Author Archives: Petros

We have discussed how the USA’s extraterritorial laws are a bad precedent, precisely because one day in the future, other powers may seek to imitate the USA. A new law in China does this. But according to the author, Mary Hui, China’s extraterritorial legal ambitions are unprecedented:

The new law is also expansive in another unprecedented way, even by the standards of China’s opaque legal system: it covers not just Hong Kong residents, but also anyone living abroad. That means foreign nationals, the Hong Kong diaspora, and Hong Kongers studying or working abroad.

The new law is “asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction over every person on the planet,” wrote Donald Clarke, a professor of law at George Washington University. Alarmingly, the law has an even broader reach than mainland Chinese criminal law, which only holds a foreigner liable for a crime committed outside of China if the effect of that crime occurs in China. Hong Kong’s nationals security law has no such limitation, Clarke explained. “If you’ve ever said anything that might offend the [Chinese] or Hong Kong authorities, stay out of Hong Kong.”

Apparently, Ms. Hui hasn’t heard of FATCA.

I had suggested that China would create CHATCA, but I guess they decided to start with a law making it illegal for anyone to criticize the government of China (which I am not doing, if anyone asks).

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.

Brock Pub is where you can ask your questions or make somewhat off-topic comments.

US Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Excessive Fines

The excessive fines clause doesn’t prevent the federal government from actually threatening to fine you in multiples of your actual financial worth (in the case of FBAR, over 383% of your financial accounts). I’ve not seen FBAR fines applied at the rate of 300% but that doesn’t stop the IRS from threatening it. I called it a bluff. They would scare the crap out of you so that you would enter a voluntary disclosure program where you voluntarily handed over 25+% of your wealth.

A Wisconsin cruise ship passenger faces years in Cayman Islands prison after a gun was found in her luggage

A lot of Americans are apparently unaware that you shouldn’t put guns or ammo in your luggage if you are travelling to other countries.

California gas station clerk fired after ranting against woman speaking Spanish

An American gas station attendant loses her job after being rude to a bilingual woman speaking Spanish and asks her to prove that she was born in the USA. Apparently she is unaware that California used to be part of Mexico. I.e., Spanish speakers were there slightly before Trump supporters.

And a Canadian bonus:
Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott kicked out of Liberal Party caucus

King Justin has kicked out JWR from caucas, hoping that Canadians actually believe it is less unethical to lie than it is to expose lies with an undisclosed voice recording.

Global News has the following report:

U.S. sues Vancouver dual citizen for over $1M for not reporting accounts

This is big news. And it reveals and confirms my prediction of what FATCA would be used for:  To go after the bank accounts of “US persons” living in foreign countries by using FBAR fines and FATCA information. I called it the Master Plan.

A few observations on this article:

(1) Clearly this lawsuit should help the ADSC lawsuit. Here is a case of real hazard that failure to protect Canadians from IRS intrusiveness will result in.

(2) This case is not based on tax owed, and so this is purely an FBAR matter. But IRS code has no jurisdiction in this matter.

(3) The article doesn’t say where the lawsuit is taking place, but then says that the papers were deposited in Seattle in Federal court.

(4) The fine of $100,000 or 50% of account is wrong: Or did it go up from $10,000?

(5) President Donald Trump has made no difference in the persecution of so-called “Americans abroad”.

(6) This is a Canadian living in Canada. He is therefore an innocent person being sued by the government of the USA, for small money. I.e., he is a minnow, and what Nina Olsen has called a benign actor.

(7) The lawsuit shows that QI provisions are not sufficent for the USA government to seize Canadian accounts in Canada.

(8) The Justice Department is not suing this person in Canadian court. But perhaps that will come next.

See also:

U.S. government suing Canadian resident for $1.1M over bank form

The current media narrative is anti-Trump 24-7. He is bad. And of course all those celebrities and other people are waiting in line to flee the country and renounce their citizenship. So I was contacted by a reporter of a well-known news network who is writing an article on people who are renouncing their USA citizenship because of Donald Trump. He asked me:

1. If there has been an increase of traffic to isaabrocksociety.ca since the November election.
2. If anyone had contacted us with questions about renouncing directly linked to Trump.

Here is my response:

There has been no uptick in traffic to our website, and no one anti-Trump has contacted me in my function at Isaac Brock.  I do not predict an uptick in renunciations over Trump. People are renouncing for practical reasons. Anti-Trumpism is fanatical, but Trump has not so far caused real problems for American citizens. FATCA, citizenship taxation, the Obama enforcement of FBAR, CBT and FATCA, and the compliance condors have created real problems for so-called “Americans” abroad–especially those of us who are little older and more established financially. Trump just seems to make some American citizens really angry but has not yet substantially harmed them (at least I do not know of concrete examples).

I had one person contact me on behalf of someone who owns property here in Canada, wanting to know the tax implications of moving to Canada and how one might transfer bank assets.  This person was not asking about renunciation of citizenship–just the tax implications of moving to Canada (and how to move assets). She did not know I run the Isaac Brock Society. I know her from Facebook for other reasons.

I see that one of the problems with the shrill anti-Trump narrative in the mainstream press and social media is that the wrongs done against expats have been completely ignored. When I talk about the wrongs that Obama did, I am scorned.

Trump may eventually reverse FATCA, but I do not hold out hope. Nevertheless, in the current persecution of expats Trump only continues the demonic policies of his predecessor.

Here is a reminder of why Peter Dunn relinquished his USA citizenship:

The Isaac Brock Society is a direct response to the Obama administration’s criminalization of innocent expat behaviour. Helen Burggraf has written a great article in International Investment, telling our story.