Cross posted from RenounceUScitizenship. I intend to update this in the next few days based on comments. Looking forward to your thoughts.
Interesting comment on “low compliance risk” and U.S. citizens abroad #OVDI #FBAR #FATCA federaltaxcrimes.blogspot.ca/2012/06/irs-an… Shows risk of June 26 IRS ann
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) June 30, 2012
Whatever this means was announced on June 26, 2012 under the title of New Filing Compliance Procedures for Non-Resident U.S. Taxpayers. Those interested in this topic should check back frequently for more specifics. The specifics should be available no later than September 1, 2012. I am certain that the “cross border professionals” will say that this is “nothing new”. After all the statute of limitations for FBARs is six years. This is a message from the IRS and therefore it needs to be read carefully. It also needs to be read in the context of:
1. OVDI – You are all criminals
2. The December 2011 FS – well maybe “reasonable cause” does really exist
3. Voluntary disclosure in general – always been there anway
You can be sure that the IRS chooses its words carefully. Therefore, we must read the words of the IRS carefully.
The IRS cannot change the law and is an administrative agency in charge of enforcing the law
First, please note that in its express terms the June 26 announcement applies only to taxpayers living outside the U.S. who have NOT been filing 1040s, associated information returns and FBARs. This means it does NOT apply to U.S. residents. Furthermore, it doesn’t look like it can be used to amend existing returns. Although the information appears to allow RRSP holders to make the appropriate 8891 election, it is not clear whether this can be done if someone has been filing 1040s, but just failed to include the RRSP 8891 election. I would hope that this procedure can be used to “fix the RRSP” even if 1040s have been filed. In any event, the devil is in the details and we will see.
The IRS cannot change the law – the issue is what does all of this mean in terms of IRS administration of the law
This is an important point. We all agree that the problem is citizenship-based taxation. The IRS cannot change the law that requires citizens to pay tax. The IRS cannot change the law that determines what is taxed and how much tax is owed. But, it can change the way that it administers the existing law. By “law” I include: laws that determine tax liability, information reporting requirements and FBAR. Therefore, the real questions are:
1. What do these IRS announcements (OVDI, December 11 FS, and June 26 12 information sheet) as individual documents tell us about IRS attitude toward the administration of the law in relation to U.S. person’s living outside the United States?
2. When we read these documents together what do they suggest about an evolution of attitude?
I read that IRS attitude as follows:
– OVDI (especially summer and fall of 2011): Every single U.S. citizen outside the United States is a tax evader. We will take a hard line with them. “Reasonable cause” (if it ever existed) is a thing of the past. It is unreasonable that any true American would live outside the United States. Therefore, if you live outside the United States you are unreasonable. Because you are unreasonable, “reasonable cause” could not apply to you. Of course the “cross border professionals” did a wonderful job reinforcing this point of view. Conclusion: OVDI focused on penalties.
– December 2011 FS: Okay, maybe there are some people living outside the United States who are (if not reasonable) at least not unreasonable. We will remove our presumption that living outside the United States makes you an “unreasonable person” (but we still think its unAmerican to live outside the U.S.). Therefore, we will allow you to make “reasonable cause” arguments. But of course, you do so at your own risk. Conclusion: The December 2011 FS focused on “reasonable cause”.
– June 26, 2012: Okay, we really want you to come in and be compliant. So, if you haven’t been compliant, under certain circumstances, we are going to allow you to come back without too many problems. But, hey don’t forget to add your “reasonable cause” letter. But, in order for you to get the benefit of this kind treatment you must be a person with “low compliance risk”. If you are NOT a person with “low compliance risk” we are NOT going to tell you how we will respond. But, make no mistake this is NOT an amnesty. We know that you will all want to know what we mean by “low compliance risk”. Here is what (as of June 26, 2012) the IRS is saying about “low compliance risk” (remember this can change):
Compliance risk determination:
The IRS will determine the level of compliance risk presented by the submission based on certain information provided on the returns filed, and based on certain additional information that will be required as part of the submission. Low risk will be predicated on simple returns with little or no U.S. tax due. Absent high risk factors, if the submitted returns and application show less than $1,500 in tax due in each of the years, they will be treated as low risk. In general, the risk level will rise as the income and assets of the taxpayer rise, if there are indications of sophisticated tax planning or avoidance, or if there is material economic activity in the United States. Additional risk factors include any additional history of noncompliance with United States tax law and the amount and type of United States source income. Additional information regarding the specific factors the IRS will use to assess the level of compliance risk, and how information regarding those factors should be presented in the submission, will be released prior to the effective date of the new procedure.
If you read carefully this tells you nothing. It doesn’t even guarantee that if you owe less than $1500 a year in tax that you will be deemed to be of “low compliance risk”. I repeat it tells you nothing other than that if you are of “low compliance risk” you are probably safe. But, it doesn’t tell you what they mean. So, I would be very very careful. This does NOT say that if you owe less than $1500 a year in tax that you are a “low compliance risk” person.
For interesting commentary on the “low compliance risk” issue, see what Calgary lawyer Roy Berg has to say:
How is “low compliance risk” to be determined for non-residents wishing to become tax compliant – Roy Berg’s take moodystax.com/blog/21-us-tax… #FBAR
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) June 29, 2012
The Proper Way For the IRS To Assess “Compliance Risk” (In my humble opinion)
The telling statement is “Low risk will be predicated on simple returns with little of no U.S. tax due”. Note the focus on “simple returns”. I would guess that they mean a wage earner. I suspect that if you run your own business you are NOT low compliance risk (but who knows).
What is interesting is that the determination of “low compliance risk” is based on the kinds of activities one is involved in (“simple returns”). “Low compliance risk” is NOT based on one’s willingness to comply with the law. In other words, the IRS seems to be operating on the presumption that everybody organizes their lives to evade taxes. This is offensive and stupid. The reality is that people have suffered so much stress and pain because they DO want to be in compliance. They want to learn HOW. They don’t want to be bankrupted for unintentional omissions. For months I have been using this blog to ask the IRS to “come clean”. (On January 9, 2012 the IRS promised procedures for how dual citizens can come into compliance. They still have not done this.) Just tell people what they need to do and how to do it? The overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens abroad desperately just want to be in compliance. Why the IRS can’t see this is beyond me.
What it really means to be “low compliance risk”
The people who are really “low compliance risk” are those who understand their legal obligations and are given clear instructions for how to come into compliance and stay in compliance. That’s all we want. Other countries seem to be able to do this? Why can’t the IRS?
While we wait for clarification on what “low compliance risk” means, I would be careful. As always, my advice is: seek competent legal advice.
A final point:
Note the following message from the IRS:
Taxpayers who are in a situation where they are concerned about the risk of criminal prosecution should be advised that this new procedure does not provide protection from criminal prosecution if the IRS and Department of Justice determine that the taxpayer’s particular circumstances warrant such prosecution. Taxpayers concerned about criminal prosecution because of their particular circumstances should be aware of and consult their legal advisers about the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP), announced on January 9, 2012, which offers another means by which taxpayers with undisclosed offshore accounts may become compliant. For additional information about the OVDP, see www.irs.gov. It should be noted, however, that once a taxpayer makes a submission under the new procedure described in this document, OVDP is no longer available. It should also be noted that taxpayers who are ineligible to participate in OVDP are also ineligible to participate in this procedure.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
What follows is the text of the information from the IRS – current as of June 27, 2012
New Filing Compliance Procedures for Non-Resident U.S. Taxpayers |
||
|
Page Last Reviewed or Updated: June 26, 2012
This is just the latest Tax Trap being skillfully placed to crucify perons living abroad who, for whatever reason are deemed to be US persons. The IRS deems most such persons to not be fully compliant with every jot and tittle of US tax law.
The IRS is determined that these persons will pay through the nose and with this announcement is trying to gently persuade them to come forward so it can find out who they are in order to make sure they are rung dry of all their savings.
Be very careful!
*I agree. And I see that the non-US spouse issue is still not being addressed. Why is the Canadian govt so unconcerned about the possible Charter violations of their citizens who are married to US persons?
Remember the second OVDI last year? Schulman had said something like “this is your last chance” and if you don’t take it the penalties will get worse, so don’t wait for a better deal. Is this current announcement a better deal because they concede the first deal was too harsh, or is this just a hook and sinker apparatus with rotten bait to catch people and then switch them (switch=ugly stick).
Cannot work in Canada. We will win. Stay resolute. And wait.
@ann;
I agree re Charter and human rights issues. Although there seem to be some new elements in this announcement, and no doubt there was movement due in part to Canadian government (and expat) pushback :
There are still many left stranded;
1. Dual status minor children – with inherited US taxable status, and 2. those with disabilities that US law precludes from exercising the right to renounce, 3. Immigrants and others residing in the US – with legitimate pre-existing assets ‘abroad’
1. We need loud and public and official concern expressed for the Canadian citizen children – born on Canadian soil, or inheriting Canadian citizenship, who will continue to be shackled by inherited US taxable status – from a dual parent or parents. There is nothing these Canadian children can do about their UStax-chattel status – thrust on them by inheritance – without consent, and although their US/dual parent may be able to renounce for themselves, by US law they cannot do this on behalf of a minor (or on behalf of a dependent with disabilities that prevent them from being recognized as able to fully understand renunciation). The child will have to continue to be subject to the unjust burden of US extraterritorial taxation and reporting until old enough to renounce. The parents are to report on their behalf if there are any ‘taxable’ events – ex. an RESP. If a family member has set up an RESP on behalf of the child, this is not recognized by the US/Canada tax treaty as a legitimate deferred or tax free savings plan – although those inside the US are urged by the government to save for college with US equivalents.
This bondage will also apply to adults with mental health issues, or dementia – if their disability precludes them from being deemed able to freely renounce – although ironically, it will not preclude them from the burden of labyrinthine reporting, paying any tax if assessed, or being exempt from the potential jeopardy of the draconian penalty rules – disability not withstanding.
2. RDSPs (registered disability savings plans) are not recognized by the US. Neither are TFSAs, or the forthcoming additional retirement savings plans (PRPPs). Canadian citizens and permanent residents will continue to be effectively penalized if they try to hold these Canadian government registered savings, because the US refuses to recognize them, and continues to impose needless extravagantly complex and punitive reporting and penalty requirements on them. It still will represent costly annual and additional reporting – subject to draconian penalty guidelines for even inadvertent errors. The specialized accounting fees exceed or devour any or most of the potential savings.
Anyone in these categories (minors and those with intellectual disabilities) will continue to be treated as second class Canadians as a result of the insistence of the US to effectively penalize legitimate and legal, registered Canadian savings. Both the US and Canada promote their respective versions of these plans in order to urge their citizens and residents to amass personal savings – and decrease dependence on government for support, but those outside the US are penalized or prevented from doing so. Yet those affected, and their parents are liable for, and pay any assessed taxes in full where they live and work – outside the US.
It has taken until now for the status of RRSPs to be treated less punitively by the US, although they have existed for decades – and to achieve even this current partial recognition by the US has been an onerous process even though they have been officially recognized as having low or zero potential for purported ‘tax abuse’. How long will the other Canadian government registered savings be effectively denied to us and any Canadian-dual children?
How long will the US urge those on US soil to take full advantage of UStax privileged savings at home, but use official sanctions and law to discriminate against those living ‘abroad’?
The same is true of equivalent savings options in other countries – where the US refuses to allow the legitimated home-government sanctioned and registered retirement and other savings plans to be recognized as exempted under treaty provisions.
No-one wants their children or disabled dependents to be held hostage by the US. This recent announcement does not address dual children, those with intellectual/mental health disabilities, and immigrants who moved to the US – but have legal and hard earned, post-tax assets from their home countries.
Excellent reply badger. I agree that for those minor children/those with intellectual disabilities, we need to keep pushing.
At first, I wondered if I would regret renouncing. No. Roger Conklin’s analogy is simply priceless. WATCH OUT!
I think we should though, esp with regard to the RRSP, be sure to thank Phil Hodgen as his recent trip to D.C. to address that point, likely played a big part in persuading them to stop this nonsense about RRSP’s.
I also think, we should be very, very proud that we have all played some part in this. I’d bet a lot, that the focus this forum has brought to this issue, has been instrumental. Not to undermine the great efforts by ACA and others, I think we have managed to create enough of a disturbance to have made a difference. 🙂
I will frame my CLN (when it comes) with great pride.
This article makes the case for people who were unwittingly caught in this IRS web by not having followed (or more likely ignored) US tax law. My personal circumstances are that I complies with US tax law from the first year I started working overseas in 1987. All our tax returns for 25 years were filed correctly and on time, we had always followed FBAR. I expatriated because the burden of compliance had become overwhelming years ago. In fact it was Obama’s election and the knowledge of his hornyness for wealth-sharing that convinced me that expats were screwed under his administration. Within days of Obama’s election we had our first appointment for renouncement.
What happened in our case is that over decades we witnessed the slow and steady draconian application of special IRS rules targeting expats. We were slowly forced into having to decide either to return to the US to live or expatriate, there was no other possible path. It certainly helped the clarity of our thinking that we lived in low tax Switzerland that had up until its rape by the IRS been the center of financial privacy for the entire planet.
Now the author states here that the IRS doesn’t make these laws, but that is only partly true. Government bureaucracies play a major role in writing these laws, just look at how much of the fine print of FATCA is coming from the IRS and not from congress, or how Dodd-Frank and many EPA bills are left for the bureaucrats to fill in the fine print.
So I do not cut the IRS any slack, they are evil sociopaths only concerned with the abuse of their own power.
Watch how I handle this tripe:
I work for myself
I live in a country that doesn’t tax ANY income coming in from overseas.
I funnel all funds through on/off-shore accounts that are linked to non-resident aliens (thus they owe nothing, and the IRS knows nothing)
Funds are kept spread out and generally not directly in my name, however I have full and sole control over them.
However, once in a while I have some income that is unfortunately in my name, and that’s what fake receipts are for.
Bank accounts? I refuse to disclose
Actual income? Laughable, I will never disclose
1040? As long as it’s free to file, I will continue to do so, and every single year I am operating at a loss and make sure there is a refund due… even though nothing at all was paid. Hey, *someone* has to compensate me for my time on this garbage.
You may have also noticed this year that it’s impossible to efile with a NRA spouse unless you apply for an ITIN. Sorry IRS, not gonna give you that information, you have no right to it… so I guess I’m still “single”. I resolutely refuse to spend any money whatsoever on filing taxes. Be it postage, fax costs, filing fees. Period. As long as you are an asshole to me, I’m gonna get a free little bonus out of you every year and blow it specifically on products and services with zero connection to the US.
As far as I can see these new “amnesty” procedures, with all the serious limitations and faults that others have commented on above, are aimed at former US persons living overseas who wish to remain US citizens. Even for those people the “benefits” are questionable, even in the immediate term never mind the long term.
I don’t see anything here of any comfort, use or benefit to anyone who relinquished their USC decades ago, whether or not they apply for a CLN, nor to anyone who renounces today (or in the past few months, or in the near future), nor to “accidental” (I prefer the term “unwilling”) Americans born on US soil or off US soil of US parents. Moreover there is nothing in this announcement that changes FATCA one whit, relieves the financial privacy threats to alleged US persons residing outside the US, changes the extraterritorial and imperialist application of US laws in other countries, nor does anything to protect present or former US persons in countries such as Switzerland from having their bank and investment accounts closed, their mortgages cancelled, and being treated as pariahs even if they have citizenship in those countries.
This doesn’t begin to address or redress the damage already done or about to be done to alleged US persons living outside the US (not to mention their non-USC spouses) and with minimal or no US involvement for years, by its imperialist, overweening, money-grabbing government.
At least not as far as I can see.
I fear the IRS is again, using those very technical guidelines they like to use in the FAQs, to re-draw the “ compliance failure box” too narrowly and may create more problems than it solves.
I think, they think, they are “lancing the boil” of OVDI outrage (north of the border) by providing this selective relief, (targeted at you Canadians) and actually they may be spreading the infection, but we shall see.
This is an alternate noisy disclosure, or so it is beginning to appear to me. It still doesn’t address the QD issues that various good attorneys disagree on.
What is the poor Indian immigrant do who has failed to report their joint family accounts back in their homeland? Just look longingly at the relief for Canadians? Or do what the 30 year IRS vet recommends with their own noisy Disclosure instead of a QD?
I have said it many times, the Canadian voluntary disclosure program doesn’t need endless FAQs and constant technical adjustment tweaks, but the IRS just can’t learn from anyone else, apparently. KISS doesn’t exist for them.
*@nobledreamer
I do not regret renouncing, there maybe some unforseen consequences.
Whatever we learned or believed, the US has morphed into a kleptocracy with the most complex and corrupt tax regime in the world. The IRS is a mafia-like enforcer, constantly changing the terms of compliance.
You do not need fancy constitional arguments to know that FATCA is intuitively wrong.
WRT to FBAR we are all guity of laundering our earnings to pay nefarious characters, such as our landlords, utility companies and local merchents.
However, our greatest crime was to see a world beyond the US border, why could we not marry a nice american boy, take a good american job or go to a US university.
@Dan I don’t see how you can morally expect something back in refund out of a system that you refuse to contribute to. Except maybe that you are exacting penalties for your time wasted in filing forms. My approach is Ostrich. I won’t bother with forms, and I didn’t even bother to file for the Bush stimulus a few years ago. My activities in my home country are NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES. Unca Sam should leave me alone, I will leave him alone if he does.
I don’t see how they can morally expect me to waste time filling out forms that have nothing to do with them. Due to several decent-sized payments that come in from old clients through the US, I don’t really have much of a choice unless I feel like shelling out for self-employment taxes and income taxes on top of it. FEIE goes poof if you don’t file and they decide to come after ya.
So all that hard work in making up bullshit that’ll shut them up means I deserve something for my efforts. I typically tend to blow it all on cuban cigars and fireworks each year.
Hell, last year it got blown on a trip to the DPRK.
*I guess I will “sit tight” until September. It would seem rather foolish for anyone to file now before all the details are made public.
*”The IRS cannot change the law and is an administrative agency in charge of enforcing the law”” This is gobbledygook. FATCA didn’t create itself. The IRS has known how to do this for years and had most of the rules already written. The opportunity for applying FATCA only needed a willing regime with power over both houses and the Whitehouse. With the HIRE make-work bill (the work for the hungry serfs crying for help from their leader) which couldn’t be financed by any conventional means, everything fell neatly into place.
*The first thing the IRS could have done is simply separate Americans Living Abroad and their “foreign” bank accounts from Americans Living in the USA and having hided foreign bank accounts. I fail to understand why the two have been lumped together.
@Markpinetree. There are even distinctions between people living in the USA. Most legal immigrants with Visa and green cards, didn’t know about the rules or ignored it.
I probed around in my company. Not a single one immigrant I talked to knew what FBARs were – not a single one. And most of them have bank accounts over 10K. And did I mention that a friend of mine in the same situation went to an accountant for his taxes this year, told her that he was a foreigner and she did not even ask him about his foreign bank account. Even with the all the noise going around CPAs still don’t do their job correctly. I read we can’t even use that as an excuse.
If the IRS wanted to cash in on back taxes, they could work with INS, contact the country where these all Visa and green card holders come from with suspicion that they’re not paying their taxes, get their bank account information and send these people a letter. Maybe they’ll do that once FACTA is in place. With millions of legal immigrants in this situation, even if they get $1,000 out of 500,000 of them, that’s $500 million. I don’t know if they would consider that small change. Maybe I shouldn’t mention stupid ideas like that… but it’s definitely something that with FACTA in place, they could do.
@markpinetree, re; “simply separate Americans Living Abroad and their “foreign” bank accounts from Americans Living in the USA and having hided foreign bank accounts”
You’re right, it should be so simple to see and recognize that those with permanent tax residence outside the US are different from those inside the US. And, to be fair, there are legitimate reasons for someone to have a small local currency account where they might have a second home, or a branch business location, etc. Mitt Romney’s family has/had a vacation property in Canada for decades http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1114630–does-mitt-romney-s-long-love-affair-with-canada-still-have-heat – and a local account would make sense for paying utilities, and Canadian property taxes, etc. And Obama has a brother-in-law from Canada too. It would make sense to have a Canadian account for expenses on visits here – and he would have had them from before he moved to the US. A Canadian Liberal MPP’s son just married the daughter of an Obama advisor http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1214653–son-of-toronto-liberal-mpp-marries-into-u-s-democratic-royalty . Does that mean that suddenly, if he has pre-existing Canadian accounts or assets, they instantly became ‘hidden’ toxic assets under IRS suspicion on the very day he becomes a US ‘person’? Or if his new US wife becomes a co-signatory on her Canadian husband’s accounts, or if he ever needs to assist his Canadian resident parents in case of future inability to direct their own affairs? That’s just crazy – if one day the account is just an everyday legal Canadian account, but the next day, if the account holder obtains US status, or is associated with a US person, the very same entirely legal funds – reported automatically to the Canada Revenue Agency, and already post-tax, become dangerous suspect ‘offshore’ assets in the eyes of the US? What hypocrisy.
How can insane claims like that be stated with a straight face by US politicians? How many of them have Canadian in-laws? – and there are quite a few that are marriages to those politically connected on both sides of our common border. What do they do if a Canadian-born child that moves to the US has to take care of their aging parents back in Canada – and eventually they are no longer capable of handling their affairs? Someone will have to take on the burden and associated jeopardy of their now ‘foreign’ accounts – which becomes infinitely more complex if the caregiver now has US person status. And given that the parents would be Canadians, they are very likely to have some of those pre-existing registered accounts that are so penalized by the IRS – like TFSAs, or Canadian mutual funds – that are so very very problematic and complex to properly report – because the US refuses to make it simpler.
And for those who e-mailed or wrote to Ontario politicians for help with the US burden being imposed on those deemed US taxable ‘persons’ here in Canada, is this (see below) a reason why you might have gotten some response from an NDP, or a Conservative, but nothing from a Liberal? Has anyone gotten assistance or acknowledgement from a Liberal MP or MPP on our issues?
“The Balkissoon-Jarrett marriage is one of several links between Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals and Obama. From 2000 until 2002, David Axelrod, another key adviser to the president, was a paid McGuinty strategist.
As well, Toronto LiberalJean-Michel Picher,
who helped the premier in the run-up to last year’s provincial
election, was an early Obama insider who worked on the then-Illinois senator’s historic presidential primary campaign in 2007 and 2008.” from http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1214653–son-of-toronto-liberal-mpp-marries-into-u-s-democratic-royalty
If Sunday dinner conversation between the Canadian and US branches of these politically connected families ever touched on the challenges and pitfalls of the FBAR, FATCA and other reporting required of those who were Canadians, and suddenly become US persons with Canadian sited accounts. And their children will inherit US taxable status as well.
Maybe if these politicians on both sides of our border were actually to experience firsthand – for themselves and those they love, how complex it has become – needlessly so, suddenly, there would be some efforts to simplify it.
@rivka To your excellent post I would add that the US is no longer a truly democratic country. Last December both houses of Congress and both political parties voted for the so-called National Defense Authorization Act, which Obama cravenly signed into law on New Year’s Eve when he hoped no one was looking, after having said he’d veto the bill. Thanks to NDAA, the US in efffect no longer has a Bill of Rights. The president, this one or any future one, can now on the excuse of “terrorism” (defined however he/she wishes without judicial or legislative review) order the US military (!) to enter any American’s home on US soil, arrest anyone in it, and detain them indefinitely without access to a lawyer and without trial for years. The US government, on presidential authorization with no checks and balances, can now do on US soil what it has been doing for the past ten years in Afghanistan and Iraq and other countries around the world.
Moreover the president has established a “kill list” of persons throughout the world, including a few with US citizenship, who will be killed by the US military, intelligence agencies, or private contractors for either arm of government, without any trial, with no independent oversight or “balance of power.” There is no part of the US constitution that allows the president to do anything of the sort, but he’s doing it, and no one other than the ACLU and a few civil libertarians have raised a peep against this. Though I did hear that Jesse Ventura, of all people, has publicly spoken out against this – but don’t hold your breath waiting for Romney or anyone in the Democratic party to say a word about it.
The US of today doesn’t remotely resemble the US I grew up in and once believed in, before LBJ and almost all of the US Congress threw the Constitutional power of declaration of war reserved to Congress, out the window in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964. Every president since then, with the arguable exception of Jimmy Carter, has eroded or corrupted the rule of law and the consitution in the US to one degree or another, to the point where they are virtually unrecognizeable.
So why should we expect any better behaviour from the IRS? They’re just part and parcel of the sadly corrupted and perverted country south of our borders. Anyone who still thinks America is the “greatest country in the world” and the “land of the free” is smoking some very potent weed.
The problem with the “US you grew up in” is that it was never the “US of your memories”. It’s always been shit, it was never the “good guy” you thought it was as a kid…. it just took you a while to figure it out.
@Badger
I would say on several occasions Dalton McGuinty has done some things that could be viewed as antagnistic towards the US such as appointing Ian Delaney to clean up the mess at the ORNGE Air Ambulance. Ian Delaney as in the Ian Delaney that is banned from visiting the United States for violating the Helms Burton Act by “trafficking” in expropriated US property from the 1959 Cuban Revolution.
http://walrusmagazine.com/articles/2009.12-business-castros-favourite-capitalist/
http://www.ornge.ca/AboutOrnge/Pages/BoardofDirectors.aspx
I was really hoping the US Congress would pass a censure motion against McGuinty for appointing Ian Delaney as head of ORNGE.
Thanks @eric, interesting but depressing read re Delaney – despoiling Madagascar’s irreplaceable and unique ecosystem, etc. and now, by invitation, to be paid with our taxes to ‘assist’ Ontario.
Found this document, as referred to by a poster anon5percent, on Jack Townsend’s blog ( http://federaltaxcrimes.blogspot.ca/2012/06/irs-announces-penalty-mitigation-for.html ) :
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/washington-national-tax/newsletters/irs-service-team-hot-topics-archives.jhtml/?IsIssue=ISSUE&PubId=332&IssueID=8531
July 13, 2012
“IRS simplifies process for certain US citizens residing overseas to comply with filing obligations”
Provides a bit of extra commentary.
Apologies if I’m breaking posting etiquette. Just not sure how to provide clear information to cite Anon5percent’s comment, and a clear path to the document s/he recommends at: ‘Federal Tax Crimes: IRS Announces Penalty Mitigation for Super Minnow US Taxpayers Living Abroad; RRSP’ (6/26/12)
Note to site administrators – if there is a better/more accepted way to cite the original source, and also lead to the PWC publication successfully, can you assist me?
Caveat – not endorsing this firm, or advertising their services. Just posting this for FYI – since this is the first I’ve see mentioning Opting Out, in relation t the new streamlined process. Admit I’m confused since the new guidelines do not allow for anyone who has submitted a 2009, 10 or 11 return from participating, and there may be many in the OVD programs who already have – although some may not have. It would not be a decision to take without qualified advice.
http://www.snclaw.com/cgblog/45/122/Why-opting-out-of-OVDI-should-be-considered-in-light-of-the-new-IRS-streamlined-filing-procedures “
‘Why opting out of OVDI should be considered in light of the new IRS streamlined filing procedures’
Posted by: Nicholas J. Dancey JD, LL.M. (US Tax)
|
September 26, 2012″
Also other interesting OVDI, and compliance entries on this blog.
———-
But, in contrast, I also was reading this (dated earlier – on Sept. 7th) http://www.moodystax.com/moodystax-blog/21-us-taxation-services/202-do-you-qualify-for-irss-new-streamlined-procedure-to-bring-us-tax-returns-current.html
Am interested if the authors of the Moody’s blog have updated their thoughts as described in the Sept 7 entry – now that the new streamlined procedure is a month old.
@Badger
It’s an interesting article but at the end of the day even if the logic is good, I suspect that it is disconnected from reality. I find it impossible to believe that anybody who meets the requirements of the streamlined procedures could possibly be in OVDI.
And if there is anybody who meets the streamlined procedures who is in OVDI, they should seriously question the quality of the professional advice that got them there. Anybody who meets the test of the streamlined procedures might be better off just becoming compliant on a going forward basis. They can still argue reasonable cause, etc.
In summary: I don’t think this article is offering advice that applies to anybody.