International travel is not a fundamental liberty for Americans

[Jingthing]

Who knew?

 

Tax Ruling Impacts U.S. Expatriates | National Review

Quote

 

A New, Two-Pronged Attack on U.S. Expats?

 

Maehr v. U.S. Department of State threatens to harm those already laboring under the burdens imposed by a U.S. citizenship-based taxation regime.

 

On July 20, the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a decision from a Colorado district court that will have profound, negative implications for U.S. expatriates — those seeking to live and work abroad without renouncing their U.S. citizenship. If not limited or overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, the ruling could lead to a new, two-pronged attack on a U.S. expatriate community already laboring under the burdens imposed by a U.S. citizenship-based taxation regime.

 

 

[mtls2005]

from the article...

 

Pardon me for me for not losing sleep over this one. Thread title might be better as "Possessing a passport is not a right." And more shockingly, neither is voting.

 

Pay your darn taxes, or renounce citizenship. Peasey. Same-same for child support.

 

The case, Maehr v. U.S. Department of State, involved a challenge to the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act. Among other things, the FAST Act gives the IRS the power to notify the State Department if a taxpayer owes more than $50,000 in federal taxes — a sum against which the IRS has a tax lien. Once the IRS has certified that the taxpayer has such delinquent tax debt, the State Department is prohibited from issuing the taxpayer a new passport and has the authority to revoke a current one (subject to certain emergency or humanitarian exceptions).

 

The appellant, Jeffrey T. Maehr, owed $250,000 in federal taxes and subsequently had his passport revoked under the State Department’s FAST Act authority. Maehr then filed suit, challenging the Act’s tax provisions under the privileges-and-immunities clause of the 14th Amendment and the due-process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

 

[wanderingengine]

This isn't about whether the US government can take your passport for a tax debt. It is about whether they should have to take you to court first.

The petitioner is saying that the government should have to take him to court and prove their case before a judge before confiscating his passport. The government is saying that it should be done purely on their say-so.

[mtls2005]

7 minutes ago, wanderingengine said:

The petitioner is saying that the government should have to take him to court and prove their case before a judge before confiscating his passport.

Actually he made three separate challenges..."due process" was but one of these challenges.

 

Appellant Jeffrey T. Maehr is one of the Americans caught in the snares of this scheme.  He challenged the lawfulness of the United States Department of State’s revocation of his passport, arguing that it violates substantive due process, runs afoul of principles announced in the Privileges and Immunities clauses,1 and contradicts caselaw concerning the common law principle of ne exeat republica.  The district court rejected all three of his challenges.  We affirm the district court on each of these arguments.

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/20-1124/20-1124-2021-07-20.html

 

 

 

While we do pay a fee for a passport, possessing one is a benefit of being a citizen in good standing (aka commonwealth). While the Constitution does convey the freedom of travel (the "fundamental liberty" the OP references), that is conventionally understood to only cover travel within the U.S. (and territories).

 

Encouraging people to pay their back taxes, while preventing them from doing a runner, has my FULL support.

 

 

[cmarshall]

JT reads the "National Review?"

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, cmarshall said:

JT reads the "National Review?"

Not usually but I'm interested in any source that highlights the problems of American expats created by our own government. In case anyone doesn't know the NR is a long standing establishment conservative magazine.

[bendejo]

20 hours ago, cmarshall said:

JT reads the "National Review?"

As Chairman Mao said "know your enemy."

 

 

[gk10012001]

Many people that are NOT yet convicted of crimes, get their passports confiscated while awaiting trial.  If the law really allows the State Department to take a passport without any further legal action or judicial action, I don't like that. 

[cmarshall]

1 hour ago, gk10012001 said:

Many people that are NOT yet convicted of crimes, get their passports confiscated while awaiting trial.  If the law really allows the State Department to take a passport without any further legal action or judicial action, I don't like that. 

While you may have an opinion about this question, the answer isn’t actually up for debate; passports are not a right, they are a privilege extended to Americans who are not incarcerated, do not have a warrant out for their arrest, and do not owe child support in excess of $2500.

 

https://www.swiftpassportservices.com/blog/are-u-s-passports-are-privilege-or-a-right/

[gk10012001]

3 hours ago, cmarshall said:

While you may have an opinion about this question, the answer isn’t actually up for debate; passports are not a right, they are a privilege extended to Americans who are not incarcerated, do not have a warrant out for their arrest, and do not owe child support in excess of $2500.

 

https://www.swiftpassportservices.com/blog/are-u-s-passports-are-privilege-or-a-right/

Why do you always attack attack and attack posters.  Any issue could be up for discussion or debate.  The USA is founded on the right of due process.   Any action should be reviewed by a judge before summary judgement or action is taken by any agency.  If you disagree, fine.  If I agree or disagree, fine.  If the law and then the courts have ruled on the law, then so be it. 

[cmarshall]

1 hour ago, gk10012001 said:

Why do you always attack attack and attack posters.  Any issue could be up for discussion or debate.  The USA is founded on the right of due process.   Any action should be reviewed by a judge before summary judgement or action is taken by any agency.  If you disagree, fine.  If I agree or disagree, fine.  If the law and then the courts have ruled on the law, then so be it. 

I did not attack you nor was I giving my opinion.  I quoted a knowledgeable source to inform you about what has been the long-standing practice of the State Dept which is apparently news to you.   Lots of actions by the government are not subject to review in a court of law.

[bendejo]

22 hours ago, gk10012001 said:

Many people that are NOT yet convicted of crimes, get their passports confiscated while awaiting trial.  If the law really allows the State Department to take a passport without any further legal action or judicial action, I don't like that. 

They don't have to take it, they are the State Dept, they can simply cancel it regardless of where you are.  Isn't that how Snowden ended up in Putinland?

 

 

[BananaGuy]

22 hours ago, gk10012001 said:

Why do you always attack attack and attack posters.  Any issue could be up for discussion or debate.  <snip>

Hmm. One perceived ‘attack’ based on the OP’s simple statement would seem unjustified …

 

… ‘attack attack and attack’ verges on science fiction …

[BananaGuy]

1 hour ago, Time Traveller said:

At least 90% of all the problems in the world today are caused by the United States government.  Fact. <snip>

Wow this topic is certainly drawing out some … err … unusual responses.

At least 90% eh? I’d be happy to accept that as ‘fact’ if the number was a bit more precise than just a range between 90% and every problem in the world.

 

Got an actual number for me?

 

Oh … and just a hint of evidence would be a nice-to-have.

 

Please hurry, I’m holding my breath …

[VocalNeal]

On 9/10/2021 at 9:09 AM, mtls2005 said:

While the Constitution does convey the freedom of travel (the "fundamental liberty" the OP references), that is conventionally understood to only cover travel within the U.S. (and territories).

In the same way the right to bear arms relates to muskets? 

 

 

Just realized that Brits are taxed by "Inland" revenue.  Not outland revenue.

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2021 by VocalNeal

[khunjeff]

On 9/10/2021 at 8:51 AM, wanderingengine said:

This isn't about whether the US government can take your passport for a tax debt. It is about whether they should have to take you to court first.

The petitioner is saying that the government should have to take him to court and prove their case before a judge before confiscating his passport. The government is saying that it should be done purely on their say-so.

They can already seize your bank accounts for tax debts and delinquent filing without taking you to court - it's a purely administrative procedure. And they've been required for many years to deny passports to people with outstanding child support delinquencies, upon notification by state agencies, without going to court. So this isn't a new concept.

 

I certainly agree that US tax rules designed to snare international money launderers and tax evaders often end up wreaking havoc on hapless Americans abroad without much money, but that's a separate issue.

[inThailand]

USA the new North Korea? 

[Pravda]

I'm surprised the posters who are apparently 30 years older than me know very little about the laws of the country they are born in. 

 

The same thing exists in Canada. CRA can take your passport if you owe taxes. I spent only 19 years in Canada and learned this in year 2.

 

 

[wwest5829]

On 9/10/2021 at 6:55 AM, mtls2005 said:

from the article...

 

Pardon me for me for not losing sleep over this one. Thread title might be better as "Possessing a passport is not a right." And more shockingly, neither is voting.

 

Pay your darn taxes, or renounce citizenship. Peasey. Same-same for child support.

 

The case, Maehr v. U.S. Department of State, involved a challenge to the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act. Among other things, the FAST Act gives the IRS the power to notify the State Department if a taxpayer owes more than $50,000 in federal taxes — a sum against which the IRS has a tax lien. Once the IRS has certified that the taxpayer has such delinquent tax debt, the State Department is prohibited from issuing the taxpayer a new passport and has the authority to revoke a current one (subject to certain emergency or humanitarian exceptions).

 

The appellant, Jeffrey T. Maehr, owed $250,000 in federal taxes and subsequently had his passport revoked under the State Department’s FAST Act authority. Maehr then filed suit, challenging the Act’s tax provisions under the privileges-and-immunities clause of the 14th Amendment and the due-process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

 

Thanks for taking the time to read and then post. I copied the case to look up also noting the poster goes over the edge at times. It appears this time as well.

[Old Croc]

I'm not a US citizen and have no great sympathies for the moribund social and financial systems imposed against people there (you reap what you sow), nor would object about sanctions against those who skip on outstanding debt. 

However, I do consider taxing of income earned abroad by expats, as outlined in the linked article, to be manifestly unfair. 

"The U.S. system reduces Americans’ competitiveness abroad, disincentivizes investment, and treats nonresident U.S. citizens — including many who have lived abroad their entire lives — as full-time residents for tax purposes. If an American lives overseas and sources most of his or her income outside the U.S., it is destructive and unfair to tax that income as if it were earned in the U.S.

America’s citizenship-based tax regime has already made Americans toxic abroad for banks and potential business partners. If this case stands, it will represent yet another tightening of the ratchet. American expats will find that their ability to cross foreign borders (if they are outside the U.S.) or leave the U.S. has been dramatically curtailed or, in the latter case, ended."

[Presnock]

Just now, gk10012001 said:

Many people that are NOT yet convicted of crimes, get their passports confiscated while awaiting trial.  If the law really allows the State Department to take a passport without any further legal action or judicial action, I don't like that. 

so, you are all for letting someone suspected of a foul crime to be able to flee the US to avoid prosecution?  That is the reported reason for revoking one's passport if they are charged for a crime.

 

[cmarshall]

18 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

I'm not a US citizen and have no great sympathies for the moribund social and financial systems imposed against people there (you reap what you sow), nor would object about sanctions against those who skip on outstanding debt. 

However, I do consider taxing of income earned abroad by expats, as outlined in the linked article, to be manifestly unfair. 

"The U.S. system reduces Americans’ competitiveness abroad, disincentivizes investment, and treats nonresident U.S. citizens — including many who have lived abroad their entire lives — as full-time residents for tax purposes. If an American lives overseas and sources most of his or her income outside the U.S., it is destructive and unfair to tax that income as if it were earned in the U.S.

America’s citizenship-based tax regime has already made Americans toxic abroad for banks and potential business partners. If this case stands, it will represent yet another tightening of the ratchet. American expats will find that their ability to cross foreign borders (if they are outside the U.S.) or leave the U.S. has been dramatically curtailed or, in the latter case, ended."

As an American expat I naturally wish the US did not tax our worldwide income, but I don't see that there is any reason that taxation should be restricted to residents.  Interestingly, those who do make that claim do not go around calling for the Thai government to require us to pay income tax, because we live here, which would follow logically, wouldn't it?

 

In any case, the policy of taxing based on citizenship has nothing to do with the reporting of assets outside the US via FBAR or FATCA, both of which are part of a program to curb tax evasion by rich, many of whom hide their assets abroad without moving there themselves.  Since I pay my own taxes faithfully, I strongly support more effective programs to stop tax evasion, especially by the rich.

Edited September 14, 2021 by cmarshall

[Thai Visa Member 999999]

On 9/11/2021 at 8:45 PM, cmarshall said:

JT reads the "National Review?"

Well... at least it's not BreitBart or Alex Jones. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Thai Visa Member 999999]

   On 9/11/2021 at 8:45 PM,  cmarshall said: 

JT reads the "National Review?"

Not usually but I'm interested in any source that highlights the problems of American expats created by our own government. In case anyone doesn't know the NR is a long standing establishment conservative magazine.

 

 

It was before the internet and Trump. Sadly, those days are long gone. Nonetheless, I appreciate your efforts at bringing relevant matters to our attention so thank you.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Thai Visa Member 999999
erased Jingthings message

[inThailand]

Most US expats here do not report, file or pay their required taxes, ie tax returns, FBAR, 8938, etc. I have met two others in 19 yrs here who do. Their day is coming. 

[ubonjoe]

3 hours ago, inThailand said:

Most US expats here do not report, file or pay their required taxes, ie tax returns, FBAR, 8938, etc. I have met two others in 19 yrs here who do. Their day is coming. 

Many people here do not have enough income or money in a Thai bank that requires filing any of those reports.

[inThailand]

19 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

Many people here do not have enough income or money in a Thai bank that requires filing any of those reports.

Really?

A total of $10,000 or about 320,000B or more requires filing. 

[ubonjoe]

5 hours ago, inThailand said:

Really?

A total of $10,000 or about 320,000B or more requires filing. 

Why would they need that amount of money in the bank here if they have a good income coming in every month.

Not everybody has to put money in the bank for extensions of stay.

[Time Traveller]

On 9/13/2021 at 6:18 PM, BananaGuy said:

Wow this topic is certainly drawing out some … err … unusual responses.

At least 90% eh? I’d be happy to accept that as ‘fact’ if the number was a bit more precise than just a range between 90% and every problem in the world.

 

Got an actual number for me?

 

Oh … and just a hint of evidence would be a nice-to-have.

 

Please hurry, I’m holding my breath …

Maybe it's 95% or maybe its just 85%.   But the US has over 800 military bases in over 70 countries throughout the world.  And no they are not there to hand out rainbow flags and lecture on LGBT rights. 

Plus, the US dollar is used as the reserve currency for almost every single country in the world. This ability to influence monetary liquidity, combined with granting access to SWIFT (global transfer system), lending via IMF/World Bank, means the US government have the ability to influence almost any country adversely in ways you would not understand.

 

So yes, please continue to hold your breath. In fact the longer you do, the smarter you will become.

[gk10012001]

On 9/13/2021 at 10:16 PM, Presnock said:

so, you are all for letting someone suspected of a foul crime to be able to flee the US to avoid prosecution?  That is the reported reason for revoking one's passport if they are charged for a crime.

 

I never said anything like that. You imagined and read in something else. I only said that I would like it better if a court order was required for surrendering of the passport.  As another poster wrote, sometimes the laws allow police and other agencies to summarily confiscate things without any court action, which goes against the whole premise of USA law about presuming innocence before guilt.   The IRS has been known to be quite nasty at times.