It seems that the U.S. government finds the idea of Chinese covert agents working in the U.S. to find Chinese nationals who are wanted back home to be a violation of U.S. sovereignty. The author of the article says that Washington doesn’t like the intimidation tactics that are being used. Now I wonder what the U.S. thinks about the intimidations tactics of F.A.T.C.A./C.B.T. which consist of 30% withholding penalty, forced closing of or the refusal to open local bank accounts if one refuses to answer whether or not you are a U.S. person, the Reed Amendment which bars tax evaders from entering the U.S., the intimidating 2350.00 renunciation fee, 5 years of IRS tax compliance in order to renounce, etc. Aren’t all of these intimidation tactics? I guess though that when your problems are self inflicted that it is okay. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/us/politics/obama-administration-warns-beijing-about-agents-operating-in-us.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
Let’s see how many find this comment by the Chinese to be familiar:
‘Steve Tsang, a senior fellow at the University of Nottingham’s China Policy Institute, said the clandestine deployment of security agents in pursuit of Chinese abroad has a long pedigree under the Communist Party, which sees itself as wielding dominion over all Chinese people regardless of what passport they may hold. “The party believes if you’re of Chinese ancestry then you’re Chinese anyway, and if you don’t behave like one you’re a traitor,” he said’
The U.S. has done the Chinese one better by forcefully conscripting the local financial institutions of foreign nations as I.R.S. agents.
I think this is taking it a bit far. See, our politicians are already proposing policies to address these issues raised. For example, I heard one of the republican candidates during the debate, I believe it was Ted Cruz, state that any American who goes to the Islamic State should have his citizenship automatically rescinded. Therefore, an American that wants to be an expat and not face these daunting financial challenges from the IRS/treasury merely needs to make a two week stopover in the Islamic State on the way to New Zealand or wherever he intends to live and the matter will be solved. Simple solutions are always available to expats from our friendly US federal government.
What always bothers me the most is good old US hypocrisy. The USA can extend it’s laws extraterritorially but no one else can. FATCA and CBT equal intimidation and financial black mail. It’s time these US financial sanctions got more media attention.
“The U.S. has done the Chinese one better by forcefully conscripting the local financial institutions of foreign nations as I.R.S. agents.” Wouldn’t that make a nice headline.
@Steross Says- here is a possibly another option to getting rid of unwanted U.S. person identity, and that is to seek asylum:
One American official acknowledged that Chinese agents had been trying to track down Ling Wancheng, a wealthy and politically connected businessman who fled to the United States last year and had been living in a lavish home he owns outside Sacramento. Should he seek political asylum, he could become one of the most damaging defectors in the history of the People’s Republic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/us/politics/obama-administration-warns-beijing-about-agents-operating-in-us.html?emc=edit_na_20150816&nlid=71884491&ref=cta&_r=0
“A fugitive is like a flying kite, he said. “Even though he is abroad, the string is held in China.
CBT ?????
Geez, it wasn’t all that long ago that the US’s own National Tax Advocate was accusing the IRS of “terrorizing” Canadians in Canada. Now that we’ve learned that our problems are self-inflicted, perhaps someone’s should tell Obama that their Chinese guests problems with the Chinese government are too.
@JakDac:
I think you hit the nail on the head. The USA considers us all to be fugitives, which they also have less problem spelling than
ex-patriotsexpectoratesexpatriates.Hypocrisy all the way. I hope September 13th will be like the ‘shot heard around the world’ as in Concord only in Vancouver, BC.
If the Canadian Government loses and needs to appeal, it’s going to be more of an uphill battle at that point. At least it will be the first court in the world to rule against an IGA.
It just occurred to me that when the DOJ tells U.S. persons abroad that their problems under F.A.T.C.A./C.B.T. are self inflicted that it is also saying the same thing to the governments under which the U.S. person lives. Basically they are saying to foreign governments that it, “sucks to be you”.
It is called malignant narcissiam and the current president has been diagnosed by a famous doctor who specializes in that type personality. The malignant part is the harmful part. All of us have an exaggarated sense of our worth, but our current government is loaded with the malignant type. It is perfectly OK to chase our own citizens down and take their last dime, because we are the Good Guys and all the others are all the bad guys. So you cannot compare us to them because we are the good guys.
Johnathan Swift would find them all perfect material for a novel, if he hadn’t have died in the 1700’s.
Non-resident U.S. persons are the world’s largest prison population. Theirs is a prison without bars that is built with metal and concrete of F.A.T.C.A./C.B.T. instead of the physical substances of metal and concrete. The F.F.I.’s are the prison guards and the I.R.S. is the warden. The F.A.T.C.A./C.B.T. compliance industry are the prison counselors who help wayward non-resident U.S. prisoner/person go straight.
@Wilton Jere Tidwell
Swift would indeed have plenty to work with today. Consider his classic, “A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People from Being a Burden to their Parents, or the Country, and for Making them Beneficial to the Publick.”
Today that might read, “A Modest Proposal by the Country to Burden every United States Person Abroad with unsolicited Citizenship, to thereby claim their Meagre income and the Treasury of all other Nations as its own, and for Making such Ill-begotten, Unearned wealth Beneficial to the domestic Democratic Publick most punctually before the Anointment of a new President, who shall Liberally dispense these stolen Favours, claiming that they are the rightful fruit of the Exceptional, plucked from the unworthy hands of Traitors and duplicitous Foreigners.”
One can hardly make this up it is so ripe for substituting the US for China;
The original quote from post above;
“…sees itself as wielding dominion over all Chinese people regardless of what passport they may hold. “The party believes if you’re of Chinese ancestry then you’re Chinese anyway, and if you don’t behave like one you’re a traitor,..”
and then there is the US homeland version:
“”…sees itself as wielding dominion over all US people regardless of what passport they may hold. “The party believes if you’re of US ancestry then you’re US anyway, and if you don’t behave like one you’re a traitor,..””
The version above is the one that Harper and his merry Cons subscribe to, as one of the Con MPs Mike Allen said of his fellow Canadian citizens and constituents with an accident of US parentage or US birthplace and regarding FATCA; “Congress has spoken” re all those “Americans residing in Canada”.
Would those same Canadian MPs of the Conservative persuasion be ready to characterize Canadians of Chinese descent to be “Chinese residing in Canada”?
China hasn’t signed the IGA yet. It is probably seeking for US Banks to be required to report ethnic Chinese living in America.
@recalcitrant: you’re giving them too much credit in saying “Reed Amendment which bars tax evaders from entering the U.S” This phrase should be amended “… those whom the government deems tax evaders”. After all, aren’t we all saying that the way CBT applies to bone fide residents abroad who pay local taxes is unconstitutional?
If all countries did what China, US, Eritrea are doing, and if all had CBT for those living long-term abroad then the world would turn into a clusterf***k. Nobody would be producing anything wealth of value or useful for the common good: all efforts would be wasted filling out forms, spying on their neighbors, and paying compliance wh**es.
Jefferson: exactly! Imagine a dual citizen (or a triple one, as countries would pile on to impose their passports) living in a 3rd or 4th country. Your mom is Country A, your dad is B, you were born in C, lived in D and retained assets in D, and live in E. E rightfully wants to tax your as a resident. A, B, C have no reason to tax you but have bestowed their passports on you. And D decides to tax your local assets too (OK).
We’re almost there, if you substitute A=China, B=Erithrea, C=USA, D=France, E=Spain.
@Fred, @Jefferson….essentially the USA is an outcast rogue nation for not signing on to such things as the OECD CRS and the 1930 Convention on Nationality.
There are CONFLICTS in nationality laws and they need to be resolved on the international stage and that is done by agreeing to things such as the Master Nationality Rule.
Under the 1930 Convention, Gwen and Ginny whilst in Canada or any third Country would be solely and absolutely Canadian and the USA would not consider them to be hers, ergo FATCA would not apply to them because they are not USC.
If the USA had signed on to the OECD they would be joining the World in ferreting out tax cheats who live in one nation utilizing all the services in that country and invest in a second country so not to pay any tax.
The USA is not exceptional and needs to be shamed again and again.
Trump wants to disallow instant citizenship to the offspring born on US soil to illegal immigrants.
The guy has some ideas that are not bad!
“SwissPinoy says
August 17, 2015 at 12:40 am
China hasn’t signed the IGA yet. It is probably seeking for US Banks to be required to report ethnic Chinese living in America.”
“China Agrees to FATCA Compliance
Posted on June 30, 2014 by China Briefing
SHANGHAI – China has reached an “in substance” intergovernmental agreement with the United States on cooperation with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), according to the U.S. Treasury Department. The move is widely expected to benefit the China-based subsidiaries of companies in the U.S., Hong Kong and elsewhere. In return, Chinese financial institutions will no longer be threatened with blacklisting and other penalties as stipulated by FATCA.
http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2014/06/30/china-agrees-fatca-compliance.html
Speaking of quotes ripe for substitution…
“A quick programming note about CBT: You can really hurt someone -you can really damage someone- if you attempt CBT without knowing what you’re doing.”
This quote comes from this week’s Savage Love column by Dan Savage.
Too bad CBT in this case doesn’t mean what we think it does, but the substitution to our meaning sure works.
@News
Swiss pony is correct and your hit and run post is misleading
Just as Swiss pony has stated China has not signed any agreements
The fact that there was some kind of understanding a year ago but no agreement today that is speaking loudly
@Jefferson “…if all had CBT for those living long-term abroad then the world would turn into a clusterf***k.”
The U.S. carefully prevents the internal chaos (tax conflict between States) it happily fosters internationally.
Feel free to substitute clusterf***k for “destroying” and “destruction”:
“… the limitations of the [U.S.] Constitution are barriers bordering the States [of the Union] and preventing them from transcending the limits of their authority and thus destroying the rights of other States and at the same time saving their rights from destruction by the other States….”
United States v. Bennett (1914), where it was ruled that just because the constitution limits the taxing powers of States at their borders, this does not by extension limit the country’s powers at its borders.
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=16108812717442094384&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=okVlVYTVDpCQoQTfxIO4Cg&ved=0CBwQgAMoATAA
@shovel says- repeating the same error doesn’t make it right. Extraterritorial taxation is a prima facie violation of another country’s sovereignty over it’s territory, government and treasury. It also shows that this judge has no understanding of what taxation is.
It also subscribes to a childish form of logic where when something is not explicitly forbidden then it must be permitted.
https://americansabroad.org/issues/fatca/contact-and-educate-your-representative-same-country-exempti/
The ACA is still hot on this ‘Same Country Exemption’ non-sense. They seem to forget that if you live in France and work in Switzerland the SCE really doesn’t help.
I wish the ACA would use its contacts to set an IBS style European lawsuit in play rather than pinning all their hopes that the US Government will change.
This is a remarkably ahistorical bit of Red-baiting by Professor Tsang. The Qing Dynasty and Republic of China were the ones which promoted unlimited jus sanguinis and refused to recognise the Master Nationality Rule, while the Communists ended both those practices in the 1950s, e.g. with the choice of nationality treaty with Indonesia. Up until today Beijing has continued its efforts to minimise dual nationality, e.g. with the 1980 nationality law which said no citizenship if your parents are settled abroad (i.e. have permanent residence in another country).
Yes, the average Chinese guy on the street is not happy to meet or read about a person of Chinese ancestry who doesn’t speak Chinese and advocates for the interests of the country where he actually lives even if those conflict with the interests of China. But the PRC government (which, quite obviously, is not a democracy) doesn’t pander to that popular sentiment the way the US does with the Logan Act, CBT, etc.