Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

The Isaac Brock Society

Posted on by Posted in Ethics, Issues regarding US persons abroad, Law & Morality 170 Comments

UPDATED WED APRIL 26

videos are posted at youtube

ONLY PLACE TO GET AUDIO FEED AT THIS LINK

FATCA HEARING HERE

 
bitch bean

As Ms. Bean testifies to the insignificance of #Americansabroad, Dani’s uniform and passport are to her right. Yes, those of us abroad, only 4300 renouncing vs 730,000 coming in, simply do not matter. Noticeable large errors regarding foreign countries supposedly taxing their citizens when they leave (that is not what CRS is); not getting it clear that OVDI is the source of the collection, starting in 2009, before FATCA was even signed; US banks do not like FATCA, they don’t want to report like foreign banks required. Maybe someone should explain to Ms. Bean that Hillary was the shield of the other 47,500 that were not turned over.
 
 
Before adjourning, Mr. Meadows has asked each witness to come up with 3 ways revisions could be made that would address the issues heard about today. While we all want FATCA repealed, maybe for the sake of compromise, we could at least try the same……………….
****************************************************
Updates April 25, 2017!!
 
TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES FOR TOMORROW’S HEARING ARE HERE
 

VIDEO TESTIMONY OF DONNA-LANE NELSON

REVIEWING THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE FOREIGN ACCOUNT TAX COMPLIANCE ACT
Subcommittee on Government Operations
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
HEARING DATE: APRIL 26, 2017 2:00 PM 2154 RHOB

PURPOSE:

To examine the effects of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) on the U.S. and international economy, as well as potential legislative remedies.
BACKGROUND:

Signed into law in 2010, FATCA requires non-U.S. financial institutions to report assets and identities of U.S. citizens with non-U.S. financial accounts to the Internal Revenue Service.
As a result, many foreign banks have stopped serving U.S. citizens, and record numbers of Americans have renounced their citizenship.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and five expatriates filed a lawsuit claiming FATCA constitutes an unconstitutional breach of privacy, as well as an illegal treaty

WITNESSES AND TESTIMONIES

Name Title Organization Panel Document
The Honorable Rand PaulU.S. Senator State of Kentucky
Mr. James Bopp, Jr. Attorney The Bopp Law Firm, PC
Mr. Mark Crawford Director AKSIONER International Security Brokerage
Mr. Daniel Kuettel Former U.S. citizen living in Switzerland who renounced his U.S. citizenship due to FATCA
Ms. Elise Bean Washington Co-Director Levin Center at Wayne Law Wayne State University
 
 

Updates April 23, 2017!!

The Democrats have selected Carl Levin Protege, Professor Elise Bean, as their witness in support of FATCA. Professor Bean is an interesting choice given that the focus of the hearing, in its plain terms is:

REVIEWING THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE FOREIGN ACCOUNT TAX COMPLIANCE ACT

It seems to me that Professor Bean might be a much better witness if the hearing were for the purpose of:

CELEBRATING THE INTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE FOREIGN ACCOUNT TAX COMPLIANCE ACT

To glean some insight into the perspective of Professor Bean, read the account of her March 30 meeting in Washington with PANA committee of the European Parliament. In explaining the superiority of the U.S. approach to penalties and enforcement she noted:

Bean agreed with MEPs that the US is in a more advanced position than the EU when it comes to penalties and enforcement.

“On improving enforcement, there are three things you can do in the EU,” she said. “The first is to increase your fines – your fines at the moment are a fraction of what the banks are earning. Secondly, you should require that the company or bank admits liability. This opens the door for class action lawsuits. Thirdly, make sure that the fines are not tax-deductible. Taxpayers end up paying more than big banks when the fines are tax-deductible.

“In the US, we also use monitors on compliance. We have a monitor who will monitor the institution for a period of two years to ensure that the required changes are actually made. Make the banks pay for their own monitoring.”

Bean also informed the European delegation that there will be tax justice demonstrations taking place in Washington and 60 cities across the US on April 15. The protests will demand Trump releases his tax returns but will also call for ending deferral of corporate taxes and for action on shell companies, she said.

Professor Bean is a colleague of Professor Linda Beale of Wayne State Law School. Professor – through her own writings – is NOT sympathetic to problems of taxation-based citizenship and Americans abroad. She has distinguished herself as one who fundamentally believes that everybody with an undisclosed “offshore bank account” is (to use her words) a “scofflaw“. The professor, as well as a professor of tax law, is apparently also an expert in investing and diversification of assets as evidence by the following gem:

Now, there are at least two interesting things about the Romney’s stashing $3 million in a very low yield Swiss bank account.

1) There are better things to do with money. Even if you don’t mind a low return, you could hold that money in the US–helps the US economy more than in a Swiss bank, and is easily available without the transaction costs of getting it out of your secret Swiss bank account. Why would the Romney’s have a Swiss bank account with a very low yield? The Romney spokesperson says “diversification” but that doesn’t hold water. Makes one wonder where this money came from and certainly why it ended up in a Swiss bank.

In 2012, Professor Linda Beale introduced herself to the Isaac Brock Society in a thread which is referenced in the following tweet:

Professor Beale is a living, breathing argument for why it has become impossible for Americans abroad to retain U.S. citizenship and one of the reasons why:

________________________________________________________________________

And now back to our originally schedule broadcast …

Q. What do Ronald Reagan and Heidi have in common?

A. They both became disillusioned with the Democratic Party

When questioned about this, Mr. Reagan noted (referring to the period in his life when he was a Democrat) that:

1. He thought many foolish things in those days; and

2. In any case, he had not really left the Democratic Party. Rather the party had left him.

Heidi writes:

@FredB

“Speaking of which my personal politics are being completely turned on their head, and I am in danger of turning into a former Democrat even before I turn into a former American. Because even though most of what the Republicans stand for makes me shake my head, the only ones who have caused me harm personally are the Democrats.”

This is also the road I have travelled, from a liberal minded, east coast, physician to a renounced EX American who would rather see anyone in the White house rather than the likes of the Clinton democratic mindset.

But honestly , does it matter what the social policies of the US are anymore? We don’t live there, our concerns should be just about their fiscal policies and the effects on US citizens abroad.

I am no longer an American . My concerns now are for my own country and their policies. If you are settled abroad in your other citizenship, then does it matter if you have second thoughts about being ‘their form” of an American Democrat? You can still be a Democratic socialist or whatever in your resident country. Let America go, it is an abusive partner in your life. Hoping for it to change doesn’t work

And now, an advertisement from Democrats Abroad …


Sad but true. The Democrats Abroad AKA “The Stepford Wives” have once again conveyed the message (reminding me of a Democrat president):

“Let every Expat know, whether he wishes us well or ill, that Democrats shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of FATCA and Taxation-based citizenship.”

Yup, #YouCantMakeThisUp

For years and years the Democrats have made it clear that they fully support FATCA and taxation-based citizenship. One would think that they would keep their sentiments quiet. Yet, once again they have broadcasted their hatred of Americans abroad to the world.

It reminds me a bit of a teacher I once had who reminded me that:

“Sometimes it’s better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

Yet, that’s what those “Stepford Wives” have done, yet again. Brace yourself, after publicly condemning the Bopp/Republicans Overseas FATCA lawsuit, after failing to directly call for a move to “residence-based taxation” in it’s submission to the Senate Finance Committee, after arguing for FATCA Same Country Exemption (which would benefit only tax compliant Homelanders Abroad and support a U.S. FATCA attack on their own countries of residence), on the eve of the April 26/17 FATCA hearings in Washington, DC, they have once again confirmed their total and absolute hatred of Americans abroad and their support of FATCA.

Here it is, straight from the Donkey’s mouth:

In light of the annual IRS deadline, we’ve been receiving a lot of questions about DA’s advocacy on filing issues for overseas Americans. Why not support Rand Paul’s proposal to eliminate FATCA entirely?

From our late 2016 FATCA FAQs:

Republicans say they want to repeal FATCA. Why won’t Democrats Abroad join their campaign to repeal FATCA?

Democrats Abroad supports policy that cracks down on illegal tax avoidance. When some taxpayers break the law by hiding assessable earnings from the IRS in offshore accounts it increases the burden for the rest of us. For many decades those with access to elite financial structures and schemes have been using offshore accounts in bank/tax secrecy jurisdictions to become even richer. Nations throughout the world have determined to bring this practice to an end and Democrats Abroad believes that is a good thing. Democrats Abroad supports the policy initiative behind FATCA. We also think FATCA can be fixed to remove the unintended adverse impacts it has on law-abiding Americans abroad.

In January 2014 the Republican National Committee (RNC) passed a resolution calling for the repeal of FATCA. While the resolution made it look like repealing FATCA would be Republican Party policy, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives did not introduce a bill calling for FATCA to be repealed in all of 2014. A bill calling for the repeal of parts of FATCA was reintroduced in the Senate by Senator Rand Paul in March 2015. It has one co-sponsor and a 1% chance of being enacted.

The RNC and Republicans Overseas, the organization formed in 2013 by members of the RNC to cultivate the overseas vote for Republicans, has been very open about their strategy of exploiting the anger and upset around FATCA to raise money and build support for Republican candidates amongst Americans living abroad.

Republicans Overseas has admitted that it sees FATCA as a political tactic for activating a ground game to attract overseas voters. If FATCA had been repealed by Congress before 2016, the Republicans would lose this wedge issue in the 2016 campaign. Republicans ran in the 2014 midterm elections on a pledge to repeal FATCA as soon as they won control of the Senate. They
have had control of both houses for two years but a repeal bill to mirror Sen Paul’s bill has not as yet been introduced in the House. And why would it? The GOP can use the promise of a FATCA repeal to take into its campaigns for Congress and the White House. We understand that FATCA hearings may be planned for the months leading up to election day – an opportunity to make the case for repeal. We are putting ourselves forward for inclusion on the witness list for a House hearing on FATCA should one be scheduled for this year.

There is a global context for this question as well. By 2017 FATCA will have been in place for more than three years and be well entrenched in the compliance practices of international banks and brokerage houses. In addition, in 2017 the “global FATCA” will start to come online with the commencement of financial account reporting by at least 80 countries under the OECD Common Reporting Standards. By that time international financial account transparency and disclosure will be a given and the global crackdown on illegal tax avoidance will be very difficult for Republicans to arrest.

Is this for real? Rather than defend their FATCA Attack On Americans Abroad, they are attacking those Republicans who support FATCA repeal. Yes, yes, bring it on!!

Don’t forget that the Obama Treasury (you know the “Change You Can Believe In” – Hopey Changey Guy”) refused to to accept Same Country Exemption confirming its attack on Americans abroad.

Now, back to the April 26, 2017 FATCA hearings in Washington, DC (resulting from the FATCA repeal legislation proposed by Congressman Mark Meadows and Senator Rand Paul). Although these were not organized by the Democrats, they apparently will have witness(es) in attendance who will defend FATCA. This is good, because instead of attacking and condemning the Republicans (the current justification of their focus on FATCA retention), they will (presumably) be forced to explain why FATCA is so desirable. Rumour is that there will be a way to witness this spectacle live online!! Yes live online!!

Check back and the link to the link to the proceedings where there will be a hearing into FATCA (including the harm done to Americans abroad). This spectacle should NOT be missed. You will see that those who oppose FATCA (a broad range of people) and those who support FATCA (the Democrats) providing evidence and discussion.

But, the FATCA hearings aside …

The great “genius” of “Democracy in America” is that it is dominated by two private clubs. These private clubs are the Democratic and Republican parties. This party dominated process brought us “The Donald” who was chosen in spite of the Republican Party and “Crooked Hillary Clinton” who was chosen BECAUSE of the DNC.

In other words, the Democratic Party will not be going away in the immediate future.

Democrats Abroad (which is probably a group of Homelanders) is here to stay and here to continue one of the core missions of the Democratic Party:

The Democratic Party wants to destroy Americans abroad.

And the lesson from this is:

170 thoughts on “Those @Demsabroad reiterate their support of #FATCA! Tune in April 26/17 to see how! – Updated April 23/17”

  1. @badger
    Noticed that. He also said CRS reports according to citizenship.
    Also mixed up tax avoidance (legal though loopholes he helps write) and tax evasion. Total confusion of terminology; if asked would answer he is a company and not a human (maybe he is?).

  2. Connolly with that ‘benefits’ rationalization again. And the obfuscation by claiming that 55,000. in an OVD program brought in primarily willfully evaded taxes, interest and penalties owed, rather than mostly raking in confiscatory and draconian FBAR and the in lieu of penalties.

    The CRS does not require reporting based on citizenship, but on tax residence. And, it is willful to neglect to mention that the US has NOT equivalently reciprocated under FATCA and has not signed on to the CRS.

  3. @UnforgivenToo, the ignorance is unbelievable and unbearable. I’m stewing already and I haven’t even gotten very far in – only to be greeted by the same old inaccurate partisan ill informed navel gazing BS surfacing within the first few minutes of the first CBT/FATCA supporter’s presentation.

  4. @badger

    Seems to me it wouldn’t be in the Republican’s best interest to mention the reciprocity issue as they are the ones essentially blocking it, just as no one has mentioned how FATCA is an attack on resident American’s constitutional rights by disclosing their foreign bank accounts without probable cause.

  5. Just finished watching the hearing again and somehow the video is sharper than when I viewed the live stream. Now I can read those nameplates. My computer was acting sluggish before so maybe that was the problem. BTW, Mr. Hice, vice chair, did well too. He brought up the dicey constitutionality of FATCA.

  6. The presentation by Bopp and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit were excellent and detailed the need to repeal FATCA and FBAR ( especially Bopp’s testimony) ( his written submission is excellent and in more detail than a five minute testimony can provide) and yet it was powerful and to the point.
    So was Senator Pauls. Taken as a whole the testimony of all those opposing FATCA were powerful and in the case of the lady on video, very moving. Which brings me to the point which was not discussed in any detail is the cost to renounce outside the emotional toll. As it stands today, $2350 PLUS exit taxes!! One is taxed on everything owned as though it was sold and liquidated. This can be a VERY costly exercise, which should, if detailed, emphasize the utter desperate nature renouncing entails.

  7. Bean claims FATCA ‘levels the playing field between Americans opening accounts in the US and those opening accounts ‘overseas’. Right. In fact FATCA and FBAR creates further differences and further exacerbates the ways in which we are being treated differently and punitively – while paying all local taxes and holding local legal ordinary accounts which our local government already oversees. Even though I’ve relinquished and live OUTSIDE the US and am no longer a US citizentaxableindenturedserf, now my local Canadian bank might potentially demand I produce a CLN – BECAUSE of my US birthplace if they were to come to know of it. No American citizen or American resident is going to have to do something as invasive as that for their local accounts.

    Bean knows better, so it has to be a WILLFUL choice to obfuscate.

  8. @badger
    Connelly is lost, but that Bean KNOWS, she is just so full of hate she doesn’t care what the truth is.
    Interesting that our side always answered every question and their side avoided a straight answer where possible and were dumb enough to get caught out testifying under oath that they were collecting in John Doe bulk where a individual subpoena is required for US accounts.
    Anyone catch a straight up lie? There has to be one in Bean’s blabbering.

  9. You’re right, badger. Do ALL US politicians get it that the US exceptionally taxes based on citizenship while the countries of the rest of the world, save Eritrea, tax based on residence? It seems apparent that they weren’t educated any better than I was by my basic US education in understanding CBT and its consequences for those abroad. Why is this not part of the discussion? Seems like a fair, common sense start of remedy for many of the existing problems if some want some negotiation from both sides.

    For me, for my family, for many others, it all boils down to what they continue to not touch upon – CBT. The US, with lacking critical thinking skills of its government leaders, continues to think itself exceptional even in how *they* define the US is to be treated under the new world-wide OECD AEOI CRS, i.e. for the US based on CBT, using FATCA in the mix (not based on tax residency like all other countries).

    This congressional hearing, as others, has not touched on problems for *Accidental Americans* who, unlike Homelanders Abroad, do NOT consider the US their homeland and do not have any plans to return to that homeland as all of these politicians seem to think all US-deemed US citizens want to do. I sympathize with those who want to throw up at having to renounce their US citizenship — I can understand that reaction of US Homelanders who have every intention of the right of eventual return to the US.

    That was not my reaction after my *official* renunciation of US citizenship and it would not be my reaction should my adult son be somehow released by renunciation — released from the absurdity of all of this when not even discussion of change to RBT, the most common-sense, to me, solution. All some of us want is to be left alone as ONLY citizens of other countries beyond the USA, with no barriers like the high costs of renunciation of US citizenship (given requisite mental capacity) or the costs and complexity of otherwise ongoing US tax and reporting compliance.

  10. Love that suggestion that the 1099 having everything FATCA has. There’d be a revolution within a month.

  11. @FuriousAC, they don’t care what the cost is and to who. They cling tight to their skewed worldview and since it is working for them in their US fishbowl, that is all that matters. They won’t let facts or fairness or ethics get in the way.

  12. @calgary, I’d really like just once to see someone actually pin down the FATCAnatics and the FBARites on the actual costs for families like yours, individuals like your son, and the unfairness of denying any remedy for minors and those deemed legally incompetent and thus unable to ever renounce.

    I want to see them forced to answer what minors and those deemed incompetent owe in terms of a ‘fair share’ to the US which FATCAs and FBARs them – and would eat away at their legal local education and disability grants and savings by defining them as taxable ‘foreign’ trusts and income taxable by the US – solely on the basis of a birthplace or parentage.

    The FATCAnatics are cowardly – they will never admit that their laws and their policies and their actions are hurting minors, those with disabilities, ordinary individuals and families living outside the US. And that they deny some even the painful remedy of renunciation.

    Why won’t someone hold a hearing into that? I want to see the CBT defenders like Michael Kirsch, and the FATCApologists and FATCAnatics like Elise Bean, Richard ‘Dick’ Harvey, Gerry Connolly etc. present a defense for what we all know about how the US is penalizing children and those with disabilities in order to pursue their obsession.

  13. If there was ever any question, today’s hearing confirmed that FATCA and CBT are not about taxes. They are about punishment.

    It was great to see Professor Bean’s face turn red when Congressman Meadows so skillfully outed a couple of her blatant lies. I think her flush was in anger at being called out for her sleaziness–and not from embarrassment.

    It is clear Bean, Connoly and others consider us terrorist financiers in cahoots with our local banks to hide all our criminal activity.

    I think banks around the world will be quite surprised to learn one of the reasons FATCA should not be repealed is because of how much money they have already spent. Of course, many of us have believed since the early days that one of the real objectives of FATCA is to make American banks more competitive than “foreign” ones. Professor Bean confirmed it.

    I have been telling my sister for years that FATCA is just one small step. I have predicted the next step will be a domestic DATCA. Again, that is what Bean and others are advocating.

    Will anything get better? I’m skeptical. But it could get worse. You heard Bean. She doesn’t want to bother with a pesky little thing like a subpoena when there is an easier way to grab information that should be private.

  14. Hi Blaze,
    Were you the wind in Elizabeth Thompson’s sails when she wrote her latest article for CBC? I wanted to comment there but I couldn’t get over their signup hurdles.

  15. Ms. Bean showed herself to be a true globalist communist who wants to be in control of every financial transaction in the world. There is never enough control for such people.

    Just the fact that someone as totalitarian-minded as her was in government is enough to justify renouncing US citizenship.

    I think she hates expats even more than Robert Stack.

  16. @EmBee I spoke to Elizabeth last week but I was not the wind in her sails for that article. She made the FOI request to IRS and phoned me after she received the info.

    Elizabeth watched the Hearing today. I don’t know what her plans are for reporting on it.

  18. CBT! CBT! CBT! The rest of this discussion is just noise. My feeling is this all misses the point. We do now however, know who are our friends and who is not.
    Damn, I wish I had married someone from any other country! Sorry, good people.

  20. Is this archived somewhere?

    Could the meme that I believe Meadows said re one person renouncing is too many be carried to the drive to adopt RBT or TBT?

    After all, as much as FATCA is causing people to renounce, FATCA repeal will not slow the renunciations.

  21. Good enough, Blaze. She keeps putting out first-rate FATCA facts and that’s the main thing. I hope the hearing has inspired more.

  22. Even Connally said that no one should have to be up their US citizenship. Unprecedented numbers of Americans are renouncing because of CBT. Does that count?

  24. Listening to the replay now. Connolly makes me want to vomit. He is so misconstruing the entire situation on so many levels.

  25. Reading through all the comments above, reminds me of earlier days when we were watching the Conservative government make statements in the hopes they would utter something encouraging and hopeful. ( not a chance) There was however, and often, mention of “adhering to OECD requirements” ( that sent me in search of just what those “requirements” were ( and are).
    Alex Newman wrote articles at the time that were very helpful. They were published at the New American He had a lot to say with links attached about FATCA and the OECD and just what was afoot regarding all this talk of FATCA , etc. ( this is back in 2014 when we actually thought we had a chance our government would tell the US to go pound sand. Of course watching the Senate Finance Committee shattered any ideas they would have a spine and tell the US off.
    Reading through Alex’s articles I clicked through on a link to the OECD and the meetings at the UN about what they were planning. At the time the entire thing was up on the Internet and they were boasting that once FATCA was implemented it was a short step to implementing GATCA
    GLOBAL tax “compliance” was and is their goal and they were quite open to their ultimate goal.
    “We intend to get the information from every individual and business, large and small, in the entire world. We will have the information we need to implement without anyone being able to stop us, a minimum 15% tax on every individual and business on the planet. ” and that was just the beginning of their intended theft. You could actually visualize them rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect.
    The ultimate goal in this information gathering IS to find out where the money is so they can take it. And they intend to do just that. Common Reporting Standards is just another word for theft. And they do not intend to stop at 15% and said so.
    I wonder who will get to the money first. The globalist bankers who have done a good job of ‘disappearing’ over 500 Trillion dollars so far out of banks and countries around the world.
    Out of many millions of pockets into theirs.
    “Theirs” being the banking interests of about 5 families in the world. Wonder if the UN thinks they are going to let them get away with it.
    Knowing thieves and thugs as we have come to know them during this FATCA mess, I think we can count on them to fight over it !!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: