From: Póstur FOR
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 14:09:08 +0000
Subject: Re: RE FATCA YO Ken Drexler Do tell has the very crooked Yankee Carpet Bagger David Lutz settled his feud with Obama and his minions witnin the IRS?
To: David Amos
Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið / Your request has been received
Kveðja / Best regards
Forsætisráðuneytið / Prime Minister's Office
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/lutz-clinton-campaign-1.3840604
Hampton lawyer David Lutz campaigns for Hillary Clinton in Florida
Polls indicate the state is split evenly, with the north voting Republican and the south, Democrat.
By Joseph Tunney, CBC News Posted: Nov 07, 2016 6:40 PM AT
David Lutz, a Hampton-based lawyer, is helping the Hillary
Clinton campaign in Florida today. Yesterday he went door-to-door in
Melbourne to identified Democrat supporters’ homes, trying to get them
out to vote (Submitted by: David Lutz)
When David Lutz first came to New Brunswick in 1969, it was to avoid being drafted to fight in the Vietnam War.
Now the prominent Hampton defence lawyer has returned to the United States, where he was born, to volunteer for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign against Donald Trump.
"I'm representing the rest of the world," Lutz said Monday from Florida.
"The rest of the world, especially Canada, is scared to death of Mr. Trump."
Analysts have said that if Donald Trump has any chance to win the presidency in the election Tuesday, he'll need to win Florida, the biggest of the swing states and barely won by President Barack Obama in 2012.
So far, polls indicate the Sunshine State is split evenly, with the north voting for Republican Trump and the south for Democrat Clinton.
Since he was to land in Florida near election day and has family in Florida, he decided to volunteer.
"I'm not so much worried about my family or the Americans," Lutz said.
"I'm worried about the whole world."
Lutz said he has seen a real mixture of support during his Florida visit.
He said while his candidate has gathered considerable support, in some parts of Florida Lutz sees nothing but Trump signs.
On Monday, Lutz was going door-to-door in Melbourne to identify Democratic supporters' homes, trying to get them out to vote early.
"[This campaign is] so organized," he said.
"We're getting good response."
Lutz supports Clinton because he knows her history and supports the party that nominated her.
Lutz worked for Obama's campaign in 2008 and worked for Robert Kennedy the day before he was shot in 1968.
As much as Lutz identifies with the Democrats, he said this election it's more the fear of Trump that drives him and the Clinton supporters he's spoken to.
"That somebody as unqualified and evil as Trump could get this far is scary," he said.
"That's what the people backing Hillary are saying. And that's what I, as a world citizen, that's what I feel."
Now the prominent Hampton defence lawyer has returned to the United States, where he was born, to volunteer for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign against Donald Trump.
"I'm representing the rest of the world," Lutz said Monday from Florida.
"The rest of the world, especially Canada, is scared to death of Mr. Trump."
Analysts have said that if Donald Trump has any chance to win the presidency in the election Tuesday, he'll need to win Florida, the biggest of the swing states and barely won by President Barack Obama in 2012.
So far, polls indicate the Sunshine State is split evenly, with the north voting for Republican Trump and the south for Democrat Clinton.
- Clinton, Trump focus on Florida as election day nears
- 'I can't believe the polls are true': A day with Trump's true believers on a tarmac in Florida
'Worried about the whole world'
Lutz was originally heading south to vacation on a Legendary Rhythm and Blues Cruise in the Caribbean.Since he was to land in Florida near election day and has family in Florida, he decided to volunteer.
"I'm not so much worried about my family or the Americans," Lutz said.
"I'm worried about the whole world."
Lutz said he has seen a real mixture of support during his Florida visit.
He said while his candidate has gathered considerable support, in some parts of Florida Lutz sees nothing but Trump signs.
On Monday, Lutz was going door-to-door in Melbourne to identify Democratic supporters' homes, trying to get them out to vote early.
"[This campaign is] so organized," he said.
"We're getting good response."
Lutz supports Clinton because he knows her history and supports the party that nominated her.
Fear driven support
This isn't his first time volunteering for the Democrats.Lutz worked for Obama's campaign in 2008 and worked for Robert Kennedy the day before he was shot in 1968.
As much as Lutz identifies with the Democrats, he said this election it's more the fear of Trump that drives him and the Clinton supporters he's spoken to.
"That somebody as unqualified and evil as Trump could get this far is scary," he said.
"That's what the people backing Hillary are saying. And that's what I, as a world citizen, that's what I feel."
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:05:08 -0400
Subject: RE FATCA YO Ken Drexler Do tell has the very crooked Yankee Carpet Bagger David Lutz settled his feud with Obama and his minions witnin the IRS?
To: Sherra.Profit@taxpayersrights.gc.ca, "mark.vespucci" , Nina.Olson@ci.irs.gov, "Russell.George"
Cc: David Amos
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2016/11/re-federal-court-file-no-t-1557-15-i.html
Monday, 7 November 2016
RE Federal Court File No T-1557-15 I just called and left voice mail
messages for all four of you fancy Yankee lawyers in DC before polling
day Corrrect?
---------- Original message ----------
From: postmaster@donaldtrump.com
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 22:18:30 +0000
Subject: Undeliverable: RE Federal Court File No T-1557-15 Anyone
recall these voicemails from corrupt FEDS to mean old me 10 very long
years ago?
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:
Donald.J.Trump@donaldtrump.com
The recipient's mailbox is full and can't accept messages now. Please
try resending your message later, or contact the recipient directly.
The following organization rejected your message:
BN6PR12MB1651.namprd12.prod.outlook.com.
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 18:18:10 -0400
Subject: RE Federal Court File No T-1557-15 Anyone recall these
voicemails from corrupt FEDS to mean old me 10 very long years ago?
To: Monty.Wilkinson@usdoj.gov, Tracy.Toulou2@usdoj.gov,
Daniel.Grooms3@usdoj.gov, Jason.Cunningham@usdoj.gov,
tea@venturacountyteaparty.com, RobertFitrakis@gmail.com,
johnbrakey@gmail.com, "mark.vespucci" , "dean.buzza" , info
Cc: David Amos , Donald.J.Trump@donaldtrump.com,
ralph.martin@usdoj.gov, DJT@trumporg.com, "Daniel.Conley" , bbachrach
, "carolyn.bennett" , "James.Comey" , "bob.paulson" ,
info@hillaryclinton.com, HQ@jillstein.org, Info@garyjohnson2016.com,
info@rocky2016.com, cspies@clarkhill.com, agarten@trumporg.com,
djtjr@trumporg.com, mcohen@trumporg.com, email@rightandfree.com,
earthcentral@rogers.com
Payback is a bitch sometimes EH Donny Cry Baby Trump?
https://archive.org/details/FedsUsTreasuryDeptRcmpEtc
http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1736-14&select_court=T
Letter from Defendant dated 03-SEP-2015 advising the Judge that the
CRA now intends to commence transmitting information to the United
States on Sept 23, 2015 in order to comply with the Sept 30, 2015
deadline. received on 03-SEP-2015
Copy of Notice of Appeal (Appeal Court File No. A-407-15 ) appealing
Order of Martineau, J. dated 16-SEP-2015 filed in the Court of Appeal
on 21-SEP-2015 on behalf of Plaintiffs placed on file on 24-SEP-2015
Ottawa Copy of Judgment and Reasons of Martineau J. dated 16-SEP-2015
(DOC.79) sent to Case Management Judge (Prothonotary Lafrenière). Copy
of memo placed on file on 18-SEP-2015
Letter from Defendant dated 15-MAR-2016 advising that Lorne Lachance
of the Dept of Justice has assumed conduct of this matter. received on
16-MAR-2016
Lorne D. Lachance
Counsel
Called to the bar: 1993 (ON); 1995 (BC)
Justice Canada
Business/Regulatory Law, Litigation Services
900-840 Howe St.
Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 2S9
Phone: 604-666-6745
Fax: 604-775-7557
Email: lorne.lachance@justice.gc.ca
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/lutz-clinton-campaign-1.3840604
Hampton lawyer David Lutz campaigns for Hillary Clinton in Florida
Polls indicate the state is split evenly, with the north voting
Republican and the south, Democrat.
By Joseph Tunney, CBC News Posted: Nov 07, 2016 6:40 PM AT
When David Lutz first came to New Brunswick in 1969, it was to avoid
being drafted to fight in the Vietnam War.
Now the prominent Hampton defence lawyer has returned to the United
States, where he was born, to volunteer for the Hillary Clinton
presidential campaign against Donald Trump.
"I'm representing the rest of the world," Lutz said Monday from Florida.
"The rest of the world, especially Canada, is scared to death of Mr. Trump."
Analysts have said that if Donald Trump has any chance to win the
presidency in the election Tuesday, he'll need to win Florida, the
biggest of the swing states and barely won by President Barack Obama
in 2012.
So far, polls indicate the Sunshine State is split evenly, with the
north voting for Republican Trump and the south for Democrat Clinton.
Clinton, Trump focus on Florida as election day nears
'I can't believe the polls are true': A day with Trump's true
believers on a tarmac in Florida
'Worried about the whole world'
Lutz was originally heading south to vacation on a Legendary Rhythm
and Blues Cruise in the Caribbean. Since he was to land in Florida
near election day and has family in Florida, he decided to volunteer.
"I'm not so much worried about my family or the Americans," Lutz said.
"I'm worried about the whole world."
Lutz said he has seen a real mixture of support during his Florida visit.
He said while his candidate has gathered considerable support, in some
parts of Florida Lutz sees nothing but Trump signs.
On Monday, Lutz was going door-to-door in Melbourne to identify
Democratic supporters' homes, trying to get them out to vote early.
"[This campaign is] so organized," he said.
"We're getting good response."
Lutz supports Clinton because he knows her history and supports the
party that nominated her.
Fear driven support
This isn't his first time volunteering for the Democrats.
Lutz worked for Obama's campaign in 2008 and worked for Robert Kennedy
the day before he was shot in 1968.
As much as Lutz identifies with the Democrats, he said this election
it's more the fear of Trump that drives him and the Clinton supporters
he's spoken to.
"That somebody as unqualified and evil as Trump could get this far is
scary," he said.
"That's what the people backing Hillary are saying. And that's what I,
as a world citizen, that's what I feel."
http://people.stu.ca/~hunt/ustaxinfo/
FBAR, FATCA and "US Persons" in Canada
A couple of recent developments:
On June 26 the IRS announced, via a press release, a "plan to help
U.S. citizens residing overseas, including dual citizens, catch up
with tax filing obligations." Although this was presented in the media
as good news for us who are concerned about this, I can't see much
change in their position, except that they've removed the deadline for
filing under OVDC and raised the possible penalty (have a look at a
simultaneous press release: "Under the current OVDP, the offshore
penalty has been raised to 27.5 percent from 25 percent in the 2011
program"), while offering assurances that "taxpayers who are low
compliance risks" (anyone want to guess what that means?) will face no
penalties. I think it may also be new that you only have to file three
years' back tax returns, although they're still asking for six years'
worth of FBAR reports. In other words, I don't see much that's
especially new -- even though Jim Flaherty's said he's pleased.
Their assumption, as always, is that we want to continue to file
annual tax returns and FBAR reports. But since it's the case that only
the U.S. and Eritrea* insist on taxing according to citizenship, I
think we have a case that people who have earned all their money in
Canada should not have an obligation to report to or pay taxes to the
U.S. In the reverse situation, a Canadian living and working in the
U.S. files there and Revenue Canada ignores her. As it should.
It is encouraging that the American Citizens Abroad have put together
a working paper in which they call for a "change from
citizenship-based taxation to residence-based taxation," arguing not
only that it "is revenue neutral and brings major economic advantages
to the United States, but that it would "align U.S. tax policy on
individuals to that of the rest of the world." It's a very persuasive
document, though I'm not optimistic that it will persuade the IRS.
More immediate, perhaps, is their March letter to the IRS
commissioner, which begins: "American Citizens Abroad (ACA) is writing
to you to express our profound concern that you have not answered the
Tax Advocacy Directive (TAD) issued by National Taxpayer Advocate
(NTA) Nina Olson in December of 2011. It is our understanding that it
was your statutory duty to answer this Directive by January 26th,
2012. It is particularly disturbing that the Commissioner of the IRS,
himself in a position to enforce the law on other people, should be
perceived to be blatantly disregarding legal obligations associated
with his duties."
*The ACA points out at the end of the working paper that "Ironically,
the United States joined in Resolution 2023 of the Security Council of
the United Nations on December 5, 2011 condemning Eritrea for imposing
a 'Diaspora tax' on its citizens residing overseas. Of course,
citizenship-based taxation is nothing more than a tax on the American
diaspora under a different name."
===
The best sources for information on this matter remain the Isaac Brock
Society Web site, the American Citizens Abroad site, and the IRS'
Taxpayer Advocate Office, perhaps especially their "Most Serious
Problems" bulletin #12.
Below are some further links to materials I've found that might be
helpful in making sense of this. As things develop I'm adding them in
the top section, mostly in italics. As a result of a November 28
meeting in Fredericton, Bob Gerard put together a summary statement of
what the situation is, as we understand it now.
Current items, as of mid-January:
The Taxpayer Advocate Service, an internal agency of the IRS whose aim
is to be a sort of ombudsman for ordinary taxpayers, released its
annual report to Congress on January 11. The American Citizens Abroad
site has put up a congratulatory note with some important links. Nina
Olson, the head of the TAS, is clearly an important ally in this
struggle. She also has a blog, which is well worth reading.
What's particularly important to know is that the TAS has actually
begun to address the FBAR problem. On October 26, it issued a
memorandum to Douglas Shulman, who is the commissioner of the IRS,
regarding their "Directive 2011-1" and requiring a response within
three months -- that is, by January 26 (as of January 27, I've not
seen one; nothing, for instance, on the IRS' news release page). The
memo itself is worth reading. It makes some amazing charges about IRS
activities with respect to the OVDP and FBAR reporting. A couple of
examples: "On March 1, 2011, the IRS retroactively changed the terms
of the OVDP by retracting its promise to apply existing statutes";
"The IRS’s approach treats similarly situated taxpayers differently
and turns the burden of proof on its head." I love footnote 4: "Our
discussion focuses on the FBAR penalty because it is often the largest
and most disproportionate penalty involved." Maybe the best single
evidence of their sympathies is in MSP#12 ("Most Serious Problems"):
the title of the page (click to read it) is "The IRS’s Offshore
Voluntary Disclosure Program 'Bait and Switch' May Undermine Trust for
the IRS and Future Compliance Program."
Equally important, but not widely known: I just found out about a
request received by a person trying to file a "voluntary disclosure"
(OVDI) who has been at it for a long time, dealing with regular
requests for further information, necessitating trips to the US. The
latest communication from his tax person says that the IRS now wants
him to fill out this form. There is much about it that I find
appalling, but perhaps especially this demand:
Explain all face to face meetings, and any other communications
you had regarding the accounts or assets with the financial
institution(s). Also include face to face meetings or communications
regarding the accounts or assets with independent advisors/investment
managers not from the financial institution(s) where the funds are
held. Provide the names, locations and dates of these meetings and/or
communications.
It's worth having a look at the whole document, if you're considering
making a voluntary disclosure. The assumption of criminal intent that
seems to characterize it is particularly disturbing (especially if
you're concerned, as I am, that the IRS has left the discretion to
individual examiners, who will decide whether your failure to report
is "due to reasonable cause"). I'm wondering whether David Alward or
Elizabeth May, as they work through the process, have received this,
and what they think about it. I know that a number of people have
been forwarding the document to their MPs and other public figures.
A somewhat more encouraging story has just been posted on the Brock
Society, about going to the Halifax US Consulate to "relinquish" US
citizenship. It's encouraging if you took out Canadian citizenship
before the 1978 and 1986 revision of the US citizenship laws. It's not
clear to me that this would be possible if you were later than that
(as I am, for example).
I've said elsewhere I am not sure that repealing FATCA will do
ordinary citizens a lot of good, but repeal is certainly a good idea;
it's part of this whole criminalization of US citizens living out of
the country. The ACA is mounting a petition campaign against it; click
to sign it on line, and see more about their campaign. For lots of
reasons, I've argued that really FATCA is a dead duck, one way or
another. On January 25, Barrie McKenna published an article in the
Globe making this, I think, even clearer; and a January 29 piece from
the Financial Times reinforces that. But both also make clear that
this is about sparing the banks complications; it will do nothing for
the multitude of folks worried about FBAR penalties. McKenna: "But
reducing the administration burden of FATCA may not provide much
solace for the roughly one million Americans in Canada, many of whom
don’t file taxes and other reports to the IRS, as required by U.S.
law."
I've just learned about a blog, called U.S.Citizens in Canada
InfoShop, which is, it seems to me, a powerful and readable resource
for keeping up with developments in this area. I'm not sure who is
actually responsible for it, but I have found it very helpful. It's
probably a better place to start getting a sense of what the issues
are than the Web site you're on now.
It's becoming pretty clear to me, too, that the Isaac Brock Society
Web site is a powerful resource (there's some connection between it
and the InfoShop blog). If there is going to be some public action
taken that requires a broad spectrum of expats across Canada, I think
that may be the place to organize it.
I've recently received an email from the US / Nova Scotia immigration
lawyer who spoke at the Halifax meeting, offering her contact
information for people concerned about whether they are US Citizens,
and what their options might be.
A recent article by the Globe's Barrie McKenna on the release of the
Taxpayer Advocate report, "Watchdog slams IRS for alienating expats"
(Jan 19) shows how "U.S. National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson warns
that the IRS is driving honest “benign actors” underground with
devastating penalties and an over-complex international tax reporting
regime."
On January 9, there were developments that might have some
significance. The best explanation I've seen (sent to me by Bob
Gerard) is in a blog entry from Moodys tax advisors by Roy A. Berg.
Essentially it interprets the January 9 IRS news release titled "IRS
Offshore Programs Produce $4.4 Billion To Date for Nation’s Taxpayers;
Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program Reopens" as being more important
than I had thought (I'd thought it was simply a reiteration of the
status quo). Berg says it's "a very promising development," and may be
a response to pressures from expats, the Canadian government, and the
intervention of the Taxpayer Advocate Service (which works from inside
the IRS, as I understand it), who in August issued a directive that
"acknowledged problems in the 2009 OVDP that resulted in inequitable
treatment of similar taxpayers and directed the IRS to address these
problems" (read about that here). The announcement's also been
reported in the Wall Street Journal. I don't see a significant change,
yet, from the status quo in any of these reports.
The Isaac Brock Society have issued a press release (January 10)
cautioning people to think twice before accepting the new Offshore
Voluntary Disclosure program. They say, among other things, "We
strongly warn law-abiding Canadian residents of the dangers of
entering this program which is intended to attract tax cheats who live
in the United States but have undisclosed offshore accounts." On the
other hand, the Globe and Mail's Barrie McKenna has written a piece
strongly suggesting that now is the time to "come clean." It's worth
reading some of the online comments on it, which suggest that it's
serving the nefarious purposes of the IRS, and question the
assumption, in McKenna's article and elsewhere, that innocent
taxpayers have something to "come clean" about.
If you're tempted to dismiss the problem, you might have a look at a
Reuters piece called "Taxpayers with overseas accounts seethe at
penalties," which concludes with this:
"There are all sorts of shades of culpability in a program that
the IRS couldn't deal with when it had to move a lot of people
through," says Jack Townsend, a Houston tax attorney who writes on
these issues at his Federal Tax Crimes blog. "The people who made out
well are the real crooks who have been doing this for years, while the
people who don't have that culpability are getting hammered because of
the one-size-fits-all rule."
Marie Cashion, Bob Gerard and I have set up an email list to allow
concerned people to communicate about this; if you like you can
subscribe by sending an email to ustax-on@stu.ca, and confirming when
you get a response (or you can email me directly).
The earliest items on this page (below the horizontal rule) are mostly
news reports; there's more substantive information toward the bottom.
I'm adding things as I go. Most recent material is at the top, above
the horizontal line, and mostly has to do with various political
initiatives or official statements opposing the reporting
requirements. I've taken some links to relevant IRS sites, from a
Financial Post article in September and other sources, and posted them
at the bottom.
The IRS' December 7 "Information for U.S. Citizens or Dual Citizens
Residing Outside the U. S.," which is apparently the document that
Ambassador Jacobson was announcing, has appeared on the IRS Web site.
My quick reading suggests that it's not a change in the law or IRS
policy, but a reasssurance that whether you'll be penalized for
failure to file FBAR documentation is left up to the individual
examiner, who will decide whether your failure to report is "due to
reasonable cause." It seems unnecessarily complicated by a list of
four "examples," but I think the bottom line is that "an examiner may
determine that the facts and circumstances of a particular case do not
justify asserting a penalty." Or not.
On December 2 The Globe and Mail ran a story announcing an amnesty for
penalties on unpaid taxes and late filing. This may be good news, but
I'm not clear that it applies to FBAR filings and to those, quite
different, penalties. Further information is expected. [Later notice:
I usually don't read the comments on news articles, but the comments
on this one in the Globe are quite amazing, and rather more skeptical
than even I am. It's worth skimming through them.]
A meeting for people concerned about the issue in the local area was
held November 28. Marie Cashion's notice of the meeting is here; my
report of what happened at the meeting is here.
The Telegraph-Journal, the Gleaner, and the Times & Transcript all
published an article by Chris Morris the next day about David Lutz's
message to the group; you can read it here.
Click to see the letter in the Gleaner from Cashion or the Times &
Transcript and Daily Gleaner article about the issue and the meeting.
Questions have been raised about whether penalties for failing to file
FBAR reports would be contingent on owing back taxes (unlikely for
virtually all Canadians). My reading of the list of civil penalties on
the IRS "2011 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative Frequently
Asked Questions and Answers" page suggests that the penalties are
discretionary, but not tied to whether you owe taxes. All the tax
consultants I've spoken to have either said that it was unlikely to
impossible that penalties would actually be imposed if no taxes were
owing, or have said they have no advice.
Recently, On October 26 Jim Flaherty wrote, as Minister of Finance, a
letter in response to a question about this in which he makes clear
that Canada will not collect penalties or taxes on behalf of the US,
and includes a "fact sheet" on FBAR, dated October 2011. It's worth
reading.
The US Ambassador to Canada, in a speech in Ottawa October 21, vowed
(according to Barrie McKenna in the Globe), "to find a way to
'accommodate' the thousands of Canadians caught up in a tax crackdown
on Americans who stash their money offshore." The Globe article is
here, a CBC story on it here, and the whole speech by Ambassador
Jacobson is here (scroll to the bottom of the section on expats).
Jacobson's conclusion: "My message on this one is to sit tight. We are
not unreasonable. We are not unsympathetic. We are not irresponsible."
Elizabeth May who is also (along with New Brunswick Premier David
Alward) a "US Person," has written (September 12) the PM a strong
letter about this, which is here. More recently (October 14), the
twelve members of the NDP British Columbia Caucus sent an equally
strong letter to Finance Minister Flaherty and Foreign Affairs
Minister Baird. Read it here. (I suspect that a group of NDP MPs don't
exactly have Baird's or Flaherty's ear, but it's pretty powerful,
suggesting five specific strategies or initiatives that would resolve
the problem, and which I can, if I try real hard, imagine being
implemented.)
In his Fall MP Report, my MP, Conservative Mike Allen, included a page
of information and a clear declaration of opposition to the US policy
as implemented. He's given me permission to post it on this site; it's
here (en Français aussi).
On September 30, the executive director of the American Citizens
Abroad wrote to four congressmen calling for a repeal of FATCA. The
letter is on their site, here.
There is also, as of September 27, a letter from Congressman Charles
Boustany, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Oversight, to Tim Geithner (with copies to the IRS and the Offfice of
Management and Budget), assailing the policy and asking for
information about the situation.
(It's important to bear in mind that repealing FATCA wouldn't
actually solve the problem for US citizens abroad; it would just mean
that you would be less likely to be reported to the IRS by your
financial institution.)
Material below is more or less chronological:
The Globe and Mail had a piece on July 27 called "Truth, justice and
becoming un-American" that may have been what started lots of people
worrying about this.
The Financial Post published an account of the situation called
"Americans Among Us" on July 30.
Way back in February there was a piece in the Wall Street Journal that
outlined the problems: ""Many taxpayers who deserve a lower penalty
won't get the benefit of it, and some may owe penalties even when no
tax is due," said Bryan Skarlatos, an attorney with Kostelanetz & Fink
in New York."
The CBC item on August 8 may be where I first heard about it.
A journal called Tax Profile from "CCH" (I don't know who this is, but
my accountant forwarded it to me, so I think it has some authority)
published in July an analysis called "Tax Tsunami for non-U.S. Tax
Compliant Canadian Residents who are U.S. Citizens or Green Card
Holders," which is pretty helpful in assessing the likely consequences
of different courses of action.
The American Citizens Abroad Web site is full of material regarding
this, especially a piece called FATCA destroys lives and the US
economy. They also link to a couple of articles by a US tax attorney
who points out that the IRS "summarily now presumes that all OVDP
participants willfully failed to declare the foreign accounts," and
that people are liable to the even more ludicrously exorbitant
penalties for wilful (as opposed to inadvertent) failure to report. He
also indicates that the "Taxpayer Advocate Service," which is an
independent organization within the IRS established to protect people
from unjust practices, is challenging this, although so far to no
avail.
The same lawyer reports, in a blog entry, "A Few Voluntary Disclosure
Successes." The first one is especially worth reading; the penalty for
a totally innocent account held in Europe by a retired professor was
reduced "to only $5,000 a year for the last five years" (the short
version is here). And that's a "success." Part of the conclusion to
the entry is " . . . there is no guarantee that future cases will have
similar outcomes. In particular, the penalty regime of the 2011 OVDI
is very different from the penalty regime under the 2009 OVDP. Foreign
life insurance is now explicitly covered by the 2011 OVDI.
Significantly, arguments of non-willful tax non compliance and of
reasonable cause for non-compliance, are of no consequence under the
OVDI."
On the Forbes Web site, an article titled "Some Foreign Account
Penalties Unfair, Says Taxpayer Advocate" by tax lawyer Robert Wood
points out that "In her June 30, 2011 Report to Congress, U.S.
Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson criticizes the IRS over its Offshore
Voluntary Disclosure Program. According to its mission statement, the
Taxpayer Advocate Service–an independent organization within the
IRS–helps taxpayers resolve problems and recommends changes to prevent
them." The article includes links to her report and some other useful
items. But in general the Forbes site is pretty cautionary about this:
for example, they say the the IRS is making this a high priority, and
you'd better come forward and fess up. For instance, "These penalties
may seem high until you consider the alternative. In fact, the
penalties for coming forward under the current prepackaged IRS program
pale in comparison to what the IRS could rain down on taxpayers caught
violating the rules. Between income tax, interest, civil and criminal
penalties for the tax and FBAR violations, jail time can be as high as
ten years and fines can be multiples of the foreign accounts."
("'Quiet' Foreign Account Disclosure Not Enough").
Citizenship considerations
A site called US law relating to dual citizenship is very useful about
who is and isn't a US citizen, and under what circumstances (although
the person who put it up isn't a lawyer and claims no expertise, there
are lots of useful links, and it's very coherent, mostly).
Equally interesting, I think, is a posting (by another non-lawyer) on
expatforum.com about the definition of citizenship. I'm intrigued by
his definition of what he calls “Relinquishants”: "those people who
intended to relinquish their US citizenship upon swearing loyalty
oaths upon becoming citizens of another country, employees of the
public service of another country, members of the armed forces of
another country, or any combination thereof." He goes on, "By swearing
these oaths, these people committed an “expatriating act” under
Section 349 of the US Immigration and Nationality Act. Such acts are
separate and distinct from formal renunciation, which is another
expatriating act listed under Section 349 and which is neither
necessary nor desirable for these persons to perform in order to
relinquish their US nationality. Under Section 349 of the Act, the
State Department can establish a formal procedure to be followed for
renunciation; Section 349 of the Act provides no such discretion to
the State Department for the other expatriating acts." On this reading
of the law, if you took out Canadian citizenship, you automatically
gave up your US citizenship. I suspect, though, that this misses the
implications of the easing of the dual citizenship limits in 1978 and
1986.
Recently, a correspondent sent me a pdf from the US State Department:
"REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF POSSIBLE LOSS OF UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP." It looks to me like the form you'd use to relinquish
citizenship. A prologue says, in part, "The following information is
needed to determine your present citizenship status and possible loss
of U.S. citizenship. . . . You are advised to consult an attorney
before completing this form." You can see the whole form here.
What "Foreign Accounts" does the law apply to?
There is a lot of pretty terrifying information on the IRS Web site.
For instance, on the Q&A page, "Those taxpayers making quiet
disclosures should be aware of the risk of being examined and
potentially criminally prosecuted for all applicable years." Or the
list of penalty amounts. Somewhere on the site, as well, there is a
definition of what counts as an "account," and although I can no
longer find it, I found it scarily broad. According to the ACA (here;
you need to scroll down to "offshore Voluntary disclosure
Initiative"), a draft form which will need to be filed along with the
1040 "is designed to be filed by those having 'specified foreign
financial assets having an aggregate value of more than $50,000'." I
don't know what's meant by "specified" there. I see references to
"bank accounts" in various places, but Rubenstein says that life
insurance is included; I don't know whether retirement funds would be,
but the ACA says that the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act "requires
foreign financial institutions (FFI) of broad scope – banks, stock
brokers, hedge funds, pension funds, insurance companies, trusts – to
report directly to the IRS all clients who are U.S. persons." I don't
know why they'd include all those unless they were considered "foreign
financial assets." ("Why FATCA is Bad for America and Why it Should be
Repealed Now!", ACA Report, July 2011. Italics mine.)
On the IRS site there is a FAQ page about this, which says this:
Q. What is a financial account?
A. A “financial account” includes any bank, securities, securities
derivatives or other financial instruments accounts. The term includes
any savings, demand, checking, deposit or any other account maintained
with a financial institution or other person engaged in the business
of a financial institution. Financial account also generally includes
any accounts in which the assets are held in a commingled fund, and
the account owner holds an equity interest in the fund (including
mutual funds). Individual bonds, notes, or stock certificates held by
the filer are not a financial account nor is an unsecured loan to a
foreign trade or business that is not a financial institution.
I've since had confirmation from my retirement fund manager and
Standard Life that it would indeed include my retirement funds.
An additional reporting form has recently, as a part of FATCA, been
added to the FBAR form: Form 8938 would apply to accounts and I think
would apply mainly to larger amounts like retirement funds. The ACA
has a warning about it on their site, and there's a bit of paranoid
guessing about why yet another form might required on the
expatforum.com site (that you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not
after you).
Articles, media coverage, etc.
The Globe and Mail has published a number of articles about this since
the "amnesty" deadline, somewhat less sensationalized than the CBC.
September 9: "U.S. tax amnesty: Not cheap or popular"
September 13: "Are you on the IRS hit list?" [particularly
interesting as it includes an interview with a tax expert]
September 16: "Flaherty slams IRS over cross-border tax crackdown"
[A letter from him to a range of US papers appeared in the
Telegraph-Journal September 23]
September 19: "IRS amnesty nets only 12,000 people"
September 20: "Help! I'm on the IRS hit list" [I don't think I've
ever agreed with Margaret Wente before, but she has this right.
Further, there seems to have been a firestorm of comments on this on
the Globe Web site; have a look, here.]
American Citizens Abroad has continued to fulminate about the issue,
too. On September 19 they posted: "IRS Traps Innocent, Hard-Working
Americans" -- but the best, strongest statement about it is probably
The FBAR SCAM, which outlines their lobbying position. I was
especially charmed by this:
In March 2011, 18 months after the end of the period for entering
the OVDP, the IRS retroactively changed the rules of the OVDP and
stated that all cases would be treated as willful violators – hence
the term “Bait and Switch”. Those who entered the program in good
faith as non-willful violators “could either agree to pay more than
they believed they owed or withdraw from the 2009 OVDP and face the
possibility the IRS would assert massive civil penalties and seek
criminal prosecution.”
Under these rules, the OVDP systematically imposed a penalty
amounting to 20% of the highest balance in the foreign accounts for
each of the six years from 2003 to 2009. The IRS also specified that
any account linked to the servicing of real estate would be subject to
the inclusion of the valuation of that real estate in calculating the
penalties (i.e. 20% of the value of the real estate). This was
presented as a “deal” because the law allows for maximum penalties of
50% of overseas assets for every year of noncompliance.
They include a number of terrifying cases. Here's one:
An American in Germany: An American citizen who has lived in
Germany for 32 years had no idea she had to file U.S. taxes until
2009. She owed no U.S. taxes. To correct the situation she filed back
years and also filed the FBAR forms. In late 2009 she learned of the
IRS OVDP and read the very confusing FAQ which said one should not
submit a voluntary disclosure if one did not owe any tax but had
merely not filled out the FBAR form. Q10, on the other hand,
explained that the type of filing she had done was “quiet disclosure”
and threatened criminal prosecution for not turning it into a “noisy
disclosure”. She decided to err on the side of caution and entered
the OVDP. “What a mistake that was, expecting fairness from the IRS!
The IRS concluded that I did not owe any tax, but it nevertheless
asked for the maximum non-willful penalty, which corresponds to 8
months take-home pay." Her story was featured in a recent article in
the Financial Times, “Tax Compliance Bill Drives Expat to Despair of
US”; June 12, 2011.
And now, besides the CBC coverage of my own case, the
Telegraph-Journal is on the story. So is the St. Thomas Journalism
School's New Brunswick Beacon, which ran a story called "Americans
living in Canada, beware of the IRS," by Amy MacKenzie, on December 3.
A September 2011 issue of the Canadian Tax Foundation's Canadian Tax
Highlights says that "FBAR penalties are not taxes" and "it is highly
likely that they are penal and thus are not enforceable in Canada." It
concludes, "In summary, a Canadian citizen need have little concern
about the collection of US tax, interest, and ancillary penalties." A
jpeg of the whole document -- available on line only to members of the
Foundation, so this has apparently been leaked or pirated) is here.
I'm increasingly convinced that doing nothing is the best course of
action: something has to happen to straighten this out. But it's clear
that I'm not going to be eager to cross that border any time soon. It
seems clear the IRS can't come across the border after me; what they
could do if I crossed it, though, still isn't obvious.
The Financial Post has a number of articles of interest. On September
19, one called "Americans in Canada: Tax confusion reigns" has a set
of links at the bottom to useful sites:
2011 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative
Questions and answers from the IRS web site
Am I a U.S. citizen?
On September 24, the FP put out a Q&A with a number of experts. I'm
beginning to think there's never going to be a definitive answer:
regularly we're advised to "talk to an expert," but in my experience
all the experts agree that really they have no advice for you (or
assure you, as innumerable tax experts on the Web do, that they can
file your 1040s and you won't have to worry about penalties).
Miscellaneous Links to other official documents from the IRS
The IRs page on "Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR)"
IRS Form TD F 9022.1 REPORT OF FOREIGN BANK AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS
Draft instructions for Form 8938 "Statement of Specified Foreign
Financial Assets"
Draft Form 8938
The IRS information bulletin FS-2011-13, "Information for U.S.
Citizens or Dual Citizens Residing Outside the U.S."
The Fredericton Dual Citizen US Tax Information blog
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 10:34:02 -0400
Subject: RE FATCA Byway of David Algood the sneaky RBC lawyer
attempting to play dumb his computer does me the service of proving
that the rest of you got my email with its attachments CORRECT Ken
Drexler?
To: Sherra.Profit@taxpayersrights.gc.ca, "mark.vespucci"
, Nina.Olson@ci.irs.gov, "Russell.George"
msessa-lipsey@cpacanada.ca, Stephen.Kish.Chair@adcs-adsc.ca,
"bill.pentney"
Kenneth.Drexler@ci.irs.gov, Ken.Drexler@ci.irs.gov
Cc: David Amos
"deborah.alexander"
"jennifer.warren"
FYI I also had an interesting conversation with one of Mr Drexler's
associates in the Boston area just now
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem
Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 12:53:03 +0000
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
david.allgood@rbc.com
Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the
server for the recipient domain rbc.com by vmx.rbc.com.
[142.245.7.98].
The error that the other server returned was:
550 #5.1.0 Address rejected.
On 5/4/16, David Amos
> http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/
>
> CANADIAN FATCA IGA LITIGATION: We need IRS NON-COMPLIANT Canadian
> Witnesses with FATCA REPORTABLE ACCOUNTS > $US 50,000
>
> Posted on March 9, 2016 by Stephen Kish Posted in Issues regarding US
> persons abroad 802 Comments
>
> May 4, 2016: WE NEED MORE WITNESSES WILLING TO FILE AFFIDAVITS IN OUR
> CANADIAN FATCA IGA LAWSUIT:
>
> U.S.-born Canadian citizens, never IRS compliant, no meaningful
> history with U.S. except by birth in U.S., never U.S voting, never
> U.S. passport, never relinquished, but you must have a FATCA
> reportable account >U.S.$ 50,000
>
> Reportable accounts can be, for example, non-registered investment
> accounts — but CANNOT be RRSP, RESP, RDSP, TFSA etc. registered
> accounts. We also seek witnesses who have accounts less than $50,000
> U.S. but who know or suspect e.g. from a bank FATCA letter that their
> account info has inappropriately been turned over to CRA/IRS. You will
> describe your harm in a written affidavit which will be made public.
> If interested contact stephen.kish.chair@adcs-adsc.ca See our website
> at www.adcs-adsc-ca
> Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act
>
> https://adcsovereignty.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/a-407-15_20150930_reasons-for-order.pdf
>
> https://adcsovereignty.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/t-1736-14-decision-sept-16-2015.pdf
>
> https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corporations/Foreign-Account-Tax-Compliance-Act-FATCA
>
> FATCA and the Canada-U.S. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA):
> Information for Clients
>
> http://www.cba.ca/en/consumer-information/40-banking-basics/597-fatca-and-the-canada-us-intergovernmental-agreement-iga-information-for-clients-
>
> U.S. tax for the Canadian tax practitioner
>
> https://www.cpacanada.ca/en/career-and-professional-development/professional-development/courses/2015/november/us-tax-for-the-canadian-tax-practitioner-2015
>
>
> Andrew McCormick, manager, Tax Education
> Tel: 416-204-3335
> Email: AMcCormick@cpacanada.ca
>
> Mary Sessa-Lipsey, manager, Tax Education
> Tel: 416-204-3476
> Email: msessa-lipsey@cpacanada.ca
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos
> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:34:47 -0400
> Subject: Attn Diane.Lebouthillier I just called Commissioner Andrew
> Treusch and his Deputy John Ossowski and they would not come to the
> phone.
> To: "Andrew.Treusch"
> John.Ossowski@cra-arc.gc.ca, "Diane.Lebouthillier"
>
>
>
> cbcnewsvancouver
>
> "Russell.George"
>
> Cc: David Amos
>
> ElenaChurikova
>
>
> Whereas I am not allowed to file with CRA I will file my Tax Return in
> Federal Court
>
> Who are your CRA people to call a liar today as I try to my tax return?
>
> On one document hereto attached is in YOUR records and that was once
> my SIN number CORRECT?
>
> On the other document which a Yankee form 211 is my American Social
> Security Number You people do business across borders because of FATCA
> so it follows you have known exactly who I am for years.
>
> Veritas Vincit
> David Raymond Amos
> 902 800 0369
>
No comments:
Post a Comment