"I complied with human rights-violating U.S. renunciation rules — and this leaves a bitter taste." https://t.co/H5qRkzhxxq
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) August 24, 2016
Click on the link in the above tweet to see the complete discussion.
The bottom line is that Dr. Stephen Kish – Chair of the Alliance For The Defence of Canadian Sovereignty and plaintiff in the Bopp FATCA Lawsuit, has formally renounced U.S. citizenship. He performed this act in Iceland which is the final resting place of Robert James Fischer – one of the most famous and well known cases of U.S. citizenship relinquishment.
Been trying to find the articles and ruling I down loaded but haven’t yet. The most recent reference was an article from within the past month. A married couple won a whistleblower case against the IRS. The IRS wanted to pay them based only upon the actual tax owed but the whistleblowers wanted a percentage of the entire tax, penalty, fee amount. The IRS lost. I saved it for later and did not read the reasoning for the ruling but thought at the time that the IRS wants to have its cake and eat it too.
JapanT – that’s not reality, it’s just awfullizing. I’m sorry for your problems but it does no good to catastrophize in that way. You can’t address shadows and imaginary terrors, it’s a waste of spirit. And it makes it harder to address the real problems.
The law for whistleblowers to be rewarded with a share of the recovered proceeds doesn’t say that all of the recovered proceeds were taxes. A court ruled that recovered proceeds include taxes and penalties; I don’t recall if they included interest too.
The whistleblower laws are only useful for lucky people. Like if I could identify the ringleader of the embezzlement gang, and if the IRS taxes and penalizes the embezzlers’ illegal income, I could claim a reward amounting to some fraction of the recovered proceeds (a percentage of the taxes and penalties recovered, not a percentage of total embezzlements recovered). But all I could do was figure out that Monica Hernandez wasn’t working alone. Later TIGTA reported arrests of some of her cohorts. I have no way to find who the ringleader is.
And NONE of this reality a decade ago.
Others have posted just how this all works at the sole expense of the reporting entities. None of what I write here is from my mind, merely repeating and perhaps correlating.
“The whistleblower laws are only useful for lucky people.”
Come on! Whistle blowing is an honorable well established profession in America.
In fact true salvation lies in becoming a whistle blower:
That “American” in your neighborhood could be your retirement plan.
Oh and to reinforce the “honor”, “importance” and “prevalence” of “whistle blowing” in American culture, see the following Cornell law school course in “whistle blowing”.
Welcome the the 21st century.
@JapanT – yes, there’s plenty of scary stuff around on this and other sites. It’s easy enough to conjure up nightmares, by supposing the worst rather than the most likely. Better for one’s peace of mind to look at the available options, choose the least worst, and go for it.
I had a rather scary conversation with a “professional” person about this about a year ago. It was stated that even though reporting policies were in place, it was more than possible/likely that individual bank folks would turn information over/whistleblowing. I said I thought that was inappropriate and wouldn’t think it would be honored but that idea was simply dismissed.
Patricia Moon: “I had a rather scary conversation with a “professional” person about this about a year ago. It was stated that even though reporting policies were in place, it was more than possible/likely that individual bank folks would turn information over/whistleblowing. I said I thought that was inappropriate and wouldn’t think it would be honored but that idea was simply dismissed.”
I don’t know about Canada, but in the UK a bank employee who sent customer information to the IRS would be breaking UK law and exposing themselves and their employer to some pretty serious risks.
Yes, it would be in Canada too, if the bank sent info even to our tax agency. However, it seems it may be a different story if a US Person were involved because of the IGA. Not my opinion but that of two lawyers, one of whom I trust.
The IGA makes it ok for a FI (not a FI employee acting as a whistleblower) to send reports to HMRC. The FI is a data controller under the Data Protection Agency, and so is HMRC. An individual employee is not. I may be missing something but I can’t see how a bank employee could possibly misuse customer data for whistleblower purposes and expect to get away with it. But it may be different in Canada.
Edward Snowden’s predecessors were fired for reporting illegal actions internally without going public.
Jesselyn Radak was fired for whistleblowing and now defends a few select others who get fired for whistleblowing.
The UK joins in.
I don’t see any difference among Canada, Japan, the US, Russia, etc. in this regard. Any possibility of survival after whistleblowing is just a matter of luck.
I misspelled Jesselyn Radack’s name. Anyone searching for her, here’s the correct spelling.
How could I forget to include China in that list.
Addendum: When a Canadian consular officer gave three reasons for prohibiting my wife to visit temporarily and return home (she can immigrate and stay but won’t be allowed to return home), I tried to address them in the order written. A consul wouldn’t let me get past the first one to ask about the second and third, so we only have the first one. Even though the amount of money she was carrying wasn’t enoug, there is no amount I could give her to ever make it enough. The Canadian government inspects her bank account to look at the amounts of regular deposits. But the Canadian government never asked her for permission to examine her bank account, and I don’t know how they even found which bank she had an account at. Canadian privacy law was already toilet paper.
We look at laws as tools. Each one with a specific purpose and use, like a claw hammer. A claw hammer has two uses, to drive nails and pull nails and no other uses are proper for a claw hammer. Governments see tools (laws) very differently.
They see a claw hammer to have a infinite number of uses besides or in addition to the two it was designed for. They see it also as a paper weight, an anchor, a club. Used with a standard screwdriver, it becomes a wrench. Just a few examples of how a claw hammer may be used in ways other than those it was intended for.
So too it is with laws. Before the IGA, no entity could report bank data to a third party except in the case of a criminal investigation and then only with due process. That ain’t true no more. Given that our various govs have found new uses for old tools and added more to their tool boxes, why would anyone think that they would not continue to do so!
Another point, many nations have long traditions of extending the protection of law to noncitizens out of courtesy only. Many of the “rights” noncitizens enjoy are NOT protected under the laws of the lands they reside in. Thus, while it may be against the law of Canada or G.B. for a bank to provide the gov. with certain info pertaining to a citizen with out due process, it may not be for them to do so with noncitizens. And even if it is, if they “misplace” the claw hammer, then another tool (law) takes its place.
We are NOT prorected by the rule of law.
“Governments see tools (laws) very differently.
They see a claw hammer to have a infinite number of uses besides or in addition to the two it was designed for.”
Yes, for example, they use it to screw us.
“Another point, many nations have long traditions of extending the protection of law to noncitizens out of courtesy only.”
Also many nations have long traditions of extending the protection of law to CITIZENS out of courtesy only — that is, on those rare occasions when they’re feeling courteous for unknown reasons, or more likely for known reasons such as large campaign contributions.
After all, this site exists because of a country that doesn’t extend the protection of law to its citizens.
“Also many nations have long traditions of extending the protection of law to CITIZENS out of courtesy only — that is, on those rare occasions when they’re feeling courteous for unknown reasons, or more likely for known reasons such as large campaign contributions.
After all, this site exists because of a country that doesn’t extend the protection of law to its citizens.”
True, but arguably legally these nations must extend these protections to overseas citizens. This a case of “misplacing” the hammer.
Your comments are based upon the belief that what has happened either will not happen again or will not continue to happen.
Mine are based upon the belief that what has happened will either happen again or will continue to happen.
History supports my view, sadly
I brought up the whistleblower case only to show that at least one court case has lumped fees, penalties and taxes all together. Not the best example but I can not spend more time looking for the docs I saved. Although I did not think it so directly related to this topic, it sure has become so.
Interestingly, I found the case you refered to in my saved docs. I used it in an argument against some other case where the SCOTUS held that penalties, fees and taxes to be the same. It was not that long ago that the cases holding thrm to be the same were in the news. I will continue to try to track them down.
Some confusion here over whistleblowing (IRS variety) and whistleblowing (Edward Snowden variety).
The question raised by Patricia Moon, is whether a bank employee in a non-US country can under FATCA legally send USP customer information to the IRS whistle blower programme. In the UK, at any rate, the answer is clearly “no.”
Clearly no for non UK citizens? Clearly no after passge of other laws designed to protect the rest of the nation from the destruction of the UK financial system caused by the 30% noncompliance fee?
JapanT – “Your comments are based upon the belief that what has happened either will not happen again or will not continue to happen.”
No, my comments are based on the belief that fruitless rumination is a waste of time, and focussing on what may or may not happen in the future can prevent one from addressing what is happening in the present.
“some other case where the SCOTUS held that penalties, fees and taxes to be the same”
There are cases where tax-related penalties, interest, and additions to tax have to be ASSESSED and COLLECTED in the same manner as taxes, but they are still penalties, interest, and additions to tax.
Had it been that they actually WERE taxes, there would not need to be any consideration of whether they had to be assessed and collected in the same manner as what they were. So they obviously WERE NOT taxes, but have to be assessed and collected in the same manner.
(When I found that they have to be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes, I pointed out that requires a Notice of Deficiency to be issued before assessment, so some of the IRS’s corrupt actions should be indisputable. In fact the US government did not dispute. That doesn’t mean I’ll win though. It’s just more evidence that in a justice system I would win.)
“Clearly no for non UK citizens?”
“Clearly no after passge of other laws designed to protect the rest of the nation from the destruction of the UK financial system caused by the 30% noncompliance fee?”
Yes. And what would be the point? The IRS already receives USP account data from the banks via HMRC, without any need for independent whistleblowers.
First, no one can say that something will not change in the future and with the recent changes, it is unlikely that current safeguards will not also be amended.
Second, the IRS gets info on known and self disclosed USPs. No possibility of others lurking out there?
“No, my comments are based on the belief that fruitless rumination is a waste of time, and focussing on what may or may not happen in the future can prevent one from addressing what is happening in the present.”
That is like driving without looking past the dashboard. Nothing just happens. Everything occuring at this moment was set in motion in the past. Today is just the current link on a chain of events that started in the past and will continue tomorrow.
I am not saying we need to prepare for an invasion from Mars, I am pointing out what has been stated as objectives of a rouge organization and the results it as already acheived and using these to gauge what the future most likely holds.
The cases I read about may have been different. The plaintiffs were arguing that there was a difference (why I do not recall, hoping I could easily find them after saving them) and Tearsury arguing they were not. The court ruled against the plaintiffs.
What I took away from them was, and it was clearly stated as such, that in effect, all monies owed to the federal gov amount to tax and are treated as tax. And collected as tax and penalized as taxes unpaid if unpaid. If so, how would it not be allowed to use fines, even when no tax is owed, as a basis for passport revocation?
I think FBAR penalties can still result in passport revocation without a Notice of Deficiency because FBAR is in title 31 USC. Income tax related penalties are in title 26 USC and have to be assessed and collected in the same manner as income taxes.
If a court ruled that income tax related penalties are income taxes, not merely required to be assessed and collected in the same manner as income taxes, I would like to cite it as a precedent. I hope you can find it, Japan T.