The letter to Ms. Thompson includes with respect to account opening:
Canadian banks ask customers for their US person status when they open new accounts or update other information (and they may proactively ask customers who have US indicia such as an address or telephone number on file) but they take no steps to validate the answers given. Nor do they require ID showing place of birth when a customer opens an account – a drivers license is sufficient. What this means is that it is very easy for Canadians to simply not disclose their US citizenship to any bank or financial institution. This conveniently solves the problem of missing Social Security Numbers, as well as keeping the IRS unaware of their existence.
You are now informing Ms. Thompson that the practice of the Canadian banks (according to you) is not consistent with the requirements of the IGA (with respect to new account openings) which state:
Other New Individual Accounts.
1. With respect to New Individual Accounts not described in paragraph A of this section, upon account opening (or within 90 days after the end of the calendar year in which the account ceases to be described in paragraph A of this section), the Reporting Canadian Financial Institution must obtain a self-certification, which may be part of the account opening documentation, that allows the Reporting Canadian Financial Institution to determine whether the Account Holder is resident in the United States for tax purposes (for this purpose, a U.S. citizen is considered to be resident in the United States for tax purposes, even if the Account Holder is also a tax resident of another jurisdiction) and confirm the reasonableness of such self-certification based on the information obtained by the Reporting Canadian Financial Institution in connection with the opening of the account, including any documentation collected pursuant to AML/KYC Procedures.
It’s pretty clear that the description you include in the above excerpt to your letter describes a process that is not consistent with what is required by the IGA. The IGA actually requires the banks to ask for information that allows the bank to make the citizenship (or other “U.S. Person”) determination. Do you want an investigative reporter to start investigating whether the banks are really compliant with the IGA?
I can just imagine the next article …
Don’t worry, pretty sure she’s ignored the e-mail. Kevyn Nightingale probably filled her in on the extent of the lying and non-compliance. Possibly he’s disappointed that he’s not getting more even more work out of this.
I don’t know if you should be so hard on Mr Nightingale, as he did give lying to your bank as an option – in fact he did not say anything to deter lying at all. He did, however warn about being truthful and not providing an ITIN.
True. He could be seen as an ally!
@Ron
You are aware that Mr. Nightingale generously donated his time and expertise to be the expert witness in the ADCS lawsuit (for ADCS) against the Government of Canada? Your criticism of him seems to be a bit misinformed.
He also threatened to “turn in” Keith Redmond for recommending non-compliance on the Facebook group. Bit of a dick move, that.
@Ron
Do you have personal knowledge of this? That’s a rather nasty allegation (especially as a comment on a blog) if it can’t be substantiated.
I did witness it, yes. The comment was swiftly deleted.
I can confirm he stated to me that he will turn me into the IRS if I continue to suggest as a viable decision for the American emigrant and Accidental American not enter the US tax system.
Please note that the comment made to me was a few years ago. I’ve certainly seen individuals evolve in their views during the time I’ve been intimately involved and this certainly could be the case in this instance.
@Ron
This series of comments has been moved by the moderators from the previous thread. Part of the original thread included the following reference to Mr. Nightingale coupled with your expectation that Google would find your reference to Mr. Nightingale. Specifically you include for the benefit of the search engines:
“The point is people like Stunned, on the other thread, who read the CBC articles and became needlessly worried. Had Google not led them here, Mr. Nightingale might have a profitable new client in his clutches.”
This particular thread includes more disparaging comments about Mr. Nightingale.
If you have a problem at all: Your problem is not with Mr. Nightingale. Your problem (if you actually have a problem) is with the tax compliance industry in general.
With respect to Mr. Nightingale:
As pointed out by Calgary411, Mr. Nightingale has actually assisted the ADCS FATAC lawsuit by acting as an expert witness.
You yourself could use Google to find that Mr. Nightingale has advocated tax positions that are helpful to Americans abroad.
For example:
He was the one of first people to argue that Americans abroad should not be subject to the 3.8% Obama care surtax (based on his argument that this was a Social Security tax).
He has argued that TFSAs should not be taxable by the USA on the basis of the U.S. Canada tax treaty.
When his work with the ADCS FATCA lawsuit is illuminated, you respond with your comment about a remark (which if ever made was quickly removed) made NOT to you but to a third party. It’s pretty clear that Mr. Nightingale has never done anything bad to you.
You are hiding behind a pseudonym and making disparaging comments about a specific individual on a public blog. You clearly state (unless I am misunderstanding you) that you are the making the comments to attract search engines.
Is it really a proper use of the Isaac Brock Society to make disparaging comments, behind a pseudonym, of questionable truth, about a specific individual, that appear to be for the sole purpose of damaging that individual?
The Isaac Brock Society has a long history of being a source of education and advocacy. This particular group of comments does not further that education and/or advocacy.
I invite you to invite the moderators of this site to remove your references to Mr. Nightingale.
2.
I merely want panicky people using search engines to find advice about non-compliance here before they find (scary) advice about compliance from the likes of Moodys and others. That is all.
@RH
I can appreciate the fact that you are very pro-noncompliance, but must every post get hijacked by that? Do you think that Isaac Brock should be primarily about promoting non-compliance? You use every post to promote your agenda, when the post is often focused around advocacy efforts and newsworthy items related to Citizenship Based Taxation. As someone who is US tax compliant advocating for change I don’t appreciate the constant intrusion. This situation is not going to blow over, and certainly won’t change without the efforts of people like USCA.
You’re attempting to make it sound like you only want to save people from the clutches of the compliance industry, but is it really just that when practically every post’s comments devolve into a discussion about your efforts to make it about compliance – not actually even whether people should comply or not!
On that, I respect your choice to not comply, but it is not the only one.
@ USCA@ BB
Isn’t this deja vue ? Another reprise of plaxy, are you going to drum RH off in the same fashion ?
Suppose someone who is only tainted by parentage reads those articles and comes to IBS, what would you suggest? Renunciatiion or noncompliance .For now and for most ,noncompliance is the easy out,especially considering the type mentionned above ,which is a goody number,especially in Canada.
I support noncompliance in all cases,but that is my opinion ; however, I do support wholeheartedly the lawsuit. Apart from a revolution, that is the only way to the get the american chains off our backs. It so very sad that more expats don’t join the fight .As for lying,again,if the war is lost it will
serve as a badge of resistance.
OT as it may be, I think this thread needs a bit of good news. A tweet from Solomon Yue says …
Congratulations 2 my friend @RepMarkMeadows who is named as President Trump’s new Chief of Staff. 9 million overseas Americans now have a friend in the White House who not only sponsored a House #FATCA repeal bill but also held a House FATCA hearing 4 them
@Robert Ross
Leaving aside your reference to Plaxy you raise some important points.
Suppose someone who is only tainted by parentage reads those articles and comes to IBS, what would you suggest? Renunciatiion or noncompliance .For now and for most, noncompliance is the easy out,especially considering the type mentionned above ,which is a goody number,especially in Canada. Your comment includes:
I support noncompliance in all cases,but that is my opinion ; however, I do support wholeheartedly the lawsuit. Apart from a revolution, that is the only way to the get the american chains off our backs. It so very sad that more expats don’t join the fight .As for lying,again,if the war is lost it will
serve as a badge of resistance.
I think your comment should be discussed and I would like to break this into two parts.
Part 1: Your support of noncompliance in all cases.
Part 2: Your support of the lawsuit (and presumably any other advocacy attempts to “get the American chains off our backs”). I note that you say that the lawsuit/advocacy is the ONLY (your word) way to achieve this.
Part 1: Your support of noncompliance in all cases.
The overwhelming number of people affected by this do support noncompliance at least initially. In fact my impression is that the general message of Brock has always been (probably summarized in Petro’s principles) to slow down, get educated, calm down, take as much time as you want to make a decision, and then make the decision that is appropriate for you. After the OMG moment has passed I believe that some people will remain in noncompliance forever. Some are in a position to remove themselves from the system according to the U.S. laws and will do so. Some will adjust their circumstances, them come into compliance and renounce. There is a range of options. The solutions to this problem are as different as are the individuals impacted by this. While everybody in theory supports noncompliance in all cases, it’s pretty clear that it makes sense for certain people to comply (for reasons related to exiting completely from the U.S. system). You have been a participant at Brock for some years. You will recognize that some of the most ardent supporters of noncompliance (at least in theory) have as a matter of practical reality entered into compliance to renounce.
Therefore, it seems that there needs to be a distinction between the theory of this and the practicality of this.
Is noncompliance a solution for every individual? Obviously the answer is no.
The purpose (or at least one) purpose of Brock has been to help people make decisions or find answers that are appropriate to their individual situations. When Brock turns into an “echo chamber of noncompliance” (I know you don’t like that phrase), it becomes a site that is helpful ONLY to a specific group of people that largely includes: dual citizens (many are dual citizens from birth), with no U.S. assets, with no expectation of U.S. assets, who are NOT compliant, have avoided detection (largely through luck), who if discovered have little to lose, etc. It’s worth noting that these people have no real problems precisely because they are not in compliance.
But, there are a lot of people who don’t fit the description of the previous paragraph. They may be in the system. They may not be dual citizens from birth (making them potentially subject to the Exit Tax). They may have U.S. assets. The list goes on and on. These people have real and significant problems. The noncompliance advisors on Brock seem to ignore this group.
The problem with the constant noncompliance drum beat, is that it seems to be offered for the purpose of encouraging the thinking, that these issues are not real problems, or that one can ensure they don’t become problems through simple noncompliance. In other words the subtext is: There are no problems. If there are problems they will go away through noncompliance. And if you have a problem – it’s your fault for complying.
This brings me to the second part of your comment.
Part 2: Your support of the lawsuit (and presumably any other advocacy attempts to “get the American chains off our backs”). I note that you say that the lawsuit/advocacy is the ONLY (your word) way to achieve this.
As I suggested yesterday in another thread, the constant “All You Need Do Is Not Comply” is to encourage the idea that FATCA, CBT, etc are not problems at all. They are imagined problems. Therefore – and this is very important – it is NOT important to support the lawsuits and other advocacy measures (of which there are far more than are discussed on Brock). This is largely what results in (to use your words) expats not supporting the cause. Why support the fight if there really is no issue, right? Why support the fight to change the laws for the whole if you can avoid any person problems through noncompliance?
On this note, Brock has been a grass roots organization, founded by some original members, with contributors coming and going over the years. I was not a founder of Brock. But, I have been a consistent author at Brock since the early days. On a personal note, I have tried (sometimes successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully) to provide content that the generally aids Brock’s educational mission. The purpose of my posts has (at least intended) to provide educational content to (1) help people make the decisions that are appropriate to their decisions and (2) to help the decision makers and the compliance industry (certain members do read this blog) to understand why these issues are problems for U.S. born people. You are a long time commenter on Brock. Therefore, you would know how long the learning curve on this is.
I don’t know how many posts I have written. But it is hundreds or posts and thousands of hours. I do not write posts to promote compliance or noncompliance. I write posts to provide the background to help individuals make the decisions that are appropriate to their situation and to provide context to readers of Brock who are not personally affected. In other words, the effectiveness of Brock as an educational vehicle depends on it being relevant to a diverse group of people.
As you know, the effectiveness of posts is largely driven by the number of relevant comments and the discussion about the purpose of the post.
The problem at Brock has become:
Posts are no longer opportunities to promote education and discussion about specific topics.
Posts have become opportunities/excuses to go on and on about noncompliance.
Question: So, really, what’s the point of even writing a post any more?
Answer: Not much.
To put it very simply: Advocacy requires education and comments about the topic under discussion. Every Brock post is now seen as only an opportunity to preach noncompliance.
The constant preaching on noncompliance is undermining ALL efforts of advocacy aimed at getting the U.S. off people’s backs. Also: efforts at legislative or change through the courts do NOT undermine people’s choice to not comply. But, the reverse is not true.
The constant hijacking of the posts to promote the noncompliance message almost always undermines the specific purpose of the post, the educational purpose of Brock in general, and the willingness of readers to support advocacy related measures.
This is how I see the issues that you raise in your comment (and I thank you for the comment).
Just one more thing that should be added here:
Although not essential, it would be very important to get the support from the compliance industry in what is a long battle – a marathon- to effect change. To use Brock as a vehicle to cast negative aspersions on specific individuals (especially when there is evidence that these individuals may be sympathetic), for the admitted purpose of entrenching these comments in the search engines, is very bad. It is possible that the Brock blog may bear some responsibility for comments on this blog.
Thanks Robert Ross for your comment. It’s Saturday morning and I have to get on with my day.
George Bernard Shaw once apologized for having written a long letter – saying he didn’t have time to write a shorter one.
Sorry, didn’t have time to condense. I hope this helps you understand why I believe the hijacking of all posts, etc is a problem.
Please don’t get your hopes up because he is the new chief of staff. His hearings , as all of them are, was theatre.
As leader of the freedom caucus and an ally of Pumpkinhead, Meadows is bad news for moderates and liberals. I.E. he is bad news.
USCA
Thank you for your well thought out response to RR’s outrageous accusations that you and I are making efforts to drum people out of Brock. I claim “FOUL”! Exactly who is attempting to drum people out here?
“…efforts at legislative or change through the courts do NOT undermine people’s choice to not comply. But, the reverse is not true.”
This is true when those efforts are used by the promoters of non-compliance as a platform to solely promote non-compliance. It’s this kind of trolling that has caused Brock’s admin to move comments from one post to another.
It’s always interesting when the perpetrators of certain kinds of behaviour accuse people of what they themselves are doing in order to deflect from their behaviour.
Meadows and Trump certainly deserve each other. I suspect they’ll be too busy denying reality during the pandemic election to give FATCA a second’s thought.
@ USCA
Thanks for your response I do agree with mostly everything youve written and sureiy understand there may be emotional and financial considerations in complying. One size does not fit all.
As for the compliane industry, I’ll give you dollars to donuts that if one with only a parentage link to the US were to enter the offices of MLP or BLG ,as mentionned in the article, they would fastrack that individual to the IRS in a blink of an eye while scaring the bejesus out of him and forget about any other options or a balanced perspective.I don’t go to the devil for an honest opinion.
As for RH, in essence what him wrote rings true, but I wouldn’ t have waved a red hankerchief in front of a bull ,as the present may well change for the worse.
As for the courts being the only resort, well,when you have politicians like
Scheer,May ,hiding behind their privacy rather than coming to the fore in the pubic interest, that closes the door to the political process.
Finally, I would like ET to ask a very simple question of her compliance industry interviewees .What would they recommend for those with only parentage linkage or those those who have spent have a lifetime not being american and what would be the consequences if their recommendations weren’t followed? That is THE question since the answer would would reveal their actual mindset and a measure of how open their optics are.
@RR
In Canada, US birthplace isn’t any worse than US parentage as far as banks and FATCA are concerned, since a drivers license can be used as ID when opening an account. It’s really not much of a taint, at present.
Entering the US is a different matter, but even there it’s generally not difficult to use a Canadian passport with US birthplace, they don’t seem to care.
@USCA
” Finally, I would like ET to ask a very simple question of her compliance industry interviewees .What would they recommend for those with only parentage linkage or those who have spent a lifetime not being american and what would be the consequences if their recommendations weren’t followed? That is THE question since the answer would would reveal their actual mindset and a measure of how open their optics are.”
@RH
As long as one doesn’t have ” made in the US of A ” branded somewhere they are safe ,even enterring the US. They haven’ gotten to the point of asking if one’s parents or even grandparents are american ,at which point we will go from the sublime to the ridiculous.
I’m going to enjoy sitting back and watching Meadows be shredded just like every other Washington type who has joined the Trump administration thinking its a brilliant career move. Even though Meadows is or was a foe of FATCA (the enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that) he is certainly not a favorite of mine.
Honestly, except for the entertainment value, I don’t even know why I pay attention to that stuff; its their problem. We’ve got plenty of our own to tend to up here in Canada.
Why don’t you do what other people do and ask her yourself?
The letter to Ms. Thompson includes with respect to account opening:
You are now informing Ms. Thompson that the practice of the Canadian banks (according to you) is not consistent with the requirements of the IGA (with respect to new account openings) which state:
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/FATCA-Agreement-Canada-2-5-2014.pdf
It’s pretty clear that the description you include in the above excerpt to your letter describes a process that is not consistent with what is required by the IGA. The IGA actually requires the banks to ask for information that allows the bank to make the citizenship (or other “U.S. Person”) determination. Do you want an investigative reporter to start investigating whether the banks are really compliant with the IGA?
I can just imagine the next article …
Don’t worry, pretty sure she’s ignored the e-mail. Kevyn Nightingale probably filled her in on the extent of the lying and non-compliance. Possibly he’s disappointed that he’s not getting more even more work out of this.
I don’t know if you should be so hard on Mr Nightingale, as he did give lying to your bank as an option – in fact he did not say anything to deter lying at all. He did, however warn about being truthful and not providing an ITIN.
True. He could be seen as an ally!
@Ron
You are aware that Mr. Nightingale generously donated his time and expertise to be the expert witness in the ADCS lawsuit (for ADCS) against the Government of Canada? Your criticism of him seems to be a bit misinformed.
He also threatened to “turn in” Keith Redmond for recommending non-compliance on the Facebook group. Bit of a dick move, that.
@Ron
Do you have personal knowledge of this? That’s a rather nasty allegation (especially as a comment on a blog) if it can’t be substantiated.
I did witness it, yes. The comment was swiftly deleted.
I can confirm he stated to me that he will turn me into the IRS if I continue to suggest as a viable decision for the American emigrant and Accidental American not enter the US tax system.
Please note that the comment made to me was a few years ago. I’ve certainly seen individuals evolve in their views during the time I’ve been intimately involved and this certainly could be the case in this instance.
@Ron
This series of comments has been moved by the moderators from the previous thread. Part of the original thread included the following reference to Mr. Nightingale coupled with your expectation that Google would find your reference to Mr. Nightingale. Specifically you include for the benefit of the search engines:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2020/03/04/cbc-reporter-lizt1-continutes-to-keep-fatca-in-the-news-acknowledgement-of-direct-costs-to-canada-and-mention-of-adcsovereignty-fatca-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-8750597
This particular thread includes more disparaging comments about Mr. Nightingale.
If you have a problem at all: Your problem is not with Mr. Nightingale. Your problem (if you actually have a problem) is with the tax compliance industry in general.
With respect to Mr. Nightingale:
As pointed out by Calgary411, Mr. Nightingale has actually assisted the ADCS FATAC lawsuit by acting as an expert witness.
You yourself could use Google to find that Mr. Nightingale has advocated tax positions that are helpful to Americans abroad.
For example:
He was the one of first people to argue that Americans abroad should not be subject to the 3.8% Obama care surtax (based on his argument that this was a Social Security tax).
He has argued that TFSAs should not be taxable by the USA on the basis of the U.S. Canada tax treaty.
When his work with the ADCS FATCA lawsuit is illuminated, you respond with your comment about a remark (which if ever made was quickly removed) made NOT to you but to a third party. It’s pretty clear that Mr. Nightingale has never done anything bad to you.
You are hiding behind a pseudonym and making disparaging comments about a specific individual on a public blog. You clearly state (unless I am misunderstanding you) that you are the making the comments to attract search engines.
Is it really a proper use of the Isaac Brock Society to make disparaging comments, behind a pseudonym, of questionable truth, about a specific individual, that appear to be for the sole purpose of damaging that individual?
The Isaac Brock Society has a long history of being a source of education and advocacy. This particular group of comments does not further that education and/or advocacy.
I invite you to invite the moderators of this site to remove your references to Mr. Nightingale.
2.
I merely want panicky people using search engines to find advice about non-compliance here before they find (scary) advice about compliance from the likes of Moodys and others. That is all.
@RH
I can appreciate the fact that you are very pro-noncompliance, but must every post get hijacked by that? Do you think that Isaac Brock should be primarily about promoting non-compliance? You use every post to promote your agenda, when the post is often focused around advocacy efforts and newsworthy items related to Citizenship Based Taxation. As someone who is US tax compliant advocating for change I don’t appreciate the constant intrusion. This situation is not going to blow over, and certainly won’t change without the efforts of people like USCA.
You’re attempting to make it sound like you only want to save people from the clutches of the compliance industry, but is it really just that when practically every post’s comments devolve into a discussion about your efforts to make it about compliance – not actually even whether people should comply or not!
On that, I respect your choice to not comply, but it is not the only one.
@ USCA@ BB
Isn’t this deja vue ? Another reprise of plaxy, are you going to drum RH off in the same fashion ?
Suppose someone who is only tainted by parentage reads those articles and comes to IBS, what would you suggest? Renunciatiion or noncompliance .For now and for most ,noncompliance is the easy out,especially considering the type mentionned above ,which is a goody number,especially in Canada.
I support noncompliance in all cases,but that is my opinion ; however, I do support wholeheartedly the lawsuit. Apart from a revolution, that is the only way to the get the american chains off our backs. It so very sad that more expats don’t join the fight .As for lying,again,if the war is lost it will
serve as a badge of resistance.
OT as it may be, I think this thread needs a bit of good news. A tweet from Solomon Yue says …
@Robert Ross
Leaving aside your reference to Plaxy you raise some important points.
Suppose someone who is only tainted by parentage reads those articles and comes to IBS, what would you suggest? Renunciatiion or noncompliance .For now and for most, noncompliance is the easy out,especially considering the type mentionned above ,which is a goody number,especially in Canada. Your comment includes:
I think your comment should be discussed and I would like to break this into two parts.
Part 1: Your support of noncompliance in all cases.
Part 2: Your support of the lawsuit (and presumably any other advocacy attempts to “get the American chains off our backs”). I note that you say that the lawsuit/advocacy is the ONLY (your word) way to achieve this.
_______________________________________________________________
Part 1: Your support of noncompliance in all cases.
The overwhelming number of people affected by this do support noncompliance at least initially. In fact my impression is that the general message of Brock has always been (probably summarized in Petro’s principles) to slow down, get educated, calm down, take as much time as you want to make a decision, and then make the decision that is appropriate for you. After the OMG moment has passed I believe that some people will remain in noncompliance forever. Some are in a position to remove themselves from the system according to the U.S. laws and will do so. Some will adjust their circumstances, them come into compliance and renounce. There is a range of options. The solutions to this problem are as different as are the individuals impacted by this. While everybody in theory supports noncompliance in all cases, it’s pretty clear that it makes sense for certain people to comply (for reasons related to exiting completely from the U.S. system). You have been a participant at Brock for some years. You will recognize that some of the most ardent supporters of noncompliance (at least in theory) have as a matter of practical reality entered into compliance to renounce.
Therefore, it seems that there needs to be a distinction between the theory of this and the practicality of this.
Is noncompliance a solution for every individual? Obviously the answer is no.
The purpose (or at least one) purpose of Brock has been to help people make decisions or find answers that are appropriate to their individual situations. When Brock turns into an “echo chamber of noncompliance” (I know you don’t like that phrase), it becomes a site that is helpful ONLY to a specific group of people that largely includes: dual citizens (many are dual citizens from birth), with no U.S. assets, with no expectation of U.S. assets, who are NOT compliant, have avoided detection (largely through luck), who if discovered have little to lose, etc. It’s worth noting that these people have no real problems precisely because they are not in compliance.
But, there are a lot of people who don’t fit the description of the previous paragraph. They may be in the system. They may not be dual citizens from birth (making them potentially subject to the Exit Tax). They may have U.S. assets. The list goes on and on. These people have real and significant problems. The noncompliance advisors on Brock seem to ignore this group.
The problem with the constant noncompliance drum beat, is that it seems to be offered for the purpose of encouraging the thinking, that these issues are not real problems, or that one can ensure they don’t become problems through simple noncompliance. In other words the subtext is: There are no problems. If there are problems they will go away through noncompliance. And if you have a problem – it’s your fault for complying.
This brings me to the second part of your comment.
Part 2: Your support of the lawsuit (and presumably any other advocacy attempts to “get the American chains off our backs”). I note that you say that the lawsuit/advocacy is the ONLY (your word) way to achieve this.
As I suggested yesterday in another thread, the constant “All You Need Do Is Not Comply” is to encourage the idea that FATCA, CBT, etc are not problems at all. They are imagined problems. Therefore – and this is very important – it is NOT important to support the lawsuits and other advocacy measures (of which there are far more than are discussed on Brock). This is largely what results in (to use your words) expats not supporting the cause. Why support the fight if there really is no issue, right? Why support the fight to change the laws for the whole if you can avoid any person problems through noncompliance?
On this note, Brock has been a grass roots organization, founded by some original members, with contributors coming and going over the years. I was not a founder of Brock. But, I have been a consistent author at Brock since the early days. On a personal note, I have tried (sometimes successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully) to provide content that the generally aids Brock’s educational mission. The purpose of my posts has (at least intended) to provide educational content to (1) help people make the decisions that are appropriate to their decisions and (2) to help the decision makers and the compliance industry (certain members do read this blog) to understand why these issues are problems for U.S. born people. You are a long time commenter on Brock. Therefore, you would know how long the learning curve on this is.
I don’t know how many posts I have written. But it is hundreds or posts and thousands of hours. I do not write posts to promote compliance or noncompliance. I write posts to provide the background to help individuals make the decisions that are appropriate to their situation and to provide context to readers of Brock who are not personally affected. In other words, the effectiveness of Brock as an educational vehicle depends on it being relevant to a diverse group of people.
As you know, the effectiveness of posts is largely driven by the number of relevant comments and the discussion about the purpose of the post.
The problem at Brock has become:
Posts are no longer opportunities to promote education and discussion about specific topics.
Posts have become opportunities/excuses to go on and on about noncompliance.
Question: So, really, what’s the point of even writing a post any more?
Answer: Not much.
To put it very simply: Advocacy requires education and comments about the topic under discussion. Every Brock post is now seen as only an opportunity to preach noncompliance.
The constant preaching on noncompliance is undermining ALL efforts of advocacy aimed at getting the U.S. off people’s backs. Also: efforts at legislative or change through the courts do NOT undermine people’s choice to not comply. But, the reverse is not true.
The constant hijacking of the posts to promote the noncompliance message almost always undermines the specific purpose of the post, the educational purpose of Brock in general, and the willingness of readers to support advocacy related measures.
This is how I see the issues that you raise in your comment (and I thank you for the comment).
Just one more thing that should be added here:
Although not essential, it would be very important to get the support from the compliance industry in what is a long battle – a marathon- to effect change. To use Brock as a vehicle to cast negative aspersions on specific individuals (especially when there is evidence that these individuals may be sympathetic), for the admitted purpose of entrenching these comments in the search engines, is very bad. It is possible that the Brock blog may bear some responsibility for comments on this blog.
Thanks Robert Ross for your comment. It’s Saturday morning and I have to get on with my day.
George Bernard Shaw once apologized for having written a long letter – saying he didn’t have time to write a shorter one.
Sorry, didn’t have time to condense. I hope this helps you understand why I believe the hijacking of all posts, etc is a problem.
Please don’t get your hopes up because he is the new chief of staff. His hearings , as all of them are, was theatre.
As leader of the freedom caucus and an ally of Pumpkinhead, Meadows is bad news for moderates and liberals. I.E. he is bad news.
USCA
Thank you for your well thought out response to RR’s outrageous accusations that you and I are making efforts to drum people out of Brock. I claim “FOUL”! Exactly who is attempting to drum people out here?
“…efforts at legislative or change through the courts do NOT undermine people’s choice to not comply. But, the reverse is not true.”
This is true when those efforts are used by the promoters of non-compliance as a platform to solely promote non-compliance. It’s this kind of trolling that has caused Brock’s admin to move comments from one post to another.
It’s always interesting when the perpetrators of certain kinds of behaviour accuse people of what they themselves are doing in order to deflect from their behaviour.
Meadows and Trump certainly deserve each other. I suspect they’ll be too busy denying reality during the pandemic election to give FATCA a second’s thought.
@ USCA
Thanks for your response I do agree with mostly everything youve written and sureiy understand there may be emotional and financial considerations in complying. One size does not fit all.
As for the compliane industry, I’ll give you dollars to donuts that if one with only a parentage link to the US were to enter the offices of MLP or BLG ,as mentionned in the article, they would fastrack that individual to the IRS in a blink of an eye while scaring the bejesus out of him and forget about any other options or a balanced perspective.I don’t go to the devil for an honest opinion.
As for RH, in essence what him wrote rings true, but I wouldn’ t have waved a red hankerchief in front of a bull ,as the present may well change for the worse.
As for the courts being the only resort, well,when you have politicians like
Scheer,May ,hiding behind their privacy rather than coming to the fore in the pubic interest, that closes the door to the political process.
Finally, I would like ET to ask a very simple question of her compliance industry interviewees .What would they recommend for those with only parentage linkage or those those who have spent have a lifetime not being american and what would be the consequences if their recommendations weren’t followed? That is THE question since the answer would would reveal their actual mindset and a measure of how open their optics are.
@RR
In Canada, US birthplace isn’t any worse than US parentage as far as banks and FATCA are concerned, since a drivers license can be used as ID when opening an account. It’s really not much of a taint, at present.
Entering the US is a different matter, but even there it’s generally not difficult to use a Canadian passport with US birthplace, they don’t seem to care.
@USCA
” Finally, I would like ET to ask a very simple question of her compliance industry interviewees .What would they recommend for those with only parentage linkage or those who have spent a lifetime not being american and what would be the consequences if their recommendations weren’t followed? That is THE question since the answer would would reveal their actual mindset and a measure of how open their optics are.”
@RH
As long as one doesn’t have ” made in the US of A ” branded somewhere they are safe ,even enterring the US. They haven’ gotten to the point of asking if one’s parents or even grandparents are american ,at which point we will go from the sublime to the ridiculous.
I’m going to enjoy sitting back and watching Meadows be shredded just like every other Washington type who has joined the Trump administration thinking its a brilliant career move. Even though Meadows is or was a foe of FATCA (the enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that) he is certainly not a favorite of mine.
Honestly, except for the entertainment value, I don’t even know why I pay attention to that stuff; its their problem. We’ve got plenty of our own to tend to up here in Canada.
Why don’t you do what other people do and ask her yourself?