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. @Fred, ” I think America is quite divided.”

   Very true…its divided probably 50/50 exactly…. The only difference today versus the 90’s, 80’s…..is social media and the internet which fires people up.

   “taking a stance on most issues will irritate somebody.”

   Very true for us as outlanders…..especially if one is taking an issue as an outlander on a homelander issue that does not directly the outlander. I do not care if Medicaid is funded or defunded…..

   “I think it’s perfectly appropriate to voice opposition to Trumpian/GOP policies (they are the ones in power, after all), all the while hoping they’ll do the right thing on CBT for us.”

   But only to the extent those policies have a direct impact upon you. Its right and resonable as an outlander to protest against the tax on retained earnings of so called foreign corporations and blame the GOP.

   But again the root of problems for outlanders lays at the feet of a Democrat controlled Congress and President Obama.

   FWIW, I detest the many Europeans a super majority who protest Trump when they are not directly impacted. There used to be the Ugly American but now there is the Ugly European.

   The British were rightly riled up when Obama put his nose into the Brexit vote…..those same British should keep their nose out of American politics.

   Everyone needs to damX well mind their OWN business.

2. American policy is the business of the world. America has gone to extreme lengths to make it so.

   And to be fair, the US constitutional provision protecting free speech seems to be unquestioned by US policymakers.

3. Oh? Do you not know that the IrS just had to make a huge payment to groups it shut out due to their politucal leaning?

4. Yes – because the IRS was ruled to have violated the groups’ right of free speech, wasn’t it?

   Confirming that the US supports free speech.

5. Any go to prison? Fired? Lose their bonus? Ruling came LONG after the damage was done. The IRS was sucessful. Too little too late.

   And do you really think that ruling would have come down if the other canidate won?

6. Would the case have been brought, if the other candidate had won?

   I see no sign that American politicians of either party want to abolish freedom of speech. It’s useful to them, also it seems very likely to me that most of them if not all probably geuinely value it.

7. If it got that far, it would probably be thrown out due to lack of standing.

8. Gag orders used to evade first amendment protections.

   I have NOT read this article yet. Found it instead of the articles I was looking for. Should be fun.

   https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/when-silence-isnt-golden-how-gag-orders-can-evade-first-amendment-protections

9. RE: the comment above from George (Original): “‘I think it’s perfectly appropriate to voice opposition to Trumpian/GOP policies (they are the ones in power, after all), all the while hoping they’ll do the right thing on CBT for us.’ But only to the extent those policies have a direct impact upon you.”

   I don’t have any desire to prolong the argument, but if all of us should express criticism of government policy ONLY when it affects us directly how is it appropriate for us to try to win the support of “homeland” Americans on OUR issue? Sure our issue is potentially a problem for ALL Americans, but the large majority of Americans will NEVER live outside the United States and will NEVER have an opportunity to experience our nightmare firsthand. Our fight is NOT their fight, so, on the basis of what George has suggested, why should we expect their support or that they would even notice?

   If we see injustice in the world are we to reserve any comment on it just because it does not concern us directly?

   As for laying the blame for any policy merely on its originator we should be directing our wrath at Woodrow Wilson (and some would say Abraham Lincoln) for what has befallen us. In fact, there are over a hundred years of blame to go round and it continues today although there is hope on the horizon.

10. @George (original) Nice to heat from you again. I’m not sure if you knew I was finally successful in getting my CLN based on my registration of birth abroad in Canada.

    It was thanks to your suggestions that I attempted it. Thank you so much for your thoughtful help to me in those dark times.

    All the best.

11. 2018.09.02. America’s bizarre relationship with citizenship, Gregory Swanson, Medium.

12. The author errs on a couple of points. USCship has not automatically been conferred to those born in the US until the Civil Rights act of 1866 and followed by the 14th amendment, and both of these state that for USCship to be granted, the person must not be subject to the laws of any foreign power.

    Dual citizenship with one of these being USCship is quite new. Someone help me out here, but I believe it was a Supreme Court case from the 80’s that made naturalizing as a citizen of another nation not cause for the loss of USCship. Ways to maintain USCship while holding another citizenship after the age of 18 existed before, but I believe these cases to be few in number and those who had USCship wanted it.

    One of the complaints against FBAR fines and other compliance issues is the recent end to lenient enforcement on the part of the IRS. The IRS has the authority to impose a range of penalties for many of the infractions we are accused of. Under the last administration (1), the IRS stopped being lenient and began to automatically issue the harshest penalties possible.

    Blame for the current enforcement of immgration law against those born under the supervision of a midwife in south Texas rest with the current admin (2) only If these laws provide for leniency in certain cases. If the statutes do not allow for leniency, then the blame rests with the legislature. If previous administrations were leniently enforcing these laws while such leniency was not allowed under the law, then the previous administrations neglected their duty to enforce the law.

    Regardless of where the blame lies, this situation is horrible and should be corrected now, not tomorrow.

    If current law allows for leniency, then assimilation should be considered. If a person’s birth certificate is questionable yet they have assimilated into American society, then they should be left alone. If their birth location is questionable and they have not assimilated, then further investigation may be warranted.

    While the author rightly challenges the misuse of “citizenship”, he too missuses a term, “American Exceptionalism”. It dose not mean that Americans are exceptional nor that everything or even anything that America does is exceptional. It means that the founding of the nation was the exception to the rule of human history. It is the only nation founded upon the principle of the State being subservient to the citizen. The idea that the State rules with the consent of the governed is profound. If this principle were followed today, many of the problems we face would simply not exist. Sadly, it has not been followed very closely for most of our lifetimes.

    (1) Notice that I did not type “Obama” or “Big ears”.
    (2) Notice that I did not type “Trump” or “Orange Hair”.

13. “American policy is the business of the world. America has gone to extreme lengths to make it so.”

    Seconded.

    I’m perfectly prepared to mind my own business as George would like, but the politics of the USA now IS my business and the USA made it so.

14. Bravo, Gregory Swanson!!

15. @MNM – I thought it was a great article, even if a couple of details are a little amiss. He really makes the point well. Firmly in my favourites list.

16. Mike: Mine too!

17. The Kingdom of the Netherlands in Action in defence of its Accidentals!

    Moderator:this should be a feature article.

    The letter linked to the Tweet is to Senator Wyden. One on Facebook is to Chairman Brady.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/citizenshiptaxation/permalink/1917200528369686/

    Pls Retweet/Like on Twitter:
    https://twitter.com/USAccidental/status/1037073868089974784

    Else I don’t know how to link the letter(s) directly here.

    The letter calls for speedy revision of FATCA and references detriment of the 2017 tax reform and Transition Tax (IMO, should have mentioned “Transition Tax”). IMO, the letter while referencing the inadequacies of the tax treaty, could/should have asked for revision of the tax treaty to actually prevent double taxation.

    Bravo, the Kingdom of the Netherlands! The letter might be used in the ADCS lawsuit. It also highlights the inaction on the parts of other governments of the world (such as Australia, Canada, and UK) and “calls out” their claim that they can do nothing.

18. Re: U.S. Taxreform as intervention into the internal affairs of The Netherlands:

    Pls RT/Like on Twitter:

    https://twitter.com/JCDoubleTaxed/status/1037130085164187648

19. Actually four letters linked above.

    To:

    Representative Kevin Brady (R) Chairman House Ways & Means Committee

    Representative Richard Neal (D) Ranking Member House Ways & Means Committee

    Senator Orin Hatch (R) Chairman Senate Finance Committee

    Senator Ron Wyden (D) Ranking Member Senate Finance Committee

20. JC:

    Bravo, the Kingdom of the Netherlands! The letter might be used in the ADCS lawsuit. It also highlights the inaction on the parts of other governments of the world (such as Australia, Canada, and UK) and “calls out” their claim that they can do nothing.

    I believe it’s the EU Commission that has said, correctly as far as I can see, that it can do nothing about the FATCA IGAs.

    The Netherlands and other countries which have signed IGAs and incorporated FATCA into their local law might be able to do something if they wanted to. Evidently they don’t.

21. Taxreform 2.0 out this coming week. No mention here about TTFI:

    http://thehill.com/policy/finance/405030-house-panel-to-consider-tax-reform-20-next-week?amp&__twitter_impression=true

22. Canada spells out very clearly the advantages of the Canadian IGA:

    What are the benefits to Canada of the IGA?

    Under the IGA:

    * Canadian financial institutions will not report any information directly to the IRS. Rather, accountholder information on U.S. residents and U.S. citizens will be reported to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The CRA will transfer the information to the IRS under the authority of the existing provisions of, and protected by the confidentiality safeguards under, the Canada-U.S. tax treaty.

    * The 30 percent FATCA withholding tax will not apply to clients of Canadian financial institutions, and can apply to a Canadian financial institution only is in significant and long-term non-compliance with its obligations under the IGA.

    * The FATCA requirement that Canadian financial institutions be required to close accounts or refuse to offer services to clients in certain circumstances will be eliminated.

    * A number of accounts will be exempt from FATCA reporting, including Registered Retirement Savings Plans, Registered Retirement Income Funds, Registered Disability Savings Plans, and Tax-Free Savings Accounts.

    * Smaller deposit-taking institutions, such as credit unions, with assets of less than $175 million will be exempt from reporting.

    * The IRS will provide the CRA with enhanced and increased information on certain accounts of Canadian residents held at U.S. financial institutions.

    https://www.fin.gc.ca/afc/faq/fatca-eng.asp

    European banks, of course, are at much greater risk from FATCA withholding sanctions than North American banks. Consequently European governments would be likely to face intense lobbying from their bsnks if they tried to withdraw from the IGA or modify local implementation – perhaps especially in the Netherlands, where the money-laundering ING bank has just been fined yet again (for ML, not FATCA).

    But EU Member States could agree to let the EU negotiate a common EU IGA; or a court case might reach the ECJ, and the ECJ might rule that the IGAs breach EU law and must be changed. Or GDPR could present a challenge to all the AEOI regimes.

    So change could yet come.

23. Great benefits for Canada, it gets to keep most of what it had before FATCA.

    Court cases take a long time. How many lives ruined in the meantime?

24. “Great benefits for Canada, it gets to keep most of what it had before FATCA.”

    So do the other IGA1 countries. The situation is different for IGA2 countries.

    “Court cases take a long time.”

    And may never reach the ECJ or if they do, the ECJ may rule that the IGAs are not breaking EU law.

25. I for one do not rate keeping what is already mine a “benefit”.

Comments are closed.