Last week a U.S. appeals court confirmed an earlier judgment that the plaintiffs “lack standing” in their case against FATCA. I thought this news deserved its own post.
In response, Republicans Overseas has declared its firm intentions to prosecute this matter all the way to the Supreme court.
This might not seem relevant but there’s another issue which affects my personal freedom, privacy and well-being. It’s the installation of smart meters. I thought this was a local and at most a regional issue but smart metering goes beyond that, beyond any given country even. It is a worldwide agenda and I think that makes it a national sovereignty threat, much like FATCA. I don’t know if this video which is focused on smart metering contains anything that could be applied to the fight against FATCA and perhaps even US CBT but I offer it on the off-chance that it may be of some interest at least. It certainly presented a different perspective on how I thought the judicial system works. Take what you will from it. I’m now wondering if a “Notice of Liability” could be a tool used to undermine FATCA.
https://InPowerMovement.com
@ Admin — If this is too irrelevant please feel free to delete.
“the quotation shows the court saying that plaintiffs do not challenge the ordinary penalty at all.”
Excessive-fines challenges against the $10,000 FBAR non-wilful penalty seem to have been largely forestalled by providing ways to avoid it (i.e. the delinquent FBAR filing procedure, the Streamlined procedures, and the mitigation guidelines).
From a paywalled article linked in its entirety on American Expatriates FB page:
“The Republican Overseas Action Inc., a group whose members are among the plaintiffs, said in a statement Friday that the plaintiffs should have standing under the same theory that women seeking abortions had standing in Roe v. Wade.”
Ironic, no?
https://www.law360.com/corporate/articles/959953
Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus (the three cases cited by Bopp in the FATCA case) are all to do with abortion rights.
Maybe Bopp sees a parallel with FATCA, and thinks a win in the FATCA case (if only on the standing issue) would set a precedent which could be helpful in future cases challenging abortion law.
Is FATCA live or is it an abortion?
I would love for CBT to be aborted because it is so out-of-step with international norms that it could be described as being a perverted aberration. If CBT was aborted and RBT was adopted then FATCA would become irrelevant to “US persons” residing outside US borders. CRS would march on but those who keep their assets within the country in which they reside and pay taxes there would not be subject to CRS scrutiny, if I understand it correctly.
aberration: “The noun aberration often refers to something that doesn’t fit with current moral standards, or is something that shows a mental lack of control.”
“ALL ROADS LEAD TO RENUNCIATION”
There it is AGAIN. FOR one last time, would one of you cheerleaders for renunciation teach us what to do when that road is BLOCKED!?
“@Kelly
“I actually agree with what Original George said about a “reciprocal” tax on a country’s citizens who live in the US at the same rate that a US citizen living in their country would have to pay ”
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Surely the ones who would suffer are the ordinary folk such as we were/are, and the ones who would benefit would be the compliance industry.
The US Gov would lose very little it would not make an impact.”
Not about wrong or right. The US has embarked upon finacial warfare. Either other countries have their treasuries drained to pay for the benifits of US homelanders or the fight back.
Ignoring the threat brings the 30% noncompliance fee on US derived earnings. Reciprocating hits the very people who either support this or do not care enough to fight it, US homelanders who decend form immigrants from these countries who benifit form Homeland social programs.
I fully support the effort to force Japanese nisei IN THE US to comply with Japanese versions of FBAR and FATCA. Why should Japanese living in Japan have to help support Japanese nisei living in the US if the Japanese citizen has spent time in the US but the Japanese nisei living in the homeland not have to support those who support them from abroad?
@USCitizenAbroad says
“Apart from being a source of easy income, FATCA is also a very intrusive surveillance tool, allowing the U.S. to gather financial data on millions of people, all over the world and get the other country to foot the bill for espionage carried out in another country and often against their own citizens and siphoning funds out of the other economy. For the U.S. that is an arrangement too good to be true and they won’t drop that without a big fight.
Yes and it’s important to note the any U.S. citizen living outside the USA is being “used” by the U.S. Government to accomplish this purpose. U.S. citizens who live in other countries have become “Trojan Horse Soldiers” who are used against their countries of residence. Note that it is “citizenship-based taxation” that allows the U.S. to us it’s citizens in this way.
Put it another way: The U.S. Government is using U.S. citizens as instruments of “foreign policy”.
Without FATCA repeal, other countries can protect themselves only by “ridding the country of U.S. citizens”. What you are likely to see is the following progression:
First, not allow U.S. citizens to immigrate to the country.
Second, deport those residents who are ONLY U.S. citizens.
Third, force dual citizens to renounce U.S. citizenship.
Fourth, strip those duals who will NOT renounce U.S. citizenship from their primary citizenship and then (once they are ONLY U.S. citizens) deport them.
No, this won’t happen overnight. But, it is likely to happen gradually.”
I agree 100% and have posted similar thoughts here in the past. “Rubbish” I think was one response.
“I would love for CBT to be aborted because it is so out-of-step with international norms that it could be described as being a perverted aberration.”
Yes CBT is an aberration globally but unfortunately not an aberration in the context of US law.
“CRS would march on but those who keep their assets within the country in which they reside and pay taxes there would not be subject to CRS scrutiny, if I understand it correctly.”
I believe banks in a CRS country report accounts to the local tax agency if the accountholder is tax-resident in any other country. And the tax agency then distributes the reports to those countries it has a bi-lateral CRS agreement with.
So if CBT were to be abolished, USC-held ordinary local accounts in Canada or wherever would no longer get reported to e.g. the CRA, provided the accountholder was tax-resident only in Canada.
But if the accountholder was tax-resident in both Canada and the US, Canadian banks would still report the account to the CRA. The CRA wouldn’t send the report to the US unless the US signed up to CRS and negotiated a bi-lateral CRS agreement with Canada.
Republicans Overseas has released this press release below regarding contesting the FATCA etc. court decision.
[Wikipedia says: “In law, an en banc session (French for “in bench”) is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court (before the entire bench) rather than by a panel of judges selected from them.”]
Plaintiffs in FATCA Challenge Seek En Banc Rehearing
Plaintiffs in Crawford, et al. vs. US Department of Treasury, et al. have filed a filed a Petition for En Banc Rehearing in their fight against the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) and related provisions after the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower district court’s ruling that none of the plaintiffs had standing, i.e., sufficient harm to bring a challenge.
Plaintiffs believes consideration by the full court is necessary because the Sixth Circuit decision conflicts with two United States Supreme Court decisions—Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus (“SBA”) and Roe v. Wade.
First, the Sixth Circuit has employed a very restrictive view of standing—requiring a certain threat of prosecution to establish standing. But SBA recognized standing where there is “an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest and . . . there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (2014). Here, Plaintiffs have a “credible threat of prosecution,” which, under SBA, exists where a statute proscribes an activity one has done or intends to do and there is no evidence the statute is no longer enforced. Thus, Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the law.
Next, the Sixth Circuit attempts to evade Roe, which stands for the legal doctrine that coercion against a third party gives a person affected by that coercion standing to challenge the law causing the coercion even if the burdens and/or penalties of the law don’t directly apply to the person asserting standing. So just as coercion against physicians who performed abortions gives standing to women denied an abortion by those physicians because of the coercion, also coercion against foreign financial institutions gives standing to persons denied financial services by those foreign financial institutions because of the coercion. So, Plaintiffs have standing under Roe and the Sixth Circuit should reverse its decision.
James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the plaintiffs challenging FATCA and related provisions comments as follows: “Numerous Americans overseas are suffering serious difficulties in getting basic banking services where they live as a result of FATCA, as documented by a Democrats Abroad study, yet a panel of the Sixth Circuit says they have no harm. It does so by using erroneous standards that conflict with key U.S. Supreme Court cases. So we are asking the whole Sixth Circuit to examine the case and correct the panel’s errors. We hope that the whole Sixth Circuit will follow controlling Supreme Court precedents.
@Japan T
Thank you for reminding me of that comment. If the Isaac Brock Society is here in 10 years, people will no longer be talking about renunciations. They will be talking about the the number of deportations of U.S. citizens.
The only real issue is whether these inevitable deportations are conducted in a humane way or whether there will be some brutality involved.
One point that (I forget) I would add is this:
Under U.S. law (the standard to which all other laws should aspire), if a Green Card holder is deported (which is a very normal thing), the law (in its fairness) would subject the deportee to the S. 877A Exit Tax (virtually stripping the person of his assets).
(Now before the “nitpickers” come in: Yes, I do understand that this would apply ONLY to Green Card Holders who have lived had the Green Card for 8 or more years.)
Therefore, I suspect that the deportation of a U.S. citizen would/should include stripping them of their assets. After all. Fair is fair! If the U.S. subjects deportees to an Exit Tax, then U.S. citizens who are deported should also be subjected to an Exit Tax. Why should they be allowed to leave with their money?
“Exit Taxes”: The American (or at least the Democrats) Way.
You don’t have to be a deported greencard holder to be hit with the exit tax. If you are a card holder who leaves the US, then you must either continue to file tax and info returns on all worldwide assets and possibly pay taxes on them OR pay the exit tax to free yourself from the obligation.
On whether it is done humanely or brutally, that will probably depend on a lot of factors. Those who just give up and leave early on will probably be treated more humanely than those of us who intend to stay in our adopted homes. It would probably also depend how much time our host countries have before they suffer a huge financial hit due to our continued presence.
But even the least brutal would be hardly humane. Hard to call the separation of families humane under any circumstance.
“…we are asking the whole Sixth Circuit to examine the case and correct the panel’s errors.”
Trump has appointed two conservative judges to the Sixth Circuit. Will those recent incomers be fully active participants in the decision whether to grant the petition for an en banc hearing and (if petition granted) the rehearing itself?
Not that long ago I would hope so, now I not so sure it will make much of a difference. A bit of a toss up, I feel.
Do hope to be wrong though.
It seems newly-appointed circuit judges become active immediately.
“By the time of the Halbig decision, Obama had placed four judges on the D.C. court, which shifted its composition to seven Democratic appointees and four Republicans. In light of this realignment, the Obama Administration asked the full D.C. Circuit to vacate the panel’s decision and rehear the Halbig case en banc—that is, with all the court’s active judges participating. The full court promptly agreed with the request, and the decision that would have crippled Obamacare is no longer on the books.”
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/27/obama-brief
This may be a factor in Mr. Bopp’s request. Dare we hope?
“ALL ROADS LEAD TO RENUNCIATION”
‘There it is AGAIN. FOR one last time, would one of you cheerleaders for renunciation teach us what to do when that road is BLOCKED!?’
As mentioned before, I’ve seen a stateless person’s document in an immigration office in Japan.
Buy a litre of oil that came from Iran. This is easy to do in Japan.
Apply to renew your US passport, report your potentially expatriating act, and add that you committed that treasonous act with intention to relinquish US citizenship. This costs around US$100 instead of US$2,350.
‘James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the plaintiffs challenging FATCA and related provisions comments as follows: “Numerous Americans overseas are suffering serious difficulties in getting basic banking services where they live as a result of FATCA, as documented by a Democrats Abroad study,’
Two strikes and we’re nearly out. a DEMOCRATS ABROAD study. Better dig up evidence to support a plank of the Republicans homelander platform in the recent election.
““ALL ROADS LEAD TO RENUNCIATION”
‘There it is AGAIN. FOR one last time, would one of you cheerleaders for renunciation teach us what to do when that road is BLOCKED!?’
As mentioned before, I’ve seen a stateless person’s document in an immigration office in Japan.
Buy a litre of oil that came from Iran. This is easy to do in Japan.
Apply to renew your US passport, report your potentially expatriating act, and add that you committed that treasonous act with intention to relinquish US citizenship. This costs around US$100 instead of US$2,350.”
I’ve bought a fountain pen from Iran and had it delivere to my home here in Japan. Transaction via paypal, so am sure they already have a record of it. Does that count?
“I’ve bought a fountain pen from Iran and had it delivere to my home here in Japan.”
I vote yes. Go for it.
“Transaction via paypal,”
You and PayPal had better never enter the US again.
@ Stephen Kish
“So just as coercion against physicians who performed abortions gives standing to women denied an abortion by those physicians because of the coercion, also coercion against foreign financial institutions gives standing to persons denied financial services by those foreign financial institutions because of the coercion.”
Thanks to that sentence I now understand what Roe Vs. Wade has to do with the FATCA lawsuit. An “en banc” hearing sounds like it would be much better for our side. Mr. Bopp seems to have some clever things up his sleeve and I wish him and all the plaintiffs good luck with getting a rehearing.
Could be a clever way of taking down Roe v Wade.