"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.
Youse need to watch some ol’Bob and Doug McKenzie on SCTV. Dat stuff will turn you into real Canadians. Cuz if you can understand those hosers you can understand anybody that comes from da prairies or Ontario, eh. Think I’m kiddin’, eh?
JapanT, you wrote: “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. ”
This is a very valid concern. It will be challenging enough to fund the Canadian lawsuit all the way to the end never mind taking on a US lawsuit at the same time. Could end in a big cock up for the Canadians as well as US persons in other countries who were hoping Canada would start the FATCA IGA dominoes rolling.
TheAnimal, I have no idea what you meant, but it made me laugh. Youse Canadians sound like a lot of fun eh? I hear the Canadian pints and the BC bud are pretty good too eh?
“It will be challenging enough to fund the Canadian lawsuit all the way to the end never mind taking on a US lawsuit at the same time. Could end in a big cock up for the Canadians as well as US persons in other countries who were hoping Canada would start the FATCA IGA dominoes rolling.”
It seems likely that the outcome of the Israeli case will be known long before the Canada lawsuit comes to fruition.
Interestingly, the Indian tax authority has given non-self-certified accounts a break, and the US appears to be playing ball:
It seems that concern over the possible closure of huge mutual fund accounts, in particular, is the cause of the India deadline postponement. Apparently closure would mean redemption.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/fm-likely-to-extend-fatca-deadline-to-spare-mfs-from-rs-1l-cr-redemption/articleshow/53283016.cms
@iota
The US blinked, no?
The news that the first round is paid for is indeed welcomed. But as stated, there will probably be a second round and it is worrisome that a second front has been opened.
He who chases two birds catches neither.
@JapanT re: “He who chases two birds catches neither.”
That has always been my concern when ADCS started down the path of pursuing an additional lawsuit, except unlike you, I was character assassinated for disagreeing with the leaders and their minions.
@Bubblebustin – I don’t know if they blinked or just considered it would not be in the interests of the US to enforce FATCA rules implacably in this case. Not good PR to cause so much damage to an ally (especially an ally that is practically next-door-neighbour to the competition) with nary a tax cheat in sight.
Cheering, at any rate. 🙂
FuriousAC, I am surprised you have not been around recently to give me shit for not bowing down to the powers that be who have it all figured out and are going to fix everything on our behalf. Where you been dude?
@Japan T
ADCS has not morphed into ADCT. Although they have the same directors they are two separate efforts. At least that’s my impression.
There are 8-9 million Americans abroad. I’m sure we won’t run out out of donors, as those affected by CBT and FATCA is a growing and separate demographic from those who consider themselves exclusively Canadian.
Canadians with US taint who consider themselves exclusively Canadian is also a growing demographic in Canada. These are two separate donor bases, but there are people who for their own reasons would like to see it continue being funnelled through one.
Where’s this fear coming from? There will be more than enough donors as more people find out about FATCA and CBT. I suppose that if the only hope to end CBT is through the ADCS effort it might help to bring more money into the Canadian effort – but is that fair to those who identify as US persons wanting to end CBT to have their effort dealing directly with the problem derailed by those who would prefer their money go exclusively to their cause? That’s just greedy as far as I’m concerned.
@iota
Yes, cheering.
Do you think they’d also be reluctant to sanction their allies with the 30% withholding?
@JapanT
Let’s not overlook the fact that for many, their only hope is an end to CBT.
But at least all my verbosity did have something to do with (I am pretty sure anyway) the group of four deciding that maybe they should not pursue an AMERICAN lawsuit under the Alliance for the Defence of CANADIAN Sovereignty but rather create an additional organization Alliance for the Defeat of Citizenship Taxation.
Interesting that there does seem to be considerable reluctance for ADCT to advertise and promote the American lawsuit at IBS despite Petros backing and despite that two of the ADCS/ADCT directors also are Brock administrators. I mean if I am nothing more than a character deficient trouble maker, and the group of four are so sure they are doing the right thing, why the attempt at being low key here about the ADCT lawsuit?
Bubbles says, “Let’s not overlook the fact that for many, their only hope is an end to CBT. ”
This is true mainly for those who want to be both citizens of the country they live in and the USA. I would suggest that this is a dream and fantasy.
For most of the rest of us, it is enough to be citizens only of the countries we live in and to have our home countries recognise us only as such. This is what the Canadian FATCA IGA lawsuit will hopefully achieve and further set a precedent for other countries to do the same.
Regardless, the main concern with pursuing a second lawsuit by the same people is the risk it presents to the success of the first lawsuit.
It comes down to a difference of opinion. I can’t see anyone more qualified to lead these efforts than these four people.
Who’s right?
@Bubblebustin – I don’t know. It’s a lot easier to be flexible over a deadline.
It will be very interesting to see the outcome of the Israeli case.
“There are 8-9 million Americans abroad. I’m sure we won’t run out out of donors, as those affected by CBT and FATCA is a growing and separate demographic from those who consider themselves exclusively Canadian.”
Growing? Logically it should be shrinking, as USPs abroad learn of CBT/FATCA and make their decision.
@iota
Yes, there are the renunciations too, but not everyone can not want to.
Most will probably not do anything at all.
@iota – the US has recruited all of the banks in the world to identify US persons. Those who have been identified will be much more motivated to donate to either lawsuit (or both) than those expats who have not been impacted by FATCA or CBT. So, the donor base for both lawsuits will be growing as more of the 8-9m realise that they can no longer hide.
Of course, at the moment neither lawsuit is soliciting donations. The final amount needed for both is currently unknown/unknowable.
“Where’s this fear coming from?”
Who can donate once they lose their accounts? Who can donate once they lose the right to earn a living-due to losing their accounts? Who can donte after they lose everything they have by losing their passport?
I am all in favor of a lawsuit challenging CBT in the US, but it is of little help to me, nor to most. Unless an injuction against the enforcement of all laws related to CBT is issued, then I lose my passport with in six years. While I owe no tax, the US Supreme Court has on more than occasion ruled that all monies owed to the gov. are taxes. On Accounting Today, at least one accounting firm stated that FBAR fines will be included in the determination of which passports to revoke under the new passport revocation law. Unless it is settled in recoerd time, any decision will come too late for USCs currently living overseas.
This is not an argument against the lawsuit, it is needed to prevent others from suffering this injustice. It is an argument against the numbers you see as potential donors. Those who are currently affected by CBT and FATCA but are as of yet unaware of this fact can not be helped by this action, nor will they be able to help.
Most USCs are still unaware that any of this will affect them. Those who find out by having their accounts closed or their passports revoked will not be in a position to donate to any cause.
A very important point seems to be over looked. Once accounts are closed, the number one concern for many becomes “What am I going to eat next month”. Do you really think that people with no method to receive their pay are going to be able to donate? Especially, as many will be caught completely off guard and not even knowing of ADCS/ADCT how is it that the can be counted upon to fund both of these massive undertakings? Will donating to either of these, once accounts are closed, help them feed their families? If not, it is not wise to rely on their contributions. Those in such a position will be fighting tactical battles. Strategic undertakings do not help those engaged in battle.
For those losing their passports and thus their livelihoods, families and homes, they will be engaged in a tactical battle of a different sort but just as unable to send aid as those who lost their accounts.
It is not selfish to point these out. Neither the Canadian lawsuit, which I have contributed to, nor the American lawsuit will bring any relief to myself. Yet I donated and would continue to do so if I could. I am toast regardless of the outcome of any current legal action. My situation will come to its horrible end long before any decision can be handed down and no court decision can replace any of what I will have lost.
“Where’s this fear coming from?”
History. There are many, many cases of similar strategic decisions leading to disaster in history.
“Where’s this fear coming from?”
In short, you are counting your chickens before they hatch.
Typo correctionfrom my last.
“Strategic undertakings to help those engaged in battle. ” should read ‘Stategic undertakings DO NOT help those engaged in battle’.
Karen – the FATCA screening doesn’t pick up USPs with no indicia on pre-existing accounts or those who don’t identify themselves as US citizens when opening a new account. The “no place to hide” meme does not reflect reality and just serves the IRS’s purposes by scaring people unnecessarily. Some people find themselves in very difficult circumstances, – others, fortunately, are able to ignore FATCA or renounce. Impossible to know how many are in each of those two categories, but it stands to reason that as time goes on more and more of the people who learn about FATCA/CBT and CAN choose one of the three options (renounce, comply, ignore) will have done so, while more and more of those who haven’t heard of it, will never be troubled. The IRS is not omniscient nor omnipotent, however much they’d like people to think that they are.
JapanT – “Unless an injuction against the enforcement of all laws related to CBT is issued, then I lose my passport with in six years. While I owe no tax, the US Supreme Court has on more than occasion ruled that all monies owed to the gov. are taxes. On Accounting Today, at least one accounting firm stated that FBAR fines will be included in the determination of which passports to revoke under the new passport revocation law.”
Accounting firms like to scare people into their office. Don’t let them give you nightmares. Breathe, go for a walk, enjoy your children. Is it very beautiful in Japan in the autumn?
“the US Supreme Court has on more than occasion ruled that all monies owed to the gov. are taxes.”
Any cites?
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), No. 11-393, clarifies that penalties are not taxes under 26 USC section 7421.
“FATCA screening doesn’t pick up USPs with no indicia on pre-existing accounts or those who don’t identify themselves as US citizens when opening a new account.”
Not yet. Once the the data banks of the Treasury and State departments are merged, then the IRS will know where USCs who stopped filing went. Then it will have State ask those nations for the data on the missing USCs under the threat of the 30% noncompliance fee. Then it will be up to those nations to come up with the ways and means to find, collect and pass on the data to the IRS.
If banks begin demaning a passport to open a bank account, not unreasonable to assume this will happen, then it will be very hard to not be identified as a USC, either by a US passport or US birth place on a non US passport and no CLN.
You are correct, the IRS is not omniscient. You are incorrect in assuming they need to be to get what they want.
As others have stated, it s the accountants and lawyers who enforce the law. If they are of the belief that fines are included, then it is thus.
@ND
Citations? Yes, I have them but may take time to find them. iBooks is a nightmare to use.