Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 6 of 11 (Year 2019)

523 thoughts on “Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 6 of 11 (Year 2019)”

1. They have a truly weird system down there. Hundreds of bills are submitted with little or no support and zero chance of being adopted. Seems the only purpose is to get a modicum of publicity for the sponsors. The few bills that become law need bipartisan support in the house, senate, and White House. Good luck with that.

2. I nominate this for Brock Feature:

   Revenue Neutrality And A Move To Residence-based Taxation: Open Letter To Democrats Abroad
   05 Dec 2019

   https://www.taxconnections.com/taxblog/revenue-neutrality-and-a-move-to-residence-based-taxation-open-letter-to-democrats-abroad/#.XeqzjNVxU2x

3. I noted this text today:

   Rick Adams: We do not chose where we are born, but we should be able to choose where we live. And if that choice is not the US, the US government has no business assessing taxes on us unless the source of income is in the States.

   https://www.facebook.com/republicansoverseas/posts/1243439239173202?comment_id=1243469755836817

4. @ JC
   I second that nomination. John Richardson is a heavy hitter for US extraterritorial taxation justice.

5. This story caught my attention.

   https://qz.com/1759717/uscis-may-raise-the-cost-of-us-citizenship-applications-by-61-percent/

   I was especially struck by these statements in the article:
   1. “The fees may in some cases price people out of the market,” and
   2. “…consistent with the administration’s goal (…) to make it harder for low- and medium-income people…” and
   3. “That’s a 60% hike.”

   Obviously there’s concern immigrants will be facing increased financial hardship if they want to become US residents/citizens and people are outraged over it without considering how much it costs to obtain those in practically every other western nation.

   And yet, when the shoe is on the other foot and the discussion is about emigrating from the US, no one gives a damn about the costs or the exhorbitant price hike that renouncing underwent a few years ago. What about the low and medium income emigrants who are priced out of renunciation?

   This article reinforces the idea that being on US soil is the most desirable thing and significant barriers to becoming a resident or citizen are unjust.

6. There is currently a debate over Court of Appeal chief justice Nicol Hector and her impartiality in Quebec’ religious symbol law 21 suspension case.
   The debate does have some legitimacy.

   I wonder if questions of impartiality could have been raised for Justice MacT .

   I wonder if court decisions today are not made on merit of argument but rather on who is presiding over the case . In other words, if one knows the judge(s), one knows the outcome ,with little or no exception, even if the case is extremely well presented .

   I wonder if there is any more information forthcoming in the current appeal here. So far ,all I see is a black box.

7. Confirmed – Rep. Holding to leave Congress at end of 2020, after reintroducing Tax Fairness for Americans Abroad Act
   December 7, 2019
   By Helen Burggraf

   https://www.americanexpatfinance.com/legislation/item/326-confirmed-rep-holding-to-leave-at-end-2020-after-reintroducing-tffaaa

8. Holding’s bill was likely never going anywhere, so no great loss. North Carolina voters not being disenfranchised by racist gerrymandering is a good thing.

9. @Ron

   Holding’s bill was likely never going anywhere, so no great loss. North Carolina voters not being disenfranchised by racist gerrymandering is a good thing.

   Would you please explain this statement a bit more fully – especially the first part?

   Holding is the ONLY member of Congress who has made ANY effort to raise this issue in the legislative context. So, I really don’t understand how it’s “no great loss” to lose the only Congressman who has attempted to help.

10. Quite simply, the RBT bill has been rattling around for what feels like forever without any signs of forward progress or a Democrat co-sponsor, so presumably at some point was going to die a lonely death, sad and forgotten, even if Holding stuck around. But yes, it was nice to have one solitary Member of Congress vaguely aware of these issues. (Though back when he was still nominally a member of the reality-based community, Mark Meadows did hold that FATCA hearing.)

    The RBT bill was not universally loved, by the way. It would make life easier for the small percentage of US persons abroad currently in the US tax system, and possibly cheaper for the tiny percentage of US persons abroad who both file returns and actually send money back to Uncle Sam. However, it does nothing to address FATCA reporting and the banking discrimination faced in some countries by anyone with a US birthplace.

    Otherwise it was bizarre to imagine that anyone not compliant would bother with a bunch of filings just to certify that they could continue not filing. (Republicans Overseas are, frankly, delusional on this issue, in those rare moments when Solomon is distracted from China and the Deep State.) Meanwhile, the IRS has moved on, effectively telling anyone who renounces that if you owe less than $25,000, don’t waste our time sending in any paperwork.

    That’s the first part. The second part is pretty self-explanatory. The gerrymander was grotesque. I didn’t realize until recently that Holding was one of the beneficiaries of explicitly racist district boundaries, but it sounds like those days are over.

11. To make progress in this corrupt system requires an expensive lobbying effort preferably with suitable campaign donations to key players. We aren’t in that league.

12. “No great loss”?

    To someone who is US tax compliant, that’s a real kick in the teeth.

13. Holding’s retirement is no great loss, at this point, because the RBT bill is clearly dead in the water.

    Yes, it would have been useful for the compliant minority, particularly those who actually owe US taxes. It would also have done nothing for anyone suffering from FATCA problems due to a US birthplace or passport, in those countries where banks are being dicks about it.

    There were other arguments against the bill – luring people onto the radar basically – but there’s not much sense debating its pros and cons now.

14. It was supposed to be a step forward, and reversal of decades long trend of “squeezing the squeeze.”

15. “No great loss”?

    To someone who is US tax compliant, that’s a real kick in the teeth.

    The suggestion that Holding’s retirement is “no great loss” presupposes no distinction between Holding and the content of the legislation. One problem has been the difficulty/inability to find a legislator (1) who is willing to recognize the problems of Americans abroad and (2) take steps toward legislative relief. Both are necessary. Holding (to date) has been the only legislator who has done both. (In contrast to Beyer who clearly recognizes the problems but has not been willing to take steps toward relief). Yet, somehow the retirement of Holding is no great loss …

    Although it is possible and reasonable to have different views of the content of the Holding bill, it is clear that Holding is motivated by the goal of assisting those harmed by the unjust application of U.S. tax laws. To effect change one must find a legislator willing to go down the “legislative road of change”. Holding could propose other kinds of change (now or in the future). A question for those who think Holding’s retirement is no great loss:

    Would you identify another legislator who has shown a willingness to help Americans abroad?

    It’s also fairly obvious that an individual (like Holding) who supports change can support change in different ways. It’s also obvious that one change can lead to another.

    The Holding legislation was/is very valuable because it is the first and most important step in changing the presumption that Americans abroad should be subject to U.S. taxation on their “non-U.S. source income”. In other words, it’s a “presumption reverser”. It’s a “presumption reverser” that provides the foundation for further growth. That’s why it’s valuable. Obviously the Holding bill doesn’t (immediately solve) the problems (which are so extensive) for all. But, it was never intended to. It was intended to plant the legislative tree which could grow into something larger.

    To suggest that Holding’s retirement is no great loss is to suggest that the loss of the only legislator (a necessary condition for change) who has supported Americans abroad doesn’t matter. But, as BB says above:

    To someone who is US tax compliant, that’s a real kick in the teeth.

    True. The people who would have been most helped by the Holding bill are those and only those who were U.S. tax compliant. These are the people being most hurt by U.S. citizenship-based taxation. But, who cares about them right?

16. @Ron

    There were other arguments against the bill – luring people onto the radar basically – but there’s not much sense debating its pros and cons now.

    There’s no sense dealing “debating its pros and cons now” because the pros and cons are completely irrelevant to the point. The narrow question under discussion is whether Holding’s retirement (to use your language) is “no great loss”.

17. I will grant that it was possible that the Holding bill, and the continued existence of Holding, could been the first step on the road to change. (It’s also possible that the bill would have gone nowhere, or that it could have drawn more people into the system only for the rules to change and the situation to actually worsen. We’ve certainly seen that happen in recent years: streamlined + transition tax = maybe that wasn’t such a great deal. Obviously it’s impossible to predict what might have happened.) Somewhat ironic then that Holding’s own past election was effectively deemed illegitimate. For this we can thank the North Carolina GOP and their great enthusiasm for fair elections…

18. Comments on John Richardson’s new article about “citizide” are starting to pass through the Tax Connections moderation system …
    https://www.taxconnections.com/taxblog/13-reasons-why-i-committed-citizide-aka-renounced-my-us-citizenship/#.XfAkCIVumdO

19. EmBee: Thanks for posting that link. The “13 Reasons” is probably the most powerful statement I have read in the past 8 years (and there has been some pretty amazing writing posted here and elsewhere.) I salute the author.

20. Good material coming out lately I have not been able to get across. The John Richardson citizide article could be a feature here in itself. Sometimes, it seems, he can write faster than I can read.

    I think the paper below Brock feature material, especially in view of the FATCA focus of Brock and the FATCA IGA lawsuit. Maybe some of this may be used by the lawyers in the case. ?

    FATCA: Talk to the Hand
    by Professor Haydon Perryman
    Published 11 December, 2019

    “If you were to argue that the purpose of FATCA is to detect U.S. Persons using offshore accounts to evade tax, I am going to explain that you may have drunk the kool-aid (Higgins, 2012).”

    @Kirsty Pitkin
    Chief Executive Officer at TConsult Ltd:

    “Great, in depth piece from Haydon P. Perryman, CGMA covering the flaws in FATCA and the issues surrounding the collection of U.S. TINs.”

    https://twitter.com/haydonperryman/status/1204782372836839425?s=20

21. @ MuzzledNoMore
    I thought “13 Reasons” sounded like it would fit into a “16 Candles” song parody so just for fun I attempted it. If you don’t know the tune try this youtube: https //www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOU_9gTvyI … put a colon after https.

    Thirteen Reasons

    Goodbye birthright
    Goodbye birthright, Baby
    Oh, you have to go

    Thirteen reasons
    Make this goodbye right
    They’re not as long as my sighs tonight
    As my sighs tonight

    Heed all the reasons
    Not much to demand
    For, I’m just hoping that you understand
    That you understand

    They’re only thirteen
    But they say what I mean
    They’re the grittiest
    The fiestiest ones you’ve ever seen
    You’ve ever seen

    Thirteen reasons
    In my heart will glow
    For ever and ever
    For, you have to go
    For, you have to go

    They’re only thirteen
    But they say what I mean
    Oh, they’re the grittiest
    The fiestiest ones you’ve ever seen
    You’ve ever seen

    Thirteen reasons
    In my heart will glow
    For ever and ever
    For, you have to go
    For, you have to go

22. In the Guardian this morning:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/12/eu-joins-fight-against-us-tax-on-accidental-americans

    Nothing we don’t already know. The article repeats a few common minor falsehoods – tax compliance is needed to renounce, accidentals fear being “hunted down” by the IRS, etc. – but that’s to be expected. No e-mail address provided for the author, but perhaps someone with the Twitter could fire a few polite corrections her way.

23. @JC

    The Haydon Perryman article is weird, full of many acronyms, and difficult to digest, but also interesting.

    A very, very short summary: the original FATCA legislation was designed to raise revenue by withholding from a certain type of FFI; the creation of IGAs by the Treasury essentially eliminated that category of FFI and also the planned revenue source; banking problems for US persons and pressure from other tax agencies caused the IRS to postpone the enforced collection of TINs (SSNs) from US persons; without TINs the IRS cannot match FATCA data to current taxpayers and find instances of tax evasion.

    In short, FATCA has not generated any revenue except indirectly, by helping to scare people into OVDP/OVDI back in the day. Also of interest, buried in the footnotes: the author cites the figures of 9 million US persons abroad and 0.5 million returns filed, for a compliance rate under 6 percent. (I think he’s using the very high State Department estimate for population, and the 2011 IRS data for returns filed.)

    This rather strange piece has only reinforced my view that FATCA is not some cunning plan to harvest data in preparation for future asset extraction, but rather an expensive series of mistakes driven by political and bureaucratic inertia, and that CBT will remain both unenforceable and unenforced; these are zombie laws, best ignored beyond US borders. (With the usual caveat about banking difficulties in some countries for anyone with a US taint.) The IRS does not care about US citizens who are not part of the US economy. The IRS is not looking for non-compliant non-resident US persons.

    My preferred Spruch is this: Ignore the IRS, and the IRS Will Ignore You

24. AWESOME, EmBee!

25. @Ron Yes we know that angle. Problems are that some are in the system, get scared into getting in the system, or get scared about losing their bank accounts by banks fearing U.S. retribution.

Comments are closed.