#Americansabroad in Belgium and FATCA law?, Antwerp forum http://t.co/vgwSccg6J9 – blocking bank card until USness disconfirmed!
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) January 27, 2014
Article includes:
So my husband’s bank account was blocked and he couldnt use his card anymore. He went to his bank to see what the problem is. he thought maybe his card was not working right.
At his bank they told him that they blocked his account and that he couldnt get his money. They got their orders to block all US citizens accounts until they can prove that they dont owe taxes to the US.
@ Brockers…..the onslaught begins…….. this is totally scary
The sad thing about this is that the one response this woman has had was from another American who told her he just signed a few papers and that was that, but then said that he had not filed his 1040 for the past four years while he has been abroad, because he was retired. Just Social Security from the US. I bet he hasn’t heard of FBARs either. He thinks he doesn’t owe any tax, but he’s about to have an OMG moment. Poor soul.
Ok Guys, let’s start doing more to get the word out. Please post this on Twitter, FB, Meetup, Anywhere we can reach out to more in our community so we can Unite to Fight!
@Rev Susi and crystal london
Do you know others in UK who are in the same boat and are you able to somehow start to build a UK community under our umbrella?
http://www.meetup.com/American-Expats-Abroad/
https://www.facebook.com/Americansabroadandtaxes
Wow, that’s really nasty! America is becoming more criminal on a daily basis!
This is utterly disgusting what the U.S. is doing to expats. I am want to say just renounce people. It’s clear we’re not wanted, we’re hated by the so called “home land” and they don’t care what happens to us at all.
In fact it looks like they hope we will all renounce so they won’t have any expats to worry about or deal with at all. CBT…punishment.
Both of the posts seem to suggest that the bank is checking with the IRS whether the bank customer is filing and whether the customer owes the US taxes. Is that even remotely possible? How or why could a bank take on the responsbility for verifying that their US person customers are tax compliant. I realise that this is part of the process in Switzerland. But I don’t understand why any bank could be held responsible for the actions (or inactions) of a customer unrelated to the banking relationship. Is this the bank taking their remit way too far?
From IRSCompliantForever,
On 1/27/2014 12:03 PM, calgary411 wrote:
Actually ‘skeptical’s’ good words: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/relinquishment/comment-page-30/#comment-1011812
From: Brian Mahany
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 8:36 AM
To: calgary411
Subject: tax connections
How the heck could one EVER prove they don’t owe the IRS? It’s tough enough to even get confirmation the IRS received a tax return, let alone if one is compliant! Besides, the IRS has three years to reassess a return under the SOL rules.
A USC abroad desperately needs a second citizenship ASAP and even that is no guarantee. A CLN is no guarantee either; one could still have a tax liability.
I’m not entirely unsympathetic to the bank’s dilemma, however. The way the USG has been attacking the European banks is nothing short of brutal.
@ Edelweiss,
Re: “Both of the posts seem to suggest that the bank is checking with the IRS whether the bank customer is filing and whether the customer owes the US taxes.”
I’m not picking that up in my reading — could you point it out? Thanks.
The banks don’t appear to be doing anything other than blocking people from their accounts to force them to come in and sign papers, which are sent off to the IRS to match up with records and who will likely use the documents to harass and scare people. And some people say that the point of FATCA isn’t about generating an index of those claimed by the US and pinpointing them and their assets?
If anyone still thinks that FATCA isn’t going to turn USC’s and duals around the world into 2nd class citizens in their own countries, they should seriously rethink that.
@ Pacifica
The first post says “They got their orders to block all US citizens accounts until they can prove that they dont owe taxes to the US. At our other bank they told us the same thing. They will block our account because they also got their orders… We have to prove that we dont owe the US taxes.”
The second post says that “my bank here in Belgium gave me some paperwork to sign giving authorization for the IRS to verify my account in order to make sure I do not owe taxes from my income.”
The second post says explicitly that he had to provide his SSN so that the bank can verify with the IRS he doesn’t owe taxes. The first post is more ambiguous because the burden of proof is unclear with the first bank (until “they” can prove they don’t owe taxes to the US – they could be referring to the bank or to the customer) and, apparently, assumed by the customer in the instance of the second bank. Perhaps I’m reading too much into the ambiguity of the first post but, I would be surprised if banks were adopting different procedures. Normally, either the banks themselves or the outside legal advisers to the banks will cross check the procedures to be implemented so that you don’t have one bank with a radically different procedure from the others.
YogaGirl,
I consider that all here are
for all other US-defined US Persons Abroad who will follow…
@ Edelweiss,
Thanks. I see what you were saying. I had misread your statement to mean that the IRS was telling the banks who to search for – which, I get it now, you didn`t say at all — so I was looking for something that wasn’t in the article.
It`s mid-afternoon here, and that`s what happens when keeping up with Brock at the office when one should be working 🙂
I literally almost puked when I read that.. Please change the posting so that way we don’t panic when we first log on..I understand this is in Belgium? We that are still in our OMG moment can’t take this!
We are back to the 1760’s, only worse
For the upteem rime
I will post
RE VAN DEMARK ET AL. AND TORONTO-DOMINION BANK
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
68 O.R. (2d) 379; 1989 Ont. Rep. LEXIS 206
RE VAN DEMARK ET AL. AND TORONTO-DOMINION BANK
COUNSEL: Howard E. Kerbel, for applicants
C.C. Taylor, for respondent
JUDGE: Osler J.
DATE: April 19, 1989
[*380] Application for an order requiring the respondent bank to pay the applicants’ moneys held on deposit in their names.
OSLER J.:—This is an application for a mandatory order requiring the respondent bank to pay or deliver to the applicants all moneys held by the respondent on deposit in their respective names. Since the commencement of the application the respondent has paid [**4] the moneys into court and the order sought, therefore, will be one for the payment out of such moneys to the applicants.
An interlocutory order was requested and this was refused by R.E. Holland J. on August 10, 1988. Mr. Justice Holland gave brief reasons summarized in the sentence, “Canadian Courts will not directly or indirectly enforce the revenue laws of another country: United States of America v. Harden (1963), 41 D.L.R. (2d) 721 . . .”.
An appeal was taken from that decision but the proceedings have been stayed pending the final judgment now being requested.
The applicant, Kenneth Van deMark, placed on deposit with the respondent as of July 29, 1988, the sum of $ 12,010.52 Canadian in account 3300013 at the 77 Bloor St. Branch, and the sum of $ 350,457.77 U.S. in the Church and Wellington St. Branch.
The corporate applicant has on deposit with the respondent at the 77 Bloor St. Branch, in account number 0301050, the sum of $ 17,200.61.
Joint accounts are maintained at 77 Bloor St. W. by Kenneth Van deMark, Alanna Van deMark and Haley Van deMark, in which are deposited in account 7107158 the sum of $ 3,199.81 U.S., and in account 0220859, [**5] $ 2,469.38 Canadian. Kenneth Van deMark and Alanna Van deMark have in account no. 3307638 the sum of $ 78,987.94 Canadian. With respect to the last three mentioned accounts, the applicant Kenneth Van deMark claims no interest whatsoever and is a signatory as a matter of convenience, the funds being the property of Alanna Van deMark and Haley Van deMark in the one case, and Alanna Van deMark in the other.
All of the above sums are as of July 29, 1988. On that day, the respondent “froze” all funds held in the six bank accounts listed because of four levies served by the United States of America, Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, upon the [*381] offices of the bank located in the City of New York, it being alleged that the applicants hold funds as nominees of Haley Van deMark and Alanna Van deMark, the parents of the applicant Kenneth Van deMark, and that such parents owe the United States of America for alleged tax arrears the sum of $ 5,636,837.80 as of July 15, 1988.
It should be added that the proceedings before Mr. Justice Holland and the motion to stay the appeal resulted in the release of the moneys mentioned as being on deposit in account no. 0301050 to Alanna [**6] V Bloor Street Ltd., and that amount is no longer in issue.
The disposition of the funds in accounts 7107158, 0220859 and 3307638 will be the subject of a separate application which has been adjourned sine die.
It is stated that the United States Internal Revenue Service has made the allegation that with respect to the funds still at issue in this application, Kenneth Van deMark holds as nominee for his parents and, under United States law, such funds can be seized as though they were funds of the parents.
The applicant Kenneth Van deMark is a Canadian citizen, a businessman and has never carried on business in the United States.
The “notice of levy” purports to attach any assets of the parents held by the Toronto-Dominion Bank in or out of the United States and purports to attach any assets in possession of the bank, of which Kenneth Van deMark holds title as nominee for his parents. No evidence that such relationship exists has been placed before me or, apparently, furnished to the bank.
It is stated that if the bank does not deliver the funds, it will be liable to pay the United States Government something like 200% of the value of the assets claimed.
There is no dispute between [**7] the bank and Kenneth Van deMark and the dispute, if any, is between the bank and the Internal Revenue Service of the United States.
The effect of what has occurred is that a Canadian citizen has placed assets in a branch in Canada of a Canadian chartered bank. The bank also does business in the United States and is being threatened by a United States authority.
One must sympathize with the position of the bank but that position is the result of its election to carry on business in more than one country and that cannot influence the application of Canadian law.
[*382] It should be added that Kenneth Van deMark, in his affidavit, swears that he does not now act and never has acted as a nominee for anyone, including the persons named in the notices of levy delivered to the bank, that he is not a taxpayer of the United States and that he has never been served with any assessment or notices of assessment with respect to taxes owed to the Government of the United States. In addition, he swears that the funds on deposit in his name are his own funds and that no other person or persons named in the notices of levy have or ever have had any interest in those funds.
In United States of America v. Harden (1963), 41 D.L.R. (2d) 721, [1963] S.C.R. 366, [**8] 44 W.W.R. 630 (S.C.C.), the law was discussed and, in my view, settled by the Supreme Court of Canada in a judgment delivered for the court by Cartwright J. Maclean J., of the Supreme Court in British Columbia, set aside a writ of summons in an action to enforce a foreign judgment for income taxes [30 D.L.R. (2d) 566, 35 W.W.R. 654]. The appeal from that judgment was dismissed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal [36 D.L.R. (2d) 602, 40 W.W.R. 428, [1963] C.T.C. 91], and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from that court.
At p. 723 it was stated that during the course of the action no one questioned the well-established rule that a foreign state is precluded from suing in Canada for taxes due under the law of that foreign state, and that in a foreign judgment there is no merger of the original cause of action.
It was argued that although a claim for taxes would not be entertained by the courts of this country, a judgment for payment of those taxes contained in the courts of a foreign state would be, and also that the judge of first instance should not have set aside the writ in summary proceedings but should have [**9] directed that the action proceed to trial.
On the last point, it appeared to Cartwright J. that all the necessary facts were before the judge of first instance and that nothing would have been gained by proceeding to a trial. With respect to the first argument, Cartwright J., at p. 725, pronounced the law as follows:
“In my opinion, a foreign state cannot escape the application of this rule, which is one of public policy, by taking a judgment in its own Courts and bringing suit here on that judgment. The claim asserted remains a claim for taxes. It has not, in our Courts, merged in the judgment; enforcement of the judgment would be enforcement of the tax claim.”
The rule referred to was stated in the judgment of Tomlin J. in [*383] Re Visser, The Queen of Holland v. Drukker, [1928] Ch. 877 at p. 884, in the following terms:
“My own opinion is that there is a well recognized rule, which has been enforced for at least 200 years or thereabouts, under which these Courts will not collect the taxes of foreign States for the benefit of the sovereigns of those foreign States; and this is one of those actions which these Courts will not entertain.”
http://uniset.ca/other/cs6/68OR2d379.html
Calgary411, of course we are. I have never thought otherwise. Those of us who found this place long ago (thank you, Petros) are lucky to have done so b/c we will be unlikely to be victimized as much or at all when the all the shit hits all the fans.
Sadly though, our minor children and those who aren’t considered mentally capable like your son will need protection until they are either old enough to renounce or our govts grow a pair and stand up for them.
I have seen hints about the new session of Parliament and the budget and fear that FATCA is hidden in there somewhere. True to his devious nature, Flaherty wouldn’t reveal much and I hope the NDP, Liberals and our sole Green are up to the task of ferreting out the noxious stuff for the Canadian people to at least see before the Conservatives shove it all down our throats.
If this were the 1800’s, I’d be lighting out to the territories like Huck Finn but the world is too small and prison planet for people to just excuse themselves from the systems anymore. Sad.
This is just out! Victoria is featured. Global news from Toronto. http://globalnews.ca/news/1109404/the-stereotype-of-the-wealthy-u-s-expatriate/ Brockers comment!!
Just some comments about this story.
(1) The bank blocks your bank card (for example you are at the supermarket after work with screaming kids and have to leave your caddy in the aisle and take time off the next day to go into your bank branch). You go in and they ask you to sign some paperwork – the extent of which was obviously not explained to these people and the implications which they clearly do not understand.
(2) the bank does not tell them (and probably DOES NOT REALIZE OR KNOW) about (a) FBAR penalties or even (B) CBT and the obligation to file and pay double taxes in many cases
(3) it is very possible that the Belgian bank officer would think that as a belgian resident (and perhaps citizen), the person facing him has nothing to fear from US authorities. Just fill in your SSN or ITIN on this dotted line we’ll send it on to the authorities and unblock your card, don’t you worry about it. All Belgian accountants, lawyers, notaries, and most bankers (except head office compliance officers on top secret fatca teams), laugh when you talk about CBT and say that you pay taxes in the country of residence, you must be mistaken/crazy to think otherwise, don’t worry you’re wrong if you live in Belgium you are taxed in Belgium period. They have no idea at all about FBAR, the US tax code, the true implications f FATCA.
Please someone respond to this post with a bit more background information and ideas of more reference sources even if you can’t post a URL.
That article is very well researched, lots of new data about Americans in Canada. Insightful too…
“In Canada, it seems unavoidable that a decision about FATCA will lead to a serious debate about national sovereignty – which the NDP seems to be positioning itself for.
In the United States, the Republican National Committee’s vote to oppose FATCA has given the issue a sharply partisan form.
(I’m intrigued to see the NDP and the Republican National Committee on the same side of any issue, but there you are.)
One of the better sources for understanding FATCA and other issues around taxation and citizenship is a blog called The Franco-American Flophouse, written by Victoria Ferauge, an American who lives outside Paris. Ferauge’s writing about FATCA (and other things) is wise and careful, and worth your time.”….
Calgary 411
I appreciate your quote at 1.26PM.
Can you please not use the connection to TAX Connection website as it is one of those asshole lawyer that is trying to scare people into compliance.
Maybe Pacifica can edit your post so no one goes to the Tax Connection website. Petros had a perfect definition for these lawyers.
This is exactly why all Americans permanently living abroad need to shit-can US citizenship.
The CLN is the golden ticket to freedom for expats! Get it now before the price goes up.
@Calgary411
Thanks for your kind comments.
In that posting I was just trying to be factual, based on research and applying a clear-headed approach based on the laws of Canada. Its important that the terms of the Canada-US tax treaty regarding non-collection of US taxes from Canadian citizens have the force of law, and cannot be changed based on the whim of a government official or any kind of informal agreement. Changing the Canada-US Tax Treaty would require collaboration and ratification by both Canadian Parliament and the US Congress. Seems unlikely.
Unreal. Well, you can see why Bitcoin is going to be the currency of the future. With Bitcoin you are your own bank. It’s becoming true that if you are a “US Person” abroad then you have 2 choices: move back to the US or ditch your passport. I relinquished because I know there is no other option. Perception is reality and they have painted us as traitorous rich tax evaders. There will be no sympathy for us scum. I feel for those fighting against it and wish them all the best, but at a certain point I became convinced it’s a done deal and only going to get worse. It was time for me to bail on the US and never look back.