Monthly Archives: January 2015

Ver visa refusal possibly based on belief that those renouncing U.S. citizenship may want to live permanently in USA

livefreeordieI was recently introduced to Roger Ver through a post written by Petros of the Isaac Brock Society. He reminds of me a “Live Free or Die” American, who may be a Libertarian. Seems like Mr. Ver wanted to “Live Free”. Seems like the U.S.A. –that great citadel of freedom and justice – wanted him to die. Although Mr. Ver was allowed to live, he did spend some time incarcerated.

Fast forward. Mr. Ver is apparently a “BitCoin” entrepreneur. In addition, he is reported to have “renounced his U.S. citizenship“. As a non-citizen, he no longer has an automatic right of entry to the U.S.A. Like all others who do NOT have the good fortune of being U.S. citizens he can entry the U.S. only with the permission of the U.S. Government. That permission is expressed in the form of a visa. Now the story gets interesting. Mr. Ver has apparently been denied a visa to enter the U.S.


Now before, anybody gets excited, there is NO evidence that that is an attempt to  invoke the “Reed Amendment“. After all, his visa was NOT declined on the basis that he had renounced his U.S. citizenship. His visa was declined on the basis that he could not prove that he was NOT attempting to enter the U.S. for the purpose of staying permanently. In other words, the concern of the U.S. government appears to be:

We don’t want people renouncing U.S. citizenship on the one hand and THEN entering the U.S. to stay there permanently. (Of course if he were to overstay his welcome that would make him subject to the “substantial presence” test and he would become a U.S. taxpayer all over again.

This law and principle is explained courtesy of the U.S. Embassy in Iran as follows:

As explained by the U.S. Embassy in Iran:

Visa Denials

The United States is an open society. Unlike many other countries, the United States does not impose internal controls on most visitors, such as registration with local authorities. In order to enjoy the privilege of unencumbered travel in the United States, aliens have a responsibility to prove they are going to return abroad before a visitor or student visa is issued. Our immigration law requires consular officers to view every visa applicant as an intending immigrant until the applicant proves otherwise.

What Is Section 214(b)?

Section 214(b) is part of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). It states:

Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status…

To qualify for a visitor or student visa, an applicant must meet the requirements of sections 101(a)(15)(B) or (F) of the INA respectively. Failure to do so will result in a refusal of a visa under INA 214(b). The most frequent basis for such a refusal concerns the requirement that the prospective visitor or student possess a residence abroad he/she has no intention of abandoning. Applicants prove the existence of such residence by demonstrating that they have ties abroad that would compel them to leave the U.S. at the end of the temporary stay. The law places this burden of proof on the applicant.

Continue reading


New GATCA Video! – 8 A Solution to #FATCA & the #CRS, Return of the Customer.

Boris Johnson @MayorOfLondon acceptance of “U.S. jurisdiction” means he must now resign

FATCA & CRS Training. Advice. Consultancy.

London mayor bows to ‘outrageous’ demand to pay US tax bill – via @FT — U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) January 22, 2015 The article from the Financial Times includes:   Mr Johnson has previously said he wanted to renounce his American citizenship but that it was “very difficult to give up”. The clearance […]

via The Isaac Brock Society If you need help or advice on FATCA/CRS you can contact me via or +44 (0) 7788 268700

View original post

Nice collection of #FATCA #FBAR #Renouncecitizenship comments from @GlobeAndMail

Very nice collection of comments from StudentAdvocate including:

Our neighbour just got more dysfunctional

US dysfunction affects all Canadians. Due to US law the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), the world’s banks and financial institutions are now agents of the US Treasury Department, and are on a witch-hunt for so-called US persons – basically anyone with a US place of birth. FATCA is one of the most arrogant and dysfunctional laws to ever pass Congress, and was passed as an add-on rider, with little debate or consideration for consequence. In Canada, the Harper Conservatives capitulated to the US law FATCA, and made history by making banking and financial discrimination against any Canadian with a US birthplace mandatory. Embedded in omnibus budget bill C31 was an an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to embody the dysfunctional US law FATCA into Canadian law. This was largely covert and under-reported, the US demanded FATCA compliance and the Canadian government – at the behest of Canada’s banks – pushed it through, despite unanimous opposition from NDP, LIberal and Green Party. Now, the hunt is on for so-called US persons in Canada. All banks, financial institutions and insurers must search their customers records for indications of a US place of birth. They must ask all new customers if they have a US birthplace or similar connection. If found, the confidential bank records will be forwarded to the US IRS – via compliant poodles at CRA. The US considers the local and legal Canadian financial accounts of any Canadian with a tie of so-called US person-hood to be a potential undeclared and illicit “offshore account” – and the penalties are draconian. Because so many Canadians were either born in the US or immigrated from the US, the effect is profound. This may effect up to one million Canadians, many of whom have only a tenuous tie to the US (including border babies: Canadians incidentally born in the US due to happenstance or medical referral). Because the Canadian FATCA IGA in Bill C31 violates the Charter by making “place of birth” discrimination mandatory, it is being legally challenged. A small grassroots organization – The Alliance for Defense of Canadian Sovereignty – has raised almost $300,000 through crowdfunding and hired leading Constitutional advocate Joe Arvay to challenge this in court. All Canadians should oppose the shameful embedding of dysfunctional US law in Canadian law, because it has created a new class of 2nd class Canadians: any Canadian with a US place of birth now has significantly reduced financial

What are the benefits of U.S. citizenship that justify extra-territorial taxation?

For those the US deems legally incompetent to understand the concept of citizenship, and thus too incompetent to understand renunciation/relinquishment of it, there are no ‘psychological’ or other intangible benefits:

The US prevents them from EVER renouncing or relinquishing for life if the underlying condition is chronic and permanent (ex. mental, psychological, intellectual or physical states which cause substantial lack of understanding sufficient to be considered legally ‘competent’ – ex. brain injury, developmental delays). And prevents minors from doing the same for years until age of majority (rarely earlier unless the minor can prove their understanding to stringent consular judgement) – on the basis of being not mature enough to appreciate the consequences.

Adult parents and legal guardians are prevented by US law from relinquishing/renouncing their children or ward’s US citizenship status on their behalf.

So, why is it that US extraterritorial citizenship-based taxation does not then exclude those deemed legally incompetent (by US laws) of the burdens of taxation predicated on the very status (citizenship) which it also FORCES them to retain (many for life) – because it states that they are incompetent to understand the status, and to form a decision to retain or renounce it?

The FBAR online instructions state that children (deemed ‘US taxable persons’) should complete and submit THEIR OWN FBAR themselves – an absurd and offensive instruction to impose on a minor whom US law states is legally incompetent/immature. It is completely unacceptable that the US should instruct children that their local legal birthday and education savings accounts are reportable (and PENALIZABLE) to an agency called “FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK” merely because they are outside the US, and have either a US parent, or a US birthplace. This would apply to those adults deemed incompetent as well.

The FBAR treats ourselves and our children and wards as criminals.

Where is the presumption of innocence before guilt?

And how can the US government and US law maintain the fiction that minors and those deemed legally incompetent due to immaturity or physical/psychological/mental/intellectual conditions are incompetent to understand the ‘benefits’ of US citizenship, yet are competent enough to be mandated to file their own FBARs, and to be US taxpayers?

The US taxes and penalizes the education and disability savings and grants of our children and dependents outside the US – despite giving tax preferred or deferred status to the US equivalent accounts.

The US deprives our children and dependents who are deemed to be US citizen-taxpayers ‘abroad’ of the benefits it extends to ALL US residents (whether citizens or not).

There are no psychological benefits or other similar intangible benefits for those who the US deems legally incompetent to understand US citizenship.

Whereas there are substantial burdens and costs and potentially bankrupting penalties the US imposes on even minors and the legally incompetent – as well as their parents and legal guardians – who may themselves NOT BE US citizens or ‘US taxable persons’.

Obviously, everyday there are many people born around the globe – outside the US – who may have had one or more US citizen parent, and who have NO other US connection or relationship, who will never set foot in the US, are citizens of the non-US country where they were born, and who may never know that the US considers them ‘US taxable citizens’.

That does not even cover the situation faced by those who happen to have been born in the US to non-US parents who are there on a short or temporary basis – to students, visitors, etc. Or, who were sent across the Canada-US border to a US hospital on an emergency basis. Their parents are NOT US citizens and did NOT seek US status for their children. In those cases, the US forces citizenship twinned with lifelong US taxable status on them.
January 2015