We’re currently expecting 9 people — hope you can come, too! Please rsvp by posting a comment here or e-mail me at pacifica at isaacbrocksociety dot ca
[The critical Section 1 of Canada's Charter of Rights is mentioned below: Canada says in a lawsuit submission for our January 28 FATCA trial in Federal Court, that if compliance with the U.S. FATCA law is "found to limit any Charter right, any such limitation can be justified under s.1 of the Charter" [and that] In order to be justified the Impugned Provisions must have a pressing and substantial objective” …”.
— Canada argues that avoidance of economic “catastrophic effects” that will be inflicted on Canada if she does not comply with the U.S. FATCA demand is a “pressing and substantial objective”.
— But Plaintiffs point out in their submission that: “Kevin Shoom, Canada’s witness who participated in the negotiations with the United States that ultimately resulted in the IGA, agreed [in cross examination] that any consideration of what would transpire if any part of the Impugned Provisions were declared of no force or effect would be highly speculative. He agreed that it would depend on “a whole lot of considerations,” that Canada would negotiate with the United States to achieve the best possible outcome, and that “we don’t know how the US would respond.””.
More generally, Plaintiffs say: “Canada effectively maintains that it enacted the Impugned Provisions under duress from a foreign state. The Court should be very slow to accept this as a justification for infringements of the Charter. Canada is expected to defend the constitutional rights and freedoms of its citizens and not bargain them away or capitulate to threats from a foreign bully state.” and, what “if another state’s laws required a person residing in Canada to report to that state obviously private, personal details about their lives – such as their religious practices…”?
Canada is a Westminster Parliamentary democracy. Historically it has had a constitution (British North America Act) which defined how Canada was to be governed. In simple terms: the Federal Government has the jurisdiction to legislate in some areas (example criminal law). The Provincial Governments have the right to legislate in other areas (property and civil rights). These laws are made by democratically elected legislatures. Prior to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (April 17, 1982), the only limits on the legislative bodies were jurisdictional. Any law could be enacted. It was just a question of whether it was the Federal Government or the Provincial Government that could enact the law.
Before Obama FATCA and before FBAR, there was Caesar Augustus and the ROMAN Empire–with its capitol far away.
“Now it happened in those days, that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment made when Quirinius was governor. All went to enroll themselves….”
And so it was….an ancient FATCA. The capital of the government was far away….however each of the lands was governed by some puppet of Rome. The subjects had no benefit of census or taxation—-they were only subject to both.
From those times of oppression, was there a great birth which is celebrated today. For this, there are no parallels. Let us celebrate this day for what it is and separate the glory of this day from the tyranny of the kingdom.
The empire is not on our side. The pharisees of the media and congressional halls continually whip up propaganda against us. The empire digs us a hole and requires a “scoring” to be allowed to get us out of the hole.
The empire is led by men. If and when the earthly, human leaders of empire realizes their moral, constitutional, and godly responsibility to their population, the expats will rise from the tyranny.
We celebrate today. Tomorrow, we must remember our mortal code: God only helps those that help themselves. We must rise up and resist the government tyrannies of FATCA, the tyranny of discriminatory extra-territorial, person-based taxation, the tyrannies of GILTI and transition tax, and the tyranny of FBAR all emanating from the Empire.
Merry Christmas to all !
Congressman Holding has introduced the “Fair Taxation for Americans Abroad Act” in the United States House of Representatives.
“In 2019, Republicans Overseas will focus on getting the Tax Fairness for Americans Abroad Act passed….The TFFAAA will amend the Internal Revenue Code by offering overseas Americans a status similar to that enjoyed by corporations where foreign-sourced income is taxed in the country where it is earned. ” says Solomon Yue, of Republicans Overseas, who spearheaded this effort.
The direct link to the video (found in Embee’s comment) is HERE:
Here is John Richardson’s description of the Bill:
December 18, 2018 at 12:18 am (Edit)
@BB: “We need to get people coming back to Brock.”
First step: how lovely it would be if someone actually moderated the forums and simply culled the repetitive and incessant chatter on some of the (formerly) useful threads. Many of the most essential threads have turned into a free-for-all which veer way off topic, raking over the same-old-same-old coals that have been raked over in every one of the other popular threads. It’s become so that I don’t even come to IBS much anymore. I check for new top-level posts and anything new on the “Current Media and Articles” thread and skip the rest of the bla-bla-bla because I’ve read it all so many times before.
Sorry to be so negative. When I first joined IBS a couple years ago, it was a clean, mean source of wisdom. I wonder how I’d feel if I joined now, with so much of the useful discussion buried under so much steamy hot air. I wish there were a separate thread called “The IBS Pub” where all the windy conversations can cheerfully continue, while those who simply need clarity about renunciation, etc., don’t have to comb through page after page of blather to find the few nuggets.
I still very strongly support the principles here, and the actions of the brave souls who put their time, money and lives on the line for the rest of us, and therefore I am happy to offer financial support.
Reposted from the Renounce US Citizenship blog
This post was written in December 2014. It is being reposted in 2018 – the question is why
FATCA and the CRS (“Common Reporting Standard”) are mandatory information sharing schemes. They first define people in terms of their “tax residency” (each country defines who its tax residents are) and then shares people’s private information based on that “tax residency”. In other words (assuming you believe that there is a legitimate interest in privacy) both FATCA and the CRS should be viewed as “privacy overrides”.
Although the notion of privacy is dead in the United States (companies like Facebook and Google make a living off obtaining and using private information), the European GDPR suggests that privacy is valued by Europeans and that individuals should have some control over their data. In Europe the GDPR reflects a presumption that individual belongs to the individual. There is no such presumption in the United States. See:
31-year-old Austrian lawyer Max Schrems was the catalyst for new privacy protection regulations in Europe. He says your data belongs to you and you should have control over it. pic.twitter.com/OTV0reXDOg
— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) November 12, 2018
Automatic exchange of tax information and data privacy
Update – November 16, 2018 – Here is the November 15, 2018 interview with Monte Silver:
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) November 17, 2018
A message from one Canadian resident …
@ACAVoice @DemsAbroad @SolomonYue Join Monte Silver and others in stopping the @USTransitionTax & #GILTI from ruining our businesses! Stop the theft of our futures! US small business for tax fairness https://t.co/5FjtSKLyno
— suzanne herman (@suzanneherman1) November 13, 2018
More info after the jump …
This post is largely motivated by two recent Facebook discussions.
A recent discussion in the American Expatriates group explored the question of whether a U.S. citizen who was a “tax resident” of another country could use a “tax treaty tie breaker” to avoid U.S. taxation. The discussion began with:
Good Morning, does anyone know something about Tax treaty tiebreakers, Would that be a possible solution for Americans Abroad, Dual Citizens, Accidental Americans ?
Tax treaty tiebreakers are rules that are used to assign a person’s tax residency to one country when an individual is a tax resident of both countries. In the context of U.S. tax treaties, treaty tie breaker rules are used when an individual is both:
1. A U.S. person for tax purposes (U.S. citizen or U.S. resident); and
2. A tax resident of another country.
It is very common to use tax treaties to assign tax residency to a country when an individual is a tax resident of more than one country
1. Does this mean that without the “savings clause” that that U.S. citizens living permanently in Canada would no longer be (in a practical sense) subject to “citizenship-based taxation”?
2. If the answer is that: the “savings clause” (by not allowing a “tax treaty tiebreaker”) is responsible for “citizenship-based taxation” in Canada – then is Canada by agreeing to the “savings clause” responsible for imposing U.S. “citizenship-based taxation” in Canada?
A second discussion raised the question of whether Canadian residents could sue the Government of Canada for entering into a treaty which would subject them to U.S. worldwide taxation. (Although the ADCS FATCA lawsuit argues that the amendments to Canada’s Income Tax Act violate the Charter, one wonders whether one could argue that the IGA itself violates the Charter.)
cross posted from Citizenship Solutions
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) October 2, 2018
The logical progression continues …
I just got off the phone with someone who has just received a letter from the IRS stating that:
1. He had a “seriously delinquent” tax debt; and
2. That notice of the “seriously delinquent” tax debt was being forwarded to the State Department.
(In 2016 I did a presentation on this topic just a few months after the law came into force. You may view the presentation here.)
It is clear that the letters from the IRS have started to go out. The purpose of this post is to explain in simple terms what this means for Americans abroad.
To put it simply:
1. If you have received the notice and you do NOT have a current U.S. passport then:
The State Department cannot issue you a passport.
2. If you have received the notice and you DO have a current U.S. passport then:
The State Department may revoke your passport but is not required to revoke your passport. Continue reading