Coalition Tells Congress: Do NOT Fast-Track the Trade Agreement "TPP"

Coalition to Congress: Don’t Fast-Track the TPP

By Andrea Germanos | Common Dreams | October 24, 2013 | 12:48am EST

‘Given the administration’s complete lack of transparency in negotiating the TPP, it is vitally important that democratically elected representatives are at least given the opportunity to conduct a review and push for fixes,’ write groups

TPP

TPP

Slamming the Obama administration’s “complete lack of transparency in negotiating the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)” trade agreement, a coalition of public interest groups urged members of Congress to reject the president’s request for the ability to fast-track the deal.

Last month, Obama said he would be pushing for Trade Promotion Authority—legislation that would allow him to fast-track trade agreements by giving Congress a yes or no vote but taking away powers to amend, and which Jim Hightower once referred to as “a legislative laxative that’s bad for the Constitution.”

The authority would prevent congressional ability to push for fixes to what Politicodescribed as “the biggest free-trade deal in history — a pact involving 12 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, dwarfing NAFTA — and remaking global trade policy for a generation,” and what Public Citizen’s Lori Wallach described bluntly as “NAFTA on steroids.”

In their letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Ranking Member Orrin Hatch, House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, Ranking Member Sander Levin, and Congressional advisors on trade policy and negotiation sent Wednesday, 14 groups, including Public CitizenAmnesty International, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Global Exchange, write that

Since TPP trade delegates have kept all draft texts secret and have excluded public input from the process, our deep concerns about the agreement have been marginalized.

Among the concerns they cite, based on leaked portions of the agreement’s text, are an “Intellectual Property” chapter that

appears to encourage the sort of speech restricting provisions that the public protested loudly when they appeared in the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).

Echoing the call of dozens of other groups that have warned that the negotiations thus far have favored corporations over the public interest, the letter continues:

The American public has a right to know the contents of the international agreements its government is crafting. Corporations cannot be the only interests represented in this agreement, since they do not advocate for policies that safeguard or even represent the interests of the public at large. Given the administration’s complete lack of transparency in negotiating the TPP, it is vitally important that democratically elected representatives are at least given the opportunity to conduct a review and push for fixes.

To that end, we request that you oppose any legislation that would renew fast track or trade pro motion authority.

THIS ARTICLE ORIGINALLY APPEARED AT Common Dreams

This article is brought to you by Intellihub.com

Views: 372

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

TPP is just another "Obamacare" Law that will destroy the remaining American jobs, industries and freedoms.

Call and write your Congressman - Tell your elected representatives to demand a review of TPP and OPPOSE any legislation on TPP - remind them an election is near and if they do nothing they will be unemployed.

January 10, 2014 - Congress introduces Obama fast-track authority on global trade pacts like TPP

House Ways and Means Committee Chair Dave Camp (R) and top Senate Finance Committee members Max Baucus (D) and Orrin Hatch (R) on Thursday unveiled the Trade Priorities Act of 2014 that would require a simple up-or-down vote on major trade deals without the opportunity to offer amendments to pertinent bills.

“The [Trade Priorities Act] legislation we are introducing today will make sure that these trade deals get done, and get done right,” Sen. Baucus said in a statement. “This is our opportunity to tell the administration - and our trading partners - what Congress’s negotiating priorities are.”

Supporters of the fast-track legislation include major players like the Business Roundtable, the US Chamber of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Association of Manufacturers. Boeing, Pfizer, Walmart and numerous other major corporations have aggressively lobbied for the authority granted in the Trade Priorities Act.

http://rt.com/usa/tpp-obama-legislation-trade-395/

I will do my best to share what I know about this TPP Tax Law, it is time to understand more of why certain people connected to Member of Parliament. Marc-Andrew Morin. Member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. And this so called, The New Democratic Party.

Member of Parliament. And how it is connected to NAFTA to TPP and governed by TPA.

 The founder or founders of Trans-Pacific Partnership, is by the Hand of The United Nations. Hidden but easy confirmed.

Who is De Lombaerde- 3rd key word, Members Of Parliament for TPP Legislators For Transparency

Associate Director

Institute: UNU-CRIS
Office: UNU-CRIS Potterierei 72, 8000 Brugge, Belgium
E-mail: pdelombaerde (@) cris.unu.edu
Phone:
Nationality: Belgium

PROFILE & Research Interests

Regional economic integration, international trade
Latin American and comparative regionalism
Globalization and regionalization indicators:http://www.cris.unu.edu/Dr-Philippe-de-Lombaerde.45.0.html

PROFILE

Research Interests

Regional economic integration, international trade
Latin American and comparative regionalism
Globalization and regionalization indicators

Education

Ph.D. (RWTH)

Appointments

Visiting Lecturer at the University of Maastricht/UNU-MERIT
Visiting Lecturer at the College of Europe
Fellow at the West Africa Institute

Biographical Statement

Philippe De Lombaerde is Associate Director at the UNU Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies (UNU-CRIS) in Bruges since 2008. He is also a Visiting Lecturer at the University of Maastricht since 2013 and at the College of Europe since 2005. Before joining UNU-CRIS, he worked as an Associate Professor of International Economics at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia in Bogotá, as a Researcher and Lecturer at the University of Antwerp, and as a Researcher at the National Institute of Development Administration in Bangkok, among other appointments. He has been a Visiting Lecturer at the UN University for Peace (San José), the Universidad de Los Andes (Bogotá), and the Prague School of Economics. He has been involved in policy research and consultancy projects for the governments of Belgium, Flanders, France, Colombia and Thailand, the UN, ILO, OECD, EDB, European Commission and EUROSTAT. Dr. De Lombaerde studied economics, econometrics, and political science at the universities of Ghent, Brussels, Antwerp and Aachen.

Recent books include: The Periphery of the Euro. Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy in CIS Countries (Ashgate, 2006) (with L. Vinhas de Souza); Assessment and Measurement of Regional Integration (Routledge, 2006); Multilateralism, Regionalism and Bilateralism in Trade and Investment. 2006 World Report on Regional Integration (Springer, 2007); De Benelux: Tijd voor een Wedergeboorte? (Intersentia, 2007) (with J. Wouters et al.); Governing Regional Integration for Development. Monitoring Experiences, Methods and Prospects (Ashgate, 2008) (with A. Estevadeordal and K. Suominen); Regionalisation and Global Governance: The Taming of Globalisation? (Routledge, 2008) (with A. Cooper and C. Hughes); Del regionalismo latinoamericano a la integración interregional (Siglo XXI, 2008) (with S. Kochi and J. Briceño); The EU and World Regionalism. The Makability of Regions in the 21st Century (Ashgate, 2010) (with M. Schulz); The Regional Integration Manual. Quantitative and Qualitative Methods (Routledge, 2011) (with R.G. Flôres, P.L. Iapadre and M. Schulz). Asymmetric Trade Negotiations (Ashgate, 2011) (with S. Bilal and D. Tussie); The United Nations and the Regions. Third World Report on Regional Integration (Springer, 2012) (with F. Baert and T. Felício); Regionalism (Sage, 2013, four volumes) (with F. Söderbaum).

Recent articles have been published in: Review of International Studies, Journal of European Integration, Journal of Common Market Studies, South African Journal of Economics, Cuadernos de Economía, and Journal of Policy Modeling.

For a complete list of publications and paper downloads, see author page on ResearchGate:http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philippe_De_Lombaerde

Doc 1

To understand what happened in your Constitutional Laws you must understand, The British Constitution is derived from a number of sources. Statutes are laws passed by Parliament and are generally the highest form of law. Conventions are unwritten practices which have developed over time and regulate the business of governing. Common law is law developed by the courts and judges through cases .Aug 13, 2013.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Britsh+Constitution&ie=utf-8&am...

completing case laws and study, from England to the UK TPP Laws.

  The New Democrat Party- Members Of Parliament

 Late last year, the Cabinet Office published in draft form a document called the Cabinet Manual.   Subtitled ‘A guide to laws, conventions, and rules on the operation of government’, it was initially intended by Gordon Brown, when instigating it as Prime Minister, as a possible first step towards a written constitution for the UK. This plan has subsequently been dropped, but the manual has survived. Andrew Blick discusses what has become the most comprehensive statement of Britain’s constitution hitherto published.

 In a pamphlet co-authored by Peter Hennessy and myself, published this week by the Institute for Public Policy Research, we analyse the significance and content of this document, and come to the conclusion that it is the fullest publicly available, official statement of the UK constitution ever to have been produced, but it should not be confused with a full codified constitution.

  One notable feature of the arrangements described in the manual is the diverse sources of authority upon which they draw, which can be divided into two broad groupings: law and convention.

The law with which the manual is concerned falls into various different categories: statute law, such as acts of Parliament providing for devolution; common law, such as the Carltona principle (under which junior ministers and officials may exercise the powers of ministers at the head of their department); and international law, such as UK participation in supranational organisations as provided for by treaties.

Some of the legal authority the manual outlines is exercised under the Royal Prerogative, such as the power to appoint the Prime Minister, theoretically still a personal prerogative of the Monarch, and the power to appoint ministers, in practice exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister.
 
Conventions – broadly defined as non-legal understandings, excluding parliamentary rules – covered in the manual are mainly concerned with the domestic operation of the UK system of governance (such as the functioning of Cabinet) but also include some which work internationally, that is, informal arrangements not covered by treaties (such as the G8 and G20 groups).

A further, more anomalous category is that of parliamentary rules (which, for instance, provide a basis for the select committees referred to in the manual) – these may not be classifiable as ‘law’ but perhaps should be seen as something firmer than convention.

Based on this assessment, it is clear that convention is the largest of the manual’s different categories of content. An initial calculation suggests that, of the 409 paragraphs in the main text of the manual, around 60 per cent refer to conventions of some kind.

Around 20 per cent refer specifically to statute law of some kind. (There is some overlap, with certain paragraphs dealing with both statute and convention, as there is between a number of the various categories considered here.)

 Of the remainder, paragraphs deal with (all figures approximate):

    International law – 10 per cent;
    Matters regulated using the royal prerogative – seven per cent;
    Common law – five per cent;
    Rules with a basis in statute (three per cent), such as those contained in the Civil Service Code (with a basis in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010);
    Parliamentary rules, such as Commons standing orders (one per cent);
    International conventions (one per cent).

These figures are very much provisional, and there are difficulties in identifying precisely the type of authority the manual is referring to in each case. And how one authority in particular, parliamentary sovereignty, should be categorised, is a subject of controversy. For the purposes of this calculation, it has been treated as common law.

What does this delineation of the contents of the manual tell us about the way our system of democratic governance operates?

First, that, within our unwritten constitution, there are myriad sources of authority, rather than the basic source of a constitutional text that might exist in other countries.

Second, that there is no consensus about what is the source of perhaps the most important doctrine to the UK constitution, parliamentary sovereignty.

Third, that despite a period since the 1997 in which the UK constitution has been placed increasingly on a statutory basis, a crucial role is still played by conventions – understandings which are not only difficult to define, but have no direct legal basis and are impossible to enforce.

 It could therefore be said that the manual has helped clarify the UK constitution by confirming just how nebulous it is.

http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=331

 

   

 the hidden Convention between England and your Gov, the IRS was founded and is owned by the Crown.

Part 1

UNITED STATES-UNITED KINGDOM INCOME TAX CONVENTION
Convention Signed at London December 31, 1975;
Exchange of Notes Signed at London April 13, 1976;
First Protocol Signed at London August 26,1976;
Second Protocol Signed at London March 31, 1977;
Third Protocol Signed at London March 15,1979;
Ratification of the Convention, Exchange of Notes and the First Two Protocols Advised by the
Senate of the United States of America June 27,1978;
Ratification of the Third Protocol Advised by the Senate of the United States of America
July 9,1979;
Convention, Exchange of Notes, and First Two Protocols Ratified by the President of the United
States of America August 1, 1978;
Third Protocol Ratified by the President of the United States of America August 24, 1979;
Convention, Exchange of Notes, and Three Protocols Ratified by the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland March 10, 1980;
Ratifications Exchanged at Washington March 25,1980;
Proclaimed by the President of the United States of America April 9, 1980;
Entered into Force April 25, 1980.
GENERAL EFFECTIVE DATE UNDER ARTICLE 28: 1 JANUARY 1975
TABLE OF ARTICLES
Article 1---------------------------------Personal Scope
Article 2---------------------------------Taxes Covered
Article 3---------------------------------General Definitions
Article 4 --------------------------------Fiscal Residence
Article 5 --------------------------------Permanent Establishment
Article 6 --------------------------------Income from Immovable Property (Real Property)
Article 7 --------------------------------Business Profits
Article 8 --------------------------------Shipping and Air Transport
Article 9 --------------------------------Associated Enterprises
Article 10 -------------------------------Dividends
Article 11 -------------------------------Interest
Article 12 -------------------------------Royalties
Article 13 -------------------------------Capital Gains
Article 14 -------------------------------Independent Personal Services
Article 15 -------------------------------Dependent Personal Services
Article 16 -------------------------------Investment or Holding Companies
Article 17 -------------------------------Artistes and Athletes
Article 18 -------------------------------Pensions
Article 19 -------------------------------Government Service
Article 20 -------------------------------Teachers
Article 21--------------------------------Students and Trainees
Article 22 -------------------------------Other Income
Article 23 -------------------------------Elimination of Double Taxation
Article 24 -------------------------------Non-discrimination
Article 25 -------------------------------Mutual Agreement Procedure
Article 26 -------------------------------Exchange of Information and Administrative Assistance
Article 27 -------------------------------Effect on Diplomatic and Consular Officials
and Domestic Laws
Article 28 -------------------------------Entry into Force
Article 29 -------------------------------Termination
Notes of Exchange---------------------of 13 April, 1976
Letter of Submittal---------------------of 8 June, 1976
Letter of Transmittal-------------------of 24 June, 1976
Protocol 1-------------------------------of 26 August, 1976
Letter of Submittal (Protocol 1)------of 15 September, 1976
Letter of Transmittal (Protocol 1)----of 22 September, 1976
Protocol 2--------------------------------of 31 March, 1977
Letter of Submittal (Protocol 2)------of 10 May, 1977
Letter of Transmittal (Protocol 2)----of 6 June, 1977
Protocol 3--------------------------------of 15 March, 1979
Letter of Submittal (Protocol 3)------of 3 April, 1979
Letter of Transmittal (Protocol 3)----of 12 April, 1979
The “Saving Clause”-------------------Paragraph 3 of Article 1
TAX CONVENTION WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM
OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
MESSAGE
FROM
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TRANSMITTING
THE CONVENTION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN
AND NORTHERN IRELAND FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION AND THE
PREVENTION OF FISCAL EVASION WITH RESPECT TO TAXES ON INCOME SIGNED
AT LONDON ON DECEMBER 31, 1975, AND AN EXCHANGE OF NOTES SIGNED
AT LONDON ON APRIL 13, 1976, MODIFYING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE
CONVENTION
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, June 8, 1976.
The PRESIDENT,
The White House.
The PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you, with a view to its transmission to the Senate
for advice and consent to ratification, the Convention between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the Avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income signed at London on December 31, 1975, and an exchange of notes signed at London on April 13, 1976, modifying certain provisions of the Convention.
The proposed Convention with the United Kingdom is similar in its essential respects to other recent United States income tax treaties, and to the model income tax convention of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. There are, however, several provisions in the Convention with the United Kingdom which require special comment.
Article 10 (Dividends) represents a new approach to meshing, by treaty, two tax systems which
differ sharply in their treatment of corporations and their shareholders - the "classical system" in the United States, under which corporate profits and dividend income are taxed separately in the hands of the corporation and the shareholder, and the British "imputation System" under which a portion of the tax collected at the corporate level (known as The Advance Corporation Tax "Act") is refunded to a United Kingdom shareholder to satisfy his tax liability on a dividend distribution. Under the United Kingdom system which was enacted in 1973, nonresident shareholders do not receive this refund. We believe this represents discrimination against United States investors in the United Kingdom vis-a-vis United Kingdom investors.
The provisions of Article 10 of the draft treaty mitigate this discriminatory element in the British system. The British will, under the treaty, make payments to U.S. investors equivalent, in part or in whole, to the ACT credit allowed to United Kingdom investors. United States portfolio investors, defined as owning less than ten percent of the shares of the United Kingdom corporation, will receive, in addition to the dividend, a payment equal to the full credit allowed to United Kingdom investors. From the total amount paid (the dividend plus the credit payment) the United Kingdom will withhold 15 percent. For direct investors (corporations owning more than ten percent of the shares of the United Kingdom corporation), the payment will equal one-half of the credit allowed to United Kingdom shareholders and from the total amount paid, a tax of five percent will be withheld. This latter provision represents a substantial concession by the United Kingdom because under United Kingdom law, only individual domestic shareholders receive the ACT credit.
This provision is significant beyond the immediate context of the United Kingdom treaty, because it presently appears that an imputation system similar to that in the United Kingdom will be the approach adopted by the European Economic Community in harmonizing the income tax Systems of the member countries. France already has such a system.
In order to clarify the United States tax treatment of the ACT, the treaty provides that the credit payments by the United Kingdom will be treated as dividend income to United States shareholders and that a foreign tax credit will be allowed for the portions of the ACT credit not refunded.
The United States will reduce its withholding rates to 15 percent on dividends to United Kingdom portfolio investors and to five percent on dividends to United Kingdom parent corporations. This
reduction follows the pattern adopted in other United States treaties.
A second new provision is found in paragraph 4 of Article 9 (Associated Enterprises). This
provision represents the first attempt to bind State and local taxing authorities by a substantive provision of the treaty (other than non-discrimination). Under the basic rules of our other tax conventions a Contracting State entering into such tax conventions is prohibited from taking into account, in determining the tax liability of an enterprise doing business in that Contracting State, the income, expenses, etc. of related enterprises of the other Contracting State or in other countries if those enterprises are not engaged in business in the Contracting State, except to the extent that inter-company transactions are not conducted on an arm's length basis. This treaty, for the first time, extends this limitation to State and local tax authorities with respect to enterprises controlled by United Kingdom residents. This limitation is directed at the practice of a few States which are attempting to take into account the income on a consolidated basis of all related foreign enterprises in assessing the State income tax of a single member of the related group doing business in the State. This method of assessment, which includes the burden of producing worldwide records of all of the affiliated companies, has raised many objections by our treaty partners and we are now seeking to deal specifically with this problem in our treaties. This broadening of the scope of the treaty has been discussed informally with the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
The treaty provides for reciprocal exemption from withholding on interest and royalty payments
from payers in one Contracting State received by residents of the other. Such exemption is provided in the existing treaty.
The treaty also clarifies the manner in which the United Kingdom may tax the United States source income of United States citizens residing in the United Kingdom and United Kingdom branches of United States corporations. The treaty generally allows the United Kingdom to tax such income, but in so doing, the United Kingdom must first allow a credit against its tax for any United States tax paid with respect to the same income. This rule is consistent with our other recent treaties and the OECD Model Convention. The remaining provisions of the draft treaty, dealing with the taxation of business profits, personal service income and administrative matters are patterned largely after other recent United States income tax treaties.
The exchange of notes dated April 13, 1976, was entered into on the basis of information
communicated to both governments since public release of the December 31, 1975, Convention. It was called to our attention that a number of corporations have been organized under the existing taxconvention as dual residents of the United States and the United Kingdom on the assumption that certain benefits of the present treaty flow to such dual residents and their shareholders. Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the convention signed on December 31 excluded all dual resident corporations from benefits under the new treaty. The proposed note modifies this provision by extending treaty benefits to residents of the United States and the United Kingdom who receive income from dual resident corporations and provides that the United Kingdom Petroleum Revenue tax will be a creditable income tax in the case of a dual resident corporation.
The April 13, 1976, exchanges of notes amended Article 8 (Shipping and Air Transport) to
broaden the tax exemption for containers used in international traffic.
Paragraph 4 of Article 9 (Associated Enterprises) was restated to make it clear that the United
States and States of the United States may not take into account the income or deductions of a related enterprise which is a resident of the other Contracting State unless such enterprise is engaged in business in the taxing jurisdiction or has had business transactions with a related enterprise and the adjustment is made on an arm's length basis. The rule has been restated to make it clear that this limitation on Federal and State tax rules applies only to corporations controlled by United Kingdom interests and eliminates any suggestion in the text of December 31 that United States based companies or third country companies might obtain coverage under this rule merely by establishing a United Kingdom affiliate.
Article 16 (Investment or Holding Companies) was liberalized in order to permit certain financing companies established in the United States to benefit from reduced treaty rates by the United Kingdom. Additional changes in the note are conforming amendments.
The Convention and exchange of notes will enter into force thirty days after the date of exchange of instruments of ratification and then have effect as provided in Article 28. This Convention and exchange of notes shall remain in force indefinitely subject to the right of either party to terminate it by giving notice of termination on or before June 30 in any year after the year 1980 pursuant to the procedure found in Article 29.
The Department of the Treasury, with the cooperation of the Department of State, was primarily
responsible for the negotiation of this Convention. It has the approval of both Departments.
Respectfully submitted,
C. W. ROBINSON
Acting Secretary.
Enclosure: Convention and exchange of notes.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
THE WHITE HOUSE, June 24, 1976.
To the Senate of the United States:

Part 2-

C. W. ROBINSON
Acting Secretary.
Enclosure: Convention and exchange of notes.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
THE WHITE HOUSE, June 24, 1976.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith for Senate advice and consent to ratification the Convention for the Avoidance
of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income signed at
London on December 31,1975, together with an exchange of notes modifying certain provisions of the Convention signed at London on April 13, 1976.
I also transmit for the information of the Senate the report of the Department of State with respect
to the Convention and the exchange of notes.
This Convention and exchange of notes are designed to modernize the relationship with respect to
taxes on income which has evolved between the United States and the United Kingdom from a similar Convention signed at Washington on April 16, 1945.
The Convention with subsequent exchange of notes is similar to other recent United States income
tax treaties, although it does have some new features which are described in the enclosed report of the Department of State.
Such tax conventions help promote economic cooperation with other countries. I urge the Senate to
act favorably on this Convention and exchange of notes at an early date and to give its advice and
consent to ratification.
GERALD R. FORD.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION CONSIDERING THAT:
The Convention between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and
the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and Capital Gains was signed at
London on December 31, 1975, and an exchange of notes was signed at London on April 13, 1976,
modifying certain provisions of the Convention, and three Protocols were signed at London on August
26, 1976, March 31, 1977 and March 15, 1979, the texts of which are hereto annexed;
The Senate of the United States of America by its resolution of June 27, 1978, two-thirds of the
Senators present concurring therein, gave its advice and consent to ratification of the Convention,
exchange of notes, and two Protocols, subject to the reservation that the provisions of paragraph (4) of Article 9 of the Convention, as amended by the notes exchanged on April 13, 1976, shall not apply to any political subdivision or local authority of the United States;
The Senate of the United States of America by its resolution of July 9, 1979, two-thirds of the
Senators present concurring therein, gave its advice and consent to ratification of the Third Protocol;
The Convention, exchange of notes, and two Protocols were ratified, subject to the aforementioned
reservation, by the President of the United States of America on August 1, 1978, in pursuance of the
advice and consent of the Senate;
The Third Protocol was ratified by the President of the United States of America on August 24,
1979, in pursuance of the advice and consent of the Senate;
The Convention, exchange of notes, and three Protocols were ratified on the part of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on March 10, 1980;
It is provided in Article 28 of the Convention that the Convention shall enter into force immediately
after the expiration of thirty days following the date on which the instruments of ratification are
exchanged;
The instruments of ratification of the Convention were exchanged at Washington on March 25,
1980, and accordingly the Convention, exchange of notes, and three Protocols, enter into force on April
25, 1980;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jimmy Carter, President of the United States of America, proclaim and
make public the Convention, exchange of notes, and the three Protocols, to the end that they shall be
observed and fulfilled with good faith on and after April 25, 1980, by the United States of America and
by the citizens of the United States of America and all other persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have signed this proclamation and caused the Seal of the United
States of America to be affixed.
DONE at the city of Washington this ninth day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred eighty and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred fourth.
[SEAL]
(s) Jimmy Carter
By the President:
Cyrus Vance
Secretary of State
CONVENTION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND
NORTHERN IRELAND FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE
TAXATION AND THE PREVENTION OF FISCAL EVASION WITH RESPECT TO
TAXES ON INCOME AND CAPITAL GAINS
The Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;
Desiring to conclude a new Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of
fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and capital gains;
Have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE 1
Personal Scope
(1) Except as specifically provided herein, this Convention is applicable to persons who are
residents of one or both of the Contracting States.
(2) A corporation which is both a resident of the United Kingdom within the meaning of paragraph
(1) (a) (ii) of Article 4 (Fiscal Residence), and a resident of the United States within the meaning of
paragraph (1) (b) (ii) of such Article 4 shall be considered to be outside of the scope of this Convention except for the purposes of Articles 24 (Non-discrimination) and 26 (Exchange of Information and Administrative Assistance).
(3) Notwithstanding any provision of this Convention except paragraph (4) of this Article, a
Contracting State may tax its residents (as determined under Article 4 (Fiscal Residence)) and its
nationals as if this Convention had not come into effect.
(4) Nothing in paragraph (3) of this Article shall affect the application by a Contacting State of:
(a) Article 9 (Associated Enterprises), Articles 23 (Elimination of Double Taxation), 24

(Non-discrimination), and 25 (Mutual Agreement Procedure); and
(b) Articles 19 (Government Service), 20 (Teachers), 21 (Students and Trainees) and
27 (Effect of Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Officials and Domestic Laws), with
respect to individuals who are neither nationals of, nor have immigrant status in, that State.
ARTICLE 2
Taxes Covered
(1) This Convention shall apply to taxes on income imposed by each Contracting State and as
hereinafter provided to taxes imposed by its political subdivisions or local authorities.
(2) The existing taxes to which this Convention shall apply are:
(a) in the case of the United States, the Federal income taxes imposed by the Internal
Revenue Code and the tax on insurance premiums paid to foreign insurers; but (except as
provided in paragraph (6) of Article 10 (Dividends)) excluding the accumulated earnings tax and
the personal holding company tax. The foregoing taxes covered are hereinafter referred to as
"United States tax";
(b) in the case of the United Kingdom, the income tax, the capital gains tax, the
corporation tax and the petroleum revenue tax. The foregoing taxes covered are hereinafter
referred to as "United Kingdom tax"; and
(c) for the purposes of paragraph (4) of Article 9 (Associated Enterprises), taxes
imposed on income by political subdivisions or local authorities of a Contracting State.
(3) This Convention shall also apply to any identical or substantially similar taxes which are imposed
by a Contracting State or its political subdivisions or local authorities after the date of signature of this Convention in addition to, or in place of, the existing taxes. The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall notify each other of any changes which have been made in their respective taxation laws.
(4) For the purposes of Article 24 (Non-discrimination), this Convention shall also apply to taxes of
every kind and description imposed by each Contracting State, or by its political subdivisions or local authorities.




If you wish to know more of our family Royalty of England i will be happy to share how we of England are enslaved and how your Constitution was altered.

My research has shown Me a great deal of how lovely a pickle Humans are in relative to these and the vatican.  SomeOne pointed out, maybe on twitter, that the queen walks behind the pope...

Why are They not just saying NO to the TPP?  I'm guessing this is more tiered encroachment.  Get it in Consciousness, push back for a while with controlled opposition, create a crisis, and ram it home.  Or something like that...

Why not say, Hey.  You can't bind ME to that without full disclosure.  So all this secrecy is moot.  Whatever it turns out to be, it has no standing.  And You need My consent to it once out there.

I mean, really.

Do you truly wish to know why ? The following video I put together, I had a bit of fun with but, the video does get more detailed.

Convention of States- New Hampshire (cos6)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m97bFcvIJds

There was nothing there I did not know before.  Yes, this is what We have been consenting to.  My point is:  why not withdraw consent - especially given that the systems We presently consent to promote psychopaths to power?  Money promotes psychopaths, top-down controlmind promotes psychopaths (the twin towers to psychopaths in power) with the vile vine of the legal system supporting them.

Why consent to ANY "deal" made in secret?  That seems insane to Me.  *I* surely will not consent to that.  Make secret deals all You want, but don't expect ME to be a party.

Point is that if enough of Us say, "That's not on ME, baby," it will not be effective.  Of course, We need enough of Us doing so.  Thus My efforts.

Have You seen this article:  

Anarchy vs. Psychopaths in Control
http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/anarchy-vs-psychopaths-in-control

RSS

"Destroying the New World Order"

TOP CONTENT THIS WEEK

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!

mobile page

12160.info/m

12160 Administrators

 

Latest Activity

cheeki kea commented on Less Prone's photo
Thumbnail

Rebuilding Khazaria

"Perhaps Russia and Ukraine should Rebuild the Tartarian Empire. Then game over. "
3 hours ago
cheeki kea commented on FREEDOMROX's blog post NEVER FORGET! WHO and UN charged with GENOCIDE in 2009
"This is Why the outlier countries Must Stand Up And Fight Them Off on all fronts at all times. For…"
4 hours ago
cheeki kea posted a blog post

Dr. Aseem Malhotra's Explosive Court Testimony on COVID "Vaccines"(UPDATED)

 Doctor Malhotra drops arsenal of truth bombs on Helsinki. A spectacular display. Here are few snip…See More
4 hours ago
Less Prone favorited Doc Vega's blog post They Want to Murder Trump!
13 hours ago
Less Prone posted a photo
14 hours ago
rlionhearted_3 posted a photo
18 hours ago
Doc Vega posted blog posts
20 hours ago
Doc Vega commented on tjdavis's photo
Thumbnail

reminders

"Wow how ironic! "
yesterday
Doc Vega posted a blog post

Epitaph at 5:00 AM

Epitaph at 5:00 AM Carrying around my regrets like a spear in my chestTalking to people who…See More
yesterday
Less Prone commented on KLC's group MUSICWARS
"Walk like a Joe Biden"
yesterday
Less Prone favorited Sandy's photo
Sunday
Less Prone favorited cheeki kea's photo
Sunday
Less Prone replied to MAC's discussion GAIN OF FUNCTION CRIMINALS ARE SQUIRMING
Sunday
Sandy posted photos
Sunday
cheeki kea commented on tjdavis's photo
Thumbnail

Child play

"Here's an online blast from the past (20/04/2016) -~of cause the video of the dog in question…"
Sunday
Tori Kovach commented on James Roberts's photo
Thumbnail

Workers Join Us

"And don't forget your blue collars!"
Sunday
cheeki kea posted a photo
Sunday
cheeki kea commented on Mr. Sizzle's photo
Thumbnail

BDS Movement.

"One day all this "hate speech" bs being brought in across the world will fail and back…"
Sunday
Tori Kovach commented on suzie's photo
Thumbnail

Meet the new BOSS same as the old BOSS

"I'll keep an eye out for him."
Sunday
cheeki kea commented on tjdavis's photo
Thumbnail

iconism

"That's really crazy, really as he didn't actually approve of smoking in general. An anti…"
Sunday

© 2024   Created by truth.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

content and site copyright 12160.info 2007-2019 - all rights reserved. unless otherwise noted