Category Archives: Government regulation

While some Homelanders have a private tax system – USA imposes FATCA and CookvTait on #Americansabroad

A “bed time story”  explaining why FATCA does not matter in the least for those it was supposedly intended to target!

Once upon a time in America – a FATCA fairy tale …

There were some homelanders who didn’t pay their fair share!

Most of the taxes were paid by higher income earning homelanders!


Unless you were a “super wealthy” homelander in which case you could create your own special tax system and pay the lowest taxes of all!

Which created many revenue shortfalls, so Congress passed “Revenue Offsets” and set the IRS to hunt Americans abroad

Continue reading

Advertisements

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

Brandeis: The right to be let alone, to have privacy, is the most comprehensive and valued right

An attack on privacy is an an attack on freedom itself.

I have previously posted on the theme of – “From Facebook To FATCA” . My theory has been that FATCA (which is an erosion of freedom) is possible only in a world that does NOT value privacy. The erosion of privacy NECESSARILY LEADS to the erosion of freedom.

An earlier post describing the relationship between FATCA and freedom included:

The argument over FATCA is NOT really about taxes. The argument is over whether individuals should be allowed to have freedom and privacy.

The U.S. government wants to abolish privacy and freedom.

Some countries and individuals want to preserve freedom (at least as long as possible.)

Question: How did the values of “freedom” and “privacy” disintegrate? Why are so many people unconcerned about the the loss of privacy? Makes no mistake about it, “privacy” and “freedom” are linked.

I speculate that the world of social media has paved the way for this. People now think nothing of having their life visible to all on Facebook, Twitter and the rest. If there is no personal privacy, and financial privacy is part of personal privacy, then …

Continue reading

The two kinds of cash deposits that can lead to account seizures in the USA

 

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.

Continue reading

Billionaire Eugene Melnyk: I’m a ‘whistleblower’ on tax allegations against Valeant

https://twitter.com/USCitizenAbroad/status/503866980894384129

 

This is just one more example of how U.S. tax law makes it difficult for U.S. corporations to compete in a global world. There is no other country in the world that penalizes its own citizens and corporations simply because they are U.S.
Imagine if the Canadian government gave preferential treatment to non-Canadian citizens and corporations.
The U.S. believes it can both have the highest corporate tax rates in the world and expect corporations/people to want to remain Americans. This is delusional.

Financial Post | Business

MONTREAL • Eugene Melnyk, the billionaire owner of the Ottawa Senators and founder of drug maker Biovail Corp., is waging war against the company that now controls his one-time business.

Mr. Melnyk alleges that Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. is masquerading as a Canadian company to make use of this country’s international fiscal treaties and dodge U.S. taxes. He predicts it will all eventually implode if American authorities claw back the taxes he believes Valeant may owe.

The Canadian businessman confirmed that he and three other individuals formed a group that made a formal presentation in 2012 to U.S. regulatory authorities, notably those in charge of taxation, denouncing Valeant’s tax strategy. In an interview this week, he called himself an “official whistleblower.”

The group alleges that Valeant’s merger with Canada’s Biovail in 2010 — which the group, among others, claim was more like California-based Valeant taking over Biovail — was a…

View original post 1,853 more words

San Antonio Spurs win with #Foreign players – “Foreign Player Account Report” or FPAR in short?

The article referenced in the above tweet includes:

Continue reading

Charles Murray @TheGlobalist: The end of American exceptionalism

This very interesting article from The Globalist includes:

Continue reading