Category Archives: Issues regarding US persons abroad

Prologue:

https://twitter.com/proctor_jason/status/1263555886922022918

__________________________________________________________________________

Introduction:

In March of 2020 I began a series of posts on extradition. In the first I noted that “As The World Becomes Smaller, Extradition Becomes Bigger“. That post discussed the growing prevalence of extradition and noted the recent cases of Julian Assange (UK), Meng Wanzhou (Canada), Ruhollah Nejad (France) and Michael Lynch (UK). In each of these cases the United States is seeking the extradition of individuals to the United States. The case of Anne Sacoolas is an example of Britain seeking the extradition of a U.S. citizen from the United States to Britain. That post also included the assertion that:

The United States is using extradition treaties with other countries, to require those other countries to arrest and extradite individuals for crimes which did NOT occur in those countries or in the United States. To put it another way, the United States apparently sees extradition treaties as way to facilitate it’s role as the world’s “Lone Ranger” – scouring the world for people it doesn’t like – with every treaty parter playing the role of “Tonto”. (Apparently, “Jay Silverheels, who played The Lone Ranger’s sidekick Tonto in the TV series and movies, was born to a Mohawk chief on the Six Nations Reservation in Brantford, Ontario …”. This would make Canada a natural “Tonto” in the use of extradition treaties to police the world.)

When the U.S. France extradition treaty was sent to the U.S. Senate for approval, President Clinton noted that:

The United States recognizes the extraterritorial application of many of its criminal statutes and frequently makes requests for fugitives whose criminal activity occurred in foreign countries with the intent, actual or implied, of affecting the United States.

In Part 2 of my extradition series, I described the Canadian extradition tools and process.

Continue reading →

The idea that a Canadian MP could be subject to #FBAR and other IRS penalties is ridiculous: "Andrew Scheer will not follow through with plans to renounce U.S. citizenship" /via @globeandmail https://t.co/BZ3tO3kIFC

— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) May 18, 2020

The Globe and Mail was the first to break the story about Andrew Scheer’s dual Canada US citizenship. Mr. Scheer’s US citizenship generated a number of comments on Brock.

The above tweet references the follow-up article in today’s Globe and Mail. I believe it’s unlikely that Mr. Scheer ever started the process to relinquish US citizenship. But, who really knows?

A couple of thoughts:

1. The comments on the Globe article are accelerating. Interestingly not a single comment so far has addressed the issue of US citizens being subject to IRS jurisdiction. Is it tolerable for a Canadian MP (including a Party Leader) to be a “US citizen”? The problem is that dual citizenship in general is not the same as dual citizenship when one of the citizenships is US. The difference is that US citizens are (as we all know) members of the World’s Premier “Tax, Form and Penalty Club”. Should Canadians tolerate a situation where their Prime Minister (or any MP) is subject to IRS jurisdiction?

2. Is it possible that Mr. Scheer implied/recognized that US citizenship is different from other citizenships. An August 13, 2005 blog post from Mr.Scheer included:

Quick Questions

I have a few quick questions for anyone who thinks that Michaelle Jean is a good choice to be our next GG.

1) What are her qualifications? What experience does she have that would assist her to carry out her duties as our head of state, including the potential to be a referee in a minority government situation?

2) Does it bother you that she is a dual citizen (France and Canada)? Would it bother you if instead of French citizenship, she held U.S. citizenship?

3) It is being reported that her husband is quite chummy with some FLQers belonging to the same group that killed Pierre Laporte. If her husband was quite friendly with Al-Queda terrorists, would that be alright?

Is Mr. Scheer recognizing that not all citizenships are the same? For the purposes of being a Party Leader (and potential Prime Minister), is Mr. Scheer implying that there might be a difference between American citizenship and French citizenship?

He may or not be implying that there is a difference.

The reality is that no country, except the United States, should tolerate a head of state who holds US citizenship.

France does not threaten its citizens abroad with penalties.

The CBC Confirms that: "Dual Cdn-U.S. citizens qualify for Trump's stimulus" https://t.co/NmoDJAxaN4

— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) May 9, 2020

Well, as confirmation of how confusing this all is, the article reports that:

Continue reading →

Do FATCA And The CRS Conflict With Europe’s GDPR Regulation? – A Europe Centric Basis For Attacking The Automatic Information Exchange Mechanisms Of The 21st Century

Legal attacks on the FATCA IGAs have attracted the attention of individuals and law firms in both Canada and the United States. The FATCA Canada lawsuit began in 2014. Jenny’s FATCA UK attack was organized in 2019. Jenny’s UK based challenge rests largely on the the claim individuals in Europe (courtesy of the GDPR), have rights to their personal information and that automatic information exchange violates those rights. (Europe takes privacy rights more seriously than America. Still, it has been difficult for Jenny to raise money for her lawsuit.) The ADCS FATCA Canada lawsuit is based on different legal principles. Regrettably, Canada does not have a GDPR. As a result the ADCS plaintiffs must argue that the FATCA IGA violates the general provisions of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On the other hand, the UK does not have a written and entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, Jenny’s lawsuit is contemplated to proceed on the basis of a breach of the GDPR. (The GDPR is new legislation and it’s impact is a live and evolving story.)

Additionally, it’s worth noting that the two lawsuits are based on philosophically different assumptions:

– the FATCA Canada lawsuit seeks to strike down the IGA and enabling provisions of Canada’s Income Tax Act in their entirety; and

– the proposed FATCA UK lawsuit does not assume that automatic bank information sharing provisions are bad per se, but that FATCA and CRS are excessive and go beyond what is necessary (proportionate) to achieve their goals.

This does NOT mean that the Canadian and UK attacks on FATCA are not relevant to each other. For example, a conclusion that the FATCA IGA violates Europe’s GDPR, would support an argument that the FATCA IGA violates various provisions of Canada’s Charter of Rights. Similarly a ruling in Canada that the IGA conflicts with Canada’s Charter of Rights would provide support for the “lack or proportionality” that is required by the GDPR.

Both the Canadian FATCA lawsuit and the UK FATCA lawsuit should be supported by all people (a diminishing number) who believe that individuals should and do have rights. A recent post at Brock described the “Pincer Attack” on Americans abroad, led by Chip Harter on behalf of US Treasury and former Prime Minister Of Italy – Paolo Gentiloni – on behalf of the EU. The “Gentiloni Doctrine” officially introduced the world to the principle that:

1. The United States can claim any European as a US citizen; and

2. Once claimed to be a US citizen, that individual is subject to US worldwide taxation.

The “Gentolini Doctrine” suggests strong European support for FATCA and the FATCA IGAs.

The purpose of this post is two-fold. First, (A) to discuss the claim that FATCA and the CRS conflict with Europe’s GDPR. Second (B), to consider the extent to which Europe has been complicit in FATCA and for how long.

Part A – FATCA And The CRS Meet Europes’s GDPR

Continue reading →

No question about it, the US Government hates the #FBAR Marriage: "Trump, other U.S. govt officials sued over CARES Act payments being denied to Americans whose spouses lack SS#s" https://t.co/31q5ENAQ43

— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) April 29, 2020

Continuing to chronicle the life and times of the FBAR Marriage. In my last post I noted that Homelanders were about to learn why Americans abroad have known for years. Specifically that, the United States doesn’t like it when a US citizen marries an alien. Admittedly, a marriage between a US citizen and a resident alien is far less offensive than a marriage between a US citizen and a nonresident alien (the latter providing significant opportunities for tax evasion). There is no mistake. Congress continues to take steps to punish those who marry noncitizens. The latest attack has been the denial of CARES Act benefits to those who file jointly with an alien spouse who has no Social Security Number.

Americans abroad may be happy to accept this unfairness. But, apparently certain Homelanders are not. As reported by Helen Burggraf at American Expat Finance, the Trump administration is on the receiving end of lawsuits.

Two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. on Friday against President Trump and other key U.S. government officials over the denial to certain American taxpayers of their right to receive CARES Act “Economic Impact Payments” because they are married to non-American citizens who, though taxpayers, don’t have Social Security numbers

A third lawsuit, being brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund on behalf of six American citizens who say they were denied the payments for the same reason, was filed on Tuesday, April 28, against the federal government in a Maryland court, according to an Associated Press report.

One of the Friday lawsuits was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (in Chicago, pictured above) by Blaise & Nitschke, P.C., which is alleging that these American taxpayers’ civil rights are being violated, and which is demanding that the U.S. government “declare their rightful entitlements under the CARES Act, and afford them the equal protection of our country’s laws”, according to a summary of the lawsuit posted on the firm’s website.

Accompanying Blaise & Nitschke in bringing the suit, on behalf of “plaintiff John Doe, individually and on behalf of the proposed class”, is Khalaf & Abuzir, LLC, which specializes in immigration law. The named defendants are Trump (“in his official capacity as president of the United States”); CARES Act sponsor and Republican Senator Mitch McConnell; and U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

Read the article and enjoy.

Introducing the FBAR Marriage – A Marriage Between A US Citizen And A Non-citizen

If you're not "US" then you are not part of us: Americans abroad have lived with the consequences of the #FBAR Marriage for years. Now Homelanders are learning the consequences of marriage to an alien. https://t.co/TMlzn7UCRh

— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) April 23, 2020

In the early years of Brock I wrote a number of posts about the problems and difficulties caused by the “FBAR Marriage“. In it’s most basic terms, the “FBAR Marriage” is a marriage between a US citizen and an alien (non-citizen).

A January 3, 2014 comment at Brock included:

It doesn’t matter if you are in or out of the country where the USG is concerned when it comes to “foreigners” as spouses. My Canadian husband was routinely harassed by US Border guards when we were dating and it wasn’t until he told them that I was emigrating north as opposed to him coming south that it stopped. The USG simply hates extra-territorial dating/mating. The higher tax rate is a way to punish us though for not coercing our spouses into filing jointly so they too can be USP’s for taxable purposes. They see our marriages as tax evasion and while I would rule out entirely that someone somewhere at sometime may have married a non-USC for that purpose, I seriously doubt that the percentage of “mixed” marriages have tax issues to thank for their existences.

The Two Kinds Of FBAR Marriages – Determined by the immigration status of the alien (noncitizen) spouse

Some thoughts on each …

Type 1 – A US Citizen is married to a “resident alien”: A “resident alien” (AKA Green Card holder) will have a US Social Security Number and will be taxable on Worldwide income. It is probably more common for Homelanders to be married to resident aliens. The Type 1 FBAR Marriage is less offensive to the US Government. After all, the presumption is that “resident aliens” actually live in the United States, are subject to worldwide taxation and reporting and will become US citizens.

Type 2 – A US Citizen is married to a “nonresident” alien: A “nonresident” alien does not have a Green Card. (If a nonresident alien lives in the United States without a Green Card or other kind of visa that nonresident alien is an “illegal” (and subject to a whole new set of tax penalties)). It is probably more common for Americans abroad to be married to nonresident aliens. The Type 2 FBAR Marriage is extremely offensive to the US Government.

Marriage can be difficult – For both Americans Abroad and Homelanders, the “FBAR Marriage” is particularly difficult

Continue reading →

Introduction – What about the rights of individuals in International Law?

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognized the rights of INDIVIDUALS in relation to citizenship and other other key areas https://t.co/PXmvljUWT3 pic.twitter.com/Po2mE2ntTa

— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) April 22, 2020

I have recently written two posts here and here discussing how countries interact and respect the sovereignty of other countries. Specifically those posts have discussed how countries respect each others sovereignty in the areas or citizenship and taxation. Neither of these posts considered the rights of individuals (do they matter at all?). This omission was reflected in (at least) the following two comments:

Where in this subject comes the human rights issue, the freedom to choose one’s citizenship? Has the EU Court of Human Rights ever issued a statement on this question?

Okay, then, what about all those defectors from the USSR and other East Bloc countries? How come their obligations to Moscow, etc. weren’t respected? Did these countries not possess sovereignty? Does being a refugee or asylum seeker trump the obligations of citizenship in the state from which one has fled?

The purpose of this post is to outline (in a very basic way) the development of international agreements (perhaps not treaties) and protocols, where nations agreed that individuals should have rights (sounds radical doesn’t it). Note that the focus in this post will be on agreements among countries that recognize individual rights associated with citizenship (and other kinds of rights).

Continue reading →

Introduction

Justice McKenna and his 1924 Decision in Cook v. Tait https://t.co/YBxv2lBSuQ pic.twitter.com/Or23G29jgS

— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) April 21, 2020

This is the second post discussing aspects of Sovereignty and International Law. The first post identified the right of a country to determine who its citizens are, as one aspect of the sovereignty of a country. This principle has been been assumed by EC Gentiloni as his justification for allowing the United States to claim European citizens (living in Europe) as U.S. citizens. But, Mr. Gentiloni also assumes that the sovereign right of the United States to define European citizens as U.S. citizens, includes the U.S. right of taxation over those “captured” citizens.

In other words (under the Gentiloni Doctrine), U.S. Sovereignty includes:

1. The right to define anybody in the world as a citizen of the United States

2. The right to impose worldwide taxation on United States citizens without regard to where they live in the world.

How cool is that!!!!!!!

Well, if the USA can do this, then Canada can too!

A recent post at Brock discussed Canadian MP Chandra Ayra’s proposal that Canada follow the United States and impose worldwide taxation on Canada’s expat community. He references the 1924 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Cook v. Tait, which upheld the right of the United States to impose taxation on one of its citizens living in Mexico. What is of interest is how Mr. Ayra describes Cook v. Tait:

The United States is the only developed country that taxes its citizens on their global income irrespective of where they live or how long they have lived outside of the US. The constitutional validity of CBT has not been tested in Canada, but the 1924 US Supreme Court decision in the case of Cook v. Tait offers cogent reasoning about CBT that shows its validity under the US constitution. The decision relied on the inherent benefits received by US citizens and their property from the US government, regardless of where the citizens made their home or where their property was located.

Mr. Ayra appears to describe Cook v. Tait as a decision based on the U.S. Constitution. This is probably NOT correct. Cook v. Tait should be described as a decision which recognizes and reinforces the sovereign right of a country to determine its own tax policies. (Cook v. Tait has been the subject of many posts on Brock.)

Continue reading →

According to MP @ChandraNepean, following the teaching of Michael Kirsch, It's time for Canada to adopt @citizenshiptax (CBT) presumably based on a US model. He writes: "Canada needs to start taxing Canadians who live abroad". He doesn't understand CBT! https://t.co/VGmPLIhEmU

— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) April 20, 2020

Yes. It’s true. While Americans abroad (the world over) contemplate how to get their $1200 Corona Virus related payment from the U.S. Government, Nepean MP Chandra Arya has publicly made the case for citizenship-based taxation in Canada. His article reflects an admiration for the “1924 US Supreme Court decision in the case of Cook v. Tait“. His proposal is bolstered by his reliance on the thinking of Notre Dame Law Professor Michael Kirsch. Generally Professor Kirsch’s arguments for CBT are based on the assumption that there is really no such as an Accidental American and that all Americans are members of the polity (as he calls it). (You may be able to take a Homelander out of America, but you can’t the Homeland out of an American.) These arguments were on full display in May of 2014, when ACA hosted a “Citizenship-Based Taxation Debate” between Professor Kirsch and Queen Mary Law Professor Bernard Schneider.

Continue reading →

Win Win for U.S./Many of the NINE million Expats who may start voting would forgo the relief checks (spent overseas)/They want Residency Based Tax as per Rep. Platform (Promise kept)/Most do not pay tax BUT pay expensive fees to file/Save $$ on checks/Google it

— Anthony Scaramucci (@Scaramucci) April 17, 2020

To see the replies click on the part at the bottom that includes “are talking about this”.