"I complied with human rights-violating U.S. renunciation rules — and this leaves a bitter taste." https://t.co/H5qRkzhxxq
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) August 24, 2016
Click on the link in the above tweet to see the complete discussion.
The bottom line is that Dr. Stephen Kish – Chair of the Alliance For The Defence of Canadian Sovereignty and plaintiff in the Bopp FATCA Lawsuit, has formally renounced U.S. citizenship. He performed this act in Iceland which is the final resting place of Robert James Fischer – one of the most famous and well known cases of U.S. citizenship relinquishment.
“Again, I’m not trying to pick a fight. But I just don’t believe that you are doing yourselves, or your children, any favours by refusing to acknowledge the global scope and strength of US law.”
US Law stops at the 49th Parallel. Any attempt to enforce it by means of force, will be met with force on my behalf. I’m not afraid of “dying” for what I believe in. And if any US law enforcement team tries entry onto my property; they will be met with force.
@The_Animal1970 asks:
Well, since you ask there are at least two reasons:
Reason 1: Note that I conceived of the proposal to include ONLY Canadian citizens. This is because S. 6 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads:
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
The point is that the Charter guarantees Canadian citizens the right to remain in Canada. By signing the FATCA IGA, Canada has agreed to actively enable one group of Canadian citizens, by subjecting them to U.S. taxation, to actually hurt Canada. This is a permanent harm to Canada until Canada can figure out how to get the “U.S. citizen virus” out of its system. The buyout is a clear way to accomplish this.
Reason 2: The Government of Canada will get an INSTANT return on its investment. Remember U.S. citizenship is the equivalent (if not the outright manifestation) of a modern day form of slavery. U.S. citizens carry their IRS disabilities with them wherever they go. If U.S. citizens were stocks, they would trade at a discount relative to the citizens of any other nations. By “buying them back” and cleansing them of their U.S. citizenship, their value will instantly increase. Think of it: when was the last time that you bought something, when the simply act of the purchase, increased the value of the purchase.
It’s not that “the Canadian Government would be willing to spend money to keep us”. It’s that the Canadian Government would be wiling to “cleanse” the USness in US.
The great Canadian U.S. citizen “buy back” is a great deal for both Canada and the United States. I personally think Donald Trump would appreciate the “Art Of This Deal”.
Those who are NOT Canadian citizens would have to be told:
“You are either with the “buy back”, or you are with the Hilary and the Democrats who clearly want to inflict FATCA and CBT on the world.
Actually, USCAbroad, it was Patricia Moon that asked that question. I just sarcastically commented that it would be cheaper than all of us going on welfare because we couldn’t keep up with paying two government taxes.
I agree with you on the “buyback”…if it includes all of us. Disabled, able-bodied, anybody with a US passport on Canadian soil that would be given Canadian citizenship
@The_Animal1970
“US Law stops at the 49th Parallel. Any attempt to enforce it by means of force, will be met with force on my behalf. I’m not afraid of “dying” for what I believe in. And if any US law enforcement team tries entry onto my property; they will be met with force.”
I didn’t know about your son when I replied earlier, and now totally understand why you’re opting to live under the radar. It’s noble of you to die to protect your family but in the scenario you outlined you would be outnumbered so your sacrifice would be for naught, plus your loved ones need you alive and well.
If you haven’t already done so, you and Calgary411 and the others might want to put your heads together to exchange information and ideas about how to best safeguard your children.
…but knowing the stupidity of our government (past and present) they would rather we all bankrupt social assistance instead of dealing with the 1M+ who would benefit Canada by being able to work freely as Canadian citizens instead of having divided loyalties and having to pay a portion of their Canadian-earned income to a foreign government.
“If you haven’t already done so, you and Calgary411 and the others might want to put your heads together to exchange information and ideas about how to best safeguard your children.”
~sarcasm~ We’re seriously considering the option of finding a cave in the Rockies somewhere. 😛
@Malice
“The obvious answer to my way of thinking is to work towards facilitating a compromise between the wimpy Canadian government and the scary US government (either politically or legally) to enable a subset of Canadians deemed US persons to drop US citizenship thus being spared FATCA (and CBT)”
This is the fatal flaw in your argument. “facilitating a compromise” can only occur between parties of the same relative strength of between parties in which the weaker is able to inflict more damage than the stronger is willing to accept. A negotiation between “wimpy” and “scary” would be like those between General Buckner and General Grant on the surrender of Fort Donelson, Tenn. in Feb. 1862. General Buckner sent word via truce asking for terms of surrender, hopeful for generous terms based upon his friendship with Grant. Below is the reply he received.
“Sir: Yours of this date proposing Armistice, and appointment of Commissioners, to settle terms of Capitulation is just received. No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted.
I propose to move immediately upon your works.
I am Sir: very respectfully
Your obt. sevt.
U.S. Grant
Brig. Gen.”
@Malice
The ADCS lawsuit is expensive. There has been difficulty in raising the necessary funds for the one lawsuit. I, a USC living in Japan, have contributed to the fund. My contributions, though large to me, are just drops in the bucket compared to the overall cost. Having lost two of my jobs, I can no longer contribute to this or any other cause. Many have contributed much more than I and some of them are no longer able to continue supporting the ADCS lawsuit financially. It would be suicide for the ADCS to take on other issues. They would not be able to fund either if they tried both.
“Also, I think that you are allowing the USA too much power in defining you. Is it your view that “citizenship” is some kind of modern form of slavery?”
The US has the only tool it needs to get what it wants, the 30% noncompliance fee. The US is not looking for us, it is forcing our FI’s to turn us over to them.
Various statutes, court decisions, articles of the Constitutions and Charters of different nations are cited to prove that the US can not do what some of us fear.
But the law requiring banks to turn away USPs is no where to be found, it does not exist. There are no laws, court decisions nor articles compelling banks to close accounts currently held by USPs, yet both of these actions have occured.
To be blunt, the US has all the finacial industries of the entire planet by the short hairs. All the power it needs is a slight squeeze or a slight release of pressure to ensure it gets what it wants. No one is safe until that hold is broken.
Patricia Moon: “If the lawsuit does not fail, FATCA reporting would stop.”
What if the FI signs an agreement as per U.S. Code § 1471 (b) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1471)?
That would allow the FI to escape 30% withholding by obtaining from each USP accountholder a waiver which would allow the FI to report the account direct to the IRS; if the accountholder refused to sign the waiver the account would be closed.
Thus, USP accountholders would be able to choose whether to allow their account to be reported to the IRS, or allow the account to be closed. Hobson’s choice, for some, but for compliant US taxpayers it might not be a problem to sign such a waiver, given that they’re already reporting the account on their FBARs and returns.
Out of 9 milllionn USPs only around 550,000 are filing returns. So most would be royally screwed. Also, I think Canadian law still prevents banks from sharing the data with the US. Also not sure what if any new costs would have to be borne by the banks.
JapanT: “Out of 9 milllionn USPs only around 550,000 are filing returns. So most would be royally screwed.”
If I’m not mistaken, if the lawsuit does not fail and the IGA is struck down, those who don’t sign the waiver will be in exactly the same situation regardless of whether their FI does or does not have an agreement with the IRS as per 1471(b).
With such an agreement, an FI can escape 30% withholding (by closing the accounts of all USP accountholders who don’t sign the waiver). Without the agreement, an FI can escape 30% withholding by closing all USP accounts.
“Also, I think Canadian law still prevents banks from sharing the data with the US.”
Hence the waiver. But it’s possible Canadian courts might not allow FIs to enter into such an agreement with the IRS, following a successful challenge to the IGA.
“Also not sure what if any new costs would have to be borne by the banks.”
You mean costs of FATCA non-compliance (following a successful court challenge to the IGA) vs. the current costs of FATCA/IGA compliance? Presumably it would depend on how many “withholdable payments” the FI was receiving, together with how many USP accounts the FI continued to maintain.
Hopefully the Israeli courts may come up with a workable solution/compromise which may prove applicable in other countries.
It would not be good for those not in compliance, 8.5 million, to have their accounts reported.
I was wondering abouut the. ccomplliance costt for the banks.
JapanT: “It would not be good for those not in compliance, 8.5 million, to have their accounts reported.”
It’s not good for anyone to have their financial information harvested without their consent. So far, no one has suggested a way to avoid it, other than closing accounts and sticking to Credit Unions or similar.
It’s also not good for people to have problems getting or keeping a bank account. That’s the aspect that the Model 1 IGA alleviates (but does not eliminate).
With the IGA, a FI can keep USP accounts open without risking withholding, so there’s less incentive to dump USPs. But there’s still an incentive to dump USPs, even with the IGA, in order to avoid the costs of due diligence screening and consequent reporting.
“I was wondering abouut the. ccomplliance costt for the banks.”
Do you mean the costs of complying with FATCA/IGA, or the costs to the banks if the IGA were to be struck down?
The former. In the latter case, it is the %30 noncompliance fee, is it not.
In CRS countries, FATCA screening and CRS screening does the same sort of stuff and probably uses the same systems. So how much of the cost is attributable to FATCA probably varies from bank to bank.
I really think that no matter the outcome of the lawsuit, no good will come of the situation.
@JapanT re: “The ADCS lawsuit is expensive. There has been difficulty in raising the necessary funds for the one lawsuit… It would be suicide for the ADCS to take on other issues. They would not be able to fund either if they tried both.”
I guess you missed the part that ADCS renamed ADCT for some reason which I have no idea (cough, cough) already IS taking on another lawsuit. Not sure why they don’t advertise that here at Brock. Maybe they will start doing that soon.
Yes, you are correct, I missed that. How is the fund raising going? Have they been gifted with a huge sum and paid off the first legal team?
This is worrisome.
@JapanT, before you judge too harshly taking on a second lawsuit by the same group of people, the new lawsuit is in the USA and is designed to get rid of CBT so you might like it. Look at it this way, if round 1 of the Canadian lawsuit fails perhaps the focus of the group of four will be to put their ADCT hat on full time and redirect their fundraising efforts to the US lawsuit which for you ( a US person in Japan with no other citizenship than US) might be preferable to a Canadian FATCA IGA lawsuit. Since funds are limited for you (like me and many other) perhaps you will want to switch your financial support to the new lawsuit.
I am not against the lawsuit, I am all for it, but I am concerned that they will not meet the funding needs of either. I stopped following the fundraising news once I became no longer able to help. Last I knew, the Canadian effort missed the final payment. Obviously, they found some solution as it that case is still preceeding. Have the paid it all off?
@JapanT, yes the cost of round 1 has been paid off.
Even if round 1 is won, there will be a round 2 as the Canadian government will likely challenge and the fight will go to the next stage – round 2 at supreme court. This means ADCS/ADCT is committed to funding both round 2 of a Canadian lawsuit and round 1 of an American lawsuit.
People affected by FATCA/CBT of limited means will have to choose which lawsuit they like best to donate to, or do a 50/50 (or some other percentage) split.
@JapanT, re: ” I am not against the (CBT) lawsuit”
Why should you be? It is much more applicable to your situation than the Canadian lawsuit.
The more lawsuits the merrier. I like Malice’s idea of a lawsuit to help US persons escape US personhood without jumping through compliance hoops and an outrageous renunciation fee, but that would probably be tipping the edge over too far. I mean how many lawsuits can one group of four people fundraise anyway?
And I like Malice’s idea of “a lawsuit to help US persons escape US personhood without jumping through compliance hoops and an outrageous renunciation fee” But in order to be Canadian, you gotta be able to speak Canadian. Every person who becomes Canadian has to believe in Canada…not just transporting American Ideals over to Canada. You’re not going to make us American. You’re gonna all become Canadian, eh. ~evil grin~
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Z3p7kLCkSsQ/V9Haqcr575I/AAAAAAAAAEc/Q7h1ibExRQ8XuougAZ6MCpZrg1K1ZKW2ACLcB/s1600/Canadian-Bald-Eagles.jpg
If you can translate this: you are able to become a Canadian. 😀