cross posted from AmericanExpatFinance.com
By Helen Burggraf, Editor – September 08, 2018
A panel discussion that will consider recent and growing efforts to convince U.S. lawmakers to end America’s increasingly-unpopular “citizenship-based” tax regime is set to take place at a venue in the Mayfair district of London, on the 18th of September.
American expats with concerns about the way they are being tax are being invited to the event, which is entitled “What’s next: a light at the end of the tunnel? The possible end of U.S. citizenship-based taxation.”
The discussion will feature Solomon Yue (pictured), the Oregon-based global chief executive of the Republicans Overseas, who has been a long-time and visible campaigner on behalf of expatriate Americans, but the event’s organizers say he will be joined in London by tax, Solomon Yue legal and citizenship experts from across the political spectrum.
Some tax experts who are determinedly non-political, including at least one non-American, will also participate, the event’s organizers, an un-affiliated group of individuals who include some Republican Overseas members, said.
A question-and-answer period will be held at the end.
Last month Yue participated in three similar such events in Toronto, including one that was filmed and posted on YouTube.
This followed an earlier appearance in May in Hong Kong. Yue is set to follow up the London event in coming weeks with similar programs in Paris, Berlin, Frankfurt and Rome, most of which are being sponsored by the respective local chapters of the American Chamber of Commerce.
Among those scheduled to join Yue at the London event will be John Richardson, a Toronto-based lawyer who specializes in citizenship issues, and who is an American-Canadian dual national himself.
He and Yue are also set to participate in another, more informal event on the subject of America’s expat tax regime, also in London, on the 17th of September, at a venue yet to be decided (but probably near Kings Cross Station). More information ******* about this event will be made available in due course, Richardson said.
When: Tuesday 18 September 2018 – 17:30 to 19:00
Where: Central London location – to be confirmed upon RSVP (nearest tube: Westminster)
Venue: To be provided upon RSVP (nearest tube: Westminster)
Cost: Free to attend
RSVP: drewliquerman@gmail.com by 17:00 Monday 17 September 2018
*******
UPDATE – Wednesday Sept 12 2018
Due to unforeseen circumstances, Solomon Yue WILL NOT be able to attend the “grassroots” meeting on Monday, September 17 listed below. John Richardson will run this program as scheduled.
In addition to the meeting mentioned above, we will have a second, more informal program for expats and their families and friends. This format will be a more intimate question and answer session which will be focused on individuals subject to the CBT regime.
When: Monday 17 September 2018 – 19:00 – 21:00
Where: 40 Bernard St, Bloomsbury, London WC1N 1LE, UK- across from Russell Square Station
Venue: Pret a Manger
Cost: FREE
Registration : REQUIRED: nobledreamer16 at gmail dot com by 5 pm (EDT) Saturday 15 September 2018
MAP 
USC, why the personal attack? Don’t you also wish fellow Canadians could more easily rid themselves of unwanted US personhood? TTFI helps save US citizenship but does little for those who don’t want it. Is mentioning such a reality worthy of a supporting or negative reply or no reply? Personally would be honoured to be involved with a group of fellow Canadians focusing on such cause, but until threat is more eminent, Canadian US persons will remain complacent I suspect.
Reason being when the day comes when all dual Canadians have to produce an actual LCN to get banking service is the day when some will act. Til ones feels actual discomfort or pain,it’ s quite easy to go along ignoring matters,which for that matter seemd altogether normal.
For AAs and others who have no interest in US citzenship the TTFI exercise is simply something for that proverbial birdcage ,although it may benefit some who acknowledge their USness.
Blessed day , and blessed be the Canadian lawsuit.
“TTFI helps save US citizenship but does little for those who don’t want it.”
A bill providing another route to complying with US tax laws hasn’t yet materialised, but that’s not to say that it won’t. What changes such a bill might propose, or whether it would ever be enacted, is impossible to predict. At the moment, it’s vapourware.
The legal case, on the other hand, is a reality, and is pretty close to coming to court, and may bring relief at last to the plaintiffs and provide some insight as to what the Americans intend to do about FATCA in the future.
As for renouncing – what’s the problem?
“As for renouncing – what’s the problem?” Money, and personal exposure to the US machine.
Remember, it’s not JUST the $2350 (which is bad enough). Someone like myself (who wishes to regain her freedom in its entirety) will have to enter the US tax system in order to exit it. I don’t know about others here, but this is a financial impossibility for me and for the completely non-american person who shares my finances.
“Remember, it’s not JUST the $2350 (which is bad enough). ”
Yes, it’s a lot of money. But it’s still going to be a lot of money, even if a group of Canadian citizens were to band together as Jules is arguing for.
“…have to enter the US tax system in order to exit it. ”
You don’t have to enter the US tax system to renounce. Once you’ve renounced you’re no longer a US citizen.
Fred(b), as you know on my side of the Channel they tried to impose National ID cards for some of the reasons you cited. This included the card could be used for EU air travel AND to open bank accounts!!
I fought the then Labour government over the proposal.
There are now whispers of it being discussed again but fortunately brexit is keeping ministers rather busy….
And yes…..I am a happy financial supporter of the Canada lawsuit as I feel one victory anywhere benefits all of us everywhere.
“You don’t have to enter the US tax system to renounce.” Plaxy, this is true as long as a person is willing to accept the limitations that will be placed on certain aspects of their lives if they do not complete the exit process which includes filing the required number of years of tax returns. I refer, of course, to the issue of travel to the US.
Some people here are willing to stay out of the US indefinitely. I’m not. But I don’t intend 1) to pay their ransom; 2) expose myself and my loved ones to the financial and legal hell that would be entailed in a “clean break”; or 3) to (try to) enter the US as a person who is considered to be willfully breaking US law. That’s why, for me, the law has to change.
In my earlier comment I specified, “Someone like myself (who wishes to regain her freedom ***in its entirety*** . . . .)”. So, your statement is true, but not for everybody. Not for me.
MNM, I agree that renouncing may not be an answer that suits everyone. A solution that leaves the person feeling fearful is no solution for that person.
However, the point remains: renouncing is expensive but very simple, for those who do want to renounce. There’s nothing an organised group of USCs in Canada or Europe or anywhere else can do to make it cheaper.
Muzzlednomore: thinking about your statement:
“I don’t intend 1) to pay their ransom; 2) expose myself and my loved ones to the financial and legal hell that would be entailed in a “clean break”; or 3) to (try to) enter the US as a person who is considered to be willfully breaking US law. That’s why, for me, the law has to change.”
Haven’t you nailed yourself into a prison, by ruling out every available solution?
If you want the USC right to enter the US, but don’t want the USC obligation to file US tax returns, you’re effectively making yourself entirely dependent on the vagaries of American politics to suddenly throw up a Congress that cares a flip what laws you (a non-US-resident non-US-taxpaying non-US-voting non-donor) want it to pass.
Wouldn’t it be more logical to accept the obligation, since it is indeed the law of the land you’re not willing to forego entering?
Or, alternatively, to renounce the citizenship and meet whatever tax- compliance conditions may seem necessary to preserve easy visiting access? It does seem to be quite easy for Canadians to enter the US.
Neither option would be cost-free, of course.
It seems to me that a person born in America who renounces US citizenship is in exactly the same position with regard to visiting the US as their fellow countrymen: they apply for a visa or ESTA or special Canada pass-type thingy (provided their country isn’t “mainly Muslim”, of course).
Assuming the former citizen has a CLN, and isn’t what the Americans like to call a “fugitive from justice”, and doesn’t have any health condition or other problems likely to result in a refusal, the former citizen should find it just as easy or difficult to visit the US as any other person travelling from their country to the US.
If people were being refused entry for not having filed x years of tax returns before renouncing I think that would be clear on the ESTA or visa application form.
“If people were being refused entry for not having filed x years of tax returns before renouncing I think that would be clear on the ESTA or visa application form.”
I highly doubt that. After all, how hard did the US try to educate its expats about their tax-filing obligations? You mean that tiny 1mm-font, single line in your passport that no one ever reads? Or what about the sneaky way states can claim you as a taxpayer if you vote in anything but federal elections? The last time I voted, I never encountered ANY warning about only being eligible to vote at the federal level. To this day there is nothing on the voter-registration website I used and the town hall that emailed all the election materials didn’t mention it either.
You assume too much, or have too much faith, that the government would make anything clear on a form. It is not in their interest to do so.
“I highly doubt that. After all, how hard did the US try to educate its expats about their tax-filing obligations?”
They don’t ask questions on visa applications in order to educate US citizens. US citizens can’t get a visa. The questions are there to keep undesirables from getting off the ground.
“You assume too much, or have too much faith, that the government would make anything clear on a form. It is not in their interest to do so.”
It’s certainly in their interest. Refusing entry in the home country is a lot more cost effective than letting the airlines bring undesirables to the US border to be dealt with on the spot. It’s what visas are for, after all.
US citizens can’t get a visa… no kidding? Citizens don’t need visas so the point is moot. I’m talking about any person, US or non-US, is kept in the dark about the full consequences of their actions when it comes to filling out US forms. Applying for a green card is another good example; IRS Medic recently published a YT video on green card holders and it confirmed that the tax obligations, especially the exit tax after 8 years of US residence, are never disclosed up-front to applicants. They all find out after they’re all-in (and usually regret the decision).
The US is really shady when it comes to promoting an informed citizenry. And it DOES benefit by keeping people in the dark – just think of all those juicy penalties it can get from preying on people’s ignorance – then add to that the level of complexity seen in all government instructions and guidance for their forms and applications. The USG expects full disclosure from its people, but doesn’t reciprocate – where have I come across that before?
Additionally, the US has just implemented stricter criteria for issuing visas, so if you gave up your citizenship and need to go back to the US for an extended stay, you could get rejected for not having dotted all your i’s or crossed all your t’s correctly. Not giving notice to applicants that they need further documentation and simplying tossing out the application is not the best way to “keep out the undesirables”. They don’t even tell you what you did wrong or what was missing – how is that helping anyone?
If you think they’re telling you what you need to know on a form, then you are fooling yourself.
A CLN turns a person who’s ineligible for a visa by reason of birthplace, into a person who’s eligible for a visa.
So a person who pays the money and goes through the performative stuff at the consulate, is in fact acquiring the right to be considered for a visa, which they didn’t have before.
“US citizens can’t get a visa… no kidding? Citizens don’t need visas so the point is moot. ”
It’s not moot, it’s a fact – a fact that has resulted in many many children being registered as US citizens for no other readon.
“the US has just implemented stricter criteria for issuing visas, so if you gave up your citizenship and need to go back to the US for an extended stay, you could get rejected for not having dotted all your i’s or crossed all your t’s correctly. ”
Obviously. When you renounce, you lose the right of entry.
“They don’t even tell you what you did wrong or what was missing – how is that helping anyone?”
Why on earth do you think they would want to help you? That’s not their job.
“A CLN turns a person who’s ineligible for a visa by reason of birthplace, into a person who’s eligible for a visa.”
Yes, I know. I am in that boat myself. I don’t understand what this statement is supposed to convey to anyone here on IBS.
The fact that a person holding US citizenship does not require a visa to enter the US is indeed moot. I was never concerned with passing on citizenship, only the FACT that citizens don’t require visas (although your point about obtaining citizenship for kids is well-taken). And it isn’t “obvious” that a person simply gets rejected for submitting an incomplete application for a visa. Whether a person gave up their right of entry is neither here nor there when discussing the hurdles of obtaining a visa because those are the same for everybody. Just a few days ago the new rules went into place saying they no longer have to give you notice about an incomplete submission, they can simply reject it. Why this policy now? People who NEED to get in face delays and hardships when they might be in a dire position, so the new policy will potentially – no, definitely – cause collateral damage to worthy visa candidates and not just keep the riff-raff out. I know several people who worked for companies that sent employees to the US for training and the visa process was arduous. Many a time the initial application required further documentation, so this new policy is going to create an untenable situation for lots of folks (and, dare I say, corporations).
The main point I was trying to illustrate was how difficult it is to comply with US demands for information. Their forms are terribly complicated and the instructions add complexity. I have a college degree and don’t understand what they mean most of the time (nevermind the foreign language known as”IRS publications”).
What I am trying to communicate is that the US never informs you about any consequences or makes it deliberately complicated to find out. An unsuspecting person fills out forms and applications and is purposely left in the dark about what repercussions might occur. Registering children born abroad is a great example. I stuck my own child with the US onus, unfortunately, and know first-hand that the consulate doesn’t tell you squat about how acquiring US citizenship can impact your life. And I know that the consulates still don’t inform people registering their kids TO THIS DAY because I witnessed it when I renounced last year.
Here’s a story to warm your heart about a poor Australian woman who followed all the rules for US visas and still wound up getting screwed:
http://www.traveller.com.au/us-visa-regulations-how-a-mistake-got-me-banned-from-the-us-for-life-h0cttp
@plaxy
First you respond to my comment that it is not in the USG’s interest to help you by giving clear instructions by saying it IS in their interest:
I wrote, “You assume too much, or have too much faith, that the government would make anything clear on a form. It is not in their interest to do so.”
You said, “It’s certainly in their interest.”
Then you turn around and say,
“Why on earth do you think they would want to help you? That’s not their job”
What? No matter what one says you say the opposite. I regret trying to participate in the dialog.
PetLover – I think we’re talking at cross-purposes. I’m not on about the unfairnesses of American law – I’m thinking about the pros and likely cons of the options available to a US citizen who doesn’t want to comply with US tax requirements (file x years prior to renouncing etc) but also doesn’t want to jeopardise future admissibility as a visitor.
It does seem to me that renunciation without prior-year filing is a good option for a USC for whom future admissibility is important . There doesn’t seem to be any reason to fear refusal. No former citizen seems to have reported being refused entry for not having filed tax returns.
(Of course if there was an outstanding assessed debt, that would be different.)
“First you respond to my comment that it is not in the USG’s interest to help you by giving clear instructions by saying it IS in their interest:”
No – I said it’s in their interest to filter out undesirables before they fly.
“Undesirables” being shorthand for “individuals the US chooses to treat as undesirable”, of course.
“…a person who pays the money and goes through the performative stuff at the consulate, is in fact acquiring the right to be considered for a visa, which they didn’t have before.”
While $2350 is a lot to pay to regain a right that has been taken away (the right to be treated as innocent unless proved guilty), it’s not a lot to pay to gain a benefit one never previously had – the ability to apply for a visa to travel to the US.
People who’ve been hit by FATCA understandably have tended to see the CLN mainly as a barrier to renunciation, which it undoubtedly is; but it does have this other, more positive aspect. IMO.
Petlover: Having just read that shocking article you posted I rest my case about why I have no current plans to visit the United States. And I totally agree with you about the unconsionable lack of warning at US consulates about the consequences, both of acquiring US citizenship and of exercising its rights, from outside the country. That is the origin of my own unfortunate circumstance.
Plaxy: In order to understand my apparent choice to “nail myself” to my situation you would have to know more about my circumstance than I want to share in this public forum. If I were able to tell you more, I am certain you would agree me that, in fact, I have “been” nailed. I have no choice but to stick to my guns and look for complete abolition of CBT. I will probably be dead by the time that happens, if ever, but, so be it. In the meantime, I will keep contributing to the effort to bring it to an end in whatever small ways I can.
MuzzledNoMore:
“Plaxy: In order to understand my apparent choice to “nail myself” to my situation you would have to know more about my circumstance than I want to share in this public forum.”
Indeed, I very much agree with you on that point.
Sorry to hear you’re in a bind.
Muzzled, Would a cheaper, easier route to “clean” renunciation( no compliance requirements) be a better option for you as opposed to real end of CBT? Being a US person living in Canada could have other unfortunate consequences in future that we can’t forsee now. My understanding is Fabien and crew pushing for that solution.