Supreme Court Asked to Consider if FBAR Penalty Is Excessive Fine taxnotes.com/research/feder…
Separately on Nov. 2/22, in Bittner, the US Supreme Court will hear the case on the issue of whether the non-willful civil #FBAR penalty (found in 5321) - can be applied (based on a reading of 5314) on a "per account" or on a per "form" basis. It's the season of @InFBARWeTrust!
So, Bitter is about the interpretation of penalty application under 31 USC 5314 and 5321. Toth (if the Supreme Court hears the case) is about whether there are constitutional limitations to any penalties imposed under 31 USC 5321.
Bittner appeal assumes the civil @InFBARWeTrust penalty can be imposed. Is this true? 5314 imposes an obligation on ONLY Treasury (obligation to create FBAR). 5314 imposes NO obligation on ANY individual. Link to 5314 and text ... law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31… Image
Notice also that under 5314 Treasury has the right (no Congressional approval required) to exempt any person from the FBAR rules INCLUDING #Americansabroad but has refused to do so. Shouldn't @DemsAbroad and @DemsAbroadTax help? isaacbrocksociety.ca/2016/03/07/the… Image
Let's now consider civil @InFBARWeTrust penalty in context of 31 USC 5321(a)(5) which creates a penalty for violating or causing a violation of 5314. Question: if 5314 imposes no obligation on individual, how can 5321 authorize a penalty on individual for violating 5314? ImageImage
Again: An individual can ONLY violate the Treasury reg which creates the FBAR rules. The individual CANNOT violate 5314 because 5314 creates NO obligation on individual but ONLY on Treasury. The 5321 penalty applies to a violation of 5314 which means ONLY Treas can be penalized.
Note also that if we look at Criminal penalties under 5322 it creates a penalty for the violation of the regulation created by Treasury under 5314. 5321 does NOT impose a penalty for violation of regulation. Here are 5321 and 5322 side by side. Thoughts? law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31… ImageImage
#FBAR rules created by Treasury pursuant to 31 USC 5314 directive. Congress is irrelevant. Biden admin can exempt #Americansabroad from @InFBARWeTrust. If @DemsAbroad want @USVotersAbroad to #VoteFromAbroad, then @TheDemocrats must arrange for FBAR exemption for @USCitizenAbroad.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with John Richardson - Counsellor for US persons abroad

John Richardson - Counsellor for US persons abroad Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ExpatriationLaw

Apr 19
Congratulations to @MonteSilver1 and @GOPIsrael - the #GILTI lawsuit remains alive!! news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-repo…
The oral argument in Monte Silver v. IRS (definitely worth listening to) is here ... courtlistener.com/audio/89880/mo…
In the April 19/24 decision in @MonteSilver1 v The IRS the USCA remanded the case to the District Court to reconsider the applicability of the South Carolina v Regen case. Full decision is here ... taxnotes.com/research/feder…
Image
Read 5 tweets
Mar 9
Interesting analysis from @DanNeidle. Example of the use of procedural rules to avoid analyzing what the #FATCA IGAs are really about (especially in application to UK residents). Should the UK really allow the US, to claim UK residents as US taxpayers? taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/03/08/sec…
@DanNeidle Par 5 of ruling Judge makes factual mistakes: 1. #FATCA IGAs are NOT US "treaties". 2. US tax authorities do NOT transfer information on "US citizens resident in the UK". Transfer is on individuals RESIDENT in UK (not citizens) who hold accounts in US!. assets.caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2024/5…
Image
Par. 4 includes acknowledgement that #FATCA IGAs apply to accounts held by UK RESIDENTS who are US citizens. IGAs do NOT apply to US residents who are UK citizens. Hence, US receives UK account info about people who live in UK and do NOT live in the US! assets.caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2024/5…
Image
Read 5 tweets
Dec 18, 2023
Looking forward: @Keith__REDMOND, @IRS_MEDIC and @Expatriationlaw discuss the US #PFIC rules. Interestingly @RonWyden in his "Billionaires (so called) Tax Act" is applying PFIC (as applied to #Americansabroad) to resident Americans.
Similarity to #PFIC 1: @RonWyden's "Billionaires Tax Act" imposes an annual "mark to market" tax on "tradable" (think publicly traded stocks) assets. Pay tax without an actual sale ... finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…
Image
Similarity to #PFIC 2: @RonWyden's "Billionaires Tax Act" imposes a deferral charge on "non-tradable" WHEN they are sold. This is the attribution of income to somebody when they have not received income and charges interest on the #fakeincome. finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…
Image
Read 20 tweets
Nov 29, 2023
When it comes to the Moore @USTransitionTax MRT case (to be argued Dec. 5/23) there is almost no agreement on what the case is even about (reflected in the statements of the interviewees.) Some thoughts on what was said ... cnb.cx/3QRdSfu
@USTransitionTax 1. Earnings accumulated before 2017 by CFCs were NOT "deferred". They were earnings of a non-US corp, that were not taxable by the US as per US tax law. There was never ANY obligation to bring those earnings into the US tax system. The TJCA created both new income and a new tax!
@USTransitionTax 2. Suggestion that CFCs were (prior to 2017) "pass through entities" is wrong. Subpart F was created precisely because CFCs are were not "pass through". The CFC was a separate legal entity that the US (as per treaties) was prohibited from taxing (except US source income).
Read 14 tweets
Nov 26, 2023
US Model Tax Treaty: Par 4 of Article 1 includes "saving clause" that (1) allows US residents but NOT citizens to be treated as having @taxresidency - as per Art 4 - in treaty partner country + (2) denies US citizens (limited exceptions) treaty benefits. home.treasury.gov/system/files/1…

Image
Image
@TaxResidency Both US citizens and Green Card holders are subject to all provisions (worldwide tax, reporting and penalties) of US tax code. Green card holders (but not citizens) may use treaty (dual @taxresidency tie break) to become "treaty nonresidents" and taxable only on US source income.
To maintain Green Card one is required to intend to live permanently in USA. Citizens are permitted to live outside USA and remain citizens. Why then can Green Card Holders become "treaty nonresidents" but US citizens not? @TAPInternation, does this violate equal protection?
Read 7 tweets
Oct 20, 2023
@goodtaxtakes @Tyler_Menzer Case 4 taxing nonres citizens as the book demonstrates) is (unlike case for taxing GC holders) not based on anything except tradition, ignorance, stupidity and mistakenly equating residence and citizenship. It’s obvious that the author of book doesn’t understand @citizenshiptax.
@goodtaxtakes @Tyler_Menzer @CitizenshipTax Cook v. Tait is not about taxation. It’s about the relationship between the state and the citizen as it was understood in 1924 (the citizen was the property of the state). This is discussed in this video.
@goodtaxtakes @Tyler_Menzer @CitizenshipTax Even the tax academics (who are completely ignorant abt this issue) would concede that neither taxation nor citizenship are anything like what they were in 1924. @Dualcitizenship was rare and discouraged. Citizenship and residency were mostly the same.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(