Let’s Get Republican Presidential Candidates On the Record for FATCA Repeal!
RepealFATCA.com has asked each declared candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination to endorse the 2014 and 2015 Resolutions by the Republican National Committee (RNC) calling for repeal of the “Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act” (FATCA), and opposing “global FATCA” (a/k/a “GATCA”)!
The full text of the RepealFATCA.com “Statement in Support of FATCA Repeal and Against Unauthorized International Agreements” can be found here, with the requested endorsement, as follows:
As a candidate for the 2016 Republican nomination for President of the United States, I HEREBY STATE THE FOLLOWING:
I endorse the 2014 and 2015 Resolutions of the Republican National Committee calling for FATCA’s repeal and for the other measures described in such Resolutions to mitigate the damage caused by FATCA pending its repeal; as president I will use my constitutional authority in accordance with such Resolutions.
The RepealFATCA.com request letter to candidates can be found here. As of June 11, 2015, the RepealFATCA.com request has been sent via their public campaign sites to the following candidates, listed here by date of declaration:
Mark Everson (announced March 5, 2015)
Ted Cruz (announced March 23, 2015)
Rand Paul (announced April 7, 2015)
Marco Rubio (announced April 13, 2015)
Ben Carson (announced May 4, 2015)
Carly Fiorina (announced May 4, 2015)
Mike Huckabee (announced May 5, 2015)
Rick Santorum (announced May 27, 2015)
George Pataki (announced May 28, 2015)
Lindsey Graham (announced June 1, 2015)
Rick Perry (announced June 4, 2015)
Jeb Bush (announced June 15, 2015)
Donald Trump (announced June 16, 2015)
This list will be kept updated as further candidates declare and as RepealFATCA.com receives word that candidates have endorsed – or rejected – the statement in support of the RNC Resolutions.
You can help! Contact the candidates via their websites and ask them to endorse the RNC Resolutions. Also, if you have any personal ties with any of the candidates or his or her staff, donors, or key supporters, please get in touch with them, forward them this message, and request:
“Please endorse the RepealFATCA.com “Statement in Support of FATCA Repeal and Against Unauthorized International Agreements”!
And please help get the word out and fight FATCA by making a contribution to RepealFATCA.com at the “Contribute” button!
James George Jatras
Note from poster Mark Twain:
It would be helpful if someone could make a parallel effort with the democratic candidates
A court ruling in Canada that upholds Canadian law will not necessarily result in the US changing its laws either way.
@Bubblebustin, Of course not.
Bubblebustin, even though as you suggest, it is not likely that a win for the FATCA IGA lawsuit will result in the US letting ‘non-meaningfuls’ easily rid themselves of US citizenship, it is still good to hear you say that you would support such an unlikely scenario.
If Canada would simply codify into clear law that multi-citizenship does not exist, much of the problem would be gone…..
A single law line that says; “A Canadian Citizen who has or may be deemed to be a Citizen of another country shall solely be recognized as a Canadian Citizen within the territory of Canada for all public and private purposes and shall be required to enter and exit Canada on a Canadian Passport.”
The paradox in finding relief for accidentals under the now defunct Obama proposal is that they must first recognize themselves as US citizens in order to tell the US government that they don’t recognize themselves as US citizens – and line up at what they feel is a foreign consulate to do so.
I know there’s a lot of candidates joining the race, but Tom Cruz too? 🙂
@George. I agree with everything you say!
@WhiteKitty,,” I agree with everything you say!”
Is that Dark Kitty or White Kitty….
LOL LOL LOL
@George, @ Whitekat………”and they call it kitty love.”
I was hoping this would end with the agile RBT Cat licking the large complacent CBT dog into the ground….
but it did put a smile on my face as I plan to spend my June bonus on the regular donation to ADCS and make me feel fabulous to be associated in this small way with the wonderful work of IBS.
@George, BOTH! LOL
I would. Though US citizenship abroad has other disadvantages, if there were RBT in place, I would not consider going through the trouble of renouncing (which I am considering).
If the US government was to pass a law that stated ANY US CITIZEN, dual or not, living outside the USA for three consecutive years, would no longer be liable for taxation or financial reporting, I would be good with that. Not a perfect solution for all, but it would alleviate the worst effects of US nationality for most.
My question to those who insist that US nationality is the main problem: If there had never been CBT, FBARs or FATCA, would you be squirming in anger right now about dual US nationality? In my opinion, fighting CBT as the primary target is much more worthwhile than trying to convince the US government to make it easier to renounce. I think changing CBT is remotely possibly, whereas the latter isn’t at all.
Well, I think we have our first answer, no surprise who it’s from
I presume that “blow up the tax code” includes repeal of 1441, 1442, and 6038D (not to mention 877A and all the other 6038x and 6039x garbage). It is NOT clear from his editorial whether US persons in other countries would be exempted from his proposed flat tax, especially since “blow up the tax code” would also include 901 & 911.
Democrats Abroad probably know that in a toe-to-toe battle on FATCA, they will lose the expat vote badly, but because of domestic constraints they also know can’t possibly do anything about their disadvantage besides mouthing platitudes about their useless “same country exception”. At some point some smart cookie there is going to think about trying to outflank the Republicans rather than standing toe-to-toe with them.
So here’s a thought experiment. Nightmare scenario for some, dream scenario for others: Democrats throw a “Hail Mary” pass to try to recapture the expat vote from Republicans, and propose an end to citizenship-based taxation with no exit tax for those already abroad for X years. (Probably it would be something like 10 years instead of Barbara’s 3, since they’d want to reward people who emigrated when Bush was president, not when Obama was president). In exchange, they also demand strict Reed Amendment enforcement, a residential exit tax which includes estate tax not just CGT, higher taxes on US-source income of ex-citizens, and further crackdowns on US residents with non-US bank accounts.
@Barbara re: “My question to those who insist that US nationality is the main problem: If there had never been CBT, FBARs or FATCA, would you be squirming in anger right now about dual US nationality? In my opinion, fighting CBT as the primary target is much more worthwhile than trying to convince the US government to make it easier to renounce. I think changing CBT is remotely possibly, whereas the latter isn’t at all.”
My answer is from the perspective of neither a Homelander Abroad, nor a US Person Abroad, but from a Canadian living in Canada. No I would not be squirming in anger over dual nationality right now if FATCA and CBT magically disappeared, BUT I MIGHT BE SQUIRMING IN ANGER over some other unjust law that USA might decide to impose on those it claims as its own who are living outside USA as citizens of other countries.
IMO, the main problem are the wimpy Canadian (Australian, German, etc) governments who allow USA to impose US personhood along with all the unjust American laws that go along with it (FATCA and CBT) on Canadians (Australian, Germans, etc). It is not so much the citizenship itself that is the problem, but the tacit agreement of the governments of the countries where we actually live and are citizens of that we are US’s persons subject to USA’s jurisdiction.
Until we can stop our own governments from viewing and treating us differently than our neighbours who are not claimed by USA as being subject to US laws, your imagination is the only limit as to what USA can dream up next to harm those it insists are its persons. So from my perspective the fight is from within the country I actually live in and am a citizen of, not in a foreign country.
I didn’t know about CBT/FBAR, and FATCA didn’t even exist, when I relinquished in the 1970s. So, they were completely immaterial to my decision to terminate my US citizenship.
I believe that no one should be forced to have dual nationality. The US is now making it difficult for people to renounce/relinquish. But if CBT, FBAR and FATCA didn’t exist and the US was making it difficult for people to renounce/relinquish, I’d still find it outrageous.
Rand Paul introduces flat tax, does not mention if it is for residents only.
@Pacifica, re: “I believe that no one should be forced to have dual nationality. The US is now making it difficult for people to renounce/relinquish. But if CBT, FBAR and FATCA didn’t exist and the US was making it difficult for people to renounce/relinquish, I’d still find it outrageous. ”
And even if CBT and FATCA are killed, the $2,350 renunciation fee remains. For many who want to be rid of US citizenship this is not affordable.
Yes, I see that as one of the difficulties they’ve put into the process, one which can be a outright barrier to people with low incomes. I remember Eric’s chart comparing renunciation fees and the US was extremely high, something like 10 times the average – and no other country was even close!
Rand Paul position on FATCA from 2013: Dear Colleague FATCA Repeal.
Scott Walker announced today