The general view in Switzerland seems to be that if some banks did wrong, then they should be held responsible for their actions without the parliament being involved, while those in favor of Lex USA generally feared the American blackmail.

A lot of commentary that I have read so far in the US seemed to lean more in favor of Switzerland.  There were a few calls for war, kicking Swiss out of the US or prohibiting Americans living in Switzerland from having a local bank account, but otherwise many individuals showed an interested in respecting personal privacy and resisting foreign powers.

The votes can be seen here.

This new American chocolate which does not melt is a bit like #LexUSA, containing inside secret materials.

— Marie P Bender (@mariebender) June 19, 2013

Disclaimer: I want to make it clear that I support the principle that one should obey the law. I do believe tax evasion should be punished. But, I also believe that punishments should be proportional to the crime. It is becoming increasingly clear that FBAR penalties violate any conceivable principle of fairness and morality. Good citizenship requires one to support the principle that it is important that the government adhere to high moral principles and standards. Given a choice of having offshore tax evasion and a completely unprincipled and predatory government, I would opt for the former.

____________________________________________

@AtticusinCanada The DOJ is "The Ministry of Love" http://t.co/PSYbgqYlAQ – What an #Orwellian World! http://t.co/p7ldrDJUjp

— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) June 12, 2013

Note that they proudly include the Curran widow who they simply extorted 21 million dollars from. This makes me sick for the reasons given here. The U.S. government is not A predator. The U.S. government is THE predator. The time has come for these “so called” lawyers to put their energy into a search for justice rather than a search for fees (click on the previous link – really).

It appears that the names on the trophy list are people who have agreed to pay the fines. They probably thought that by “paying” they would put their adventures in FBAR behind them. They are wrong. They will need counseling the rest of their lives.

Q. What options are available to the Government if you don’t pay your FBAR penalty?

A. They have to sue. Looks like we finally have somebody who “might” be willing  to “get it on” with the Department of Justice.

Advice: Make sure you get yourself a lawyer with courage and principle.

The Lawsuit for the FBAR Penalty

DoJ Files Action to Collect Multiple 50 Percent Civil #FBAR Penalties in U.S.A. vs. Zwerner http://t.co/ly523P2y7Y – May be 8th am test!

— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) June 19, 2013

It’s not called the “FBAR Fundraiser” for nothing. The facts are described in the Forbes article as follows and a copy of the complaint is here.

U.S.A. vs. Carl R. Zwerner. On June 11, 2013, the U.S. government filed a Complaint to collect multiple civil FBAR penalties in the amount of $3,488,609.33 previously assessed against Carl R. Zwerner of Coral Gables, Florida for his alleged failure to timely report his financial interest in  a foreign bank account, as required by 31 U.S.C. § 5314 and its implementing regulations. See United States v. Carl R. Zwerner, Case # 1:13-cv-22082-CMA (SD Florida, June 11, 2013). According to the Complaint, from 2004 through 2007, Mr. Zwerner, a U.S. citizen, had a financial interest in an account at ABN AMRO Bank in Switzerland (hereinafter, “the Swiss bank account”). The Complaint alleges that the balance of the Swiss bank account from 2004-2007 was at all times greater than $10,000 and that, as such, on or before June 30, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, Mr. Zwerner was required to file an FBAR reporting his financial interest in the Swiss bank account for each year from 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, respectively. However, the Complaint also asserts that prior to October 2008, Mr. Zwerner had never reported his financial interest in the Swiss bank account on an FBAR, nor had he reported income he earned from that account on his federal income tax returns.

To many, pursuing multiple year, maximum penalties following submission of amended returns and delinquent FBARs appears punitive. The nature of the underlying actions, if any, that may have led to the filing of the Complaint are unknown. However, the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment and relevant Supreme Court caselaw support a conclusion to the effect that a civil penalty or forfeiture is unconstitutional if the penalty or forfeiture is at least in part “punishment” and such punishment is grossly disproportionate to the conduct which the penalty is designed to punish.The touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality – the amount of the penalty must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish.

The Complaint in Zwerner further alleges that on or about October 13, 2008, Mr. Zwerner filed a delinquent FBAR reporting his financial interest in the Swiss bank account during 2007, along with an amended income tax return for 2007; on or about March 27, 2009, Mr. Zwerner filed amended income tax returns and delinquent FBARs for 2004, 2005, and 2006. The basis of the Complaint is that Mr. Zwerner’s alleged failure to timely report his financial interest in the Swiss bank account for 2004-2007 was willful. Apparently, Mr. Zwerner did not hold the Swiss bank account in his own name. The Complaint alleges that from 2004 to 2006 he held the account in the name of any entity called the Bond Foundation and that, in January 2007, he transferred the account to an entity called the Livella Foundation. However, the Complaint asserts that at all times, however, Mr. Zwerner was the beneficial owner of the account.

According to the Complaint, Mr. Zwerner’s original tax returns for 2004 to 2007 did not report any income earned from the Swiss bank account; that the first time he reported such income was when he amended those returns; and that Mr. Zwerner represented on Schedule B of his original tax returns for those years that he did not have an interest in a foreign financial account. The Complaint asserts that Mr. Zwerner “expressly represented to the accountant who prepared his original tax returns for 2006 and 2007 that he had no interest in or signature authority over a financial account in a foreign country.” Further, it asserts that in a “letter dated August 9, 2010, Mr. Zwerner admitted to the IRS that he was aware that he should have reported both the existence of the account and the income he earned from it.”

Why would the DOJ launch this lawsuit?

It is obviously vindictive. Presumably this is punishment for not entering the OVDP program. As we know the GAO criticized the IRS for allowing people to come into tax compliance without offering to pay penalties.

The message from the U.S. government is:

You do NOT under any circumstances fix your tax problems without participating in the FBAR Fundraiser.

This is particularly significant because:

The government is seeking (what appears to be the unusual step of seeking) a multiple year FBAR penalty! Well, this is breaking new ground. In other words, the DOJ is sending a message that we can and we will seek a multiple year FBAR penalty IF WE WANT TO! (How is a lawyer to advise a client.)

The likely effect of this …

The incentives for coming into compliance are deteriorating.

What effect does his have on U.S. citizens abroad?

Probably not much (at least at the moment). As Mr. Rettig writes in his article:

Given the complexities of the Internal Revenue Code, other relevant statutes and life in general, many of the indiscretions associated with an income tax return or FBAR are anything but willful or intentional and definitely not fraudulent in nature. It is also likely that long-term residents of the U.S. might be deemed to have a higher degree of knowledge and will be treated differently than long-term non-residents of the U.S. In each situation, the actual facts and circumstances of each matter must be carefully reviewed before anyone can determine the appropriate method of coming into compliance with the various filing and reporting requirements associated with offshore financial accounts.

Possible conclusion …

If you agree that the FBAR Fundraiser is outrageous – get  thee to a consulate and renounce immediately. The United States of today is a country where law has become a substitute for morality! Furthermore, the United States has far too many laws.

Your thoughts …

Leaders of the G8 major economies have agreed new measures to clamp down on money launderers, illegal tax evaders and corporate tax avoiders.

They include requiring that shell companies – often used to exploit tax loopholes and invest money anonymously – identify their effective owners.

Governments also agreed to give each other automatic access to information on their residents’ tax affairs.

@ChrisCoons This must please you. #G8 agrees to clamp down on corporate tax evasion http://t.co/vRvNAn4UjJ #FATCA is now targeting Delaware

— Marvin Van Horn (@FATCA_Fallout) June 18, 2013

Homelanders — even lawyers who should know better — continue to spread the demagogic myth that renunciants are all people who got rich in the U.S. and then suddenly decided one day to up and leave in response to the latest political outrage committed by whatever political party the author doesn’t like. Jack Reed and Chuck Schumer are pounding the drum for their new amendment to impose permanent exile on ex-citizens. So it’s more important than ever to point out the reality of who gives up U.S. citizenship: ordinary people pursuing ordinary lives in the countries of their choosing.

In today’s globalised world, this same story is playing out in dozens of countries: people leave their homes and go abroad for economic and political and romantic reasons, and eventually they or their children want to have legal rights as full members of the societies in which they have lived and contributed for decades. Even if that requires renunciation of the nationality of the country they left behind or that they never knew at all, it often seems like a very small or theoretical price to pay in exchange for a very concrete benefit.

This is not simply a phenomenon in the traditional migration destinations, and indeed those countries are often the last to understand that it’s a two-way street. They myopically think that only foreigners in their country are “immigrants”, while their citizens abroad are merely “expats” who have no desire to become full members of those “inferior” countries to which they moved in order to bring their “American can-do and know-how”, and who would have to be “crazy” to give up “a passport that oil sheikhs would pay a million dollars to have“.

But if the folks back in those sending countries (and sadly in many cases, the new arrivals recently landed from those same sending countries, with plans of moving back in a few years) continue their demagogic chanting about their compatriots settled abroad being “traitors”, “tax cheats”, “draft evaders”, or “losers who couldn’t make it in the big leagues”, that makes the decision to dump that old country’s passport in the rubbish bin a far easier one — who would want to be a member of such a small-minded, xenophobic club anyway?

One of the major benefits of being a citizen of Taiwan is access to the national health insurance system. But if you’re a dual citizen who’s self-employed or employed by a U.S. company in Taiwan, you’re still expected to make U.S. Social Security and Medicare “contributions” — even though your ultimate Social Security payments will be reduced because of your “windfall” of also having old age assistance payments from the government of the country where you actually live (after you spent decades of your life paying the full rate of social insurance contributions in both countries to fund that system), and of course you won’t be able to use Medicare at all unless you plan to fly back to the Homeland every time you take ill.

The use of the term “real Taiwanese person” here seems to reflect a nationalist-statist essentialism — common to both the U.S. and Taiwan — which assumes that “citizenship” in the sense of nationality, the legal relationship between a government and an individual, is the ultimate arbiter of whether you’re a “real American” or a “real Taiwanese” or whatnot. (The flip side of that mentality, of course, is that if you give up your legal relationship to the government, you are a traitor and an unperson.) The original Chinese version is slightly better, even if unintentionally so — the phrase “正港的台灣人” uses not the standard Chinese word for “real” (“真正”, seen in the lede paragraph), but rather a Hokkien word, hinting at the deep-seated mentality of the author that Hokkien language and not nationality is the true arbiter of what makes a “real Taiwanese person”.

Anyway, on to the second story. Technically, this one is about a relinquisher (INA § 349(a)(1)) rather than a renunciant (INA § 349(a)(5)), but the effect is the same: he has chosen to be a U.S. citizen no longer.

Park is not quite the average “accidental American” or “accidental Korean”. He experienced life in both countries as a child and as an adult, and presumably is fluent in both languages. In other words, he had a choice of where to go.

In 2010, South Korea relaxed its prohibitions against dual citizenship, and now the situation there is similar to that in Germany or the Netherlands: most South Koreans who naturalise elsewhere or immigrants who naturalise in South Korea are still expected to give up their original citizenships, but people who inherit different citizenships from their parents, who receive another country’s citizenship due to jus soli there, or who receive special permission from the government are all permitted to be dual citizens. Park reached the age of majority a few years too early to benefit from these reforms, so he picked the citizenship of the country where he was actually living at the time so he could finish up his education — but then, he decided he’d ultimately be happier in his other country.

Park is not the only young Korean American man who decided after several years of living in South Korea that he’d be better off without a U.S. passport, even if that meant giving up his conscription-exempt F4 “diaspora visa” status and serving in the army for two years. Even as far back as 1994 when the State Department first released names of people giving up U.S. citizenship (and when South Korea was a much poorer country), at least thirty of the thousand people listed were conscription-age men with Korean names. More recently, a number of well-known sportsmen and entertainers have chosen the same route: actor Yoo Gun, former MC the MAX bass guitarist Yoon Jae-woong, and basketballer Lee Dong-jun, for example. But there’s plenty of non-famous ones too — and they rarely show up in the newspaper, though last year I translated two other human-interest stories about three Air Force officers and two Navy sailors who also gave up U.S. citizenship as part of their journeys towards ordinary lives in South Korea.

Unsurprisingly, out of these eight ex-Americans, only two have shown up in the IRS’ “Quarterly Publication of Individuals, Who have Chosen to Expatriate” in the Federal Register, which is allegedly supposed to include the names of all persons losing U.S. citizenship. Yet oddly, the two who did show up weren’t the famous ones whose eye-popping salaries probably made them into covered expatriates. As we’ve pointed out in the past, those IRS lists of names of ex-Americans are notoriously incomplete, in particular with respect to South Korea, where 2,128 people gave up U.S. passports or green cards in 2011 alone. (The IRS lists are supposed to include ex-green card-holders as well, but it’s extremely doubtful whether they actually do.) Anyone taking bets on whether PFC Park Young-hoon’s name will get printed in the next “name-and-shame list”?

Again we meet the adjective “real”, with all the baggage it carries. In Park’s case, the meaning is clear: a real South Korean man is one who has done military service. He chooses to live in the country and he is willing to pay the costs of membership in society in order to derive its benefits. But even South Korea, a country which faces an imminent threat to its very existence with a hostile nuclear-armed dictatorship right next door, makes reasonable exceptions to the military service requirement for genuine emigrants: note that after he gave up South Korean citizenship, Park could come back and even study in his former country without triggering conscription, and in the end regaining his South Korean citizenship involved nothing more than a brief and painless administrative procedure.

In contrast, the U.S. forces the costs of membership in their society on millions of emigrants who explicitly choose not to live there, while denying us any real benefits and threatening us with a permanent ban on returning if we give up citizenship. The only societies from which U.S. Persons abroad benefit are the ones we actually live in, not our faraway land of origin which does nothing to aid our day-to-day existence. And these countries we live in, like South Korea or France or Taiwan, have full-fledged diaspora commissions as top-level divisions of cabinet ministries, voting districts devoted to overseas citizens, monetary support for cultural schools and programmes to keep the children of emigrants in touch with the country’s language and culture, or positive incentives for return migration.

I came to know of Lisa during my dark days on Jack’s blog as “anon5Percent”. Later, due to her efforts to find me, I got to know her personally via phone and email conversations.  She started commenting here as Lisa and evolved to Not that Lisa to eliminate confusion between her and another commenter.

I could not be more pleased about this success, and only sorry for her that it has taken so much frustration, anxiety, expense, and LCUs, which still required the intervention of the TAS for the IRS to “do the right thing”. I asked her permission tonight, to also highlight her 30 month saga to add to the resource of self help material on Isaac Brock Society.

I thought it was important to headline this ‘ORDEAL’ as many places as possible. I think she is being too generous to call her escape from the IRS penalty extraction processing factory a mere ‘Odyssey’.  It is a total waste of taxpayers time and money for naught, and represents one of the reasons that ACA has called this abuse to the attention of the committees in Congress who are investigating IRS T-party scandal. We can not let this milestone pass as just another low profile comment on the OVDI Drudgery thread lost to a larger audience.

Below are the documents that she has made available to Isaac Brock Society. They are uploaded here for others to access and use as examples for their struggles.

Not that Lisa – FINAL My OVDI Odyssey

Not that Lisa – FINAL Opt Out letter

Not that Lisa  - FINAL Opt Out Reasonable Cause Arguments

Not tht Lisa –  FINAL Streamlined Program Acceptance Letter

Not that Lisa – FINAL Mitigated FBAR Level II Non-Willful Penalties

Not that Lisa – FINAL Letter 3800

What follows are her comments:

I offer these documents because fellow victims like Just Me, Moby, Sally, ij and bubblebustin have shared their experiences on both the Isaac Brock Society website and/or on Jack Townsend’s Federal Tax Crimes Site. Their experiences in OVDP and OVDI and their ideas have helped me immensely. I was all alone and learned so much from them. I also much appreciated the supportive comments of Michael Miller.

I cannot thank them enough. I would also like to thank those who have published information or made comments on Isaac Brock. Even if it has not always been directly related to my ordeal, it was helpful in understanding the big picture. Hopefully, by sharing my experiences, others will benefit.

Rather than write additional comments, I repeat here the conclusions I make at the end of my OVDI Odyssey story:

The OVDI process was entirely unnecessary and a waste of my time and money. After 30 months and excessive legal costs, I ended up in the same place I would have been without entering any Voluntary Disclosure Program. I filed amended returns, had an examination and was able to argue reasonable cause.

The IRS wasted lots of money and time to collect my $133 a year. The costs of the Taxpayer Advocate Service were additional public costs that were caused by inappropriate IRS policy. Furthermore, I incurred high legal costs and had to live with undue stress, as I was treated in the same category as criminals who had intentionally evaded taxes.

Nina Olson runs a tight ship at the Taxpayer Advocate Service. Her staff helped me to understand and feel less stressed and they were extremely conscientious as well. Congress made a good decision when they created the TAS and they could Not have a better person to lead it than Nina Olson. I am extremely grateful to Nina, her Senior Attorney Adviser and my Case Advocate. The issuance of the TAO changed my life for the better as the IRS finally started to move on my case.

The IRS policy of “one size fits all” was totally misguided. However, there are good, highly professional agents out there who are aware of this and will use the small amount of discretion they are given within the program. I think there is an unannounced policy within the IRS that one size does not fit all anymore. Outside of OVDI, examiners have more discretion, and the regulations in the IRM can work in the favor of most minnows.

The worst part of OVDI for me was dealing with tax professionals. The lawyers I dealt with made me feel like a criminal and ran up excessive fees. My experience with my IRS Revenue Agent was a lot more pleasant, While I think it is a good thing to get legal advice on your options and about the strength of your opt out arguments, ultimately, I did not see the need for extensive legal advice. Run from any lawyer who tells you that a Voluntary Disclosure Program is your only option, and that there is no negotiation.

The IRS needs to develop a better way to assist US person foreign residents to come into compliance. While the Streamlined Program is a start, the rules are confusing and unclear to both those inside and outside the IRS. The Streamlined Program needs to go further! Its rules need clarification and communication. The Streamlined Program could also be extended to immigrants to the US.

I have signed documents allowing my data to be used by the Taxpayer Advocate in the next Taxpayer Advocate Annual Report to Congress (ARC). Hopefully, this data, along with that of others can motivate the IRS and/or Congress to take action to fix the problems created by the OVDI/P approach.

I am grateful for the comments on this blog from other OVD victims and people who wanted to help. You saved me. Thank you and it is now time to move on.

http://michaelpower.ca/2013/04/fatca-revisited/

Hi Michael,

Have any of the “privacy experts” considered that every single brokerage firm already performs the same filter and requires the same determination for people who want to trade on US stock exchanges?  All IIROC firms already have agreements with the IRS to share US Person determination in order to avoid US withholding taxes for all of their customers.

The privacy impact is true on US Persons, however that being said, these persons should either file their US taxes or relinquish citizenship, they have a choice!  Tax treaties ensure relatively fair treatment.

Non-US persons in Canada will be slightly inconvenienced with being asked if they are truly non-US. Their information WILL BE PROTECTED and not sent to CRA (except for regular tax reporting).

It is absolutely astounding how quick groups like the green party are to complain that the top 1% don’t pay their share, however once a critical, world-wide tax evasion tool like FATCA comes in, they are quick to complain about privacy.

No countries in the world would be able to budge without the US moving first, so YEAH to the US for moving the bar and allowing everyone else to catch up. (Europe already moving to multilateral)

In the end, FATCA will likely make Canada more money then US by making snowbird report their foreign holdings honestly for fear of recipricol reporting coming in 2 years. Should we feel sorry for those tax evaders?  I don’t, as they are getting their fair share of health care when nneeded, it is waiting for them!

I would encourage you to provide a more balanced set of positions on FATCA for your readers.

Remember — Tax evaded proceeds are criminal proceeds internationally!  We have the same obligation in Canada to isolate and not shelter them as any other country does for us.

Privacy is not a shelter for illegal activity.

I suggest Brockers may want to make their way over to Michael Power blog and comment.

So it’s fortunate to see there are at least some exceptions; let us give credit where credit is due. In an article in India Abroad magazine entitled “Pitfalls of renouncing citizenship”, immigration lawyer Tahmina Watson of Watson Immigration Law in Seattle gives a surprisingly fair and accurate overview of the heated topic of renunciation of citizenship, stemming from a situation that one of her clients faced.

It is not often I meet a person who wants to renounce United States citizenship, at least not within the United States. People generally renounce citizenship outside the US where they can attend an embassy. United States embassies have designated departments handling such matters regularly. Recently, I was sitting at my desk when a call came in. The caller had received US citizenship the day before, but immediately regretted the decision because in doing so, she had lost citizenship in her home country.

Indeed, embassies and consulates are handling such matters far more regularly than the IRS is willing to admit, both from former immigrants who regret their decision to naturalise and native-born Americans who moved abroad to pursue the dream of a better life. Anyway, with the first paragraph of her article, Ms. Watson is already on a better footing than almost every mainstream journalist and even certain tax lawyers, who believe that thoughts of renunciation are a rare phenomenon limited to rich people who wake up one morning deciding to flee the estate tax and then “renounce their citizenship and leave the country without paying their fair share” — a sequence of acts which is not even legally possible.

As a former Indian citizen, my client’s concerns were now rather serious. She cannot own certain property in India, and her dependent children cannot remain Indian citizens because now both she and her husband are US citizens. Although she could apply for an Overseas Citizenship of India Card, the rights under that status are significantly diminished.

“Significantly diminished” … though not as diminished as the rights for former citizens of the United States, even without considering the permanent exile that some corrupt demagogues in Congress keep proposing. India is one of many countries which offer a special “diaspora visa” status to former citizens, allowing them to re-enter the country and reside there for work, education, or simply to care for ageing parents. Simplified permission for former citizens to return to their original countries is a widespread phenomenon; it can be found in countries both rich and poor, countries which espouse an ethnic basis of citizenship and those which define their citizenship in civic terms, and countries which allow dual citizenship and others which forbid it. A cursory internet search reveals that Australia, Denmark, South Korea, and the Philippines all have similar programmes, for example.

The question is now, what can she do? It turns out that the matter is not at all simple. One cannot in fact renounce US citizenship from within the United States, except in certain circumstances.

As we’ve discussed previously on the Isaac Brock Society, the origin of that exception for “certain circumstances” is rather disreputable: it was designed to pressure interned Japanese Americans to renounce their U.S. citizenship during World War II so that they could be deported to Japan. However, seven decades later the courts ruled that attacking and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq indeed constitutes a “state of war” for purposes of that law even if Congress decided to pretend they weren’t exercising their exclusive constitutional privilege to declare war, and so the Department of Justice has become much less enthusiastic about this provision and convinced the “Gang of Eight” to insert provisions in the immigration reform bill to repeal the law entirely.

In addition, while the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service is responsible for the naturalisation process, it does not have jurisdiction to accept renunciations. That responsibility falls within the purview of the US Department of State.

This is something of which even certain USCIS employees seem to be unaware. During the scandal a few years ago over Jamaican politicians illegally holding dual citizenship, among the more colourful revelations was that one audacious lady had claimed to USCIS to be resident in Florida so that she could naturalise as a U.S. citizen … while she was a sitting member of parliament in Jamaica, breaking both countries’ laws at the same time! But it gets better: before the next election in Jamaica, she went to a USCIS office in Florida and handed back her passport, stating she thought this was how you renounced U.S. citizenship — and apparently no one there thought to correct her misconception. Afterwards she flew back to Jamaica on her Jamaican passport, presumably violating the U.S. law requiring all citizens to be in possession of a United States passport when they leave the United States.

There are additional problems. If they were to renounce US citizenship, she does not automatically revert back to being a legal permanent resident, a status she held with great pride for many years. She would have to reapply for legal permanent residence status which may or may not come with some challenges.

As we’ve pointed out previously, there are some examples of people who have managed to get green cards or some sort of U.S. residence visas after renouncing citizenship, though this is presumably not a very common phenomenon. But anyway, I’d better quit before I end up quoting the whole article; go read the rest yourself.

This is quite literally the first American-written article I have seen on renunciation of citizenship which makes no factual errors and does not mention Benedict Arnold, Anwar Al-Awlaqi, or “wealthy people fleeing the estate tax”. So what gives?

Tahmina Watson is an immigration attorney and founder of Watson Immigration Law in Seattle, Washington. She was a practicing barrister in London, United Kingdom before immigrating to the United States herself.

Immigrants: doing the jobs Americans refuse to do, like writing sane and level-headed articles on renunciation of citizenship.

Those in or near  London, England  might be interested that a similar event to take place there on Sunday, July 28, 2013, is in the works. I will post the details as the become available.

UDPATE 2:

Saturday, June 15

Don Mills United Church – 126 O’Connor Dr., Toronto, Ontario M4K 2K7

Click here for directions (at the corner of Pape and O’Connor, see google maps).  There is some street parking.

Doors will open at 9:45 a.m.

UPDATE 1:

1. There is to be no taping/recording/videoing of ANY part of the day.
2. The day will be extended to encourage more people to attend.
3. Attendance is free.

The morning session will focus primarily on the emotional issues and the afternoon session on practical issues.

Session I:  The Financial and Emotional Costs of U.S. Citizenship Abroad

• When: Saturday June 15, 2013 – 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon
• Where: Downtown Toronto – Near U of T – Final location posted on June 13
• Who: a Senior Licensed Psychologist

Description:  Since 2011, the Obama administration has subjected millions of people Living outside the United States to a vicious attack. This includes Reaching into Canada. The IRS has literally threatened millions of innocent persons living outside the United States with fines exceeding their personal wealth–up to 380% of their financial assets. For many, this experience has taken a toll on their mental and physical health, and that has been even greater than the financial damage. A psychologist will address the emotional issues associated with the threats and demands that IRS is making. He will describe his own emotional experience and encourage others to share their own emotional reactions to these circumstances. Strategies will be discussed on how to cope with the stress caused by the IRS and the difficulties of living as a U.S. person abroad.

Session II:  US Citizenship Abroad and Compliance Issues – Where we have come from.  Where we are. Where we may be going

• When: 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
• Who:  An experienced Toronto lawyer
• What: Focus on more practical issues

Description:  Beginning in the summer of 2011 the IRS aided by the media and cross-border professionals began a relentless attack on U.S. citizens in Canada. The spectre of FATCA has worsened the situation. The purpose of this session will be to review:

• Summer of 2011 – where we have come from
• 2011 to now – where we are now
• 2014 and onwards – where we may be going

What might this mean for U.S. citizenship in Canada? What are some possible responses? How can/should you respond to a difficult situation?

Please note that although this event will take place on June 15, it is NOT a session on how to file a U.S. tax return. The discussion will however include relevant U.S. tax issues and reporting/information returns.

You may feel you need help because:

1. You are or have been threatened by the imposition of life-altering fines for failing to file information returns you had no reason to know existed;
2. You feel victimized by the Canadian and other non-U.S. media, who have constantly referred to you as a “tax cheat” and advised you to “come clean”;
3. You feel “taken advantage of” by the so-called “cross-border professionals”.
   You just want to be compliant with the law, but you receive conflicting advice, and nobody seems to be able to tell you how to do it, yet they are asking for “huge” fees;
4. You feel completely misunderstood by the non-U.S. citizens in your life. They can’t understand the feelings of fear, betrayal and injustice that you feel. In some cases, this experience has put your marriage at risk;
5. Your health has been dramatically affected by all of this. You can’t sleep. You worry. You have gained or lost weight. You are no longer the happy person you were. You feel that your life has been stolen from you.

First published May 27, 2013

When a citizen decides to leave the United States and renounce their citizenship, they often face taxes on income earned in the United States and on any gains from appreciated assets. Is it punitive to apply a similar standard for those seeking U.S. citizenship? Think about that: When a U.S. citizen decides to leave the United States and renounce their citizenship, they often face taxes on income earned in the United States and on any gains from appreciated assets. That is not punitive. The answer, of course, is that it is not punitive.

The context of Hatch’s comments was a speech claiming that his amendments relating to taxation and healthcare coverage for registered provisional immigrants were also “not punitive”. Hatch’s facile description of the exit tax is not accurate, making one wonder whether anything else he says to justify his policy proposals is: under the half-decade-old HEART Act, the tax on ex-citizens is applied not just on “income earned in the United States”, but current unrealised non-U.S. capital gains, including capital gains on a house whose purchase was funded in the first place by non-U.S. wages used to qualify for a mortgage from a non-U.S. bank protected by a non-U.S. mortgage guarantee scheme, all under the laws of a non-U.S. government. I suppose he thinks that punishing people who renounce citizenship to save their mortgages is entirely appropriate anyway. Apparently Hatch hates anyone who dares to leave his birth country and pursue a better life elsewhere, whether they move to the United States or away from it.

The G8 will learn about a template devised by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development to globalize tax collection. This will include measures such as transparency, sanctions and sharing agreements between governments.

An estimated $32-trillion is hidden offshore, or two U.S.-sized economies, socked away in numbered or secret accounts in a variety of dirty money capitals. And Canada is being accused of reluctance when it comes to getting information from its banks then sharing it with other governments.

According to a story in The Post this week, tax watchdog groups claim that Canada is resisting Cameron’s efforts to force governments to exchange tax information about known cheats. He also wants governments to collect information from financial institutions about foreign-sourced income and give that information to the foreign countries where the income was made so they know about it and can tax it.

Currently, Canadian laws are lax. Offshore assets must be reported, but the CRA doesn’t pursue leads as aggressively as do the Europeans or Americans. There has been some movement, but Cameron wants more. Under pressure, Ottawa set up a “swat” team to pursue offshore evaders, now requires reporting of offshore transactions of more than $10,000, offers modest whistleblower rewards and just announced that resource companies must report all payments to foreign governments. Resistance is due to the fact that the Canadian banks are a powerful lobby here, but Canadians who pay taxes deserve better management of tax collection.