ADMISSION FEE $20 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED (to cover costs)
Vancouver notes (Feb 22) Updated on March 28 here
Continue reading
Foreign Bank Account Report (FBAR), FATCA, Citizenship based taxation, the exit tax, $450 renunciation fee, the requirement to certify five years tax compliance, long lines at US Consulates to renounce, the threat of permanent exile and ten years further taxation after expatriation (Ex-Patriot Act; Reed Amendment), these are obstacles that hinder many so-called Americans from asserting their mobility rights and their fundamental right to change nationalities. Relinquishing US citizenship should be as natural as taking a breath, and so these obstacles fly in face of the freedoms for which early Americans were willing to fight and die:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
These days the Obama vanguard will mercilessly mock you if you mention a Creator, natural law and how the IRS violates constitutional rights like the Fifth Amendment. But when the young country called the USA was still trying to assert its independence from Britain and the Crown, Americans had another view of the right to expatriate. They called it a natural right. Today, referring to natural law may flag you as a tax protestor. For early Americans, hindering expatriation was to make a man a slave. In this light, Badger found this in an article by Nancy L. Green:
Justice James Iredell left one of the more memorable expressions of the principle of expatriation, still quoted today: “That a man ought not to be a slave; that he should not be confined against his will to a particular spot because he happened to draw his first breath upon it; that he should not be compelled to continue in a society to which he is accidentally attached, when he can better his situation elsewhere, much less when he must starve in one country, and may live comfortably in another, are positions which I hold as strongly as any man, and they are such as most nations in the world appear clearly to recognize.” [Source: “Talbot v. Jansen, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 133 (1795) at 162].
From: Nancy L. Green, ‘Expatriation, Expatriates, and Expats: The American Transformation of a Concept’ The American Historical Review 114 (2) (2009) 307-328.”
Who can forget this classic scene in the film Canadian Bacon?
Finance Minister Flaherty has given explicit permission to the IRS to collect taxes from Canadian citizens living in Canada. While this strips them of their protection as Canadian citizens, it nevertheless presents a new challenge to the IRS. Should we presume that the IRS can operate in Canada while ignoring all the laws of Canada? Or shouldn’t they have to obey, just like all other government agencies, the laws of our land. One rule that I’d like to see them obey is our official languages law.
The IRS is coming up with a proliferation of new rules and reporting requirements. FATCA legislation introduced Form 8938 to duplicate the Bank Secrecy Acts’ unconstitutional FBAR. Then the US announced both KFOR and FCTR. Now there is a new tax form requiring that man’s best friends of US origin also file a 1040-K9 (NS) (via :@FATCAed):
Some aboriginals in Canada that are under the right the circumstances exempt from Canadian taxation may nevertheless be US persons.
The IRS has made a clear statement with regard to the tax exempt status of Native Americans:
This revenue ruling emphasizes to taxpayers, promoters, and return preparers that there is no right to exemption from federal income tax for Native Americans under an unspecified “Native American Treaty.” Any return position based on an unspecified “Native American Treaty” has no merit and is frivolous. As a general rule, Native Americans are subject to federal income tax just like every other American.
This would mean that any claim to tax exemption on the basis of Canadian tax law would also be frivolous. Now it may be interesting to cite Article 25 of the Canadian Charts of Rights and Freedoms:
I spoke to David Kennedy of the Toronto Observer about The Isaac Brock Society. Here is the money quote:
I’m scandalized by the fact that the Canadian government signed the IGA,” he said, “and basically, in writing, accepted that the U.S. has the right to assert their sovereignty over Canadian citizens… The Isaac Brock Society is doing what the government won’t do—and that is protect people living in Canada.
The Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act will formally empower the government of Canada to revoke the Canadian citizenship in certain cases. According to the Toronto Star, certain crimes may result in the stripping of Canadian citizenship from dual citizens:
Under the proposed changes, citizenship can be revoked from dual nationals convicted of terrorism, high treason and spying offences, or who take up arms against Canada. As well, permanent residents who commit these acts will be barred from applying for citizenship.
The Star failed to mention one crime which has already resulted in effective stripping of Canadian citizenship: Being of US national origin.
I really feel sorry for Norway and the Netherlands.
This summer, major portions of the controversial US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act come into effect. What will it mean for Canada? We met with Professor Allison Christians of McGill University to talk international tax, individual privacy, and national sovereignty.
While we’re at it, everyone should go and download Allison Christian’s law articles and put her on the scholarly map (her ranking increases with more downloads):
UPDATE: Well, crap. I think Pacifica just blew this post out of the water with her comment below.
