to the U.S. after having one’s passport revoked.
As far as the court turning down the IRS on FBAR as it belonging to a different title, as far as I understand, the courts are not at all involved in the process of revoking passports and are thus not a hindrance to the IRS revoking passports based upon FBAR fines, barring a future injunction against the practice.
For me, losing my pastry IS the punishment. Whatever may happen in court after that is of no consequence to me.
Apologies if this is now outdated. I have been working on this reply mentally for a week as I tried to make time to post it.
“How is it a catch 22? If say I had my passport revoked, I would be deported back to the U.S.”
Japan would try to deport you, but if the US doesn’t allow you to enter without a US passport then Japan will be frustrated. Maybe you’ll be jailed until Iceland or Equador or Russia gives you permission to enter.
“As many misapplications of various laws are discussed here, can any law as written be counted upon to protect us?”
That depends on how a court is feeling during any particular era. Can’t be counted on but can happen at random.