36 thoughts on “Switzerland and Japan sell out to FATCA?”
Nothing surprising there. Although banks probably (short-sightedly) believe such reporting will only affect US persons, I think it paves the way for global citizenship based taxation, whereas for example the French and British governments will more easily be able to tax their citizens abroad as well. The privacy destroying information superhighways are being slowly built, one brick at a time.
The whole idea of privacy was to prevent rapacious governments from confiscating people’s wealth, and all legal and technical barriers that enabled privacy are being dismantled with gusto to allow far-away governments to reach into our pockets, wherever we live.
*For Switzerland and Japan to be able to live within the agreements they have signed with the US I suspect that they will really tighten down on having accounts with US persons. It will be far less costly for them to certify “We have no accounts with US persons” then to have them and go through this reporting nightmare. Perhaps a few banks in those countries will set up separate subsidiaries to cater only to US persons, setting very high minimum balance requirements an steep montly service charges for such accounts, such that only the very wealthy will qualify and the bank revenues from such accounts will cover their costs of reporting these accounts to the IRS. The devil is in the details.
Assuming the worse… What happens to a “US person” if this data is indeed turned over to IRS?
*@joe smith, as long as the US person is totally compliant with the extraterritorial provisions of US tax law, he should have no problem. But if he is not, the IRS boom will likely fall.
He or she will likely be apprehended if they live in the US or, if they live abroad, when they attempt to clear immigration if they visit the US. This is how the IRS has nailed several Swiss citizens who have been arrested, tried and found guilty for having aided and abbetted US citizens “hiding” funds abroad and failing to report them on FBAR reports and/or failing to declare and pay US taxes on income from these funds abroad.
At least one of these arrested Swiss citizens made the mistake of transiting and changing planes in New York when traveling to Mexico from Switzerland. If he had transited through Havana instead he would likely have had no problem.
Well it gets kind of complex. In terms of “recalcitrant” account holders they will on certain intervals make a direct request of the foreign tax authority for information. The problem is determining whether the recalcitrant account holder are “US Persons” or not(if the only information about them is simply their Canadian address and phone number) and then what to do about. The US would have a huge black eye if they tried to go after someone who was a non US Person Canadian citizen for being a “recalcitrant” account holder. The rule in the tax treaty that doesn’t allow Canada to collect US tax judgements on Canadian citizens still applies.
I have been putting the other articles like from the NYTs and IHT or Accounting today on the FATCA thread, just to have them in one place…
One quote I saw that rings true to me… ” If Singapore enters an agreement, then it’s probably game-over in terms of other [Asia] jurisdictions.”
Also, I hope you are all noting that FATCA is not getting simpler. We have 3 versions now plus DATCA. Not that I worry about BIG banks, but what if you had branches in all four jurisdictions governed by the various models? Compliance nightmare, across the entire organization I would say! How does this little twist help the 15 banks that were just downgraded yesterday?
FFI direct
Model I
Model II
@Roger Conklin: “He or she will likely be apprehended if they live in the US or, if they live abroad, when they attempt to clear immigration if they visit the US.”
Does this include Elizabeth May, Margaret Wente, and the 700,000 additional “US persons” in Canada an incredibly large number of which are “prominent”?
And if I make sure I avoid the USA?
@JustMe
What frustrates me is none of the “professional” press looks at FATCA at all in the context of the US and Canada. It seems to be mainly focused on more traditional financial “centres”
I think the most frustrating part is that they ignore the impact on American expats. I wonder how long it will take until we the negative impact of it in a larger scale. i.e. the negative impact on US companies. Is there really going to be one? I am not sure people will refuse assignments abroad. They see that as an opportunity and companies will do what is necessary for their expats to relocate abroad and make sure the transition is smooth, including helping them with bank accounts. My company even takes care of all expats’ taxes. I am not sure if they file FBARs for them or tell them about it. I’ll try to figure out as this would be interesting to know. Bottom line is that I am not sure FACTA will really have an impact on US companies sending employees abroad and the economy associated with that, especially for short term (couple years) assignments.
@Tim, you make a good point. The devil will be in the details of the vetting account holders to determine if they are US persons. How can anyone prove that they aren’t a snowbird who stayed too long in the US, does not have a parent born in the US, never became a naturalized US citizen, never obtained a green card? My husband asked a financial advisor, how will you find out who’s American? He said he’d ‘ask’ his clients if they are US citizens. Does anyone think that will be sufficient for the IRS? The financial industry is SO unprepared!
I am of course seething at this, and have just found the official press release from the Swiss government. I will compare it to the draft agreement documents that were referenced in one of the articles (I think the WSJ one) and post my comments and interpretation here in this thread hopefully tomorrow.
There appear to be a number of articles appearing in Swiss newspapers, if you google “La Suisse et les Etats-Unis publient une déclaration de mise en œuvre du FATCA”, then you should get some results.
I will see if I can find some Swiss-German articles as well.
*Whoa everybody, Take a valium. Minnows are hardly at risk of being apprehended at the border and thrown in the clink.
Foreign governments are not agreeing to hand over lists of recalcitrant account holders. The IRS cannot go on huge fishing expeditions. They will need specific information about specific individuals in order to gain access to that individual’s account info.
These agreements are still directed at USCs resident in the US or at whales with assets worth pursuing. The very worst thing that can happen, at some point in the future, is the inability to visit the US. Not such a bad result.
@Chester 12
Thanks! We are indeed making ourselves crazy!
@Chester 12:
The process agreed between the US and Switzerland is that the US person can refuse to allow the bank to provide details to the IRS which will then make this US person a “recalcitrant”. The IRS can then request from the Swiss government a list of US person recalcitrants through a “group questionnaire”, which the Swiss government will then obtain from the banks. It just adds a step to the process but the end result is the same.
– “Group questionnaire” is a euphemism for a focused fishing expedition.
@ Jefferson D Tomas: One difference between the US Treasury statement and the Swiss government statement concerns the small banks. In particular:
a. US Treasury considers them to be: “certain small local FFIs”, which is not further defined.
b. the Swiss provide a more exact definition: “Certain financial institutions that operate primarily on a local or regional basis will be deemed compliant with FATCA, (deemed-compliant FFIs).”
This and other details will be the source of further negotiations in the coming months.
@Tim, you stated “The rule in the tax treaty that doesn’t allow Canada to collect US tax judgements on Canadian citizens still applies.”
I don’t think this is quite right. US citizens who are dual citizens of Canada are just as much subject to US tax-reporting and payment of US taxes as US citizens who are not Canadian citizens. The Canadian Finance Minister has announced that Canada will not assist the US in collecting taxes from Canadians who are dual US citizens, but that does not prevent the US from taking action to collect taxes from such persons if they step across the border to make a visit to the US, or if they try to clear US immigration at one of the several Canadian airports where US immigration clears passengers bound for the US before they board the flight to the US. This is quite different from attempting to enforce US tax judgments against US-Canada dual citizens residing in Canada.
Note that these judgments could also apply to Canadians who were formerly green card holders but returned to Canada without formally cancelling their green card status with Homeland Security. Until this has been such persons returning to Canada after having lived and worked in the US are still subject to US taxation on their world wide income.
For those who visit the WSJ link, go to the comments on that article, there are some very articulate and appropriate remarks posted there.
@Roger Just to clarify further one point: US pre-clearance facilities at Canadian airports are still Canadian, NOT US, soil, and US law doesn’t apply. No one can be arrested at those facilities for US tax laws; US officers at those locations can’t arrest and deport you, they can only hold you temporarily for violation of Canadian law (pertaining mainly to airport security or making threats against someone, for example) until a Canadian police officer arrives — then you’d be dealt with in the Canadian legal system. However, if you get “flagged” by the US pre-clearance officer on their computer system, you could and maybe likely would be arrested at the US end of your flight; they could be waiting for you at the gate (which is in the US and is US soil). The end result is the same, but please note that at any time during pre-clearance or thereafter, while still in Canada you can inform the airline or the pre-clearance officer you’ve changed your mind about taking your flight and exit the pre-clearance area and the airport.
For details on this point, please visit this Government of Canada website and scroll down a bit to the section on Preclearance.
Note at the top of the web page the statement “There is no Official Warning for this country” (the US). Some of us think that statement should be reworded … especially once FATCA goes into effect. (I’m not holding my breath on that statement being reworded though.)
*@schubert1975, Thank you for the clarification. Twice when I was returning to the US from Montreal, some 20-25 years ago, I witnessed US immigration denying, or almost denying admission to persons who had checked in to board flights.
One lady made such a commotion that she reached over and tore the badge of the shirt of the US immigration officer. A RCMP appeared out of nowhere, whirled her around and placed handcuffs on her hands behind her back, lifted up her arms and moved her out like a wheelborrow. Her protests were very loud.
The other time a Canadian resident in the US (my boss) was bringing his Canadian girlfriend back to the US to stay with him. She had no money on which to live as a “tourist,” which was the basis on which she was entering. Not being husband and wife, the officer ordered him to “get back” while she was being interrogated. He did relent and allow her to enter, but it was nip and tuck for a few moments.
Since the names of passengers are transmitted electronically before planes take off, the IRS-Home Security team could be waiting at the destination with open arms to take tax offenders into custody.
@Roger further to the discussion about detention for tax offenses on arrival in the US: I would assume/hope that this can’t happen without some sort of warrant or order being issued, presumably after a string of correspondence between the visitor and the IRS and/or the US Justice Department. Things haven’t reached the state in the US yet, have they, where you could be deemed a tax offender without your knowledge and some correspondence to negotiate some sort of correction to the situation? That isn’t a rhetorical question but a genuine one; what with NDAA and other recent legislation, I’m wondering how much warning or discussion occurs before the axe falls at the border. For example, in the Swiss cases you mention above, were the individuals who were arrested en route to Mexico aware they had been charged for aiding and abetting US “tax cheats” in Switzerland and a warrant had been issued, or did this come at them totally out of the blue? Any idea or speculation on that?
*@schubert1975, I honestly do not know if there was an outstanding warrant for the arrest of the Swiss banker arrested when he arrived in NY to change planss to continue on to Mexico City. I have tried to find out what might be posted onthe Internet about this, but found nothing that would either confirm or deny it. It is my impression that if there was a warrant the Swiss banker was totallly unaware of it, but that is just a guess on my part. If he had known in advance it would have been very foolish for him to risk arrest by transiting to Mexico through the US. There are direct flights between Mexico City and numerous European cities. If he had known there was an outstanding warrant, traveling through New York would have been tempting fate.
What I can visualize is the possibility of an even more agressive enforcement of US tax laws which would lead to questions being asked, particularly of those carrying foreign passports which reveal that the person was born in the US, has never formally renounced US citizenship. This could lead to additional qestions about whether or not they have been filing US tax returns and, if traveling with family members (children) born abroad lead to the conclusion that these family members are also US ciizens and therefore subject to US tax laws even though they may not even be aware that birth abroad to a US citizen parent automatically bestowed them with US citizenship at birth.
It would be highly unlikely that there would be any outstanding warrants for people like this, but through immigration officer questions and their responses they could trip the tax trap and be turned over to the IRS directly by Immigration.
Speculation on my part, of course, but it does appear to me that this is likely where we are headed.
*Take another valium. Before someone can be arrested, a warrant has to be issued. To get a warrant there has to be probable cause. ” i see you were born in the us” isn’t probable cause.
@Chester12. The US government does what it wants. It doesn’t respect the Constitution when it can get away with it. If anyone has any doubt about their status with the IRS, don’t fly or boat anywhere near the US!!
*@Chester12, I think there must be some exceptions to the requirement that there be a warrant before you can be arrested. For example if a person is caught in the act of robbing a bank or is holding a knife to the throat of a hostage I don’t believe it is necessary to obtain a warrant to arrest this person, whose identity likely is not even known to the police, before they can place them under arrest.
Likewise if a person incriminates himself by responding to an immigration officer’s questionioning of a person who is a US citizen with regard to being up to date in filing US tax returns by stating “since I don’t live in the US I don’t file US tax returns or pay US income taxes, or have I ever in my life done this. I was born in the US but my German parents took me back to Germany when I was 5 weeks old.” I suspect that it might be perfectly legal for him to be turned over to an IRS agent for further questioning. This conceivably could lead to the IRS agent obtaining an arrest warrant in an expeditious way, if that is required, to take the person into custody immediately at the conclusion of the interview.
I am not a lawyer nor do I have any knowledge of how these things work, but it does appear that there may be exceptions to reqiring a warrant in order for a person to be arrested.
*Here’s an interesting one for all to chew on. IRS Pub 594 , at the bottom of page 3,conttains this very thought provoking statement to the effect that if you live continuously outside of the Unitged States for 6 months or more, the IRS will suspend collection efforts for amounts owed to the IRS.
Apparently, fromn what this PUB 594 indicates, this policy is mandated by law. It also states that collection efforts will be suspended after ten years.
It makes no mention that if you visit the US you will be subject to colledction efforts if you are residing abroad for 6 months or more.
Can anybody shed any light on this? Perhaps an opinion from one of our experts in US tax law would be helpful in understanding just what this means.
“
From what it looks like collection is suspended while someone is outside the US. However, the normal maximum ten year window for collections is also suspended while someone is residing outside the US.
Nothing surprising there. Although banks probably (short-sightedly) believe such reporting will only affect US persons, I think it paves the way for global citizenship based taxation, whereas for example the French and British governments will more easily be able to tax their citizens abroad as well. The privacy destroying information superhighways are being slowly built, one brick at a time.
The whole idea of privacy was to prevent rapacious governments from confiscating people’s wealth, and all legal and technical barriers that enabled privacy are being dismantled with gusto to allow far-away governments to reach into our pockets, wherever we live.
*For Switzerland and Japan to be able to live within the agreements they have signed with the US I suspect that they will really tighten down on having accounts with US persons. It will be far less costly for them to certify “We have no accounts with US persons” then to have them and go through this reporting nightmare. Perhaps a few banks in those countries will set up separate subsidiaries to cater only to US persons, setting very high minimum balance requirements an steep montly service charges for such accounts, such that only the very wealthy will qualify and the bank revenues from such accounts will cover their costs of reporting these accounts to the IRS. The devil is in the details.
Assuming the worse… What happens to a “US person” if this data is indeed turned over to IRS?
*@joe smith, as long as the US person is totally compliant with the extraterritorial provisions of US tax law, he should have no problem. But if he is not, the IRS boom will likely fall.
He or she will likely be apprehended if they live in the US or, if they live abroad, when they attempt to clear immigration if they visit the US. This is how the IRS has nailed several Swiss citizens who have been arrested, tried and found guilty for having aided and abbetted US citizens “hiding” funds abroad and failing to report them on FBAR reports and/or failing to declare and pay US taxes on income from these funds abroad.
At least one of these arrested Swiss citizens made the mistake of transiting and changing planes in New York when traveling to Mexico from Switzerland. If he had transited through Havana instead he would likely have had no problem.
Well it gets kind of complex. In terms of “recalcitrant” account holders they will on certain intervals make a direct request of the foreign tax authority for information. The problem is determining whether the recalcitrant account holder are “US Persons” or not(if the only information about them is simply their Canadian address and phone number) and then what to do about. The US would have a huge black eye if they tried to go after someone who was a non US Person Canadian citizen for being a “recalcitrant” account holder. The rule in the tax treaty that doesn’t allow Canada to collect US tax judgements on Canadian citizens still applies.
I have been putting the other articles like from the NYTs and IHT or Accounting today on the FATCA thread, just to have them in one place…
One quote I saw that rings true to me… ” If Singapore enters an agreement, then it’s probably game-over in terms of other [Asia] jurisdictions.”
Also, I hope you are all noting that FATCA is not getting simpler. We have 3 versions now plus DATCA. Not that I worry about BIG banks, but what if you had branches in all four jurisdictions governed by the various models? Compliance nightmare, across the entire organization I would say! How does this little twist help the 15 banks that were just downgraded yesterday?
FFI direct
Model I
Model II
@Roger Conklin: “He or she will likely be apprehended if they live in the US or, if they live abroad, when they attempt to clear immigration if they visit the US.”
Does this include Elizabeth May, Margaret Wente, and the 700,000 additional “US persons” in Canada an incredibly large number of which are “prominent”?
And if I make sure I avoid the USA?
@JustMe
What frustrates me is none of the “professional” press looks at FATCA at all in the context of the US and Canada. It seems to be mainly focused on more traditional financial “centres”
I think the most frustrating part is that they ignore the impact on American expats.
I wonder how long it will take until we the negative impact of it in a larger scale. i.e. the negative impact on US companies. Is there really going to be one?
I am not sure people will refuse assignments abroad. They see that as an opportunity and companies will do what is necessary for their expats to relocate abroad and make sure the transition is smooth, including helping them with bank accounts. My company even takes care of all expats’ taxes. I am not sure if they file FBARs for them or tell them about it. I’ll try to figure out as this would be interesting to know. Bottom line is that I am not sure FACTA will really have an impact on US companies sending employees abroad and the economy associated with that, especially for short term (couple years) assignments.
@Tim, you make a good point. The devil will be in the details of the vetting account holders to determine if they are US persons. How can anyone prove that they aren’t a snowbird who stayed too long in the US, does not have a parent born in the US, never became a naturalized US citizen, never obtained a green card? My husband asked a financial advisor, how will you find out who’s American? He said he’d ‘ask’ his clients if they are US citizens. Does anyone think that will be sufficient for the IRS? The financial industry is SO unprepared!
I am of course seething at this, and have just found the official press release from the Swiss government. I will compare it to the draft agreement documents that were referenced in one of the articles (I think the WSJ one) and post my comments and interpretation here in this thread hopefully tomorrow.
In the meantime, here is the official Swiss government press release if you understand French. http://www.news.admin.ch/dokumentation/00002/00015/?lang=fr&msg-id=45046
There appear to be a number of articles appearing in Swiss newspapers, if you google “La Suisse et les Etats-Unis publient une déclaration de mise en œuvre du FATCA”, then you should get some results.
I will see if I can find some Swiss-German articles as well.
*Whoa everybody, Take a valium. Minnows are hardly at risk of being apprehended at the border and thrown in the clink.
Foreign governments are not agreeing to hand over lists of recalcitrant account holders. The IRS cannot go on huge fishing expeditions. They will need specific information about specific individuals in order to gain access to that individual’s account info.
These agreements are still directed at USCs resident in the US or at whales with assets worth pursuing. The very worst thing that can happen, at some point in the future, is the inability to visit the US. Not such a bad result.
@Chester 12
Thanks! We are indeed making ourselves crazy!
@Chester 12:
The process agreed between the US and Switzerland is that the US person can refuse to allow the bank to provide details to the IRS which will then make this US person a “recalcitrant”. The IRS can then request from the Swiss government a list of US person recalcitrants through a “group questionnaire”, which the Swiss government will then obtain from the banks. It just adds a step to the process but the end result is the same.
– “Group questionnaire” is a euphemism for a focused fishing expedition.
@ Jefferson D Tomas: One difference between the US Treasury statement and the Swiss government statement concerns the small banks. In particular:
a. US Treasury considers them to be: “certain small local FFIs”, which is not further defined.
b. the Swiss provide a more exact definition: “Certain financial institutions that operate primarily on a local or regional basis will be deemed compliant with FATCA, (deemed-compliant FFIs).”
This and other details will be the source of further negotiations in the coming months.
@Tim, you stated “The rule in the tax treaty that doesn’t allow Canada to collect US tax judgements on Canadian citizens still applies.”
I don’t think this is quite right. US citizens who are dual citizens of Canada are just as much subject to US tax-reporting and payment of US taxes as US citizens who are not Canadian citizens. The Canadian Finance Minister has announced that Canada will not assist the US in collecting taxes from Canadians who are dual US citizens, but that does not prevent the US from taking action to collect taxes from such persons if they step across the border to make a visit to the US, or if they try to clear US immigration at one of the several Canadian airports where US immigration clears passengers bound for the US before they board the flight to the US. This is quite different from attempting to enforce US tax judgments against US-Canada dual citizens residing in Canada.
Note that these judgments could also apply to Canadians who were formerly green card holders but returned to Canada without formally cancelling their green card status with Homeland Security. Until this has been such persons returning to Canada after having lived and worked in the US are still subject to US taxation on their world wide income.
For those who visit the WSJ link, go to the comments on that article, there are some very articulate and appropriate remarks posted there.
@Roger Just to clarify further one point: US pre-clearance facilities at Canadian airports are still Canadian, NOT US, soil, and US law doesn’t apply. No one can be arrested at those facilities for US tax laws; US officers at those locations can’t arrest and deport you, they can only hold you temporarily for violation of Canadian law (pertaining mainly to airport security or making threats against someone, for example) until a Canadian police officer arrives — then you’d be dealt with in the Canadian legal system. However, if you get “flagged” by the US pre-clearance officer on their computer system, you could and maybe likely would be arrested at the US end of your flight; they could be waiting for you at the gate (which is in the US and is US soil). The end result is the same, but please note that at any time during pre-clearance or thereafter, while still in Canada you can inform the airline or the pre-clearance officer you’ve changed your mind about taking your flight and exit the pre-clearance area and the airport.
For details on this point, please visit this Government of Canada website and scroll down a bit to the section on Preclearance.
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/report_rapport-eng.asp?id=308000
Note at the top of the web page the statement “There is no Official Warning for this country” (the US). Some of us think that statement should be reworded … especially once FATCA goes into effect. (I’m not holding my breath on that statement being reworded though.)
*@schubert1975, Thank you for the clarification. Twice when I was returning to the US from Montreal, some 20-25 years ago, I witnessed US immigration denying, or almost denying admission to persons who had checked in to board flights.
One lady made such a commotion that she reached over and tore the badge of the shirt of the US immigration officer. A RCMP appeared out of nowhere, whirled her around and placed handcuffs on her hands behind her back, lifted up her arms and moved her out like a wheelborrow. Her protests were very loud.
The other time a Canadian resident in the US (my boss) was bringing his Canadian girlfriend back to the US to stay with him. She had no money on which to live as a “tourist,” which was the basis on which she was entering. Not being husband and wife, the officer ordered him to “get back” while she was being interrogated. He did relent and allow her to enter, but it was nip and tuck for a few moments.
Since the names of passengers are transmitted electronically before planes take off, the IRS-Home Security team could be waiting at the destination with open arms to take tax offenders into custody.
@Roger further to the discussion about detention for tax offenses on arrival in the US: I would assume/hope that this can’t happen without some sort of warrant or order being issued, presumably after a string of correspondence between the visitor and the IRS and/or the US Justice Department. Things haven’t reached the state in the US yet, have they, where you could be deemed a tax offender without your knowledge and some correspondence to negotiate some sort of correction to the situation? That isn’t a rhetorical question but a genuine one; what with NDAA and other recent legislation, I’m wondering how much warning or discussion occurs before the axe falls at the border. For example, in the Swiss cases you mention above, were the individuals who were arrested en route to Mexico aware they had been charged for aiding and abetting US “tax cheats” in Switzerland and a warrant had been issued, or did this come at them totally out of the blue? Any idea or speculation on that?
*@schubert1975, I honestly do not know if there was an outstanding warrant for the arrest of the Swiss banker arrested when he arrived in NY to change planss to continue on to Mexico City. I have tried to find out what might be posted onthe Internet about this, but found nothing that would either confirm or deny it. It is my impression that if there was a warrant the Swiss banker was totallly unaware of it, but that is just a guess on my part. If he had known in advance it would have been very foolish for him to risk arrest by transiting to Mexico through the US. There are direct flights between Mexico City and numerous European cities. If he had known there was an outstanding warrant, traveling through New York would have been tempting fate.
What I can visualize is the possibility of an even more agressive enforcement of US tax laws which would lead to questions being asked, particularly of those carrying foreign passports which reveal that the person was born in the US, has never formally renounced US citizenship. This could lead to additional qestions about whether or not they have been filing US tax returns and, if traveling with family members (children) born abroad lead to the conclusion that these family members are also US ciizens and therefore subject to US tax laws even though they may not even be aware that birth abroad to a US citizen parent automatically bestowed them with US citizenship at birth.
It would be highly unlikely that there would be any outstanding warrants for people like this, but through immigration officer questions and their responses they could trip the tax trap and be turned over to the IRS directly by Immigration.
Speculation on my part, of course, but it does appear to me that this is likely where we are headed.
*Take another valium. Before someone can be arrested, a warrant has to be issued. To get a warrant there has to be probable cause. ” i see you were born in the us” isn’t probable cause.
@Chester12. The US government does what it wants. It doesn’t respect the Constitution when it can get away with it. If anyone has any doubt about their status with the IRS, don’t fly or boat anywhere near the US!!
*@Chester12, I think there must be some exceptions to the requirement that there be a warrant before you can be arrested. For example if a person is caught in the act of robbing a bank or is holding a knife to the throat of a hostage I don’t believe it is necessary to obtain a warrant to arrest this person, whose identity likely is not even known to the police, before they can place them under arrest.
Likewise if a person incriminates himself by responding to an immigration officer’s questionioning of a person who is a US citizen with regard to being up to date in filing US tax returns by stating “since I don’t live in the US I don’t file US tax returns or pay US income taxes, or have I ever in my life done this. I was born in the US but my German parents took me back to Germany when I was 5 weeks old.” I suspect that it might be perfectly legal for him to be turned over to an IRS agent for further questioning. This conceivably could lead to the IRS agent obtaining an arrest warrant in an expeditious way, if that is required, to take the person into custody immediately at the conclusion of the interview.
I am not a lawyer nor do I have any knowledge of how these things work, but it does appear that there may be exceptions to reqiring a warrant in order for a person to be arrested.
*Here’s an interesting one for all to chew on. IRS Pub 594 , at the bottom of page 3,conttains this very thought provoking statement to the effect that if you live continuously outside of the Unitged States for 6 months or more, the IRS will suspend collection efforts for amounts owed to the IRS.
Apparently, fromn what this PUB 594 indicates, this policy is mandated by law. It also states that collection efforts will be suspended after ten years.
It makes no mention that if you visit the US you will be subject to colledction efforts if you are residing abroad for 6 months or more.
Can anybody shed any light on this? Perhaps an opinion from one of our experts in US tax law would be helpful in understanding just what this means.
“
From what it looks like collection is suspended while someone is outside the US. However, the normal maximum ten year window for collections is also suspended while someone is residing outside the US.