President-elect Donald J. Trump.

President Trump

The NYT title says it all:

Donald Trump Is Elected President in Stunning Repudiation of the Establishment

Donald John Trump was elected the 45th president of the United States on Tuesday in a stunning culmination of an explosive, populist and polarizing campaign that took relentless aim at the institutions and long-held ideals of American democracy.

The surprise outcome, defying late polls that showed Hillary Clinton with a modest but persistent edge, threatened convulsions throughout the country and the world, where skeptics had watched with alarm as Mr. Trump’s unvarnished overtures to disillusioned voters took hold.

I watched basically all day as I did other things. It seemed to start slowly enough but once it was clear he had won Ohio, it seemed to me, that the entire dynamic changed. You could hear the puzzlement of anchors as they spoke, realizing everything they expected to see, was not happening. It wasn’t disappointment or disapproval but more an absorption, a wonderment, as to how this could be happening. Questioning how the pollsters and pundits could have gotten it so wrong. Some had no problem allowing that to have a positive edge; you could see them mentally re-arranging their thoughts. John King was the first I heard say, long before it was a given, that things were not going well for Hillary. He seemed to have a feel for it, to see the pattern present itself and then play out, state by state. It was fascinating to watch him go through each one, accurately assessing which pockets had yet to be counted, which ones would go to Hillary but as things progressed, would still not be enough.

A long long wait to get the final counts for Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania (which earlier in the evening, had seemed clearly in the Democrat’s pocket). Trump had 244 electoral votes with 9 states to go. It was pretty obvious how it was going to work out in the end.

An ugly argument took place between Van Jones and Corey Lewandoski once John Podesta announced that there would be no announcement from Clinton’s end until all the votes were counted. In a very undignified and ungracious way, Lewandoski pounced on the fact that Trump had been roundly criticized for saying he might not accept the results of the election. He did not listen when it was suggested that if Trump were in Hillary’s shoes, he likely would have waited too, until every vote had been counted. I believe in that exchange also came the statement that Hillary would be investigated for all of her alleged issues.

That aside, the DOW fell 1000 points the last time I checked. The USD was worth $0.75 CDN. Just like that. The Senate remains Republican; thank God Chuck Schumer, will not be the Senate Majority leader. (What a nice taste of revenge for expats.) Let’s hope we see some of what was in the Republican platform, though I expect it may take some time to get to it. At least we can envision tax reform. This time, we will be speaking to a more receptive group.

So, the American people have chosen to strike down the establishment. It is not difficult to understand. In spite of some of Mr. Trump’s less-than-dignified ideas/statements about Muslims, women, Mexicans, et al, the American people said “Enough” to the useless bureaucracy of Washington. I don’t blame them.

FINALLY, IT’s OVER!

I want to give you a status update on the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty (ADCS-ADSC) “FATCA IGA” lawsuit against Canada’s Justin Trudeau Government.

Our lawsuit argues that the Canadian legislation that enables the U.S.-Canada FATCA “agreement”, made under threat of financial penalty imposed by the U.S., violates Canada’s Charter of Rights and our Constitution.

The Case Management Judge who is handling the logistics of the lawsuit has asked for a status update from Plaintiffs Ginny, Gwen, and Kazia. Our Vancouver litigators responded on their behalf on November 4, 2016 and said:

“We can advise that counsel for the Attorney General has advised counsel for the Plaintiffs that the Attorney General will be filing a motion for production of documents and particulars within the next two weeks.

The Plaintiffs intend to file a summary trial motion and supporting materials by December 2016. The Attorney General takes the position that a summary trial cannot proceed, even with respect to setting dates for service of materials in response, until the Attorney General’s motions have been resolved, any resulting orders satisfied, and examinations for discovery of the Plaintiffs have been completed.”

This means that our litigators expect to provide the Court with the submission for the Constitutional-Charter FATCA IGA trial (including expert testimonies and witness affidavits) by December 2016.

However, there is ongoing back and forth between Government and our side regarding timing of the production of “documents” (I can’t go into the details). These disagreements will have to be sorted out by the Court and could result in a delay in the trial, which will be held in Federal Court next year.

I know that litigation moves slowly, will keep you posted on developments, and thank you for your patience.

The Claims can be found HERE.

Continue reading →

US 2 Pursue Enforcement in Spite of Foreign Laws-"OUR interest..substantially outweighs.. https://t.co/NcOtApc8SQ Who r they 2 decide?

— Patricia Moon (@nobledreamer16) November 5, 2016

Philadelphia Tax Conference Wednesday, November 2, 2016:

“We will pursue enforcement of a Bank of Nova Scotia summons when a domestic entity has dominion or control over records located outside the United States, even where the domestic entity asserts that production may be a violation of foreign law, if our interest in combatting tax evasion substantially outweighs the interest in foreign jurisdictions in allowing banks to preserve the privacy of their customers.“

 
Bank of Nova Scotia summons

V. CONCLUSION

Absent direction from the Legislative and Executive branches of our federal government, we are not willing to emasculate the grand jury process whenever a foreign nation attempts to block our criminal justice process. It is unfortunate the Bank of Nova Scotia suffers from differing legal commands of separate sovereigns, but as we stated in Field:
In a world where commercial transactions are international in scope, conflicts are inevitable. Courts and legislatures should take every reasonable precaution to avoid placing individuals in the situation [the Bank] finds [it]self. Yet, this court simply cannot acquiesce in the proposition that United States criminal investigations must be thwarted whenever there is conflict with the interest of other states.
In re Grand Jury Proceedings. United States v. Field, 535 F.2d at 410.

For the reasons stated above, the judgment entered by the district court is

AFFIRMED.

*****

I am not at all suggesting that minnows would have any need to be overly fearful. Given our government’s recent “throwing us under the bus”, I have little faith they will do anything to fight this if it becomes larger in scope.

If a bank acted outside of the tidy IGA arrangement and was involved in the exchange of private taxpayer information to the IRS (a PIPEDA violation-even if against US Persons), wouldn’t the bank open itself up to being sued?

I think it is totally possible Harden, Van deMark etc, may not be of much help given the overall shift regarding extraterritorial tax…..

********

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Caroline D. Ciraolo Delivers Keynote Address at the American Bar Association’s 27th Annual Philadelphia Tax Conference
Philadelphia, PA United States ~ Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Remarks as prepared for delivery

Excerpts concerning “offshore” efforts:

In addition, since 2008, the department, working with our colleagues in IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI), charged more than 160 U.S. accountholders with tax evasion and willful failure to report foreign accounts and more than 50 individuals who assisted in this criminal conduct. We also reached resolutions with nine foreign financial institutions outside of the Swiss Bank Program and continue to pursue investigations of entities located within and outside Switzerland.

Our criminal offshore enforcement efforts have encouraged participation in the IRS offshore voluntary disclosure programs, through which more than 55,000 taxpayers have come into compliance and paid nearly $10 billion in tax, interest and penalties since 2009. In addition, filing of Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBARs) has increased from 332,000 reports for calendar year 2007, to over a million reports for 2015.

Our civil trial attorneys also furthered our offshore tax enforcement efforts, seeking the issuance of John Doe summonses to identify U.S. taxpayers whose identities are unknown and who are engaged in violations of the internal revenue laws and initiating summons enforcement proceedings to assist the IRS in conducting its examinations and determining the accurate tax due. The information we seek is often located in the United States; however, as we recently demonstrated in a district court in Miami, we will pursue enforcement of a Bank of Nova Scotia summons when a domestic entity has dominion or control over records located outside the United States, even where the domestic entity asserts that production may be a violation of foreign law, if our interest in combatting tax evasion substantially outweighs the interest in foreign jurisdictions in allowing banks to preserve the privacy of their customers.

Our civil trial attorneys also are actively engaged in suits involving penalties assessed for failing to file FBARs. These suits include affirmative litigation to collect unpaid penalties, and defensive litigation raising a variety of issues. We have approximately three dozen cases involving FBAR issues pending, the vast majority of which include a willfulness penalty for at least one of the years at issue. These suits have raised issues related to the computation of the penalty, burden of proof, service of process abroad, definition of a foreign account, corresponding assessments on spouses, venue, jurisdiction, and challenges under the Administrative Procedures Act.

UPDATE
Continue reading →

The Isaac Brock Society is a direct response to the Obama administration’s criminalization of innocent expat behaviour. Helen Burggraf has written a great article in International Investment, telling our story.

We’ll be getting together for lunch Saturday, 12 November, at 2:00 pm at Montana’s BBQ Restaurant, 1750 Ogilvie Road, Ottawa.   Plenty of free parking on site, also accessible by city bus.

We’re currently expecting 10 people — hope you can come, too!   Please rsvp by posting a comment here or e-mail me at pacifica at isaacbrocksociety dot ca

[Many readers living outside the U.S. who are not IRS compliant, have sought advice from tax attorneys on whether they should or should not enter into a lifetime of IRS compliance, and what would be the “cost”. Maybe your tax attorney living in Canada etc. is also an Enrolled Agent of the U.S. IRS, possibly affecting the nature of the interaction between attorney and you the client. What were the options suggested and especially disclosures made to you by your attorney? Attorneys must adhere to the professional and ethical standards of their law societies. See discussion below:]

In a recent post I mentioned the situation of a “Caroline” who seeks advice from a Canadian tax attorney (let’s say in B.C.) regarding a question of (IRS) tax compliance with a country foreign to Canada.

How should the Canadian tax attorney advise this frightened Canadian citizen– specifically, regarding the disclosure of relevant options she (or any Canadian) should consider before entering, or not entering, into tax compliance with United States Internal Revenue Service?

What information should (must) the attorney disclose to the Canadian to comply with professional standards and ethical obligations of an attorney?

USCitizenAbroad suggests that the Canadian tax attorney needs to disclose two relevant facts:

Continue reading →