From bubblebustin (and I now see originally from Eric) to us:
Can someone make a separate post for the NTA’s latest report to Congress? You can sense of urgency and frustration in her words when she states her concerns for Americans living abroad. The situation is already dire. FATCA will be an unmitigated disaster for both us and the IRS. FATCA must be repealed.
This report echos the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act in 1930. A piece of legislation that is regarded as making the Depression even worse.
However it’s the same mentality that the authors of FATCA have used.
They’ll never admit they’re wrong until the damage is staring them in the face.
With Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act, over 1000 economists signed a letter for Hoover not to sign the bill. Of course he did.
The credit for posting the report should go to someone else on another thread, but I can’t remember who or where I saw it 🙁
Sorry, whoever!
Wow, just read the first paragraph of the report and I suddenly realized I had read something just like it earlier today. Deja vu.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1750-1775/parliamentary-taxation
The American Revolution was precipitated, in part, by a series of laws passed between 1763 and 1775 that regulating trade and taxes. This legislation caused tensions between colonists and imperial officials, who made it clear that the British Parliament would not address American complaints that the new laws were onerous. British unwillingness to respond to American demands for change allowed colonists to argue that they were part of an increasingly corrupt and autocratic empire in which their traditional liberties were threatened. This position eventually served as the basis for the colonial Declaration of Independence.
In 1763, the British government emerged from the Seven Years’ War burdened by heavy debts. This led British Prime Minister George Grenville to reduce duties on sugar and molasses but also to enforce the law more strictly. Since enforcement of these duties had previously been lax, this ultimately increased revenue for the British Government and served to increase the taxes paid by the colonists. The colonial governments of New York and Massachusetts sent formal letters of protest to Parliament.
The realities of FATCA continue to become better known.
This guy in Jamaica isn’t very happy.
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140717/cleisure/cleisure3.html
@Kathy
“Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. The US has a convenient memory.
Speaking of history, for comparison, here is the 2013 TAS Report to Congress : http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/06/26/national-taxpayer-advocate-identifies-priority-issues-for-upcoming-year-offshore-issues-again-called-out/, with Eric’s, badger’s and Just Me’s (and bubblebustin) July 2014 comments at that post: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/06/26/national-taxpayer-advocate-identifies-priority-issues-for-upcoming-year-offshore-issues-again-called-out/comment-page-1/#comment-2259303.
bubblebustin,
I found it and updated post to acknowledge Eric and link to Eric’s, badger’s, Just Me’s and your previous comment on last year’s post of the TAS Report to Congress. Thanks for highlighting it.
This just makes me tired.
RBT is the only answer, but it isn’t even mentioned.
Thank-you, Calgary411!
@Polly
The NTA’s job is to be the IRS’s watchdog and the IRS job is to enforce existing tax laws. It simply isn’t her place to comment on CBT vs RBT. The NTA has the impossible task of trying to find ways to make the existing law work, but she still keeps trying! Her comment that the tax requirements have “become” so confusing, and and compliance burden so great that people are renouncing in record numbers would lead you to assume that she doesn’t oppose CBT per se, but how it’s administered. Her approach is actually a barrier to any switch to RBT, when she believes CBT can actually work!
And focussing on her choice of the word that these things have “become” so great that people can no longer comply is misleading. When has it ever been easy to comply?
@Bubblebustin
People are being doubly taxed, their retirement funds are being taxed. They are taxed on phantom gains because they live by a foreign currency day to day.
All of this is Bullshit. It is WRONG to abuse people this way. All the rest is sugar-coating.
Pingback: Even corporations are renouncing U.S. citizenship | Citizenship Counselling For U.S. Citizens in Canada and Abroad
@Kathy
Contrary to the way American history is normally taught (in the US), the American colonists weren’t jumping up and down agitating for a break with Britain, except for a few radicals. Most (before 1776) believed themselves to be ‘British’ . They were pushed towards independence by a short-sighted cabinet let by Lord North (realistically, the mad ‘tyrant’ George III had as much real power as Queen Elizabeth has today). If William Pitt, the elder, had a majority in Parliament, there probably wouldn’t be a United States (he advocated self-governing dominion within the Empire – the blueprint for Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa).
Nevertheless, a *very* significant loyalist minority wished to stay with Britain (the result was eventually Canada… and Sierra Leone). More like a civil war than a rebellion. Never recall being taught that in school.
Loyal British colonists were pushed and bullied towards independence- parallels to our age?
I am a bit alarmed by the IRS response to her afores point. She had pointed out that the IRS at times was treating Mexican afores as foreign trusts and that guidance needed . Here is the IRS response:
“[22-3] Issue guidance about what, if any, information reporting applies to AFOREs (i.e., privatized
social security accounts held by those who have worked in Mexico).
■■ Internal Revenue Service Response to the National Taxpayer Advocate: The Mexico/US
IGA addresses information reporting for AFOREs for purposes of foreign financial reporting
under FATCA. The IRS will continue to explore whether additional guidance is needed.”
Well, I can save you a bunch of time, IRS by telling you that better guidance is certainly needed because it is not clear that the IGAs apply to individual taxpayers rather than to financial institutions. For example, are Canadian disability accounts now exempt from reporting because they are in the IGA? Much greater clarity is needed.
@Don
Saw that article, but thought the author was a bit unrealistic to expect FATCA to have magically sorted out Jamaica’s corruption problem this soon. Even if FATCA were the most saintly legislation ever, it couldn’t solve Jamaica’s problems so quickly, not that it even ever intended to do that. Expectation levels have been worryingly high in Mexico and Colombia and remain off the chart unrealistic in China. Lots of wishful thinking out there.
A most interesting IRS response can be found on pg 83 under [20-2] where they say: The IRS is commiteed to balancing the needs of customers, complying with statutory regulations, and protecting taxpayers from potential fraud and ID theft.”….
I keep thinking about the REQUIREMENT of FBARS being submitted electronically. Why no concern RE potential fraud and ID theft in that regard???? I mean, isn’t a list of all one’s bank accounts and account numbers just ripe for fraud and ID theft?
@LM
The IRS don’t really care about ID theft unless it digs into their pocket. Basically we are on our own if our id is stolen… Next to impossible to dig yourself out of that hole…