"JR" (deported from USA at age 5) explains why he was born into #FATCA "tax slavery" @Sophieintveld says "bullshit" https://t.co/93CA769Lre
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) July 12, 2017
Many thanks @Embee for providing the link to the spectacle in her comments here and here. The latter comment included:
A message from Jus de Fruit on American Expatriates FB:
So no need for a summary of the audition seeing as a filmed version will be available soon. Suffice to say that things went as well as we could hope.
In the morning I met with an MEP who will be travelling with the next ECON delegation to the US. He was not aware of the issues. He is now. He agreed to find a slot in the itinerary to raise the issue of Accidental Americans with the relevant US Authorities.
The presentation of the petition went well. Followed Tim Smyth’s advice and tried to put the Commission in a corner. Seems Sophie Int Veld is on the same wave length. The Commission in Sophie’s words sent messengers to be shot. Personally I took the fact that three different teams from the Commission were represented as a badge of honour. They simply don’t know what to do with us! Ok got a bit belligerent with one of them, offering to step outside (not to fight but to witness me failing to get an account at BNP Fortis).
Various MEPs approached me after the meeting for more details. I am back at the EP tomorrow to meet more MEPs and their assistants.
We live to fight another round!
Shocking news!! US citizens born into "tax slavery" says #AccidentalAmerican at EU hearing #FATCA is no easy escape https://t.co/L2J89Wfqob
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) July 12, 2017
I encourage all of you to take the time to watch this video starting at the 1 hour 21 minute mark.
The video features:
– two very spirited presentations (the first by the petitioner “JR”) and the second by Sophie int Veld.
– three pathetic responses from “the three representatives” of the “teams of the commissions” sent by their “bosses” to respond to the petition. I mean really, how stupid can these people actually be? The responses can be basically summarized as: what? This is the first I have heard of this? If any of this is really true, then please file a report. No suggestions that they understood the pure evil of “taxation-based citizenship. No, more like: “See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil.”
Europe is obviously home to millions and millions of unfortunate “souls” who are considered not only:
1. U.S. tax slaves (recent discussion on whether “slave” is an appropriate term here – perhaps “prisoner” is a better term); but
2. Nodes to siphon European capital out of Europe to the U.S. Treasury for “better use”.
My thoughts on this video were a combination of empathy for “JR” the petitioner, respect for Ms. int Veld, embarrassment for the stupidity of the “technocrats” (sent to be the “messengers”) and a sense that (as was so aptly demonstrated by Ms. int Veld) that political institutions don’t operate for the benefit of their citizens.
On the point of “not operating for the benefit of their citizens”, this explains small events like:
– the election of Donald Trump (whether you like him or not) a president with far more democratic legitimacy than any president who was the representative of a political party (although not popular he was NOT the choice of any political party)
– the U.K. vote to exit the EU
In any event …
These “slaves” (or at least “prisoners”) are NOT going to be set free by the politicians. It’s painfully obvious the the EU doesn’t care in the least about its citizens who are claimed as U.S. property. They are quite happy to simply “turn them over”.
It’s also very obvious that the United States of America – that “Great Citadel of Freedom and Justice” – also knows exactly what its doing. As the petitioner makes clear in the video, the United States has “weaponized nationality” and is using that weapon against any country whose residents include those who the USA deems to be its’ property citizens.
Interestingly the petitioner (“JR”) talks about the costs of “buying his freedom” (compliance costs, etc.) Rather than “buying his freedom”, perhaps he (and others like him) should simply “declare their freedom” rather than buy it. Although there are “tax consequences to renouncing U.S. citizenship”, there is NO requirement – “Go ahead make my day” – of tax compliance to renounce U.S. citizenship.
Although, at the present time, “All Roads Lead To Renunciation“, one wonders whether renunciation will continue to be an option at all.
Seriously, the whole situation is ridiculous. As I have written many times:
All Homelanders need to see what is in store for them is to watch how the U.S. treats its citizens outside the USA!
Donald Trump wants to build that wall. Ron Paul famously noted that walls could be used to “keep people in”.
The USA doesn’t need a physical wall to “keep people in”. FATCA, FBAR, CBT, PFIC, CFC and the “alphabet soup” list of indignities inflicted on Americans abroad are a wall.
Have you ever seen the “invisible fence” used to keep the dog in the yard?
Congratulations to the petitioner and to Ms. int Veld for a a fantastic job.
Looking forward …
Tax reform (in some form) will be taking place in the USA.
The USA is well aware of the problems of CBT and FATCA.
The only reason for the USA to continue CBT is to transfer the capital of other nations to the USA (Boris Johnson style).
The only reason to continue FATCA and NOT join the CRS is to enhance the USA as the world’s premier Tax Haven – “Tax Haven USA“.
If you believe in and/or admire the USA’s status as the world’s number one tax haven, then why not:
Like Tax Haven USA on Facebook!
In other words, the failure to change will be intentional and willful with respect to the effects on other nations and their citizen/residents.
It’s like this:
You are either against the “weaponization of nationality” or you are with the Americans!
In case this has not been posted already, here is a link to the written petition;
“NOTICE TO MEMBERS – Petition No 1088/2016 by Mr J.R. (French) on the US’ Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act’s (FATCA) alleged infringement of EU rights and the extraterritorial effects of US laws in the EU”
Date : 04-07-2017
Reference :
PETI_CM(2017)607954 PE 607.954v01-00
PETI
Documents in dossier PETI/8/10404
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-607.954%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN
” I don’t agree with that as it would assume that the U.S. Government is aware of the situation which I kind of think they are not and they don’t care. I don’t think that the USG thinks there is a lot of money in accidentals”
The GOVERNMENT knows and, as has been pointed out several times in other threads, it’s intentional. There’s not much to be gained in taxes except when duals sell a house or save for retirement, but there’s a bundle to be made from penalties.
The AVERAGE HOMELANDER doesn’t understand and doesn’t believe.
The “Average American” is a brainwashed idiot if he/she believes that he/she has “freedom” which he/she is so fond of braying about like a donkey. That goes for both ass and elephant, no matter which side one believes in.
Just catching up – just had the opportunity to view the video of the petitioner, the inadequate ill-informed (and disingenuous?) and tepid responses of the EU ‘messengers’ and the as always eloquent and passionate and deeply informed comments by MEP in’t Veld.
Wow! Bravo yet again MEP in’t Veld.
What a world of misdirection and disingenuousness so often reside in phrases used when FATCA is described by people who seek to gloss over or legitimize its forced collection, storage and usage of people’s personal and financial data via threat. Phrases such as ‘largely based on’ or ‘similar to’ when the CRS and AEOI is compared to FATCA in rationalization of it and in excuse of the failure of the EU, and of individual EU states who are FATCA IGA signatories to acknowledge and to remedy the subsequent infringement on citizens and residents rights – when they leave out mention of the extraterritorial parentage and birthplace and citizenship basis of US extraterritorial CBT and other important differences – like the fact that FATCA was never designed to be co-operative, but coercive and unilateral.
And how does the AEOI and CRS apply to situations like that raised by JR, of the dying German citizen and EU resident mother whose German owned and sited accounts were being reported to the US IRS solely on the basis of having an child with the USperson taint having control over her accounts because she was unable to manage them due to terminal illness?
The failure to mention and thus rationalize assisting an extraterritorial system of taxation imposed by a foreign power based solely on non-economic familial connections such as parentage, or marriage, or non-economic circumstances such as birthplace seeks to legitimize FATCA and the inaction of the EU, member states, and our own local governments outside the EU for bowing to US extortion and power.
Same as the use of the words ‘exchange’ and ‘reciprocal’ when describing FATCA and the IGAs – leading the uninformed and unwary or credulous to believe that they mean ‘equivalent’ exchange and ‘equivalent’ reciprocity. Would the EU messenger/factotums deflecting the petitioner’s claims by referring to the CRS and AEOI agree that receiving zero or a cent coin in ‘exchange’ for a euro was an ‘equivalent’ and ‘reciprocal’ arrangement that they would find equitable and agreeable?
Reminds me of the CRA’s rationalization about the information ‘exchange’ in the Canada US Tax treaty and now under the FATCA IGA – which of course is not equivalently reciprocal. In fact, the CRA refuses to tell Canadians what exactly it received from the US that it didn’t have before the IGA. And as we know, FATCA was NEVER EVER intended by its authors or its enacters to be reciprocal or involve any kind of ‘exchange’.
Equivalent reciprocity will never happen from the US side, ‘exchange’ isn’t in FATCA as written, and since no-one else uses extraterritorial citizenship/parentage/relationship based taxation like the US does (excepting the more limited Eritrean version), any ‘exchange’ would always result in more information on more people flowing to the US rather than from it anyway. Ex., see Table on pg 3-4 from ;
Christians, Allison, What You Give and What You Get: Reciprocity Under a Model 1 Intergovernmental Agreement on FATCA (April 12, 2013). Cayman Fin. Rev. April 2013. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2292645
and the author’s analysis of the so-called ‘reciprocal’ model of the IGAs (in contrast to the NON-reciprocal version) such as;
“….The primary purpose of a Model 1-based agreement is therefore to bypass domestic
confidentiality laws by interposing foreign governments as information conduits between
foreign institutions and the IRS, and perhaps to make some administrative concessions
with respect to the reach of FATCA.
In contrast, under the “Reciprocal” Model 1, the US undertakes a few more obligations.
The term “reciprocal” nevertheless belongs in quotes, because if there is one
characteristic that defines the Reciprocal Model 1 IGA, it is that agreements drafted on
this model will most certainly not be reciprocal for some time, if ever. Instead, the IGA is almost comically ill-named, by its own admission: in Article 6, it states that:
The United States acknowledges the need to achieve equivalent levels
of reciprocal automatic information exchange with [FATCA Partner]. The
United States is committed to further improve transparency and enhance
the exchange relationship with [FATCA Partner] by pursuing the
adoption of regulations and advocating and supporting relevant
legislation to achieve such equivalent levels of reciprocal automatic exchange.
Anyone who pays attention to tax reform (or indeed any legal reform) in the United
States will not feel very optimistic for the cause of reciprocity upon reading this
language. People living in jurisdictions looking to become FATCA partners might
therefore wonder: when my government signs an IGA, what will it give, and what will it
get in return?…..”…
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2292645
The EU Commission should read the ‘SUBMISSION TO FINANCE DEPARTMENT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF FATCA IN CANADA: SUBMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE CANADA–UNITED STATES ENHANCED TAX INFORMATION EXCHANGE AGREEMENT’ by authors Prof. Christians and Cockfield to see what Canada ceded and lost vs. what it ‘gained’ by signing the IGA, when Canada and the US already had some limited ‘exchange’ of information – which was already more extensive than the US had with other countries;
“….The proposed Implementation Act and the IGA do not enhance the reciprocal tax
information exchange between the United States and Canada, nor do they create a workable
regime for Canada to enhance its international tax enforcement efforts going forward.
Instead, the Implementation Act and the IGA raise a number of serious issues ranging from
likely Charter violations to violations of international law.
We conclude that the IGA and the Implementation Act will:
•unduly harm the privacy rights and interests of all Canadians;
•unduly raise compliance costs for all Canadian financial institutions and Canadian taxpayers;
•unduly raise legal exposure for Canadian financial institutions, due to ongoing potential liability for mistakenly-transferred personal financial information;
•provide potentially sensitive commercial information held by Canadian firms
to the United States that, if improperly revealed, could harm firm competitiveness;
•interfere with cross-border mobility of Canadian workers to the United States
as these ‘green card holders’ will be subject to costly tax compliance measures after they return to Canada;
•impede Canada’s efforts to enforce its own tax laws and to cooperate on a
global scale to promote the integrity of the income taxation system; and
•violate the spirit and potentially the letter of a number of Canadian laws
including the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Document Act, the Privacy Act, the Access to Banking Services Regulations, NAFTA, and others.
We recognize that the Canadian government has entered into the IGA under the threat
of economic sanctions, as the United States would otherwise impose a penalty on payments made to most Canadian financial institutions that could effectively shut down the Canadian financial industry…..”…..
I can’t see that the harm and losses incurred by EU nation states and citizens would be any less than what is described above for the Canadian examples cited by Christian and Cockfield, since most of the EU states also signed Model 1 IGAs with almost identical terms – which is what the US intended for the terms of the IGAs.
The EU commission should look at this and other analysis of FATCA by Prof. Christians.
What is sad to most and is infuriating to me, is the vapid insistence by every politician other than MEP in’t Veld that the US is such a wonderful neighbour and that we should link hand in hand with them. What is this known as? Stockholm Syndrome? Where the abused start sympathizing in-line with their abuser? “If we don’t do as they say, they will do horrific things to us?”
ARE PEOPLE THAT FUCKING IDIOTIC? Maybe it will take a horrific human rights violation instigated by the United States to show the US’s true colors: an act of military invasion by the United States of a country who refuses to cooperate with FATCA to show to these sycophantic brain-dead morons that the US is NOT ANYONE’S FRIEND.
Am I living in the MATRIX where everyone’s living in pods and getting a perception of reality shoved down their throats that people could be that vacuous and unaware of the fact that the United States is the main instigator now of human rights violations including sowing the pervasive attitude that “The rest of the world owes us for coming to their rescue and should pay up”. I’m shocked and amazed that people could be THAT FUCKING STUPID to believe that the US is still considered a bastion of Freedom that whatever the US does (surveillance of its own citizens at home and abroad, the taxation of people who don’t even use their homeland services and the constant military invasions of Iraq//Kuwait under the pretext of freeing a people who don’t want to be rescued and should frankly sort out their problems themselves) is glossed over and the US is continually evaluated through rose-colored glasses and everybody stands around a campfire with the narcissistic US singing FUCKING KUMBAYA!!!
God, I can’t believe I’ve on the same planet with people that stupid.
This is a bit off topic.
As if I didn’t have enough admiration for Sophie, I was listening to a Remainiacs podcast the other day that had Monique Hawkins as a guest. Monique is a Dutch citizen who was advised by the UK Home Office to prepare for deportation when she applied for British citizenship after having lived in the UK for 24 years (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/28/dutch-woman-with-two-british-children-told-to-leave-uk-after-24-years). Guess who was keen to help Monique at the European Parliament level? Sophie has an amazing fighting capacity.
ps Monique ultimately received her British citizenship and will now enjoy the same reduced rights (relative to those of an EU citizen living in the UK) as other British citizens. There are other articles that track her progress on the Guardian website.
Latest questions posed by MEP in’t Veld to the EU Parliament regarding FATCA and the rights of EU citizens and residents;
23-08-2017
Reference :
P-005250/2017
Question for written answer P-005250/2017
to the Commission
Rule 130
Sophia in ‘t Veld (ALDE)
‘Subject: Multiple reporting requirements for EU citizens under FATCA and the associated IGAs’
“The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) is a US law that was officially enacted to combat tax fraud committed by US tax residents through offshore accounts. The law forces non-US financial institutions to identify and report to the US Internal Revenue Service all their ‘Us person’ clients. It was implemented in Europe by means of bilateral intergovernmental agreements (IGA) concluded between the EU Member States and the US. EU citizens who are active in more than one Member State to have concluded an IGA are subjected to individual FATCA reporting requirements in each Member State on the basis of each agreement.
1. Is the Commission aware that, under FATCA and the associated IGASs, EU citizens are subjected to similar reporting requirements in each Member State in which they are active?
2. Could the Commission outline how many EU citizens could be affected by this repercussion? Does it intend to take any action to assist and protect EU citizens?
3. Does the Commission consider the practice of multiple FATCA reporting requirements in different Member States contrary to the Treaty provisions on the free movement of people? If so, how will it address this violation of EU citizens’ rights?”
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html?tabType=all&tabActif=tabLast#sidesForm
@badger
Eurocrat Moscovici has responded to Sophie’s written questions under reference number P-005250/2017.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bWQ%2bP-2017-005250%2b0%2bDOC%2bXML%2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN
His responses were shocking but predictable:-
“It should be noted that only EU citizens who also meet the requirements to be deemed a “US person” will have their relevant information sent to the US.”
How exactly can a tax-paying EU citizen (who is supporting Moscovici’s sizeable income) be deemed a so-called US Person within the confines of the European Union? And is the submission of “their relevant information” to a third country (where they do not reside) not illegal under existing European data protection legislation?
“The Commission does not monitor nor collect information on FATCA implementation. No bilateral intergovenment agreement has been found to be in breach of EU law.”
Moscovici basically says that the Commission is happy with the current illegal arrangement. So much for the protection of European citizens.
“As the exchange of financial account information aims at ensuring the correct assessment of tax liabilities in the jurisdiction where an individual is resident for tax purposes, the Commission considers that it is not contrary to the fundamental freedoms, such as the free movement of people.”
Moscovici is either utterly incompetent or playing stupid. He states that FATCA “aims at ensuring the correct assessment of tax liabilities in the jurisdiction where an individual is resident for tax purposes”. But FATCA is extraterritorial; an EU citizen deemed a so-called US Person falls under two jurisdiction — at local/national level due to his residence as well as extraterritorially due to his US birth.
“It should be borne in mind that an international Common Reporting Standard based on FATCA has now been developed and implemented worldwide. Therefore EU citizens with financial accounts in other Member States or in any other jurisdiction that has implemented the Common Reporting Standard will also see their financial information being collected and reported to their country of residence for tax purposes by each jurisdiction where they hold a financial account.”
He confuses residence-based CRS with US birth-based FATCA; the two are clearly not the same.
What a waste of my tax money to pay for his bloated remuneration package…
Un collectif de Franco-Américains engage un recours contre le Fatca:
http://www.boursorama.com/actualites/un-collectif-de-franco-americains-engage-un-recours-contre-le-fatca-4ecaa6262ab5870ea3d1088e5ffa0066
@Duality, clearly Moscovici and the Commission don’t want to challenge the US and are apparently happy to sacrifice all EU citizens and residents that he describes as ONLY – as in “…only EU citizens who also meet the requirements to be deemed a “US person”…” regardless that inside the EU it should not be the US deciding whose assets and personhood and rights it will claim in tribute.
And in’t Veld had asked how many EU persons that would be, and got no answer.
And re; “…No bilateral intergovenment agreement has been found to be in breach of EU law.”…”
Have they been examined in order to certify that? Or is the situation merely that no challenge has been made or heard yet? That would be like saying that the Canadian IGA hasn’t been found in breach of Canadian law. Well, time will tell, as the Canadian government does everything it can to delay the day in which our lawsuit gets to the Supreme court of Canada and the FATCA IGA is actually subjected to the scrutiny it should have had BEFORE it was signed and enabled.
@badger
“clearly Moscovici and the Commission don’t want to challenge the US”
…whilst the Commission are fighting tooth and nail to protect the rights of all European nationals living in the United Kingdom due to Brexit. It is so, so ridiculous, you just couldn’t make it up!…
And in’t Veld had asked how many EU persons that would be, and got no answer.
In a past post, I believe I made the assumption that half of 1% of the population of the European Union might somehow be affected by Fatca. This is a sensible but very hypothetical figure. If this should be the case, then:-
743,100,000 Europeans (2015) x 0,5% = 3,715,500 affected
Brexit is affecting about 3,200,000 European nationals who are receiving very strong backing from the Commission. It makes me wonder…
And re; “…No bilateral intergovenment agreement has been found to be in breach of EU law.”…” Have [bilateral intergovenment agreement] been examined in order to certify that? Or is the situation merely that no challenge has been made or heard yet?”
It is because no-one has challenged it here in Europe (yet). There is some discussion in France about challenging US extraterritorial fiscal laws at the European Court of Justice, but this will be a very slow process. I remain baffled as to why the European Union (the largest market in the world) has allowed the Americans to enforce their fiscal laws here. Tit for tat was definitely an option at their disposal…
The EU may not have a right to challenge the member countries’ IGAs if they don’t offend against the “four freedoms” Moscovici referred to. Wikipedia says the “four freedoms” are free movement of goods, capital, services and labor.
An individual EU citizen could perhaps bring a challenge on the grounds of discrimination (Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.) But it would require legal action, which would be expensive.
Tepid statement by M quoted here re the EU ensuring true US reciprocity under FATCA;
“…Moscovici was measured in his response about how the EU executive body would deal with the U.S.
“It is no secret that the EU wants reciprocity along with OECD CRS,” Moscovici told members of the European Parliament. “We have raised the issue, including during meetings I had in Washington last week. The U.S. has a central role to play in the fight against tax avoidance. We will have to see how the new U.S. administration moves.” ….”….
https://www.bna.com/eu-politicians-step-n73014450512/
But it manages to assert itself with the US re tax on US corporations;
https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/media-resources/news-media-resources/checkpoint-news/tax-accounting-news/eu-plans-to-raise-tax-bill-of-online-giants-gather-momentum/
I can only conclude that the rights and best interests of ordinary individuals are considered expendable where the US is involved.
re;”The EU may not have a right to challenge the member countries’ IGAs if they don’t offend against the “four freedoms” Moscovici referred to” . It doesn’t appear as if the EU has any interest in finding out whether there is an offense either.
And I’m wondering how/whether the newest developments in EU data protection might help to challenge FATCA in the EU or an EU member nation since the US is not considered to have adequate data protection and security, and the IRS has had numerous and well documented problems with protecting taxpayer data – even according to US government bodies such as the GAO and TIGTA and the IRS Taxpayer Advocate.
badger:
“…manages to assert itself with the US re tax on US corporations;”
No doubt the EU has no desire to take any action against the EU member countries’ IGAs. Why would they, after all they have imposed their own reporting regime on member countries. But if they had a legal oversight responsibility with regard to the IGAs, citizens of member countries might be able to require the EU Commission to consider their case. If they have no such legal oversight responsibility, it’s a dead duck.
I agree data protection could yet be grounds for challenge. Certainly ought to be.
“…they have imposed their own reporting regime on member countries….”
Imposing the CRS on EU members vs. imposing or not opposing a non-reciprocal reporting regime on behalf of a foreign nation that is not part of the EU, and who has refused to particpate in the CRS and will not reciprocate are two different things for the EU Commission to defend.
I see what you’re saying about their legal oversight responsibility and whether it is pro-active or dependent on individuals to make and fund and sustain a complaint in their member state.
That MEP in’t Veldt has been pursuing various lines of questioning over a sustained period of years made me think that perhaps there were still unexplored avenues/opportunities to hold the EU responsible in some sense for some aspect/s of FATCA?
It is confusing to me why the EU cannot be held account to investigate whether the IGAs result in discrimination against some subclass/es of EU residents and citizens based on their nationality/national origin. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/rights/index_en.htm
The definition of national origin in the EU is complicated,
http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=54924
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/law/index_en.htm
so it is unclear how it would treat US origin or US descent;
Does the EU Commission have the responsibility to pro-actively investigate where member states deny equal and adequate level of data protection to some subset/s of EU residents and citizens?
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/rights/implementation/index_en.htm . I hope that may prove to be an Achilles heel for FATCA vs. the CRS.
“Imposing the CRS on EU members vs. imposing or not opposing a non-reciprocal reporting regime on behalf of a foreign nation that is not part of the EU, and who has refused to particpate in the CRS and will not reciprocate are two different things for the EU Commission to defend.”
The EU has the power to impose its reporting regime (DAC) on member states. Each member state must implement the measures stipulated.
As far as I’m aware, the EU doesn’t have the power (or the legal obligation) to approve or disapprove a treaty signed by a member country with a non-EU country – which is basically what each IGA is.
And there’s no reason to think the EU would object to the IGAs if it did have the power to do so.
“That MEP in’t Veldt has been pursuing various lines of questioning over a sustained period of years made me think that perhaps there were still unexplored avenues/opportunities to hold the EU responsible in some sense for some aspect/s of FATCA?”
MEPs can raise issues in the Parliament and eventually get a response from the Commission. I think that’s about it.
Didn’t Sophie in’t Veldt raise the data protection issue previously? And it was passed to a working group who looked into it? I never saw the working group’s conclusions. Maybe Sophie in’t Veldt will raise it again, now that the EU DP provisions are changing.
“Does the EU Commission have the responsibility to pro-actively investigate where member states deny equal and adequate level of data protection to some subset/s of EU residents and citizens?”
The EU has data protection rules which EU member countries must abide by. If an EU member country signed an agreement which was not in compliance with the EU rules, that would probably have to be put right. That would be a matter for the Commission to consider, and communicate with the member country about.
Discrimination, on the other hand, could be complained about by the individual, to the courts in his or her country, and potentially might go all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. Discrimination on grounds of national origin definitely can be complained about. But no one so far has done so – perhaps because it could end up costing a lot.
@plaxy
“Discrimination on grounds of national origin definitely can be complained about. But no one so far has done so – perhaps because it could end up costing a lot.”
This may soon change, as there is talk of a legal challenge in France. I suppose that their funding would have to come from our donations via crowdfunding. The European Union also provides legal aid to pay for court litigations.
@plaxy
“The EU may not have a right to challenge the member countries’ IGAs if they don’t offend against the “four freedoms” Moscovici referred to. Wikipedia says the “four freedoms” are free movement of goods, capital, services and labor.”
If an EU citizen is unable to open a bank account in another member state due to a US place of birth, then that restricts his ability to move for work (labour) or set up a business (goods and services). In addition, Fatca restricts one’s ability to transfer savings (capital) to another member state in order to purchase a flat, for example.
Duality:
“If an EU citizen is unable to open a bank account in another member state due to a US place of birth, then that restricts his ability to move for work (labour) or set up a business (goods and services). In addition, Fatca restricts one’s ability to transfer savings (capital) to another member state in order to purchase a flat, for example.”
I think EU law does require member states to guarantee access to basic banking services. This would be the kind of money-in money-out bank account that would exclude any element of credit or investment. I think (I’m not sure) that comes under the ECHR.
The “Four Freedoms” aspect is all about trying to create a level playing field so that one member state’s economy doesn’t have an unfair advantage over that of another member state. If one member state had a law preventing citizens of other member states from buying property within its territory, the EU would no doubt take action, but the fact that the IGAs make it difficult for US citizens to invest (either in their own country or in another member state) doesn’t give one state an advantage over another, so would not break EU law. That’s my understanding of it.
“there is talk of a legal challenge in France. I suppose that their funding would have to come from our donations via crowdfunding. The European Union also provides legal aid to pay for court litigations.”
That sounds hopeful. I didn’t realize legal aid might be available.
If a lawsuit does ultimately get filed, one avenue to explore could be whether FATCA (indirectly) and US citizenship (directly) and US policy, more generally, violate freedom of movement of labor within the EU for EU duals. I believe I am right in thinking that there are only a handful of countries where the US recognises the pension scheme as legitimate. If you are a dual EU citizen living in one of these countries, you could make the argument that EU’s acceptance of US policy prevents you exercising your freedom of movement rights because you are financially penalised by moving to an EU country whose pension scheme is not recognised by the US.
@plaxy @Edelweiss
Regarding the Four Freedoms, I am speaking from experience. I have been living in one Member State, have lost plenty of job opportunities in other Member States and have been prevented from buying a small flat back home in another Member State, all due to FATCA. To be able to do any of the above, an affected EU citizen would confront one of two problems: (1) outright rejection by the bank (illegal but very prevalent), or (2) accept the release of your financial data to a foreign authority across the Atlantic. A European citizen should be able to move whenever and wherever across Europe. The IGAs might be a national (as opposed to a pan-European) matter, but these ongoing rejections and restrictions are contrary to the essence of the Four Freedoms, which are to be enjoyed by all Europeans without discrimination. Unfortunately, some of us are facing a woeful reality at the moment.
Edelweiss, Duality:
It’s a question of what route might lead to a successful challenge.
US citizens living in an EU State can seek redress in the courts of their EU country if they can show that their rights under a particular article of the EU Convention of Human Rights (http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf) have been violated by their government (for instance, by their goverment’s implementation of AEOI reporting regimes, be it FATCA or the Wider Approach under CRS.)
If they win the case, the government can be expected to appeal against the ruling, and the case would move to the next higher level. Eventually it might reach the European Court of Human Rights. If the ECHR ruled in favor of the US citizens, the legislation would have to be changed, and all the other countries which have signed up to the Convention would also have to make sure their implementations of the AEOI regimes complied with the Court’s ruling.
The Convention does not include a right of free movement across borders, so that’s not an avenue to redress via the ECHR. The Convention does include a “Prohibition of Discrimination”:
Since “the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention” don’t include a right to equal access to financial services, it may not be possible to bring a case on the grounds of discrimination. I don’t know. I don’t see any other article that would apply, but lawyers might.
“The IGAs might be a national (as opposed to a pan-European) matter, but these ongoing rejections and restrictions are contrary to the essence of the Four Freedoms, which are to be enjoyed by all Europeans without discrimination.”
Unfortunately, as far as I’m aware EU law doesn’t say that.
@plaxy
“Unfortunately, as far as I’m aware EU law doesn’t say that.”
So what does EU law say?
As I understand it, European Union citizenship prevails in the European Union. EU treaty rights apply to all who possess such citizenship. I remain baffled as to how a bilateral tax agreement (without Senate approval) can trump European treaties and individual rights.