Some of you know that the Israeli Supreme Court recently issued a temporary injunction preventing implementation of the U.S. FATCA law in Israel. See for example Forbes article.

On September 12, 2016 the Israeli Supreme Court, however, quashed the injunction.

Marc Zell, a counsel to the two petitioners (Republicans Overseas and Rina Schreiber) confirmed to me today (September 14) that they have no intention of giving up the FATCA litigation fight in Israel — which will continue. He also reminded me that the lawsuit is in fact still pending as the Israeli Supreme Court has not issued an opinion.

Two surprising statements made by the Justices deserve mention:

1) “Privacy in modern life is very limited,” said Justice Menahem Mazuz, one of three judges who ruled on the matter. “This is nothing new, the only change is that the regulations have now been codified into law.” [“The court ruled that the Israeli law, passed as part of an arrangement with the United States Treasury Department, did not violate Israel’s Basic Laws of Human Dignity and Liberty.”]

[Compare the above statement on privacy with a similar argument made by U.S. Treasury Department et al. against the plaintiffs of the U.S. FATCA lawsuit: “…there is no legitimate expectation of privacy concerning information kept in bank records, and the Sixth Circuit has repeatedly reaffirmed as much…”]

2) Justice Hanan Meltzer in part justified the law by noting its acceptance by the United States, saying this created a presumption of constitutionality.

“As long as the US law is in force, there is a presumption of constitutionality in regards to its purposes.” Above from: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/217717

Continue reading →

The platforms listed side by side ties expats with either fairshare/terrorism/corruption/criminality/evasion/cracking down whilst the other focuses upon constitutional rights and the ability for overseas Americans to lead normal lives. Consider the expat-relevant platforms in regards to the Congressional and Presidential choices.

(No relevant information found yet from the Libertarian or Green party)

The platform gives direct information as to what the two parties think of us.

Update!!! September 1, 2016

Read the article referenced in the following tweet:

Outraged by Apple's tax dodge then https://t.co/PEjnAz6TIL

— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) September 2, 2016

You will find comments from Schumer, Levin, and Paul Ryan.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

From the EU:

Irish tax rulings to Apple are illegal state aid. Effective taxation as low as 0,005 pct. #Apple has to repay up to €13 billion unpaid tax.

— Margrethe Vestager (@vestager) August 30, 2016

From the Jack Lew:

Jack Lew believes that the EU Apple tax decision means that EU is taxing income that ought to be taxed in the USA https://t.co/jmGkhhRYVQ

— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) September 1, 2016

On the hypocrisy:

https://twitter.com/SophieintVeld/status/770897743569117185

Oh my God! #YouCantMakeThisUP!

Have a look at the above video.

In the world according to Lew:

The idea that Apple’s European profits, should be taxed by Europeans, is to reach into the U.S. tax base!!! Only the United States should be able to impose taxation on U.S. companies.

Is this guy really this mentally challenged, or is he just “Paid the big bucks” by Obama (who is his intellectual “equivalent” (to pull a word out of the FATCA IGAs) to spew this hypocritical BS?

Has it not occurred to this member of the “Homelander Elite Corp”, that the whole purpose of the U.S. tax system is to dip into the legitimate tax base of other nations, and transfer the revenue and capital of other nations to the U.S. Treasury?

What does he think the effect of: PFICS, CFC rules, Subpart F, foreign trusts, the taxation of capital gains on Canadian homes, the taxation of RDSPs, etc. is?

Does he not understand that CBT enforced by FATCA is a declaration of war on other nations?

If you watch this interview, you are left with the impression that he actually believes what he is saying.

Leaving aside the issues in Europe, does this “person with blinders” not understand that the behavior of Apple and other companies is a direct result of the U.S. tax system, which features the highest corporate tax rates in the world? The policies that are forcing DNA citizens to renounce have parallels that are causing Corporate citizens to renounce/invert.

Does he not understand the the U.S. tax system directly discriminates against U.S. companies in favor of the companies of other nations?

And he goes on again about the “retroactive nature” of the EU decision:

This coming from the guy who wants to impose retroactive PFIC taxation on the mutual fund investments of Americans abroad.

This coming from the guy who heads the agency that will NOT commit to the view that the U.S. “Exit Tax” rules should not be imposed on Americans who relinquished U.S. citizenship prior to 2004.

These people are deserving of nothing but contempt, ridicule and scorn.

The sooner they are put out to pasture the better it is for the world.

Well, at least the EU tried to instill some reason in him …

Very good meeting with Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew on the European economy and transatlantic cooperation. pic.twitter.com/XiQBa6STAg

— Margrethe Vestager (@vestager) July 13, 2016

E.U. Commissioner on Apple Ruling https://t.co/oCec8um5zD via @nytvideo

— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) August 30, 2016

Today the E.U. ruled that the “tax deal'” that Apple negotiated with the Government of Ireland violated the E.U. prohibition on “State Aid”. Understand that this decision was NOT about taxation. It was about the Government of Ireland giving a benefit to one company (zero tax) which they wouldn’t give to other companies. It just so happened that the benefit given was a generous tax deal.

Anxious to characterize the E.U. decision has a “tax related decision” (probably because the United States perspective is that EVERYTHING is about taxation), the Obama Treasury commissioned a “White Paper” which was released on August 24. (You can read it below.) The “White Paper” is evidence of a standard of hypocrisy which should be an embarrassment for even the administration of Barack Obama. One of the objections (among many) was that (assuming that this is about taxation, which it actually is not) the E.U. was engaging in “retroactive” tax enforcement.

White-Paper-State-Aid

See the following from page 15 of the Obama Treasury White Paper:

III. The Commission Should Not Seek Retroactive Recoveries Under Its New Approach

Where State aid involves impermissible subsidies provided through the tax system, the Commission requires the Member State to recover the amount of tax that, in the Commission’s view, should have been imposed in the first place. These amounts can be significant, since the Commission can require recovery for up to ten prior years, with interest for the period the illegal aid is granted until the aid is recovered.

In Fiat and Starbucks, the Commission has ordered the Member States to recover the allegedly unpaid tax with respect to prior tax years.

Because the Commission’s approach in the State Aid Cases is new and was not foreseeable by the relevant companies, recovery of past allegedly unpaid tax would constitute retroactive enforcement of a newly adopted approach to State aid.

With no indication of the Commission’s new approach, U.S. companies have been receiving transfer pricing rulings from EU Member States for decades and had no reason to doubt their legality. Under these circumstances, recovery of past allegedly unpaid tax would be inconsistent with EU legal principles and the Commission should void retroactive enforcement.

As I read the complaint of the Obama Treasury, I thought that …

III. The U.S. Treasury Should Not Seek Retroactive PFIC Penalties Under Its New Tax Treatment of Americans abroad

Where the investment in mutual funds involves impermissible tax deferral provided through the retirement planning system, the U.S. Treasury requires the American living abroad to pay the “interest charge” imposed on investing in a non-U.S. mutual – the amount of tax/interest that, in the Treasury’s view, should have been imposed in the first place. These amounts can be significant, since the United States Treasury can require recovery for many years dating back to 1986, with interest for the period that the illegal mutual fund was owned until the interest is recovered.

In Streamlined and OVDP, the IRS has ordered the taxpayer abroad to pay the allegedly unpaid interest charges with respect to prior tax years.

Because the U.S. Treasury’s approach in the treatment of Canadian (and other non-U.S. mutual funds is new and was not foreseeable by the taxpayers abroad, recovery of past allegedly unpaid tax and interest charges would constitute retroactive enforcement of a newly adopted approach to IRS treatment of Canadian mutual funds.

With no indication of the IRS’s new approach, U.S. citizens living abroad have been investing in non-U.S. mutual funds purchased from non-U.S. mutual fund companies for decades and had no reason to doubt their legality. Under these circumstances, recovery of past allegedly unpaid tax, interest and penalties would be inconsistent with fair tax principles and the U.S. Treasury should avoid retroactive enforcement.

There’s hypocrisy, extreme hypocrisy and the Obama administration!

Karen is organising a group to take anti-FATCA/CBT action in Australia and has launched the website Let’s Fix the Australia US Tax Treaty!

The mission of Let’s Fix the Australia/US Tax Treaty! is to press for amendments to the Australia/US Tax Treaty and the FATCA IGA to eliminate discrimination against a subclass of Australian citizens that is also disadvantageous to all Australians. We plan to gather the voices of those impacted, including Australian-only family members, and highlight the obligation of the Australian Government to defend its sovereignty and protect Australians against US extraterritorial law.

The purpose of Let’s Fix the Australia/US Tax Treaty! is twofold:

First, to encourage affected Australians to write to their elected representatives to lobby for change on the Australian side of this equation. Australia has signed two agreements with the US that allow this to continue: the Double Tax Agreement (Tax Treaty) and the FATCA IGA. The Tax Treaty was last amended in 2001 and does not provide for US recognition of the tax-advantaged status of superannuation. There are other portions of the treaty that guarantee the double taxation of dual citizens resident in Australia. Our Australian government must put pressure on the US to come to the table an re-negotiate the Tax Treaty.

Second, to serve as an educational resource for both the affected dual citizens trying to understand how the Tax Treaty affects them AND to help educate our elected representatives on the problems caused by Australia’s capitulation to one-sided US demands.

The Australians have been very active and this is a great new development.

Regarding this new website, JC commented on another thread:

In Australia we are out to make some “noise.” On the Day Roy Berg presents to the Tax Institute of Australia seminar on superannuation, on US taxation and Australian Superannuation, a new website aimed at the injustices has been launched:

Best wishes for making lots of “noise” and effecting much needed change!

Let’s Fix the Australia US Tax Treaty!

"I complied with human rights-violating U.S. renunciation rules — and this leaves a bitter taste." https://t.co/H5qRkzhxxq

— John Richardson – Counsellor for US persons abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) August 24, 2016

Click on the link in the above tweet to see the complete discussion.

The bottom line is that Dr. Stephen Kish – Chair of the Alliance For The Defence of Canadian Sovereignty and plaintiff in the Bopp FATCA Lawsuit, has formally renounced U.S. citizenship. He performed this act in Iceland which is the final resting place of Robert James Fischer – one of the most famous and well known cases of U.S. citizenship relinquishment.

Bubblebustin says:

Thank you Calgary411 for posting this for me.
 

As some of you already know, I heard back from Canada’s Revenue Minister, the Honourable Diane Lebouthillier, as to whether my Canadian banking information had been sent to the CRA in last year’s FATCA IGA information reporting.

As it turned out, three information slips were reported from two different investment firms where I had signed a W-9 at some point. None of my other bank accounts where I had not signed a W-9 were reported although one of my bank’s managers knew I was a USP. She retired before it came time to report that account. It’s good to know that the CRA isn’t being extra helpful to the IRS by providing information slips on bank accounts that it is aware of through Canadian tax reporting – yet.

The letter contains a contact number for the Director with the Canadian Competent Authority Services Division others may find useful in trying to get straight answers when having to deal with FATCA.

-Bubblebustin

CRA letter

Thanks very much, Bubblebustin,  for sharing with other Canadian Brockers your CRA Letter (linked above)!

There’s a lot of hurry-up-and-wait in litigation. The legal team does work (a lot!) during the less visible periods of a case, but there’s not much news at such times. We’re in one of those periods now.  So, thanks very much, Ginny, for this comment that you made last night (and thanks to Canoe for suggesting we make a separate post of it):

“Hello friends and supporters.   I am just popping in again, while you carry on with your discussions about whomever will end up POTUS at the end of the day or whatever topics get your blood pressure pumped, to remind you that:

The Three Amigo Plaintiffs and the diligent ADCS committee members are still working every day in the background on (y)our litigation. We have never lost our focus nor have our great lawyers.

For those of you who are still keeping the faith with us, thank you. Because during these months leading up to the upcoming US election, we are concentrating on what needs to be done at our end to get it done here in Canada!

We appreciate how patient you have been waiting for updates while we press on preparing on your behalf. Don’t ever think we have forgotten you because you are our motivation and raison d’être.

Now back to your regular channel.

As always, best to you all.”
Ginny

We have to remember that United States law code only applies to little people like you and me, but not to big important people like Hillary Clinton:

This is an illustration of Petros Principle 12: The criminals are in DC.