Category Archives: FATCA

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

The @BarackObama #FATCA law: “an absolute disgrace and a dark spot in history”

The above includes some of the text of a comment at the Isaac Brock Society. The comment should be read by all Americans abroad.

Excellent post and I couldn’t agree with you more. I wouldn’t take back US citizenship if they offered it along with no tax obligations, a once a year round trip ticket to the US destination of my choice and leaving me alone forever. No, I wouldn’t want it back because any country that was capable of doing what they did to their expat community and continue doing those same things to their expat community, in spite of all of the articles and pleas alerting them to the fallout and with constant alarm bells ringing and do absolutely nothing, is not to be trusted under any circumstance. I too sadly agree that nothing will change regarding moving to RBT and FATCA wont be repealed either, in my opinion. There is too much to be made by picking the pockets of innocent folks living outside of their ever tightening borders, folks who have little to no say in the laws that are being thrust upon them, no representation in Congress and no interest whatsoever in speaking with them from US lawmakers. Like you say, “Is holding on to the nostalgia of one’s origins worth all that?” Absolutely not! To continue to be exploited, extorted, controlled, be under permanent surveillance, financial and otherwise, while living in another sovereign country, where I am and have been a citizen for nearly my entire life, makes the decision not to accept US citizenship, should it ever be offered back a no brainer. I recommend anyone reading this, in a situation of trying to decide what to do and wondering if, just if, things will change for the better, you should seriously consider renouncing, sooner rather than later. Things are not likely to improve and may in fact even get much worse. I felt ten years, or more, younger after renouncing and now live, invest and see life as a much freer and unburdened person. I will never forgive nor forget what Obama’s FATCA and related laws created and how much damage they did in destroying the overseas US community of citizens and deemed persons. It is and still remains an absolute disgrace and a dark spot in history.

Poll: Is it common for #Americansabroad to have a higher U.S. income tax bill than a comparably situated Homelander?

Imagine the following two people:

We are comparing “Homelander Ted” to “Expat Benedict Arnold”.

Assume that “Homelander Ted” lives and works in the Homeland and purchases in ONLY U.S. dollars. He would not consider using any other currency.

Assume the Expat Benedict Arnold” (having escaped from the Homeland) lives and works in Canada and purchases in ONLY Canadian dollars. He would NOT consider using any other currency.

Assume that each of “Homelander Ted” and “Expat Benedict Arnold” own a home in their respective countries of residence, have employment income, engage in personal finance which includes retirement planning. “Homelander Ted” commits “personal finance” ONLY in the Homeland. “Expat Benedict Arnold” commits “personal finance abroad”.

Assume that “Homelander Ted” and “Expat Benedict Arnold” have financial situations that are comparable in their respective countries of residence.

To be specific both of them:

1. Have a principal residence in that they have owned for more than two years and that was sold on November 30 of the year. Assume further that there was NO capital gain measured in local currency. Assume that the sale included a discharge of an existing mortgage and that interest was paid on the mortgage up to the November 30 sale. Assume further that they each carry a “casualty” insurance policy on the property.

2. Have employment income and have pensions provided under the terms of their respective employment contracts.

3. Have and use mutual funds as a retirement planning vehicle.

4. Have a 401(k) plan in the USA and an RRSP in Canada.

5. Have spouses and must consider whether to use the “married filing separately” or the “married” filing category. “Expat Benedict Arnold” is married to an “alien”.

6. Give their respective spouses a gift of $500,000 on January 1 of the year.

 

U.S. Tax owing – versus TAX MITIGATION PROVISIONS

Assume further that each of “Homelander Ted” and “Expat Benedict Arnold” each prepare a U.S. tax return. Imagine that the Internal Revenue Code does NOT have (TAX MITIGATION PROVISIONS) either the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (Internal Revenue Code S. 911) or the Foreign Tax Credits (Internal Revenue Code 901). Imagine further that there is no U.S. Tax Treaty that mitigates tax payable to the USA under these circumstances.

The question is how much tax “Expat Benedict Arnold” would be required to pay the U.S. Government if there were no TAX MITIGATION provisions.

How likely is that without the TAX MITIGATION PROVISIONS that the “Expat Benedict Arnold” would be required to pay HIGHER U.S. taxes than “Homelander Ted”. In other words:

Does the Internal Revenue Code:

First, impose higher taxes on “Expat Benedict Arnold” for the crime of committing “personal finance abroad“?

Second, mitigate those higher taxes through one of the TAX MITIGATION PROVISIONS described above?

Are U.S. Taxes (not including foreign taxes) actually higher for Americans abroad than for Homelanders?

Please consider the questions (without considering tax paid by “Expat Benedict Arnold” to Canada) in the following poll:

How does the U.S. tax bill of an American Abroad compare to the U.S. tax bill of a comparably situated Homelander?
(polls)