"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.
Thank you Norman. It says the same thing. Notification of the State Department etc and the filing of 8854.
Ms. Moon. I’m afraid you are muddying the water. Your post is almost impossible to follow. In comparison the post by Peter Dunn on the same subject and to which there is a link on the right ‘for those who expatriated before June 2004. is crystal clear.
This is the most recent IBS post discussing this question:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/05/08/26-u-s-code-%c2%a7877a-the-exit-tax-rules-do-you-see-them-as-applying-prospectively-or-retrospectively-or-both/
Seriously, it defies common sense to say that those who relinquished prior to June 16, 2008 should be governed by rules that took effect on June 16, 2008. The issue is whether the S. 877A rules are retroactive. Why not go right back to the 1970s and get all those people who relinquished in the 70s to pay taxes and penalties for all those years they were not U.S. citizens.
On the famous prior to 16 June 2008 untested conundrum … who do you think knows more?
Moon or Petros or Hodgen?
Hodgen says:
For someone who claims to have voluntarily relinquished U.S. citizenship before June 16, 2008 — and never received a Certificate of Loss of Nationality — there is a profound dilemma:
More at:
http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=b343af01b0c3e75921e909c4d&id=00d9286e8a&e=fcf5c985d1
Axiomatic tongue-twister:
Those preferring to self-delude with dubious certainty will not self-disturb with profound dilemma.
In other news
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Documents/White-Paper-State-Aid.pdf
“The U.S. Dept of the Treasury shares the European Commission’s concern with tax avoidance by individuals. The international community … has long recognized the need to address this issue multilaterally. For more than two decades the U.S. Treasury Department has worked closely as part of the international community to achieve a collective solution to this global problem.”
Changed a couple of words, but still…
‘The U.S. Department of the Treasury (“U.S. Treasury Department”) shares the European
Commission’s (“Commission”) concern with tax avoidance by multinational firms.’
Yes I checked. It says “tax avoidance”. I knew the US persecutes individuals who obey the law, but here they say they persecute multinational firms who obey the law too.
They must have abaondoned “tax evasion”. Anyone who commits a crime is a friend of the IRS.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/05/08/26-u-s-code-§877a-the-exit-tax-rules-do-you-see-them-as-applying-prospectively-or-retrospectively-or-both/comment-page-2/#comment-6377672
Just a little more than a year ago , Michael Miller weighed in on the IRS making a ruling on this…
@USX
You write:
Yes, there is no doubt that Hodgen knows more with respect to what can be known. But, you will note that what Hodgen actually says in the post to which you refer is:
He is saying that he doesn’t know. He is also saying that if you want to assume the worst possible interpretation, no problem, just pay the IRS.
So, my question for you is this:
Why would you assume the worst possible interpretation (when as Hodgen says, there is plenty of disagreement)? As someone (I think Jim Jatras) once said:
Why commit suicide to avoid dying?
Also, when it’s clear that there is no agreement among these lawyers (who are referenced in this post):
1. Why would you look to them for the answer anyway?; and
2. Why adopt the views of one say Hodgen (who doesn’t seem to have a clear view) over say Miller (who does seem to have a clear view)?
Would you at least agree that:
Although the S. 877A rules CAN be read to apply retroactively to 30 year old relinquishments, the S. 877A rules do NOT have to be read as though they MUST apply retroactively to 30 year old relinquishments?
Ms. Moon I get it. The problem is that your exposition is like the IRSs. So convoluted as to be impossible to understand. Michael J. Miller gets it. If you expatriated before June 2004 you need not file anything. Period. Simple.
Phil Hodgen is a good guy but he is a enrolled agent and will always err on the cautious side even when totally unnecessary .USX is simply an agent provocateur who thinks he has a clever way ay with words.
@Dr. Kish
I’m sorry that the US gov. forced you to give up your US citizenship, which I assume had significant value to you. Thank you again for all that you have done, and continue to do, to fight this unjust insanity.
@all
so the bottom line is that ….. no one really knows what is going on and being that as it may we are left to our own devices and there fore have to make a decision on what we feel is best for us.
I ceased to be an amerikan citizen in april of 1980 when I took out Canadian citizenship to avoid the potential amerikan draft that was being contemplated at the time by president jimmy carter in response to the iran hostage crisis.
IF anything arrives in my mail box from south of the border from any 3 letter agency its contents will be promptly placed in the bottom of my bird cage.
after all “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” 🙂
@Stephen Kish. you are standard bearer for the purest ideals of USA founding members
No TAXation Without REPREsentation. if you grieve 4 yr lost USC–so do I. it was heartbreaking for me to 2 renounce few years ago. but. but but but….. I rejoice , if I may, in your freedom. all you have done for all of us is slammed into hearts abroad. really. I wish you all the best in your new freedom and I will continue 2 follow the ADCS lawsuit and donate as funds permit. 4 me such donations are gr8 investment in my nieces future…. if the ADCS lawsuit wins/takes root–eventually in my fantasy world USG will implement RBT.hahahahah …maybe. but I can dream. staywell.staysane. URneeded. BR KRSTL LONDON
Here’s something of interest to everyone. The irony is unbelievable. The EU is trying to collect taxes from Apple, MacDonald’s and Starbucks. The US government objects. “According to the document from the US Treasury, Brussels is taking on the role of a “supranational tax authority” overriding the tax codes of its member countries.” LOL! Can you believe the US hypocrisy!
https://www.rt.com/business/357133-us-tax-probe/
Dr. Stephen Kish is the/a central figure for ADCS, ADCT, and FATCALegalAction lawsuit. Perhaps a statement of reaffirmation may be a way forward to “the troops” in the field.
Magic Moment: Dr. Stephen Kish and others meeting with Senate Finance staffers – in DC – after hundreds of fine submissions to the Senate Finance Bipartisan Workgroup on Tax Reform, with submissions from individuals resident overseas comprising about 3/4 of all submissions (and comprehensive and multimedia submissions from ADCS) ; Stephen indicating that he is serious about it all (and without remedy) there will be a Lawsuit! I imagined it as nothing less than an Arnold Schwarzenegger “I’ll be back!” Or, Clint Eastwood “go ahead make my day.”
It appears now Steven has broken lose from his (US virtual and financial) cage of freedom in Canada, and now is even more free to … …
Would also like updates on all the legal actions as there is more comfort in hearing the wheels of progress than periods of silence.
In Australia we are out to make some “noise.” On the Day Roy Berg presents to the Tax Institute of Australia seminar on superannuation, on US taxation and Australian Superannuation, a new website aimed at the injustices has been launched: http://fixthetaxtreaty.org/
Congratulations to Mr. Kish on his recent renunciation and freedom from tyranny. So many U.S. persons that I know living abroad are now resigned to the fact that the only way to resolve this abhorrent situation, is to renounce, now. After watching the inertia of so-called U.S. representatives in dealing with this outrage and after seeing that neither of the candidates for office really take this too seriously and, like all of the others officials in the U.S., are only interested in domestic issues that affect U.S. citizens, it is clear that nothing will be done. This has gone on for six years already! During six years endless articles, endless letters, endless meetings, papers and lawsuits. Six years later, nothing! No result. The U.S. is not a democracy and today doesn’t even pretend to be a democracy, looking out for what is just and fair. Corruption, pay to play and pay to get justice are the hallmarks of the country and its broken system.
Mr. Kish and others made the right choice and while we all will continue to fight this injustice and fight against being extorted and mistreated, the chances are slim that justice will come. Besides, who in their right mind would want to live in a place that does such things to their own citizens, to people born on their soil? As my wife says, “FATCA was a blessing in disguise, as it brought our attention to the reality of the system and allowed many to get out of it before it was too late.
Congratulations Dr. Kish.
I know I felt a huge surge of relief when I finally relinquished my citizenship, but there was considerable anguish coming to that decision.
I worked with a former Russian national and also someone who came from Red China. Both were able to retain their birth citizenship with no fear of retribution from their former Homelands. Only the USA treats its expats as if they were enemies of the state. In doing so they have lost several million unpaid goodwill ambassadors.
I also congratulate Dr Kish on his newly found freedom. When I renounced I felt a mixture of sadness and relief, but the relief was greater and is self-perpetuating every day I read about the continuing horrors of FATCA. After over 50 years abroad my life continues as before, but without the fears of making ruinous mistakes and without the restraints that extraterritorial American laws have created for its citizens.
Taxation without representation is a sin. It was back in the day America fought against it from Britain and it continues to be so today. One has no voice. There is nothing one can say or do without any clout at all. Those in power will be unmoved.
My question here is : will Dr Kish continue to fight FATCA, and will he even be heard now that he is no longer a US citizen?
mettleman emits a fine epitome: no one really knows what is going on
USCitizenAbroad: Agreed to not shoot self in foot ever. Head maybe sometimes.
Corollary: To mantrize a single “authority” like Miller who propounds one-dimensional comfort is like wrapping up in a lightproof blanket that brings on a darkness capable of creating assurance that all cows are black.
Realists refuse to put up with seeing complexities reduced to stupidities. So do surrealists.
People who must have “answers” will manufacture them if they can’t find them ready-made.
When in doubt, do not act, unless you have no choice. The question then becomes, is it certain that you have no choice? If the tension becomes unbearable, something will snap in some direction. Maybe you did it, and maybe you didn’t.
Pondering the imponderables may best be left to Donald Rumsfeld formerly of the DoD.
Always abominate adhominators.
“Pondering the imponderables may best be left to Donald Rumsfeld formerly of the DoD.”
You mean this Rumsfeld? The one with imponderable tax returns?
https://twitter.com/RumsfeldOffice/status/456156891534483456
Polly, you ask this fair question:
“My question here is: will Dr Kish continue to fight FATCA, and will he even be heard now that he is no longer a US citizen?”
My answer is that my decision to begin the long process of renouncing from U.S. citizenship and U.S. tax-citizenship will not influence or diminish my level of commitment to the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty (the Canadian FATCA IGA enabling legislation lawsuit), the Alliance for the Defeat of Citizenship Taxation (the U.S. CBT lawsuit now in the legal opinion/outline of arguments stage), the U.S. FATCA Jim Bopp lawsuit (of which I am a plaintiff who keeps the attorneys informed of developments), Republicans Overseas (which made the U.S. FATCA lawsuit possible and which I continue to support), and to any other activity that comes along in future that I think could be helpful in defeating FATCA and CBT.
JC, regarding an update on the ADCS Canadian FATCA lawsuit, what I posted on LITIGATION UPDATES is still correct. Our litigators are working on the submission for the Charter-Constitutional trial in Canada Federal Court. Litigation does not move quickly.
I am still in Iceland, on my four day trip, spending the rest of my non-renunciation time being a tourist in this very special country. Thank you all for the kind thoughts.
@usxcanada, re;
“..Realists refuse to put up with seeing complexities reduced to stupidities. So do surrealists…”
The US extraterritorrial CBT regime and everything associated enforcing it is full of “complexities reduced to stupidities”.
For example:
A foreign country “U” declares extraterritorially, (purportedly in aid of fighting money launderers, criminal drug lords and terrorists inside its “U” boundaries), that for example; any child born outside “U” with DNA inherited from only 1 defined qualified “U-born” parent, though the child is living and physically located within the national boundaries of another autonomous country “non-U” and who has never set foot on “U” soil, is governed by “U”‘s foreign extraterritorial laws, which have declared the “non-U born” child’s local “non-U” education savings account created by, funded by and legally controlled by a “foreign” “non-U” adult parent and located on “non-U” soil, is a legitimate “U” government target for confiscatory extraterritorial penalties by “U” based on the local savings account’s “foreign” location, despite the “non-U”account, the “non-U”adult signatory, and the beneficiary child born and located in “non-U”all being clearly and indisputedly outside of “U”‘s national boundaries and jurisdiction. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of “U” absurdly uses an internet webpage to direct such a child – located outside of “U”, who cannot read, and does not have access to the internet, to independently of any adult, obtain banking information, complete and submit meaningless information and identify a numerical value which they are not developmentally competent to do (“highest account balance on any one day in the year” data) – which the non-“U” bank does not collect or report on and which bears no meaningful relationship to either local tax laws or “U”‘s tax system).
The result if said child born, located in and citizen of a “non-U” country fails in the mission “U” has set them without their knowledge or comprehension? Threat of “U” confiscation of said “non-U” education savings by an arm of the “U” foreign government based on the onetime long ago “U” birthplace of one of the child’s parents – who has resided – and still resides – in “non-U” for decades or more.
“complexities reduced to stupidities” are why we find ourselves here.
“Compliance” in US parlance means one must accept the following US Treasury principles (and many others from the same book) – despite being currently or even permanently located outside of US national boundaries:
“Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 5)
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)”
“Well, in our country,” said Alice, still panting a little, “you’d generally get to somewhere else — if you ran very fast for a long time, as we’ve been doing.”
“A slow sort of country!” said the Queen. “Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 2)
http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/resources/chapters-script/alice-in-wonderland-quotes/
Love the Alice quotes, Badger. They are SO appropriate!
@Badger
Love your comment with the Alice in Wonderland quotes – that is one for the ages.
This is August 2016. Five years ago at this time (August 2011) Obama’s IRS with the help of the media and the “Cross Border Compliance Condors” were terrorizing American citizens in Canada with threats of confiscating their retirement savings – all for the failure to file FBAR and it’s ilk.
Even before the phrase “accidental Americans” was coined, in 2011 the IRS was telling those who LIVED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT THEY WERE U.S. CITIZENS THAT THEY WERE COULD COME INTO COMPLIANCE THROUGH OVDI BY PAYING ONLY 5% OF THEIR ASSETS AS A PENALTY. For those who don’t believe it (and I suspect there are more than a few) check this out.
http://www.steptoe.com/publications/2011_20OVDI_20FAQs.pdf
See FAQ 52. Note that this predates Streamlined. But, it demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt what the U.S. Government is capable of. The ONLY reason they stopped is because their tactics were being exposed. But, the role of the media and the legal profession (they put people into these programs) cannot be overlooked.
Very few of the people reading these blogs today have any awareness of what was happening. I know that you were around during that time and want to thank you for your incredible comments, insight and wisdom through the years. I have no doubt that you PERSONALLY have made a big difference in the lives of the many who were/are too frightened to comment publicly.
I would like to make some observations and ask you a few questions.
First, my observations.
1. The people who have tried the hardest to “do the right thing” (comply, comply, comply) have had their lives destroyed (well at least many of them). Imagine entering OVDI. Imagine entering OVDI when you had relinquished U.S. citizenship in the 70s and were told by your friendly tax professional that he was CERTAIN that you had to “pay off” just because you didn’t have a CLN (when one was never required). But, I digress …
2. I say “many” because, my impression is that the result that people get was a function of the quality of the professional advice they got. When people are afraid they wanted certainty. Well, the only thing that is certain is the U.S. government will take your money.
3. There are a number of areas of uncertainty (see previous USXCanada comments – S. 877A retroactivity, etc.
4. There are a number of people and professionals who seem to take the position: Well, we don’t know for sure, so let’s be careful and take the position that is most advantageous to the IRS and worst for us. … Yes, these are the advisors talking (what are they being paid for anyway?) Let’s call this the “over compliance” vs. “defensible compliance problem”.
4. The people who have made no effort to comply have lived their lives without damage. They don’t carry with them the bitterness and anger that the wealth amputation that accompanies compliance causes.
5. It seems to me that (assuming you can even figure out what the rules are) you can obey the rules and life in the prison of “citizenship taxation” or you can not obey the rules and live your life with fear. Therefore, the problem seems to me to be more about the fact that you have a U.S. birthplace than about anything else. Anybody with a U.S. birthplace living outside the United States will live somewhere between anger and fear.
6. You can’t change your U.S. birthplace.
So, my question to you is this:
Moving beyond questions like …
– are the 877A rules retroactive
– what constitutes non-wilfullness under streamlined
– is a TFSA a “Foreign Trust”?
– is the “Exit Tax” imposed by the USA more punitive than the “Exit Taxes” imposed by the NAZI’s and the Soviets?
– what exactly is “reasonable cause”, etc ….
What if anything, should anybody do? It seems to me that the ONLY thing act that has any value is renunciation. Is there anything else that any sane person can do? Should they just forget about and live their lives? At some point, people do need (it seems to me) to get on with what is left of their lives.
Sometimes bad things (a U.S. place of birth and bad professional advice) happen to good people.
Look at it this way. You are getting a “ring side seat” to what is going to happen to those flag waving Homelanders.
First, it is scary how well those Alice in Wonderland quotes fit our situation.
NO. All roads do NOT lead to renunciation. While that may be the best option, that road is not open to everyone.
If banks are requiring US persons to provide a CLN to maintain their banking privliges then one must go through what ever process the IRS concocts to get the CLN, what the US law actually requires not withstanding.
For many, that means they must undergo a journey that they are unfit and unequiped for. That road is closed.
If they are a US citizen under the rules accepted by the reast of the world, their road leads to loss of passport and thus loss of all they have in their countries of residence as they must then either return to the US or continue living illegally in their tries of residence.
At least for one, his road led to suicide.
For us, all roads lead to loss. Loss of citizenship. Loss of massive amounts of time. Loss of massive amounts of money. Loss of unhealthy amounts of sleep. Loss of massive amounts of Life Credits. Loss of family. Loss of home. Loss of employment. Loss of the ability to live as we see fit. Loss of the ability to live as our neighbors. Loss of the ability to live as our familiesback in the States. Loss of our ability to live as our families outside the States. Loss of peace.
All roads lead to loss.
@Japan T
I would like to understand your comment better. The U.S. Japan FATCA IGA clearly allows a self-certification of not being a U.S. person. Are you saying this is not possible?