Author Archives: Victoria

Cross-posted from The Flophouse. Also, just for fun (and because my mom bugs me about keeping the bloghouse tidy) I updated the page of Flophouse posts, articles, interview and links on the page called The American Diaspora Tax War of 2012-2014: The fight against FATCA and citizenship-based taxation. Anything up there, folks, is all yours if you want to quote or repost.

I think it is fair to say that the face of American emigration/expatriation today is Eduardo Saverin. That is the name that consistently comes up when I talk with homelanders about Americans abroad and our relationship to the U.S. tax system. This is the face, the poster child if you will, that supports the narrative that Americans abroad have all fled the US to escape taxes. That’s right, folks, American emigration is all about criminal behaviour unless we can prove otherwise to the satisfaction of our compatriots.

How powerful is this narrative in the homeland? Powerful enough that two senators tried to get a law passed based on that one highly publicized case. The bill, called the ex-Patriot act, was introduced in reaction to Saverin’s renunciation and had a very clear objective: it was mean to punish past, present, and future expatriation – to prevent (or at least strongly discourage) Americans from leaving the US for other lands and cutting their ties to the American political community.

Continue reading →

Cross-posted from the Flophouse.  I finally got around to reviewing Robert Morris’ book on FATCA which I read before Christmas.  Here’s what I think.  Would be very interested in knowing your take on it as well.

****************************

At last a book about the beast, FATCA.

I read Robert Morris’ FATCA and the New Birth of American Empire in one sitting a few weeks ago and I just posted a review up on Amazon.

It’s not long and it’s not an expensive book but it is for you?  The disclaimer at the beginning is very helpful because Morris clarifies that he is not speaking to Americans abroad in his essay.  If you are one of these “US Persons”  he has no advice to offer though he points out that what’s happening to them (us) is a darn shame.  I immediately disagreed with him on two points however in that introduction:  he says Americans living outside the U.S. have power (which is nonsense) and that media outlets are willing to shine the spotlight on our stories (yes, but only very recently and after much effort by folks like Marvin,Peter and Lynne).

“This essay will focus on everyone else.”  So his words are meant for those not directly in the line of fire – all those who think they are safe and that this business does not concern them because they are not US citizens or don’t have connections to the United States.

Continue reading →

This was proposed by Just Me and seconded by a few others so I thought we could take a shot at it together.

The basic idea is to create a one page (maybe two) tract that could be used as a template – something that could be adapted to the local circumstances.  It could be sent to journalists, passed out during demonstrations or just emailed to people we know who are still very confused about what FATCA is, what it means, and why they should care.

Here are the latest updates as of  September 17, 21:51  Paris time.

What is FATCA?

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)  is an extra-territorial U.S. law that demands that all financial institutions in the world report to the United States’ Internal Revenue Service (IRS) the confidential account information of millions of people it classifies as “U.S. persons”.

What is a U.S. Person?

A U.S. Person can be a U.S. citizen, a Green Card Holder, or the citizen of another country who has a connection to the United States.

Here’s how you may have a US connection:

* born in the USA
* born outside the USA with one or two American parent(s)
* lived in the USA for a number of years
* visited too long in the USA in any given year
* married to a US person
* share signing authority on an account with a
US person

Chances are very good that you, or someone you know, is a U.S. Person.   That means FATCA affects you personally.   Millions of people worldwide who do not consider themselves to be U.S. citizens are still considered U.S. Persons by the U.S. government even if they have never lived or worked in the U.S., are citizens of another country, and have never held a U.S. passport or Green Card.

But I’m not a tax evader or a U.S. citizen or Green Card Holder!

Under FATCA you are presumed to be guilty until proven innocent.

If your local bank suspects you are a U.S. Person, they will require that you prove you aren’t.

If you clearly are a U.S. Person, and your country has signed an agreement with the United States (called an “IGA”), then your local bank will send your account information to your local government who will then turn it over to the United States.

Under these agreements, this will happen even if your country has strict laws protecting personal privacy.  So far the following countries have either signed these agreements or have agreed to do so:  UK, France, Germany…..

What will the United States do with that information?

Under American law U.S. Persons are also U.S. taxpayers.  Those who live outside the United States are required to file tax returns, bank account reports and pay American taxes.  This is true even if the U.S. Person earns no income and has no assets in the United States.

You might consider yourself a responsible tax-paying citizen of another country but the United States sees it differently. If they think you are a U.S. Person then they feel they have the right to add you to the American tax base.

There are others ways they could use that information.  If enough countries are bullied into complying then the United States government will have a master list in their databases of all the people (and their assets)  in the world who have any connection however innocent to the United States of America.   That sounds a lot like the recent NSA scandals where the United States spied on citizens of other countries.

FATCA is spying by other means.

But I thought FATCA and all those reporting rules only applied to the rich?

Not true.  FATCA impacts ALL U.S. Persons:  rich, middle, or low income .

The filing threshold for one form, the  FBAR (Foreign Bank Account Report), is only 10,000 USD.  This threshold is the total of all that person’s accounts (checking, savings, and retirement) combined – not the value of any one account.  This means that even very low-income U.S. Persons must file and face stiff penalties – up to 500,000 USD and 5 years in jail – if they fail to do so.  The American IRS can impose these fines even if the U.S. Person is too poor to file a tax return and doesn’t owe any tax.

I’m not a U.S. Person and I don’t have any connection to the United States. What does FATCA have to do with me?

FATCA impacts ALL citizens in ALL countries in three ways:

1.  All  financial institutions worldwide are affected by FATCA.  The billions they will spend in compliance costs will be passed along to customers in all countries through higher FEES.

2.  Local governments and local taxpayers will bear the cost of the staff and information systems required to implement FATCA in that country.

3. Existing privacy and anti-discrimination laws will have to be downgraded in every country in order to facilitate FATCA.  This means that citizens everywhere can expect less protection of their privacy from their local government.

Part IV (What they can do about it)

Some ideas for this section:

Here I would point them to Isaac Brock first as a resource.  As them to join us or pass the link around to people they know who are affected by FATCA.

Then we can list the other sites we think they would find useful:  Maple Sandbox, ACA, AARO and so on.

UPDATE: September 7, 2013:
Interestingly, Mr. Harvey’s paper has been removed so the original link that Victoria provided no longer gets you to his proposal. You also must now register for the site, which I did. Luckily, Em has come to the rescue as she saved it before it was removed.

HarveyPDF

May I draw your attention to this interesting article by J. Richard Harvey called:

World Wide Taxation of U.S. Citizens Living Abroad – Impact of FATCA and Two Proposals.

In a nutshell Mr. Harvey has seen that there are “issues” with the perfect world of citizenship-based taxation.  He admits that many Americans and Green Card holders abroad are adversely impacted by the marriage of CBT and FATCA.  However, he is not willing to let us off the hook and he has a few criticisms of ACA’s Residence-based taxation proposal.

He has two proposals of his own that are worth examining – not because I think they are good solutions but because I think they represent a kind of counter-offer.  “You folks want X?  Will you settle for Y?”

Here they are:

He is also suggesting some relief for certain categories of Americans abroad.  This doesn’t go far enough in my opinion.  I would like to see a definition of “significant percentage of their lives” spent abroad.  What does that mean exactly?  His opinion is that only in a few very sympathetic cases (accidental Americans) all others (people who have lived abroad for 20 years, for example) should NOT be entitled to any relief at all.

What is encouraging about the paper is that he acknowledges the problems (a kind of progress). However, he is still in the mind-set of punishing those “rich tax evaders”  and does not take into account the high price the US will pay if it continues along this path of trying to enforce CBT.  And though he admits that there is a high percentage of middle-income expats that are being harmed because of government actions to demotivate the 1% from expatriating, he still feels these measures are justified.  Mitigation, he says, is the key but I don’t think he goes far enough and I think he completely misses a very important motivation for middle-class expatriates – getting out from under all that paperwork and the associated costs for cross-border experts.

AARO (Association of Americans Resident Overseas) and FAWCO (Federation of American Women’s Clubs Overseas) have an idea for how we can make the most of our summer vacations.

For those of you who are U.S. voters why not stop by and see your local Congresspersons while you’re in town?   Think about it – haven’t we all dreamed of letting them know how we feel?  Here’s your chance.

AARO has some suggestions for how to set up the meeting and topics for discussion (though I’m positive that folks here already have that covered, right?)  They also include a link to the Overseas Vote Foundation’s fact sheets for each state.

I’m giving it a try.  Asking for a meeting was easy since my reps have an automatic meeting request system on their sites. Thus far I have received one answer saying they will try to set up a meeting with my rep in person.

Some other ideas while you happen to be strolling around town:

1.  Talk to local media.  Ask them to reprint Colleen Graffy’s article so it gets the widest possible distribution. Point them to whatever site or organization you belong to that’s fighting FATCA/CBT.

2.  Offer to provide more information to a reporter and accept any and all interview requests.  Say that you can attest personally to the accuracy of Graffy’s article and give them a local angle.

3.  Write up your experience and see if the local paper will print it.

Love to hear other ideas as well.

Will this do any good?  No idea but I think it’s worth trying.  My feeling is that it’s a win-win for us.  If our reps are willing to talk to us then we win a chance to let them know how we feel up front and in person.  If they won’t talk to us, then we have more ammunition for our argument that we are poorly represented AND we have a story for the local media.

But what I like the most about it is that it gives each and everyone one of us an opportunity to advocate and lobby for ourselves.  Be persistent mosquitos, folks, and perhaps together we can unleash the perfect swarm.

As promised (and thanks to Peter who resolved my login problems) here is the piece I wrote for the Franco-American Flophouse after we got back from the Brussels meeting.  We learned so much, we met so many interesting people who were genuinely interested in hearing what we had to say, and we got some very good advice about next steps.  This trip was a group effort.  Tim was the one who tipped us off that the meeting was actually going to happen.  One official organization (FAWCO) wrote a letter before the meeting that Ms. in’t Veld read beforehand and clearly used during her talk.  I covered the event for ACA and Ellen of AARO was there with business cards and lobbying experience.  Another person in our group had invaluable experience with the EP.   And hats off to M. who modestly said that he was representing  just “regular folks” –  what he did during and after the meeting was inspired. What he did gave me courage.   Yes,  mes amis, “Il nous faut de l’audace, encore de l’audace, toujours de l’audace…”

Here is Part I of the video of the EU FATCA public hearing that was held in Brussels last Tuesday.  Part II is here.  Many thanks to Tim who put it up on YouTube.  The sound is not always perfect and sometimes it moves from those speaking to the interpreters, but the essentials talks are there.  Transcripts of some of the speeches are being posted over at Isaac Brock in this thread by Just Me.  Also see Lucy Laederich’s (FAWCO U.S. Liaison and AARO President) comments on the meeting and read her letter to MEP Sophie in’t Veld here.

There were reactions to yesterday’s post about some of the events around our participation.   I think we are all genuinely confused by what organizations like the OECD and the EU mean by “public.”  For us mere mortals that word says to us that we, the public and the eggs being broken in the making of policy, are welcome to attend and hear what is being said about things that concern us.   Well, that is clearly a misunderstanding on our part.  For the OECD it was, “Yes, you can attend if there is space once everyone else (the bankers and bureaucrats) has a seat.”  For EP security it was, “The meeting is public but you have to be invited in order to access the building.”

Yes, there was pre-registration process, but this was not mentioned in the draft agenda that was published nor was it clarified in the calls we made to confirm the meeting time, date and place.  We were very fortunate to have someone there who could help us.  Not everyone did and we have a confirmed report of an AARO person who came and was turned away.

About the member of our group who had a chilling close encounter with someone during the meeting, I would like to make it very clear that this gentleman, who held up his passports and had a sign next to his seat, was not being disruptive, nor was he asking to get up and make a speech.  Furthermore, he is an EU citizen, this issue is of direct concern to him, and these were his representatives in that meeting.  There was no reason (and I should know because I was sitting right next to him) for someone to come over and get in his face.

These kinds of things could make one very paranoid.  They certainly lend credence to charges of “policy laundering” – a term that means policy made in secret outside of the open, transparent  democratic process.  Are they afraid of what “the people” will say on this issue?   Perhaps they think we aren’t capable of understanding the complexities around information exchange, FATCA and the fight against tax evasion.  Looks like some of them have decided to do our thinking for us.  And when the public is finally made aware of what has been done – and they will be once the search in the EU for the pesky U.S Persons who are not necessarily U.S citizens  begins – will FATCA and an automatic system of information system be presented as a fait accompli for the good of us all?

The EP meeting resembled the OECD meeting in another respect as well – lots of discussion about the importance of fighting tax evasion, the “nuts and bolts” of implementation, and speakers falling over themselves to prove that they are “cooperating” by revealing their own proposals for their own systems.  The most interesting speaker, I thought, was the gentleman from Action Aid who pointed out quite rightly that such systems and the information they contain must be made readily available to developing countries.  He’s right.  If such systems exist, then the Latin American, African and Asian governments should be able to access the information they want about their citizens in Europe and North America.   I personally doubt that this is what the proponents of such systems in developed countries had in mind, but it would be hypocritical of them to deny access to the poorer sending countries of many international migrants (and their children) who have found themselves a home in more developed countries. I’m sure Eritrea which has a diaspora tax like the U.S., would be deeply grateful for help tracking down their citizens outside the country in order to get them to pay up.

That is a possible impact on global migrants which is a worthy topic but not the focus of this public meeting. It was very startling to see that the impact of information exchange systems on people who are EU citizens was dismissed as being unimportant.  MEP Sophie in’t Veld tried to refocus the discussion with limited success.  She asked about the duals and the Accidentals (those who are not aware of their status as U.S. citizens).  The reply was that member states should be responsible for protecting their rights.  Did the person who responded really think this was a satisfactory answer?  Is he aware of the scope of the problem?  This was a moment where I really wanted to leap out of my seat to ask further questions.  This is what I would have said:

My neighbor who lives in an adjacent apartment building here in France told me that she was born in Texas, USA.  Her parents were in the U.S. for a short time and they (and she) returned to France when she was an infant.  She did not grow up in the U.S., she has never returned to the U.S.,  and she does not speak English.

Is it up to her local French bank to explain to her that she is a U.S. citizen?    Can that bank legally deny her services (access to a checking or savings account, a retirement account or an “assurance vie” or even pull her mortgage) because she is a U.S. person?    Or will she be required to waive her EU privacy rights in her own country in order to retain access to banking services which she needs in order to lead a normal life?

What would happen if she was either turned in by someone wishing to collect the IRS bounty on U.S. tax evaders, or her name came up on the list sent by the French government to the American government?   How would France and the EU respond if the American government decided that she indeed was a “tax evader” and went after her for American taxes?

Is the EU aware that if she wishes to renounce her U.S. citizenship, once she knows she is one, that she may be asked to pay a penalty of 5%  even if she was completely unaware of the ramifications of having been born in the U.S. much less that she might be considered a citizen?

EU citizens in this case, be they duals or accidental U.S.persons, need answers to these questions as do EU citizen spouses of American citizens who have a right to know how this will impact them – will they be considered “guilty by association” and see their private data shooting off to the U.S. or their banks accounts closed, even though they are not U.S. citizens, Green Card holders or U.S. taxpayers?

These are THE questions that regular people, EU citizens and their families, are asking right now.  This forum did not address them adequately.  The reply that this was a matter for member states is a non-answer.  It’s not only ducking the question, it’s almost a slap in the face to those whose lives will be seriously impacted.

MEP Sophie in’t Veld expressed it very well when she said that the question of whether or not to tackle tax evasion has already been decided.  The answer is a resounding “yes” and there is a broad consensus on this.  The MEP’s might be very surprised to learn that many of us who have questions about FATCA and its implementation in the EU don’t have a problem with the basic premise that states can go after people who illegally remove their money from a country with the express purpose of avoiding that country’s tax laws.

The issue on the table right now is how to do it.  What are the unintended and very destructive consequences of the proposed systems of automatic information exchange on EU citizens and their families?   I humbly suggest that if they were brought to light, perhaps they could be mitigated.

What we need is a real public forum where these questions can be asked, answered and possible solutions discussed.  We spoke to some people after the meeting and they were very surprised by what we had to say.  They had no idea of the scope of the problems FATCA implementation might pose for regular EU citizens.

The pro-FATCA MEPs seem to be seizing the day and using FATCA to do for Europe what Europe can’t do it for itself.  Fair enough.  What is not acceptable is that the only concerns they seem willing to raise publicly is how much it will cost financial institutions and access problems for developing countries.

And the cost to their own citizens?  If they can’t raise those questions and get direct answers from their representatives in a truly public forum, then everything I’ve heard about the EU “democracy deficit” is, alas, true.

Cross-posted at the Franco-American Flophouse

On February 12, 2013 the OECD held a Public Briefing on FATCA at their Conference Center in the 16th district of Paris. After initially being refused entry because “priority was given to government and business,” the organizers informed me Monday afternoon that they did indeed have space due to unexpected cancellations and they were looking forward to seeing me there.

It was a fascinating look at the nuts and bolts of FATCA negotiations and implementation. In addition to discussions about data exchange and the finer points of the final regulations, there were some important messages being passed between the US and the government and industry representatives in the room. I heard the words “burden relief” and “alignment” and “working with industry” many times over the course of the meeting. There seemed to be a need to assure industry that they have a say in the negotiation of the IGAs in each country and in the implementation process.

The OECD by simply hosting the event gave public support to the U.S. effort and they are clearly seeking to align their own initiatives with FATCA. For example, the OECD’s position is that FATCA and TRACE are complimentary and they are looking for an alignment of the data models and data exchange formats that will be developed for both systems. That said, TRACE and FATCA have two different objectives: The first addresses source country taxation. The latter is about a “Common reporting standard for residence countries (building on FATCA IGAs; cf art 6.3 of the FATCA Model 1 IGA)” . Nonetheless, the goal is to have aligned systems.

As for the message to other governments, that was was the object of the very first U.S. presentation by Danielle Rolfes, International Tax Counsel, U.S. Treasury:

Ms. Rolfes started with a progress report on the IGAs. “Much was promised last time,” she said. Since the last meeting four IGAs have been signed and they have initialed agreements with Spain, Norway and Italy. They have also initialed a Model 2 agreement with Switzerland

In answer to the question: Why is it taking so long to get these agreements signed? She had several explanations. Some of it had to do with the writing of the final regulations. Hundreds of comments on FATCA had to be taken into account and Treasury had to allocate resources to that task. In addition, the model agreements evolved as countries signed up and those evolutions had an impact as well in the writing of the final regs.

As for the IGAs, she said, most of the time needed to work out the IGAs has to do with Annexe 2 and the list of specific products exempted. It took time for Treasury to understand what those products were and to come to an agreement. She assured the attendees that this process should speed up now that the final regulations are out. Treasury tried in turn , she said, to write the final regulations to fit the vast majority of cases around the world.

As for the assertion that the delays in signing the IGA’s are due to a lack of enthusiasm, well, she met that one head on. The problem is not at all about other governments being reticent about FATCA, she said, it’s just a very time-consuming process. The implication was, of course, that there are other countries lined up to sign once the details are worked out. Perhaps this is true but they did not give any more information about where Treasury is in the process with those other countries who were never named.

I just finished reading (and writing up a post for the Flophouse to be published tomorrow) about Patrick Weil’s new book, The Sovereign Citizen:  Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic.

In a nutshell this book traces the evolution of American citizenship from a conditional citizenship to an unconditional one.  Unconditional in what sense?  As a result of a series of Supreme Court decision it is impossible today for a birthright American citizen to be forcibly denationalized (have his or her American citizenship stripped away) though it is still possible for a naturalized one to be denaturalized in very rare circumstances.

What is fascinating about Weil’s analysis is that he says that the major change in the American conception of citizenship was to change the “Who Decides.”  According to Weil the Supreme Court decided that it was NOT the the U.S. government, the U.S. Congress nor the American people who get to decide – it’s the Constitution.  It says so right there in the Fourteenth Amendment and that has been interpreted by U.S. courts to mean that American birthright citizenship is unconditional.  Doesn’t matter if you leave the country 5 days after you were born or take on another citizenship or commit terrible acts while abroad.  An American citizen’s “right to have rights” is derived from and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

So when a U.S. border agent stops someone at the border and proclaims, “You are an American citizen until we tell you otherwise,” that person is full of it.  It’s not up to him or any agent of the U.S. government to say such a thing.  It’s not even up to the American public unless they decide to go forth and alter the Constitution, a lengthy and complex process.

That was a revelation for me.  Doesn’t address all the unintended consequences of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Surely doesn’t help all those “Accidental Americans’ out there either.  But if I understand Weil’s analysis correctly, it is not within the power of the U.S. government to simply declare that certain people are no longer U.S. citizens.  I found that fascinating.

So here we are in a globalized era with a government which cannot denationalize citizens under any circumstances but can and does make their lives very difficult when they live outside of the United States.  Citizens abroad can be killed without due process.  And as we know they can also be double-taxed.  I imagine as well that there are a whole host of others things the U.S. government could do if it was sufficiently motivated.

It has been suggested that the recent enforcement of citizenship-based taxation is not a roundabout attempt to get U.S. citizens to voluntarily give up their citizenship.  A lot of Americans I’ve talked to in the homeland (Left and Right) seem to think that things like living in another country long-term, voting in a foreign election or marrying a foreign national should get your citizenship pulled.  They can’t do that but what if we could be encouraged to go away of our own accord?  I doubt it is the main reason behind citizenship-based taxation/FBARs/FATCA but perhaps America thinks that renunciations/relinquishments are a happy by-product of these things?

What do you folks think?

Yesterday, the French newspaper, Les Echos (business/finance/economics), published an article about FATCA.  The headline gives you a strong clue as to how they feel about it:

Banque : les Etats-Unis imposent leur loi à l’Europe
(Banking:  The United-States imposes its law on Europe)

The tone is harsh and and the language is strong.  Here are a few translations:

“Adopté aux Etats-Unis en 2010 après l’affaire UBS, le Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (Fatca) traque littéralement tous les citoyens américains à travers le monde et exerce des moyens de pression si considérables sur les institutions financières.”

(Adopted in the United States in 2010 after the UBS affair, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (Fatca) literally hunts down all the American citizens in the world and uses strong methods to pressure financial institutions…)

“Les banques de tous les pays se mettent en ordre de marche… forcée.”

(The banks in all countries are being set on a forced march.)

“La loi part du principe que tout citoyen américain ou entreprise du pays basé à l’étranger est un fraudeur fiscal potentiel.”

(The law starts with the principal that every American citizen or company based abroad is a potential tax evader.)

“Les banques devront grosso modo adapter leurs systèmes d’information et de reporting dans tous les pays où elles sont présentes afin de détecter leurs clients américains et toutes les opérations faites avec les Etats-Unis.”

(Banks must essentially adapt their information and reporting systems in every country where they are present in order to detect their American clients and all transactions with the United States.)

“En France, le chiffre de 500 millions d’euros de coûts supplémentaires a couru l’an dernier sans être confirmé officiellement.”

(In France the figure of 500 million euros in extra costs [to be compliant] was put out last year without being officially confirmed.)

They go on to quote the French bank La Société Générale which says it has no choice but to comply.  They also mention German banks refusing service to their American clients.  The agreement (the IGA) is mentioned and they say it is based on reciprocity and will be signed soon.  I looked but could find nothing that says where France and the U.S. are in negotiations.

The article starts with a bang and ends with a whimper.  My .02.

France is all a’flutter over the news that the beloved actor Gérard Depardieu was seeking (and apparently has now obtained) a second passport.

“Je suis un citoyen du monde,” he has declared and that is the reason he is giving for accepting a Russian passport.  He vigorously denies that his actions are linked to tax matters in France though few people believe him since he has been highly critical of the French government’s tax policies and not too long ago he left the Hexagon for Belgium which provoked a perfect storm of criticism and angst.  Look here for a superb editorial about the language that French politicians have been using to describe him (tax evader, ingrate, deserter – terms that many of us here hear quite often).  The conclusion of the author of the piece?  These politicians are unconscious defenders of slavery, says Bertrand Lemennicier, who act ” s’ils étaient propriétaires de nos corps et de nos vies.” (as if they owned our bodies and our lives.)

And Depardieu was having none of it.  His  open letter to the President and Prime Minister is something to read and I invite you to do so.  He certainly came out swinging and was not in the slightest bit apologetic – apoplectic is more like it.  A few choice bits that I enjoyed greatly:

“Je n’ai pas à justifier les raisons de mon choix, qui sont nombreuses et intimes.” (I do not have justify the reasons for my choices which are many and private.)

“Je n’ai jamais tué personne, je ne pense pas avoir démérité, j’ai payé 145 millions d’euros d’impôts en quarante-cinq ans, je fais travailler 80 personnes dans des entreprises qui ont été créées pour eux et qui sont gérées par eux.” (I never killed anyone, I don’t think I was ever a bad guy, I paid 145 million Euros in taxes over 45 years, I provide work for 80 people in companies that were created for and are managed by them.)

And he ends his missive by asking the French President and his Prime Minister, “Who in the hell are you to judge me?”

Good question and I applaud him for having the courage and the audacity to ask it.  As Depardieu so rightly points out those who leave their countries of origin – who choose to live, marry, raise families and work on distant shores- should never have to justify their choices to anyone.  We have that right – the right to leave the place where we accidentally found ourselves at one point in time and to go wherever we are welcome.  This is true of all of us whatever category of migrant we happen to be in – whether we are film stars or farmhands.  And the only proper response in my view to attempts by states and their homeland citizens to prevent people from leaving their territories (policies against emigration) or punishing them for it (exit taxes and citizenship-based taxation) or trying to shame them into staying is outrage.