Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

IRS starts Criminal Investigations of Renunciants and Relinquishers

If you look on Tax Analysts there is currently a pay walled article with this title under the Today’s News/International Tab. It is no joke.

http://www.taxanalysts.com/

If this is what I think it is it means WAR.

See also Jack Townsend, IRS CI Is Looking at Renunciations of Citizenship Just in Case (3/1/13)

107 thoughts on “IRS starts Criminal Investigations of Renunciants and Relinquishers

  1. @em yes, the fight goes on.

    If any good comes from this tax analysts article, it raises again the issue, as discussed on this thread before, of what to say when the relinquishment Questionnaire asks “have you filed tax returns”. i think the best answer is still up in the air. even the most compliant of us who have filed tax returns may have missed a form here or there…

  2. @Calgary411 wrote: “Bottom line: “compelling reason” in their regulations is not helpful to my son’s case. I could sue – persons he talked with at DOS are SURE no one would ever win such a case as the courts view the discretionary action that DOS has would take precedence.”

    Why don’t you then sue the Canadian Government to force it to decline to recognise any claim of US citizenship with regard to your son? I know this is a unique, even bizarre approach but your theory might be one of human rights under what is known as administrative law, initially before the adjudicating agency for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    Only do this if it is free and gratis.

    “What to do if your Charter rights have been denied
    “Anyone who believes his or her rights or freedoms under the Charter have been infringed by any level of government can go to court to ask for a remedy. The person must show that a Charter right or freedom has been violated. If the limit is one set out in the law, the Government will have an opportunity to show that the limit is reasonable under section 1 of the Charter. If the court is not convinced by the Government’s argument, it can grant whatever remedy it feels is appropriate under the circumstances. For example, a court may stop proceedings against a person charged with an offence if his or her right to a trial within a reasonable time has been denied. A remedy can also be requested from a court if an official acting for the Government violates an individual’s rights, for example, a police officer improperly searching for evidence on private property. Finally, if a court finds that a law violates Charter rights, for example the law is found to be discriminatory under the equality rights section, the court can declare that law has no force.”

  3. Looking for a compelling reason to explain renunciation? How about “I’m planning to move to Cuba, and US citizenship could be problematic.”

  4. Maybe they want to start implementing the Reed Amendment and block former citizens from visiting the US.

    Chuck Schumer would get a real woodie over that.

  5. “I’m planning to move to Cuba, and US citizenship could be problematic.”

    EXACTLY!!!! I’m actually thinking of giving up Capitalism and materialism to go live in a country where I only have to worry about keeping my mouth shut…..oooops no can do. Thailand is a good option

  6. @Calgary411 wrote: “Bottom line: “compelling reason” in their regulations is not helpful to my son’s case. I could sue – persons he talked with at DOS are SURE no one would ever win such a case as the courts view the discretionary action that DOS has would take precedence.”

    Why don’t you then sue the Canadian Government to force it to decline to recognise any claim of US citizenship with regard to your son? I know this is a unique, even bizarre approach but your theory might be one of human rights under what is known as administrative law, initially before the adjudicating agency for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    Only do this if it is free and gratis.

    Thank you for your further thought on this, 5th Swiss.

    …because I just cannot conceive how the Canadian government could morally not recognize any claim of US citizenship with regard to my son — or, more importantly all such sons and daughters, when there is an ‘entrapment’ involved in that US citizenship-based taxation law.

    For me, the Canadian government has no integrity if it does not regard my son’s (and other’s like him) birth in Canada taking precedence over his non-registered US citizenship when he has never lived in the US, never had any benefit from the US — especially when the US DOS gives no option for getting rid of that US citizenship because of ‘mental incapacity’. My son will NOT be the only one so affected — those with ‘mental incapacity’ by virtue of an age-related dementia, I would think, fall under the same unable to renounce of have someone do so on their behalf US citizenship entrapment. Mr. Flaherty’s words that US citizens, including my son (and others like my son) should take this up with the US is repugnant to me. My son has no US government representation. Who would listen to him? How would he be able to do that? Mr. Flaherty words, to me, say ‘too bad, so sad — he’s just a ‘mental incapacity’ discard. (Or severe US collateral damage to the most vulnerable that Canada will not claim and stand up for?)

    Again, I am pretty clear in my mind what I will and will not do in my regard even if it goes no further. For me, right now, it is a matter of principle for ALL like my son — how should anyone be entrapped into a US citizenship for which there is absolutely no benefit? It is not common sense law, which is really all I want. It is an absurdity.

  7. yomama; mymoma always considered me a little terrorist when I was a little kid. If she was alive she would be proud of me for joining over 1,000,000 – 5,000,000 terrorists living in Canada. But she would kick me out of the house as well, kind like we are defacto

  8. It’s not in Lexis (yet?). Last FATCA story was Tuesday. One thing I noticed though is that my Bitnet Defender flagged up the taxanalyst.com website, indicating that there was something wrong with it that could damage my computer. Could it have been hacked?

  9. Hmmm … kinda like Russia not liking that Ukraine wants its freedom …. or what they perceive will be greater freedom in association with the EU.

  10. not in Lexis yet? i think you have to specifically look under the Tax Analyst folder. or maybe it’s not there yet.

    @nervousinvestor i would prefer putin any day. at least the russians in ukraine are welcoming his invasion. can’t say the same about the kenyan invading canada with fatca.

  11. @yomama – ROFL – I keep opining that the WORLD should institute a tax on the income and assets of RESIDENTS of the US based on their origins going back say three or four generations then see how fast the US will reform their tax system to Residency based. The Kenyan would then be paying tax (or penalties for form filling omissions) to at least the US, Kenya, Indonesia, Ireland and perhaps elsewhere as well.

  12. @nervous

    good idea but wouldn’t work for the kenyan. you go back 3 generations on him and you won’t find a nation-state there…

    if you don’t get what i say, it’s in the opening line to this U2 song:

  13. It must be disheartening to Mr Putin to have to stand by and ask the Russians to work and produce what they took without compensation, from the captive countries. He will use any excuse to recapture them and The Great Re distributor is at a loss to stop him, so he just tightens the screws on Make believe U.S. citizens and real U.S. citizens. We are fast becoming citizens of a nation that wants to keep us captive and will do anything to carry it out.

  14. @publius, sometimes there is an ’embargo’ where the print publication or even the online version on the original publication site is embargoed – delayed in order to give the original source and their subscribers first access. I don’t know if that journal does that. Sometimes individual authors or journals can also designate an embargo on a particular article. Tax Notes International is published weekly. Perhaps the article was previewed on their website prior to release via Lexis Nexis.

    “Frequency of Update: Weekly
    Online Availability Updated regularly – Atypical update schedule/as received from the publisher ”
    http://w3.nexis.com/sources/scripts/info.pl?11737

  15. Well, I guess that explains why I haven’t gotten any info back from the IRS with regards to my 2012 tax return and associated 8854. Any other news on this investigation?

  16. itacaf,

    Is this on something you have specifically asked the IRS? Or just from the troubling standard of procedure — they never write to say you’re OK — go in peace.

  17. How can the US and Canada called what is happening in Ukraine as “……clear violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, in contravention of Russia’s obligations under the UN Charter and its 1997 basing agreement with Ukraine.” etc….. blah blah when in the same Canadian country they are violating our human rights charter and privacy rights. How can Harper and all the Canadian delegation of Politian’s including John Baird go to Ukraine for what??? nobody called Canada to intervene and it is all about US underneath provocation. If the US already broke its own constitution many many years ago in many ways…and the US citizens abroad and in their same country are not even free. How inconsistent that law and so-called “support” of Canada can be??? A game of the US government and completely inconsistency of the Canadian government. How John Baird never did anything for Canadians but go outside the country where nobody call him to intervene for others and in his ouwn country support and do nothing when this FATCA and US wants to tax Canadians (duals, etc) Same violation. ALL IS A BIG JOKE about money, power and crap. No law. Justice should prevail!

  18. In case this helps, I got this information by email:

    Here’s the text from the article on CI investigation of renouncers from tax analysts:

    The IRS Criminal Investigation division is looking into the reasons behind some recent renunciations of U.S. citizenship, according to Jeffrey Cooper, the deputy director of the division’s international operations.

    Treasury on February 7 released the list of individuals who chose to expatriate during the quarter ending December 31, 2013. The 631 people listed for the fourth quarter brings total expatriations for 2013 to 3,000, the highest number ever reported. It shatters the previous record of 1,781 in 2011, and it is more than three times the number of people who were reported to have given up their U.S. citizenship in 2012. (Prior coverage 2014 WTD 27-3: News Stories.)

    Speaking at the Federal Bar Association’s Section on Taxation meeting in Washington on February 28, Cooper said that the IRS’s objective is to determine why people are making that choice and whether it is related to any particular laws. “If we find something, we do; if not, we just move on,” he said.

    Cooper said he could not discuss how CI obtains renunciation referrals or documents.

    On the offshore voluntary disclosure program, Cooper said that a taxpayer will not be ineligible to participate if the IRS has served a John Doe summons that may identify the taxpayer. However, once the IRS or the DOJ obtains information under a summons that provides evidence of a specific taxpayer’s noncompliance, the taxpayer becomes ineligible, he said.

    Caroline D. Ciraolo of Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP said that under ongoing bank compliance programs, such as the one for Swiss banks, banks will be submitting account information and some of those submissions will include the names of account holders. She asked at what point receipt of a specific taxpayer’s information would make someone ineligible.

    If the IRS already has the individual’s information, the person could be deemed ineligible to participate, Cooper replied.

    Swiss Bank Program

    Turning to the DOJ’s program for the Swiss banks that is underway, Thomas Sawyer, senior litigation counsel, Justice Department Tax Division, said that officials have encountered two significant misperceptions. (Prior coverage 2014 WTD 18-3: News Stories.)

    First, Sawyer said, some practitioners and banks believe that a bank that has complied with a qualified intermediary agreement cannot commit tax evasion offenses. “If you’re hearing that advice, you should be put on notice that it’s wrong,” Sawyer said.

    The crime under focus in the program is helping people to evade taxes, not violating a QI agreement, Sawyer said. He added that there are many ways that a bank could facilitate tax evasion that don’t involve violating its QI agreement.

    Another misperception is the belief that banks can obtain a non-prosecution agreement simply by agreeing to pay a fine, Sawyer said. However, the government is really focused on compliance, not money, he said.

    Information is one of the key factors of compliance, Sawyer said. In order to get a non-prosecution agreement, banks need to cooperate with the IRS and the DOJ, he said, adding, “It’s not just about paying the fine; it’s about giving us information.”

  19. @Calgary 411

    Well, the IRS and DOJ certainly made their aims clear here banks need to cooperate with the with the IRS and the DOJ, he said, adding “It’s not just about paying the fine; it’s about giving us information.”

    It’s not the money, honey, it’s all those facts, figures, names, addresses, account numbers, private details. It’s not the collection of taxes, it’s the holding of all this intimate information on all of us (think NSA on steroids). THINK 1984!!!!!

  20. many thanks to Calgary411 for posting the full article!

    the key quote is:

    “the IRS’s objective is to determine why people are making that choice and whether it is related to any particular laws”

    WTF does that mean? related to any particular laws? i think it’s the the govt trying to lock the fire exits and scare everyone from escaping.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *