American Citizens Abroad has posted an update with information concerning their efforts to replace Citizenship-based Taxation with Residence-based Taxation. They are also calling for testimonials about how legislation is affecting you and for your support in by writing the Tax Committee directly responsible for tax reform and asking for the implementation of RBT.
Update on Residence-Based Taxation RBT – August 2014
ACA has been hard at work in Washington, DC bringing RBT to the attention of the legislature and the Administration. ACA has met with all the members of the Americans Abroad Caucus, and the Ways & Means and Senate Finance committees. ACA has been asked by the committees involved in tax reform to provide our input on the tax treatment of Americans living and working overseas. We are proud that ACA is now the government “go to” source for information on many of the issues affecting overseas Americans, and we regularly submit comments to government hearings on issues important to our membership.
Media attention on the issues of overseas Americans is growing. More and more major media outlets like Bloomberg, CNN, Forbes, Time, Politico and others are talking about RBT and FATCA. Much of this attention is due to the ACA commitment to bringing the issues of overseas Americans to the attention of the media. ACA is regularly solicited for interviews and quoted in the media.
ACA was the first overseas organization to advocate for “Same Country Exception” for FATCA and the first to develop a specific detailed proposal for Residence-Based Taxation (RBT). ACA is pleased to see that other organizations such as Democrats Abroad and Republicans Overseas have picked up our messaging on FATCA and taxation and are also advocating to the Washington legislature and the Administration on this subject.
ACA’s Comprehensive Compliance Procedure was the basis of the recent IRS Streamlined Foreign Offshore Program, which allows a low- to no-risk process for Americans overseas to become tax compliant.
In addition, ACA was able to get a special provision inserted first in a number of Intergovernmental Agreements and then in the FATCA regulations, requiring local overseas banks not to discriminate against Americans if they want to qualify for certain types of favorable treatment. ACA is one of the few, if not the only, organization representing Americans abroad that has the expertise and working relationships to permit it to work on a technical level like this.
ACA continues to advocate on behalf of Americans living and working overseas and the organization is truly the Voice of Americans Overseas. ACA is listening to you and Washington is listening to ACA.
Send us your testimonials on how current legislation is affecting you. These testimonials are important to our advocacy work but even more important is your work in contacting your own Congressional representative. We ask you to write to your representative today and let him or her know your thoughts and personal experience, and please send a copy to ACA as well.
You can also support our work by writing directly to the Tax Committees responsible for tax reform and asking for RBT. Go HERE
In all your communications to Congress, if you need to use a US residential address, use your last known address in the United States, the same one from which you are registered to vote.
@Victoria
What makes the difference between 1913 and now? Globalisation. On the one hand, modern innovations make collecting taxes abroad more feasible. On the other hand, it makes economic competition greater. I honestly don’t think the unemployed guy from the factory who votes for the democrats really gets it, that double taxation of the corporation which maintains the factory in which they would like to work is being hit by FACTA as well. They hear “Damn those people for choosing inversions!” but they don’t seem to understand anything but “tax evasion” instead of “inability to compete”. Somehow that very real message which quite a few smart people have voiced just doesn’t make it to the recipients. I don’t know why. I think it was Japan and the Phillipines which gave up CBT last? I don’t think they would want to revert back to CBT just because they now might have a chance to collect. Most of all Japan must know how important RBT is for their exports. Perhaps it is all a part of the hysteria with which America is infected today. Not only the bankruptcy but the terrorist attacks might leave people to only hear sensationalist arguments and leave reasoning and slow thoughtful thinking through of issues at a loss.
As for getting ACA and those groups to work together….That would be good but who could convince them? And add to that the information that it would even be good for them to work together with renunciants if the goal is CBT. It might just be too much for them to swallow- I don’t know how to make them see the merits. Maybe people are too “rose-eyed glasses”? Maybe they think it will be too easy because after all, congress has to come to its senses. Maybe they just don’t realise how daunting and how big the opposition really is? Because that would possibly make them realise that they can’t go this all alone. But that would be a purely goal-oriented design ( and getting rid of all the frilly patriotic laments.)
In the end, I always hoped America would understand that it is good for THEM to adopt CBT. Nobody in his right mind would vote for something against their own benefit. Nobody. But the fact that America is shooting itself in the foot just doesn’t seem to hit home. I wonder why. I have the hypothesis that so much money has been used to grease palms in Washington to create tax benefits for a few, that tax reform for the whole nation is just impossible to implement. But I am no politician nor economist. These are just my musings.
This is a most fascinating and deep blog. I joined one of those organizations then told them I renounced but they ignored that and keep sending me emails. I think they are robo-callers, as said there is really no budget or meaning for them. Victoria, you said “So how about this instead? A common database of testimonials. A minimum of coordination so that we don’t get played in D.C. Allow for and respect differences but actively seek common goals/projects.” IBS has way more stuff written than anyplace. Maybe you should compile something (but you would need permission from the contributors). Like Mao’s red book. See http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/. Our movement is different but Mao set an example.
@Kermit, What I find absolutely extraordinary about Isaac Brock is how hard people work (all volunteers and contributors here – no paid staff) and how freely information and resources are shared.
I cannot count the number of people I have directed to the consular directory, the fact sheets, the FAQ’s, the resources. A family member contacted my mom about renouncing and she transferred the mail to me and I shot a mail straight from Versailles to Vancouver B.C. that just said, “Go to Brock. They will answer all your questions.”
All that in and of itself would be an extraordinary achievement but when you add the UN complaint and the lawsuit, well, damn….
Progress is visible. Knowledge is shared, Information is free. Stuff gets done.
Pretty amazing when you kick back and think about it. 🙂
1.) More renunciations, 2.) more litigation, 3.) more coordination between the various orgs trying to represent Americans abroad.
If the above doesn’t work, there’s always tarring and feathering.
Tarring and Feathering: “The aim was to inflict enough miserable pain and humiliation on a person to make him either conform his behavior to the mob’s demands or be driven from town.”
Appropriate. Because the legacy of CBT will read: The effect was to inflict enough miserable pain and humiliation on an expat to make him/her either conform his/her behavior to Congress’ demands or be driven from citizenship.
@Shovel
To be demanded to conform to the mobs demands or be driven from town can work both ways. When we win this “thing” and life unfolds a la Anne Frank maybe the legacy of CBT will be written differently. At the moment it is a toss-up.
Another possible difference this time versus 1913, is that they have gone a step too far in extorting other governments, re-writing local laws, stealing other nations assets and promising a reciprocity they can never deliver on. This is basically an attack on other countries, not just individuals with a tattoo. I have come to view this as financial warfare. Maybe the remainder of the world will wake up from its collective coma and realize that FATCA is just a paper tiger. What does the world look like when the US starts getting treated like Eritrea? When it is acknowledged that CBT is unenforceable and their mission self destructive? When other countries start feeling humilated by the courage demonstrated by Serbia?
@Charl
Yes, works both ways.
My point was that there’s no doubt right now about who is getting the allegorical tarring and feathering…. the being forced to comply or driven out.
And wouldn’t it be an awakening for the jingoistic homelander if expats could start giving them a comparable tar and feather treatment.
Merely a pipe dream.
I do not think it is beneficial to spend energy trying to unite the various expat organisations (ACA, AARO, FAWCO, IBS, MS, ADSC etc). Coordination is definitely needed, but each organisation has its own participants and resources (or lack thereof). Each organisation also has its own interests at stake and approach towards the issues which means multiple angles of attack on the problem.
The anti-CBT movement needs to embrace its diverse nature, not try to change it.
At a dinner party with visiting Homelanders. Mentioned four month long waiting list to renounce at Consulate. You should have seen their eyes turn into saucers….
Ironically ACA and the other groups will benefit from the media attention to the issues that come from our efforts, the legal challenge, the human rights complaint, and the rising rate of renunciations but yet the ACA will not assist people to renounce or talk about it. Ironically, ACA and the other groups may well be benefiting from the mounting evidence that substantial numbers will not and cannot wait and are not waiting for relief which may never come.
In all social movements, there has been a spectrum, and the powers that be need the impetus coming from those with positions that challenge them the most in order to agree to settle on some even half measures in talks with those groups the status quo sees as least disruptive. Therefore, those who will NOT advocate for renunciations, will be benefiting from those who do. Those who mount and fund no challenge will be benefiting from those who do.
It is ethically wrong for the US to keep minors and those deemed legally incompetent from renouncing or allowing an adult/legal guardian do so on their behalf. It is very wrong for the US to farm and harvest the disability benefits and RDSP savings from the vulnerable and the RESPs from children.
Yet, ACA will not speak of renunciation and will not assist people in doing so. They are silent on the injustice being done to the vulnerable who are taxed on their non-US disability benefits and their RDSPs – yet who are prevented from renouncing. Silence on this issue is collaboration and collusion. A sin of ommission. A sin of the witness who sees a crime, stands by and chooses to say nothing.
And I am so angry what is being done in and to my home country Canada at the hands of the US, that I could not have remained a US citizen even if I could have personally lived with the cost of annual compliance, the needless stress, the complexity, the everpresent threats and slander of us abroad, etc – which I could not. I am disgusted at US arrogance and US might makes right. We do our country of residence and master nationality, and our fellow citizens and taxpayers a serious disservice if we do not block the US extraterritorial intrusion over our borders and FATCA’s insults to the laws and values of our permanent home.
It has been reported that the renunciation fee may go up from 450. to somewhere between 2000 and 3000. And that they may institute a fee for relinquishing. The wait to book the consular apt is now into late January 2015 for Toronto. It is our international and also a US right to choose one’s nationality, and to renounce our unwanted one – yet the US is poised to make it even more difficult to exercise that right.
And ACA has decided to remain silent on all of this because it won’t play well in Washington, and because people feel that they cannot wait forever for relief?
The ongoing cost and complexities of compliance from abroad is too expensive and too difficult and poses too much threat and risk even for those who want to comply and who want to remain US citizens;
The ACA has chosen as policy that it won’t mention what is becoming too obvious to ignore.
Isn’t that the policy the US government prefers too?
Appeasement won’t help.
Ex.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1519628/want-to-shed-u-s-citizenship-get-in-line/
http://hodgen.com/toronto-consulate-wait-times-have-ballooned/
@Badger
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
Here’s the first 1040 return from 1913:
http://www.tax.org/thp/1040forms.nsf/WebByYear/1913/$file/1040_1913.pdf
Notice in papragraph 1 of the instructions that the return should be completed “by every citizen whether residing at home or abroard”
The return was 4 pages long. I don’t believe there was a requirment to add additional schedules.
@USCitizenAbroad,
that is exactly what the US and the Harper government are counting on.
@Hazy
What I am noticing is that 1% if the figure on line 7. Wow!
The attitude from the homeland towards expats is schizophrenic.
People like Townsend and Mopstick say stuff like, “stop whining, just renounce and get it over with.” Whie at the same time, people like Schumer, Levin and Reed keep coming up with new obstacles to make it more difficult to renounce and punish people for doing so.
Without representation in the homeland congress (Americans Abroad Caucus is NOT representation), expats will continue to get screwed, again and again and again. ACA’s approach seems limited to wining, dining and groveling to congress persons to lighten up on expats. It won’t work because they really don’t give darn about expats.
If ACA is worth its salt, which some of its members are, it will organize a lawsuit in US courts to overturn Cook vs, Tait. ACA should stop worrying about stepping on the toes of congress persons who only pretend to care and make them care by initiating litigation.
In other words, ACA needs to grow a pair of cojones and take action inside the homeland like ADSC is doing in Canada.
If people without legislative representation want to change a law, how else can they do it other than through litigation?
One last comment, specifically aimed at those who believe and are claiming they relinquished their USC some years ago, which I thought of this morning as I was cross-posting at Sandbox:
To my earlier comment on this thread, above, I would add the following caution to those who have a claim to a pre-2004 relinquishment CLN. Perhaps this is paranoia, perhaps not, but … if you are claiming you committed an expatriating action other than renunciation with the intent to lose your US citizenship, I think it could be a serious mistake to join or ally yourself or maybe even contribute a testimonial to any organization named “American Citizens …” Abroad or anything else. If you’re not an American citizen or at least don’t consider yourself to be one and haven’t for years, why publicly align yourself with them? Think about it, carefully. Especially if your personal name and address get published (as the result of a testimonial). That might be considered a refutation or contradiction of your relinquishment claim, at least in my non-lawyer’s opinion.
There, that’s all I want to say on this thread. (Full disclosure: my personal focus and priority in this battle has always been in support of years-ago relinquishers and dual-citizens-at-birth who’ve never lived in the US as adults and have never exercised nor wanted USC. I identify and empathize with those folks, in ways and to an extent I generally don’t with what I’ll call “voluntary and intentional duals.”)
If ACA is going to ordain itself as the premiere voice of Americans abroad, then every American renunciation should be viewed as a profound failure on mostly ACA’s part, no?
…but instead they cut us loose and say basically, that as we are no longer American citizens they no longer represent us. As renunciations increase so diminishes their relevance…
@Schubert, “what I’ll call “voluntary and intentional duals.”
Superb new terminology, brilliant.
Yes, I agree with the paranoia and it applies to all relinquishes regardless of date. As a note, I had previously been a member of a “Friends of_____” charity in the homeland that supported an organization overseas.
I went and transferred my membership from the Friends Of to the actual organization where I reside. Why? I guess we buy the same tinfoil. 😉
@Bubbles, ” then every American renunciation should be viewed as a profound failure on mostly ACA’s part, no”
Its not a failure on their part at all. They are a special interest group who represents those people that consider themselves “American Citizens” who are not living at “home (USA)” meaning they are abroad.
Most of their membership will likely return home from abroad.
I actually feel a great deal of sympathy for ACA members because they are at the complete mercy of the homeland. So ACA is actually doing a great job for its members.
I do hope that they use “Reluctant Relinquishers” as an example to the US Congress in furtherence of their objectives.
@Bubbles “but instead they cut us loose and say basically, that as we are no longer American citizens they no longer represent us.”
But its true, they no longer represent us!! We are no longer in their “membership eligibility.”
But to put it another way, when an American Citizen moves home to the mother country, they are also no longer represented by ACA because they are not “abroad.” So on moving home, you are cut lose too.
@George
ACA should be supporting expatriation services and those who’ve renounced because it would help drive home the fact that those of us living abroad on a permanent basis have little choice but to renounce if we wish to thrive where we live. Otherwise, they should do what I suggested Democrats Abroad do and add the word “temporarily” to their name, because it’s ABSOLUTELY INEVITABLE that it’s only them they will be serving in the not too distant future should they continue to exclude the voices of victims of these idiotic policies.
…and should the courts find that some of the things that are causing us to renounce are unconstitutional, it would open the door to ex-Americans being able to reclaim their citizenships. If ACA knows this, they should not be abandoning Americans who renounce.
Americans living abroad feel they have no actual congressional representation but more and more homelanders feel the same way too …