This is fascinating. I would be interested in your views on these two taxpayers.
Alaska EA says IRS stealing from taxpayers
I came across this MUST read article. Note that this is written by a very experienced EA (“IRS Enrolled Agent“). He notes that it is hard to communicate with the IRS from Alaska. It is much harder for U.S. citizens abroad to communicate with the IRS. This is definitely worth a careful read. You will understand the IRS better.
Alaska EA: It's not ineptness or incompetence, The IRS is stealing from you http://t.co/h7Wy7lGJ – #ameriansabroad lack access to IRS too
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) January 14, 2013
Those who are NOT twitter literate can read the article here.
January 12, 2013
Saturday AM
By 1989 the Internal Revenue Service had closed virtually all of its field offices in Alaska, concentrating everything in Anchorage with an adjunct in Fairbanks. Travel budgets for IRS employees were virtually eliminated, too, so by the early 1990s almost all audits in the state of Alaska were done by telephone and fax machine. It was a system that worked because there was some IRS employee in Anchorage available via phone to us folks in the bush who would deal with our problem. Then in 2007 we got a new IRS commissioner and considerable transition in the Anchorage office, more or less simultaneously. One Sue Matters took over in Anchorage what used to be called “Problems Resolution,” put up a sign saying “Walk-ins welcome,” and turned off the telephone. So Anchorage is serviced, and the rest of us have been dumped into a large black hole.
Golombek: Quit Kissing up to Obama
Courtesy of the Animal
Havoc Wreaked By FATCA Spreads – Anyone in the Homeland U.S. Media Paying Attention?
Thought we needed another catchy headline that would be automatically tweeted LOL
This from Center of Freedom and Prosperity by Andrew Quinlan
As the rest of the world is forced to deal with imperialist US tax policy, Americans and the US economy are continuing to suffer the consequences. We’ve already written about how FATCA is causing Americans being dropped from banks in Switzerland, Taiwanese banks reducing their American holdings, and even how some are fighting back. Now we’ve received reports that Thai banks are limiting services to US persons, which the news has confirmed:
Who Decides Who is a U.S. Citizen?
I just finished reading (and writing up a post for the Flophouse to be published tomorrow) about Patrick Weil’s new book, The Sovereign Citizen: Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic.
In a nutshell this book traces the evolution of American citizenship from a conditional citizenship to an unconditional one. Unconditional in what sense? As a result of a series of Supreme Court decision it is impossible today for a birthright American citizen to be forcibly denationalized (have his or her American citizenship stripped away) though it is still possible for a naturalized one to be denaturalized in very rare circumstances.
What is fascinating about Weil’s analysis is that he says that the major change in the American conception of citizenship was to change the “Who Decides.” According to Weil the Supreme Court decided that it was NOT the the U.S. government, the U.S. Congress nor the American people who get to decide – it’s the Constitution. It says so right there in the Fourteenth Amendment and that has been interpreted by U.S. courts to mean that American birthright citizenship is unconditional. Doesn’t matter if you leave the country 5 days after you were born or take on another citizenship or commit terrible acts while abroad. An American citizen’s “right to have rights” is derived from and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
So when a U.S. border agent stops someone at the border and proclaims, “You are an American citizen until we tell you otherwise,” that person is full of it. It’s not up to him or any agent of the U.S. government to say such a thing. It’s not even up to the American public unless they decide to go forth and alter the Constitution, a lengthy and complex process.
That was a revelation for me. Doesn’t address all the unintended consequences of the Fourteenth Amendment. Surely doesn’t help all those “Accidental Americans’ out there either. But if I understand Weil’s analysis correctly, it is not within the power of the U.S. government to simply declare that certain people are no longer U.S. citizens. I found that fascinating.
So here we are in a globalized era with a government which cannot denationalize citizens under any circumstances but can and does make their lives very difficult when they live outside of the United States. Citizens abroad can be killed without due process. And as we know they can also be double-taxed. I imagine as well that there are a whole host of others things the U.S. government could do if it was sufficiently motivated.
It has been suggested that the recent enforcement of citizenship-based taxation is not a roundabout attempt to get U.S. citizens to voluntarily give up their citizenship. A lot of Americans I’ve talked to in the homeland (Left and Right) seem to think that things like living in another country long-term, voting in a foreign election or marrying a foreign national should get your citizenship pulled. They can’t do that but what if we could be encouraged to go away of our own accord? I doubt it is the main reason behind citizenship-based taxation/FBARs/FATCA but perhaps America thinks that renunciations/relinquishments are a happy by-product of these things?
What do you folks think?
Diane Francis Defends US Citizenship Taxation
She also attacks Gerard Depardieu. I was trying post a comment asking whether she still pays taxes to the US and it was too bad her hubby didn’t have to go to Vietnam(he was a draft dodger). I find Francis rather hypocritical as she had no problem in the 1960s and 1970s with her own husband trying to avoid compulsary military service but bitterly complains about Global “Citizens” trying to avoid their national “obligations”.
Jamie Golombek of the Financial Post continues to carry Obama’s water
Obamacare could cost some Canadians a lot of money
My comment:
I recommend that people visit our website, the Isaac Brock Society where we the issue of US citizenship-based taxation from a much more sober and realistic point of view. Golombek, who works for CIBC, is not a good source of information on the issues of FATCA and US citizenship-based taxation. The practice of the United States of taxing “citizens” who are living in Canada is discriminatory and violation of the charter rights of all Canadian residents–and the banks, including the CIBC, plan to throw American “citizens” under the bus by instituting FATCA which they know already violates the charter and privacy rights of those they will expose to the IRS.
Golombek is clearly incorrect on the following point in his article: “This means that high-income Canadians may have to start writing a cheque to Uncle Sam for the first time in 2013.” According to the Canadian government, Canadian citizens never have to pay taxes to the United States on Canadian source income no matter how much they make, because the CRA will never collect for the IRS on a Canadian citizen, provided that they are a citizen at the time the tax liability was allegedly incurred. Golombek seems to me to be carrying water for the IRS, and he should really work much harder to get a Canadian perspective on this issue.
Also I should mention that Golombek’s sources are KPMG and Moody’s, folks that make a lot of money off your misery by charging you thousands of dollars to get your US tax affairs in order. They are very “interested” in your business.
At some point the Financial Post has to get some credibility on this issue. Using sources such as banks (Golombek), accounting firms (KPMG) and cross-border law firms (Moody’s), all of whom have millions of dollars at stake, is not the best way to gain credibility on what is essentially a human rights issue.
Article on FATCA in Les Echos
Yesterday, the French newspaper, Les Echos (business/finance/economics), published an article about FATCA. The headline gives you a strong clue as to how they feel about it:
Banque : les Etats-Unis imposent leur loi à l’Europe
(Banking: The United-States imposes its law on Europe)
The tone is harsh and and the language is strong. Here are a few translations:
“Adopté aux Etats-Unis en 2010 après l’affaire UBS, le Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (Fatca) traque littéralement tous les citoyens américains à travers le monde et exerce des moyens de pression si considérables sur les institutions financières.”
(Adopted in the United States in 2010 after the UBS affair, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (Fatca) literally hunts down all the American citizens in the world and uses strong methods to pressure financial institutions…)
“Les banques de tous les pays se mettent en ordre de marche… forcée.”
(The banks in all countries are being set on a forced march.)
“La loi part du principe que tout citoyen américain ou entreprise du pays basé à l’étranger est un fraudeur fiscal potentiel.”
(The law starts with the principal that every American citizen or company based abroad is a potential tax evader.)
“Les banques devront grosso modo adapter leurs systèmes d’information et de reporting dans tous les pays où elles sont présentes afin de détecter leurs clients américains et toutes les opérations faites avec les Etats-Unis.”
(Banks must essentially adapt their information and reporting systems in every country where they are present in order to detect their American clients and all transactions with the United States.)
“En France, le chiffre de 500 millions d’euros de coûts supplémentaires a couru l’an dernier sans être confirmé officiellement.”
(In France the figure of 500 million euros in extra costs [to be compliant] was put out last year without being officially confirmed.)
They go on to quote the French bank La Société Générale which says it has no choice but to comply. They also mention German banks refusing service to their American clients. The agreement (the IGA) is mentioned and they say it is based on reciprocity and will be signed soon. I looked but could find nothing that says where France and the U.S. are in negotiations.
The article starts with a bang and ends with a whimper. My .02.
Cook v. Tait 7: Equality: Law prohibits both rich and poor from sleeping on park bench
This post appeared on the RenounceUScitizenship blog.
Should #americansabroad be taxed according to the same rules as homelanders? http://t.co/q93tsGRq
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) January 11, 2013
Cook v. Tait 6: Taxation of Green Card holders who reside outside the U.S.
US taxation of #greencard holders who reside outside the US http://t.co/EKwPBqo8 is nothing more than taxing residents of other countries.
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) January 6, 2013
Giving up Your US Green Card – Make Sure It is Done Correctly or Pay the Price! | Let's Talk About: US Tax http://t.co/JS63iKvD
— V. La Torre Jeker JD (@VLJeker) January 9, 2013
This is a post from the RenounceUScitizenship blog that appeared about a week ago. It’s worth remembering that the U.S. claims the right to tax “U.S. persons”. The series of Cook v. Tait posts (1 to 5) strongly suggests that there is no justification whatsoever for citizenship-based taxation. But, remember that the U.S. is also claiming the right to tax “Green Card Holders” who no longer reside in the U.S. If the justification for taxing U.S. citizens abroad is weak, then the justification for taxing “Green Card Holders Abroad” is non-existent. To put it simply the taxation of Green Card Holders who:
1. Don’t reside in the U.S.; and
2. Do reside in other countries
is stealing from the Treasury of other nations. It’s high time that the world wakes up to what the U.S. is really doing! This doesn’t even consider the impact of FBAR, FATCA and any other F words!