Update – November 16, 2018 – Here is the November 15, 2018 interview with Monte Silver:
The November 15, 2018 second interview with @MonteSilver1 about the @USTransitionTax and about his continued advocacy efforts: https://t.co/DF3IcbImh8
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) November 17, 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A message from one Canadian resident …
@ACAVoice @DemsAbroad @SolomonYue Join Monte Silver and others in stopping the @USTransitionTax & #GILTI from ruining our businesses! Stop the theft of our futures! US small business for tax fairness https://t.co/5FjtSKLyno
— suzanne herman (@suzanneherman1) November 13, 2018
More info after the jump …
When life is stranger than fiction …
Shouldn't the USA impose the @USTransitionTax on Canadian residents that it wouldn't impose on US residents? It's only fair isn't it? – "Don’t Tax You. Don’t Tax Me. Tax That Fellow Behind the Tree" https://t.co/6DAVkYmaw4 pic.twitter.com/kX6H1NXi2O
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) November 14, 2018
It’s true! As far as the U.S. Congress is concerned:
1. A U.S. resident (the type the actually lives in the United States) is free to run a business incorporated in the United States and NOT be subject to the U.S. Transition Tax and GILTI rules; but
2. Certain Canadian residents (the type that actually lives in Canada that the USA claims to be a U.S. citizen) is NOT free to run a business incorporated in Canada without being subject to the U.S. Transition Tax and GILTI rules.
In other words, the United States of America (that great Citadel of Freedom of Justice) is in effect imposing a separate and more punitive tax system on Canadian residents than on U.S. residents.
In Canada, Canadian Controlled Private Corporations play the social role of being private pension plans.
Bottom line is this: The United States is (via the Transition Tax) attempting to confiscate the pensions of Canadian residents as explained in this recent article at Tax Connections:
The world view of the USA: A resident of the USA who runs a US small corporation in the USA is NOT subject to the @USTransitionTax but certain Canadian residents running a CDN small business in Canada are subject to @USTransitionTax. https://t.co/7oOoKAAtjU
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) November 14, 2018
Elizabeth Thompson of CBC has written a series of articles about this outrage:
The confiscation of Canadian pensions has not escaped the Canadian media which takes notice of the @USTransitionTax: See the @LizT1 series of articles https://t.co/rS7CKy3SCH via @ExpatriationLaw
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) November 14, 2018
U.S. Extra-territorial taxation is a direct attack on Canada’s Sovereignty …
This may not affect you personally but it is an attack on Canada. I suggest that this is an important cause and I suggest that consider donating to it! Thanks to Monte Silver for taking this initiative!
A person can move to American and run a business in America. But a "US Person"can't leave America and run a business outside of America! Help Monte Silver's humanitarian effort: "The @USTransitionTax Fundraiser" – "US small business for tax fairness" https://t.co/ivw0OQRsLh?
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) November 14, 2018
Support Canadian Sovereignty! Donate to Monte Silver’s “Transition Tax Fundraiser!”
@Nonymous and USCitAbroad
So the IRS does NOT view non-US companies owned by US persons (or tainted persons) as offshore structures used to facilitate tax evasion?
Then why all the additional reporting requirements? Why the CFC rules?
To stop US-resident Americans from investing in foreign corporations or creating foreign corporations, to gain the advantage of deferring US tax on the earnings as long as the money wasn’t repatriated.
It appears that dual owners living outside the US weren’t the target; but have got caught up in the category, unless they “checked the box” so that their corporation would not be taxed as a US corporation.
If those US person small business owners are not US residents, I don’t think they particularly care, because there’s nothing they can do about it. Particularly there’s nothing they can do to harm dual citizens.
Not care about non-compliance, I mean. Once you start filing, all bets are off.
@ All,
If you’re about to post a reply about reporting requirements, compliance/non-compliance, etc, would you post it on the Expat Tax thread? It would be good if the discussion continued there.
It’s an important topic, but due to this thread’s nature, it being for a project, we’d like to keep this thread really focused on this project of taking legal action against the s. 945 transition tax.
The Expat Tax thread is consistently in the top 10 of the most viewed threads on this site, so the discussion will get a lot of exposure there (more actually than on this thread).
Off topic….yeah….yeah.
Have not posted in a long time but wanted to shout out to bubbles, embee, Fred and everyone else.
Currently on the plantation and had no problemos with immigration and no CLN.
Video puts it in a nutshell. Nice work, Monte and John.
It’s too bad I didn’t put my Canadian corporation in an S Corp before I knew I was a US taxpayer. I must have misplaced my crystal ball at the time. As I had when I sold my house in Canada.
What a clusterfu@k!
@ BB
I watched a youtube the other day about a court case where the defendant was given the suggestion to represent himself (he is a bright, well-educated person, a doctor actually) because he would be given some leeway to present more evidence in his favour than a lawyer could. Lawyers apparently are bound by the rules of the bar which can sometimes limit their presentations in court (much like tax advisors are bound to advise strict adherence to IRS regulations). I don’t know if that is true or not but it got me thinking that it might be an advantage if a plaintiff represented himself/herself too, provided he/she was brave and well-versed enough to do it. It would certainly save huge lawyer fees. These are just my thoughts wandering about Monte’s lawsuit quest. He’s still searching, I believe, for a suitable DC law firm to tackle this lawsuit. Self-representation of course means going up against the “best and the brightest” Goliath (and his many minions) in the government’s legal department but maybe a lone, ideal David could pull off a win too. OTOH it might be too risky to not use a law firm because of all the ins and outs of the court procedure that would baffle a layperson. Again, just pondering. Now that I think about it a bit more, IF some or all of those organizations Monte spoke about would get involved that would certainly aid in the “standing” issue that always seems to rear up in these types of lawsuits. Anyway, this has just got to work. The insanity must stop.
@ George
Hi! So nice to hear from you. “No problemos” — good stuff!
@EmBee
Thanks. I’m still shaking my head over that video. I can’t accept that Treasury has no interest in fixing this, when they fixed it for S Corps. Haven’t they made other carve-outs for Americans abroad elsewhere? My congressman is sending a letter re the TT on my behalf next week with what is referred to as an “ask”, only because it’s better than not asking when given the opportunity. I asked that small businesses be exempt from the TT and GILTI.
Oh yes, hi George. Good to see you again.
Agreed about comments being on the thread itself. That thread asking if there should be a lawsuit against the Canadian Government in regards to the tax treaty was filled with comments on everything else. No better angles on pursuing lawsuit against the tax treaty resulted from that.
How now to help the success of Monte Silver?
Apologies I am not a lawyer. Complainant.: Monte says in the video that an overseas American group such as AARO or ACA could be a complainant in the lawsuit. True? Would standing depend on how such a group is structured such as if it were a partnership with members having ownership interest?
If the above is true, wouldn’t it be interesting if Republicans Overseas were listed on the lawsuit against a Republican administration. How about both RO and DA (that would help with funding and political support)? ADCS could have a role here as well as a common statement I have heard is that the Transition Tax is a direct assault on the pensions of small business owners in Canada.
ADCT pursued legal advice with Jim Butera in regards to reducing the renunciation fee – that was delving into the administrative powers of US government.
Then why wouldn’t ADCT get involved again?
The reality is that of the increasing trend in “squeezing the squeeze” via increasing U.S. over-regulation of US persons overseas. It would be nice to start to reverse this, even if this reverse is only for a limited number of those impacted by CBDT & FATCA (got to start reversing somewhere). From what we know TTFI will not deal with the Transition Tax and GILTI (I believe Solomon Yue said that these and FATCA will require separate legislation).
Quote from Allison Christians (on CBDT – Citizenship Based Double Taxation – IMO we need to stop using the language of our oppressors and substitute CBT with CBDT): ‘It is a matter for the courts to decide.’
Brock could be used to support Monte Silver such as will the funding thermometer (as used for the FATCA IGA lawsuit funding). Monte says he will report weekly on Facebook as to the funding progress, so then the thermometer could be adjusted weekly. He originally set a $50K goal on gofundme. We know legal action will ultimately cost lots more. ADCT nor ADCS are currently seeking funding, so then this would not be competing.
Monte says that the lawsuit will be precedent setting. Therefore, I think the gnomes of Treasury would be fearful of a lawsuit and the precedent it could set for removal of power from them and introduction of a court backed check and balance. To get that fear in play then the lawsuit then needs to appear very credible. Treasury could come to terms to avoid such precedent or they could “dig their heals in”, or they could do what the U.S. government has proven so adept at doing: ignore us…until…a court forces them to stop ignoring us.
‘I watched a youtube the other day about a court case where the defendant was given the suggestion to represent himself (he is a bright, well-educated person, a doctor actually) because he would be given some leeway to present more evidence in his favour than a lawyer could.’
There are rules on what kinds of evidence can be presented when. I don’t know if pro se parties are “supposed” to have more leeway. But it won’t matter.
If you’re pro se, and you obey court rules on how to submit a witness’s notarized declaration, if the evidence embarrasses criminals working in the US government, then the court destroys the notarized declaration instead of filing it. Lawyers know how to get it filed.
If you’re pro se, a judge can write lies with impunity. If you’re represented by a lawyer, a judge can write lies with impunity, but the kind of publicity that the judge will get might make the judge hesitate.
If the IRS presents falsified administrative records in court, a pro se might not know what to do, but a lawyer might know how to seek accurate records. A judge can deny a motion to compel disclosure, again with impunity, but the kind of publicity might make the judge hesitate.
‘Self-representation of course means going up against the “best and the brightest” Goliath’
Actually not. Some of the Goliaths are pretty stupid. But they know how to lie, and their stories outrank any evidence a pro se can present to prove that the lies are lies. A judge even told me that the Goliath’s lies aren’t perjury because they aren’t presented under oath, but even when a government employee does sign a declaration under oath (similar to the kind of declaration that a witness can get notarized before the court destroys it) and the judge doesn’t care when you prove that it’s perjured.
More on S Corps from John Richardson.
http://www.citizenshipsolutions.ca/2018/11/18/part-25-reflections-on-the-s-corporation-exemption-to-the-sec-965-ustransitiontax/
Interesting idea about a pro se lawsuit. Couldn’t a lawyer be retained to advise an individual plaintiff, out of sight or hearing, say, after each day’s proceedings?
Not a great comparison, but I’ve represented myself twice in court, once as a plaintiff, once in defense. It wasn’t in the USA, or against a government body. However, in both cases the other party used a lawyer. The judges were extremely lenient toward me. In one case, after my husband was called by me as a witness, the judge leaned over and told me not a single word my husband said was admissible. Then he told me, “But if you were to rephrase the question, for example, in such as way…then his subsequent statement could bear weight.” The lawyer for the defense was hopping mad. By the way, both cases ruled in my favor! It just goes to show that, with the right judge, there may be a huge sympathy factor for a lone, honest small businessperson being crushed by a faceless government agency.
@ Barbara
Thanks. I felt like a bit of an idiot for making that comment after ND’s reply — less so now. I know so little about legal matters. Didn’t even know the term “pro se”. So happy to hear your cases were ruled in your favour. It does happen, even in the USA. One of the Bundy family members represented himself in court and did an amazingly good job of it — a favourable ruling there too and the judge was obviously on the government’s side.
“It just goes to show that, with the right judge, there may be a huge sympathy factor for a lone, honest small businessperson being crushed by a faceless government agency.”
Well if I were the judge there would most definitely be a huge sympathy factor. I’m not even directly affected by TT/GILTI but my EQ (Empathy Quotient) hits the roof when I see how utterly unjust and totally illogical this latest anti-expat tax legislation is.
Monte’s promoting a final surge in letters to Treasury, House of Representatives Oversight Committee, Senator Chuck Schumer and other senior officials before Treasury comes out with its final regs:
http://www.americansabroadfortaxfairness.org/
Seems like Chuck Schumer and I are becoming old friends. I just sent my e-mails, as requested by Monte Silver. Probably close to the hundredth personal message I’ve sent to Dear Chuck in the past couple years. Too bad our relationship remains unrequited.
Everyone here should help Monte’s effort by writing. It’s easy: just copy and paste the templates he has posted. No need to be original. It’s numbers of submissions that count.
“I felt like a bit of an idiot for making that comment after ND’s reply”
There was no reason for that. A report of bitter experience doesn’t mean that someone without experience is an idiot, it only means that someone without experience is without experience. I’ve paid rather large tuition fees for these lessons and hope others can learn the lessons for free.
Thanks, ND. Now I just feel unhelpful and yet kind of grateful that I haven’t had any direct experience with the court system … yet. I’ll leave it all to you.
Donation thermometer to fund Transition/GILTI lawsuit against Treasury goes live.
See americansabroadfortaxfairness.org or http://www.facebook.com/groups/americansmallbusinesses