This article was written by Giles Gibson in Hong Kong. The article is not bad, better than most and certainly the best I’ve seen at huffingtonpost, but he seems to think that FATCA is only a concern for wealthy American citizens abroad (a typical Huff problem). I used to think so too, until I personally learned otherwise. The article could use some additional commentary about the types of people FATCA is having an impact upon and the innocent being harmed by “IRS’s relentless pursuit of U.S. tax evaders abroad, whatever the cost”. The concept of “whatever the cost” could be used to justify crimes against humanity and FATCA is certainly a case of national origin discrimination (which is a federal crime in the US).
FATCA: The U.S. Flexes Its Waning Economic Muscle Abroad
11/06/2012 11:36 am
The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). Typical of the taxman’s inimitable use of the English language worldwide, the title doesn’t exactly sound particularly menacing. However, the shockwaves from this recent piece of legislation from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are being felt around the financial world.
FATCA is aimed at targeting tax avoidance by U.S. citizens and entities abroad. Unlike most countries, American expatriates are still expected to pay tax at home on their income earned abroad. The IRS feels that many Americans are not taking this responsibility seriously enough. Their plan is simple: bring in tough new legislation to force foreign financial institutions to give up details about their U.S. citizen clients, leaving potential tax evaders with nowhere to hide….
Glad you picked up on that one. It calls for comments, which I will get to later today, but I did quickly email it to David Macaray, who said previously, our comments sure educated him, but he didn’t have much interest in following up on the subject. 🙂
I left a comment as well. Now if HuffPost approves it, it’ll be on public record: Mr. Gibson has been duly informed about his sacred obligation to file IRS information returns next June on his evil tax-evading foreign grantor trusts which hold shares in passive foreign investment companies .
I put up a comment tonight too, while watching the election returns. In case it doesn’t come out of moderation, here was what I said. Working on another one for the morning. I see Julian Hudson as been busy also, with his two part comments.
It is not bad but it suffers from the same sloppy journalism ones sees everywhere. It seems journalists feel free to put in the words “FATCA”, “expatriates”, “tax evaders”, “abroad” (or “overseas”), and “wealthy” in whatever order they feel like. I wonder if any of them really have a clue what they are talking about.
Story on the Marketplace, Morning Report, from PRI on voting excitement in China..
Good opportunity to place a comment and ask a question of the journalist doing the writing, and refer him to this Huff Post story
Another Huffington Post article tonight on Expats and renouncing. This is the 3rd in a very short period of time. I only had time for one short comment in reply to someone else, and will be off very early tomorrow for an across state trip. Hope others can weigh in. I see Eric has made 3 comments.
American Expat Taxpayers Would Rather Ditch Citizenship Than Face New IRS Rules
*Victoria, your comment is being reported as having been deleted. Here it is:
So, why? Victoria’s use of the word “idiot” is the only thing I can see from where I’m reading her comment — and, of course, that is the truth. She is being shut up and we are being shut up.
Why doesn’t Huffington Post have a dialogue on exactly what Victoria asks homelanders to do if they are offended by the expat “traitors” — are these ever the same persons who will contact their government representatives for anything?
*Good question. I’ve been calling stateside Americans “‘fair share’ rejecting tax cheats” for not financing unemployment benefits for Americans living abroad, and they didn’t delete that, even though it could appear as an inappropriate generalization which could be seen worse as “idiot”. Yet, i suppose that often it is the individual word which gets the red flag, not the combination of less controversial words.