Category Archives: Civil Forfeiture

Khadr apology and settlement about violation of Charter rights, Trudeau says

Prologue 2014:

(Those who need a “reset” in terms of the issues in the “Alliance For The Defence of Canadian Sovereignty Lawsuit” should watch the complete video here.)

Canada in 2017:

The article referenced in the above tweet includes:

On Friday, the government confirmed a payment had been made to Khadr to settle a longstanding lawsuit. Khadr’s suit claimed Canada had violated his rights and was complicit with the United States when he was detained at the U.S. base in Cuba, denied access to a lawyer and tortured.

The Supreme Court of Canada in 2010 ruled Khadr’s rights had been violated.

The apology sparked fresh public debate about Khadr, but Trudeau says the settlement is not about the details of Khadr’s case but the fact his rights were violated.

Trudeau says the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, “even when it is uncomfortable.”

When the government violates any Canadian’s Charter rights, we all end up paying for it,” he said.

Trudeau says the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, “even when it is uncomfortable”

Pierre Trudeau would have believed that the Charter of Rights of protects all Canadians. Justin Trudeau doesn’t believe that. In theory constitutional (including Charter rights) are great things. In practice “rights” often make people feel uncomfortable.

The examples of Canadians with a “U.S. taint” and Mr. Khadr make people uncomfortable. That is perhaps why both really are “Charter of Rights” cases!

(Of course the Supreme Court of Canada has not (unlike in the case of Mr. Khadr) YET ruled that the rights of Canadians with a “U.S. taint” have been violated. Perhaps, that is the real difference.)

#Americansabroad: “Ask NOT what the Homeland can do for you! Ask what you can do for the Homeland!

What follows is the full text of the Facebook post referenced in the above link. Really now, it’s time to understand that taxation is NOT the price you pay for Government services (or certainly not civilization). It’s something you are required to pay to support the Homeland. Homelanders abroad, Accidental Americans and other dual citizens, academics, and those opposing FATCA, FBAR, PFIC, CBT and other forms of U.S. extra-territorial harassment should really be asking:

“Ask not what the Homeland can do for you! Ask what you can do for the Homeland?”
Continue reading

#FEARBar (“Foreign Email Account Report”) update – All indications lead to reporting

The above tweet references a post written four years ago in June of 2013. The post predicted that at some point the United States would require disclosure (in addition to FATCA (Form 8938) and FBAR (FinCen 114) and other forms) of the email accounts used by Americans abroad.


That post concluded with my prediction:

The purpose of FBAR and FATCA is to …

Provide the U.S. with information that is outside of its jurisdiction. In other words, the U.S. has no legal right to the information. Therefore, by threatening “life altering” penalties, the U.S. forces its citizens to provide this information to the U.S. government.

If the contents of bank accounts is important, then the contents of an email account would be even more valuable.

You heard it here first:

The next information return that the U.S. will require is the:

Foreign Email Account Report” – FEARBar for short!

Congress will (like FATCA) unknowingly pass the general legislation (slipped in as part of a Hiring Act) and authorize the IRS to specify the contents of the return. What an Orwellian World!

FEARBar coming to an information return near you!

Continue reading

Snapshot in time: Eyewitness account of evolution of Schedule B and the #FBAR Form TDF 90-22.1 from 1981 to 1986

The above tweet references a fascinating discussion about Mr. #FBAR in the early years prior to the “The FBAR Fundraiser“.

Interestingly for the years 2003 to 2008 (if memory serves), IRS Publication 54 did NOT reference the FBAR requirement.

OAP says
October 11, 2016 at 4:23 pm

@heidi, @pacifica777

Now you’ve peaked my curiosity, and I’ve done a sad thing. My first filing from abroad was in 1981 and I’m sure I filed an FBAR, so I’ve dug out all the old records.

1981

A. Schedule B – It contains Part III and the question about financial accounts in a foreign country.
(I believe the instructions for Sch. B referenced FBAR.)

B. FBAR, top instructions – “This form blah, blah blah. You are not required to file a report if the aggregate value of the accounts did not exceed $1,000.”
(That’s not a typing error, it says $1,000.)

C. FBAR Line 9 – “ If you had a financial interest in one or more….accounts which are required to be reported, and the total maximum value of the accounts exceeded $10,000 during the year,….”
(Note total maximum value of the accounts, not maximum aggregate value of the accounts, and $10,000 figure.)

D. Instructions on back of FBAR – Unfortunately, for 1981 I only have the top copy and not the back.

1982
A. Schedule B – It contains Part III and the question about financial accounts in a foreign country.

B. FBAR, top instructions – Same as 1981

C. FBAR Line 9 – Same as 1981

D. Instructions on back of FBAR – Unfortunately, top copy only..

1983

A. Schedule B – It contains Part III and the question about financial accounts in a foreign country.
(For 1983, includes directions to FBAR instructions and now asks for which countries the accounts are located in.)

B. FBAR, top instructions – “This form blah, blah blah. You are not required to file a report if the aggregate value of the accounts did not exceed $5,000.”
(That’s not a typing error, it says $5,000.)

C. FBAR Line 9 – Same as 1981.

D. Instructions on back of FBAR, Who must file – Each United States Person who has financial interest in or signature authority or other authority over bank, …..or other financial accounts in a foreign country which exceeds $5,000 in aggregate value at any time during the calendar year, must report that relationship each calendar year by filing TD F 90.22.1….”
(Note $5,000 figure.)

1984

A. Schedule B – Same as 1983

B. FBAR, top instructions – “This form blah, blah blah. You are not required to file a report if the aggregate value of the accounts did not exceed $5,000.”
(That’s not a typing error, it says $5,000.)

C. FBAR Line 9 – “ If you had a financial interest in one or more….accounts which are required to be reported, and the total maximum value of the accounts exceeded $10,000 during the year,….”
(Note total maximum value of the accounts, not maximum aggregate value of the accounts.)

D. Instructions on back of FBAR, Who must file – Same as 1983. ($5,000)

1985

A. Schedule B – Same as 1983.

B. FBAR, top instructions – “This form blah, blah blah. You are not required to file a report if the aggregate value of the accounts did not exceed $5,000.”
(That’s not a typing error, it says $5,000.)

C. FBAR Line 9 – Same as 1981.

D. Instructions on back of FBAR, Who must file – Unfortunately, only top copy.

1986

A. Schedule B – Same as 1983.

B. FBAR, top instructions – “This form blah, blah blah. You are not required to file a report if the aggregate value of the accounts did not exceed $10,000.”
(It now says $10,000.)

C. FBAR Line 9 – Same as 1981.

D. Instructions on back of FBAR, Who must file – Unfortunately, I only have the top copy.

From my limited files confusion reigns. For 1983, as for 1981, (C) FBAR Line 9 mentions “total maximum value of accounts exceeded $10,000″, but the instructions on the back of the FBAR states “which exceeds $5,000 in aggregate value at any time during the calendar year”. The (B) Top instructions don’t mention $10,000 until 1986.

I’m now off to find a life.

The pain of renouncing US citizenship: It’s not about the loss of citizenship

The above tweet references an article at swissinfo.ch written by Christina Warren. She describes her feelings about renouncing her U.S. citizenship. It is an interesting article which describes the pain and turmoil associated with renouncing her citizenship. Rather than attempt to comment at the site, I decided to write a comment as a post. Please read her article

Christina:

Thanks for writing this article. It’s clear how painful your “decision” to renounce your U.S. citizenship was. You “never had a say” when it comes to U.S. policies including citizenship-based taxation and FATCA.

As a result, you “never had a say” in whether you could retain your U.S. citizenship. For the most part, tax complaint U.S. citizens living abroad, can no longer survive if they continue to be U.S. citizens. Your renunciation was reasonable, necessary and inevitable.

I understand the tremendous pain your loss of U.S. citizenship has caused you. But, I would like to suggest that the “pain” may not be the loss of U.S. citizenship. I suggest that the “pain” is for at least two other reasons.

Reason 1: The realization that American NEVER stood for and embraced the values that you thought it stood for. It’s the feeling of having been “duped”, perhaps “lied to”.

Reason 2: The realization that you never did and never will matter to the United States. You thought that you could get the U.S. government to listen. To understand. To do the right thing. To treat its citizens with “concern and respect” or (considering Americans abroad) with “equal concern and respect”. The United States doesn’t care about its citizens (no matter where they live). This is evident from the response from Elizabeth Warren. The response from Ms. Warren is NOT about FATCA. The response from Elizabeth Warren is a clear statement that what matters to the United States of American is NOT “citizens” but “revenue”.

“Citizenship-based taxation” is bad enough. But, “taxation-based citizenship” is much worse. My point is that the ONLY thing that “U.S. citizenship” is about is taxation.

Here is the excerpt from Elizabeth Warren that you quote:

“…I recognize that FATCA implementation has not been perfect, and it troubles me that financial institutions overseas would deny services to Americans out of concern over FATCA compliance. However, according to the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, the U.S. Treasury may be losing more than $100 billion in tax revenues every year as a result of offshore tax havens. I believe measures like FATCA clamp down on overseas tax evasion and help make sure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes. …”

You should be happy that you are no longer a citizen of a country that doesn’t care about its citizens. Believe me the U.S. Government understands what it is doing to it’s citizens abroad. It doesn’t care.

Cook v. Tait 42 – “The shot heard round the deck. We are free at last!” The CLN has arrived

This post is a reproduces a comment by Pilgrim 7 which appeared at the Isaac Brock Society. Because of its reference to Cook v. Tait, I thought it would be worth adding to the Cook v. Tait book of posts. This is the second comment by Pilgrim7 that I have turned into a separate post at this Renounce US citizenship blog.

Continue reading