Bubblebustin posted the link to this RT video, mentioning Brandon Raub’s Canadian connexion (watch video). I have placed a picture which you have to click to go to the link to watch it. The lawyer for Brandon Raub, John Whitehead, makes the unusual claim that 20,000+ people disappear in manner of Brandon Raub from the state of Virginia every year, mainly veterans, in this same manner as Brandon Raub:
ZKB cancels the mortgages of Swiss citizens who live in the USA
By Bruno Schletti. Aktualisiert um 31.08.2012 08:38
Until recently, every customer had the right to have a Swiss bank account. Yet, the USA taught banks to fear this.
TagesAnzeiger
I can translate this later today if an interest exists, but don’t have time right now.
The following was reported yesterday in BankNewsCredit
Asian regulators express concern regarding overseas application of Dodd-Frank rules
Published on August 30, 2012 by Pat Dulnier
Asian regulators have requested that U.S. regulatory authorities review proposed derivatives rules to ensure that the new requirements do not conflict with those rules established by sovereign nations…
…“The impact from any resulting (likely significant) increase in compliance costs and the potential reduction in liquidity of [over-the-counter] derivatives markets should not be underestimated,” the groups said in the letter, according to Reuters.
The definition of a “U.S. person” by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which applies to any person or entity that will have an effect on American commerce, has elicited criticism and caused some unease in foreign markets that have trading relationships with the U.S.
Read more: BankNewsCredit
You have a computer with Microsoft Windows on it? You then are a US Person and banks may close your checking account or refuse to refinance your mortgage, since the act of purchasing Windows has an effect on American commerce. Maybe this sounds extreme, but America is not known for acting logically these days.
Not quite sure of the accuracy of this report, since it comes second-hand in what appears to be a letter to the editor, but this woman seems to be saying that a Swiss man she knows — an “accidental American” — went into the OVDI and then had his U.S. passport confiscated for some reason. From The Record–Searchlight of Redding, California:
We have Swiss friends, a couple, who lived in the United States in 1966 and 1967. He was a young engineer working here to get some experience in his field. While here, they had a baby boy who then of course was a U.S. citizen … He was recently informed that he now must start paying taxes and filing tax returns to the United States. Not knowing the U.S. tax code, he asked for help from the U.S. Embassy and was told that he needs to hire a lawyer for help. I imagine it has to be an American lawyer or one who understands the tax laws here. There will be cost to this service he has to pay. I assume the Internal Revenue Service wants to know about his “secret Swiss bank accounts”? Also, he has to produce bank information for the last six years. His U.S. passport was taken away.
I am thinking that people should be weary of “dropping babies on the U.S. soil” if they do not plan on staying here permanently.
Not sure what this means — perhaps he renounced, or perhaps someone in the bureaucracy nabbed his passport ultra vires. But whether or not she’s got some of the details about her friend’s son’s story muddled, her closing warning is a sound one. Good to see that at least one Homelander gets it. Sadly, many people in the comments section clearly don’t want to listen.
(Update: the editor apologizes for incorrectly posting a rough draft of this post; here is the corrected draft. Petros)
Guest post by Anthony E. Parent, Esq., Tax Attorney, founder of IRSmedic.com
Years ago, when I was a Finance major, during our studies we were subtly encouraged to worship the Federal Reserve. Then in law school, were we subtly encouraged to worship the genius behind Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the seminal case that establish judicial review for constitution propriety. And later, as a tax law student, we were encouraged to be in awe of the vast public policy considerations placed over the ever expanding 16th Amendment, the essential prerequisite to the the US Federal income tax.
But then time goes on. The theories and idealism of school fades away as the real world intrudes more and more each day into one’s affairs in private law practice. Things get to a point and idealism so vanquished, one will properly tell clients the uncomfortable truth: “the last place to expect justice is in a court of law.”
This might be old news, but thought I would share my concerns and recent information to fellow Canadian/US citizens.
My position as a Canadian/US citizen is that these Financial Institutions in Canada will have to start putting pen to paper on this US legislation less than 5 months away, and not a single bite of information has been forthcoming from my Bank verbally or otherwise other than the generic drips of information one can readily find on the internet.
if I am to consider signing away my privacy rights then I should be afforded the opportunity to consult a Lawyer to look over the legislation to ascertain what exact information i am allowing the IRS to digest from my accounts.
My fear is that the banks, having at least 2 years to think about this and devise a plan of attack, will one day send me paperwork which has to be completed in a timely manner or else I will be labelled as a recalitraint account holder.
After many calls and emails regarding any updates regarding what my Financial Institution was going to do about FATCA and how it will effect me. I finally received a response via telephone.
Basically in a nutshell, FATCA is coming and there is no way to stop it. Although the US Government does recognize the problems some countries will have (Canada in particular) with privacy rights etc, this will not be a show stopper.
The individual in question eluded to two possible solutions to the bank privacy laws, one was a possiblility of entering into a same country exception which would allow your information to be tabulated by the Canadian government, (i think thats how it works), and the other is to manipulate language for those of us who are also US persons and re-classify us under a new title called Unique Citizenship Status (her words not mine). Although she would not entertain much discussion on this matter, she did say that if you could provide a certificate of lost nationality prior to or during the implementation of FATCA, you would be relieved of this extra reporting criteria….(essentially giving you back your rights and freedoms!)
Finally, and the only question she could definitely not answer, is if FATCA is a forward looking legislation, or if it will be available to do past audits on certain account holders without there knowledge. In other words, once you sign away your privacy, could this new legislation be used by the IRS to start fingering through your past bank records to try and uncover, or discover something you may have forgotten to place on your FBAR etc?
In closing, I will tell you that the above information was derived from a phone call from someone high up in my personal Financial Institution….not sure if I can say the name of the institution but it starts with an ‘R’.
Also, not even sure if this individual is privy to all of the ‘goings on’ of FATCA or the direction there institution will take…..i will tell you that they refused to send me an email regarding my questions, so my assumptions were that they did not want this conversation to come back and haunt them from a liability perspective.
I am just sick and tired of going into my bank branch and getting the RCA Victor look from financial advisors when I ask about FATCA,
The following comment from ConfederateH is noteworthy:
I agree, it is far worse than just bumbling; there is a coordinated assault against US persons with any remaining wealth. Check out this new one from Mark Steyn.
I flew in to Montreal from an overseas trip the other day and was met by a lady from my office, who had kindly greed to drive me back home to New Hampshire. At the airport she seemed a little rattled, and it emerged that on her journey from the Granite State she had encountered a “security check” on the Vermont–Quebec border. U.S. officials had decided to impose temporary exit controls on I-91 and had backed up northbound traffic so that agents could ascertain from each driver whether he or she was carrying “monetary instruments” in excess of $10,000. My assistant was quizzed by an agent dressed in the full Robocop and carrying an automatic weapon, while another with a sniffer dog examined the vehicle.
Defenders of the executive branch claim that U.S. Persons abroad should direct their anger at Congress, and not the IRS, for the current holy crusade against people who dare to live and save outside of the United States. But over at Tax, Society & Culture, tax prof Adam Rosenzweig makes an interesting argument which points to the hole in that logic:
Conventional wisdom seems to hold that Congress must act for there to be any reform of the taxation of “carried interest” (the type of fees earned by investment fund managers such as Mitt Romney) But if the goal is to tax carried interest at the same rate as, say, salary earned by auto workers, Congress need not act at all. Rather, the Treasury Department could accomplish this on its own today.
This somewhat surprising conclusion comes from the fact that the Code already authorizes the Treasury Department to prevent taxpayers from using partnerships to convert certain types of income that would have been taxed at the ordinary 35% rate into income taxed at the preferential 15% tax rate. For somewhat technical reasons, carried interest requires a partnership to be used for tax purposes. Thus, Treasury could simply issue a regulation disallowing the 15% rate for carried interest. Voila! Carried interest fixed.
So what other ridiculous aspects of the U.S. tax system might Treasury be able to fix through its power to issue regulations? Perhaps something related to U.S. Persons abroad?
Continue reading
Apparently, Canada’s President of the Treasury Board, Tony Clement is sharing some advice with President Obama on how to run a government. But then the Canadian government doesn’t ‘have the checks and balances purposely enumerated in the U.S. Constitution to inhibit’ it.
