This just out from Republicans Overseas:
Yesterday [29.12.2015] Mr. Bopp filed his 36-page Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. DOJ lawyers asked Judge Rose to dismiss our lawsuit.
Mr. Bopp argued the lawsuit is justiciable for three reasons: plaintiffs have standing, the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar plaintiffs’ claims, and plaintiffs Eight Amendment claims are ripe for adjudication.
Mr. Bopp further argued plaintiffs should be granted relief requested based on their claims for four reasons: the IGAs are unconstitutional sole executive agreements, reporting requirements violate equal protection for Americans living abroad, the challenged penalties violate the Excessive Fines Clause, and reporting requirements violate the Fourth Amendment.
Now we are waiting for Judge Rose’s ruling not only on this matter, but also on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave Amend Complaint. We expect both rulings will be handed down in 2016. This only means our fight to defend 8.7 million overseas Americans’ constitutional rights continues. Happy New Year!
Link to Republicans Overseas Facebook Post (thanks to Keith Redmond): Mr. Bopp filed his 36-page Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
The entire pleading may be downloaded here: Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Related IBS posts about the “Bopp” lawsuit:
Judge Rose denies plaintiffs application for injunction in the Bopp FATCA Legal Action Lawsuit.
Finally the Bopp suit has arrived
And as a reminder, link to the FATCA Legal Action site if you would like more information or to donate towards the effort:
Wow! This is why our lawyers are paid the big bucks … a masterpiece of research and sound reasoning, and a great New Year’s present! Thank you for posting this, Jefferson D.!
@Muzzled. There are several lawsuits filed or to be filed, they cannot do it without our support. Here is a short list that we all know about at IBS, I wonder if there are others:
Alliance for the Defeat of Citizenship Taxation: Team Being Formed for Lawsuit Against Citzenship Based Taxation (CBT)
FATCA Legal Action: Bopp Lawsuit filed in the USA against FATCA IGAs
Alliance for the Defense of Canadian Sovereignty: Sponsors of a Lawsuit in Canada against the Canadian FATCA IGA
All of the time, energy, money, sweat & tears spent trying to fend off the indefensible money grab of this from honest, working people, when reading this story, shows FATCA/IGA as the scam it truly is:
So much for the IRS/DoT wanting to catch “tax cheats”???
Horizontal and vertical equity and the value of Americans abroad:
U.S. Taxation of its Citizens Abroad: Incentive or Equity, 38 Vand. L.Rev. 101 (1985)
…”To examine horizontal equity, a comparison must be made between the
expatriate American and other taxpayers who, it might be argued, are
similarly situated. [FN18] The domestic taxpayer, for example, finds
that it is fair for him to pay tax because his neighbors also are
paying tax under the same system to the United States. [FN19] In
contrast, if the nonresident taxpayer looks at his expatriate
neighbors from most other countries, he finds that they are not being
taxed by their home countries. [FN20] This lack of taxation enables
the third country national to work for less than the American
expatriate, giving the third country national a competitive advantage.
[FN21] From the American’s point of view, tax equity can be achieved
only if his tax burden is no greater than the tax burden of other
workers in the same country who have similar costs of living. He
regards the obligation to pay United States taxes on his foreign
earned income to be unjust.
Tax equity also can be viewed through a comparison of expatriates to domestic taxpayers. Those speaking for domestic taxpayers might argue that the expatriate should be treated the same as a domestic United States citizen at a similar income level. [FN22] The expatriate, however, may be carrying a higher tax burden than his domestic counterpart because of taxation by the foreign state. Although the tax credit takes the income tax of other countries into account, [FN23] the expatriate may be living in a country that derives some of its revenue from taxes other than income taxes, such as the value-added tax. [FN24] These additional fiscal burdens may weigh *106 heavily in the expatriate’s overall tax responsibility, yet are not taken into account by the tax credit. [FN25]
Furthermore, expatriate families may have to pay for services that would be provided by the public sector in the United States. [FN26] Although many of these services, such as education, would be mainly provided by the states, the federal government subsidizes many local services through revenue sharing and grants-in-aid. [FN27] This benefits received approach has intuitive appeal, but is limited to those government services which produce benefits that are direct in nature; it does not take into account those services that are *107 humanitarian or social. [FN28] The United States income tax is based on the principle of ability to pay, not the principle of benefits received. Because most of the expenditures funded by the income tax provide general social benefits to all Americans, [FN29] it is difficult to assert with strong conviction that expatriate workers do not share in those benefits.”…
Extensive references to the Bopp lawsuit;
Tyler R. Murray
‘The Eighth Amendment and Tax Evasion: Whether FATCA Non-Compliance Fines and FBAR Penalties Are Excessive’
Tyler R. Murray, The Eighth Amendment and Tax Evasion: Whether FATCA Non-Compliance Fines and FBAR Penalties Are Excessive, 24 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 553 (2015), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol24/iss2/8