A new idea for FATCA reform has been suggested, and discussed by Democrats Abroad. Brockers might like to discuss it also. Is this a workable solution or just another complex piece of patchwork?
A new idea for FATCA reform has been suggested, and discussed by Democrats Abroad. Brockers might like to discuss it also. Is this a workable solution or just another complex piece of patchwork?
The idiots down South need to brush up on their own American history. Their Revolutionary war was fought for the right (among other things) to leave the old world, move to a new one, and live one’s life without interference (or taxation) from the government of the old country. The US government has become just as oppressive as the British government was back in the day.
This is a self-evident human right, not a right granted at the pleasure of a government, and it says so right in the Declaration of Independence. The founders of the US republic got it, the light bulb eventually went on for the British government; what is the matter with the US government?
@maz57 – POWER – and a belief that they can just do what they want and that they are ‘exceptional’
@maz57
Imagine if Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, et al ad been required by George III to mail in their bank balances every year! There would have been a bloody revolt…..wait, there was!
Uncle Sam, we do not live or work in the US….leave us the hell alone!
(see Peter Finch in Network, “we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore…”)
The Same Country Exemption/Safe Harbor gimmick amounts to nothing more than a “fig leaf.”
DA should be ashamed of itself for promoting such rubbish as a solution.
I say stick with the lawsuits and launch one against CBT as quickly as possible.
Because @Demsabroad supports #FATCA, it should support the repeal of US citizenship taxation:
https://adcsovereignty.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/because-demsabroad-supports-fatca-it-should-support-the-repeal-of-us-citizenship-taxation/#more-700
http://ellenlebelle.blogspot.ca/2015/02/going-back-to-dc.html
“Personally, I’m fed up with proposing a compromise position. The only real solution is for the US to adopt what the rest of the world does: residence-based-taxation. Then the OECD exchange of banking information would be the worldwide system — reporting foreign accounts to the country of residence. I see the logic of that. I live in France and think it is normal that France knows of any accounts I might have elsewhere. France, yes, not the US. The US, with its system, treats my accounts in France as foreign accounts and the reporting of that information, on the part of the banks, is so cumbersome and expensive, they prefer to do without US customers.
Enough!”
Pingback: Because @Demsabroad supports #FATCA, it should support the repeal of US citizenship taxation | Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty
@Tricia Is there some report from the Europe (ADCS?) information sessions?
As a graphic designer, I absolutely LOVE the image that was chosen for this post!! I had a good belly laugh. This is a fantastic example of “a picture is worth a thousand words”! HAHA!
@JC
Not that I know of.
The Information Sessions are given by John Richardson but they are completely separate from ADCS.
I wonder how many Dem idiots in DC read these posts?
It completely ignores the root of the problem: CBT. As Jayne rightfully points out, their “safe harbor” solution doesn’t work for EU citizens. The american way of doing things simply doesn’t work in the rest of the world.
There are many in the EU who work in one country but live just across the border in another. They need bank accounts in both. This safe harbor solution just adds another layer of complexity . rbt is the only solution.
DA Position paper :
“An American living in, for example, Toulouse, France would not have to file a FATCA Report with the details of any accounts he had in France”
I guess they tried to make it sound romantic by citing a southern French city. But this doesn’t do much to make me happier. What is a “FATCA Report”? Do they mean “Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts”?
“Americans abroad will have to file Form 8939 with their tax return.”
From the IRS website: “Form 8939 is an information return used by the executor (defined below) of a decedent who died in 2010:”
8938, maybe?
How could they not proofread this (or maybe I’m wrong)?
“Democrats Abroad does not support the repeal of FATCA. We think it’s a good idea to make it more difficult for elite Americans living in the US to use offshore accounts to, say, carry out criminal acts.”
Elite Americans? But never mind. “Living in the US” is the key here. Why not just come out in favor of Residence-based Taxation?
@Heidi: my thoughts exactly. I’m French, I live in Belgium, but my parents live in France and I lived there and have old accounts there, such as a FATCA-exempt (per US-France IGA) Livret A (though this still needs to be reported thru FBARs). It would be ridiculous for my Belgian accounts to be exempt, but not my French ones. And by the way, if France had citizen-based taxation, I would have to file there too, while owing no tax either. I’d be doing 3 returns (Belgian, French, and US)…
Finally, it is really important to know what “Form 8939” is supposed to be. If it is really 8938 “Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets”, that concerns assets of $200k-$400k I believe.
Why does DA keep complicated this issue. The only solution is have the US Congress scrap CBT and adopt RBT.
The solution has to be easily understood by US ex-pats, FFIs, and the IRS. Anything else is pandering to the CBT element of the Democratic party.
Answer = no. FATCA is morally wrong, as are annual tax returns in this day and age. Anything which implies that if we don’t act and allow the Government to track us, we will be punished and fined.
The simple principle needs to be: “if you don’t owe, you don’t go… filling out and submitting forms.”
And (I like these rhymes): “if you’ve got nothing to vet, you’re not under threat… of fines and penalties.”
Why do DA keep supporting CBT?
I think it has little to do with tax and a lot to do with CONTROL of its diaspora. After a lifetime of supporting democrats I can at last see where the libertarians are coming from.
Wow! There seems little doubt what Brockers think of the “Safe Harbour Rule”! I recall we were somewhat divided recently when another half-baked “fix” was proposed. Not this time! 🙂
My thanks to whoever added the *great* picture to this post!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11476533/Joining-Chinas-World-Bank-is-in-UKs-national-interest-depsite-Washington-anger.html
France, Germany and Italy come through. They’re going to sign up to the AIIB as well. Another 3 more nails for USD/FATCA.
The speed has been surprising. What is the US going to do about it? Join an organisation that undermines its own currency? Interesting times ahead.
This could also blow over to countries like Brazil and possibly South Africa. Yes, US, what are you going to do about it?
Where’s Canada? We’ve already committed to a couple of yuan trading hubs…
Canada joining the AIIB would be a slap in the face to the US. Nobody on this blog would have any sympathy for the US after its unilateral FATCA behaviour.
I highly doubt Harper would want to insult the U.S. this way. He’s too scared of Obama….why, now, after all the Keystone slaps, who knows.
Good article:
Debacle: What Washington Should Do Now
…”At this point, therefore, Washington has three choices:
1) Continue to press its allies not to join the AIIB until governance procedures for the bank are assured;
2) Join the AIIB itself; or
3) Drop the issue.”…
More…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabetheconomy/2015/03/16/the-aiib-debacle-what-washington-should-do-now/
It may very well be that the “founding members” (currently 27 countries) of the AIIB will not invite the USA to join. No surprise there – why should they invite the bully into their club who was the reason they founded it in the first place?
What should Washington do now?
Simples , drop the stick and use the carrot.
Money is like water, it will flow along the channel of least resistance.