#FATCA – what it is, why it needs to be repealed and what you can do https://t.co/ZNVqntUS2S – Republicans Overseas outlines their lawsuit
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) September 28, 2014
They also reference the Canadian lawsuit against the FATCA IGA launched by the Alliance For The Defense of Canadian Sovereignty
.
FromTheWilderness:
I am working on a project regarding the astonishing hike in the renunciation fee and wonder if you have any documentation regarding your statement: “The Democrats created FATCA and the Democrats just raised the Renunciation Fee to USD 2,350.”
Was the renunciation fee raised as the result of a vote in Congress? I had thought that the fee schedule for consular services was set by the Department of State, in house. (see http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/231128.htm)
If you have any information that would constitute evidence that the fee-hike was politically motivated I would very much like to know what it is. Thanks!
@Fromthewilderness, the term “residence based taxation” could be developed further.
Lets talk about the fifty plus US tax treaties worldwide.
The treaty was explained to me in the country where I live by host country tax officials (in person) that it created “residence based taxation.”
I was also told that because I had to file in my country of residence and pay tax in my country of residence that I did not have anything to file or pay with the USA. I was told this by a tax officer as I was registering to pay tax!! But I was warned that if I had US source income then and only then I might have to do something with the USA.
For the life of me even today when I reread the dual tax treaty, it is very easy to think that you have nothing to do with the USA as long as you file and pay locally!!!
The USA could probably very easily make an amendment to all the dual tax treaty countries and simply remove the “citizenship savings clause” from those treaty countries. CBT would then apply only to those persons resident in a non dual tax treaty country….I think.
There are so many SIMPLE ways for the USA to fix all this and make life easier. Such as “the Secretary” indexing the FBAR filing limit with inflation and exemption certain countries, all that is provided in the law.
@MuzzledNoMore
http://samuelclemmons.wordpress.com/2014/09/21/overseasvotersguide-a-living-record-of-legislation-and-legislators-of-interest-to-us-citizens-living-outside-usa-comments-invited/
LINKS here.
Renunciation fees are determined by the executive branch, currently it is Democratic. The hike was released just 5 weeks after Obama’s speech said that he was going to do everything in his power to stop corporations from renouncing their citizenship. It was a statement with 2 real meanings, and indeed, nothing happens like that in his administration without him having told the people from his Chicago mafia as to who they are going after this year.
@George:
That’s a brilliant point. It would even assuage fears that RBT would encourage true fatcats to flee to zero-tax jurisdictions — the US doesn’t have tax treaties with them, and in any case, could be selective about which treaties to modify.
Hmm, could this be a sellable approach?
Well this video is the straw that broke my camel back. I received my absentee ballot, and gave all my votes to the GOP.
Mark,
Thanks for that interesting observation to MuzzledNoMore:
@Foo, With respect to the US/Canada treaty it looks like there are some easy fixes that do not lead to tax avoidance opnly professional fee avoidance.
What if Article XXIX, Miscellaneous Rules (2a) was DELETED?
2.(a) Except to the extent provided in paragraph 3, this Convention shall not affect the taxation by a Contracting State of its residents (as determined under Article IV (Residence)) and, in the case of the United States, its citizens and companies electing to be treated as domestic corporations.
And……..
What if article III was amended to read;
(k) the term “national” of a Contracting State means:
(i) any individual possessing the citizenship or nationality of that State; if said individual is a “national” of both contracting states he shall be treated as a national of the contracting state in which he is resident.
@George
“The USA could probably very easily make an amendment to all the dual tax treaty countries and simply remove the “citizenship savings clause” from those treaty countries. CBT would then apply only to those persons resident in a non dual tax treaty country….I think.”
That wouldn’t be fair. There are many countries without tax treaties. RBT should apply across the board everywhere.
The US has its own “in-house” tax havens such as Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands for FATCATs who want to leave the US specifically for taxes.
@MuzzledNoMore
The Democrats are in charge of the State Department which raised the Renunciation fees. Raising the fees didn’t happen just by chance. It happened during an unprecedented increase in the number of renunciations which is due to the rolling out of FATCA. Renunciations make the Democrats look bad so they raised the bar for ending US citizenship.
@Tax Treaty
Yes the US may make amendments which both countries may agree to.
It is not only the U.S. but Canada as well who could insist on changes.
Example, Canada could insist on lots of exemptions such as on primary residence, retirement funds, mutual funds, on any type of Canadian government assistance, education funds, disability savings accounts, etc. By not insisting on such exemptions, then it is Canada etc. who are agreeing to the US double taxation of Canadians etc.
One issue here is the nous of those Canadian government officials in dealing with these treaties. Perhaps they, and those who vote to approve the treaties, have been duped by US Treasury Department doublespeak on how beneficial these treaties are in avoiding and preventing double taxation, when in fact they only do so in very narrow circumstances.
A little off subject –
Another UK Bank with a sneeky FATCA clause.
1.3.5 We may disclose your information to government entities or regulatory bodies in order that
those entities may discharge their responsibilities and obligations or exercise their powers
or functions.
1.3.6 We may transfer your information to other countries on the basis that anyone to whom we
pass it provides an adequate level of protection. However, such information may be accessed
by law enforcement agencies and other authorities to prevent and detect crime and comply
with legal obligations.
http://personal.natwest.com/content/dam/natwest_com/currentaccounts/downloads/NatWest-Ts-and-Cs-Fees-Interest-Helping-You.pdf
This one is from NatWest.
UK Banks are selling all their customers out.
Not only the IGA should be challenged, but the banks attempts through various clauses to obtain consent to ship your data across borders.
I think the IGA is a stop gap measure. If all the banks get all their customers to consent, who needs the IGA? For the bank it can’t be any more difficult uploading a file to the IRS or the HMRC.
cont…Natwest
Here’s the you’ve got 60 days to object and if you stay silent you’ve consented.
1.3.9 From time to time we may change the way we use your information. Where we believe you
may not reasonably expect such a change we shall write to you. If you do not object to the
change within 60 days, you consent to that change.
CLNs just keep getting more valuable by the day.
Get ’em here
“We used to sell US citizenship, now we sell non-US-citizenship” says black marketeer
Black market report: US passports not selling, Certificates of Loss of Nationality a new Business Opportunity!”
http://bancdelasteroideb612.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/we-used-to-sell-us-citizenship-now-we-sell-non-citizenship-to-us-says-black-marketeer/
Mark Twain: Many thanks for the renunciation fee information! I will add your references to my compilation.
For those who want to risk the middle of the road approach, I can see a market emerging to change the place of birth on passports.
@Don – I dont think that that would help at all and might be exceedingly dangerous. Every Government Agent (now including Bank employees) worldwide will soon have access to a database of every passport issued …. in real time ….. with photographs and full data, biometric and otherwise …. the “alteration” will be spotted instantly. Big Brother is here and unless we plebs stand peacefully and refuse to be dominated, we will be … at least the Police have not yet been ordered to machine gun us in the streets … though, judging from history, that order may yet happen to “reduce demand for Government Services” ….
The first thing I did after OMG was to go down and ask if I could get a passport without my birthplace on it.
No luck.
@ Mark Twain
I know you can get a Canadian passport with no place of birth on it, but they warn you that you may be stopped and asked questions if you travel on that passport.
http://passport.gc.ca/form/pdfs/pptc077-eng.pdf
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/23/mike-lee-to-fight-us-tax-law-targeting-americans-a/?page=all#pagebreak
This is where it is mentioned that he is looking for plaintiffs
That’s quite a good thing to know, Kathy, perhaps the administrators might post info about that.
If it is a real passport, Europe would never deny anybody entry based upon that. And if anybody does, then it’s said that it is the airline’s responsibility to send you back.
I don’t see that your Canadian airline would complain either (sometimes they stop people from traveling because they don’t like your passport, but in this case it’s not a risk)
Mark Twain. Wonderful idea ! You get a passport without a place of birth that you don’t need in the first place. ( you can open a bank account with a driver’s licence and travel to the states with a Canadian passport with US birthplace)
Then you fly to wherever and are denied entry and your trip is ruined.
@Mark Twain
**One of its goals is to systematically register and get ballots to millions of Americans who live and work abroad but generally neglect to vote in U.S. presidential elections.**
I don’t think that is the one goal… I think this is their main goal… & waving FATCA as the red flag to get people to register who are becoming a 1 issue vote… They keep harping on Citizens only… how about all us idiot GC & Visa holders… if they came into that angle… they would get more support because they are visible. How about the increase in the price of getting rid of the toxic citizenship? Someone should sue about that… total violation of their rights
Realise… if u register to vote… that can screw up your intention to give up your US citizenship…
Voting is sais to negate a relinquishment claim. I don’t know how they would want to go to 50 states and ask for their voter rolls and look for every person named David Johnson who is relinquishing.
I had always assumed that politicians were seeking votes for their positions. I guess the theory is that they should be working to not get votes. Its probably a good theory because DA is begging for “reform”. I guess that’s more noble.
interesting that a lawsuit is already underway.
If you are voting, figure it out yourself.
http://samuelclemmons.wordpress.com/2014/09/21/overseasvotersguide-a-living-record-of-legislation-and-legislators-of-interest-to-us-citizens-living-outside-usa-comments-invited/
Could the TIGTA report be shared with Jimm Bopp as well. How constitutional is that that they’re suggesting the possibility to hold you if you’re deemed not compliant.
http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/irs-watch/irs-falls-short-on-international-tax-collections-72147-1.html
@Fromthewilderness
The fee hike could have been Secretary of State John Kerry’s idea. Kerry was on the Senate Finance Committee and was one of the core supporters of FATCA long before it was put into the HIRE Act. So, the State Department is being headed by someone who will probably fight for FATCA to the last..
The Republicans did mention the greencard holder problem in this video. I suspect that they are thinking of midterms, given the strategy seems to have started in January, which is when the primaries began.
And, of course, don’t vote if you can relinquish.