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. Thanks once again, Neill!!

   As Swiss Pinoy said:

   Another US spending program financed with Canadian money?

   and your original find of this: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/12/03/more-u-s-hypocrisy/comment-page-1/#comment-4629735 referred to at recalcitrantexpat’s post.

2. Interesting article:

   http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/12/20/irs-issues-john-doe-summons-to-fedex-dhl-ups-hsbc-in-massive-offshore-account-hunt/

3. Sympathetic article to Boris:

   http://www.civilbeat.com/2014/12/tom-yamachika-what-does-london-mayors-unpaid-tax-bill-say-about-the-irs/

4. @Neill
   Isn’t it amazing how misinformed people are? Reporters are- who are then misinforming the readers? We have read what England can do to Boris if he doesn’t pay those taxes. We also know that he has to pay those taxes whether he renounces or not. It depends on the country whether you are screwed or not. I think people have been so misinformed about this whole thing for decades if not longer, that everybody has found themselves entrapped. In addition, those who have changed the rules like quicksand didn’t even allow anybody to save themselves before doing so, or informed those who are ensnared. Again and again we read articles that are just plain lacking in information. And maybe as the other threads implies- even those at the IRS don`t know what they are doing. But most certainly USC abroad have not been educated on their rights, the erosion of their rights, or in a timely manner. Chaos.

5. The IRS’s Long Reach Doesn’t Just Apply to Corporations
   http://taxfoundation.org/blog/irs-s-long-reach-doesn-t-just-apply-corporations?mc_cid=076ae2d219&mc_eid=d81577bb8d

   @Polly – yes the author of civilbeat just says complete the divorce, not recognizing that Boris Johnson has been entrapped and that it could bankrupt him to do so. And that he has not received US services for 45 years.

   Re: Misinformed for decades. In part this is because it is so complex even for one to fathom the tax just for those within the US, then a foreign tax regime is there and the US one is put on top and it becomes unimaginable.

   There has been call for the inalienable right of liberty. However, within America the notion of this right gets suspended in the case of taxes – one must pay their taxes and their fair share of them. The Tax Foundation articles brings this up but then implies for what services and that this taxation justification should be services based. I would add to this argument by saying no services received for Boris Johnson or anyone in his community. Often one may pay taxes but may not receive services such as no family in public schools, or not receiving food stamps. Yet often in these cases it is others in the community who are receiving the services and if one gets into trouble then they may get more services as well.

6. @JC
   “Taxing” nonresidents is really confiscation. Zero services. Just hand over the money.
   Nobody in America would pay taxes to a government which just took their money and ran off with it, either.

7. @JC
   Just read it: GREAT article. How I wish that could be spread.

8. “Tax burdens should be tied to the public services a tax payer uses. Paying one’s “fair share” only makes sense if one is using a fair share. American citizens abroad don’t use American public services and thus should not be responsible for the provision of those services.”

9. JDL says
   December 21, 2014 at 7:29 am

   A very good discussion is going on over on this thread. It is the same WSJ story, but on a different thread and with different commentators.

   http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2014/12/16/u-s-expats-find-hope-in-senate-finance-tax-reform-proposal/tab/comments/#comment-225401

   Perhaps some Brockers would like to weigh in.

10. @Polly
    The problem of people working abroad for shorter periods being cut off also seems to occur in Italy. It sounds like the account closures go well beyond people who are or have been U.S. citizens. A current account is a checking account:

    http://www.formiche.net/2014/12/20/perche-italia-atto-la-congiura-del-silenzio-sul-facta/
    “Finally, some Italian account holders are receiving letters of termination of their current accounts by banks, at which they have been customers for decades, because there is ‘strong evidence’ of American citizenship. These are often the children of Italians who, after a period of travel abroad, have returned to their homeland, to widows or widowers of Americans, people born almost “by chance” in the US as children of diplomats, international officials, Italians who have worked for shorter or longer periods abroad.”

11. @Publius
    Just like the young swiss guy who did some training job in NYC for 3 months and back home, no bank will open an account with him. And he is SWISS.

12. @JC

    For the homelander, paying tax is synonymous with loyalty, not services.

13. If it is the “Tax Foundation” article, Polly, I placed this post, which included that: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/12/20/irs-commissioners-past-and-present-agree-that-the-us-tax-code-is-really-beyond-the-pale-of-making-any-sense/ at the “FATCA Tracker Community of TaxConnections” (https://www.taxconnections.com/community/FATCA-Tracker/).

14. @Polly

    Sad part… there will be more & more stories like that… any US taint makes u a person no one will touch… even if u ain’t a dang american… u are guilty by association… I warn one & all… do not go to the US… even if there is less money involved in another country… go there… u will not be a tainted or hunted down…

15. @Calgary411

    Shadow Rider put together a document questioning CBT based on Constitutionality. Perhaps an IBS feature?

    http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/12/18/class-action-lawsuit-forming-against-fatca/comment-page-2/#comment-4927757

    There are already a few comments on it.

16. Re: CBT

    Solomon Yue ‏@SolomonYue 13m13 minutes ago

    @JCDoubleTaxed @RepubAbroadHK u raise 1st $60K, I retain Bopp 2 study CBT’s constitutionality/report if we can claim it is unconstitutional.

17. @Polly maybe an error is calling the confiscation a tax

18. Confirms Blaze’s “Foreign Attack To Control All”. Nowhere to comment but thought it worthy of highlighting:

    …”For the last decade, an elite cell at the US Treasury has been sharpening the tools of economic war, crafting ways to bring countries to their knees without firing a shot.
    The strategy relies on hegemonic control over the global banking system, buttressed by a network of allies. Iran has felt its grim effects. “It is a new kind of war, like a creeping financial insurgency, intended to constrict our enemies’ financial lifeblood, unprecedented in its reach,” says Juan Zarate, who once led the team.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11305146/The-week-the-dam-broke-in-Russia-and-ended-Putins-dreams.html

19. JC and others,

    I have put up a new post, highlighting Shadow Raider’s latest,

    @all, I want to believe that Republicans Overseas are being honest, but they are way too focused on FATCA. I can’t help thinking that they are doing this more for the banks and wealthy US residents with actual foreign bank accounts, and using Americans abroad as an excuse. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they are just misinformed and disorganized, as Republicans usually are. I’m not sure.

    I’m still against FATCA even for US residents, because it’s disproportional, unilateral, ineffective and unnecessary. But to me CBT is worse. My main constitutional argument is based on discrimination, and I have also written one based on the general power to tax. The courts could easily rule against either one, but I think the discrimination argument is stronger.

    MuzzledNoMore asks Shadow Raider if it can be included in our “Resources” (and, if so, perhaps Pacifica can add).

    Shadow Raider: Your paper on the unconstitutionality of CBT is thoroughly compelling and I’d love to see it here under Resources or Important Information. Would you like it to be linked there? I can check into having that done if you would like. Most importantly, I’d like the U.S. Congress to read it, take it to heart, and get CBT scrapped once and for all, no lingering vestiges like exit taxes.

20. Interesting read:

    http://www.deblislaw.com/lackluster-tools-for-international-collection-an-explanation-for-why-things-go-bump-in-the-night.html

21. @US Foreign just posted the DeBlis Law article. There’s one thing I don’t get. I thought the words of our departed finance minister Flaherty were something to the effect of Canada would NOT aid the USA in collecting “taxes” assessed to tainted Canadians resident here (penalties may be another story?) but if I understand this article correctly, we’re all screwed. Which is the truth? Does someone here know?

22. @PierreD,

    Minister Flaherty was referring to the Canada-US tax treaty and I think Mr. DeBlis is mistaken.

    There is a mutual assistance agreement in the tax treaty. But it doesn’t apply to IRS collections against persons who were citizens of Canada at the time their tax debt arose. The DeBlis article reads to me like Mr. DeBlis is not aware of this sub-section:

    “XXVI A (8). No assistance shall be provided under this Article for a revenue claim in respect of a taxpayer to the extent that the taxpayer can demonstrate that

    (a) where the taxpayer is an individual, the revenue claim relates to a taxable period in which the taxpayer was a citizen of the requested State

    (b) where the taxpayer is an entity that is a company, estate or trust, the revenue claim relates to a taxable period in which the taxpayer derived its status as such an entity from the laws in force in therequested State.”

    Regarding penalties, CRA won’t assist in collecting penalties against the Canadian citizen, as penalties are included in the definition of a “revenue claim” (s. XXVI A(1)). As for FBARs, they’re not covered in the tax treaty, so there’s no agreement to provide assistance in collecting FBAR penalties, so CRA will not do so, whether the person is a Canadian citizen or not.

    XXVI A (1). The Contracting States undertake to lend assistance to each other in the collection of taxes referred to in paragraph 9, together with interest, costs, additions to such taxes and civil penalties, referred to in this Article as a “revenue claim”.

23. PierreD,

    In addition to Pacifica’s comment, here is an older comment badger put together that we should re-visit: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/10/23/its-time/comment-page-76/#comment-3211926, right to the final thought:

    They also note the possibility that:
    “……Taxpayers who have become compliant to be unnecessarily delayed by Customs and Border Protection Officers because they were not properly deleted from the TECS.”

    and note re lack of training and knowledge re international tax issues, treaties, etc.;
    “……According to the group managers and internal revenue officers interviewed, this can be problematic because international revenue officers are required to know international tax and treaty laws, which can make determining the correct tax liability more difficult. In addition, some managers expressed concern that the investigative tools available to international revenue officers are often limited, and locating taxpayers living abroad can be more involved and time consuming than locating domestic taxpayers. There are risks of inequitable treatment of international taxpayers and violating tax treaties if the international revenue officers are not provided adequate training on international issues.”

    Donate now. There is no justice otherwise. http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/

24. Just starting to listen to this, that I got from TaxConnections, FATCA Tracker Community:

    http://taxchat.podomatic.com/entry/2014-12-22T13_19_01-08_00

25. Sorry about the confusion with that article… I put it up cause I am sure there would be clarification on it… which is important to all… because I thought I mis-understood also… thanks for the clarification….

Comments are closed.