We already have Witnesses for our Canadian FATCA IGA lawsuit, but are now seeking a few more. If you are a Canadian who supports the major aim of the lawsuit (to return Canadian sovereignty back to Canada) and are interested, see below:
The May 31 2017 Canada Federal Court Order gives us 60 days to comply by providing additional information to Government as part of our lawsuit.
This delay may give us time to provide to the Court additional evidence, from new witnesses, of harms caused by the Canadian FATCA IGA enabling legislation. If:
— You are a Canadian resident (and possibly a U.S. person as well) who has experienced difficulty, uncertainty, or perceived risk of personal harm, in acting as an executor of the estate of a U.S. person in Canada, or you are someone who has refused to act as an executor for the estate of a U.S. person in Canada because of the risk of harm; or
— You are a Canadian citizen and resident who the U.S. deems a U.S. citizen, and you would like to renounce your U.S. citizenship and tax citizenship, but cannot because you would have to pay a U.S. “exit tax” because of the value of your assets (see link) — or you renounced and DID pay an exit tax; or
— You are a Canadian citizen and resident and a U.S. citizen who had your bank account information turned over to CRA/IRS and the U.S. IRS has now contacted you about your account.
AND you are willing to provide a written, public (your name will be disclosed) affidavit to Canada Federal Court explaining your situation,
– please contact me at Stephen.Kish.Chair@adcs-adsc.ca
The Federal Court order asks for a list of all specific harms caused by the Canadian FATCA IGA enabling legislation, that contradict our Canadian Charter rights and nation’s sovereignty (our Claim) that have been or are certain to be experienced by our three Plaintiffs but also by “anyone else” (i.e., I interpret this to mean other Canadian residents).
We already have Witness affidavits detailing harms that cannot be disclosed publicly at the present time. But if you have experienced a harm or know that you will experience a harm related to the above legislation, that you suspect that we might not have addressed, AND ARE A CANADIAN CITIZEN AND RESIDENT WILLING TO FILE A WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT TO FEDERAL COURT THAT WILL DISCLOSE YOUR NAME, then please contact me.
From a practical point of view that I have to deal with, making suggestions is fine, but we need to provide the Court with written affidavits of harm in which your name will be disclosed. If you can’t disclose, perhaps you know someone who might. The time opportunity for this is short.
“I don’t recall anybody in this thread suggesting an analogy between the Jews and the Holocaust., In fact, I don’t recall any comment on Brock EVER suggesting this analogy.”
Not in this thread but a few years ago, someone made an analogy between the Property of USA tatoo and the yellow star (not the gas chambers). For a few minutes I was offended, but then I saw it was pretty much true.
Despite the clear irony of this hypothesis:
“there were plenty of 18th century colonists who would would have said:
‘Colonial subjects are NOT slaves – that’s an offensive comparison. The slaves are those (life forms who are not human beings) who work our fields and serve us in our palatial homes.'”
It must be pointed out that owners of one or two slaves usually lived in pretty ordinary housing. They weren’t all in the 1%. It doesn’t mean slavery was right, it just means that pretty ordinary slave owners weren’t all millionaires.
Does this seem familiar…
This is an interesting statement. It is my understanding that U.S. case law established this. I don’t see how the policy of even the State Department could trump case law, nevermind advocacy groups.
Also interesting is this World Federation of Americans Abroad-in existence from 1991-2001. , “an umbrella organization whose membership included a number of other advocacy groups for U.S. citizens abroad, and which she described as representing “by far the largest group of non-U.S. government individuals and businesses that exists overseas reaching all parts of the earth where Americans congregate.”
Have never heard of this group. I wonder if Patric Hale or a Brocker who has history with one of the advocacy groups could comment on this? Was ACA a member of this group? Why was WFAA started and what happened to it?
Not much available:
In 1990, FAWCO, the Association of Americans Resident Overseas (AARO), American Citizens Abroad (ACA) and the European Council of American Chambers of Commerce (ECACC), formed the World Federation of Americans Abroad (WFAA), whose representatives have gone regularly to Washington to meet with policy makers on behalf of the more than three million Americans who live abroad.
WORLD FEDERATION OF AMERICANS ABROAD INC
Also Known As:
1209 N Orange St, Wilmington, DE 19801
This organizations exempt status was automatically revoked by the IRS for failure to file a Form 990 990-EZ 990-N or 990-PF for 3 consecutive years. Further investigation and due diligence are warranted.
Related in tributes to Andy Sundberg, founder of American Citizens Abroad (ACA) on his passing:
I noted at the time:
THE EVOLUTION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP LAW SINCE 1789,
(Compiled by Andy Sundberg
Overseas American Academy
Updated February 2012)
Thanks for some very enlightening information about the ACA and Mr Sundberg. Up until recently ,the big bad wolf for me was the USG. But I’ve come to realize that the immigration laws that now entrap US ciitzen abroad may have had its origins with the advocacy groups like the ACA.The US Congress ,nor the courts,doesn’t work in a vacuum and the lobbying groups have a enormous influence on Congressioal decisions and in even creating “perceptions ” of US citzens abroad. Mr Sundberg perception was that every US citzen abroad should be “protected” from lossing their citzenship and “protected “from lossing their US tax obligations as well.
Mr Sundberg wore many hats He could have left one hat behind. Ms Stephanie Simonard ,as mentionned previously,was involved with advocacy groups and perchance just happened to be a US Tax lawyer. Since one of Mr Sundberg’s many hats was economics ,maybe he dabbled in US Taxes
‘Up until recently ,the big bad wolf for me was the USG.’
‘Mr Sundberg perception was that every US citzen abroad should be “protected” from lossing their citzenship and “protected “from lossing their US tax obligations as well.’
You’re being too hard on him. In those days the FEIE meant something, FTC went a long way towards avoiding double taxation on what was left over after FEIE, there was no PFIC, and taxable capital gains were mostly actual capital gains not mostly inflation.
I bet if Mr. Sundberg had known what was going to happen, he would have lobbied to make accidentals US non-citizen nationals instead of US citizens. They would be left not completely stateless, and except for Filipinos they would have the right to move to the US and acquire US citizenship if they wanted it.
The crux of the matter is that US citzenship and filing income tax go hand in hand. For some one abroad filing income tax forms and even paying taxes for nonexistent services makes no sense . I am quite sure that he was aware of those citzenship obligations and at same time he was enshrining citzenship on everyone he could find. Unless you intend to return,how many years can continue to file ,ten.twenty,thirty ,forty years without reallizing finally that you are not living in the US and still filing for what ? It simply doesn’t make sense.
He must have known that he was locking citzens to CBT without a way out.
@ Robert and Norman
You might find this article about Andy Sundberg interesting. His heart was always geared towards the best interests of Americans living abroad and when FATCA hit he lobbied against it and advocated for CBT. Unfortunately he was gone too soon. The battle had just begun in 2012.
“when FATCA hit he lobbied against it and advocated for CBT”
You had me worried there for a minute, not that it would help any more to be worried about that. But still, it’s nice to see in the artile that he advocated for RBT not for CBT.
So still, if he’d known what was going to happen, I bet he would have lobbied to make accidentals US non-citizen nationals instead of US citizens.
By the way, I think I figured out that if someone from Guam and someone from American Samoa get marrid and move to New Zealand, the person from Guam has to start filing US federal taxes as Married Filing Separately, because the person from American Samoa (US non-citien national) can’t file any kind of US federal tax form and can’t participate in a Married Filing Jointly return.
I hope that YOU meant advocating against CBT,rather than for CBT. The link above suggests against CBT.
No one has a real statistical profile of US citzens abroad. If you take into consideration all those who are accidental and those who have cast their USness to the wind,one will never know.
Mr. Sundberg preached to his parish,those who had USness.However, I don’t belong to his parish ,nor wish to. What I do believe is that his preachings resulted in mischaracterization of US diaspora.
“You’re being too hard on him. In those days the FEIE meant something….”
Maybe you are being to soft .Warning: Never put someone on a pedestal, they are bound to fall off.
“Warning: Never put someone on a pedestal”
Sure, but there’s still a difference between blaming someone for something the could foresee and blaming them for something they couldn’t foresee.
TEPCO said it was unimaginable that another tsunami could be as big as the tsunami that inundated the same area in 1896 and 1933. So I start by blaming them for something they could foresee. Well, even if they were so stupid as to be unable to imagine it happening again, they lied. They were found to have done an analysis some time during the 2000’s, before 2011, calculating that the tsunami that hit in 1896 and 1933 were possible and maybe they should protect their nukes better. So I blame them for something they did foresee.
Yes, I absolutely got that wrong. He was advocating for RBT. Sorry. 🙁
I beg to differ. The gentleman must have known about CBT and its obligations long before FATCA came along.
Mr Sundberg could best be described as an American Homelander Abroad .
Thanks to his generous efforts, the automatic gifting of US citzenships abroad,whether it’s wanted or not, is so graciously appreciated today.
If I were a Samoan married to a Guamese , I would divorce her and marry a Samoan instead.
Speaking of gifting US citizenship, some of us have been following this:
Discussion on Brock here:
There are many reasons this statement concerns me. Leaving aside Eritrea (though I wonder if they would have a problem with calling that 2% a type of slavery), the fact is that no other government in the world imposes citizenship-based taxation. None. Is one to assume that the rest of the world lacks a good reason to do so? Or would one tend to focus on the U.S. and ask what is lacking in its particular law?
And not to stoke the fire, but everything the German government did with regard to the Nazi period, was legal. They simply changed the laws to match their needs. Nobody stood up to them. Not even the lawyers who knew better.
I fail to see anything different in deeming immutable characteristics, on their face ,as equal in terms of choice and none are more deserving of accommodation than others, regardless of history. I cannot think of anyone who would seriously claim that slavery was not clearly an abuse of human rights,wrong, even evil. The primary reason no one is taking that position regarding the US and citizenship (besides for us) is they simply do not understand it. How often does one have to come into a discussion (with government leaders as well as members of the compliance industry) that taxation on worldwide income is NOT the same as CBT? Then add on the inherent unfairness, the specifics of which become quite complicated because so many countries/different laws come into play and it becomes too difficult to think about. Except for those being harmed by the situation. What happens is the acceptance that it is only about tax and the US has the right to do so based upon its laws. If that is all one understands, of course they might find the comparison to slavery inflammatory.
Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
Nowhere does the definition use the American experience of slavery as the primary demonstration of what the word means. Nor any other equally heinous situations mentioned in this thread. What unites them is the more universal aspect of the word-“has
absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune”
It has been demonstrated so often on this website, that U.S. tax policy applied to U.S. Persons living abroad is a form of “life control” I am not going to rehash the points. Google USCitizenAbroad. People object to us claiming we are slaves seem worried that there is not enough cruelty involved for us to make this claim. No physical beatings etc. That we don’t have the right to claim this level of suffering. Perhaps. However, if the US is of such a higher standard than the rest of the world, accordingly, its wrongs should become more subtle in nature (assuming it really IS higher….). The less savage, the more refined the assessment of wrong becomes. Can anyone truly say that psychological suffering is to be valued less? Any doctor will tell you how devastating stress (physical, mental AND emotional) is.
At the very least, it is economic slavery.
This argument has pervaded Brock since the beginning.While ADCS-ADSC was collecting funds for the lawsuit, all kinds of people worried that statements about slavery etc, affected donations. Perhaps they did but we did collect it. No doubt some people have come across Brock and have not returned. That really has no effect on the correctness of the argument. They are turned off, so what?
Tricia: Bravo! As far as I’m concerned you’ve uttered the last word on the usage of “slavery” in relationship to our situation. It could not have been stated any better. I will copy your quote for use (with full credit, of course) at some point in the (possibly near) future. Thank you!!! 🙂
The reason that countries are sovereign and have borders is because there are geographical limits to where the laws of a nation can extend. Nobody is arguing that the United States cannot impose laws (including taxation) on people within its borders. People are arguing that the laws of the United States end at the U.S. border. Remember also that the USA is attempting to impose its laws in an extra-territorial manner on the citizens and residents of other nations (who the USA in its sole discretion defines as U.S. citizens).
There is a general obligation to obey governments when one is in the government’s jurisdiction. If there is any obligation to obey the laws of a country when one is NOT within the government’s jurisdiction, then well – that sounds like slavery to me.
What do you think?
Isn’t the fact that the USG still considers us under the jurisdiction of plantation Washington DC convincing enough that the USG considers us its slaves?
The obligation to obey the law is not, in itself, a form of slavery–society could hardly function otherwise, at least not in any civilized form. Does that give us an equal obligation to follow extraterritorial laws set by (legitimate) governments elsewhere? Perhaps not, but globalization does make this a very thorny question. Certainly there has to be a degree of inter-state cooperation.
Extraterritoriality is not always unjust. For example, the US and Europe forbid their citizens from having sex with children in Thailand, or forming private armies to overthrow third-world governments. The question of who the US ought to be allowed to ascribe citizenship to, or collect taxes from, is hard to decide in principle, and would be best addressed in coordination with other countries, perhaps in the form of an international treaty on citizenship. In the meantime, here we are, enduring what I believe to be injustices–but not on the level of slavery or Nazi Germany.
The whole premise of FATCA and CBT is that there is NO interstate co-operation. There is only coercion.
The question is NOT whether extraterritoriality is unjust. The question is whether it should be recognized at all – absent a specific treaty. The Government of Thailand is perfectly capable of protecting the children of Thailand (as I assume it does).
You are confusing the content of the law (prohibition of “having sex with children in Thailand”) with the legitimacy of the law (regardless of the purpose of the law country A should not be allowed to make laws that apply to people in Country B).
In any event, the legitimacy of extra-territorial laws (whether with a moral or immoral purpose) assumes ownership of the citizen.
In the case of Americans abroad, the extra-territorial laws that exist under the guise of “tax laws” are actually forms of life control that absolutely prohibit a person from BOTH obeying the U.S. law and being able to live a normal financial life outside the United States.
Put it another way:
You may be able to take an American out of America, but the American must always live like a Homeland American.
So, I put the question to you again:
How should a situation be characterized when a U.S. citizen (even those who are citizen/residents of other nations) is always subject to any and all U.S., laws when he/she is NOT in the United States?
“…..Since the USA allows most of us to renounce, the major issue seems to be money (in the form of taxation and fees). To call this “slavery” is a bit like calling paid labor “wage slavery.” Our freedom has not been restricted (except in the case of passport issues, and potential imprisonment in the case of tax issues–but any system would have these features)….”…
In fact, freedom is restricted EXTRATERRITORIALLY when the US asserts the right to deign to decide how and whether to ‘ALLOW’ people to exercise what is in fact a right – to choose to withdraw their allegiance and their citizenship and award it elsewhere – this demonstrates the US worldview and mindset that is part of the problem. It is a universal human right to be able to CHOOSE citizenship – to freely decide whether to retain one’s citizenship. The US is holding classes of people bound against their will. Certain subsets of citizens are NOT free to expatriate; minors are bound until age of maturity (16 years or more) and their local education benefits and savings subject to tax as ‘foreign trusts’ (ex. Canadian RESP). And the US allows for NO mechanism whatsoever to EVER free those deemed legally incompetent – and thus also binds their family and legal guardians in an unwanted and burdensome relationship to the US. That is a restriction for life. The tenuous and unwanted US relationship based solely on birthplace or parentage results in a burdensome extraterritorially imposed US tax regime on their local government taxpayer provided disability and other benefits designed to assist those in need, and punishes them and their for having savings to help keep those with disabilities from poverty (ex. Canadian RDSP). That isn’t just money. Having insufficient means restricts many very basic ordinary life decisions – where to live, what to eat, whether one can afford medication and treatments (ex. dental and other care not covered by government health plans), etc.
How is that not controlling and curtailing freedom? Restricting those abroad and their families from attempting to make themselves secure via local benefits and local savings in aid of a more secure future and wellbeing.
If we cannot extract or exempt minors and those deemed incompetent from the extraterritorial control of the US, then they are NOT free. And if they are not free, then their families are not free.
Call it what you will, but it is NOT just about taxation. As has been said here before, it is a form of ‘life control’ – and one being asserted outside the national boundaries and jurisdiction of the US through the persons of individuals outside the US. It is as if the US believes that it OWNS the person – and for some subsets of people, the ownership persists for years (minors) or for life (those deemed incompetent).
The purpose of this post is to seek witnesses.
If you cannot, or do not want to, be a Witness in our Canadian lawsuit, perhaps you know someone who might meet the criteria I mentioned above in my post.
The time window for new witnesses is short.
With the Canadian and other governments acting as overseers.
I think some of you missed my main point regarding slavery: Slaves get benefits and services, we US citizens abroad don’t. You can argue about what slavery really means all you want. Lots of people who aren’t literally slaves feel like slaves depending on their situations.
Can you think of any other group on the planet that has to pay the government just for the privilege of existing, and yet receives no services in return? (and no representation) Maybe there is another such group, I haven’t thought about it much.
This to me is the key issue of CBT. If the US wants to tax us, they must provide the same services to expats as they provide to homelanders. They must open branch offices of the welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance systems and all the rest in every country where US expats reside.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the real goal of FATCA is to speed up the implementation of the One World Government that the US elites have been planning for decades.
@ Red Cabbage
“I have a sneaking suspicion that the real goal of FATCA is to speed up the implementation of the One World Government that the US elites have been planning for decades.”
BINGO! It’s that and other strategies like implementing “the cashless society” and making endless, bankrupting, genocidal, soul-destroying wars. However, those “elites” you mention are NOT just in the USA … they dwell in other dark dens around the world too.