Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 5 of 11 (Year 2018)

1,714 thoughts on “Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 5 of 11 (Year 2018)”

1. Everything in the usa was coated with a thick layer of fraud. All roads lead to Renounce Avenue.

   Other than economic hu$tling and war imperialism, what exactly does/did the usa stand for–that is, what was its’ narrative??

2. This doesn’t concern us directly but it’s yet another example of the “law”‘s lack of tolerance for simple, honest mistakes. It also highlights the pitfalls facing executors of any estate with “cross-border” involvement. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/bank-drafts-seized-us-border-td-bank-customer-service-1.4749780

3. The “law” is simply to get money, get more money for the us empire. That’s really its rancid narrative. the business of america, is business (get money).

   We have a lot of well meaning folks, associations, clubs, societies, etc…all trying to deliver a massive change to the FATCA and CBT nonsense.

   However, my opinion is that nothing will really change except for more PR photo ops, empty promises, more proposals, someday talk, next yr yammer, and “social” media blather abt identity politics–very american. The financial prison of the us empire was vast; its’ tax subjects in a state of agita and fear for they will getcha.

   Renounce, and start living life. Go where you’re treated best. The us hates us, they HATE us–contempt, no representation, propaganda endless yr after yr after yr.

   That’s reality. There’s peace and tranquillity in knowing the us empire truth.

4. Karen:

   “Interesting discussion on FATCA/CRS and data protection at 28:35”

   I thought the whole thing was quite nauseating. Transatlantic tax boffin pissing contest. Pretending to be concerned about the rights of taxpayers but they’re actually yammering about nothing. Just ego-ing their way through till it’s time to get back to the schmoozing.

   GDPR doesn’t apply in tax matters; the IRS is an open door to hackers and thieves but won’t let taxpayers see or correct the misinformation in their own file. Both sides of the ocean smugly certain FATCA and CRS will never be struck down.

   Disgusting. Nauseating.

5. MuzzledNoMore – it seems to me that article about the confiscated inheritance is indeed of concern to anyone living (or rather dying) outside the US with US heirs. Which is more likely to be the case for USCs and former USCs, and the fact of their USness gives the IRS further grounds to confiscate the lot and leave the executor in a hell of a personal quagmire.

   I’ve avoided leaving anything to anyone in the US for this very reason. Not going to risk leaving my executor in a whole pile of doo-doo for trying to carry out my wishes. Too bad the deceased in this case wasn’t aware of the trap.

6. The venue for the Taxpayers Rights Conference was the International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, an outfit that does research services for the usual suspects (governments, tax advisers, and corporations).

   Very useful library: https://www.ibfd.org/Library

7. “The Quiet Before the Storm: FATCA May Pose Future Litigation Risks for Third Parties”

   https://www.bipc.com/assets/PDFs/News-Events/The%20Quiet%20Before%20the%20Storm%20-%20FATCA%20May%20Post%20Future%20Litigation%20Risks%20for%20Third%20Parties_Sahel%20Assar.pdf

   Some foreign institutions have chosen to avoid … [FATCA compliance burdens] by denying services to Americans living abroad. But whether that strategy will be effective in the long run remains to be seen, as illustrated re- cently by a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirming an Ohio federal district court ruling. That case, Crawford v. Dep’t of Treasury, ultimately strengthens FATCA’s teeth and could influ- ence whether FFIs that deny services because of FATCA can nevertheless be held accountable for injuries traceable to the law.
   …
   In affirming Judge Rose’s ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals sends a strong message to FFIs around the globe that Judge Rose’s arguments with respect to third-party traceability may very well become the causes of action of future plaintiffs’ complaints. Writing on behalf of the Sixth Circuit panel, Judge Danny J. Boggs held that the plaintiffs failed to show ‘‘an actual injury that is fairly traceable to FATCA or an imminent threat of prosecution for non-compliance with FATCA.’’(81) The Sixth Circuit further held that the plaintiffs injuries are more appropriately traceable to a ‘‘bank’s independent actions’’(82) or ‘‘the voluntary choice a bank makes not to service U.S. clients.’’(83)
   …
   CONCLUSION
   FFIs may be at risk for answering the disputes of U.S. account holders with respect to contract formation, entity classification and FATCA reporting, privacy laws (especially if no waiver has been obtained by the FFI from the account holder in jurisdictions with strong data protection laws (such as Switzerland)), reporting of qualified U.S. persons, and third-party claims akin to Crawford. To ensure that FFIs protect themselves against possible retaliation by U.S. account holders with respect to the protocols and measures FFIs would instill post-FATCA, they must be mindful of the actions they take to accommodate two competing interests: (1) remaining in the good graces of the U.S. government (i.e., the IRS and the U.S. Department of Justice) vis-a`-vis FATCA reporting such that they can participate in the U.S. capital market without triggering an unforgiving 30% tax on withholdable payments and (2) ensuring that the compliance actions they take vis-a`-vis their U.S. account holders does not inadvertently subject them to potential lawsuits akin to the arguments the Sixth Circuit affirmed in Crawford.

8. The story of the impounded inheritance is horrible, but it’s not clear to me that this has anything to do with US taxation. Certainly the deceased’s tax compliance status is not mentioned at all. It sounds like a case of massive incompetence on the part of a bank employee (really – FedEx half a million in cash equivalents without filing paperwork?) and stubborn stupidity on the part of US customs. Also, frustrating, nowhere in the article does it state what the US wants to prove that the bank drafts are “not counterfeit” – are they going to hold onto them indefinitely?

9. Who’s in possession of the money while it sits in US customs? The bank, or did the bank relinquish possession of it when it issued the drafts? It’s like the money just vaporized!

10. Nononymous – you may be right. I may be a little over-inclined to blame the IRS. They may to wait a while for their cut.

    Still, I do have a suspicion that the bizarre decision to send the money by mail may not have been entirely unconnected with IRS regulations.

    If the bank had sent the money by online transfer – the obvious, secure, completely traceable method –
    the bank would have had to notify the IRS. The bank instead suggested sending by mail – apparently without mentioning the requirement for the sender to notify the Border Stasi.

    Maybe the bank clerk was careful
    not to ask how much money was being sent.

    Or maybe I’m just cynical.

11. Us Customs is in possession of the money.. Guilty until proven innocent.

12. Confiscating money seems to be an established income stream for the Border creatures:

    When 64-year-old Rustem Kazazi from Cleveland, Ohio, was traveling to Albania to visit relatives in October 2017, CBP took more than $58,000 in undeclared cash he had with him.

    In another incident, border agents stopped Anthonia Nwaorie last October before flying from Houston to Nigeria, where she wanted to open a medical clinic with over $41,000 she had saved. But Nwaorie had not declared that she was attempting to leave the country with more than $10,000, and CBP agents confiscated her money. CBP returned her money after seven months, but Nwaorie had already launched a class-action lawsuit against civil forfeiture practices.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/us-border-officials-confiscate-familys-inheritance-1033595%3famp=1

13. Why he sent bank drafts instead of an electronic transfer? Could be because some people still do use drafts (force of habit perhaps). Also, banks may be encouraging employees to steer clients towards drafts.

    David Weiman, Economics professor, Barnard College/Columbia University, said in CBC: Why old-fashioned bank drafts can leave you on the hook for big bucks,CBC,

    “Perhaps one of the best reasons banks still rely on paper drafts is that they help banks do what they’re best at: make money.

    Because a draft is not electronic, the transfer of funds is not instantaneous.

    In addition to the time it takes to get the draft to the person receiving the money, when they go to cash it, banks will often put a hold on it for three to five days.

    ‘It takes a certain amount of time for these to be cleared and actually settled,’ says Weiman.

    ‘In the meanwhile, of course, those funds still reside in the bank on which it was drawn. So they can continue to collect interest,’ he says.

    Weiman said banks are aggregating millions of dollars, even if they earn an annual rate of one per cent.”

    I sure wouldn’t use drafts, as there’s been a few stories in the news of drafts (sent within Canada) getting lost in transit and causing major problems. And of course with electronic transfer, the recipient can gain possession of (and start making interest on) the money sooner.

    But not everyone thinks of these things (or may not know that bank drafts can be very problematic, as they sound like an instrument that would be very solid). So in that case if a bank employee were to suggest using one, I could see a person just taking the bank employee’s advice and doing so.

14. Making the case we’re discussing more egregious, IMO, is that US Customs and Border Patrol is claiming the drafts are counterfeit, although even TD Bank has provided evidence that they are legitimate.

    “The family has sent a petition to U.S. border officials saying the bank drafts are legitimate. The package included a letter from TD saying the bank drafts are authentic.

    Border officials denied the petition, saying there wasn’t enough evidence.”

15. “Confiscating money seems to be an established income stream for the Border creatures:”

    Sounds like civil forfieture, a plague through out the US, and I believe even Canada of late.

16. Go, Nurse Nwaorie!

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/24/us-customs-money-seize-texas-nurse-anthonia-nwaorie-lawsuit

17. She won 🙂

    http://ij.org/press-release/customs-finally-returns-money-to-texas-nurse-class-action-over-civil-forfeiture-practices-continues/

18. When you also consider the 40% tax collected from US beneficiaries for an inheritance from a covered expat, the message from the US government is loud and clear: We don’t want any of your money coming into the US.

    No problem, I can think of plenty of deserving Canadian beneficiaries and it makes life far easier for the executor.

    If TD had any integrity, they would cancel the drafts, leave the US government holding a bunch of worthless paper, and try again by different means for their customer.

19. US Customs is in possession of worthless paper, except for maybe evidence. Can’t you cancel bank drafts with the receipt?

20. Come to think of it, TD was the big 5 Canadian bank which came up with those stupid green easy chair ads (remember those??) while they screwed their customers back in the early days of FATCA. Also, they were the bank which tried to seize Canadian assets (at the behest of the IRS) from the son of a person who was embroiled in a beef with the US tax agency even though the son had nothing to do with the case.

    Safe to say, I’ll never be one of their customers. Not surprising the executor in this case is having troubles caused by TD.

21. BB Generally no. When you buy a draft, the money is gone from your account. If it gets lost or stolen you are SOL. To cancel a lost draft, you put up collateral against the value of the draft in case it does eventually get cashed.
    Only use them for small amounts and be certain they can be delivered safely.

22. “When you buy a draft, the money is gone from your account. ”

    That sounds a little bit impossible to me.

    If the money hasn’t been credited to another account, it’s surely still in the balance of the account the draft is drawn on.

    It’s only a number in a ledger.

23. Plaxy. No it isn’t a little bit impossible. Clearly you’ve never purchased a bank draft. A draft isn’t a cheque. You buy it ( & pay a fee) -the money s gone from your account. You send it to someone- they cash it and typically the recipient has to wait for it to clear and pay a fee.
    In the meantime, the bank is earning money on the float. It isn’t a number in aledger. It’s a piece of paper with real value. It’s also an outdated way to transfer cash.

24. “It isn’t a number in aledger. It’s a piece of paper with real value.”

    It’s a piece of paper promising to move the number from one ledger to another. The thing that gives the piece of paper value is the bank’s guarantee.

    Until the paper is used and the bank is called on to honor the guarantee, the number doesn’t get moved.

    When the draft is purchased, the bank might leave the number in the customer’s account, frozen; or it might move the money into the bank’s account. Whichever, it’s still there until the guarantee is redeemed.

25. Whatever.

Comments are closed.