"What rules? US "immigration rules" have become a political football, and lack credibility and…" — Hesiod http://t.co/Yv0bgNZJFt
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) May 12, 2015
Yes, it’s finally begun. We have our first reported case (if true) of a child suing the parent for contaminating him with U.S. citizenship.
Here’s the story …
“Hey, I didn’t choose where I was born. It just kind of happened.”
The problem of unwanted U.S. citizenship is becoming bigger and bigger. The world of Americans abroad includes membership in the worlds most exclusive and most punitive “Tax, Form and Penalty Club” (well if you are obeying the “Membership Rules” and if you can understand the “Membership Rules” to begin with).
Those who don’t want to be members of “Club Penalty” are simply running and hiding. But, in a FATCA world, those with a U.S. birthplace are learning that they:
“Can run, but they can’t hide” – Eventually they will be FATCAed out.
The word is out:
It’s pretty much impossible to abide by the rules of this exclusive club and have any kind of a life. People are relinquishing U.S. citizenship in droves. The Obama administration has responded by raising the renunciation fee to $2350. The fee increase in likely to create more panic increasing the number of renunciations.
Confiscation of assets by the U.S. government has been the subject of a number of posts. Americans abroad have been concerned about the confiscation of their assets through the various disclosure programs, the FBAR fundraiser and PFIC taxation.
Less attention has been paid to the confiscation of the assets of Homelanders. When it comes to cash, one can keep your cash outside the bank or keep your cash in the bank. The article referenced in the above tweet is further evidence of the propensity of governments on all levels to use “civil forfeiture” as a way to confiscate assets. On September 11, 2014 a post was published at the Isaac Brock society discussing government confiscation of cash that is NOT in the bank. The above tweet references an article that describes how the U.S. government is confiscating cash that is put into bank accounts (because it is supposed to be safe there).
From a a governmental perspective “civil forfeiture” is a very cost efficient way to confiscate cash. They are NOT required to prove or even fabricate any “wrong doing”. They just take the cash.
Make no mistake about it. The integrity of the U.S. government requires that it act within the confines of the law. And – “to be perfectly clear” – the confiscation of cash in bank accounts is perfectly legal. Given that morality is a function of legality, it is clearly and absolutely moral for the U.S. government to confiscate cash in the bank accounts of Americans. No doubt about. Absolutely no doubt! In fact, I’m sure that U.S. government officials would argue that the confiscation of cash is not only legal – but is the moral imperative of government.
Yes, please do! I completely support this initiative.
Welcome to a new blogger on FBAR, FATCA and the other ways that the U.S. violates the sovereignty of other countries through it’s uniquely oppressive taxation practices.
No wonder that the motto of Americans abroad is:
Renounce and Rejoice!
If you are tired of the USA’s FBAR, Citizenship-Based Taxation (CBT), and FATCA—this is YOUR place.
If you want to make a post of your own, send in a comment with simple instructions. Instead of approving your comment—I will copy paste it in to your own post.
Give your instructions as to whether you want to be anonymous, input a nom de plume, or want to put in your real name
We invite all affected by this nightmare—including those in the banks and governments who have to deal with this mess.
Many people don’t have their own blog site, and many people want to be together on one site.
Post it here.
I’ll do my best to timely put it up and send a twitter announcement!
What follows appeared at the Isaac Brock Society:
United States IRS international revenue officers admit they they have a few problems in “International Collection cases” and really could use Canada’s help.
The IRS difficulties include:
“—The taxpayer could pay, but the IRS was unable to collect the liability because the taxpayer resides in a foreign country.
—The IRS was unable to locate the taxpayer or their assets [Canada’s FATCA agreement should be very helpful.]
—The IRS was unable to contact a taxpayer, and although the taxpayer’s address was known, there was no means to enforce collection.”
The IRS expects to get around these problems in part with a CUSTOMS HOLD:
“International revenue officers can request that a Customs Hold be input into the Treasury Enforcement Communication System (TECS) for delinquent taxpayers.
Once the taxpayer is on the TECS, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) notifies the IRS whenever the taxpayer travels into the United States [Last week a Canadian notified me that this threat was made to him by an IRS official — He and I wondered why Homeland Security would be involved. Now we know.]
During our interviews with a judgmental sample of 15 international revenue officers and all five group managers, many identified the Customs Hold as one of the most effective enforcement tools available to them in dealing with delinquent international taxpayers. International revenue officers use information obtained through a Customs Hold to attempt to contact the taxpayers while they are in the United States and/or locate the taxpayers’ assets.”
The Canadian government also wants to help the United States collect money from “delinquent” Canadian citizens resident in Canada by helping the U.S. enforce the FATCA law. It agreed to do this only because it is afraid of economic retaliation by the United States.
The article referenced in the above tweet is largely about Americans trying to thrive as expats in China (from a personal and business perspective). It appears to be written from a “China centric perspective”. The article and comments reinforce what Roger Conklin has been saying for years:
“U.S. policies and culture hurt the ability of Americans and American companies to compete internationally. We all (with the exception of the U.S. Government: Robert Stack edition and “don’t let the door hit you on the way out” Homelanders) know this. But, it’s interesting to see aspects of this issue discussed.