But the trickier questions remain: where exactly is the boundary between prohibiting the inculcation of hatred and creating a thought crime? The law should forbid acts not attitudes, but when does inflammatory speech become incitement to violence?
It isn’t enough to say, as Mr. Brennan did with more than a hint of despair, that there are no simple answers. There are going to have to be, at the very least, provisional ones because we need to find a way through this without losing our own ethical bearings. If the CIA experience shows us anything, it is how quickly terror can dissolve the conscience of a state even when it believes passionately in its founding principles of liberty and justice. These are not abstract philosophical questions that can be complacently consigned to the seminar room of history.
The Western democracies have to produce a day-to-day working formula for confronting an existential challenge that puts their own social values under almost impossible strain – without losing their souls in the process.
“I’ll also add that the 1907 Act was partially “inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government,” for it declared that “no American citizen shall be allowed to expatriate himself when this country is at war.” Ironically, this was precisely the condition under which droves of Englishmen sought naturalization in the United States in the early 1800s; their predicament engendered the home-grown philosophical defenses of self-expatriation that made the 1907 Act possible.”
Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”—to regulate the terms by which foreigners may acquire American citizenship. Simple enough, right? Except that Old World nations generally embraced the doctrine of perpetual allegiance (that a natural-born Ubekibekibekibekistanstani remained an Ubekibekibekibekistanstani until death). English common law, for example, effectively denied the legitimacy of the concept of self-denaturalization. As the Royal Navy began to impress into its service British expatriates stationed on American vessels, President Jefferson wrote to Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin that “I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature . . . the individual may [exercise such right] by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration.”
In the mid-1860s, naturalized Americans were conscripted into the French and Prussian Armies while visiting relatives in their former homelands. In 1867, two naturalized Americans were charged with treason against…
View original post 371 more words
Of course the FBAR is NOT being used to further its original purpose.
The relevant statute that requires reporting of a so-called foreign bank account report (“FBAR”) is Section 5314 of Title 31 . This is nota federal taxlaw provision from Title 26 (aka I.R.C. aka Internal Revenue Code.)
There have not been extensive revisions to this Section 5314 over the years and it remains largely as originally drafted and passed in the year 1970.
Curiously, the US$10,000 threshold amount is not reflected in the statutory language, nor in the regulations. Instead, this US$10,000 threshold is set forth in the instructions of the form. See page 4 of the FBAR electronic filing instructions.
This raises numerous legal questions that will be discussed in later posts.
(1) the US$10,000 threshold amount is not part of the statutory or regulatory…
View original post 56 more words
A relatively small percentage of the U.S. citizen population is aware of the complex requirements of the U.S. tax law and detailed financial reporting that is imposed under current law against individuals who reside outside the U.S. These same laws apply to both those USCs who live in and outside of the U.S. See, for instance, “PFICs” – What is a PFIC – and their Complications for USCs and LPRs Living Outside the U.S.
The December 7th Op-Ed article in the New York Times by Jonathan Tepper is now the most e-mailed of all NYTimes articles, as of today, which indicates the general public may now start to better understand the scope of U.S. tax and account reporting laws that are unique in the world.
He does summarize well, how the law works in practice:
The United States is an outlier: Its…
View original post 588 more words
And he tells his personal story like it is and why he is giving up his American citizenship. He writes about it in the NY Times’ Opinion Pages as an OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR in a piece entitled, “Why I’m Giving Up My Passport”. He says what I have stated many times over about the state of taxation without representation. I would recommend that you also check out the books he has written on the future of the economies and how to protect your financial future (see link at end of this blog post).
LONDON — THE mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who was born in New York
and holds both American and British passports, recently said that he would not
pay a tax bill from the United States on capital gains from the sale of his home in
the London borough of Islington. Mr. Johnson pointed out that he hasn’t…
View original post 881 more words