Tag Archives: FBAR

#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.

Thoreau vs. Lincoln: Two great Americans with conflicting views of how one should respond to unjust laws

What follows is my comment (final thought to 2014) to the post referenced in the above tweet. I believe that it is becoming more and more relevant.

Continue reading

FATCA – FBAR – OVDP: Comparing inside looking out (Homelanders) to outside looking in

https://twitter.com/USCitizenAbroad/status/647391630773751808

This is really worth  a watch. By the way, the prevailing view is that the Homeland does NOT care about how FATCA affects Americans abroad.

 

 

Free Internet Tax Summit: #FATCA, #FBAR, etc. – Sept. 21/15

 

Few people believe either the form or the extent of the way USA abuses #Americansabroad

I came across an interesting discussion at Keith Redmond’s American Expatriates Facebook group.

The discussion starts here:

Interesting observation for the week. I have had the opportunity to explain to my fellow Australians the dire situation we face as US expats at the hands of the US government. I get the impression that the people I have told are doubting my facts because they find the unfairness of CBT so frigging unbelievable, the intrusiveness of FATCA so arrogant it couldn’t possibly be true. The shock on their faces is somewhat gratifying. So this is the type of “ambassadors” the US has made of 8.7 million  expats.

I encourage you to read the comments. I agree with this. In my experience the reality of the abusiveness of the U.S. government towards it’s citizens abroad that many people do NOT even believe it’s possible.

Confession: I didn’t think it was possible either.

Renounce and rejoice!

 

 

Cook v. Tait 29: “Citizenship-based taxation” or “Taxation-based citizenship” – From @IsaacBrockSoc

1. Citizenship-based taxation?

The above tweet references the following comment which is certainly “food for thought”.

A small change in vocabulary may be helpful. In point of fact, the US primarily practices RBT. More than 99.9% of tax returns are filed on by US residents. Within the US, the US tax net applies to RESIDENTS, both citizens and aliens and without distinction. It is meaningless to talk of taxing resident citizens based on citizenship when non-citizens are taxed on precisely the same basis. It is like saying we only tax people with blue eyes, but all people with eyes must pay the same tax. Within the US, it is meaningless to talk of CBT, since citizens and non-citizen residents are taxed on exactly the same basis.

The ONLY instance where the US practices CBT is in respect of NON-residents. That is a tiny fraction – fewer than a million filed returns from “compliant” non-resident citizens. With 7.6 million citizens outside the US and fewer than a million filed returns, one can only conclude that FATCA + CBT of non-residents has created is a situation of MILLIONS of US citizens hiding from the US government (7.6 million expats or duals can’t ALL be earning less than $2,500 per year…). The queue of renunciants is of course only the tip of the iceberg since almost all non-resident citizens are unquestionably non-compliant and simply live off the (US) grid and have ever done so.

Viewed in that light, the case for finding CBT to be discriminatory would seem to be a whole lot more evident since it ONLY applies to non-residents. A theoretical US resident who somehow renounced US citizenship would still be liable for precisely the same tax the next day as the day before. Citizenship is only a meaningful criterion for eligibility for taxation OUTSIDE the US; it is completely irrelevant within it. I’m sure someone who knows this better than I can check, but I’d be surprised if the domestic US tax return even asked if you are a citizen: why should they care?

2. If NOT “citizenship-based taxation”, then perhaps “taxation-based citizenship”?

The above tweet references the beginning of the discussion on whether the essence of U.S. citizenship really is just taxation. Remember that in 2004 the United States legislated a new kind of U.S. citizenship – that is the “U.S. Tax Citizen”.

Does the U.S. practice “citizenship-based taxation” or is it just “taxation-based citizenship”?

Bubblebustin suggests an answer.

We’ve had it all wrong! Unlike the rest of the world, the US practices taxation-based citizenship.

_______________________________________________________________

Bubblebustin: “Taxation-based citizenship”. Wow! Why haven’t we noticed that before? Well done! Actually, this very morning I woke up with the realization that those expat Americans who are quoted in articles or surveys as being perfectly happy and willing to pay their U.S. taxes from “overseas” because “they’re American and they owe it” are actually filing and paying their U.S. taxes *in order to keep their American citizenship*. That is, indeed “taxation-based citizenship” …. which is about as un-American as it gets!

________________________________________________________________

Echoing MuzzledNoMore, great phrase you coined @Bubblebustin, re;
“… “Taxation-based citizenship”..”

Got to get that into common usage! Very insightful and useful turn of phrase.
Thanks!

______________________________________________________________

Leave it to you, dear bubblebustin, one among others of the most creative here, to come up with this descriptive term — CBT turned on its head.

_______________________________________________________________

Taxation-Based Citizenship — TBC

Best one yet, Bubblebustin. It expresses perfectly the mindset of the U.S. government and those shadowy figures behind the U.S. government. Americans at home and abroad are nothing but tax fodder (some are both tax and cannon fodder). And they all thought they were being “loved” for their devotion to flag and country.

________________________________________________________________

Thanks everybody, but can we make the argument that Taxation-Based Citizenship is correct? I’ve struggled with the term CBT for quite some time and always thought there’s a better, less incriminating way to frame the issue. This all ties into the Human Rights Complaint that I’m actually just reading through now, which is very inspiring in terms of freedom, equality.

I think the argument here would be whether one can still enjoy US citizenship regardless of their personal tax situation. Can someone be denied certain benefits of US citizenship if they aren’t tax compliant?

Language matters. It’s important that we be clear in how we describe the taxation of U.S. citizens abroad.

Forcing #Americansabroad to renounce US citizenship is like #Civilforfeiture – Now “ain’t that America”

Introduction – The general principles of Civil Forfeiture Reexamined

 

Civil forfeiture is becoming increasingly prevalent in the United States and in Western democracies. In it’s simplest form, Civil Forfeiture is a process where governments seize your property without going through the judicial process. Governments love it. It’s efficient, profitable and risk free.  It’s on the rise in both Canada and the United States. It has been the subject of numerous posts at the Isaac Brock Society. Certainly, FBAR penalties and other penalties for “Form Crime” are instances of civil forfeiture. I have argued that OVDP is a form of Civil Forfeiture.

 

Your property, your U.S. citizenship and the forcible taking of your U.S. citizenship

As I have pointed out time after time, after time ….

The Supreme Court of the United States has made it clear that those born or naturalized in the United States have a constitutional right to NOT have their citizenship “stripped from them”. I explored this in:

Cook v. Tait 12: Afroyim v. Rusk, the 14th amendment, and the forcible destruction of citizenship

In Afroyim, Justice Black wrote:

Citizenship is no light trifle 268*268 to be jeopardized any moment Congress decides to do so under the name of one of its general or implied grants of power. In some instances, loss of citizenship can mean that a man is left without the protection of citizenship in any country in the world—as a man without a country. Citizenship in this Nation is a part of a co-operative affair. Its citizenry is the country and the country is its citizenry. The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship.We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.

Hmm….

If U.S. citizenship belongs to the individual, and the Obama administration is forcing people to renounce their citizenship, is this not a form of “Civil Forfeiture”?

The following posts and comments bear on this question.

Continue reading