Visit our Popular Forums

avb3 · 17-02-2015, 19:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by nauticalnomad

I am glad Im not American....

I'm not either but that is no reason to be smug. Many countries have convoluted tax laws and agreements with others, particularly with the USA, which can trap the unwitting innocents along with those that it is designed to address.

If you have no off shore assets or income, you won't have any concerns. Start having anything outside of your jurisdiction, make sure you know how that affects your situation. Surprises are not nice.

befree · 08-08-2015, 09:12

This is probably going to shock many, and holds true in most countries.

In the US, when it comes to law, there is one aspect that everyone forgets, and if you don't believe me, look up Brady motion.

Is everyone's belief here, that the laws apply due to your location, or your citizenship? Can you prove it? What facts do you have to prove it?

Think about it?

Now lets look at laws.
What facts do you have that these laws (opinions) apply to you? (I'm talking about laws that harm no one).

IF you are accused of breaking a law, one of the elements that must be proven (not assumed) is whether that law applies to you.
The courts and the victims almost always assume this aspect and never object, this is one reason they end up in prison. (again look up Brady motion).

All elements of a supposed crime must be proven including the application of the law.

Now just so you know, No lawyer will ever object to the application of the law to a person, or citizen in the US. IF they do they will get disbarred, because they are officers of the court and represent the court.

This type of argument or motion is called a jurisdiction motion, challenging the jurisdiction of the court, and demanding that the prosecution prove all of the elements of the supposed crime that they are accusing someone of and that they have the evidence backed up with facts to support their accusations and that they have given this evidence to the court proving that they in fact do have jurisdiction.

So with all of this tax law discussion, what facts does anyone have that any of these laws apply to you?

Protect your assets, live your life and keep your stuff private is what a prudent person would do.

Live free as best you can

Whats really interesting is that if you read many cases where the government is getting sued, you will notice that in almost all of the cases the government will file a Brady motion claiming that the accuser does not have jurisdiction to sue them or accuse them of a crime because they haven't proven it, and then ask for summery judgement and dismissal.

Just something to ponder.

Stumble · 08-08-2015, 10:37

Well that was an interesting drivel of advice.

I missed this thread initially, but my brother is an accountant with a good bit of experience dealing with expats who own businesses offshore. I would highly recommend him if you still need advice.

befree · 08-08-2015, 11:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stumble

Well that was an interesting drivel of advice.

I missed this thread initially, but my brother is an accountant with a good bit of experience dealing with expats who own businesses offshore. I would highly recommend him if you still need advice.

I posted something to think about and ponder.

And what kind of expert are you?

Why don't you describe in detail what a Brady Motion is, since you claim to know what good advice is and what bad advice is, and while you're at it, why don't you prove that laws apply to everyone around you using facts?

You don't want an accountant especially CPAs. (Been there done that, worst advice ever lost hundreds of thousands.)

You should look into CFPs or CBPs.

Certified Financial Planners or Certified Business Planners.

These people specialize in setting up business structures and some of them world wide. They also know what laws to worry about and what laws to ignore.

Most of them will tell you to never own anything but to just have use and control of it by using business entities and structures.

S/V Illusion · 08-08-2015, 11:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by nauticalnomad

I am glad Im not American....

So are we.

Tayana42 · 08-08-2015, 11:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by nauticalnomad

I am glad Im not American....

Nauticalnomad, as much as we citizens of the United States of America revel in our successful rebellion from England from where do you think we got the basis of our legal system and tax system? I admit our tax system is all screwed up but I lay the blame clearly on King George!

S/V B'Shert

Stumble · 08-08-2015, 11:56

Well since I am a practicing attorney with a lot of business law clients, including a good number of foreign corporations this is pretty much right in my area of expertise.

Brady motions are a bit out of it since they are exclusively a criminal law issue, but generally speaking... A Brady motion is brought by a criminal defendant to require the prosecution to turn over all exculpatory evidence they may have. It has nothing to do with tax law generally.

As for the rest of your post... I assume you are getting at a jurisdictional challenge. So let's take a look at that...

Under 28 USC 1331 a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over all controversies arising out of the laws of the Federal Government. Since this is a question of Federal Tax law, that threshold is met. So any federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

But courts also need personal jurisdiction over the person. Since we are talking about a U.S. citizen at a minimum the court in the state where he is domiciled will have personal jurisdiction (Pennoyer vs Neff 95 USC 714, 1877). In addition there are more possibilities, like minimum contacts, in rem, quasi in rem, ect... But we don't need them because at a minimum personal is proper where the defendant lives.

Technically we also need venue to be proper, but venue just decides which of the federal courts in the state of domicile is proper. And venue is waive able.

Of course since this is a tax issue. First you have to exhaust any remedies in federal Tax Court (art I court), bfore going to federal court (Art III court). But the same rules as to jurisdiction apply.

sailorboy1 · 09-08-2015, 05:20

Sailing and cruising forum 😳

Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

esarratt · 09-08-2015, 06:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by nauticalnomad

I am glad Im not American....

Ha-ha!

In my experience, when it gets into tax law itself, accountants are not as savvy as a good tax attorney.

So...I would hire a tax attorney for a consult. A lot of attorneys want you to bounce the problem off them over the phone anyway and that conversation alone may answer your question.

I would talk to 2 or 3 this way and trust the consensus.

Talking specifically to attorneys who specialize in foreign corporations + boats + tax (loopholes) is probably the best source of information.

Worst case scenario is you "fess up" with the help of an attorney BEFORE the IRS notices the problem. Plead "dumb".

The attorney will know whether you need to fess up, and more importantly, HOW you should fess up.

hellosailor · 09-08-2015, 10:20

There are jurisdictional suits filed all the time, all over the US. SOme good ones were filed in the 80's or 90's when NY and CT tax authorities were all excited about a clarification [read: shift] in the state boundary that ran through some private property and, iirc, actual homes on it. Jurisdictional disputes (which state is the residency?) are filed over estate matters all the time. No one gets disbarred for it. Alleged "Indians" who should be subject to reservation law, or US or state law, are subject to this all the time. Jurisdiction suits? No one gets disbarred, that's like asing the maître d' at a restaurant how much a better table and faster reservation will cost you. Bidness as usual.

Sounds like someone is a tax denier and wants to challenge the legality of the IRS here, since it isn't Congress doing the tax collecting in person. Except, the law says they don't have to do anything in person, they can delegate it all.

belizesailor · 09-08-2015, 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellosailor

...

Sounds like someone is a tax denier and wants to challenge the legality of the IRS here, since it isn't Congress doing the tax collecting in person. Except, the law says they don't have to do anything in person, they can delegate it all.

Yes, sounded like the "Sovereign" line of thinking to me. Met a hard-core Sovereign a few years ago who is now on an extended stay at Club Homeland Security. All that mumbo-jumbo didn't work very well the MIB showed up.

denverd0n · 10-08-2015, 05:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by befree

The courts and the victims almost always assume this aspect and never object...

Completely, utterly, and absolutely UNTRUE! Jurisdiction gets argued in court all the time. It's usually the first thing that is brought up--if there is even the remotest basis for disputing it. Go sit in almost any courtroom in the United States, any day of the week, and within a couple of hours you will probably have heard jurisdiction disputed multiple times.

I'm sorry, but I just don't know a nicer way to say it... Your entire post is based on complete nonsense.