Media and Blog Articles – Part 1 of 11 (to 26 May 2015)

3,971 thoughts on “Media and Blog Articles – Part 1 of 11 (to 26 May 2015)”

1. Eric, you may be interested in reading Jack Townsend grasping at straws to justify US extraterritorial taxation by citing China’s practices as referred to in that same NYTimes article, and then waxing all poetic and shoddily philosophical about a global tax regime and how it will save us mankind; “…There must be some system that, in the final analysis, make sure that we all contribute to enduring and prevailing. That requires a compulsory tax because we are too selfish to make voluntary contributions to a system that allows us to endure or prevail. And that is why government or quasi-government is so important. …”.

   I don’t see Jack volunteering to report and pay tax to a country he doesn’t live in. I don’t know about him, but expats abroad are being forced to “contribute” to two sets of governments, whereas he only contributes to one.

   http://federaltaxcrimes.blogspot.ca/2015/01/chinas-worldwide-tax-system-1714.html

   “China’s Worldwide Tax System (1/7/14)
   Given the discussion on this blog of how the U.S. is abusive to U.S. citizens abroad because of the U.S. system of worldwide taxation, I thought this was an interesting and might draw some comments from readers. Keith Bradsher, China Wants Taxes Paid by Citizens Living Afar (NYT 1/7/15), here.
   …”

   Jack is calling for reader comments, but the education provided thereby would be more for other readers because he has made up his mind – and you can’t argue with someone who believes that US extraterritorial CBT was given to the US – the only country to have received an 11th commandment in recognition of US exceptionality – and the missionary zeal to spread it/force it on the rest of the globe – JUST AS LONG AS THE US DOESN’T HAVE TO EQUALLY RECIPROCATE and as long as US homelanders don’t have to. And I don’t meant ‘aspirational’ reciprocity.

   He also refers to a global system that is supposed to save mankind – but neglects to acknowledge that US FATCA was never designed to be reciprocal, never will be reciprocal, and the US has not signed up for GATCA in actuality, and will never sign up to bind itself the way it forcibly extorts and binds others. He neglects to provide the rationale for taxing extraterritorially based on parentage or the geographical location where one’s mother happened to be during birth. Or why only US ‘persons’ outside the US should report and pay to two tax systems while he doesn’t do so to the countries his ancestors originated from. I don’t see him calling for Obama to voluntarily pay Kenyan and Indonesian taxes based on long ago birth origins of a parent, or a long ago residence as a child – or declare his US bank accounts to the Kenyan and Indonesian governments Financial Crimes Enforcement agencies.

   Nope, that is just for other folks.

2. Canada gets favorable US treatment on retirement plans, but not Australia and other countries.

   http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Simplifies-Procedures-for-Favorable-Tax-Treatment-on-Canadian-Retirement-Plans-and-Annual-Reporting-Requirements

3. This not “careless journalism”. This is CRAFTED journalism.

   The author (the editor) leaves out the detail of this being worldwide taxation, and craftfully uses the word “working abroad” in the title. “Working abroad” would normally mean working and LIVING abroad, but in the case of Chinese law it is an extended business trip or ownership of a company.

4. In fact, this article still shows up with the name “China Wants Taxes Paid by Citizens Living Afar” on the page of the author’s bio.

   http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/keith_bradsher/index.html?action=click&contentCollection=International%20Business&module=Byline&region=Header&pgtype=article

   Apparently, someone provided a correction and NY Times decided to re-craft the title but not the content.

   NY Times should be corrected for that.

5. The author of the article can be contacted via

   http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/keith_bradsher/index.html?action=click&contentCollection=International%20Business&module=Byline&region=Header&pgtype=article

   You can point out the discrepancies between the (facebook) thumbnail and the title

   “China Wants Taxes Paid by Citizens Living Afar” title

   “China Starts Enforcing Tax Law for Citizens Working Abroad” thumbnail

   ‘
   I emailed them. Newspapers have a responsibility to correct their errors.

6. the source you are looking for is

   Article 1 of the October, 1993 (Chinese) tax code

7. China is a one-party state while the US is supposed to be a democracy.

8. Eric, the author is responsive and investigative and is looking for subject matter experts. Suggest you contact him via the link.

9. The writer called me and definitely would like for ERic to contact him.

   The writer’s interest is in the East and in Chinese Tax cheats. He isn’t tuned to the destruction of FATCA and upon US persons and its blatant assumption that all US persons are born tax cheats. See what you can do to get him to understand our plight and to get him to formulate his words accordingly.

10. CHATCA is going to become a reality

11. @ JC RE: Canada gets favorable US treatment on retirement plans, but not Australia and other countries

    I thought all countries got the same plan with the same “benefits” and, if not, the not-as-well-favored country could sue for an update/review/improvement. The folks in Australia should be spitting nails to make this happen, as should any other country which got a similar less-good deal. And this information goes to confirm that probably there ARE other differences in the IGAs that should be scrutinized, not just accept (likely US “word – – remember “Congress has spoken”???) that “oh, they are all the same……

12. I put this in the making news section with a comment about my disappointment on the response.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/expat/2015/01/08/ask-an-expert-how-to-handle-the-foreign-pension-limbo/

13. Saturday, January 3, 2015
    FATCA GIIN January 2015 FFI Registration Analysis … by the numbers

    By William Byrnes
    http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/intfinlaw/2015/01/fatca-giin-january-2015-ffi-registration-analysis-by-the-numbers-.html

    The AEoI and its component, the Common Reporting Standard (CRS), are often refereed to (informally) as “GATCA” (Global FATCA). The Standard and Guidance are now published. 52 jurisdictions have signed up to the AEoI and a further 46 have committed to sign.

    Interestingly, the USA is the only member of the OECD neither to have signed, nor committed to sign up to the AEoI. According to the The Tax Justice Network, the USA is the 6th largest Financial Secrecy jurisdiction. The same source reports that, “The U.S. protects itself from foreign tax havens, while remaining a tax haven for foreigners.”

    The USA is the only member of the G20 neither to have signed nor committed to sign up to the AEoI.
    
    The US, according to publication 5118, recognizes 250 jurisdictions for FATCA purposes. (You can see the FATGA IGA Status and the AEoI Status of each in the table below.) Of these 250 jurisdictions, 131 have not entered into a FATCA IGA with the US Treasury.

    Whilst only 51 IGAs have been signed, at the time of writing, 112 jurisdictions are treated as having an IGA in place for FATCA purposes. (A full commentary on the IGAs is available here.) This includes 50 IGAs agreed to “in substance” and a further 11 jurisdictions are recognized (for the time being) as a result of announcement 2014-38.

    No commentary on the “acceptance” of IGAs would be complete without recognizing that Africa is heavily represented amongst the population of Non IGA jurisdictions, as are parts are Asia. (This is also true of the CRS.) Very few of these countries are secrecy jurisdictions of any description. Moreover, many of the poorest countries in the world are of a Non IGA persuasion. If there truly are victims of FATCA, they are likely to be found in these jurisdictions.

    There are now 147,043 FFIs on the approved GIIN list.

    The UK and her Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories (UKCDOT) represent 45% of the total percentage of approved FFIs.
    80% of approved FFIs are in either OECD members jurisdictions or members of UKCDOT.

    Given the relatively high representation of OECD countries amongst the population of approved FFIs it bares reiterating that the USA has not signed up to the CRS, nor has the USA evidenced a pathway to the reciprocity upon which the FATCA IGAs are predicated.

14. Found this article….

    http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2015/01/08/us-internal-revenue-staff-in-israel-for-tax-evasion-talks/

    Is it me or what… doesn’t this article sound like a scare tactic rather then reality… first time I heard that US banks are demanding that customers state they reported their accounts to Israel with a signed form or face having the account closed & reported also?

15. Jack Townsend wrote:

    “In my mind, we need to pull together a global government or at least a global organization that will coordinate the effort to, in William Faulkner’s words, insure that “man will not merely endure: he will prevail.”

    A global government will mean global tyranny. Without any competition, a global government would have zero restraints in how it treats its citizens. The whole idea of a “social contract” between citizens and their government would be completely erased forever.

    Jack is just plain naive about the nature of government. His views are completely antithetical to the views of America’s founders who were highly suspicious about the dangerous nature of government. They did their best to create a system of checks and balances to prevent the government from abusing its power but their efforts to protect liberty for America’s citizens were worn down over time by people like Jack, who naively believe more government is always better.

16. JC (RE BitCoin Jesus) – anyone thought of writing to him encouraging a donation to ADCS? Sounds like he has coins to spare…..

17. @Eric, I am likewise irritated by the blatant misinformation. Thank you for the detailed explanation. I found an English translation of the tax law in a Chinese government website here.

    I sent him an email, and I suggest you contact him too. I assume he is a US citizen because he lived a long time in the US. I hope he gets interested in the issue.

18. RE: China article
    Someone at American Expatriates wrote to the author. This is the exchange.

    Hi Keith,
    Your article today that has shed some light on the taxation system in China gave an impression that China will go after all it citizens without discretion like the US does with US Citizens abroad. However, this is not exactly the case as China has Resident/Territorial Base Taxation and not Citizen Based Taxation.
    This means China will not tax its Citizens worldwide income if they permanently live in another country (for example the US). Only the US does this in the world (except for a small African country) and, of course, it would create major problems if all countries did this (also, countries would vacuum money out of the US that should have been used on houses, investments and goods in the US as the money was earned while living in the US) .
    We should definitely catch the tax evaders, however there are a lot of average US citizens living abroad who are falling victim to tax filing and reporting requirements made to catch drug cartels. They are just simply not aware of international taxation and reporting issues (most do not even owe any US taxes due to credits from the US).
    Please consider editing this article so it distinguishes between RBT and CBT.
    See Wikipedia for example ‘International taxation’ as it would mean a lot to the US Citizens Abroad Community.
    —————————————————————————————————-
    Keith’s reply,
    Thank you for your note. But China has very strict rules that make it very hard for its citizens abroad to gain non-resident status. They need to be able to show that they have moved permanently overseas, acquired permanent residency abroad, have their main income or business abroad, have no plans ever to return to China and have their family abroad. China had paid little attention to overseas income before but is now paying more attention.
    That said, I understand and empathize with your point on the tax burden and particularly the administrative burden on overseas Americans (I am one). The bookkeeping is indeed extensive.
    Best, Keith

19. @FromThenWilderness

    Maybe Jack thinks more from his wallet than his head.

20. US_Foreign_Person,

    Related…

    Received today by email:

    I guess the Israeli government isn’t too happy Bank Leumi upset the Americans…

    http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-attorney-general-to-probe-leumi-us-tax-evasion-1000999304

    Attorney General to probe Leumi US tax evasionIrit Avissar, Gur Megiddo and Stella Korin-LieberThe Attorney General will examine the civil and criminal implications of the bank’s conduct in helping US citizens evade US taxes.

    Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein is to examine the Bank Leumi(TASE: LUMI) tax evasion affair, in which the Israeli bank helped American customers evade US taxes. Weinstein is consulting with a range of regulatory bodies including the Bank of Israel, Israel Tax Authority, Authority for the Prohibition of Money Laundering, and the State Prosecutor to examine civil and criminal implications in order to decide what action, if any, to take.
    Israel’s Ministry of Justice said, “Since Bank Leumi’s compromise settlement in the US was first announced two weeks ago, the Attorney General has been consulting on the matter and called a meeting in his office of the relevant authorities. The facts of the matter presented to the Attorney General led him to the conclusion that there is a need for a comprehensive examination of events, and their results.”

    With comment for another Brocker in Israel:

    It’s a joke that they compare the reporting of transactions of 10,000 dollars in the US to the IRS to 10,000 NIS absolute limit in israel. Glad the lawyer says it wont’ work since it contravenes basic law. Sadly it seems the Xitans are right that in the end of days no one will be able to buy or sell without taking the mark of the beast (some method of approval by the one world government).

    Earlier Brock posts:

    http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/10/29/approaching-gatca-foreigners-and-not-just-u-s-foreigners-in-israel-finding-themselves-ensnared/

    http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/03/17/has-the-irs-opened-an-israeli-branch-office-to-process-audits/

21. @EmBee

    Re Eritea

    Well I don’t know who to believe, but I know for certain one party to the dispute is a hypocrite – would it be unfathomable for them to lie?

22. @Polly
    The Republicans are moving away from this issue because 2016 is a long time away and they don’t expect us to remember in 2016 what they were doing early in 2015. U.S. politicians generally expect voters to have very short memories.
    @Bubblebustin
    The original 1861 tax was harsher on citizens abroad, particularly the less well off ones, than it was on U.S. residents when it came to U.S.-source income. As far as I know, there is nothing in the legislative history or even in the archives explaining why this policy was changed towards the end of the Civil War. From what I have seen, the most likely explanation is that Americans abroad resented the comparatively high taxes they were paying on their U.S. source income and moved their money out of the U.S., which desperately needed money at the time. Making taxation equal and global was a way of stemming the outflow.

23. @Publius
    So it remains a mire of quicksand where everything is moving and there is nothing to hold on to.

24. Your explanation makes sense, Publius. Thanks for the insight. Be careful of what you ask for when it comes to equality, especially from the revenue hungry!

25. @publius
    Not only short term memory … also stupid, say some:

    http://youtu.be/iKyw01xsZDg

Comments are closed.