A Swedish citizen sent this to me via e-mail:
Here is a actual exchange between a dual citizen and the Swedish parliament. It should definitely show where Sweden is going and gives an indication of how OECD members are officially thinking.
FROM SWEDISH CITIZEN TO (50+ recipents) IN SWEDISH PARLIAMENT (RIKSDAGEN)
Swedish banks are lobbying Sweden to allow USA to demand private data from Swedish banks—-For Swedish banks to spend billions of dollars to satisfy US legal demands upon banks and Sweden.
This law will report the most private financial details of Swedish Citizens, living in Sweden, who unfortunately were born in USA, whose parent is AMerican, or who still has an active US green card.
Sweden is going over to USA during the next few weeks to sign an agreement that breaks all Swedish laws. The agreement is not Bilateral—it gives Sweden nothing—zilch-null
It works like this:
Here is a radio clip about what is happening to Canada Citizens.
The same is happening to Swedish Citizens. Sweden has been talking to the bank lobby–who wants to have the Swedish government break discrimination laws, rather than the banks. Sweden has been talking to USA, who wants to have USA laws enacted in Sweden. Sweden has not had a single discussion with the Swedish citizens who are affected by these actions. Will you help change that?
Are you concerned enough to protect Sweden from foreign government intrusion?
Call me and have a detailed discussion about how to protect Swedish citizens living in Sweden from the laws of foreign countries being enforced inside Sweden.
If you act next week, it will be too late.
FROM POLITISK SEKRETARARE OF A CONTROLLING PARTY TO SWEDISH CITIZEN
We appreciate your concern. However, we do not entirely agree with your reasoning and its implications.
As a state, Sweden expects similar compliance and cooperation from other states. In fact we have an agreement with US in place since the 1980:ies covering a few of the same issues for Swedish citizens (but not with so massive information exchange).
Likewise we are in the process of negotiating or have negotiated similar treaties with several nations or independent territories for the last decade, in an effort to ensure that Swedish citizens that should pay taxes according to Swedish law, do so even when some of their resources are placed in oversea banks.
So how could we reject another nation that makes basically the same claim? We can’t.
There are of course concerns that must be met. Among them are the fact that due consideration must be paid to the integrity of those involved.
But bilateral treaties between nations, is probably the best method to safeguard these concerns. The state is responsible for upholding the laws of the nation. Bank’s aren’t. The state is a much more suitable counterpart in bilateral negotiations, than individual enterprises.
We might have objections to certain particularities in the negotiated treaty (in much the same way that we have had on the SWIFT-treaty, negotiated by the European Union), but we accept the legtimacy of the US position and the necessity of a settlement that will work without undue pressure on the individual banks.
olitisk sekreterare
Folkpartiets riksdagskansli
FROM SWEDISH CITIZEN TO POLITISK SEKRETARARE
Thank you much for your response.
Please understand that the USA is asking for personal information from one nationality. This is discrimination. The information is private. The people whose information is being sent, have”the burden of proof reversed”, ie “guilty til proven innocent.”
The law effects Swedes that do not know that they are “US persons”.
The US treatment of these persons is to punish them for US laws for which they have known nothing about. The punishments range from $10,000 to $100,000 per account per year, retroactive 6-8 years.
Please note that the USA Intergovernmental agreement says basically: we will do the best we can”.
However, the agreement is not a treaty.
The agreement is not authorized by the US law HR2847
A recent House bill (Posey agreement) was passed in the House which specifically will not allow US banks to collect this.
Sweden is forced to spend billions of kronor, however there is NOT a bilateral Exchange.
All in all, I personally have been doing my absolute best to file taxes, whereas this information assumes that I am guilty of the act of being a US person.
I urge you to have further and deeper discussions with the people affected by this—-some of the people to be reported cannot even speak English.
FROM POLITISK SEKRETARARE OF A CONTROLLING PARTY TO SWEDISH CITIZEN
Well, first of all – it is by definition not discimination, if there is a valid legal reason to single out an individual. That an individual owns property, financial instruments or otherwise is obligated to file tax-statements, pay taxes et.c. is certainly a valid legal ground. Nationality (citizenship), permanent right of recidence and so forth are clear markes of that.
Yes, some people may not know this. That is another problem. Generally speaking, a person – even if not the citizen of a country where one does buisness – is obligated to find out what rules apply. Of course it is prudent and wise for a state to seek to spread that information to those concerned. But a lack of knowledge is not, in itself, a valid argument why people should be able to get out of their obligations.
Now, while we generally accept that the US is a democratic society, under the rule of law et.c. these bilateral treaties (I think it is a treaty according to Swedish nomenclature – at least the negotiations have status as treaty-negotiations so far, but the result maybe “downgraded” to a lesser form of agreement) are a means to somewhat abrogate demands that do not conform to a least common denominator, law-wise. I.e. a content that is valid under both jurisdictions.
I do not yet know what the result will be – if there remain discrepansies that is unacceptable for us, we will most likely raise objections. But it isn’t very likely.
The exchange of information about an individual between his or her bank and a representative authority of the state (revenue-service or the like) is enshrined in Swedish law. We have accepted that as the most favourable option, because what we gain in judicial “precision” (i.e. avoiding wrongful lawsuits, taxation error and so forth), compensate for the infringement of individual integrity.
FROM SWEDISH CITIZEN TO POLITISK SEKRETARARE
Thank you for your definitive answer. It looks like the decision has been made and going forth, without ever having fully discussed the effects upon the human beings affected.
Of the 40 US persons I have talked to, zero (ZERO) have known about the requirements to file these papers. About 5 of them haven’t ever really lived in USA. One of them is a financial executive of one of Swedens World-known Corporations. He should have been filing reports of that Corporations bank accounts to the IRS—-against his confidentiality agreement, against the laws of the Swedish borse, and against the laws of Sweden (reference the last portion of the FBAR (Foreign Bank Account Reporting) form. All of these people have Children who have the same problems.
There is no amnesty program in the USA which allows these persons to come into compliance, without real threats of bankrupting fines. The COSTs for accountants and defense lawyers is beyond the means of most Swedish residents.
So, we can conclude that a decision has been taken in Sweden and USA, knowing fully that nearly all of the Swedish Citizens affected will be bankrupted by the USA.
I request confirmation that you and then Sweden fully understand those consequences.
FROM POLITISK SEKRETARARE OF A CONTROLLING PARTY TO SWEDISH CITIZEN
I have given you an answer as to the considerations that we have, in general, concerning this issue. You might not like it, I can respect that. But this is not a discussion of those issues anymore. Now you are extending a plea for individual cases. Folkpartiet cannot change US tax laws, and that is not the issue.
It is always deplorable if individuals are hit hard by new laws or new practice. But the case here, is not about the legality of certain tax claims, but about the exchange of information about tax claims that have an established validity.
FROM SWEDISH CITIZEN TO POLITISK SEKRETARARE
I assume your mandate speaks for all of the Swedish govt, and take it as such.
Yes, 40 of 40 individual cases will end up horribly for Swedish Citizens and residents, living in Sweden, governed by Swedish laws.
And Swedish laws have been decided to be changed, so that Another country’s laws can be applied effectively inside Sweden upon Swedish citizens.
This differs from the way that Eritrean sovereign law was approached, when similar cases arose (only the type of harassment differed, the law applied was similar).
It’s mostly Swedish or political mish mash, but “unilateral” is a key word leaving an open door for reality
@Swedish citizen, thank you for keeping us informed of your efforts. It is very important that we all try to pool our efforts and share information as widely as possible.
@Swedish Citizen…
Also, thanks for that. If I can get to it, in the next couple days, I have some correspondence between a dual citizen Kiwi and the NZ IRD which I will share, anonymously, of course… 🙂
I spoke with the responsible leader of the Sweden Democrats (the swing party needed to get any majority) today. The biggest problem is that FATCA’s content is so sick that he could not believe it is true.
They all, in Swedish fashion, lay the responsibility upon Anders Borg to sort out the violations of Swedish law, Swedish sovereignty, and Swedish constitution. And the tone of Anders’ letter to parliament is that he is running as fast as he can to agree and sign the IGA.
I got off short emails to Anders Borg (Finance Minister) and his right-hand-woman.
Swedish citizen, I post these very significant developments here in case you don’t get to the other threads. The head of our Canadian Green Party has posted this:
“Implementation of FATCA Likely Unconstitutional, Says Leading Constitutional Expert
13 March 2013 – 2:10pm ”
http://www.greenparty.ca/media-release/2013-03-13/implementation-fatca-likely-unconstitutional-says-leading-constitutional-ex
“OTTAWA – In a letter to the Department of Finance by leading Canadian constitutional expert Peter Hogg, and obtained by Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament, through an Access to Information request, he warns that an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) to implement the Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) signed with the United States, or legislation to bring it into force, would likely be unconstitutional and in violation of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“It is already unthinkable that the Harper Conservatives would consider putting the interests of the United States before those of the Canadian citizens whose lives have been turned upside-down as a result of the FATCA”, said MP Elizabeth May, “but it is worse still that they would do so in violation of the Canadian Constitution.”
Mr. Hogg’s letter is dated December 12, 2012 and was submitted as part of the call for public comments as part of the ongoing negotiations. “To the extent that any implementing legislation adopts provisions similar to those found in the Model IGA, in my opinion, the legislation would violate s. 15 of the Charter,” he writes. “The source of this problem is the fact that the Model IGA requires financial institutions to treat people differently based on such innate characteristics as place of birth or citizenship.”……..
The link to the full text of the Canadian constitutional scholar is embedded in the Green Party press release. It was obtained by a Freedom of Information request by Elizabeth May – head of our Green Party of Canada. She has done what our other political parties have not – and has demonstrated her integrity and commitment to upholding our rights as citizens and resident, against the imperialistic and arrogant incursions of the US into the affairs of the sovereign and autonomous Canadian nation.
There may be parallels with Swedish and other countries constitutions. It may give hope to others – that it is possible to resist US arrogance and exercise of oppressive power over those > 6 million born and living entirely outside the US.
You may also be interested in this article:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Compliance+with+violate+Charter+Rights/8086718/story.html
Compliance with U.S. tax law may violate Charter of Rights
Opinion: Creating tax misery for nearly seven million U.S. expatriates
By Don Whiteley, Special to The Vancouver Sun March 12, 2013
and discussion here:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/03/12/the-best-news-weve-heard-since-this-nightmare-began/
Answer to multiple letters to Anders Borg:
Du är ju redan läst Anders Borgs frågesvar men här kommer ändå en kort sammanfattning. USA har tillsammans med de fem största EU-länderna upprättat ett modellavtal för bilaterala överenskommelser om FATCA. Modellavtalet går ut på att finansiella institut ska lämna uppgifter till den egna skattemyndighet istället för direkt till IRS. Det är sedan skattemyndigheten som ska lämna uppgifterna till IRS. Avtal som ingås enligt denna modell avses i princip att träda i stället för den amerikanska FATCA-lagstiftningen och de uppgiftsskyldigheter som föreskrivs i avtalet ska regleras i avtalslandets lagstiftning. Till modellavtalet finns en bilaga där avtalslandet ges möjlighet att under vissa förutsättningar ta in vissa typer av finansiella institut, betalningsmottagare och finansiella produkter som ska vara undantagna från rapporteringsskyldigheten. Sverige förhandlar för närvarande med USA om att ingå ett bilateralt avtal om tillämpningen av FATCA. Förhandlingarna utgår från det nämnda modellavtalet och syftar i första hand till att få till stånd ett informationsutbyte som är lättare att genomföra än det som gäller enligt den amerikanska lagstiftningen. Någon mer detaljerad information om detta arbete kan i nuläget inte lämnas.
You’re already read Anders Borg query response but here goes anyway a short summary. U.S., along with the five largest EU countries established a model bilateral agreement on FATCA. Model agreement is to financial institutions to provide information to their own tax authorities rather than directly to the IRS. It is then the tax authorities to supply the information to the IRS. Agreements concluded under this model means in principle to take the place of the U.S. FATCA legislation and the role obligations under the Agreement shall be governed by the contract law of the country. The model agreement is an annex agreement country be allowed under certain conditions to bring in certain types of financial institutions, payee and financial products that should be excluded from the reporting obligation. Sweden is currently negotiating with the United States to conclude a bilateral agreement on the implementation of FATCA. Negotiations based on the aforementioned model agreement and is intended primarily to bring about an exchange of information that is easier to implement than those applicable under U.S. law. Any more details on this work can not currently be provided.
Catrin Arhusiander
Brevsvar
Finansdepartementet
Swedish Citizen.
I have found out that the EU Parliament in Brussels will holding a hearing on FATCA soon.
Get in touch with the following and tell them to talk to MEP Sophia In’t Veld of the Netherlands(the main anti FATCA ringleader). The following are all Swedish Members of Sophia In’t Veld’s ALDE parliamentary group.
http://www.alde.eu/alde-group/alde-meps-list-member-european-parliament/alde-mep-details/personal-info/schmidt-olle/
http://www.alde.eu/alde-group/alde-meps-list-member-european-parliament/alde-mep-details/personal-info/johansson-kent/
http://www.alde.eu/alde-group/alde-meps-list-member-european-parliament/alde-mep-details/personal-info/paulsen-marit/
Make absolutely clear you firm opposition to the FATCA IGA’s and mention the current concern’s Ms In’t Veld has with it.
http://www.alde.eu/alde-group/alde-meps-list-member-european-parliament/alde-mep-details/personal-info/in-t-veld-sophia/
This is a lot of concern being raised by Ms. In’t Veld but even she I don’t think realizes the full implications yet.
More from EU Parliament:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2013-001271+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2013-001271&language=EN
Got it. These people are all from the party of the guy in this post.
I’ve seen that the guy who wrote this is a blogger, and he has an infatuation with US politics. He was the only one of 100 emails that answered, so I think he was personally motivated.
I’ll make sure I get to Brussels. Hope to see you there.
I see the timing of her letters—same timing as I began my letter campaign.
I see the questions she asks—same questions I asked in my letter campaign.
Unfortunately, I see the answers, and in northern Europe there is a tendency to believe that responsibilitiy is fulfilled when an answer has been received. I will keep that in mind in my contacts—there is no indication that she is indeed friendly to FATCA-affected persons.
I’ve written to seven of the eight of the MEPs for London. Unfortunately, Claude Moraes’ email thinks I am spam. I borrowed heavily in stating my case on this ACA document (http://genetics.forestry.ubc.ca/ritland/AmCitizensAbroad.pdf) which has many stories of EU residents being denied financial services. Unfortunately, they appear to be US citizens only or at least there is not enough information to determine whether they are also EU citizens.
I specifically requested the Green Party member get in touch with Elizabeth May and Mark MacKenzie of the Green Party in Canada and the Green Party in Sweden (couldn’t find a name). I also tried to tailor a message to each MEP as to why FATCA was relevant to their committee or substitute committee memberships.
Swedish Citizen
Actually her letters go back MUCH further. That is just one in a series.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2013-000490+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2012-002760+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+OQ+O-2011-000315+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
I didn’t get a response to my reminder to Mckenzie, unfortunately. Getting the attention of politicians and media is so similar to trolling in a singles bar—-it’s all in a moment—no logic.
The key spoke of opposition I believe is in the ALDE grouping of European political parties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Liberals_and_Democrats_for_Europe
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/other-document/files/2012/20120621_letter_to_taxud_fatca_en.pdf
Eu analysis of FATCA versus data protection—–the Group was working really hard to find ways to be able to implement FATCA. It’s all about motivation, eh?
letter sent to Sophia
FATCA DISADVANTAGES FOR EU, and help available
You have been raising questions about FATCA imposing US laws upon EU financial institutions.
Whereas Eurozone banks are in FULL CRISIS mode regarding problems in southern Europe (Greece, Cyprus, etc),
Whereas billions of Euros are needed to be spent in the EU and EES for implementation of USA law FATCA in EU institutions,
Whereas EU and member state laws upon discrimination and data protection are being investigated to be changed in order to accommodate USA extra territorial laws,
Whereas EU financial institutions are being threatened with USA retaliation (30% withholding) if these USA laws are not implemented in EU,
Whereas the primary impact of these laws are not upon finding “tax evaders” in USA, rather they are actually finding US persons located in the EU territory so as they may be taxed and hit with draconian penalties,
Whereas the financial impacts of these laws are said by the EU department to have been analyzed by KPMG, the compliance software company, who is the largest marketer (US owned?) of tax compliance services (answer 9 at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2013-001271&language=EN )
THERE IS NO USA RECIPROCITY
The USA’s corresponding offer in these Intergovernmental agreements is: “1. Reciprocity. The Government of the United States acknowledges the need to achieve equivalent levels of reciprocal automatic information exchange with [FATCA Partner]. The Government of the United States is committed to further improve transparency and enhance the exchange relationship with[FATCA Partner] by pursuing the adoption of regulations and advocating and supporting relevant legislation to achieve such equivalent levels of reciprocal automatic exchange.”
From http://apps.irs.gov/app/scripts/exit.jsp?dest=http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Documents/FATCA-Model-2-Agreement-to-Implement-11-14-2012.pdf
COMMITTED TO FURTHER IMPROVE? This means:
-The Intergovernmental Agreements are to be signed by a representative of the US Treasury Dept, member of the Executive Branch. The agreements do not match up with any existing regulation, particularly not 2010 HR 2847 HIRE Act (includes FATCA).
-The agreement is NOT a treaty. It is NOT proposed to be ratified by Congress.
-There is no USA law existing, which asks any financial institution to provide data of foreigners.
-There is a bill, passed by the House of Representatives, which blocks even any attempt to try to implement any FATCA-like reporting in USA banks. http://posey.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=304786
-The USA House of Representatives, dominated by the party which opposed FATCA, would be needed to pass any such legislation of USA banks, and they show little interest in doing so.
T-he USA bank and financial industry, has very strong lobbies, which would not allow FATCA-like reporting of foreigners within USA.
So, why would the EU believe that they would want to implement USA FATCA regulations in Europe? Where is the gain?
While the Eurozone banks are in full crisis mode, should FATCA be implemented in EU banks anyways?
Does my country, Sweden, support FATCA implementation via the EU?
Do the Folkepartiet Liberala in Sweden support FATCA implementation in Sweden? Why?
Has FATCA been fully analyzed by the EU organization?
Has the EU considered the effects of USA FATCA laws upon EU citizens?
Has the EU included the EU citizens (those that are called “US persons”) who are affected by FATCA in the FATCA deliberations?
Do you want deeper help in understanding the damaging features of FATCA?
May I be involved in FATCA discussions with the EU?
ok, I have emailed the Folkepartiet people with my request to attend
olle.schmidt@europarl.europa.eu; marit.paulsen@europarl.europa.eu; kent.johansson@europarl.europa.eu
I’ll try phone & the Green party if that doesn’t work
Answer: Leif Jakobsson, ledamot Social Democrats (minority block)
I have demanded that the Finance Minister will be called to the Parliamentary Tax Committee to account for FACTA negotiations. The majority have borgrliga not responded to my request.
Leif Jakobsson
Sent via the Riksdag mobile email service
Jag har krävt att Finansministern ska kallas till Riksdagens Skatteutskott
för att redogöra för FACTA förhandlingarna. Den borgrliga majoriteten har
inte svarat på min begäran.
Leif Jakobsson
Sänt via riksdagens mobila e-posttjänst
Question:
To: Finance Department of Sweden: Anders Borg, Susanne Ackum,
Cc: Tax ledamot: Leif Jakobsson (S), Henrik von Sydow (M), Andrén, Gunnar (FP)Folkpartiet , Pertoft, Mats (MP)Miljöpartiet (Green), Alfsson, Thoralf (SD)Sverigedemokraterna, Ceballos, Bodil (MP)Miljöpartiet, Olle SCHMIDT Folkpartiet, Sophia in ‘t VELD (European Parliament)
cc: Dagens Industri, Aftonbladet, GT Expressen, Sydsvenskan, Göteborgs Posten
Scope of Discussion: You are considering an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with USA, regarding
FATCA.
This letter details the USA laws that will become effective in Sweden if the the IGA is to come into effect, alternatively if you just do nothing and allow USA FATCA and other IRS rules to be enforced at Swedish banks at with Swedish citizens. These laws will then REQUIRE Swedish citizens (those that are also US persons) to break Swedish laws, Sweden stock market rules, corporate confidentiality agreements, and private-relationship agreements.
You have been negotiating with the USA, regarding the FATCA Intergovernmental agreement, without the knowledge of the Riksdag. This agreement has serious negative consequences for Swedish citizens, Swedish banks, and the Swedish economy.
Reference: skriftlig svar & fråga. 2012/13:306 Fatca och EU, 2012/13:307 Fatca och riksdagen, 2012/13:308 Svenska förhandlingar kring Fatca
http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Fragor-och-anmalningar/Svar-pa-skriftliga-fragor/Fatca-och-riksdagen_H012307/
Reference: FATCA regulations
http://www.irs.gov/file_source/PUP/businesses/corporations/TD9610.pdf
Reference: FATCA Intergovernmental Agreement
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Pages/FATCA.aspx
Definition: Here is what a US person is:
–A Swedish citizen, living in Sweden, who has one US parent.
–A Swedish citizen, living in Sweden, who was born in a USA hospital
–A Swedish citizen, living in Sweden, who has not properly renounced his USA visa (green card)
–A Swedish citizen, living in USA.
–A Swedish citizen, living in Sweden, who has “US indicia”, suspecting him to be a US person, with funds at home to support his rented-out home or normal daily expenses.
–A suspected US person, possessing only US indicia such as a Swedish post box is to also to be treated the same way, until he clears himself.
For a Swedish citizen who is a US person, here are the reporting requirements:
US persons are required to report the private information which they share with their Swedish citizen spouses or Sambo, even when their spouses have nothing to do with USA, regardless of Swedish or EU law. Please see section 3 of the FBAR form
http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-pdf/f90221.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Form-8938,-Statement-of-Foreign-Financial-Assets
The assets of Swedish spouses, volunteer organizations, and corporations must be reported to USA:
If a US person has financial authority at his workplace or at a volunteer organization (badforening, football club), where he has signature authority to sign checks and buy products, then he is required to report the private account information of the Swedish company. See section 4 (IV) of the FBAR form referenced above.
This means that US persons have been required to report the financial assets of corporations such as Ericsson and Volvo throughout the world, to the USA IRS. It doesn’t matter what Swedish law is, it doesn’t matter what the rules of the Swedishstock market are, and it doesn’t matter about any confidentiality agreement the corporation has with the employee, the US person is required to report the secret financial asset information to the IRS. See section 4 (IV) of the FBAR form referenced above.
If a US person has NOT been reporting the financials of his company, his badforening, his spouse, or himself, the penalty is: $10,000 per account, per year, retroactive 6 years, if he can prove that his non-reporting was non-willful. If not, the penalty is the greater of 50% of the account value (of the corporation!) or $100,000, whichever is greater. In addition, for the 2nd form (8938), the additional penalty is $10,000 or more.
FATCA, with or without an IGA, requires Swedish banks and the Swedish govt to find people with signature authority upon those assets. The private information of those assets MUST then be delivered to USA. This means that the banks or Swedish government will likely be delivering the financial information of Swedish spouses, Swedish volunteer organizations and Swedish corporations to the USA.
US Citizens must report their Swedish business partners to the USA
The assets of the Swedish partner of a US person must be reported to the USA IRS in form 8865, otherwise the penalty is $10,000-$50,000 per year.
http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-pdf/f8865.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-pdf/i8865.pdf
US Persons must report their Swedish corporate shareholder partners to the USA
The US person in Sweden must report the financial information of an entirely Swedish corporation, even if he is only 10% owner. It does not matter that the 90% ownership block is comprised of true Swedes, their business activity must be reported to USA upon form 5471, otherwise the penalty is $10,000-$50,000 per year
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5471.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i5471/index.html
Other forms migh require additional information, such as form as Form 926 to report transfers of property from a Swedish citizen to a Swedish corporation, including undistributed earnings, Form 8886 to report any ”transaction of interest”, 8832 Entity Classification Election, Form 926 to report transfers of property from a Swedish citizen to a Swedish corporation, including undistributed earnings.
If you allow FATCA to become applicable at Swedish banks or via the Intergovernmental Agreement regarding FATCA, you will be enforcing USA law, which requires Swedish private corporate and personal information to be reported to USA, regardless of Swedish law. You will be enabling USA to apply massive fines upon Swedish citizens who are also “US persons”.
I have sent numerous letters to yourself, and to applicable Riksdag members in all of the parties, and have received no response other than that you are proceeding to sign this Intergovernmental agreement. It is fully obvious that you have both not researched the full effects of USA extra-territorial laws upon Sweden, and that you are choosing to proceed forward to enable those 3rd party laws to be forced within Sweden.
As a result, US person residing in Sweden (even those that do not know it, and those that are full Swedish citizens, are required to have been reporting the private financial data listed above. The actions are being required to be done, regardless of Swedish law, EU law, Swedish borse rules, or the confidentiality agreements between a person and his corporation, his forening, or his spouse.
You have assigned your colleague, Michael Sjögren, to explain to the media, that Sweden is entering into a bilateral agreement to find people evading Swedish and USA tax evaders:
There is no logic for a person in USA, where the applicable tax rate is 15%, to hide their assets in Sweden, where the applicable tax rate is 30%. Rather, the objective of USA is to find Swedish residents living in Sweden, who can pay taxes and penalties to USA because they are US persons, such as in this example, where the lowest penalty is described: from FATCA related instructions from the USA Internal Revenue Service( IRS), IRS FAQ 52.2 of the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (frivillige rättelse):
Condition: “Taxpayers who are foreign residents and who were unaware they were U.S. citizens.
Example 1: The taxpayer was born in the U.S. to parents of foreign citizenship. She grew up in a foreign jurisdiction (Sweden), unaware that she had been born in the U.S. She has a $60,000 account in the foreign jurisdiction. She has never filed U.S. returns or FBARs. She became aware she was a U.S. citizen when she had to get a birth certificate in order to obtain a passport from the foreign jurisdiction (Sweden) where she resides. Unless she decides to opt out, she is entitled to the reduced 5% offshore penalty”
What Sweden gets in return?
“1. Reciprocity. The Government of the United States acknowledges the need to achieve equivalent levels of reciprocal automatic information exchange with [FATCA Partner]. The Government of the United States is committed to further improve transparency and enhance the exchange relationship with[FATCA Partner] by pursuing the adoption of regulations and advocating and supporting relevant legislation to achieve such equivalent levels of reciprocal automatic exchange.”From
http://apps.irs.gov/app/scripts/exit.jsp?dest=http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Documents/FATCA-Model-2-Agreement-to-Implement-11-14-2012.pdf
Responding to a question about reciprocity, Setzer said the United States had committed to such a concept. However, U.S. reporting rules for domestic banks “are what they are,” and do not require identification procedures identical to those required under FATCA, he said.
“How we get to full reciprocity and how long it takes is something we’ll have to be working on,” Setzer said. From:
http://about.bloomberglaw.com/law-reports/full-reciprocity-under-fatca-is-a-work-in-progress-irs-official-says/?goback=.gmr_4118437.gde_4118437_member_209818555
Reciprocity? COMMITTED TO FURTHER IMPROVE? This means:
-The Intergovernmental Agreements are to be signed by a representative of the US Treasury Dept, member of the Executive Branch. The agreements do not match up with any existing regulation, particularly not 2010 HR 2847 HIRE Act (includes FATCA), and are not supported by existing US law.
-The agreement is NOT a treaty. It is NOT proposed to be ratified by Congress.
-There is no USA law existing, which asks any financial institution to provide data of foreigners.
-There is a bill, passed by the House of Representatives, which blocks even any attempt to try to implement any FATCA-like reporting in USA banks. http://posey.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=304786
-The USA House of Representatives, dominated by the party which opposed FATCA, would be needed to pass any such legislation of USA banks, and they show little interest in doing so.
-The USA bank and financial industry, has very strong lobbies, which would not allow FATCA-like reporting of foreigners within USA.
So, why would the EU believe that they would want to implement USA FATCA regulations in Europe? Where is the gain?
SUCCESSFUL EUROPEAN BANKING SYSTEM?
As the riksdag has been debating the situations with Greek and Cyprus and other EU banking systems, is it also considered how FATCA cost and prioritization will affect them? Is it now important for EU banks to spend billions of Euros upon software sold by US companies? Is it appropriate to place banking resources upon US issues during the times where EU banks are in crisis?
As the EU is fighting for the opportunity to spend its banks money on paper chasing, the BRICS countries are meeting to discuss how NOT to implement FATCA. They are also discussing how they can establish a banking system together without the burden of 3rd-party incursions. FATCA has been the last straw, a BRICS page called it an act of war. Now, the western banks are becoming less attractive, and BRICS is beginning to become less unattractive to developing nations.
Does the EU want to prioritize FATCA and USA law above its own banking security?
CONCLUSIONS
Having the Swedish finance department aiding and encouraging a foreign government to extort Swedish citizens to report private corporate and personal financial data to the USA IRS should be fully investigated. Are you acting in the interest of Sweden or are you acting in the interest of USA? Are you fulfilling all of the requirements of data protection laws? Are you protecting the rights of ALL Swedish citizens?
Everything about FATCA is bad for Sweden: Bad for Swedish banks, bad for Swedish economy, bad prioritization during the Euro crisis, and most of all horrendous for the human beings at which FATCA is directed.
Please be aware that the media silence regarding FATCA truths can only last so long. Some day, the media in the west will be allowed to report that FATCA is not about tax evasion. Someone in the media will eventually write the story breaking the “tax evader” lie— that this is really about finding more people in Europe to be extorted to pay money to USA and that the Swedish regeringen will soon be complicit. The situation is not different than the situation you had recently with Eritrea. The difference is that Sweden fought against Eritrea in the UN, and today Sweden is working to SUPPORT the extortion of a particular unliked race of its own Swedsih citizens by the Internal Revenue Service of the USA.
FATCA will be discussed in an EU parliament forum during late May, regarding the imposition of 3rd party laws upon Swedish companies and Swedish citizens. What does Sweden plan to report at that conference?
Will FATCA make European banks stronger? Will USA financial products use FATCA to dominate European banks?
Note that the BRICS nations have called FATCA an act of war and they are soon meeting in South Africa to discuss new world banking institutions. Will FATCA make European banks competitive against the competition from BRICS countries?
Are you planning to sign the Intergovernmental Agreement with USA, help to enable USA laws to become applicable in Sweden, while conflicting with Swedish laws, and ignore all Swedish laws and grundlag? Or will you take a stand, and stand up for what is right for Swedish banks and Swedish people?
Thanks for keeping us informed. I am going to try find out more on the EU angle in the next few days.
Thank you Swedish Citizen for continuing your efforts, and for keeping us posted.
take care.
this is not really good. As Not that Lisa mentioned, it is just awakening a sleeping giant.
27 March
http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Forslag/Motioner/med-anledning-av-skr-201213_H002-12BE5516-60EE-49DF-B6C7-8BB769B48011/?text=true
Exercise due to skr. 2012/13: 80 Directors on the activities of the European Union in 2012
Apparently, this is a laundry list of items from the Social Democrats regarding EU work. This party holds the most seats, however its left block is in the minority (47% ish versus the right block which has about 49%, with the Swedish Democrats (nationalists) holding the swing).
“FATCA” has 2 hits, the translated paragraphs are here.
20.Riksdagen announces to the government its meaning as stated in the motion that Parliament should be informed about the government’s negotiations with the U.S. on the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).
We believe that Sweden should take the lead in a full exchange of tax information and transparency in terms of the taxable assets found were located. The exchange of information will occur spontaneously and not only on request. It is important that the government ensures that the EU and Europe is ahead in this. The government needs the EU and OECD closely follow the exchange agreements work in practice and to promote improvements to the OECD standard. Parliament will continuously be updated in such matters. The government’s handling of the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act or FATCA lacked clarity towards parliament.
21st
The Parliament announces to the government its meaning as stated in the motion that Sweden within the EU and the OECD will work for a more multilateral approach to tax work to help developing countries also benefit from hidden assets through information exchange.
22nd
The Parliament announces to the government its meaning as stated in the motion to tax accounts in all countries opened up through a worldwide demand for country-by-country reporting…….
Justification
The Social Democrats want the EU basically should be an intergovernmental cooperation, where we together with other Member States to solve problems requiring common solutions. Social Democratic politics is always about enabling people to shape their own lives. When the crisis rolls, jobs are threatened, welfare deteriorates and inequalities between people increases, it affects us all. People and Development held back; jobs and prosperity will be lost.
The economic and financial crisis, we see no end to the already skyrocketing and unemployment continues to increase. The last few years have been devoted to the acute crisis in which a string of measures have been adopted at EU level, such as the six-pack, two-pack, the Euro Plus Pact, etc., for all the euro countries will have the opportunity to sort out their difficult problems.
For us social democrats, it is obvious that countries must have order in the economy, it is the foundation of our employment policies, but in the conservative-controlled Europe, the focus has been on one-sided austerity and structural reforms, which we now see the results of. Over 26 million unemployed in the EU, of which a staggering 5.7 million are young. It’s a lousy rating!
While some forces are trying to exploit the crisis to shift more power to the EU. We look with great concern on these proposals to change the EU cooperation in the foundation.
The focus needs to be on jobs and unemployment, research and development, innovation and education. The necessary investments, it is crucial to Europe’s economic growth. Cooperation between the Member States for a competitive and sustainable Europe is necessary.
Therefore, the conflict between us and the bourgeois parties the same here at home and in Europe. We Socialists always put jobs and people first.
A well-functioning EU can help Sweden grows stronger and safer. It demands that the EU is working on the right things. So it is not always today. Many decisions about our future are not suitable for decision in Brussels.
Tax on financial transactions
At the end of September 2011 the European Commission presented its proposal for a Directive on a common system for a financial transaction tax (FTT). In mid-February 2012 demanded nine finance ministers, with France and Germany in the lead, and mostly from pure right-wing governments, to work with the tax would be accelerated. The Commission presented 25 October 2012 a proposal for a decision on the authorization to proceed with enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax.
The Commission proposes in its Directive 14/2 2013 a tax on financial transactions in the context of enhanced cooperation in accordance with the authorization by the ECOFIN Council decided on 22 January 2013. The cooperation includes eleven Member States (Belgium, Estonia, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Germany, and Austria). The proposal aims of the Commission that in the area of enhanced cooperation harmonize legislation on indirect tax on financial transactions, to ensure that financial institutions contribute to the cost of the current crisis and to discourage transactions that do not improve the efficiency of financial markets.
The Social Democrats believe that some form of taxation of the financial sector as well as contributing to the welfare financing but also improves the functioning of financial markets should be examined. Possible alternative is a financial activity tax or a financial transaction tax.
We can think of to test a financial transaction tax if it is based on international agreements where the main financial markets are included. Regardless of the design of such a tax, the proceeds necessarily go to the Member State.
The current initiative by the European Commission on enhanced cooperation between eleven Member States of a financial transaction tax does not live up to the goals we set, and Sweden will not participate in enhanced cooperation. The government assumes that non-participating Member States’ interests are reflected in the continued treatment of the tax proposal after the authorization of enhanced cooperation approved.
We socialists can conclude that the government unfortunately has approved a detailed interaction before all the facts about the design of the tax on financial transactions was in place and all the implications for the Swedish part was known and analyzed. We believe that the government and the bourgeois parties have been too accommodating in this and have the responsibility for any future problems for Sweden based on the decision.
The Government has therefore also responsible for the continued negotiation work ensure that Swedish companies’ hedging, and Swedish business financing is not subject to the tax.
If the tax on financial transactions may adversely affect Sweden’s tax base, we believe that the government will require an additional discount on the membership fee corresponding to the increased costs Sweden suffer
In the current proposal, see the Commission’s proposal for a Council Decision on the system of own resources of that part of the revenue generated by the tax shall constitute own resources for the EU budget. It also referred to the European Council on 7-8 February 2013 invited the Member States participating in the enhanced cooperation to investigate whether a financial transaction tax could be the basis for new own resources of the EU budget. The government opposes tax on financial transactions that own resources.
We Socialists accept under any conditions that the FTT totally or partially own resources for the EU. The government must also ensure that safeguards are that Sweden is not disadvantaged either as a direct result of the tax or by EU funds come awarded generous to the Member States participating in enhanced cooperation….
Country-by-country reporting
Sweden should act to tax accounts in all countries opened up through a worldwide demand for country-by-country reporting. Companies should report their profits and taxes in each country where they operate, so that the authorities of all countries become aware of how much tax companies are required to pay. It is the first condition for the country to assess whether the financial statements in their own country is reasonable. Norway has taken such a decision and it is high time that Sweden would join. A limited such proposal is now being prepared in Europe for the mining industry but it should of course include all the international companies….
All that is great but only if the US Treasury can get authority to provide reciprocity which they don’t have. The key to get the socialists onboard is reciprocity or the lack thereof.
so, the Social Democrats want something that is better than FATCA. So, my Contact used the information I gave him to push for even more FATCA then FATCA already gives. Well, then, let’s hope reciprocity gives him what he is hoping for.
http://e24.vgnett.no/kommentarer/finansregulering-maa-det-vaere-vanskelig/20297663
In Norway the new financial regulatory mainly involve the introduction of new EU Directives but with some special Norwegian modifications. Among the new EU regulation on the way include Basel III, Solvency II, MiFID II, MAD, EMIR, AIFMD and UCITS V. In the U.S. introduced a new comprehensive regulation. Most famous is the Dodd-Frank Act. In the tax area will FATCA, called Find All The Cheating Americans, introduced in order to gain control of American fortunes abroad.
All this regulation requires substantial resources for compliance and enforcement. It creates a huge market for expertise within financial firms, for lawyers, consultants and accountants, as well as new jobs in the bureaucracy. The cost for this will ultimately end up with customers. Higher costs may also lead to fewer players and less competition and higher prices.
Looks like, when an American complains about being discriminated against for not getting a bank account, it is not discrimination. I Think I will move to Eritrea
med anledning av din anmälan till D.O.
Diskrimineringsombudsmannen, D.O., är en statlig myndighet som arbetar mot diskriminering och för allas lika rättigheter och möjligheter. Det gör myndigheten främst genom att se till att diskrimineringslagen följs. Diskrimineringslagen förbjuder diskriminering av enskilda personer om diskrimineringen har samband med kön, könsöverskridande identitet eller uttryck, etnisk tillhörighet, religion eller annan trosuppfattning, funktionshinder, sexuell läggning eller ålder.
Lagstiftningen gäller inte alla situationer eller områden, exempelvis omfattas inte reklam, det som uttrycks i olika media eller medlemskap i ideella föreningar som inte är fackföreningar. Inte heller omfattas privatpersoners handlande av lagstiftningen. DO kan inte heller påverka eller ändra myndigheters eller domstolars beslut eller utreda händelser som ligger mer än två år bakåt i tiden.
Det du tar upp i ditt brev omfattas inte av den nuvarande lagstiftningen. DO kommer därför inte att inleda någon utredning i ditt ärende.
Tack för din anmälan som ger oss viktig kunskap i vårt arbete.
Med detta brev avslutas ditt ärende hos DO.
Med vänlig hälsning
as a result of your complaint to the Ombudsman
Equality Ombudsman, is a government agency that works against discrimination and for equal rights and opportunities. It is the agency primarily by ensuring that discrimination law is enforced. Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination against individuals on discrimination related to gender, gender identity or expression, ethnicity, religion or other belief, disability, sexual orientation or age.
The legislation does not apply to all situations or areas, such is not covered advertising, what is expressed in different media or membership in voluntary associations that are not unions. Neither are private persons’ conduct of the legislation. DO can not affect or change the authority or court decisions or investigate the events that are more than two years back in time.
There you raise in your letter are not covered by the current legislation. DO therefore will not initiate any investigation into your case.
Thank you for signing that gives us important knowledge in our work.
With this letter closing your case with DO.
Sincerely, Jurist