Ex-Pat Denied Visa

[LPC]

I thought that this story about Roger Ver was all too interesting, because he actually and effectively renounced his United States citizenship, so he's no longer subject to US taxes.

But then he discovered that he can't get a visa to travel back into the United States.

Oh, the tyranny!

[Pottapaug1938]

The term "hoist with one's own petard" comes readily to mind....

[notorial dissent]

I would say he doesn't sound to me like the sharpest knife in the drawer to begin with, bitcoin millionaire or not. I suspect he'll be in for some more rude awakenings as time goes on.

[Hyrion]

I guess they just don't consider one all important factor in the situation:

• Every independent nation on Earth has total Sovereignty over itself.

Which ultimately means a Country can choose to not let in anyone who is not a citizen of that Country for no other reason then because they don't wish to do so.

And... really... how many Countries in the World are willing to go to war just because "the bad Country" won't "honor a treaty and let our citizen enter"?

Ah well... some of us live and learn while others choose to live without learning - or in some cases, apparently without even bothering to think and consider every action comes with consequences.

[rosvicl]

If borders are not merely arbitrary and formal but imaginary, they shouldn't limit the IRS, and they would be able to make him pay taxes in St. Kitts and Nevis.

It's more a magic incantation of "doesn't apply to me": I'm fairly sure his "borders are imaginary lines" wouldn't extend to the idea that nobody can own land because the boundaries between my land and yours are imaginary.

[grixit]

Sovereignty also applies to a country's policies for dealing with other countries' claims. St. Kitts may be smug about protecting expats now, but it would only take one hurricane to put them in need of some major foreign aid, and Washington's good will, in which case Roge Var could find himself in court regardless of citizenship.

[LPC]

Sovereignty also applies to a country's policies for dealing with other countries' claims. St. Kitts may be smug about protecting expats now, but it would only take one hurricane to put them in need of some major foreign aid, and Washington's good will, in which case Roge Var could find himself in court regardless of citizenship.

In court for what? There's nothing in the article that suggests that Ver owes any tax in the US, or is avoiding any legal claims in the US.

There is a US tax upon expatriation, but there is no reason to believe that Ver didn't pay the tax, or that he owes the tax.

Besides, if the US wanted personal jurisdiction over him for some reason, they could grant the visa, wait for him to arrive, and then serve him (or seize him).

What's also strange is that Ver thinks that the US won't grant him a visa because it's afraid he'll overstay the visa. But if he overstayed the visa, then he'd be a resident of the US and would owe US taxes again. So the US should want him to stay, and Ver should want to leave, which is the opposite of the scenario Ver describes.

[fortinbras]

Presumably Ver is paid up on his taxes or else the State Dept might simply insist he pay the debt as an entrance fee for a US visit.

But he made it clear by renouncing his citizenship that he did not want to share his prosperity with the homeland that made it possible. If now he find the US govt a bit on the slow side about letting his get what he wants, well gee, what goes around .....

[Pottapaug1938]

I think that the issue is that Ver wants all or most of the perks of being an American and of living here without any of the obligations.

[Burnaby49]

I take what I think is a more nuanced view. I start with the point (I stand to be corrected) that the United States is only one of two countries in the entire world that bases tax on citizenship. The other is Eritrea. Is that the kind of company you Americans want to keep?

This is a big issue here in Canada. I have a friend who was born in the USA but who's parents moved to Canada very shortly after he was born. So he is Canadian, lived here all of his income earning life here, but the United States want him to pay a full tax on all his income as if he'd earned it in Tucson or Orlando. Why?

He doesn't need his US citizenship but, if he renounced it, he would be barred from entering the US again. Again why?

[Gregg]

I believe that you can take a tax credit for foreign taxes paid, so he would only be liable for the income tax owed that would be above what he paid in Canadian tax. Its been a long time, one of the posters who actively practice can tell us if I'm right on this.

[Famspear]

Yes, Internal Revenue Code section 911 applies to certain foreign earned income of U.S. citizens or U.S. residents living abroad. For year 2014, the maximum amount of foreign earned income that can be excluded is $99,200. It's adjusted for inflation annually. See Form 2555.

Alternatively, the individual can take a tax credit for the foreign taxes paid (Form 1116).

Yet another alternative is to take a deduction (itemized deduction on Schedule A) for the foreign taxes paid.

[LPC]

I think that the issue is that Ver wants all or most of the perks of being an American and of living here without any of the obligations.

Yes, he was undoubtedly educated by a system supported by tax dollars, made money through an economy supported by tax dollars, and now doesn't think he owes other taxpayers anything.

He was (to coin a phrase) born on third base and thought he hit a triple.

[Famspear]

Roger Keith Ver is also a convicted felon. A criminal complaint was filed against him on June 12, 2001, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. He pleaded guilty to one count of dealing in explosives without a license, under 18 USC 842(a)(1), one count of storing explosives in a manner not in conformity with regulations, under 18 USC 842(j), and one count of mailing injurious articles, under 18 USC 1716.

According to one report, this conviction was for using the internet to sell "firecrackers used by farmers to scare deer and birds away from their cornfields." See generally Shruti Tripathi Chopra, "Meet 'Bitcoin Jesus' Roger Ver, the millionaire who distributes free Bitcoins," July 17, 2013, at londonlovesbusiness.com

The following is from the transcript at his sentencing hearing, on May 2, 2002, (statements by the Court):

There are elements in the probation report and in Dr. Missett's report which concern me a great deal. One has to be very careful. Mr. Ver, you're a young man and you've led a law-abiding life for the last two years and you've by all accounts performed well on pretrial release. I did note in your letter that you accepted that your conduct was illegal, and I appreciate that.

I also don't in any way want to confuse your political beliefs, which you are absolutely entitled to have, with your criminal conduct. There's a long and honorable tradition of libertarian politics in our country and I don't mean to in any way hold that against you. It's something that you're entitled to have.

The problem, though, is that the law is a representation of authority in a certain way. People can disagree and they can disagree very vigorously and very reasonably about what ought to be legal and what ought not to be legal and how much the Government ought to do or ought not to do.

But there is a point at which we start talking about public safety and I think even the most die hard libertarian would agree that one function of government, if there is to be a government, is to protect public safety. So then it's just a question of how you do it, how you do it in a way that's least invasive of individual liberties.

Selling explosives over the Internet doesn't cut it in any society that I can imagine and I think it's -- the conduct here is simply not tolerable conduct and it's not -- I don't think one has to be a big government person or believe in government regulation of every aspect of human life to suggest that people should not be selling explosives over the Internet.

The other thing that concerns me is that in looking at your social history it seems to me you've got some reasons for not trusting authority, and that's okay. I mean, those are feelings that are a product of your life experience. Nonetheless, those feelings don't give you the right to be above the same social constraints that bind all of us.

And I'm not saying this as well as I'd like to, but I think there's a difference between saying I believe that the government which governs best governs least and saying that I'm above the law totally, that I'm so smart, I'm so able, I'm so perceptive that I don't have to follow the rules that apply to other human beings.

There's a difference between those two positions. And while one of them is a very respectable position that I think any judge ought to uphold and support rather than punish, the other I think is why we have courts. It's when a person believes that he or she is so important and so intelligent and so much better than everybody else that they don't have to follow even the most basic rules that keep us together in this society.

I hope and I actually suspect that you've grown up a bit since you did these things. I don't know if you have any desire to pursue therapy, to deal with your issues about your father and about your family of origin. That's your choice, but I think a lot of the -- a lot of the edge in the things you did when these offenses were committed I think may be traced to that, and that is not in any way meant to devalue the political beliefs that you have.

Again, I think one can have sincere political beliefs and also have some personal issues that cause a person to do irrational things. Those things are not inconsistent and, frankly, I think that's what happened here.

I think that these offenses are very serious. They could have been a lot more serious. The bombs could have gone off or people could have used them in destructive ways. Selling bombs to juveniles is never okay.

I'd like to say that the five and five sentence that your attorney proposed is something that I'm comfortable with, but I just can't. And it's not a desire to be overly punitive or to send you a message. It's simply saying that this conduct -- when the law punishes behavior, criminal law is directed at conduct.

This conduct to me would have warranted a much stiffer sentence than ten months. There's a plea agreement. I'm bound by it. I'm not going to upset it. It was arrived at in good faith by the Government and by the defense and I will respect it, but I'm not going to dilute it

And I think part of growing up and part of accepting responsibility for what you did is recognizing that when you do something that's this dangerous and this anti-social that there is a significant consequence for it.

And I certainly don't mean to devalue the efforts you've made since then or the growth that you've experienced since then. I want to encourage it, but I think part of it is recognizing that this is a big deal. This case is not insubstantial and ten months actually I think in the scheme of things is something of a break and I think it's something of a recognition that you have grown up, that you have accepted some responsibility, that you don't have a prior criminal history.

But particularly post-9/11 you get cases like this coming in here the Government is seeking to put people away for a lot longer than ten months. So, you know, I don't minimize the effects on your business and on your personal life or anything else, but I just can't in good conscious [sic] do less than that.

Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it is the judgment of this Court that the Defendant Roger Keith Ver is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of ten months.

Upon release from custody the Defendant shall be placed on supervised release for a term of three years....

---statements by the Court, sentencing hearing, May 2, 2002, United States v. Roger Ver, case no. 01-cr-20127-JF, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose Div.).

Roger Ver served his time in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons as inmate # 99722-111, and was released on May 27, 2003.

EDIT: Corrected typo on Bureau of Prisons inmate number.

[notorial dissent]

The convicted felon part goes a long ways towards explaining a number of things. DHS gets real cranky about people with felony explosives convictions coming in to the country, for any purpose. Sounds like he got really lucky on the original conviction as it was. Wonder what else he was up to?

[Famspear]

Here is the Department of Justice news release:

May 2, 2002

U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
11th Floor, Federal Building
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 436-7200
Fax:(415) 436-7234

San Jose, California Man Pleads Guilty to Selling Explosives on eBay

The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California announced today that Roger Ver was sentenced to 10 months in prison for selling explosives on the online auction site, eBay. The sentence was handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel following a guilty plea on one count of dealing in explosives without a license in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 842(a)(1); one count of illegally storing explosives in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 842(j); and one count of mailing injurious articles in violation Title 18, United States Code, Section 1716. Mr. Ver, 22, of San Jose, was charged in an information filed in federal district court on August 8, 2001. According to the plea agreement, Mr. Ver admitted to engaging in the business of selling explosives without a license from January 1999 through August 2000. According to the information and plea agreement, Mr. Ver sold explosive devices described as “Pest Control Report 2000” on the online auction site eBay. He purchased approximately 49 pounds of the devices from a supplier in South Carolina, and sold at least 14 pounds of the devices to bidders on eBay. While engaging in the business of selling explosive devices, Mr. Ver stored the explosives in a residential apartment building and mailed the devices via the United States Mail in a manner contrary to Postal Service regulations. Judge Fogel sentenced the Defendant to 10 months in federal prison, a fine of $2,000, as well as a three-year period of supervised release. The Defendant will begin serving the sentence on August 2, 2002. The prosecution was the result of an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Scott Frewing is the Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted the case with the assistance of Legal Assistant Lauri Gomez.

[Famspear]

And, here's a link to an article that mentions Roger Ver:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... esn-t-save

EDIT: Some excerpts:

Roger Ver, a computer-parts and explosives impresario known as Bitcoin Jesus, has come up with a pretty Bitcoiny idea: Give him some Bitcoins and he'll set you up with a passport and citizenship in the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis, ostensibly free of income taxes, bad weather and meddlesome governments.

Sounds great! Ask nothing, expect nothing, etc ... In reality, though, this isn't a very good idea for either government-hating types or aspiring tax avoiders. And it's hard to think of too many other constituencies that might be interested in using Bitcoins for such a service.

Let's say you're a government-hater. A really ambitious one, determined to escape Uncle Sam and the Fed's sinister intrigues. So you convert a lot of money to Bitcoins, retain the services of Ver's company and pack your bags for a life of Caribbean emancipation. Two challenges suggest themselves.

One is that things will get pretty expensive. You have to buy $400,000 worth of government-approved real estate on the island as part of its citizenship-by-investment program, plus some expansive fees. Or you could donate $250,000 to something called the Sugar Industry Diversification Foundation, which, whatever its merits, doesn't sound like an exemplar of free-market enterprise. Then Ver's company takes its cut. So that's kind of a lot of Bitcoins, even if you're a highly prosperous government-hater.

And two, for all that, you're not exactly moving to a bastion of libertarian purity. You're moving to a place with a high tolerance for public debt, international bailouts and monarchical subjugation. For an example of the bureaucratic milieu, consider this handy guide from the St. Kitts Citizenship by Investments Unit: "The first step for applying for Citizenship is choosing an authorised person from the list of the Authorised Persons. The second step is contacting your chosen Authorised Person."

[ . . . ]

The more plausible customers for this service, as with so many denominated in Bitcoin, are the unhappy and delusional, those convinced that somewhere there's an enchanted land where no rules apply, no one will ever bother them and the taxman never comes to the door. In this case, very rich people convinced of those things. Bless their hearts.

--from Timothy Lavin, "Bitcoin Jesus Doesn't Save," June 18, 2014, Bloomberg View.