The word” isaacbrocksociety” appears to have been added to the profanity filter at the Expat forum. In the following, it can be seen that the word was removed, causing links to the site to become invalid:
I have no idea what the motive for this could be, but they can be contacted at:
http://www.moveforward.com/contact
I often find Chris Hedges apocalyptic, but without his effort and the effort of those like him, the NDAA would not have been sidelined.
Who at Brock wouldn’t agree with this?
‘The greatest crimes of human history are made possible by the most colorless human beings. They are the careerists. The bureaucrats. The cynics. They do the little chores that make vast, complicated systems of exploitation and death a reality.’
The Greatest Crimes Against Humanity Are Perpetrated by People Just Doing Their Jobs
The following was submitted in the form of a comment:
I’d like to have some opinions about the bill that I’m writing to replace citizenship with residence-based taxation. Maybe someone could move this to a different page if it gets too long. By the way, I’m about one third of the way through with the relevant sections in the Internal Revenue Code.
1. To define residence, I am using the current substantial presence test with all of its rules and exceptions. This is the definition that is currently used for foreigners without a green card, so I am just applying it to everyone. I am also adding an exception to consider US government or military employees abroad as residents, because their salaries are sourced in the US and they would pay higher taxes if they were considered nonresidents. I am also adding that US citizens and permanent residents who don’t satisfy the substantial presence test may elect to be treated as residents for tax purposes by simply filing the normal resident tax forms (1040). I understand that there are some cases where this may be beneficial, and I don’t want to increase taxes on anyone.
http://www.noozhawk.com/article/072112_mark_shields_denise_rich_u.s._citizenship/
Just to provide some background Mark Shields is big time “insider” journalist and has been for years. In many ways the current problems the United States is having is because of Washington “insiders” like Mark Shields. He is everything wrong with Washington.
Today, I learned from Raiffeisen that they do not refinance mortgages to “US persons”.
Expatica“We will soon shed those American clients who are taxable in the United States,” bank spokesman Franz Wuerth
On this, the US government writes:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentHousing discrimination based on your race, color, national origin, religion, sex, family status, or disability is illegal by federal law. If you have been trying to buy or rent a home or apartment and you believe your rights have been violated, you can file a fair housing complaint.
According to the US government, it is housing discrimination and illegal under US federal law to deny an individual a mortgage based on their national origin. Raiffeisen is responding to US policy and thus the US government is responsible for creating a situation which discriminates against individuals of American origin in violation of US federal laws. Yet, Raiffeisen is not alone in yielding to this illegal discrimination against Americans pressured by the US government.
Investment EuropeCo-op, another retail bank, also announced it had stopped doing business with its US clients, according to the French news agency AFP.
This problem is not limited to one country. In violation of US federal laws, the US government is pressuring banks around the world to discriminate against American citizens, denying them the right to have a home.
Bank CainvestBank Cainvest offers private banking services to Non-US clients only.
Royal Bank of ScotlandAny brokerage and investment advisory services described herein are not intended for US Persons. Furthermore, any solicitation on this web site of retail banking services (including accepting and/or soliciting deposits), insurance services, mortgage and/or consumer lending services or credit card services is not intended for US Persons.
SwedbankThe Bank does not offer or sell investment deposit to US persons and the Client hereby confirms to the Bank that it is not a US person. The Bank has the right to terminate the agreement immediately if the Client is a US person or becomes a US person during the term of the agreement.
To counter this problem, the US government has several options:
Housing discrimination can be reported here.
Cross posted from RenounceUScitizenship.
As you know, Mr. FBAR is a particularly nasty piece of work. Absent a showing of “reasonable cause”, Mr. FBAR opens the door to a sliding scale of penalties. In the past I have written about Mr. FBAR and the non-willfulness penalty structure. This post is about “willfulness.” Specifically, what constitutes “willfulness”? Conviction for the “willful” failure to file an FBAR comes with “unspeakably high penalties”. So, I won’t speak of them here. The non-willful penalties are bad enough. But, the penalties for “willfulness” clearly invite 8th amendment (“excessive fines”) scrutiny. This is certain to come. In fact, it may well be that the next step in the “Williams saga” will be just that.
The Williams Saga
A brief overview of the Williams saga may be found courtesy of Robert Wood here and Jack Townsend here (appellate decision) and here (initial trial decision). Before analyzing these decisions and considering what they may mean, it is important to understand that this is not a situation of the IRS attempting to target a taxpayer whose sole sin was a failure to file FBARs. Mr. Williams, by his own admission was a willful tax evader. In addition, he failed to file FBARs. What is interesting is that the IRS decided to go after him for FBAR violations as well. Why? I haven’t a clue. I am not sure if I see a purpose to it. But maybe the IRS simply lacks purpose …
Continue reading
I just want to draw your attention to the recent decision in the Williams case which some of us have been following. Robert Wood, just posted this story late last night.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has handed the IRS a victory in its war on offshore accounts and income. In United States v. Williams, the appeals court reversed the district court’s holding that Mr. Williams didn’t act willfully when he failed to file FBARs.
Jack Townsend has also blogged about this. Fourth Circuit Reverses Williams on Willfulness (7/20/12)
Jack says, “The basis for the holding, I think, is the notion that the Court repeats that defendant’s signature on the return puts him at criminal as to anything that was not correctly reported on the return. The notion is that, even if he did not know about the incorrect reporting and the leads that he might have found to the FBAR, he is willfully blind — and thus willful — as to the failure to file the FBAR. I think that is a dangerous and wrong notion that is not facially limited to just FBAR situations and very bad facts. “
The Dark Side of Anti-“Swiss Bank Account” Politics
by Matt Welch, at reason.com.
Canada’s response dare I say has not been all that great.
According to a leaked copy of the UN report, which was expected to be released this week, at least some of Eritrea’s military financing comes from its consulate in Toronto, which levies a dubious 2% income tax on members of the diaspora.
“According to a recent Royal Canadian Mounted Police assessment, which is consistent with the Monitoring Group’s own findings, refusal to pay the tax often results in denial of service or threats against, or harassment of, family members still residing in Eritrea, or possible arrest of the individual should they travel to Eritrea without paying the taxes alleged to be owing,” it said.
The report recounted the case of a man who had immigrated to Canada from Eritrea. Before he could become a permanent resident, Canadian immigration authorities required him to present a valid Eritrean passport.
Since he didn’t have one, he had to apply at the Eritrean consulate in Toronto. But the consulate told him he would first have to pay a tax, which included a contribution to the “Eritrean defence fund.”
When the man responded that he was willing to pay the 2% tax but not the money for the military budget, the consulate refused to renew his passport. He pleaded with Canadian immigration officials, arguing that he would be violating the UN arms embargo if he gave money to the Eritrean military, but they insisted he had to provide a valid passport. He “had no choice but to pay the entire sum,” the report said.
Not that interesting but wanted to give everyone a heads up.
