Tim found this article in German here which indicates that a court in Liechtenstein has issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the Liechtenstein Revenue Authority from transferring FATCA-related data to IRS before September 18th 2015 — prior to which the court will consider whether the US-Liechtenstein FATCA “IGA” is compatible with the Liechtenstein constitution. [See also article in Liechtensteiner Vaterland].

An English translation provided by my Austrian colleague:

Volksblatt.li Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Liechtenstein Constitutional Court grants FATCA claimants more time

“VADUZ – Two Liechtenstein financial market service providers, who brought a lawsuit against various provisions of the FATCA Law, can catch their breath. For the time being, they are given a few months more time. However, this is not a fundamental decision.

As a temporary injunction until a ruling has been handed down on their constitutional complaint, however until latest September 18, 2015, the Constitutional Court has forbidden information reported by the two claimants to the Liechtenstein Tax Authority by June 30, 2015 to be forwarded by the Tax Authority to US authorities and other agencies, particularly the IRS.

This was reported on Wednesday by the law office of Wolff, Gstöhl & Bruckschweiger in Vaduz. As attorney Karl Mumelter explained to “Volksblatt,” the grounds for the decision by the Constitutional Court were essentially that the claimants would incur a disproportionate and irreparable disadvantage if the information reported to the Liechtenstein Tax Authority were to be forwarded to US authorities before the Constitutional Court ruled on the claimants’ constitutional complaint.

Partial victory for the claimants

In February of this year the two Liechtenstein financial market service providers filed a constitutional complaint with the Liechtenstein Constitutional Court against the law of December 4, 2014 concerning implementation of the FATCA Agreement.

Their complaint seeks to have – in their opinion – unconstitutional provisions of the FATCA Law repealed. In their complaint the claimants contend that the FATCALaw contains unconstitutional references to US Tax Law, is not litigable because of its complexity, and subjects the financial market service providers to disproportionate and unforeseeable costs.

At the end of May 2015 the two claimants filed with the Constitutional Court a supplementary motion for Grant of Temporary Injunction in this matter. The decision handed down by the Constitutional Court on June 9, 2015 grants this motion. The Constitutional Court granted the temporary injunction until September 18, 2015.

As Karl Mumelter further stated, the Constitutional Court feels that the temporary nature of the relief sought ensures, on the one hand, that no disproportionate disadvantages are incurred by the claimants and that the constitutional complaint is not ultimately robbed of its effect and, on the other hand, that the public interest in swift and efficient implementation of the FATCA Agreement is upheld. “It appears the Constitutional Court will conclude the matter of the constitutional complaint by September 2015,” said Mumelter.”

Although the actual claims in this Liechtenstein lawsuit, not explicitly disclosed in the article, might/probably differ from those in the Canadian Federal Court case, this would seem to be a “first” for any court action against implementation of a FATCA IGA — in any country.

[You can go to the German article and comment via Facebook.]

Continue reading →

Can the United States be justified in imposing, without informed consent, U.S. citizenship on a group of persons, especially “never-meaningfuls”, who do not want U.S. citizenship?

Here below are a few quotes from a June 5, 2015 United States D.C Court of Appeal ruling, on the question of citizenship status of residents of American Samoa, that bear somewhat on this question.

[Back in August 2014, Eric discussed this lawsuit, recently ruled on in D.C. Court of Appeals. As Eric comments below, there is a focus in the ruling on “collective” consent which sidesteps the issue — but this does raise the question whether it could ever be feasible for U.S. people overseas (perhaps beginning with those in Canada for example) to express, and insist on, their self-determination and rights through their own collective association — that need not be part of any U.S. political process. Probably not practical, but are we not a “people”?]

A FEW QUOTES FROM THE RULING:

“BROWN (Senior Circuit Judge): In our constitutional republic, Justice Brandeis observed, the title of citizen is superior to the title of President. Thus, the questions “[w]ho is the citizen[?]” and “what is the meaning of the term?” Aristotle, Politics bk. 3, reprinted in part in READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 55, 61 (Francis W. Coker ed., 1938), are no less than the questions of “who constitutes the sovereign state?” and “what is the meaning of statehood as an association?”

“We can envision little that is more anomalous, under modern standards, than the forcible imposition of citizenship against the majoritarian will.”

“We hold it anomalous to impose citizenship over the objections of the American Samoan people themselves, as expressed through their democratically elected representatives.”

“A republic of people “is not every group of men, associated in any manner,[it] is the coming together of . . . men who are united by common agreement . . .” [MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO]”

“See, e.g., U.N. Charter arts. 1,73 (recognizing self-determination of people as a guiding principle and obliging members to “take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples” inhabiting non-self-governing territories under a member’s responsibility); Atlantic Charter, U.S.-U.K., Aug. 14, 1941 (endorsing“respect [for] the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live”); Woodrow Wilson,President, United States, Fourteen Points, Address to JointSession of Congress (Jan. 8, 1918) (“[I]n determining all []questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.”)”

“In this manner, we distinguish a republican association from the autocratic subjugation of free people. And from this, it is consequently understood that democratic “governments . . . deriv[e] their [] powers from the consent of the governed,”

“Citizenship is the effect of [a] compact[;] . . . [it] is a political tie.”
[Talbot v. Jansen]”

“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the People.”

— Also, some thoughts on citizenship from an anonymous commenter on Townsend’s Federal Tax Crimes blog: “…If you’re a Canadian citizen under Canadian laws what difference does it make that some foreign laws classify you as a citizen of that foreign country? The boundary of the U.S.A. is the boundary of the U.S.A. Just say NO and stay in Canada. Why should you visit a foreign country’s diplomatic mission and pay a fee to renounce a citizenship that foreign country unilaterally inflicted upon you? Just say NO.”

Continue reading →

The Officiant asked:
Petros, will you take [future Mrs. Petros] to be your wife?
Will you love her, comfort her, honour and protect her,
and, forsaking all others,
be faithful to her as long as you both shall live?

Petros answered:

I will. …

I, Petros, take you, [future Mrs. Petros],
to be my wife, to have and to hold
from this day foward;
for better, for worse,
for richer, for poorer,
in sickness and in health,
to love, cherish, and worship,
till death us do part,
according to God’s holy law;
and this is my solemn vow.

I relinquished my US citizenship on February 28, 2011. But in my heart, I really relinquished my US citizenship over 20 years earlier in a Vancouver church. The United States requires ultimate allegiance and total loyalty. It is not willing to take second place. But I was unfaithful to this birth obligation and aspired to another calling, that of husband. So I took this solemn pledge and agreed to forsake all others and to marry my wife.

Continue reading →

http://www.repealfatca.com/index.asp?idmenu=4&idsubmenu=156&title=repealfatcacom-alert

Stop ‘Backdoor’ Authority for FATCA and OECD Reciprocity!

June 19th is the one year anniversary of royal assent for Bill C-31, and July 1st is the one year anniversary of the IGA coming into effect, this latter date ironically also being Canada Day.

Do you have plans for writing, demonstrating, etc, in light of the one-year anniversary?  If so, please share your ideas on this thread.

LM has sent the following, encouraging people to support the court challenge, to virtually everyone on her mailing list — not only people who may have a US connection, as it focuses on the impact this has for all Canadians — and also posted hard copy on bulletin boards.

“Re:   How much do you value our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Good morning all,

It is now June, the 1-year anniversary of the passage of Bill C-31 which, hidden deep in the 362 page omnibus “Budget Bill”, instituted the Canadian FATCA IGA allowing US law to dominate Canadian Law. Passage and royal ascent of Bill C-31 resulted in the establishment of a 2nd class of citizenship in Canada based on nationality or parentage (specifically, US nationality or parentage).

Upon passage, our sacrosanct Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the basis of so many important precepts regarding the law of our land, was seriously distorted. We now live in a country which DOES DISCRIMINATE, which HAS SUCCUMBED TO THE THREATS OF A FOREIGN NATION and HAS PLACED HIGHER VALUE ON THE CONCERNS OF THE BANKING INDUSTRY OVER THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE LIVING IN THIS REALM.

Continue reading →

http://www.cpifinancial.net/news/category/economics/post/31506/devere-presidential-candidates-owe-it-to-america-to-explain-their-stance-on-controversial-fatca

Nigel Green, CEO of the deVere Group, is calling on all U.S. presidential candidates to explain their positions regarding FATCA and GATCA ahead of the 2016 election.

As reported by Matthew Amlôt in CPI Financial’s news site:

Mr Green comments, “FATCA adversely affects millions of hardworking, middle class Americans around the world, plus U.S. companies that operate internationally – and, therefore, it impacts U.S. jobs and the American economy.

“Presidential candidates who support this tax act now need to justify to America why they support it; whilst those who want it repealed now need to articulate to voters why they believe it is fundamentally flawed and why they will move to repeal it.

“It is an issue that must play a major part in the national conversation ahead of the election.”

Continue reading →