Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

The Isaac Brock Society

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 31 Comments

https://youtu.be/3YMTAZBe6cA

Jordan Peterson accuses the government of preying on the weak, those who can easily become addicted to gambling and thus provide revenue for government coffers. In the meantime, gambling exacts an untold price upon the health of society. The government in Canada thus plays the role of organized crime in administering a vice that makes victims of the weak. We see from this that we should not look upon the government as a benevolent entity, but as a threat to our well-being.

Similarly, the IRS and compliance condors prey on the weak.  On Dec 15, 2012, at the FATCA Forum organized by John Richardson, I argued that the Canadian government’s stance, that it would not collect FBAR fines, meant that those of us affected by the threat of the IRS draconian FBAR fines would have to stand up for ourselves–we had to be Clint Eastwoods–and that left the IRS to prey upon the weak and vulnerable residents of Canada who feared what the IRS could do to them if they failed to enter the OVDP/OVDI, i.e., the last, best chance for people to get right with God. When innocent benign actors (the non-Clint Eastwoods) entered the ODVP, the IRS exacted many LCU (“life credit units”) and made their lives hell.

Remember to gamble responsibly. That’s the government’s message. And when it comes to the IRS, you are on your own.

31 thoughts on “Brock Pub 0003: Preying on the weak”

  1. I wonder if this whole issue of CBT will come up again now with Megan Markel’s baby. There was a recent little soundbyte on CNN and, insane as it may sound, they were saying that the baby will (technically) owe taxes to the USA! They claim that even if Megan herself renounces, the baby will owe taxes until the age of (I think) 18, when, presumably he or she could also renounce. Hopefully this will highlight the complete absurdity of the situation, we shall see.

    I’ll be curious to see if the royal family acquiesces or pushes back.

  3. @NativeCanadian, The Royals aren’t the weak. They have a great deal of savvy on how to deal with this sort of nonsense (the article is pretty bad, because it doesn’t even begin to ask the right questions–such as how in the hell could the IRS ever enforce taxation on a member of the British Royal family).

  4. Hi Petros. Keep an eye on this, I bet other media sources will cover it. Hopefully expose more of this. The royals have plenty of wealth to fight this and likely will get around most of it. Not like us little fish who got screwed if we gave in.

  5. @NativeCanadian

    Yeah, it will highlight issues for US citizens abroad, but only in a way that will cause fear–for if the Royals can’t escape the IRS, who can?

    I imagine that the Queen et al. scoff at such drivel. Why would such rules apply to them?

  6. “(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
    (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; … ”

    I would imagine that now that Megan is a member of the Royal family, her vows to Andrew (as an heir to throne) could be argued to be a relinquishing act.

  7. The IRS probably has procedures in place for VIPs. And the royal family most certainly has a family office whose calls will be returned by the IRS.
    But it’s an interesting situation and can be used to raise awareness.

  8. It doesn’t raise the right kind of awareness. Let’s try to summarize the narrative:

    Megan’s marriage to the Royal Family exposes it to US scrutiny of their bank accounts and taxation of any benefits coming to the Harry’s wife. I.e., if the royal family isn’t immune from the reach of the IRS, you aren’t either. So get right with the IRS–see a cross border specialist to enter an amnesty program today!

  9. @Petros
    Even if she could claim a relinquishing act, relinquishment would mean not using her American passport to travel. As far as I know Meghan doesn’t have another citizenship. She can’t become British until 3 yrs living in the UK (being married to a Brit), its usually 5 yrs.
    But I suspect the rules that govern the serfs would not be applied to the Royals.

  12. @ Petros
    After the betrothal announcement Meghan stated she intended to become a British citizen but that she would “do it by the book” she would have to wait 3 yrs and also take the citizenship test, there would be no special favours. I think there would be an outcry from the British public if this was not the case.
    But who knows what happens behind closed doors.

  13. It would only require that the press explain to the public why the new member of the royal family required fast-tracked citizenship. I don’t think the British public would be sans understanding. I give them more credit than that. It is patently obvious to me that members of the Royal family get special treatment for clear and important reasons.

  14. @ Petros
    There has been no reports of the possibility of fast track citizenship and I would have thought if it were to be announced to the general public that it would have been done before the birth of the baby. There were reports that the baby would have both US and UK citizenship. But fast tract citizenship has been done before. Zola Budd the South African long distance runner was fast tracked so she could run for GB in the Olympics some years ago but there was a lot of opposition. The Royal family have to tread very carefully in the field of PR in todays British political climate.

  15. Maybe the holder doesn’t have to be a UK citizen in order to be issued a diplomatic passport? Regardless, I don’t think this will wind up being much of a problem for the Royal Family.

  17. “There were reports that the baby would have both US and UK citizenship.”

    I’ve seen reports that members of Canada’s royal family do not hold citizenship of Canada, Britain, Australia, etc. This would make the baby a citizen of the US and no other country. Even if the baby becomes the monarch, its only citizenship would be US, unless it renounces.

  18. @ Norman
    I don’t understand your comment, but I know you can be somewhat obtuse. 🙂
    Why do you say it would be only a US citizenship for baby?
    The baby has a British father that makes it automatically British.

  20. Kinda sheds some light on baby “Elle” doesn’t it? Clearly proves baby Elle’s case…. this stuff is not made up!

  22. “Why do you say it would be only a US citizenship for baby?
    The baby has a British father that makes it automatically British.”

    I’ve seen that the baby doesn’t have a British (or Canadian etc.) father. To repeat:

    I’ve seen reports that members of Canada’s royal family do not hold citizenship of Canada, Britain, Australia, etc.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: