Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

The Isaac Brock Society

Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 3 of 11 (Year 2016)

You can access all years at this link: Media and Blog Articles – Links for All Years

 If clicking on a comment link brings you to the wrong comment, click here  to get on the most recent page of comments.(alternatively, to reach the most recent comment page, go to  the url in the bar at the top of your browser and delete everything after http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/media-and-blog-articles-open-for-comments-part-3-of-3  )

Media and Blog Articles

EmBee suggested that it would be good if there was a thread for new articles, so that people would be aware of where to comment. So, I created this permanent page.  You could mention such articles in the comment stream for this page, or if I see one on another thread, I can copy the link to here. I’ll keep adding to the list, but not deleting, so we’ll end up having sort of a  “bibliography” of FATCA/CBT articles.  [Note:  Some articles are not open for comments]

For more articles on FATCA, enter FATCA into Google then click on the link “more news for fatca” just below the most recent featured article.

Note also: JC suggests to see #FATCA on Twitter for latest breaking news. JC finds that is quite a good source and there even are some international articles that one may read using Google Translate.” Others may help certain tweets and articles remain in elevated position by retweeting them.

Be sure to read the comment stream for this thread — there are usually very recent articles mentioned there that aren’t on this list yet.

2016.12.29
Switzerland moves further to end bank secrecy, Financial Times, UK.
2016.12.23
How FATCA Infringes and Trammels our Statehood, Stephen Kangal, Trinidad and Tobago News, Trinidad and Tobago.
Barclay’s chief preparing to take a stand against US regulators over unduly high fines to European banks, James Quinn, The Telegraph, UK.
2016.12.22
Canada refuses to name bank that broke money laundering rules 1225 timtes, Mike De Souze, Robert Cribb & Marco Oved, National Observer.
Financial Intelligence agency gave bankers head up about money laundering disclosure, Mike De Souza, Robert  Cribb & Marco Oved, National Observer.
2016.12.21
US citizens may pay double tax on Kahlon’s child savings program, Michael Zeff, Jerusalem Post, Israel.
Applying to be Swiss in the Trump Era, Steve Krump,  SwissInfo, Switzerland.
2016.12.20
File That Tax, Boom Chicago, YouTube, Netherlands.
Tijuana City Councilman Faces US Money Laundering Charges, Sandra Dibble and Dana Littlefield, San Diego Union, US.
2016.12.19
Senate Report Finds IRS Agents Living Large on Public’s Dime, Guillermo Jiminez, Tax Revolution Institute, US.
AG to UNC: Come to Parliament first – a Joint Select Committee to deal with FATCA . . ., Ria Taitt, Daily Express, Trinidad.
Rand Paul criticizes framework of tax reform plan, Naomi Jagoda, The Hill, US.

Articles from earlier 2016 are at this link

Articles from 2015 are at this link

Articles from 2014 are at this link

Media and Blog Articles  thread, Part 1 of 3, is at this link.

Media and Blog Articles thread, Part 2 of 3 is at this link.

 

2,818 thoughts on “Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 3 of 11 (Year 2016)”

  6. With respect to issue of “derivative citizenship” which started with the comment here:

    http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/media-and-blog-articles-open-for-comments-part-3-of-3/comment-page-8/#comment-7076684

    My personal view is that people born outside the United States must consider their situations very very carefully. This is an issue that has been “popping up” on this blog for a number of years. One aspect to the question is this:

    Can the U.S. deem somebody to be a U.S. citizen or (in the FATCA, FBAR and CBT world) forcibly impose U.S. citizenship on a person born outside the USA?

    In July 2015, Eric wrote an interesting post that raised this issue. It’s worth a reread. The comment that I wrote to that post was:

    http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/07/10/2nd-circuit-retroactively-extends-jus-sanguinis-citizenship-to-us-emigrant-fathers-out-of-wedlock-kid/comment-page-1/#comment-6285662

    Can the U.S. “deem” people “born outside the U.S.” to be U.S. citizens?

    @Eric

    Fantastic post and fantastic comments. Thank you for this. I see this decision as being more narrow than some of the comments to your post suggest. To cut to the chase, I believe that the significance of this decision depends on whether the U.S. can “deem” people born outside the United States to be U.S. citizens.

    With that question in mind …

    In your superb post you describe the recent decision in Morales-Santana v. Lynch, No. 11-1252-ag (2nd Cir., 2015). It’s important to recognize that Mr. Morales wanted to be a U.S. citizen. He was asking the court to provide relief for him that would him allow him to be recognized as a U.S. citizen.

    The Facts:

    Morales was born, out of wedlock outside the United States to a U.S. citizen father who had NOT lived in the United States for 5 years after the age of 14. Mr. Morales mother was NOT a U.S. citizen. The law did NOT allow Mr. Morales’s father to pass citizenship to Mr. Morales because he (as the father) had not lived in the United States for 5 years after the age of 14. But, Mr. Morales could have received derivative citizenship from an unwed U.S. citizen mother who had lived in the United States for only one year. In other words, to pass citizenship, Mr. Morales’s actual unwed father would need more U.S. residence than a hypothetical unwed mother would have required.

    The issue:

    Did the more onerous residence requirement imposed on the father violate “equal protection”. In other words, did it deny a benefit to the actual father, that was available to a hypothetical mother, on the basis of sex? Was Mr. Morale’s father denied equal protection because he was a male?

    The ruling:

    To deny the benefit of being able to pass derivative citizenship to the father was a violation of equal protection. Therefore, Mr. Morales’s father should not be subject to residency requirements that were more onerous than what would have been available to a hypothetical U.S. citizen mother.

    The court went further and suggested that it’s decision resulted in Morales “being a citizen from the moment of birth”. (Bear in mind that this was the result that he was asking for.) A more narrow (and I believe correct) interpretation of the ruling is that:

    Mr. Morale’s unwed father had the same right to pass on derivative citizenship that a hypothetical unwed mother would have had. Unless the U.S. has the unilateral right to “deem” people born outside the U.S. to be U.S. citizens, this would mean that:

    1. Mr. Morale’s father had “the right” to pass U.S. citizenship to his child.

    2. Mr. Morales (the child) had the right, but not the obligation, to accept U.S. citizenship. (In this case he needed U.S. citizenship to avoid deportation.)

    Why is this of interest?

    Well, as the comments to Eric’s post make clear, people are concerned that this decision has retroactively created a new class of U.S. citizens abroad. This could (but not necessarily would) be true ONLY if the United States has the power to impose U.S. citizenship on a person born outside the United States. It doesn’t appear that the court addressed that specific question.

    Therefore, I believe that this decision should NOT be interpreted to mean that the U.S. has created a new class of “property” outside the U.S. It just means that a new group of people are welcome to become U.S. property, if they so desire.

    I would really appreciate your thoughts on this question:

    Can the U.S. “deem” people “born outside the U.S.” to be U.S. citizens?

    I attempted a post on this question a few years ago at:

    https://renounceuscitizenship.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/cook-v-tait-10-those-born-outside-the-us-are-not-automatically-us-citizens/

    Would greatly appreciate any thoughts on this.

    Again, I renew my request for comments on this issue.

  7. @USC Abroad, it is my opinion that because of the way 8 US Code Section 1401 is worded that a person born abroad is automatically and deemed a US Citizen

    “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:”

    The governing words are “shall” and “at birth.”

    Further the Code Section has no further clarifying requirement such as requiring adjudication or who the burden is placed on. Note that in 8 US Code relinquishment, the Code states who the burden of proving rests with!

    The “problem” with this exceptional law from the exceptional states of America is that in order for America to deem someone a USC possibly against their will, they also need to follow their law!! Some party would have to prove the parent met the residency requirement to make the citizenship stick.

  10. “Despite all the brouhaha over FATCA, there has been little, if any, significant focus on the one-sided deal FATCA really brought to the table. My post will focus on the “reciprocal” Inter-Governmental Agreements (IGA) to which the US is a party under the FATCA legislation. More precisely, it will show that reciprocity is lacking – The USA gets everything; its foreign IGA partners get almost nothing in return. But, as Peter Cotorceanu so poignantly put it – “reciprocal is as reciprocal does.” And the USA? Well, it doesn’t. ”

    http://blogs.angloinfo.com/us-tax/2016/01/16/the-us-and-its-reciprocal-igas-oh-really/

  11. @Charl
    Nice find. The article that Victoria La Torre-Jeker mentions by content, but not by name, seems to be this one:

    Peter A. Cotorceanu
    Hiding in plain sight: how non-US persons can legally avoid reporting under both FATCA and GATCA Trusts & Trustees 2015 21: 1050-1063.

  12. @Bubblebustin
    Is the answer to the riddle that your husband was a greencard holder at the time?
    Regarding the lawsuit surrounding Ted Cruz’s citizenship, I don’t see how the person bringing the suit has any standing. It is a publicity stunt.

  13. Thanks for today’s blood pressure spike, Charl! Each and every of our MP’s should be getting a copy of this article for when the IGA comes up for review here. Kill it in court, or kill it on the reciprocity element. Tell our MP’s to GROW SOME!

  15. Thanks for pointing us to another of Virginia La Torre Jeker’s well thought-out, comprehensive posts in her blog *Let’s Talk About: US Tax*. There is a treasure trove of similar quality posts in her Archives there.

  18. http://blogs.angloinfo.com/us-tax/2016/01/16/the-us-and-its-reciprocal-igas-oh-really/
    ‘The US and Its “Reciprocal” IGA’s – Oh, Really?’
    January 16, 2016

    link courtesy of bubblebustin’s post here
    http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/09/20/we-need-69521-by-january-1-2016-to-pay-the-canadian-fatca-lawsuit-legal-bills-and-keep-our-litigation-moving-forward-il-nous-reste-69-521-a-ramasser-pour-notre-poursuite-judiciaire/comment-page-55/#comment-7088492

  19. Trying to get a bit more attention here: Maybe I am missing the cute cat video / have not gotten there yet, but there are lots of people interested in Google and the internet. Trying to leverage to highlight the injustices. See the tweet below.

    When one compares the treatment by Russia of Sergey Brin, Co-founder of Google, and the treatment of US persons overseas by the US, the contrast highlights the injustices of US obligations. US persons living overseas are saddled with excessive tax and compliance vs. Sergey Brin completely left alone by Russia.

    Sergey Brin moved to the US at the age of 6. He is an American. Russia is not trying to foist its citizenship on Sergey Brin because of his birthplace in Russia. On the aspect of liberty involving freedom to leave one’s country – especially after one has left – the USA is worse than Russia!

    Retweets welcome here: https://twitter.com/JCDoubleTaxed/status/689035668656291840

    @POTUS > Free US Persons Overseas | USA Worse Than Russia!

    This is not my idea about Sergey Brin. Did I read it on Facebook? Thank you who ever started it.

  20. JC: thanks for highlighting one of the multiple American hypocrisies. It’s a pertinent and interesting one for us here and as an illustration to others.

    The US is not only hypocritical and flawed (just like every other country is in some way, often worse than the US) but, by its power and bully attitude, it is capable of forcing all others to do as it asks.

    Note that were Sergey Brin not famous he could, without a US birthplace, function very well under the radar elsewhere. I myself would be way off the radar had I not been born in the good ole’ US of A. But even my EU passport gives me away: made in New York.

  23. Allison supports incremental changes, as she’s convinced that the US is incapable of going right to RBT. I believe that if US legislators are capable of seeing how it should make it easy for people like Tina to exit the system, it will realize that there’s something really wrong in preferring taxpayers over citizens.

  24. Among so much other powerful content, thank you Allison Christians.

    See new post: Uncle Sam Wants…Who? at UBC Law This Week – Allison Christians, McGill University, Faculty of Law

    …
    As a rule, banks and other financial institutions lack competence to make determinations about US citizenship; the same is true for other governments. Nevertheless, the US has deputized these institutions and governments to make inquiries and collect certifications.
    …
    Citizenship-based taxation thus seems at minimum susceptible to mistake-making on a massive scale. At worst, it seems designed to create conditions for injustice. A series of scenarios now exist under which the United States ought to offer both an explanation of the consequences of continuing US citizenship and a one-time option to start over or, in the extreme, to exit the status all together, without penalty and with minimum compliance costs.

    The implications for citizenship-based taxation seem clear: it should not be the job of an individual to identify herself as a US Person for tax purposes by virtue of a citizenship conferred upon her. If, like Tina, she is not known to the United States to be a citizen because she has never sought that recognition, she should not be subjected to retroactive taxation and information reporting compliance obligations, to penalties, or to a fee to exit. Instead, she should be left alone. Without official recognition of her status as a citizen, the United States Embassy is not coming to her rescue, she receives no services, she has no right to entry, and she is not in any meaningful way a US Person.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: