JC has spotted this. Allison Christians welcomes comments on her work in progress.
Bubblebustin says:
Allison supports incremental changes, as she’s convinced that the US is incapable of going right to RBT. I believe that if US legislators are capable of seeing how it should make it easy for people like Tina to exit the system, it will realize that there’s something really wrong in preferring taxpayers over citizens.
Monday, January 18, 2016
Uncle Sam Wants…Who? At UBC Law This Week
This week I will be in Vancouver to present a paper at the UBC Allard School of Law. The paper, “Uncle Sam Wants…Who? A Global Perspective on Citizenship Taxation,” is now available in draft form on SSRN. Here is the abstract:Across the globe, banks are flagging accounts with indicia indicating their owners may be “US Persons,” making it possible for the United States to enforce its taxation of nonresident citizens extraterritorially for the first time in history. The indicia method constitutes a mining expedition for US citizens carried out by foreign banks and governments. Establishing a tax jurisdiction in this manner is unprecedented and has significant practical and normative consequences. In the case of so-called “accidental Americans,” it violates one of the most fundamental and universally- acknowledged tenets of taxpayer rights, namely, the right to be informed about what the law requires. Third party indicia-searching should be universally rejected as a means of identifying a taxpayer population. Instead, the United States itself is responsible for cataloguing, informing, and educating its global population of taxpayers. Those who don’t belong in the system should be allowed to opt out without cost.
I welcome comments on this work in progress.
Mods, please find @WhiteKat’s post where she betrayed my confidence in posting my private email to her, and the further emails where she chose to explain how she ended up with a US passport.
@WhiteKat
Contrary to what you might think, I don’t make any references to your trip to the consulate to taunt you. I sincerely thought that your experience is valuable to the rest of us. I won’t mention it any more.
Not “revenues”, “references”.
@Bubble and @Whitekat…… We love you guys…….
@BB, leave the mods out of this.
@BB, since when is letting fellow Brockers know that you got an email from another Brocker telling you to shut up, a “betrayal of confidence”?
@WK
We’ll never be able to verify who said what unless your post is republished. I’m being accused of indulging confidential information given to me in an email from you. I simply want to clear my name (or pseudonym).
Suggesting you “pipe down” would only be of interest to other participants of Brock only if I’d said it on Brock. I thought you could fight your own fights. I took it off line out of respect for the information you’d told me in confidence (now the unmentionable), which you then proceeded to air to the entire world.
@Native Canadian
Thanks for the laugh. I’m sure you’re being sarcastic though 🙂
Could we please return the comments on this post to a discussion of Allison Christians’ significant contribution to the body of anti-FATCA literature?
Thank you, MuzzledNoMore,
Though it is an example of how being deemed a *US Person* significantly affects each of us differently, to me, it is a real distraction and tiresome to have personal *messages* brought up from the past. It will confuse new people coming here and it will turn people away, my continued concern. Although I often, too, get side-tracked, I try to remember that my comments need to be related to the subject of the post. Sometimes very serious subject matter takes a turn to conflict and soap opera.
This discussion regarding Allison Christians new paper is one of the most important for all of us. Once again, I thank Professor Christians for her, yes, signficant work on this and on our behalf, no matter how our individual selves and families find ourselves affected.
More than happy to, MuzzledNoMore.
Do we need incremental changes, as the professor suggests, or an immediate change to RBT? Neither is possible when the US lacks the motivation to do either. We have to ask ourselves what the likelihood is of the US repealing birthright citizenship, when history shows they wish to make it more inclusive.
I like this part:
“Allowing a “fresh start” without penalty
including an opportunity to restructure financial investments to
avoid owning assets that run afoul of penalty and interest regimes
designed to disgorge all returns would be an appropriate response
to the pleas of accidental Americans.”
Has anyone else seen this paper from 1985? I could be wrong, but I don’t believe it’s been posted on Brock. In it the author addresses various things regarding CBT, notably the concept of tax equity:
“It is virtually a maxim of taxation that in addition to being fair, a good tax system must be perceived as fair. [FN7] Generally, this means that persons who are similarly situated will be similarly taxed. [FN8] Behind this deceptively simple concept, however, lies the problem of establishing when taxpayers are similarly situated. Two different equity perspectives come into play in determining when taxation is fair: horizontal and vertical. [FN9]”
She went on to describe horizontal and vertical equity in the context of CBT and non-resident Americans.
She also addressed the desirability of foreign employment of US citizens:
“It is difficult to ascertain the importance of foreign employment of United States citizens. [FN68] The assertion that foreign employment of American citizens is favorable to the United States relies on several premises: [FN69] that foreign employment increases the total volume of employment available to Americans; [FN70] that a greater number of Americans abroad generates greater international understanding and goodwill; [FN71] and that overseas employment has economic advantages such as an increase in exports [FN72] or a favorable effect on the balance of payments. [FN73]”
I’ve contacted the author, Renee Sobel and asked her if she thought there is any hope of Cook v Tait being overturned. She responded letting me know how pleased she is that people are still reading her paper, but told be that she hadn’t been keeping up to date on the situation. She also told me she studied at McGill. Well I found that a great opportunity to forward her a link to Allison’s blog and her latest article. I hope she weighs in. She would make a great ally.
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/alt.lawyers/Fxh9lJZ_nIg
@Bubblebustin
I just had a look at it. I must admit, I don’t see how it is that much different from Kirsch or Zelinsky, both of whom cite Sobel.
refers to an article http://tandt.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/10/1050.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=gNrzOlmwXk1HHmw re the one sided nature of the IGAs, and the lack of ‘reciprocity’
http://blogs.angloinfo.com/us-tax/2016/01/16/the-us-and-its-reciprocal-igas-oh-really/
Reminded me of some of Prof. Christian’s observations:
See;
‘Hiding in plain sight: how non-US persons
can legally avoid reporting under both
FATCA and GATCA’
Peter A.Cotorceanu*
http://tandt.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/10/1050.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=gNrzOlmwXk1HHmw
Trusts & Trustees, Vol. 21, No. 10, December 2015, pp. 1050–1063
“…Abstract
This article addresses gaping holes in both FATCA
and GATCA reporting when it comes to non-US
persons. Holes where sensitive information can
stay private and avoid prying eyes. Maybe these
holes will close. But only if and when the USA—
now, ironically, the greatest of all hiding places—
chooses to do so.
Do not hold your breath.”…….
@Publius
I hadn’t read that. Thanks.
@Bubblebustin
I don’t think that the Sobel article is generally available over the internet. Anyway, if you read it it would feel very familiar. Lots of discussion about whether the FEIE is justified based on the national economic interest of the U.S. and exports.
Consider how this very true statement affects, so horribly, *Accidental Americans* because of US CBT.
Cross-posting to this *Accidental American* post. http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/media-and-blog-articles-open-for-comments-part-3-of-3/comment-page-11/#comment-7122293
Cross-commenting here re Accidental Americans: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/media-and-blog-articles-open-for-comments-part-3-of-3/comment-page-14/#comment-7144597
Some *Accidental Americans* born in Canada are not *Accidental Americans*?
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2016/01/20/u-s-senator-ted-cruz-sponsors-expatriate-terrorism-act-threatens-certain-us-citizens-with-loss-of-citizenship/comment-page-1/#comment-7187906