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.

Kinds of Trolls

Typical trolls:  These are people who troll for the fun of it. Perhaps they get their  jollies out of contradicting others on social media. Perhaps they enjoy arguments with people they disagree with. Perhaps their personal ideology compels them to find people to contradict, like a vegan in a meat-eaters group (yes, I’ve seen this).

Spammers:  Spammers are robots or people that leave messages in social media. They post click bait to spread malware or to bring traffic to a website or a product that they are trying to promote. Most often spammers never engage in the discussion, though their comments are designed to look like they are actually interacting with your content: “Hey great post! Thanks for the help.” Or, “Sorry you don’t know how to write. I could give you some pointers to make your website better.” Our spam filter discards hundreds of these messages everyday, but a few manage to get through

Condors:  One type of troll is a real person who is dropping by to let people know that he’s got a book for sale or he’s available for business. At Isaac Brock we get compliance condors who are essentially fishing for business. We have had cases where readers here at Isaac Brock have engaged the services of such an expert, only to inform us later that they felt ill-served. So generally, we have mixed feelings about people from the compliance industry: in some cases, they may share arcane knowledge that might be useful for the purposes of this blog. On the other hand, we cannot vouch for their services, and we recognize in some cases these people are able to get what amounts to free advertising at Brock. We have never received a penny from a condor in the form of payment, commission or kickback. The same was not true at the Expat Forum, where compliance condors had to pay to play. At the Expat Forum, however, the condors began to control the agenda, and the forum moderators removed several threads with thousands of comments. Isaac Brock, by contrast, has never received any funding from advertisers, and we only rarely censor comments, and we almost never remove posts.

Astroturfers: The main distinction between the typical troll and the astroturfer is the lack of transparency.  Astroturfers troll with a hidden agenda. So for example, a pharmaceutical company may pay an astroturfer to visit social media to defend their products. At Isaac Brock Society we have had cases of astroturfers–one confirmed case, but only because the condor who posted with a second identity lacked the sophistication to use a second IP address for his alter ego. The alter ego of this compliance condor came on to reprimand Petros for his hostility against the condor in an attempt to generate sympathy for himself. Those were in the early days of the Isaac Brock Society. From that day forward, we have been suspicious about astroturfing and have tried to learn more about the phenomenon.

Modus Operandi of trolls especially astroturfers

The astroturfer doesn’t have to use anything approaching a real argument and it is perhaps counter-productive to engage the main points of the original post. It suffices to sow discord and doubt. Sometimes, an astroturfer can take a  know-it-all approach while always resting on conventional opinion, attempting to discredit the author through accusations of extremism, lack of knowledge or expertise, or mental instability (such as accusing the author of anger). Because the astroturfer sometimes relies on conventional wisdom, an air of paternalism will replace actual rational debate.

Astroturfers also use multiple identities because one of their main goals is to make it look like their views arise from the grass roots. Hence the name astroturf–it is a fake grass roots movement. Indeed, Adam Bienkov writes:

As reported by the Guardian, some big companies now use sophisticated “persona management software” to create armies of virtual astroturfers, complete with fake IP addresses, non-political interests and online histories. Authentic-looking profiles are generated automatically and developed for months or years before being brought into use for a political or corporate campaign. As the software improves, these astroturf armies will become increasingly difficult to spot, and the future of open debate online could become increasingly perilous.

Who might be astroturfing at Isaac Brock?

Since we do not require that people provide a real name or even a real e-mail address, it is absurdly easy for an astroturfer to assume an alias, create a persona, and begin to post comments. We allow this because it permits people who are intimidated by the IRS to feel the courage to comment. But it isn’t paranoid to believe that astroturfers are also coming to Isaac Brock to sow discord and doubt. We are a true grass roots movement which is challenging the triumvirate of  government, finance, and compliance industries. In my own posts in particular, especially by setting down Petros Principles, I have questioned the legitimacy of the triumvirate. Hence, it is in their financial interests to monitor and even astroturf at Isaac Brock Society. We are talking about industries with very deep pockets.

Conclusion

We must always be on our guard. Astroturfers do not reveal their conflicts of interest.  Since astroturfers may go to elaborate lengths to create fake identities, we must be suspicious of those who challenge the core of our approach–especially when it is a first time poster (though there may even be some who have been with us for a long time). We should be sophisticated when using social media and never allow astroturfers to sway our opinions.

In my view the burden of proof is on the person who has the alias. I am suspicious of anyone who comes onto this blog for the first time just to contradict me. Therefore, if someone talks like a condor, the burden of proof is on them to prove that they are not one–at least for me. Obviously others have shown that they think that they can trust anyone who comes onto Isaac Brock  to contradict Petros–and that Petros shouldn’t expect such people to have to prove themselves. However, anyone who wishes to attack me should at least be as transparent as I am–my blogging alias is a thin veneer over a real person.

Petros Principle 12: The criminals are in DC

Psalm 10.1-2 (RSV)

Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees,
and the writers who keep writing oppression,
to turn aside the needy from justice
and to rob the poor of my people of their right,
that widows may be their spoil,
and that they may make the fatherless their prey!

Psalm 94:20-23 (RSV)

Can wicked rulers be allied with thee,
who frame mischief by statute?
They band together against the life of the righteous,
and condemn the innocent to death.
But the LORD has become my stronghold,
and my God the rock of my refuge.
He will bring back on them their iniquity
and wipe them out for their wickedness;
the LORD our God will wipe them out.

Commentary:

Often people assume that FATCA was about catching wealthy Homelanders who were putting their money in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes. But in the above video, it comes out of the horse’s mouth what FATCA is all about by design–“far reaching steps to catch overseas tax cheats”–not tax cheats who have their money overseas–the adjective “overseas” modifies the noun “tax cheats”. The manner in which FATCA has been implemented has shown that the intention was always to snare innocent so-called Americans abroad.

Democrats Abroad have attempted to get a same country exemption for expats, but the regulators have not simply been slow to make it happen but have stonewalled. So we should please stop saying that the intention of FATCA was to catch Homelanders putting their money in banks abroad. The intention has always been to catch innocent people.  Moreover, the repeated petitions to find relief from FATCA and FBAR have fallen on deaf ears, showing that the US government is run by sociopaths who have no empathy for the people they are destroying.

One reason that an unjust law is no law (PP7) is because it will punish innocent behaviour. So a person living in Canada who works, opens bank accounts, invests in investment vehicles, who owns a personal corporation, who abides by the Canadian tax code, is an innocent person, full stop. That person is not a “tax cheat”. Thus, FATCA is itself a crime because of its criminalization of innocent behaviour.

Psalms 10 and 94 (cited above) show that it has long been recognized that evil rulers can create unjust statutes which criminalize innocent people. The Psalms invoke God himself to deal ever so severely with such wicked rulers. In several comments on my last post, a certain Jay said that lying to authorities is unethical. In his view, expats must only fill out good faith forms to the IRS. And yet doing that very thing has exposed not a few innocent people to the full brunt of bad laws and has turned them into victims. Evidently, Jay’s ethics do not conform to  this ancient traditional view of law. In my view, Petros Principles are an ethical response to unjust laws, by providing wisdom by which innocent people may protect themselves and find the least bad solution in the face of laws designed to criminalize them.

The true criminals are the makers and enforcers of laws like FATCA. Such people cannot withstand scrutiny. The following documentary, Clinton Cash,  sheds light on a criminal couple in DC who have gamed the system to make for themselves hundreds of millions. And such people have the audacity to come after my meager savings?

Previous Discussions

Human rights trump money: Why We must say no to FATCA
Ignorance is an excuse in the case of FBAR
The Real Intent of #FATCA: You are not “Collateral Damage” — You are the Target

Previous Petros Principles:

(1) What the IRS can’t know unless you tell them can’t hurt you.
(2) Fear makes the IRS more dangerous than it really is.
(3) Haste is the devil.
(4) Those most hurt by the IRS’s persecution of expats have engaged the services of cross-border compliance condors.
(5) Those least hurt have done nothing.
(6) Home is where you live.
(7) An unjust law is no law.
(8) Don’t feed the beast.
(9) Do the minimum in trying to achieve the least bad outcome.
(10) Lying to prevent a crime is a virtue.
(11) Cynical derision of Homelanders is healthy.

About: Petros is the alias of the founding administrator of the Isaac Brock Society. Petros Principles are guidelines that have helped him and others deal with the United States’ world-wide tax invasion.

NB: Please note that neither I nor any member of ADCS-ADSC, ADCT, or the Isaac Brock Society Committee support any political candidate mentioned in this article or its description. I am posting it because it contains important information about international efforts against FATCA. If you have any issues with this post, kindly contact the Brock Committee. Please avoid divisive, attacking comments. Thank you.
 
reposted in its entirety with permission of the author
 

Now That It’s Clear the U.S. Will Not ‘Reciprocate’ on FATCA, Will ‘Partner’ Countries Wise Up?
 
Jim Jatras
 
As I have warned for several years now (for example, see with respect to Europe, Canada, and Cayman), “partner” governments signing legally defective “Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act” (FATCA) “intergovernmental agreements” (IGAs) under “promises” from the U.S. Treasury Department that the U.S. would provide reciprocal information from domestic American institutions was at best a long shot, more likely just a deception. Almost three years ago, in July 2013, Florida Congressman Bill Posey made it clear requests for legislative authority to provide “reciprocity” were dead on arrival.

Yet foreign governments have continued to deceive themselves – or their publics, or both – that American participation in a global GATCA, or intergovernmental “automatic exchange of information” (AEOI), “disclosure of corporate beneficial ownership,” and a “common reporting standards” (CRS) regime, probably under OECD auspices, were just around the corner . . .

Well, it isn’t. Period. Full stop.
Continue reading →

SUN Aug 7-LONDON UK-"Have you received a #FATCA letter? Intl Hall Mtg Rm-Landsdowne Terrace-Russell Tube Stn 2-4pm https://t.co/9MwpNh6KDR

— Patricia Moon (@nobledreamer16) August 3, 2016

New this year in the U.S. assault on people and countries outside its borders, is the “second wave” of reporting – the “entity” reporting. This is nothing less than every financial entity – any corporation, non-profit corporation, your Canadian controlled-private corporation (CCPC), any fund with shareholders-is fair game for an associated financial lender, bank etc to ask:

“Who are your clients, shareholders? Are they, or have they ever been, U.S. citizens?”

When: Sunday,August 7, 2016 time 2:00 – 4:00 pm
Where: University of London International Hall Meeting Room, Landsdowne Terrace, London WC1N 1AS UK – 150m walk
from Russell Square Tube Station MAP
Admission: £15 payable in cash at the door
Who: John Richardson, B.A., LL.B., J.D. (Of the bars of Ontario, New York and Massachusetts), Toronto citizenship lawyer and Co-chair of the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty and the Alliance for the Defeat of Citizenship Taxation.   citizenshipsolutions.ca

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