US Senator Bill Nelson and his Senate colleagues are back up to their old tricks of trying to get a Passport revocation rule instated for back/unpaid taxes. This time they are trying to do it through enacting an amendment to the “Veteran Jobs Corps Act of 2012” which who could be against such a piece of legislation until of course you look at fine print and notice the provisions of the act that have nothing to do with veterans or jobs. The following Senators are Senator Nelson’s partners in crime so to speak on this issue:
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT] – 9/10/2012
Sen Franken, Al [MN] – 9/11/2012
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] – 8/2/2012
Sen Merkley, Jeff [OR] – 9/10/2012
Sen Murray, Patty [WA] – 7/30/2012
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] – 9/10/2012
Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] – 9/10/2012
Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] – 8/2/2012
Link to legislation
There should be a rule about limiting the number of times that you can try to attach the same piece of legislationm or any of its derivatives, when it has previously been voted down.
But better yet would be the barring of amendments that are totally unrelated to the major bill itself. All bills should stand and fall on their own as opposed to being attached to other bills just because it would increase the chances that the attached bill will be passed. This practise is totally misleading and would never be allowed in business promotional material.
The Thomas Link doesn’t seem to work…
What is the bill or Amendment number?
Oh, I see it. It is Senate S.3457 Will keep looking for the specific language.
Here
This is a better link…
Current:
On the Motion to Proceed S. 3457
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/s192
and here is the language of the Bill…
SEC. 9. REVOCATION OR DENIAL OF PASSPORT IN CASE OF CERTAIN UNPAID TAXES.
(a) In General- Subchapter D of chapter 75 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
‘SEC. 7345. REVOCATION OR DENIAL OF PASSPORT IN CASE OF CERTAIN TAX DELINQUENCIES.
‘(a) In General- If the Secretary receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that any individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport pursuant to section 4 of the Act entitled ‘An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the ‘Passport Act of 1926’.
‘(b) Seriously Delinquent Tax Debt- For purposes of this section, the term ‘seriously delinquent tax debt’ means an outstanding debt under this title for which a notice of lien has been filed in public records pursuant to section 6323 or a notice of levy has been filed pursuant to section 6331, except that such term does not include–
‘(1) a debt that is being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement under section 6159 or 7122, and
‘(2) a debt with respect to which a collection due process hearing under section 6330, or relief under subsection (b), (c), or (f) of section 6015, is requested or pending.
‘(c) Adjustment for Inflation- In the case of a calendar year beginning after 2012, the dollar amount in subsection (a) shall be increased by an amount equal to–
‘(1) such dollar amount, multiplied by
‘(2) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting ‘calendar year 2011’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof.
If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of $1,000, such amount shall be rounded to the next highest multiple of $1,000.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for subchapter D of chapter 75 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘Sec. 7345. Revocation or denial of passport in case of certain tax delinquencies.’.
(c) Authority for Information Sharing-
(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (l) of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘(23) DISCLOSURE OF RETURN INFORMATION TO DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR PURPOSES OF PASSPORT REVOCATION UNDER SECTION 7345-
‘(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall, upon receiving a certification described in section 7345, disclose to the Secretary of State return information with respect to a taxpayer who has a seriously delinquent tax debt described in such section. Such return information shall be limited to–
‘(i) the taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer, and
‘(ii) the amount of such seriously delinquent tax debt.
‘(B) RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE- Return information disclosed under subparagraph (A) may be used by officers and employees of the Department of State for the purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, carrying out the requirements of section 4 of the Act entitled ‘An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the ‘Passport Act of 1926’.’.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Paragraph (4) of section 6103(p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘or (22)’ each place it appears in subparagraph (F)(ii) and in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) and inserting ‘(22), or (23)’.
(d) Revocation Authorization- The Act entitled ‘An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the ‘Passport Act of 1926’, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO DENY OR REVOKE PASSPORT.
‘(a) Ineligibility-
‘(1) ISSUANCE- Except as provided under subsection (b), upon receiving a certification described in section 7345 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 from the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State may not issue a passport or passport card to any individual who has a seriously delinquent tax debt described in such section.
‘(2) REVOCATION- The Secretary of State shall revoke a passport or passport card previously issued to any individual described in subparagraph (A).
‘(b) Exceptions-
‘(1) EMERGENCY AND HUMANITARIAN SITUATIONS- Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary of State may issue a passport or passport card, in emergency circumstances or for humanitarian reasons, to an individual described in subsection (a)(1).
‘(2) LIMITATION FOR RETURN TO UNITED STATES- Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), the Secretary of State, before revocation, may–
‘(A) limit a previously issued passport or passport card only for return travel to the United States; or
‘(B) issue a limited passport or passport card that only permits return travel to the United States.’.
(e) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on January 1, 2013.
Any readers in Geneva? Next time Gillibrand goes there to collect
protection money“donations”, chase her out of town with pitchforks. This is the second time she’s voted for this garbage.http://genevalunch.com/editor-s-notepad/2012/01/11/campaigning-for-genevas-us-ex-pats-votes-viewed-as-luxury/
https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/03/15/senate-passes-passport-confiscation-highway-bill-s-1813/
She’s up for re-election in November, but her opponent Wendy Long really doesn’t stand a chance … not the least because Gillibrand raised about a hundred times more money than her.
Hmm, let’s see… ah yes, here it is. “A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a veterans jobs corps, and for other purposes.” These are the same other purposes that gave us the Reichsfluchtsteuer known as the US exit tax, under the mom-and-apple-pie title “Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act.” Who could possibly vote against that?
This VOXPOP comment on S. 3457 sums up the situation well:
I think it will probably pass. This is exactly how the exit tax passed. Rejected for years on its own merits as being a Bad Idea, it became suddenly fashionable to repeatedly tack it onto the end of unrelated bill after bill after bill — an off-the-shelf offset — until it eventually stuck in an act that nobody could possibly vote against. Wherein it passed unanimously.
Say what you want about Ex-PATRIOT (and I do!), at least that has the moral and intellectual honesty to stand alone and say exactly what it is. For the moment.
When I wrote to Bill Nelson 4 days before he introduced this bill, I pointed out that I’m an American veteran who moved overseas for jobs. Bill Nelson never responded, or he responded with this bill? This is a bill to create jobs for veterans so that they don’t move overseas to find work, like how I did so.
So now, after my second letter (I think), Bill Nelson sneaked this Passport revocation rule instated for back/unpaid taxes in his “Veteran Jobs Corps Act of 2012″.
Yet, I made no mention of taxes, so maybe this has nothing to do with me. Or, does Bill Nelson think that it does? The bill focuses on unemployed veterans living in the States who did not move overseas. A Passport revocation rule is necessary for veterans living in the States? Other than me, did any other veterans find work abroad? If they did, are they not paying US taxes? A Passport revocation rule on taxes suggests that veterans working abroad are not paying US taxes or that Bill Nelson only thinks of taxes for things abroad. Many Americans do want for me to visit them in the US next year. Do I have back/unpaid taxes? I’ll leave that question unanswered for Bill Nelson to ponder over.
In any case, it looks like it is a good time to move the next letter up my chain of command to the next level – Bill Nelson.
Perhaps a 40 ft. wall around the country, on the Mexican and Canadian borders, would be more effective for keeping taxpayers in the country, since without a passport, people can still find ways of leaving the country. They will also need to triple their current Coast Guard budget to make sure that people don’t leave in boats. They could be stationed around the coasts ready to shoot down any unauthorized vessels as they leave.
They will have to keep student loan debtors in the country too. A person could owe $250,000 in student loan debt and just take a job in Singapore, China, or Brazil. Then the US would never see that money again. So it is not just taxpayers would should be kept in the country.
This is going to get passed, eventually. (Confederate may cringe when I say this, but yeah, everyone has a duty to pay for the services where they live.) But revoking passports; that’s a little extreme. I feel a sense of relief every night knowing that I’m about to be an ex-American.
@Peter – if it doesn’t already exist, I think it would be a good idea to make a page summarising relinquishment -vs- renunciation. There is a page along the lines of this, but most of the good information is in the comments. I was trying to find some specific information on the internet but there’s not much available. For me, I’m undecided: wait until citizenship is approved or go down and renounce before 2013. Bear in mind that I wouldn’t exactly fit the stateless “profile” because I have IDs, a job, bank accounts, and a pending citizenship application. And I live in a country that WILL NOT deport someone in my situation; it’s in the Constitution.
Connie Mack is running against Bill Nelson. He stands a chance, but is behind.
Bill is one of Barry’s John’s.
@Geez, At your suggestion, I just cross-posted here an article I wrote at Maple Sandbox on the differences between relinquishment and renunciation. Renunciation and Relinquishment: What are the Differences? Is there a Difference?
Just a reminder. This was the ACA position on these provisions when they were an amendment in the Transportation Bill S.1813 http://americansabroad.org/files/3913/4192/5731/pospaperpassportandtaxes.pdf
Has anyone who is a member of ACA reported that to them? Is the ACA powerless to do anything about it?
I talked to Rubio’s office (he did not vote). Letters to Senators office in Washington take 3 weeks to be opened as they are “irradiated”. Letters to Florida offices take another 2 weeks to be sent to the Washington office. Letters with out-of-state addresses will not get a response.
Talked to Represenative office.
Informed both (again) that I am removing my assets from USA.
Pray for Connie Mack. God Bless America.
By the way, Tim, how did you find out about this??
@MarkTwain, re; “Letters with out-of-state addresses will not get a response.” I guess we know where we stand then, re US ‘representation’ if non-US addresses can’t even get a letter opened, much less read before the Senators and Representatives reject it. For all they know, the author could be a bona fide resident of the representative’s area, posted or visiting overseas temporarily.
@Christrophe…
Yes, ACA is drafting a response to Senator Nelson along the lines of its opposition to the amendment in the Transportation bill
Also, Roger Conklin is having problems signing on today, and so he asked that I post what he just sent to Nelson’s office…
Thank you Just Me, for posting Roger’s letter. Like the Hydra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lernaean_Hydra , punishing and oppressive US legislation just continues to resurface in another guise, or spawn two more heads. Surviving as a US citizen or ‘taxable person’ outside the US, is a Herculean task.
Where is our heroic ‘champion’ amongst all those US lawmakers?
I just saw this excellent comment in an email from another ACA member, and thought I would post it here… It relates to how important Passports are for identification for Americans Abroad.
Great analogy Just Me. And we know that the biggest real source of the ‘tax gap’ originates INSIDE the US.
This is getting ridiculous. Of the eight cosponsors of S.3457, four are Jewish. Is this just a coincidence? It’s disproportionally high, and it doesn’t even include Carl Levin. I don’t understand why Jewish US senators are so obsessed with Americans having money abroad or moving abroad, when it should be the opposite, because of the past migrations of the Jewish people, and even today many Jewish Americans move to Israel or have assets there. (I’m Jewish and I live in the DC area. I wonder if I can get in contact with these senators through influential members of the DC Jewish community. Maybe these senators would change their minds if they realized that they are hurting Americans in Israel.)
For those who are members of ACA: I have been been exchanging emails periodically with Jackie Bugnion about the proposal to end citizenship-based taxation. If she mentions a person helping with the bill, that’s me.
pacifica – that’s not really what I’m talking about… like I remember someone said here that if someone renounces, they can’t carry firearms in the US. If the relinquish, it’s different. Things like that…
@Shaddow Raider…
I just posted my opposition to this bill at PopVox. I found that an easy way to send a message to my particular Senators in Washington State about my views. You might try doing that.
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s3457
*Cool, thanks Just Me. I sent a message using PopVox.
Wow, I just found this:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s3496
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr5986
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s1140
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr4752
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1798
These identical bills, introduced five times between 2006 and 2009, would make the foreign earned income exclusion unlimited (still only applying to wages, but it’s a start). In total, 21 representatives and 4 senators sponsored these bills. They were all Republican except one, Democratic representative Gregory Meeks, but he was actually the one who introduced the bill most recently, twice. I think this shows that this is not really a partisan issue. This also reinforces my belief that Congress may well end citizenship-based taxation, and that it hasn’t done so yet not because it agrees with it, but simply because it’s not aware that it even exists or of the problems that it causes.
Shadow Raider, so how does one make others aware that it exists and is a problem? I could wear undies on my head while running nude around the lake of Zug shouting “citizenship taxation drives people nuts!” to get global attention, but Washington would do nothing.
Shadow Raider,
I certainly admire your optimism. Unfortunately, I lost mine many years ago.
Was Paul Ryan one of the co-sponsors on any of the bills?