(10) Lying to prevent a crime is a virtue.
Commentary: USA citizenship-based taxation is a crime when applied to people living outside the USA jurisdiction. It is theft at multiple levels: (1) It is territorial theft of another country’s tax base. (2) It is theft to tax a person without representation. (3) It is theft to tax a person for the benefit of others. Furthermore, many of the reporting requirements of FATCA and FBAR cause crimes to be committed. The government of Canada, e.g., has committed a crime by sending the bank account information of Canadian residents and ciitzens to the IRS–it is national origin discrimination which is forbidden in the charter of rights, and it is a violation of their right to privacy.
It may be necessary to lie to prevent the IRS and one’s own local government from committing crimes. One may have to lie to a bank about where one was born. One may have to omit details when filling out forms.
While lying to prevent a crime is a virtue, lying to cover up a crime is politics as usual.
Previous Discussion:
Rahab’s renunciation of citizenship–Was she a harlot, liar, traitor and tax cheat or a heroine of faith?
California genocide and the Indian Tax Revolt of 1851
Fair tax, unfair tax: or When is it paying my fair share?
Is it taxation without representation if you can vote? Damn right!
Previous Petros Principles:
(1) What the IRS can’t know unless you tell them can’t hurt you.
(2) Fear makes the IRS more dangerous than it really is.
(3) Haste is the devil.
(4) Those most hurt by the IRS’s persecution of expats have engaged the services of cross-border compliance condors.
(5) Those least hurt have done nothing.
(6) Home is where you live.
(7) An unjust law is no law.
(8) Don’t feed the beast.
(9) Do the minimum in trying to achieve the least bad outcome.
(10) Lying to prevent a crime is a virtue.
(11) Cynical derision of Homelanders is healthy.
About: Petros is the alias of the founding administrator of the Isaac Brock Society. Petros Principles are guidelines that have helped him and others deal with the United States’ world-wide tax invasion.
@Petros
What I am saying is that in order not to get in deep trouble with american law, one has to abide by american laws in order to return , or do international business ( Jay?) etc. I am saying this without judgement here because of course I find it an abomination, but with reason because the troubles that can ensue could be even more ruinous than complying. We are talking jail time and 50% penalties. All unjust for sure- but this is the way things stand for now. Right now- the law is the law. Sad to say this, and I know (as i said before) many American expats who have gone into hiding. But these are people who have little to no connections with America- especially no economic connections and no intent to return.
If you are trying to incite a rebellion which could have dire consequences for some or many involved, then that is up to you- but I would not endorse that. Not for people intending to return, intending to use their american citizenship for other purposes. Whether this is ethical or not for America to enforce these laws is on another page. Looks like it has to be for the time being. As I was once told- it is like facing the 600 million ton gorilla. America is still the most powerful nation on Earth. So this is what we end up doing: we try to change the laws legally. With a court challenge. For you Petros- the decision was clear- you will never go back. You consider yourself Canadian and you live in Canada. You don`t have the ties which bring problems for those who have stronger ties. I know you had to help to search for your father a while ago and how traumatic that was for you. Luckily nobody held you up at the boarder. Maybe that makes it appear like the tiger is sleeping or less voracious than it seems? I am not sure about that. But otherwise you have cut your ties to America and said good riddance. Others might be in a different position and telling them to rebell is dangerous. Just saying. I understand your rage- but even with rage, we are in a precarious position. Do you think that if we all rebelled we would get anywhere? We don`t even have our own countries behind us. Nor the United Nations. The only way for change is through legal venues. Of course that doesn’t mean that counting the injustices and voicing them has no merit. Maybe somebody in high places will hear and finally do something about it. What we need is endorsement by people who have weight in the government. We have to keep trying. Yeah- I don`t know if it will work either. Seems people who profit by corruption are not taken down easily. It seems to me that there are an increasing number of injustices in America today ( Black lives matter, Wall Street crooks, Lobbyists greasing palms, Civil forfeiture laws, gun laws etc etc) and all of them need to be addressed. So where do our complaints stand? In a long line? Sometimes I worry that there might be a civil war within America one day. This would be ruinous for the whole world. There would be a global recession with dire consequences for many – and history has shown us that this was the fertile ground for Hitler to rise to power. So I dont wish for the demise of America. I just want them to change their laws to remedy the injustices perpetrated on the people. Seems to be a huge job, and is anybody getting anywhere with it? And last but not least- many people survived the Holocaust by lying. I personally know a blond blue eyed jew who worked in a factory as a chemist in Holland and he hid through the whole world pretending to be a Christian. But with the age of the internet and globalisation: where do people hide today? Where do they go? How do they keep their lies hidden? So I am not sure that telling people to lie is the right decision either? Just saying-
@Bubblebustin
“The US would rather have taxpayers than citizens” Yeah.
sorry- that should say “he hid through the whole WAR” ( not world)
@Polly, please do not mistake Petros Principles as rage. Petros Principles serve as guide based on experience precisely because our local governments provide only limited protection. It is not based on rage, but upon the cumulative wisdom of nearly 5 years of Brock.
As for going to the states, I think opinion is divided. Some think I would be fine. Others think I should avoid it. My view is I should at least wait until Statute of Limitations is expired.
And frankly, I do not know of anyone who was seized at the border because they lied to their Canadian bank or they didn’t mention a TFSA (for example) in their tax return.
I have actually said as such to my family in the USA, if they want to help is to bring awareness of this issue in the USA. I am definitely being forced to renounce by the US government in order to live a normal life here in the UK. I did not decide to renounce lightly. I weighted up the pros and cons and because I spent my whole adult life here in the UK and I am not at an age just starting off my career, renouncing is the only practical option and the option that protects my non US citizen husband as well.
I was not educated by the IRS what to do as regards investments when I came to the UK. I lived abroad so have foreign investments. I never even paid into social security. I was 18 years old when I left the USA. Had I been educated or the US had kept up with the global world, I would not be doing this now. I planned for retirement responsibly only to find out that some of my plans may not be US friendly. I am not getting anything in value in return. I agree and disagree about the omitting information. My returns are very accurate because done by a compliance condor but if i had to do them again, I would do some the same and other parts I would have done differently. Maybe I would not have filed at all (or at least until I was educated), I was completely off the radar. But fear made me file.
The other day at work one of my UK colleagues said that she would love to go and work in NY for a while and her husband had said that while they are there, they should try to get pregnant so their kids would gain dual citizenship. There are so many UK citizens that still today don’t know about these rules as I doubt she would have said this had she known. I wanted to scream at her, no please don’t do that, don’t subject your kids to this unfair regime for the rest of their lives. But I kept my mouth shut for now but may tell her should she ever really get that job she wants in NY.
Imagine if Canadian banks discriminated based on place of origin in a Muslim country. You’d have every “civil rights” and leftwing nutjob outfits up in arms. Of course lying about place of birth is ok and necessary.
I valued my US citizenship until I discovered the US government itself had thoroughly devalued it with CBT, FATCA, FBAR, OVDP, form crime, etc, etc, etc. In fact, so much so that they turned it into a liability rather than an asset. At that point relinquishing was a very easy decision. Do I think my birthright has been stolen from me by an out of control renegade government? Yes, I do.
As a self-relinquisher I have no problem answering “no” to the US person question. There is no upside to trying to comply with their insane tax laws; they are best ignored.
@Trish,
I can see why condorian threats of Reed Amendment really irk you. Here’s my take:
You can’t sell renunciations and threats of the Reed Amendment at the same time, at least not ethically. The Reed Amendment has no affect on the law that allows Americans to cease their tax filing obligations upon renunciation. It’s really kind of a red herring (or lie) thrown out there to get people to do their US taxes. The Reed Amendment would have its enforcers only guessing as to what motivation the relinquishers had when they renounced, as any past non-compliance is not indisputable evidence that they renounced for tax reasons, is it.
Until the US doesn’t allow its ongoing tax filing obligations to cease upon renunciation, people will continue to renounce out of RESPECT for US law that allows their tax filing obligations to cease – whether or not their previous US tax filing obligations have been met at that point. Seems to me that IRS agents at the border can only get you for past delinquencies prior to renunciation, but not be prejudiced by those delinquencies under the Reed.
PS,
The only thing condors should be writing about the Reed Amendment is to not write “taxes” for you reason for renouncing.
@ polly
What I am saying is that in order not to get in deep trouble with american law, one has to abide by american laws in order to return
or one can just say “screw it” and not ever travel there again and get on with their lives
which
I believe is what a large number of people are doing. my self included.
I feel for those who have family or business obligations that forces them to have to return and there by making saying “screw it” almost impossible to do.
it is an American law. I however am a Canadian citizen residing in Canada. why should I follow a foreign governments law in my home country?
I have stated before…I have no problem lying to any bank or other such business about my place of birth because it is none of their damn business where I born.
@Polly says “I think anybody who wants to remain american should abide by american law.”
Would you say the same about an Eritrean wants to retain their Eritrean nationality despite the illegal diaspora tax?
@mettleman
Unable to see the injustice, I’m afraid many homelanders would be happy to accept your self-imposed exile in exchange for your tax-filing obligations. That is until you need to be evacuated from Canada.
Writing a single comment at Brock can be like having just one potato chip or for an alcoholic, like having just one drink. Is it only me or has anyone else felt like they’ve been on a bender the past few days?
@ Black/WhiteKat
Well I did have a headache for awhile but when I realized this was simply a free flow of expression my appreciation chased it away. There’s a huge diversity among the FATCA inflicted but hopefully we’ll all keep plodding ahead (more or less together) to alert, educate and mitigate. Sure wish there was some good news on the ADCS front … like a court date or something. It would be a nice little boost for morale … like when Kazia joined our intrepid duo, Ginny and Gwen.
Bubbles
The fact is that the Reed Amendment simply cannot be enforced. I’ve just redone the research – post up in future. Even DHS (who are responsible for enforcing it) say it cannot be done. ONLY if you claim you did it……..
People who are going to cross the border need to arm themselves with all that is involved with Reed. I am sure no CBP person could possibly know the totality of it. And they cannot deny anyone entrance based upon what they think they know. A ruling must come from DHS.
I remember being surprised by something the vice consul told me during one or the other of my renunciation appts. I was lucky to have a very good guy and the same person for both appts. I was concerned that should I need to cross the border while my passport etc was in DC for processing the expatriation. I told him some of the charming conversations I’d had with border guards in the past. He said, “No American citizen can be prevented from entering the United States. The border guards may think they know the laws but they don’t. No American can be refused entry.” And this was long after 9/11 and the initiative which required passports and so on. I know this refers to “Americans.” But my point is, border guards really and truly can be handled, if one has sufficient knowledge. At least most of them.
@Oscar
Welcome to Brock. You seem to be new here with much to say. Could you tell us something about yourself?
@Trish
I’ve read all over the place how US citizens without passports cannot be denied entry. It might take a little longer to clear, but eventually you will.
I don’t know where border guards get off telling people they need to enter on a US passport when using a non-US one, unless it’s to let you know that you will be entering on a visitor’s visa – as I was once told as to why Americans need to enter on a US passport.
“No american citizen can be prevented from entering the US.” But a former US citizen? One who renounced for tax reasons? And as for proving that – as I see it – America has changed from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent.
We don`t know if a law such as the Reed Amendment will be applied in the future. In fact- we dint know at ALL what the future will bring. The shit hasn’t hit the fan yet. What will happen to the people I know who renounced without filing taxes? Will their CLN get them by? What will happen to those who entered streamlined with bad facts? Will they be prosecuted? And as for Canada- maybe they won`t collect- but maybe the banks will throw such clients out? We don`t know what is coming. Will America become more understanding and show leniency, or will it show full throttle viciousness? We have yet to see all the threats we have listened to be realised. Or not. We just do not know what the future holds.
@mettleman
Yes-you are one of those who has no ties to America.
@BCDoc
As far as I have heard- Eritrea threatens hurt your relatives if you dont pay up.
@Petros
Maybe it is a projection and your words just enrage ME so much. LOL The injustice IS just excruciating. Sometimes it actually hurts to read your words. Because no doubt – the injustices you describe are real.
Just how to deal with it? I think that depends upon a person`s situation.
My take is that for the Reed to be enforceable you’d have to either admit you renounced for tax reasons, or the US government will have to take up mind reading.
Am (mostly) enjoying this thread.
Regarding @Jay, he said he’s been “an expatriate on multiple occasions going back to the 1980s”.
An expat on multiple occasions. To me, that sounds like he’s mainly US-based, with a few stints abroad. I think that is different from most Brockers who are mainly abroad and see ‘abroad’ as home. If you are a US-based businessman who has some postings abroad then you are essentially a homelander and you will most likely want to keep business as usual on your tax returns etc. What interest would someone in that category have in lying about their place of birth or what have you?
@Bubblebustin
And civil forfeiture? Innocent people robbed of their lifetime savings? Considered guilty from the getgo unless they had the good luck to get lawyered up – and then the IRS even haggled about giving it back. In one case- IRS said “How about we give you back half?”
Civil forfeiture is nasty business. Hopefully lawmakers will make it harder for the IRS to use it:
http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/24/exclusive-lawmakers-move-to-make-it-harder-for-irs-to-seize-money-from-innocent-people/
@Trish
I look forward to your research and post on the Reed Amendment.