Category Archives: Issues regarding US persons abroad

“In this Essay, Professor Patrick Weil reexamines the constitutional function of the passport in relation to American citizenship. The State Department recently developed a policy of passport revocation whereby some Americans are transformed into de facto stateless persons….

……”

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/citizenship-passports-and-the-legal-identity-of-americans

The article approaches the issue of revoking passports for any reason. Revoking passports of unsuspecting U.S. citizens overseas was enacted in the 2015 FAST Act. If a person owes $50,000 in taxes, a passport may be revoked. In the propoganda that was released with the passing of the bill, it was said that this bill was written to catch people in America who had not paid their taxes and who may want to flee the country. However, the bill has lots of text relating to the revocation of the passport for all purposes except for the expat to return to the Homeland. This bill was written to enforce the FATCA dragnet.

The paper:

Conclusion

“The State Department seems to be abusing its power with passport revocation—unknowingly in the case of Snowden, as the Department could at first glance rely on a jurisprudence that seemed until recently to favor executive power, and willfully in the case of the Yemeni Americans. It therefore seems that it is time for courts confronted with passport revocations to reexamine the constitutional function of the passport and its status in relation to American citizens who, since Afroyim, have gained more protection over their citizenship in relation to the state—including in relation to the Secretary of State. Today it is commonplace to say that new technologies infringe upon civil liberties—they often do. However, in the case of passports and the essential right of Americans to maintain a legal identity, new technologies offer an avenue to protect that very right. By affirming both that a passport belongs among the privileges and immunities of an American abroad and that the Secretary of State cannot revoke a passport as a matter of administrative routine, courts could make the passport an almost inalienable auxiliary of the American citizen abroad: the symbol and substance of an irreducible citizenship which the Supreme Court has already proclaimed.”

March 4, 2016, Troy Lewis – “AICPA Pushes to Ease Tax Burden on U.S.-Canada Accounts”

The American Institute of CPAs is asking the Treasury Department to provide tax relief to the cross-border savings accounts of U.S. and Canadian citizens.

In a letter that the AICPA sent Friday to the U.S. Treasury Department, the Institute asked the Treasury to adopt three specific recommendations that would provide tax relief to citizens of the United States and Canada who have various cross-border deferred and tax-exempt savings accounts which are often subjected to double taxation and unexpected current inclusion in income.

In addition, the AICPA urged the Treasury Department to work with the Canadian Department of Finance to provide similar relief as appropriate.  Requests comparable to the AICPA’s are being submitted by the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada (CPA Canada) to the Canadian Department of Finance and by The American Chamber of Commerce in Canada (AmCham Canada) to both the U.S. Treasury and Canadian Department of Finance.

In the March 4, letter, AICPA Tax Executive Committee chair Troy K. Lewis explained that both the U.S. and Canada have tax provisions that allow individuals to establish tax-deferred and/or tax-exempt savings accounts. Article XVIII of the United States-Canada Income Tax Convention and associated protocols provides bilateral deferral of tax or inclusion in income for various qualified or registered pension or retirement plans, he wrote, but does not provide any relief from double taxation or current inclusion in income for other plans and accounts such as education plans, disability savings plans and, under certain circumstances, Roth IRAs.

…

Lewis identified individuals who are impacted as Americans living in Canada, Canadians living in the U.S., Americans living in the U.S. who contributed to Canadian plans while living in Canada and Canadians living in Canada who contributed to a U.S. plan while living in the U.S.

“Frequently, a cross-border move will result in adverse tax consequences such as unanticipated inclusion in income of amounts saved in a tax-deferred or tax-exempt account which may require the cross border individual to liquidate the accounts to avoid the adverse tax consequences,” said Lewis. “Often, the forced liquidation itself can result in unanticipated taxable income.  Furthermore, the U.S. imposes complex reporting requirements, such as those regarding foreign trusts and Passive Foreign Investment Companies (PFIC), for individuals participating in Canadian plans. These tax implications can adversely impact the individuals and their families, the social objectives of the countries and cross-border mobility.”

In the letter, Lewis wrote that the AICPA recommends that Treasury implement the following measures in order to reduce the tax and reporting burdens associated with various cross-border deferred and tax-exempt savings accounts:

1. Provide U.S. citizens and residents tax-deferred or tax-exempt treatment, comparable to that offered by Canada to its citizens and residents, for their contributions, income and withdrawals from properly established Canadian Registered Education Savings Plans (RESP), Canadian Registered Disability Savings Plans (RDSP) and Canadian Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSA).

2. Exempt properly established Canadian RESP, RDSP and TFSA from classification as grantor trusts.  Additionally, exempt U.S. citizens and residents from various onerous statutory filing requirements for foreign trusts and PFICs which can currently exist for these plans.

3. Work with their Canadian counterparts at Finance Canada to provide similar relief from taxation and burdensome reporting requirements for Canadian citizens and residents who hold and contribute to properly established 529 Plans, qualified ABLE (Achieving a Better Life Experience) accounts and Roth IRAs in the United States.

Crossposted from the RenounceUSCitizenship blog:

Interesting that @USTreasury acknowledges it can relax #FBAR for #Americansabroad but chooses FULL ENFORCEMENT https://t.co/3UfFUPZcLH

— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) March 7, 2016

The above tweet links to a posting on a Facebook group that reads:

US DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT CAN STOP FOREIGN BANK ACCOUNT REPORTING (FBAR) BY AMERICANS OVERSEAS BUT CHOOSES NOT TO!

The US Federal Register which reproduces Treasury’s deliberations, where it (1) acknowledges that it has the authority to exempt Americans abroad from the FBAR filing requirement and (2) makes a considered, conscious and purposeful decision to NOT exempt Americans abroad from the FBAR filing requirement. https://www.gpo.gov/fds…/pkg/FR-2011-02-24/pdf/2011-4048.pdf.

You should read from the beginning (if you can stand it), but if you go page 4 you will find the statement which is evidence of the clear, unambiguous, purposeful and wilful decision to NOT exempt Americans abroad from the FBAR filing requirement. The bottom line is on page 4 of the pdf (page 10237 of the Federal Register) which clearly states in the first full paragraph in the second column that:”

With respect to the comments raised by United States persons living abroad, FinCEN does not believe that an exemption is appropriate simply because a United States person chooses to live outside of the United States.”

The excerpt from the Federal Register is here:

FBAR 2011-4048

As you know, the primary effect of the FBAR requirement is to impose regulatory burdens, terror and penalties on Americans abroad AND to make them less employable.

In any event, Treasury states:

With respect to the comments raised by United States persons living abroad, FinCEN does not believe that an exemption is appropriate simply because a United States person chooses to live outside of the United States.

Could you please:

Comment on specifically why you believe (if you do) that Americans abroad should NOT have to disclose their “foreign bank accounts” to the IRS.

… And Democrats in Congress unanimously gave him that power. Republicans and Democrats in Congress had originally given that power to the Nobel Prize winner, but now that power moves to either President Trump or President Clinton. Indeed, it’s even possible that Secretary of State Chelsea Clinton may receive that power if nominated by her wedding guest President Trump.

In the FAST Act passed in December of 2015, Congress and President Obama empowered the President and his Secretary of State to rescind your passport, by decision power granted solely to the President’s IRS. “If the Secretary receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that an individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport pursuant to section 32101 of the FAST Act.”

Only a few years after discovering the president’s IRS had applied faulty criteria to the tax status of their boss’s opponents, the Republican-controlled Congress granted the Democratic-controlled IRS the authority to judge your tax status. If the judgement is negative, the President’s State department will take away your passport. President Obama gladly accepted the mandate with his signature upon the bill.

The money that will be raised from the threat of revoking passports was used in the Fixing Surface Transaction Act (FAST) to finance a make-work transportation bill.

Never mind that the President and Congress had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Revoking a passport is a penal action — a legal punishment. The Constitution has various provisions that are supposed to ensure a trial by judge and jury. But the FAST Act removes the judgement process from the court and delivers it to the IRS, with enforcement by the State Dept. How could that be Constitutional? Oh well, now the judgement will be up to President Trump or President Clinton. Let’s hope they like you.

How can someone have a tax assessment? I don’t know–ask the IRS. It’s all up to them–it’s not a court proceeding. And you aren’t assumed innocent, either. It’s quite possible that President Trump or President Clinton will make an “error” or might  “use inappropriate criteria”  upon your tax filing.

Wouldn’t you be notified? Well, move someplace without any forwarding addresses. You won’t get the notices.

But you can appeal? Sure. You can FILE SUIT against the government to stop them from rescinding your passport. That is, if you have lots of money.  Oh yeah–a little detail–if you sue, you are the PLAINTIFF and you have to prove the guilt of the DEFENDANT (The U.S. Government is assumed innocent until the citizen proves the government guilty).

There are 8.7 million US expats that have been complaining about this fascist legislation — to no avail. Homelanders have been happy enough with a law to punish people that live outside USA — with dependence upon their passports.

Now it’s time for Homelanders to find out how unconstitutional laws affect them.

Maybe it’s a good idea for homelanders to stay quiet about their opposition to President Trump or President Clinton. When you lose, your political affiliations might be noticed and someone you don’t like will be able to prevent you from leaving your country.

On February 28, 2011, I stood up with dozens of other people and made an oath of fealty to the Queen of Canada. At that moment I ceased being a US citizen because I made my oath with the intention of relinquishing US citizenship. As of yesterday, it has been five years. Rejoice with me. It is a cause of celebration.

It was in February, 2010, that I made the decision to seek Canadian citizenship. I had been eligible to apply for it for years, but it was upon learning about the exit tax on those who renounce US citizenship that I felt compelled. If the USA was going to tax me for exiting with more than 2 million in assets, I’d better quit now before I get that wealthy. I needed the protection of the Canadian government that citizenship could provide–and I did not want to become stateless because of renouncing US citizenship. While I am happy to have become a Canadian citizen, the Canadian government has disappointed through refusal to protect so many citizens whose clinging attachment to the USA remains an impediment to their true happiness. Hence, the fight continues, even if for me it is mostly solved. So my joy in February 28 as special day is really and truly in my having on that date cast away the attachment to the USA. I consider my CLN a Certificate of Manumission. But as can be seen by the timeline, I have to wait until 2018 before I will be free from FBAR.

Timeline

• September, 1986-Moved to Canada to study theology at graduate level
• May, 1989-Married a Canadian
• August, 1991-Moved to Cambridge to do PhD
• December, 1994-Returned to Canada (spouse works while I finish PhD)
• September, 1996-Become a landed immigrant in Canada
• February 25, 2010-Sent application for Canadian Citizenship
• February 28, 2011-Swore an oath to Queen Elisabeth II and relinquished US citizenship
• April 7, 2011-Visited the US Consulate in Toronto to inform them of my relinquishment
• December 10, 2011-Launched the Isaac Brock Society website with five other concerned Canadians
• April 16, 2012-CLN arrived in the mail
• June 15, 2012-Filed 8854 (invoking 5th Amendment)  and 2011 taxes (using TaxAct) to complete filing obligations
• July 29, 2013-An urgent return to Alaska from exile to search for Wally Dunn
• June 15, 2015-Statute of limitation on 1040 (normal audit not counting fraud)
• June 30, 2018-Satute of limitation on FBAR filing requirements

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même merde

Continue reading →

Solving US Citizenship Problems PARIS FRA Sat Mar 5, 11:00-13:00 Comptoir Voltaire / 253, boulevard Voltaire 75011 https://t.co/MBnyBSABM7

— ADSCanadienne (@ADSCanadienne) February 29, 2016

 
PARIS FRA
 

WHEN: Saturday MARCH 5, 2016 11:00 – 13:00 CET

WHERE: Comptoir Voltaire / 253, boulevard Voltaire 75011 Paris / Metro & RER: Nation MAP

ADMISSION: €15 Payable in cash on the door please (to cover costs).
 
 

WHO: John Richardson, B.A., LL.B., J.D. (Of the bars of Ontario, New York and Massachusetts), Toronto citizenship lawyer- citizenshipsolutions.ca and Co-chair of the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty and the Alliance for the Defeat of Citizenship Taxation

Information presented is NOT intended or offered as legal or accounting advice specific to your situation.

cross posted from ADCSovereignty blog

Introducing Jackie Bugnion …

Jackie Bugnion explains the problems of citizenship taxation for #Americansabroad https://t.co/XHBJ2kDbml

— John Richardson – Counsellor for US persons abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) September 13, 2015

Jackie Bugnion has published a superb article describing the problems of U.S. citizenship taxation and why the United States must move to residence based taxation. Before, describing her article, for those who don’t know …

On May 7, 2015 I received notification that Jackie Bugnion had submitted her resignation to the Board of ACA “American Citizens Abroad“. I read the notification with a combination of sadness and total appreciation for the incredible efforts that Jackie has made in advocating for the rights of Americans Abroad. Jackie was largely responsible for organizing the “Citizenship Taxation Conference” (featuring the debate between Michael Kirsch and Bernard Schneider) that took place in Toronto on May 2, 2014. Some of you may have had the privilege of meeting her there. It’s unlikely that she could be replaced by any one individual.

In my humble opinion Jackie has done more than any single individual in both:

1. Helping Americans Abroad in day-to-day practical ways; and
2. Leading the broader educational initiative which I believe will lead to the United States transitioning from CBT to RBT.

Jackie’s notification of her retirement included the comment that:

While the task is far from over, I am pleased to know that ACA has managed to get RBT on the table of tax reform.  As you know the Senate Finance Committee has taken a positive stand on this.  The number of public submissions on tax reform to the Senate Finance Committee in April 2015 showed significant input from Americans abroad.  There were 350 submissions to the “international” group compared to 450 for the “personal” group.  When related to the interested populations – 7 million vs 250 million, this demonstrates a major input from overseas. Congress is sensitive to this level of participation.

Continue reading →