Posted on April 15, 2016 by Deckard1138 Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 94 Comments Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailLike this:Like Loading...
“I’ve stated over and over again that I believe that US CBT is unreasonable and unfair. However, it is what it is.”
Rosa Parks would beg to differ; she fought to change the status quo. Here in Europe I have done my part to fight the fight. Join us all and fight.
“If you want to act like you’re above the law, that’s certainly your prerogative”
Incorrect; I am on the law’s side. I have paid every cent of tax money owed to this (high-tax) country, completed all my declarations on time, and do immaculate record-keeping. As I do not live (nor intend to live) in the States, their domestic laws are an internal matter and of no concern to me.
“but don’t judge those of us who choose otherwise”
I didn’t judge anyone, but you can have the final say on that.
“Translation: Half of your ass is owned by the USA and the half is owned by Canada. This is YOUR problem, not the two governments who own you. It is up to you to pick one master to resolve YOUR problems. Until then, both owners are entitled to your private financial information so that they can tax your ass as they see fit, since they own you.”
100% of your ass is owned by the USA and 100% is owned by Canada. This is YOUR problem, not the two governments who own you. It is up to you to serve both masters and resolve YOUR problems, until you find enough money to buy your freedom from one master but you still have to serve both masters until the one you bought your freedom from says that you’ve finished all the paperwork required after buying your freedom (except if you’re a covered exslave so have to continue doing paperwork and have to continue paying without ever getting the freedom you paid for). Until then (and after then, if you’re covered), both owners are entitled to your private financial information so that they can tax your ass as they see fit, since they own you.
Adam and Eve were American. They ate the wrong fruit, they made themselves covered, and their descendants have to pay for it forever.
“Neither of my parents citizens or residents of the US, I was born there because my mother made the bad judgment call to visit the States in her third trimester.”
That’s too harsh. At the time, no one knew what was coming. If she’d known and if she still made that visit, then it would have been a bad judgment call.
“It’s highly likely that Elle’s mother has a valid US passport, so the USG would’ve informed her of her filing obligations the last time she renewed her passport.”
Sure, but the USG wouldn’t have informed her that her future baby was going to get infected. Only if she’d known in time that she should renounce, then during the renunciation interview the USG would warn her that her future baby would escape the infection.
Hmm. Suppose she signed the renunciation documents, making her US-taxable up to the preceding day but free from that day forward. Suppose the baby was born after that day but before the CLN was approved. The baby would still get infected, right?
Re: “Hmm. Suppose she signed the renunciation documents, making her US-taxable up to the preceding day but free from that day forward.Suppose the baby was born after that day but before the CLN was approved. The baby would still get infected, right?”
No, the baby would be okay. The date of the approval of the CLN won’t matter if the child is born after the renunciation, as the approval of the CLN is basically just official recognition that the citizenship ended on renunciation day. The approval date is on the CLN, but the CLN indicates the date of the person’s expatration as being the date of the renunciation.
You agree with citizenship-based taxation for certain citizens, but not for others. Voters rights and right of entry are granted by citizenship, not taxation – although US citizenship is quickly becoming taxation-based, what with passport revocations for outstanding taxes and all.
What you’re talking about is a special way for those who don’t consider themselves to be US citizens to be required to admit that they are in fact US citizens in order to exit a system they don’t feel applies to them. A sort of opt-in to opt-out strategy, based on the US no longer exercising right of birth citizenship. Doesn’t seem likely.
Citizenship base taxation in order to be wrong for one type of citizen, must be wrong for all.
Sorry – I didn’t mean that CBT should be applied to some citizens but not others (but rather that there’s some that can relieve themselves of that responsibility easily and others that can’t to counter-prove WestCoaster’s point ). Probably a fairer way, if total elimination of CBT isn’t politically feasible to Congress and the President, is to create either an exemption or an expedited path to renunciation for those who have in their adult lives never lived/worked/voted/etc. in or exercised any of their U.S. citizenship rights (in other words “accidental Americans”). Or pass a law exempting those in Canada and other countries where taxes would generally be equal to or greater than the U.S.’s from having to file (on the presumption that U.S. citizens would not be living there to avoid taxes).
Iota, you took offense to my obviously “tongue in cheek” comment about the selfishness of keeping USC knowing it hurts Canada (which it actually does). Sorry.
I’m married to a USC and having moved her to Canada am (actually feeling a bit guilty in retrospect) responsible as anyone for what I’m critiquing. Also, I have 2 infected children. I do however frequently comment on sites saying Americans will move to Canada if Donald Trump is elected, suggesting that we do not want these Trojan horses here.
Please don’t be sorry, those are valid suggestions – and often discussed here at length.
Wouldn’t that involve the US actually admitting that there’s something wrong with CBT in order to allow accidentals a relatively easy escape? What’s in it for the USG to do that?
Also, I don’t know that granting a broad exemption for those who live in high tax countries would be enough for the US. After all, the sale of a principal residence in Canada for instance isn’t even reported on a Canadian tax return. How does the IRS really know whether you owe US tax unless you do a US tax return?
Unfortunately the presumption is that US citizens are living outside the US to avoid US taxes. Why else are we subjected to FBAR and FATCA?
The logic/reality prize in the mad flurry over purported rights and deemed obligations and plethora of hatchets for the Gordian knot goes to … Norman Diamond:
100% of your ass is owned by the USA and 100% is owned by Canada. This is YOUR problem …
To recast the concept perhaps more philosophically:
The STATE is YOUR master. Every such master by nature routinely abuses its serfs. Expect no state to respect you or protect you. Multiple masters make for exponential miseries. Sauve qui peut.
@USXCanada, “The STATE is YOUR master.”
Only if you allow for it in your mind.
I left the USA and relinquished….it was only in my mind when I allowed them to take control of me again……I regained my freedom when I said no more.
@Bubbles, “Also, I don’t know that granting a broad exemption for those who live in high tax countries would be enough for the US. ”
When I left the USA, my first step was to register to pay taxes where I went. I was told by a tax officer of HM Government that the Tax Treaty meant my tax obligations/filing obligations were with the United Kingdom and not the USA!! I was shown where to find the treaty which I looked at and came to that same conclusion!!
I was also referred to DT19933 which states “An individual who is a United States citizen or an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence (a “green card” holder) is a resident of the United States only if the individual has a substantial presence, permanent home or habitual abode in the United States and if that individual is not a resident of a State other than the United Kingdom for the purposes of a double taxation convention between that State and the United Kingdom.”
The exemption that @Kelly proposes is what I thought a decade ago and to be honest seems to be the case today based on plain reading!!
My MP and their partner also believes the same thing!!
There has been some discussion here of the old, well-worn saying “the law is the law” and its corollary that, law being law it must be obeyed. Hmmmm. If, throughout history, no one had ever broken a law for the express reason that the law was wrong we would all be living under a system best embodied in the modern world by North Korea. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that if a law is unjust it is a citizen’s *duty* to disobey it. Unless we disobey it it will never change. If Rosa Parks had not disobeyed the law and refused to give up her seat on the bus it would still be United States law that “African Americans” use separate washrooms and sit at the back of the bus. President Obama certainly wouldn’t have been sitting in the White House these past 8 years.
Nothing will ever change if people continue obeying law that is patently wrong. My own motto for my life is “CBT ends with Me.” Indeed, CBT would end damn quickly if every American abroad simply refused to comply.
Seven month old baby denied due process makes no-fly list. See the parallels? Read it and laugh – or cry.
“Baby Doe is actually a terrorist, executing an insidious diaper plot against the American people.”
Baby Elle is actually a tax-evader, executing an insidious diaper plot against the American people.
“Nothing will ever change if people continue obeying law that is patently wrong. My own motto for my life is “CBT ends with Me.” Indeed, CBT would end damn quickly if every American abroad simply refused to comply.”
Bold words deserve bold letters. It’s what I’ve been thinking for years but I didn’t want to imply that those who comply are doing anything other than what they should, because everyone has to do what’s best for themselves and lard knows there are so many permutations and combinations of individual situations (boggles the mind) that paths to peace of mind are going to differ. That being said, I’m on Rosa’s path.
That certainly sets up and interesting conflict with that pesky savings clause.
I believe that Rosa Parks was able to sit where she wanted to on that bus, because US society was ready to allow her to. Remember how shocked we were when the Berlin Wall fell? The wall was down long before – all it took was a few somewhat brave soles, like Rosa, to start the inevitable process of actually dismantling it.
How does this compare to CBT? Lincoln apparently said, ” The best way to have a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly”. Whether you comply or not doesn’t change the fact either way that CBT’s a bad law, just as whether you are an accidental or a voting American doesn’t change the fact that it’s is a bad law. All it takes for a law to change sometimes is for the cowards who once supported it to run away and for good people to look the other way. It’s only a matter of time that the US realizes how Draconian CBT is, especially where there are victims like Elle – the poster child for FATCA-enforced CBT’s stupidity.
So right you are, EmBee. I, too, have been reticent to share this particular aspect of how I feel, personally, about our situation. It may be how *I* feel but there are 8.6 million other ways to feel that are just as valid and I respect them all. But, somehow after hearing various permutations of “the law is the law” from government officials throughout that Ethics Committee meeting just over a week ago I am abnormally sensitive at the moment to hearing that same old adage expressed by someone who is actually adversely affected by this law. Personally, I have no choice but to humbly follow in Rosa’s footsteps. I think you and I have a lot of company! 🙂
Personally, I have no choice but to humbly follow in Rosa’s footsteps. I think you and I have a lot of company! 🙂
count me in to be right next to you while following rosa’s footsteps
@Bubblebustin How does this compare to CBT? Lincoln apparently said, ” The best way to have a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly”. Whether you comply or not doesn’t change the fact either way that CBT’s a bad law, just as whether you are an accidental or a voting American doesn’t change the fact that it’s is a bad law. All it takes for a law to change sometimes is for the cowards who once supported it to run away and for good people to look the other way.
@ All I neither run away nor look the other way. The way to change a bad law is to challenge it in a court of law. Gwen and I are not oblivious to the fact that there are some here ( and no I don’t mean you) that think we are either obstreperous or naive for refusing to recognize that American law has application in our country, despite the fact that Canada has signed certain agreements. Many here believe those agreements will not pass the Charter sniff.
And if I understand what you are saying about good people looking the other way, I would agree with that. However, where are they? Certainly not in the USG or Canadian government.
In the few times I have had a wobbly moment, something like Baby Elle’s story comes along and infuriates me and I am quickly back on track with firmer resolve than ever. I am far past believing either government claiming me will do the right thing. My trust remains in the Canadian judicial system. I have ( deliberate) little knowledge of the US court system, so can only rely on what I know.
All of which probably sounds like a typical plaintiff, but it’s true for me as an individual trying to get through this nightmare and why I signed up for this as did Gwen.
To those who advocate just renounce!- or comply-, I say yes I could have I suppose. And I respect anyone’s choice to do so. In contemplating either choice, I was left with the bigger question which is: well that might be fine for me, but where would that leave the others? Could I live with the fact that I could sit in any seat on the bus but others could not? Helping me make that decision was the many people here who saw something that needed fixing, just as I did. Our motley crew as we have been called. Each of us supporting this law suit and this cause will see this rectified some day.
Which brings me back to our daily front page request as Stephen Kish always posts. Gwen and I would like a triplet, sister or brother, we are not fussy. We are waiting and need our triplet to show up.
If you can dear triplet, take the leap. The water is fine actually. Then we can finally get to where we need to go, for all of us.