Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

The Isaac Brock Society

Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 4 of 11 (Year 2017)

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-4-of-4)

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.   I’ll make a permanent list of links posted here and keep adding to it,  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.

Notes:

From JC:   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.

From Badger:   On an important archival note, please use the Internet Archive Wayback machine https://archive.org/web/ (see bottom right ‘Save Page Now’ box to enter URLs of webpages you want saved for posterity, and try to save backup copies of articles and other items of interest in some other form – such as a datastick or external drive. Some important and very significant webpages and the fulltexts of articles are no longer available (although some can be retrieved if someone using the Wayback machine saved 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.

2017.12.28
It’s time to address the double standard about tax havens, Angela Wrights, Macleans, Canada.
The US Is Becoming the World’s New Tax Haven, The Editors, Bloomberg View, US.
2017.12.21
Rep. Dina Titus Supports Americans Abroad Tax Reform, Democrats Abroad, US. 
Now That The GOP Tax Bill Is Approved, The IRS Gets Busy, Brian Naylor, NPR, US.
2017.12.20
Taxpayers will have to wait to find out how they fare under new legislation , Renae Merle and Aaron Gregg, Denver Post (reprint from Washington Post), US.
U.S. Shareholders –Take Action by December 31, KPMG.
2017.12.18
Have You Ever Felt Sorry for the I.R.S? Now Might Be the Time, Patricia Cohen, New York Times, US.
2017.12.12
EU finance ministers issue warning to Trump over tax reforms, RTÉ, Ireland.
2017.12.11
Banque: les consequences étonnantes de l’accord FATCA, Edouard Lederer, Les Echos, France.
2017.12.10
As Australia ousts MPs with dual citizenship, Canada’s Parliament embraces many in its ranks, Kathleen Harris, Canada. (mentions MP who “assumed his U.S. citizenship was automatically rescinded because he did not meet several requirements for continued citizenship. [But when travelling to Washington] was told he was ineligible to enter the U.S. on a Canadian passport because he was a U.S. citizen. He was . . . allowed in on a one-time basis . . . it cost him $3,000 to later sort out the administrative requirements.”)
2017.12.09
The American Diaspora: Outreach and Organization, Victoria Ferauge, The Franco-American Flophouse, Japan.
2017.12.08
Foreign-owned banks to be hit by US tax rules, Financial Times, UK.
Trump Tax Plan Worries Europe, Christian Reiermann, Der Spiegel, Germany.

For articles earlier in 2017, click here.

1,720 thoughts on “Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 4 of 11 (Year 2017)”

  1. My recollection from 2011 was that my first reaction to the news was “no bloody way, they haven’t found me yet, they won’t find me anytime soon!” I’m glad to say that it was the correct reaction.

  2. @USCA et al.

    “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” – and if you visit a tax professional, they will prepare a tax return. If you’re not sure you want a tax return prepared, then a tax professional is the last person you want to talk to.

    When we first figured out we had a problem, we did not like the answers tax professionals were giving us. We didn’t rush, we read what we could, and eventually came up with an answer we could live with. It took us a couple of years to work through everything. Yeah, we were nervous. But in the end, we got off pretty cheaply, considering what others have had to pay to extricate themselves from this nightmare. USCA is right, the ones who moved quickly were burnt the most.

  3. @Karen, @USCA, @Nononymous, and @Bubblebustin, I panicked because had already been filing very basic returns so was ready in the system, plus I knew FATCA was looming so felt trapped into getting into compliance, especially when I realized that I’d also have to list out all my accountants directly to the IRS on my 8938 for the 2011 return.

    I felt sense of urgency because was afraid I might have to enter into OVDI to avoid FBAR penalties, as had well over 25 account each year, which I was afraid would look very suspicious to the U.S. authorities.

    I felt that I had been an irresponsible and negligent American and that it was my DUTY as a U.S. citizen to pay my taxes, etc. But had misunderstood the tax code: I thought that the IRS were not interested in any foreign income including dividends and interest below the annual Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, plus I had believed I was benignly protected from double taxation via the tax treaties.

    I thus thought they were only mainly wanted me to file to prove I was still alive, etc. I believe at the time that they were only interested in my US income from a now-closed trade account there, along with my earned income which I excluded via the FEIE exclusion form.

    In the UK, people don’t even have to file tax returns in many cases and we don’t even have to mention any interest or dividends or gains from ISAs and in personal pension funds such as SIPPs or employer group defined contribution pension plans.

    They’re only concerned if someone has overpaid into them and has to pay back overpaid tax relief with some interest.

    I have spent all my adult life here in the UK and had up to March 2011 felt a strong affection towards the USA….even their government…loved all the old cartoons and songs from Schoolhouse Rock, etc. Was really patriotic during the Bicentennial. Ben Franklin Doll, Framed Declaration of Indepndence, etc.

    I was naive but nonetheless instinctively knew that OVDI would be way too harsh for what had been inadvertent omissions. I did, however, dutifully pay my painful tax bills, being the granddaughter of a deceased U.S. Tax Court judge. I felt it would have been dishonourable not to have paid it but knew I needed to sort out the huge mess as quickly and painlessly as possible.

    My tax preparer told me about a new alternative programme that was far gentler than OVDI which was essentially the beginning of the Streamlined before it was officially opened. She shared my belief that I had reasonable cause. So in that sense, she was a Godsend at the time when I didn’t know where to turn.

    She also enabled me to cleanly renounce by getting me into five years’ compliance so I could safely file 8854.

    I still feel that I was manipulated though in spite of everything, looking back. Taxes and accounting bills, plus setting me up with a U.S.-compliant financial planner cost me over $30,000, might even have been more like $40,000. So I know I wasn’t as badly hit as some of the other here, but still.

  4. I was also afraid my family would be appalled with my decision to renounce, especially as my brother was a commissioned Naval officer at the time. I worried it might even hurt his career. I can remember being shocked when after gaining British citizenship that he had somehow found out about through Naval intelligence. He didn’t seem that happy about it at the time ten years ago, so feared he’d really hit the roof when I divorced America.

  7. Neill: The author of that Letter to the Editor probably doesn’t realize that granting citizenship to a child of “illegals” nets the US government one future taxpayer … for life! Might not be such a bad deal for the US taxpayer after all. 🙂

  8. Some report on Rand Paul visit to Rome.

    Sen. Rand Paul (2nd left) believes 1) Territorial Taxation for Individuals should be included in Trump’s tax reform package, 2) the chance to pass the tax reform legislation this year is very good, and 3) overseas Americans must contact their representatives and senators in both parties urging them to support the inclusion of Territorial Taxation for Individuals as part of the tax reform and vote for the tax reform legislation. Solomon Yue (1st left), Vice Chairman and CEO of Republicans Overseas, his wife, Dr. Ourania Yue (2nd right), and Hervé Prettre of Switzerland (1st right) thanked Sen. Paul for his steadfast support of overseas American issues. Two AARO officials from France also attended this event.

    https://www.facebook.com/RepublicansInBelgrade/posts/1521222634588283

  9. By coincidence this week’s Economist has a couple of articles on the subject of dual-citizenship.

    https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21726730-relations-new-zealand-come-under-strain-too-dual-citizenship-row-rattles-australian

    https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21726692-countries-bar-them-certain-jobs-should-think-again-people-two-nationalities-should

    “He left New Zealand when he was three, but never thought “citizenship sticks to you in that way”. An accidental New Zealander, I’d venture. At least he could quickly renounce and is not subject to filing his back taxes to NZ.

  10. @Fred (B) says “At least he could quickly renounce and is not subject to filing his back taxes to NZ.”

    Scott Ludlum has already resigned his position as Senator because of his accidental NZ citizenship. More worrying is the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, who is a Kiwi by descent (his father was born in NZ), but was born in Australia and has never lived in NZ. Apparently Barnaby Joyce has already renounced his NZ citizenship (he claimed he renounced on the same day the news broke that he was a Kiwi) – but he may still lose his job (and bring down the Australian government in the process as they have only a one vote majority). The whole situation is a real mess – I think we’re up to 6 dual citizens in Parliament now (not counting the two who have already resigned).

  11. “I may have inferred that the refund was potentially of approximately similar size to the penalty – otherwise keeping it really isn’t much of a threat. But then somewhere I saw another statement to the effect that he wrote a big cheque to CRA for the amount owing to the US. It’s a bit baffling, and not clear yet whether the CRA could or would go after his assets on behalf of the IRS (though I assume so).”

    This suggests Dewees had a reason for responding to the CRA’s notice about holding up the refund by promptly writing a cheques for the full amount demanded by the IRS:

    Mr. Dewees entered the program, but withdrew when the IRS came up with him owing $185,862 for not filing bank account disclosures (FBAR) for 2003 through 2008. Then in 2011 IRS notified Mr. Dewees that he was being assessed $120,000 for not filing Form 5471 from 1997 to 2008. Meanwhile the IRS had introduced a Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedure (SFCP) that could be a better deal than the OVDP. In May 2015 the Canadian Revenue Agency notified Mr. Dewees that it was holding up his refund. Under the treaty between the United States and Canada, the CRA and IRS provide one another with international collection assistance. Mr. Dewees paid CRA $134,116.34 and filed a claim for refund which was denied. The denial was his ticket to district court.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2017/08/18/american-living-in-canada-loses-first-round-in-fight-against-harsh-irs-penalty/#32eb752f4833

    He lost but the Forbes report says an appeal is planned.

  12. I wish him well. At this point it’s a matter of principle, as I’m sure most of any of the refund he is fighting for will be gobbled up in lawyer’s fees.

  14. An appeal may not have much chance of succeeding but it’s interesting that the CRA didn’t actually demand payment on behalf of the IRS.

  17. @Barbara
    It just goes to prove that you and hubby have made the right decision.
    Look forward to hearing that you have made the freedom list.

  18. I can no longer follow comments at American Expatriates FB since they made them un-public … darn! I guess you have to sign up to FB to see them and I’m not going to do that. Oh well, I can still read the posts and there’s lots of helpful information there. Keith Redmond’s lobbying efforts are very much appreciated and needed even more since the US FATCA lawsuit has been dismissed. That was a valiant try by the lawsuit team but justice does not always prevail. It’s a hope we like to cling to though.

  20. @ pacifca777
    Ah yes. Thank you. I had it set on “m” (which used to work just fine) but now I see “www” does work for comments. Got some catching up to do. 🙂 I’ll keep both versions in my FB folder from now on.

  21. And law-enforcement agencies wonder why people take the law into their own hands. The decision by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals shows, again, that “justice for all” is a lie. We can’t even get our case HEARD because it is not deemed to have “standing”. What that means, in fancy language, is that people like us do not have a RIGHT to bring our grievances to court in the United States. Let’s hope that courts in Canada, France and (dare I hope?) the European Union will gird themselves with reason and common sense (attributes obviously lacking in U.S. halls of power) and tell that dysfunctional and morally bankrupt country what they can do with their illegal imposition of law on countries and peoples that don’t belong to them. GAWD, I am ANGRY!

  22. @ MuzzledNoMore
    John Gaver at American Expatriates FB made a valid observation:
    “Unfortunately, more and more often, many activist courts and judges are using “Lack of Standing” as an excuse to dismiss cases that they think might set a precedent that they would rather not see established.”

    So this is a American court trick that they can whip out whenever there’s a danger that justice might prevail against the wishes of the establishment and the advocates of the status quo. I dearly hope Canadian courts can’t use this trick.

  23. For what its worth /its meaning?, from Wikipedia…

    Canada

    In Canadian administrative law, whether an individual has standing to bring an application for judicial review, or an appeal from the decision of a tribunal, is governed by the language of the particular statute under which the application or the appeal is brought. Some statutes provide for a narrow right of standing while others provide for a broader right of standing.[3]

    Frequently a litigant wishes to bring a civil action for a declaratory judgment against a public body or official. This is considered an aspect of administrative law, sometimes with a constitutional dimension, as when the litigant seeks to have legislation declared unconstitutional.

    Public interest standing

    The Supreme Court of Canada developed the concept of public interest standing in three constitutional cases commonly called “the Standing trilogy”: Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada,[4] Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil,[5] and Minister of Justice v. Borowski.[6] The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):[7]

    It has been seen that when public interest standing is sought, consideration must be given to three aspects. First, is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation in question? Second, has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected by the legislation or if not does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity? Third, is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the court?[8]

    Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found in Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance).[9]

  25. @ calgary411
    IMHO, as far as the ADCS lawsuit is concerned, we have a YES to the first and second criteria but I’m not sure what the third means. What is “another reasonable and effective way”? Come into the courtroom by a back entrance? One thing’s for sure, we, the public here at Brock at least, have a great deal of interest in this issue. I may be wrong (Ginny would know much better) but I think our Canadian courts are, on this standing issue, less rigged than the American courts. I’ve been following some truly reprehensible court shenanigans taking place in a Nevada courtroom the past few months … literally blocking all avenues of the defendants’ defence.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: