Monthly Archives: December 2014

The Expatriation Act of 1868

“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.”

Rice on History

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

1970 Dollars: The Current Day US$10,000 FBAR Threshold Reporting Requirement (From Instructions Not Statute or Regulations)

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 31Front Page - of FBAR Electronic InstructionsThis 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.

See, Currency and Foreign Transaction Reporting Act of 1970, P.L. No. 91-508, 84 Stat. 114 (1970).FBAR Electronic Filing Instructions

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.

The point of this post is twofold:Inflation Adjusted Calculator of US$10,000

(1) the US$10,000 threshold amount is not part of the statutory or regulatory…

View original post 56 more words

Most e-mailed Article from New York Times: “Why I’m Giving Up My Passport”


New York Times:  “Why I’m Giving Up My Passport”

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

Jonathan Tepper is a Straight Shooter

IRS vs expats

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

Release of classified report on CIA torture will cause ‘violence and deaths’ overseas, intelligence officials warn

Of course the release will also reveal the unjustifiable, inhumane and inappropriate behaviour of the U.S. Government.

Does the U.S. really want to lose @JTepper2 as a citizen? Renunciation of U.S. citizenship – Jan. 2015

The above tweet references an op-ed that appeared in the December 7, New York Times. The “Op-Ed” was interesting, well written and didn’t add any new insights or information. I then researched who this person is. He is a highly accomplished author, fund manager in London. In fact I intend to read at least one of his books.

Q. Does the U.S. really want to lose citizens of this calibre?

A. They don’t care and they don’t care that they don’t care.

“Stupid is as stupid does.”

This sentiment is confirmed in:

In the words of this Homelander:

I think the real question is what makes you an American. If you don’t live here and feel no responsibility for supporting the country, why would anyone care if you decide to renounce your citizenship? There are plenty of people in the world who WANT to be Americans. Many of them come here, contribute to the country and want to become citizens. Those are the real Americans, not the folks who inherited the moniker but seem to think they have no responsibility for the contributing anything to the country.

The “op-ed” by Mr. Tepper includes:

Continue reading

F.H. Buckley: Canada’s system of government is proving far superior to America’s

This is a fascinating article. For those who understand how difficult it is to reverse ciizenship-based taxation, FBAR and FATCA consider the following excerpt:
“What Canada has importantly over the U.S. is reversibility, the ability to undo bad laws. That doesn’t happen so easily in America, with the gridlock built into its separation of powers, and that’s a problem Fukuyama himself has identified in two recent books that describe a sclerotic society of special interests which enact wealth-destroying laws. Once passed, Americans are stuck with bad laws. Their constitution doesn’t have a reverse gear.

What Fukuyama recognized in his recent books is James Madison’s error in The Federalist Papers. Madison argued that the separation of powers would prevent bad laws from being enacted in the first place. However, that’s an example of what Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek called the “fatal conceit,” the idea that planners can anticipate all the problems that might arise with a well-drafted statute. More modestly, Canada’s parliamentary system assumes that, in a world of human fallibility, mistakes will be made, that “experts” are often unreliable, that dumb laws will be passed; and that what is more important is giving the legislator the ability to bring hindsight wisdom to bear in undoing laws which experience tells us were ill-planned. If American government has gotten too large, if the statutory code and the federal regulations have caught a case of elephantiasis, that’s not surprising. The know-it-all hubris of the planner was baked into the American constitution from the start.”