Not sure if this is good news, bad news, or just business as usual. Here’s the press release (hat tip as always to TaxProf Blog):
Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate Elizabeth Ann Copeland as a Judge to the United States Tax Court.
“Elizabeth has demonstrated unwavering integrity and dedication throughout her career,” said President Obama. “I am proud to nominate her to serve on the United States Tax Court.”
Her employer Strasburger & Price describes her:
Elizabeth A. Copeland is Board Certified in Tax Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and focuses her practice on civil tax controversies. She has expertise handling offshore voluntary disclosure matters, employment tax disputes, tax collection matters, innocent spouse representations, IRS Appeals and Tax Court litigation.
Copeland made the following comment to the San Antonio Business Journal in March 2011. I don’t find this comment particularly encouraging, but in fairness she said these words well before people had become aware of the disastrous and unfair effects of the 2011 OVDI on U.S. persons in other countries who paid taxes and kept bank accounts where they lived, and owed little or no U.S. tax despite their paperwork omissions; none of Copeland’s fellow practitioners interviewed for that article mentioned Americans abroad either:
Because there is a large budget deficit, the government is emboldened by the success of the first Offshore Voluntary Compliance Program, and the government wishes to combat international tax evasion. The government also wants to be fair to those of us who timely file our tax returns and pay our tax. As stated by IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman, “the goal is to get people back into the U.S. tax system.”
If a taxpayer has a foreign account that should have been disclosed to the U.S. government, contact a local tax attorney familiar with the OVCI or program that can guide them through the criminal and civil aspects of the program. Because certain taxpayers will not qualify for the program (e.g. those under audit or investigation) it is best to consult an attorney.
Here is a presentation Copeland made (jointly with Jack Townsend, the author of the Federal Tax Crimes blog) about FBAR, OVDI, and FATCA in August 2011, notable as an early example of practitioners discussing the possibility of opting out of the “offshore” disclosure meat-grinder. Other than that, I’m not able to find more recent material in which Copeland has spoken about this whole mess, and the available materials don’t reveal very much about whether her opinions have evolved over the past four years.
Personally, it is my opinion that this may be bad for everyone except corporations. Americans overseas, which I am not a part of yet, flood the Consulates / Embassy s with information requests for assistance and write the director to contact your representative in Congress at your last US Address regarding all the issues that are reflected by this wonderful website. Organize, write your representatives in Canada also. This is what the corporations have done, in addition to the money they throw at politicians, they are a group of organized entities that have coordinated their efforts to get what they want by pressing the issues. We as individuals can do the same.
Have written about FATCA and Taxation to The White House (3 replies in 2015, somewhat generic, one signed letter {Barak Oboma} in US Post 2012)
Letters to my representatives about FATCA and Taxation, including Congressperson Elise M. Stefanik, (One reply 2015 regarding Social Security, Awaiting reply about taxation, FATCA issues. One Reply from Kirsten Gillibrand, United States Senator regarding the S. Con Res 11,the 2016 Congressional Budget and why she voted against it!)
“Individual Americans worldwide may be constrained by FATCA to report all their offshore money and pay U.S. tax on all their worldwide income. But U.S. companies where the real money is have a better deal. And their offshore cash hoard is growing. Eight of the biggest U.S. technology companies added $69 billion to their offshore profits, a total stash of $2.1 trillion that avoids taxes. Everyone knows why, too.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/03/05/despite-fatca-u-s-companies-stash-2-1-trillion-abroad-untaxed/
“Because of the large budget deficit, the government is emboldened by the success of the first Offshore Compliance Program….”
That sentence bothers me the most. Emboldened? Success? It is a screaming shame.
Read this rubbish from the Tax Justice Blog
http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/archive/2015/04/rand_pauls_record_shows_hes_a.php#.VUi0jPlVhHw
Rand Paul is branded a friend of tax evaders even though FATCA is damaging the lives of ordinary middle class US expats in other countries.
Interesting article about Americans renouncing their citizenship.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/04/in-an-age-of-global-citizenship-american-expatriates-increase/
@Don
When Rand Paul re-submitted his “bill?” about Fatca… majority of the online sources called him a rich cat supporter… blah… blah… see what the problem is… others who would support him would be painted with the same brush… isn’t there a election yr next yr? People who don’t understand the situation…. majority of the homelanders… see us as evading taxes even though they have no understanding of it.. Someone on this mb pointed that Mr Paul also supports taxing what is made in the US only also… which I think is more then fair…. I always assumed… like a moron… that its taxed at the source… didn’t realize the US wanted it all… even if it don’t belong to them
US FP: the problem is that the only people speaking sense to us on this very specific issue are politically marginal and the object of easy simplistic scorn. There is the occasional comment on this site from flat-tax or consumption-tax people. In my case, even voting GOP is contrary to most of my beliefs (but I think I have to).
In the US, any attempt to make things right (repealing CBT and/or relaxing FATCA) will inevitably make people scream “tax evasion!” “pay your fair share!”. Which is, one must admit, just ordinary politics, political parties using electors who thought Bush would lead us to fascism or those who thought Obamacare and gay marriage would be the end of the world.
Therefore only patient and repeated explanations to all who will listen, as well as our horror stories of little people caught up in this mess, will someday yield fruit. That, and efforts like this lawsuit which is possible thanks to the fact that Canada is uniquely exposed to said mess.
Fred:
How I wish I could believe this. I recently explained online to a tribe of former classmates who are collectively creaming in their panties over Bernie Sanders, about why I will not support him. I explained that he was the actual sponsor of the HIRE Act, which brought us FATCA, in the House of Representatives (did you know that? I just learned it), and offered a bullet-point summary of the havoc and horrors which have been the result. My classmates all claimed to understand, yet the general consensus was: “Sorry to hear of your individual trouble, Barb, but keep in mind the good intentions of the law.”
My f—ing individual trouble?
No, nobody wants to listen.
@Barbara – The irony about Bernie Sanders is his own brother is running for MP in the UK during tomorrow’s General Election.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11575299/Im-running-for-Parliament-but-my-brother-is-running-for-President.html
Bernie’s brother Larry is subject to the FATCA trap as well.
Even if he renounced his USC, he’ll still have to prove over and over his status with a CLN which in itself is galling.
The HIRE Act was meant to reduce the tax burden of US-based business, with the logic being that if they have less tax burden, they will hire more.
In order to get such a bill passed, it needed to be “revenue neutral”, which means in plain English that if you give someone a break, you make up for it elsewhere.
This “elsewhere” was the “overseas tax cheat”. Hence the connection between HIRE and FATCA.
In other words:
FATCA’s motivation was to collect “new” revenue in order to allow US employers pay less tax.
In other words:
A foreign tax subsidy!
Everything else was a result of the law of unintended consequences:
– arm twisting foreign jurisdictions
– hiking the exit tax
– bringing Boris, Tina and Ed more attention
…
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32604002
Could the NDP win in Alberta help IBS?
We all know very well the party in Canada that signed the IGA for FATCA — behind closed doors and implemented in Omnibus Bill C-31. Many don’t, but we do.
If 2 + 2 = 4 and people realize Prentice was (most likely) placed in Alberta at Harper’s direction. Prentice was so classy that he that he thought it appropriate to diss the people in his riding who elected him their MLA by resigning both as PC Party Leader and the part of this election he DID win, PC MLA. (???I was only in this to be your Premier, not your lowly MLA in an NDP government.???)
Interesting times and, hopefully, more people paying attention. Yep, pigs can fly in Alberta and PC dynasties can fall. I carry that hope in the future on to the *US Person in Canada problem*.
@ Calgary
I wish I could share your enthusiasm but until Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair instruct their minions to publicly oppose FATCA legislation (i.e. repeal it) , I can’t get excited. Yes I like Nathan Cullen and a couple of Libs, but where are the leaders? Mulcair knows full well what FATCA is doing to people, yet says nothing. Trudeau strikes me as an ignorant neophyte preoccupied with robbing seniors of TFSA tweaks. No wonder people stay home on election day with such spineless leaders! That said I value your tireless efforts on this site and envy you your happiness today!:-)
Lake Superior Guy,
I agree with you, but…
I intend to keep asking, as ADCS-ADSC has asked each party leader, what their policy on FATCA is. The fall of the PC 44-year dynasty in Alberta incentivizes my thinking that things CAN change (not to get into another US political slogan many fell for) — one commenter said “But change is a better motivator when it begins with voters and not as a campaign slogan…” Why do our government representatives balk at that full disclosure on the policy we ask about?
Justin Trudeau’s stand on Bill C-51 has made me cross the Liberals off the list — with a permanent marker. I previously asked him, in person – point blank, what his and the Liberals stand was on FATCA. His answer showed he was grossly uninformed and to my mind he has not done anything to further inform himself. In my view, he’s an over-cooked noodle and sticks well in the middle of a fence.
In my little world, Nathan Cullen (rather than Mulcair) would be my choice for a Canadian leader. Perhaps once day but, unfortunately, not in the cards yet.
If there is not change and clear policy from the Canadian party leaders regarding US FATCA law in Canada and reciprocity, etc., there is / must be the litigation of ADCS-ADSC.
The *Party Line* vote on Bill C-51: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HouseChamberBusiness/ChamberVoteDetail.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2&FltrParl=41&FltrSes=2&Vote=392
Integrity? A mind of their own? Stands up for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? The reason there is voter apathy that politicians in office, who should represent their interests, have reneged on promises made in their door-knocking as candidates wanting the favour of our votes — then never voting but the party line? Etc.?
@ Calgary
Overcooked noodle! Good one and I agree. His Dad at least had a spine although he alienated the West and much of the country.
Seems that revenue neutrality has become somewhat of a red herring when the initiatives used to provide it aren’t subject to any cost-benefit analysis – as in the case of FATCA.
Shouldn’t the fair treatment of taxpayers be more important than revenue neutrality? Canada apparently thinks so by recognizing “gotcha” tactics (like the ones the IRS often employs) are unfair to taxpayers:
“Budget 2015 announced the Government’s intention to more narrowly define the circumstances under which a taxpayer may be liable for a penalty in respect of repeated failures to report income.
Subsection 163(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “Tax Act”) currently imposes an onerous penalty on taxpayers that repeatedly fail to report amounts in their tax returns that are required to be included in their income. While this penalty provision is designed to provide a strong incentive for taxpayers to ensure that their tax filings are accurate and complete, the scope and consequences of contravening subsection 163(1) often catch taxpayers by surprise and have been the subject of much criticism.”…
…”Ultimately, the proposals contained in Budget 2015 with respect to the 163(1) Penalty represent constructive amendments to the Tax Act. When enacted, the amended statutory language will apply in respect of the 2014 and later taxation years.
The Government has indicated that the proposed amendments to subsection 163(1) are expected to result in a reduction of Government revenues of approximately $45 million over the coming five years. The Government should be recognized for paying heed to the concerns expressed by both taxpayers and the Courts, and for taking positive steps to make the provisions of the Tax Act more equitable and proportional.”
http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=393400&email_access=on
As close a statement of future action as we’ll get?
TODAY, May 12, 2015
Bill C-51: Liberal Senators To Vote Against Anti-Terror Legislation
@ calgary411
Justin Trudeau is losing Senate support for his stand with the Cons on Bill C-51 and he’s losing Liberal party members too:
http://thinkpol.ca/2015/05/09/supporters-publicly-abandoning-liberal-party-over-trudeaus-support-for-bill-c-51/
Thanks, EmBee.
Does one’s old heart good to see Senators and others, big and small, withdrawing their support from the Liberal Party for the irresponsible decision by the son of a PM who brought in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the protection of ALL Canadians.
We were shut out with the passing of omnibus Bill C-31. I am pleased to see push-back from shoving Bill C-51 through. Besides it being the right and just thing to do, all who are standing up for the Canada they want in their opposition, these actions may help other Canadians see the folly in the passing of Bill C-31 that makes *US Persons in Canada* second-class to any others in the abrogation of their Canadian rights.
Copeland’s confirmation could take a while …
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2015/05/21/how-long-did-it-take-a-unanimous-senate-to-confirm-two-judges/
Just got reminded of this today by someone’s blog post: eighteen months later, she’s still not confirmed. Wonder if Trump will nominate someone else in her place.
http://procedurallytaxing.com/unfinished-business-in-senate-time-to-approve-nominated-tax-court-judges/
Senate ran out the clock on Copeland’s confirmation. Presumably Trump will nominate someone else in her place.
https://www.congress.gov/nomination/114th-congress/452
Rule XXXI, para. 6 says:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-113sdoc18/pdf/CDOC-113sdoc18.pdf#page=50
Via, of course, TaxProf Blog:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2017/01/senate-sends-two-tax-court-judge-nominations-back-to-president-obama.html
Presumably Trump will nominate someone else in her place.
Man, what dumbass predicted that? Turns out that Trump is actually fine with having an Obama-approved OVDI lawyer on the Tax Court.
https://www.taxcontroversy360.com/2017/08/president-trump-nominates-copeland-and-urda-to-us-tax-court/