(2) Fear makes the IRS more dangerous than it really is.

He sees you when you’re sleeping,
He knows when you’re awake.
He knows when you’ve been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake!

Commentary:  The IRS is not omniscient and omnipresent like Santa Claus. As much as the US government has tried to take away the privacy of expats, it has only very limited powers even with the betrayal of our local governments on FATCA. It is possible in many cases to work around these limited powers.

The first step in protecting oneself from the IRS stripping you of your universal human rights is a sober and realistic assessment of its true power. Many if not most of us who are living outside the USA are relatively safe because the IRS’s powers of seizure, subpoena, and liens are limited outside of USA borders. Moreover, the IRS has an insufficient audit and enforcement personnel to hunt the much bigger and easier game in the Homeland. Even if it could go after us, it would be an inefficient means of increasing revenue.

A better metaphor for the IRS is a roaring but toothless lion and not Santa Claus.

Inordinate fear of the IRS is dangerous because it has caused some people to lay down all of their normal defense mechanisms and like an innocent lamb to stand paralyzed before the toothless lion.

One of the major roles of the cross-border compliance industry has been to frighten their clients and the public about the IRS’s power, and the media has too often created panic by consulting the compliance industry as their principle experts for information on US expat tax issues.

Previous Petros Principles:
(1) What the IRS can’t know unless you tell them can’t hurt you.

About: Petros is the pen-name of the founding administrator of the Isaac Brock Society. He has started this series of Petros Principles as a means of communicating guidelines which he believes have helped him and others deal with the United States’ world-wide tax invasion.

(1) What the IRS can’t know unless you tell them can’t hurt you.

Commentary:

A common mistake in dealing with government bureaucracies is fastidiousness. This is more likely to happen if you engage a tax compliance condor than if you prepare your own taxes.

For example, the IRS requires that a US taxpayer in Canada report TFSA (tax free savings accounts) and RRSP (Registered Retirement Savings Accounts)–which have been excluded from FATCA reporting requirements in the IGA negotiated with the government of Canada. There is therefore no way that the IRS can know about these accounts, and I would not report them unless one has already declared them to the IRS.

If you engage a condor (a cross border accountant or lawyer), she will likely require a fastidious obedience to the most up-to-date IRS bulletins and Internal Revenue Manuel rulings, etc. You may have to argue with them in order to not report something. I recognize that this may create a war.

About: Petros is the pen-name of the founding administrator of the Isaac Brock Society. He has started this series of Petros Principles as a means of communicating the guiding principles which he believes have helped him and others deal with the United States’ world-wide tax invasion.

cross-posted from the citizenshipsolutions dot ca blog

A recent post (July 7, 2016) on this blog began with:

Prologue – U.S. citizens are “subjects” to U.S. law wherever they may be in the world …

Boris Johnson as PM? US @USSupremeCourt judgment in Blackmer v. US https://t.co/KzMOCqBaL1 means he must obey USA https://t.co/pEWzZRJZFb

— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) July 7, 2016

Yes, it’s true. In 1932 (eight years after the Supreme Court decision in Cook v. Tait), Justice Hughes of the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Blackmer v. United States ruled that:

While it appears that the petitioner removed his residence to France in the year 1924, it is undisputed that he was, and continued to be, a citizen of the United States. He continued to owe allegiance to the United States. By virtue of the obligations of citizenship, the United States retained its authority over him, and he was bound by its laws made applicable to him in a foreign country. Thus, although resident abroad, the petitioner remained subject to the taxing power of the United States. Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47, 54 , 56 S., 44 S. Ct. 444. For disobedience to its laws through conduct abroad, he was subject to punishment in the courts of the United States. United States v. Bow- [284 U.S. 421, 437] man, 260 U.S. 94, 102 , 43 S. Ct. 39. With respect to such an exercise of authority, there is no question of international law,2 but solely of the purport of the municipal law which establishes the duties of the citizen in relation to his own government. 3 While the legislation of the Congress, unless the contrary intent appears, is construed to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, the question of its application, so far as citizens of the United States in foreign countries are concerned, is one of construction, not of legislative power. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 357 , 29 S. Ct. 511, 16 Ann. Cas. 1047; United States v. Bowman, supra; Robertson v. Labor Board, 268 U.S. 619, 622 , 45 S. Ct. 621. Nor can it be doubted that the United States possesses the power inherent in sovereignty to require the return to this country of a citizen, resident elsewhere, whenever the public interest requires it, and to penalize him in case of refusal. Compare Bartue and the Duchess of Suffolk’s Case, 2 Dyer’s Rep. 176b, 73 Eng. Rep. 388; Knowles v. Luce, Moore 109, 72 Eng. Rep. 473.4 What in England was the prerogative of the sov- [284 U.S. 421, 438] ereign in this respect pertains under our constitutional system to the national authority which may be exercised by the Congress by virtue of the legislative power to prescribe the duties of the citizens of the United States. It is also beyond controversy that one of the duties which the citizen owes to his government is to support the administration of justice by attending its courts and giving his testimony whenever he is properly summoned. Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 281 , 39 S. St. Ct. 468. And the Congress may provide for the performance of this duty and prescribe penalties for disobedience.

It’s that simple. If you are a U.S. citizen, some would argue that you are the property of the U.S.government.
Continue reading →

reposted from citizenshiptaxation dot ca

An interesting conversation is taking place on the FB group American Expatriates. Journalist Serena Solomon from the publication VICE has requested stories from expats describing the emotional effects of renouncing. You might want to go over and take a read as many are quite interesting. It is a public group so I believe one can read without being a member; not sure if one needs a FB account.

Earlier today, there was the following comment, which forms the basis for this post:

Tom Paine A question for those in Canada: It appears that few or no renunciation appointments have been confirmed since January of 2016 when they switched to a centralized Renunciation system for all of Canada. Has anybody in Canada received a renunciation appointment in Canada who applied after February 1, 2016. If so, where was the appointment location? Again, I am asking about those who have applied for an appointment NOT those who had pre-existing appointments under the old system. For those outside of Canada, what has happened is that the demand to renounce in Canada is so great, that DOS has created a centralized renunciation system for all of Canada.

How to renounce US citizenship in Canada and other countries https://t.co/sbRUTf0Pyk

— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) July 12, 2016

 
The change to a centralized renunciation system for Canada occurred this past February. A detailed post describing the procedure can be found here.
 
Continue reading →

Please RT Great presentation by @TalPolblog on the problem off US taxation of #FATCA and #Americansabroad https://t.co/sQm408IiAr

— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) July 7, 2016

This is a great video of our friend, supporter & advocate Professor Allison Christians, telling the story of “Tina” at the International Conference of Taxpayer Rights in Washington D.C., November 18-20 2015. After she has finished and sits down at the table, fellow panelist David Brunori asks
 

David Brunori: Thank you Allison. Allison, what happened to Tina?

Allison Christians: Well, I cut off the end because there’s not enough time but the end would have said, there’s no happy ending for Tina.

David Brunori: There’s no happy ending for Tina?

Allison Christians: There’s no way out.

David Brunori: She’s not gonna sneak across the border is she? and become a.. a…. nevermind, that’s a completely whole different story.

 
Hear it for yourself:
 

 
Fabien Lehagre posted the video at American Expatriates FB group and Mr. Brunori’s comment prompted some responses:

Laura Wilson The ending jocular frivolity after being presented with such an atrocity is beyond enraging. Was there a discussion amongst the panel after Allison’s presentation not included here?

Suzanne Iclef Herman Tina’s more likely to commit suicide than “sneak across the border”.

Elizabeth Bland The last speaker’s comment was completely uncalled for. He must be feeling mighty proud of himself.
Suzanne Iclef Herman The message? Tina should be more grateful because people are clamouring to be American citizens.

Laura Wilson Suzanne, are you aware of Allison’s thoughts on the reception her talk received especially by Nina Olson? It is beyond belief that they can hear Tina’s Story, the gross indefensible injustice of it all, and do NOTHING. Just a wee applause and done, move on, next talk. I believe that is called soulless.

Suzanne Iclef Herman Laura Wilson no, I haven’t discussed it with her. Allison spoke for my husband and me, so it’s personally hurtful to see what looks like a flippant attitude toward our’s and Tina’s plight.

Tom Paine These are tax professionals. Therefore they don’t have a soul. Also they are “dumb bunnies” because they can’t see that the U.S. treatment if Americans abroad is what is in store for the “dumb bunny” home landers.

John Hanson This will, if not corrected, turn millions into criminals in the eyes of the USA.

Suzanne Iclef Herman I was accepted into Streamlined, which means that the IRS acknowledges that my lack of previous compliance was not “willful” on my part. Where is their admission of negligence in informing millions like me?

John Hanson I sent this video to my MP. He won’t believe me, but maybe he’ll believe a tax lawyer.

 
Personally, my blood boiled when I heard it but I can’t quite put my finger on what it is I don’t like. If she’s already an American, how can he suggest she would somehow take advantage of the U.S. and “sneak across the border?” As if she would want to anyways; here again is that contemptuous assumption that ALL people want to come to the U.S. Her story makes it clear enough she does not think of herself as a U.S. citizen nor does she even once accept the idea. Did he even hear what Allison said? So before nominating David Brunori for the Brock Hall of Shame, I’d like to ask all of you, what do you think he means?
 

cross-posted from citizenshipsolutions dot ca

This post is a continuation to my recent post: “The Internal Revenue Code does not explicitly define “citizen”, “citizenship” or require “citizenship-based taxation“.
 
That post was reposted at the Isaac Brock Society, and received a comment which included:
 

Your statement that the IRC does not explicitly define citizenship is technically correct. It is also misleading. When the IRC was codified in 1939, the Secretary of Treasury was given an order to issue all needful regulations. That mandate is now found at 26 USC 7805.
The needful regulation of the Secretary, Treasury Regulation, 26 CFR
1.1-1(c) explicitly defines citizenship in terms of the 14th Amendment and it included the term subject. 26 CFR 1.1-1(a) explicitly states that the tax imposed by section 1 of the IRC imposes the tax on citizens and residents. It does not list any other type, class or category of person upon the tax may be imposed by force.

 
In the original post I had demonstrated why taxation based on “citizenship” was a reasonable inference from Sections 1 and 2 of the Internal Revenue Code. The basic reasoning from Sections 1 and 2 of the Internal Revenue (without consideration of outside sources) is reflected in the following syllogism:

1. All individuals with the exception of non-resident aliens are subject to U.S. taxation.

2. Citizens are individuals who are NOT “nonresident aliens”

Therefore, citizens are subject to taxation.

 
Nevertheless, the comment raises a very interesting question. To put it simply the question is:

Could U.S. Treasury/IRS by regulation exempt Americans abroad from U.S. taxation?

The purpose of this post is to explore this very interesting question.

Let’s work with the information in the comment.
Continue reading →

We’ll be getting together for lunch Saturday, 23 July, at 1:00 pm at Dunn’s Delicatessen, 220 Elgin Street (South of Laurier, North of Somerset. Street parking, free on Saturdays), Ottawa.

We’re currently expecting 7 people – hope you can come too!   Please rsvp by posting a comment here or e-mail me at pacifica at isaacbrocksociety dot ca