Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

The Isaac Brock Society

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 176 Comments

J-bnn
Reposted from the citizenshipsolutions blog
“Guest post by
John Richardson – “Citizenship Solutions”

FATCA Hearings in Washington, DC – April 26, 2017
 
 
 
 

Beginnings – It all began in July 2016

The purpose of this post is NOT to describe the hearing in detail (that has already been well done), but rather to provide my overall (and perhaps broader) impressions based on actually having attended the hearing.

The April 26, 2017 FATCA hearing in Washington was long in the making.
Its genesis was rooted in a meeting that took place in July of 2016 at the Republican National Convention. The planning and preparation involved the efforts and consistent cooperation (weekly meetings since August) of a number of people in different countries and on different continents. It was a privilege to have been part of this group. A list of the people who worked on making the hearing happen – the “FATCA prep team” – is described here. Those efforts culminated in what some witnessed “in real time” on April 26, and what thousands more will see (thanks to Youtube) in days to come.

The hearing has already been documented IN DETAIL and discussed in various places IN DETAIL, with the best commentary coming from posts at the Isaac Brock Society here and here and various Facebook groups here, here, here and here. (An example of ridiculous commentary is here.) When I say “commentary” I mean NOT ONLY the posts, but the rich and insightful comments. Seriously, this collection of “digital experiences” really is “History In The Making!”

Thinking about FATCA, What is it anyway?

I have written numerous posts about FATCA – “The Little Red FATCA Book” which you will find here. An explanation of how the Meadows “Repeal FATCA” bill would actually work is here.
Basically, FATCA is the collective effect of a number of amendments (including the creation of a new Chapter 4 of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code – which has made largely irrelevant by the FATCA IGAs) which are designed to identify, attack and impose sanctions on:

A. FATCA: Non-U.S. banks and other financial institutions

Forcing them to “hunt down” the financial accounts and entities (examples include mutual funds, corporations, trusts and some insurance policies) owned by “U.S. persons”. The goal is to “turn them over” to the IRS.

This imposes enormous compliance costs on non-U.S. banks. The obvious effect is that they will not want U.S. person customers. Would you? Interestingly the focus of the witnesses
(Mr. Crawford and Mr. Kuettel) was primarily on the denial of basic access to financial and banking services.

Although important, this is only one half of the equation. What happens when “U.S. persons” learn (the vast majority had no idea) that they are subject to U.S. taxation?

B. FATCA: “U.S. Persons” with non-U.S. financial assets and bank accounts

It is not possible for “U.S. citizens” to BOTH: be U.S. tax compliant and live a productive life outside the United States, when they are also subject to the tax laws of other nations. (Digital nomads are the exception.) The reason is that U.S. citizens living outside the United States are living under a system where:

  1. They are presumed to live in the United States (which they
    don’t); and
  2. Their assets (which are local to them) are presumed to be
    “foreign” to the United States.

If you don’t understand (or don’t believe) why this is true, you will find an explanation here.

Just remember:

“When In Rome, Live As A Homelander” and do NOT “Commit Personal Finance Abroad!” (It’s UnAmerican)

Although a major effect of FATCA is to subject Americans abroad to a very special set of tax rules (think PFIC, foreign pension, CFC, and a crushing burden of forms that impact ONLY Americans abroad), there was NO witness that even alluded to this as one of the effects of FATCA. (FATCA is the enforcer of the uniquely American policy of “taxation-based citizenship”). There was also no witness that described how a “FATCA letter” can lead to absolute financial ruin for honest taxpayers, who have made a life outside the friendly borders of the United States of America. There was no witness who explained the confiscatory effects of entering one of the IRS “Amnesty – Ministry of Love” programs.

This had the effect of making it seem as though FATCA (in terms of the effect on Americans abroad) was just a simple “disclosure- Form 8938 issue. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If it were not for “taxation-based citizenship”, FATCA would be no more or less a problem for Americans abroad than it would be for Homelanders (which doesn’t mean it is not a problem). Unfortunately, the hearing did not provide evidence on this point.

(This is NOT a criticism. But, just imagine if there had been witnesses who had been
identified as a “U.S. Person” because of FATCA, did NOT know about “taxation-based citizenship” and then were forced into the “Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program“. Now that would have been a story …!)

It is “taxation-based citizenship” that makes the effects of FATCA so hard on Americans abroad! In 2011, I remember thinking:

The United States can have either FATCA or it can have “taxation-based citizenship” but it CANNOT have both!

My perception of the hearing itself …

It was clear that some members of the panel had NO idea what the purpose of FATCA was. There were suggestions that FATCA was enacted to combat terrorism, drug dealing, organized crime, human trafficking and who knows what else. The truth is that FATCA was a “revenue offset”
provision to the HIRE Act and few Congressmen even knew that FATCA was part of the legislation. This has resulted in a discussion of FATCA
that:

  • fails to ask “what was the intent of FATCA”; and
  • often asks “what can we use FATCA for and the information received from FATCA for”?

(With regard to the “intent” and “purposes” of FATCA much can be gleaned from the
definitions in the FATCA IGAs.)

It’s as though FATCA is a law that is in search of a purpose!

I encourage everybody to invest the two hours in watching the live video. While watching the video try to imagine that you had no preconceived notions about FATCA. Try to imagine that you were learning about FATCA for the first time (which I believe was the case for various committee members). In fact, my impression is that ONLY Mark Meadows had educated himself about the basics of FATCA and its effects on Americans abroad.

Had it not been for Mark Meadows, the hearing would have been:

“Two ships (pro and anti-FATCA) passing in the night.”

The “opening statement” …

As you know, the hearing opened with a compelling video of Donna Lane Nelson (author of the first FATCA novel) and reluctant renunciant of U.S. citizenship) explaining (among other things) how FATCA forced her to end her requirement to pay taxes to the United States.

Rick Adams, (spouse of Donna Lane Nelson) who attended the hearing and participated in the “door knocks” (the day before) shares his impressions of “being there” in two blog posts referenced in the following tweets:

 

 

Ship Number 1: FATCA Opposition – Mr. Bopp and crew mates (Crawford and Kuettel)

 
Jim Bopp (lawyer in Crawford v. U.S.
Treasury) did a solid job of outlining how FATCA is a draconian law, that presumes that every person with a “non-U.S. bank account”, is presumed to be a criminal. He explained why this was unconstitutional, etc. He outlined the general theory and principles leaving Mark Crawford and Daniel Kuettel to explain the details of how FATCA has specifically impacted their lives.

All three witnesses (Mr. Bopp, Kuettel and Crawford) did an outstanding job. That said their testimony was limited to the access to “banking and financial services” aspect of FATCA. There was no evidence provided on the aspects of FATCA that are aimed directly at Americans abroad (mutual fund disclosure rules, form 8938, etc.)

Further commentary from the crew of Ship 1: Press Conference – Post FATCA Hearing

Ship Number 2: FATCA Support – Wayne State Law Professor and Carl Levin Protégée Elise Bean

Reactions to Professor Bean have been widely discussed. I see no need to comment further on her testimony.

Here is a video that does a good job of breaking down many of her comments:

It was discouraging that Ms. Bean could not see FATCA from anything but a “Homelander Perspective”, with seemingly no awareness of the broader implications of FATCA.

The Moderator: Representative Mark Meadows – Getting The “Two
Ships”: To Stop And Communicate

All of the witnesses played their roles well (including Ms. Bean who was given the thankless job of defending the indefensible). But, Mr. Meadow’s performance eclipsed the performance of all others. He guided the hearing well. He forced each “Ship” to address the concern of the other. The hearing ended with his request that:

Each witness provide three suggestions to improve the FATCA situation.

This is incredible!

Anybody who understands anything about FATCA understands that the effects of FATCA are so devastating to Americans abroad because of “taxation-based citizenship”. If there were no “taxation-based citizenship” then the specific problems experienced by Americans abroad would (for the most part) cease to exist.

Therefore, ALL witnesses (and perhaps others) should use his invitation to argue for:

“The end of taxation-based citizenship”.

(We have a Congressman who wants to hear and is listening to the story!)

Whether this is done through a move to pure residence based taxation, territorial taxation or some combination the point is that:

The abolition of “taxation-based citizenship” would be a solution to all the problems that the FATCA hearing was convened to address. (The abolition of “taxation-based citizenship” would NOT be an admission that FATCA was constitutional. But, if the definition of “U.S. Person” did NOT include “Americans abroad”, that would address many of the specific problems that the FATCA hearing was convened to explore.

The abolition of “taxation-based citizenship” could (in general) be accomplished in either (or both of two ways):

  1. Congressional Fix: Amend the Internal
    Revenue Code so that “U.S. citizenship” was NOT a sufficient
    condition for taxation (presumably
    making residence the
    condition for taxation    ); or
  2. Treasury Fix: Amend the Treasury
    regulations     under Internal Revenue Code S. 1 so that
    “Americans abroad” were NOT defined as “individuals” for the
    purposes of taxation.

(Note that “1” and “2” above are not intended to be precise or exhaustive. My point is that this can be achieved through either Treasury regulations or through amendments to the Internal Revenue Code.)

It is after all “Tax Reform Season1” What Mr. Meadows has done has been to say:

Q. How can we fix this?

A. We end “taxation-based citizenship” – the “U.S. taxation” of Americans abroad!

All individuals and groups representing Americans abroad should work together on this!

Speaking of groups representing Americans abroad. Who did make it into the video? Those attending the hearing included (but are not limited to)…

In addition to the complete FATCA hearing Prep team (see here, here, and here), it was interesting to see that the following were curious enough to appear on April 26, 2017, in that particular room at the appointed time:

Democrats Abroad – Although much maligned, it was interesting to see that

– Katie Solon – International Chair of Democrats Abroad – attended the hearing;

–Joe Smallhoover A man with a long history of involvement with Democrats Abroad (and current Chair of Democrats Abroad France) was in attendance

(I find this interesting given DA’s long support of FATCA.)

AARO – Lucy Stensland Laederich and Paul Atkinson and Tim Ramier of AARO’s board were in attendance.

ACA – Charles Bruce – legal counsel for ACA (and likely principal architect of the ACA RBT proposal) was in attendance.

FAWCO – I believe but am not certain that a representative attended.

James Jatras of Repeal FATCA fame.

Although the FATCA hearing was an achievement of Republicans Overseas and the FATCA Prep team, it clearly attracted wide interest from the various groups that focus on “Americans Abroad issues”.

(Regrettably, there was NOBODY there to represent the interests of “accidental Americans” and “long term resident/dual citizens of other nations and those who never dreamed they were considered to be U.S. citizens, but have lived with the frightening experience of learning they may be considered to be U.S. citizens. But, why should anybody have represented them? They are subject to U.S. laws but have no access to the U.S. political process. To put it another way:

Those who are the most affected had the least representation!)

Although, there has been tension among these various groups, it’s time to “come together” with a unified voice and message that:

In this season of tax reform, it’s time for the USA to join the world and adopt taxation policies that allow its citizens to leave the United States and live productive meaningful lives.

(All of the research has been done and hundreds (if not thousands) of people have explained their story See here and here for examples.)

Believe me:

  • the United States of America will benefit from these policies
  • Americans abroad will benefit
  • the IRS will benefit (I have always thought the IRS is probably the biggest victim of these
    insane U.S. tax policies

and

people will no longer be forced to renounce U.S. citizenship!

And what of the FATCANatics? Would they support residence-based taxation?

In my view, it is entirely reasonable and possible to both SUPPORT FATCA and oppose “taxation-based citizenship”. At the hearings, Professor Bean was clearly supportive of FATCA (even wanting to extend it to Homelanders), but she did NOT (in the hearing proper) reveal her views on “taxation-based citizenship”.

Interestingly, Rick Adams (in his description of the hearing) reported that:

Ms. Bean was standing with the ACA rep, and surprisingly, when I said the real problem was citizen-based taxation (CBT) … or as I prefer, taxation-based citizenship … and that we need to abandon CBT and adopt RBT — Residency-Based Taxation — which is the way every other civilized country in the world administers taxes, SHE AGREED!
That’s right, Ms Bean, oppressor of expats, said she is for RBT instead of CBT. Now, she may recant later, or say I misheard her, but then again maybe she did absorb some of the pain she and her compadres have inflicted on innocents.

Concluding thoughts …

The purpose of the hearing was to explore the unintended consequences of FATCA. I believe that the hearing did a good job of achieving this goal.
But, the best thing to come from the hearing is the opportunity to:

Make the case to Congress that the time has come to end the destructive practice of U.S. taxation-based citizenship.

It’s time for ALL groups and individuals (including Ms. Bean) to work together to achieve this goal!

The hearing illuminated why:

The United States can have either FATCA or it can have “taxation-based citizenship” but it CANNOT have both!

I conclude my observations from sitting in the hearing room!

In the event that “taxation-based citizenship” is not resolved, well:

John Richardson

176 thoughts on “Impressions of the @RepMarkMeadows April 26/17 #FATCA Hearing in Washington, DC – Opportunity to make case to end “taxation-based citizenship””

  2. FATCA’s harmful impact on Credit Unions around the world
    Michael Edwards of the World Council of Credit Unions (who was at the Hearing), interviewed by IRS Medic.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brxl4lbaTmM&feature=youtu.be

    Just copies of some of my Tweets:

    Michael Edwards, of World Council of Credit Unions, warns on #FATCA Gross Reporting Requirement ON U.S. BANKS, to be implemented in ~2019
    [Banks in the U.S have compliance obligations as FATCA “withholding agents”].

    #FATCA 50K exemption & nondiscrimination regulations not working currently. Therefore, #FATCA SCE not likely to work.

    #fatca exemptions ignored 14.55: “not really worth it to take the chance of noncompliance” reasoning busts FATCA SCE

    15.10 IRS rules:ӕt is illegal for you to discriminate against Americans for being American. Yet only applies in America.

    Michael Edwards talks of big banks liking lots of compliance as the cost of this becomes a rounding error, but for smaller banks compliance such as for FATCA becomes significant. Small banks hurt. Competition hurt. Yet he says that tends to be the way it is – big banks pushing for more regulation. This all reminds me of compliance on US persons overseas that I commented over 3 years ago that all the compliance seems to assume that US persons overseas have their own compliance department to handle it all as if they are companies. This is ridiculous.

  3. To me, the idea that the SCE would encourage FFIs currently not doing business with US citizens to change their stance is laughable. In the UK, about 40-50% of online brokers have blanket bans on US citizens. If the real issue was the reportability of the account, you would see at least some online brokers refusing to offer reportable accounts but offering non-reportable accounts (eg ISAs). I didn’t find any online brokers that offered non-reportable accounts when they didn’t offer reportable accounts. To me this suggests that the issue driving whether or not they service US citizen customers is not the reportability per se, but rather the risk that a single incorrectly reported account can put them on the non-compliant list.

    That risk is not insignificant and for most FFIs would be devastating. Through FATCA, the US has given itself enormous power over the global financial system and the US has the “right” and the ability to inflict, at a minimum, grave financial harm if not bankruptcy if they so desire on any FFI in the world if they serve US citizen customers. FFIs are generally investing customer assets not their own and “withholding” 30% of the interest income, dividend income, proceeds of sale or redemption of principal on their customer assets will create an enormous liability vis a vis their customers that the FFI’s equity will be unable to cover or only temporarily. Furthermore, FATCA is designed to isolate any FFI deemed non-compliant by forcing all compliant FFIs to report every transaction with a non-compliant FFI. A non-compliant FFI is likely to see a) no compliant FFI willing to do business with them b) all customers with US invested assets leave them for a compliant FFI and c) an enormous liability to replace “withheld” customer income and assets. I’m also not aware of any mechanism whereby the FFI can reclaim the “withholding”. If true, then it’s a system to steal the underlying customer assets of non-compliant FFIs.

    Now, which FFI having previously decided the systemic risk of having US citizen customers was too great and having seen the US treat FFIs like piggy banks to break in case of emergency, would like to place their neck in the guillotine and offer same country exception accounts by introducing new procedures to verify customer residency? Anyone? Bueller? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

  4. @Edelweiss:

    “Through FATCA, the US has given itself enormous power over the global financial system and the US has the “right” and the ability to inflict, at a minimum, grave financial harm if not bankruptcy if they so desire on any FFI in the world if they serve US citizen customers.”

    Or has made manifest the power that was always already there.

  5. @Edelweiss
    “To me, the idea that the SCE would encourage FFIs currently not doing business with US citizens to change their stance is laughable.”

    Have you noticed in Rep. Maloney’s SCE Bill (H.R.2136) the only accounts covered are “depository” accounts (current / savings type accounts)? Only depository accounts are mentioned, and thus there is no coverage of any other type of account (unless the Bill is amended during the “detail” work).

  6. @OAP
    “Have you noticed in Rep. Maloney’s SCE Bill (H.R.2136) the only accounts covered are “depository” accounts (current / savings type accounts)? Only depository accounts are mentioned, and thus there is no coverage of any other type of account (unless the Bill is amended during the “detail” work).”

    Exactly!
    Where is the incentive for the banks to offer even these accounts to US persons? They are service accounts and the banks make no money from offering them, so why would they bother, especially with the extra ‘due diligence’ needed in checking if the US person is a permanent or temporary residence abroad.
    I am sick of all this bullshit.

  7. The Democrats and their hare-brained schemes need to GET OUT OF THE WAY of real progress.

  9. @Bubblestein
    Of course DemsAbroad would say that Ms Bean did not represent them. What else would you want them to say ? Remember always Democrats were responsible for bringing that monstrosity called FATCA and getting Americans denied from foreign banks and brokerage accounts. They had the majority in Congress in 2009 and gung ho about bringing whatever they could to harm Americans living overseas. @DemsAbroad does not represent us. I am seeing at least some effort from @RepublicansAbroad about repealing FATCA. Dems are never going to repeal the law rest assure. Dems are going to win a majority in 2018 elections from the looks of news coming from homeland and that would be the end of any repeal or RBT. We have not heard anything after the meeting on April 26th but only more doom about possible Ms Maloney’s bill for SCE. The overseas banks and brokerages would still not work with us unless FATCA is repealed because they are too scared of withholding taxes and compliance nightmares as they have to hire extra teams to monitor US accounts so they don’t like US indicia at all.

  10. Yes I agree with everyone here. SCE is a laughable attempt and there is no way offshore banks or brokerages would offer accounts to US citizens unless we go for RBT and FATCA repeal. After you leave any country for a specific time , you don’t have to report anything to your home country or pay taxes since you are not using the services of that country. That whole idea of CBT was wrong and I don’t know why people were putting up with it for decades or perhaps even a century.

  13. @Patricia Moon
    Had the chance to see a pre-Trump YouTube IRS Medic with Keith Redmond concerning accidentals
    In the course of which he mentionned that he would be on the April House Hearings panel along with a non -english speaking accidental to illustrate the lunacy of Fatca and CBT.

    This hearing had neither Mr Redmond nor any accidental but instead two ex pats who would have continued to pay their fair share to accountants til their dying days until FATCA stopped them.

    Perhaps you may have an idea as to why Mr.Redmond didn’t appear and nor did an accidental.
    Mr Redmond was a breath of fresh air on IBS.

    So sad that few here noticed or cared.

  14. @ Robert Ross
    I too thought Keith Redmond would be testifying and was delighted at the prospect. When he didn’t appear I just chalked it up to me misunderstanding again. I know he was there in Washington helping in other ways though so that’s good. He is so articulate and well versed in the facts of FATCA/FBAR/CBT that I relish every media appearance he makes, knowing that even those who aren’t in the choir (like us) will be given much to think about and hopefully enough encouragement to join the struggle to obtain fair treatment for the US diaspora.

  15. @RobertRoss

    If you were watching a pre-Trump video then what you were hearing were ideas that simply changed over time. The Hearing was the result of the efforts of RepublicansOverseas & the FATCA Hearing Prep Team (Jim Gosart, Stephen Kish, John Richardson, Roger Johnson, Marc Zell, Mark Crawford, James Bopp Jr, Solomon Yue, and Keith Redmond) which came together, meeting in conference calls every week, trying to work out the best approach. In the end, with Mr. Bopp and Senator Rand as expert witnesses, the emphasis was on issues related to the FATCA/
    Bopp lawsuit, which is largely based upon the unconstitutionality of FATCA and a demonstration of harm due to FATCA. The other two witnesses, Dani Kuettel and Mark Crawford are both plaintiffs in the Bopp suit as well. To the best of my knowledge, there are no accidentals who are plaintiffs in the Bopp suit.

    I don’t know where you would get the idea that “So sad that few here noticed or cared.” There are 88+ comments on this particular thread and 214 on this post Reviewing the Unintended Consequences of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act-Video and Summary of Hearing . In addition, the Twitter Rally (see sidebar) group has focused on this almost exclusively since the hearing. All aspects of the Hearing have been discussed at great length on the expat FB groups.

    If you are specifically interested in the issues of accidentals, the main work being done there is in France by Fabien Lehagre https://www.facebook.com/groups/accidental.americans – https://american-accidental.com/

    As far as Mr. Redmond and IBS goes, Keith is really busy as an admin of his own FB group, American Expatriates, his ongoing work in the DC area, etc. He comments here from time to time and some of us have quite a lot of contact with him. I see all of our efforts as complementary and connected.

    I don’t know if this will answer your questions and concerns….

  16. @Norman Diamond

    Shortly after learning of all this I learned that the Patriot Act disallowed accounts in the US from being held by anyone with an overseas address regardless of citizenship. Fearing the account I maintained with my home bank in the US would cause trouble for my parents who took care of it for me with the powers of attorney I left with them starting with my days at sea, I closed it a few year ago. My bank confirmed that they could no longer hold accouts for such persons but stated that the Patriot Act was not the reason. Which piece of the puzzle this may be, I haven’t a clue.

    Yes, from time to country A and country B will get into a spat and they may use the citizens of the other country as pawns. This can lead to difficulties with banking, among other things. Eventually, the differences between the two countries get worked out and the banking difficulties go away.

    But which countries have ever put everyone associated with it living anywhere outside its borders in such a situation? Which came first, FATCA or CRS?

    Those of you who think CRS is a good idea, well then, are you in a rude surprise?

  17. Keith Redmond will be on IRS Medic for a podcast this Wednesday. On Twitter @IRSMedic majorly assaulted FATCA & FATCA SCE and also have denounced CBTax.

    Keith was scheduled for a meeting with aides at The Big White House but this got postponed because of the Obamacare vote. In future he says he will not mention such meetings in advance.

  18. @ Embee
    I find Mr Richardson ,on our side of the fence , and Mr Redmond, on the other side of the fence, each in their way , not only have a grasp but articulate the frustrations caused ,so fittingly.In other words,they convey genuine understanding.

    @Patricia Moon
    I understand that things change and that Mr Redmond is not the protaganist here; however, Mr R is
    the one who seems to resonate exactly with my thinking,which is rare .The rest of these fine folk , I am not acquanted with.

    As for the choice of witnesses , they are not typical of diaspora. They are certainly typical of the harm done by FATCA but also fine examples for maintaining CBT after whatever happens to FATCA .
    The disease clearly is CBT and its requirements .As long as you have the CBT,you will always have a possible FATCA variant.Having CBT compliant witnesses ,is not the way get rid of CBT.

    I am surprised that France would be in the vanguard for accidentals .Canada should have far more than anyone else . Are they all hiding?

    My remark regarding ” so few noticed..” relates to Mr R not not being present on the panel.

  19. Kind of amazing that those who were chosen to represent Americans abroad no longer have US citizenship, isn’t it? Whether they happily paid their US taxes has nothing to do with the fact that FATCA caused them to renounce US citizenship.

    They are no longer CBT compliant witnesses by virtue of the fact that they are no longer US citizens. They paid the ultimate price for the US’ Taxation Based Citizenship regime, yet they are our only voice in this instance. Why’s that?

  20. Mind you ,it isn’t so amazing.It’s akin to an ex convict coming back to testify how bad the conditions
    In his prison were before his release, but never mind an escapee trying the same. What makes these witnesses so atypical was that they were CBT compliant citzens and would have eagerly remained as such. Most expats either didn’t know or ignored an unenforced law.

    What I can’t wrap my head around is how anyone can file income tax forms and possibly pay taxes to a foreign country without receiving any services whatever in return,especially with a country with no financial interest. It totally defies logic ,and mostly for those doing the filing . It can’t be rational.

  21. “Shortly after learning of all this I learned that the Patriot Act disallowed accounts in the US from being held by anyone with an overseas address regardless of citizenship.”

    I haven’t heard of that. Some individual financial institutions refuse but I don’t think the Patriot Act is the reason. Some financial institutions have restrictions — for example even though it looks like the US banking system learned how furikomi operate in Japan, when the financial instution doesn’t allow a non-resident to use their copy of furikomi and requires us to write paper cheques instead, I wonder if the Patriot Act might be the reason.

    “Yes, from time to country A and country B will get into a spat and they may use the citizens of the other country as pawns.”

    Well the reason we’re here is that country A uses the citizens of country A as pawns. All roads lead to taking country B citizenships.

    “Those of you who think CRS is a good idea, well then, are you in a rude surprise?”

    Is there really a difference between CRS reporting and ordinary countries’ domestic reporting? Financial instutions don’t have to learn 190 different reporting formats the way US financial institutions have to do because of FATCA reciprocity (give me a break, I need to get some heavy irony out of my system).

    Also, CRS takes reports from countries where a person doesn’t live and deliver them to the country where the person does live, which is exactly the opposite of FATCA.

  22. “What I can’t wrap my head around is how anyone can file income tax forms and possibly pay taxes to a foreign country without receiving any services whatever in return,especially with a country with no financial interest. It totally defies logic ,and mostly for those doing the filing . It can’t be rational.”

    Yes, when I was so stupid, I didn’t realize how stupid I was.

    Honesty is not the best policy. Honesty gets penalized by the IRS and again by US courts. Don’t do it.

  23. Yes, when I was so stupid, I didn’t realize how stupid I was.

    Words to describe my actions regarding the USA and my path of getting through the maze and expense to renunciation and receipt of my CLN. Fully related to my stupidity was that the USA never educated me or so many others about the concept of the exceptional USA’s exceptional Citizenship-Based Taxation. Had I the responsible education that every USA person should have if there is this exception to that of most of the rest of the world, I would have been able to make a choice regarding better birth control to ensure the Canadian birthplace of my children after the date I and my husband became a Canadian citizens (and were *warned* that by becoming Canadian citizens, we would lose our US citizenship).

    This should not be my children’s problem. They had no choice where or to whom they were born. One of my children also paid dearly to rid herself of USC. The other, as most here know, is entrapped into the so-called *US deemed US citizenship* without remedy as *the law is the law* be rid of the requirement of ongoing expensive and complex consequences, US tax and reporting compliance, because of *lack of requisite mental capacity*. A pox on all who do nothing about such entrapment by the exceptional USA for one who has never lived in that country, never registered with that country, never had any benefit from that country.

  24. Robert Ross:

    I just want to clarify for you part of the reason that accidental Americans did not appear to be represented among the witnesses at the recent hearing.

    It’s almost impossible for people like myself (a “sort-of” accidental American) to be represented in this fight by people who closely share my situation. People like me generally have to hide behind pseudonyms because we have never been US-tax compliant and have no intention of *becoming” US-tax compliant. That makes it pretty difficult to be a witness in a court case or to testify before a committee of the government that would steal our home and our retirement funds if it could get its hands on them. So I am grateful for those who are in a position to reveal (ironically, by virtue of their US-tax compliance &/or renunciation) directly to the US government, the injustice of this FATCA/CBT mess. They are acting on behalf of us all and have my deepest thanks.

  25. @RobertRoss

    I find Mr Richardson ,on our side of the fence , and Mr Redmond, on the other side of the fence,

    I am afraid I do not understand what you mean. Both Mr. R’s worked together on the pre-hearing issues and have from time to time over the last couple of years. I also cannot follow which “Mr. R. you mean later in the paragraph.

    Also:

    What makes these witnesses so atypical was that they were CBT compliant citzens and would have eagerly remained as such.

    I do not have any way of knowing where you get the idea they would “eagerly remained as such.” I believe Mr. Crawford is still an American citizen. Dani is not and I have never heard him say he was compliant prior to renouncing. If you please, I think you are putting some things together wrongly. It isn’t at all just accidentals who didn’t know- most ALL of us didn’t know.

    The disease clearly is CBT and its requirements .As long as you have the CBT,you will always have a possible FATCA variant.Having CBT compliant witnesses ,is not the way get rid of CBT.

    The focus of the Hearing was not CBT nor is the Bopp lawsuit based upon CBT. The point of the witnesses was to show harm; in Mr. Crawford’s case, the severe effects on his business and in Dani’s, the horrid situation of possibly losing his home and his daughter being unable to have a bank account.

    I have no idea why there are so many accidentals in France but unlike Canada, they have the Big Pond to protect them a bit……….

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: