This Is an Urgent Campaign to Repeal FATCA ALERT!
Support the Paul Amendment to Repeal FATCA!
November 29, 2017
This week the Senate version of the tax reform bill will come to the Senate
floor. The Campaign to Repeal FATCA has learned that Senator Rand Paul
(R-Kentucky) plans to offer as a floor amendment his bill S. 869 to repeal
the so-called “Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).
The Campaign to Repeal FATCA is asking everyone immediately to contact your
Senators with this simple message:
“Support the Paul Amendment to Repeal FATCA!”
You can find the contact information for your state’s two Senators
here. Given the partisan divide
in the Senate, it is especially important to contact Republican Senators. If
your state has one from each party, contact the Republican first!
Here is a suggested draft message you can use via the email contact. (NOTE:
If you are contacting a Democratic Senator, please delete the sentence in
red referring to the Platform.):
Dear Senator [Name]:
As your constituent, I strongly urge you to support the floor amendment to
be offered by Senator Rand Paul to repeal the so-called Foreign Account Tax
Compliance Act, or FATCA. Despite the claims of its sponsors when it was
passed in 2010, FATCA is a failure in its supposed aim to recover offshore
tax assets hidden by “fat cats.” Instead, it has imposed massive costs on
middle class Americans, violated Americans’ privacy without probable cause,
and led to a huge increase in U.S. citizenship renunciations. The 2016 GOP
Platform called for the repeal of this wrongheaded Obama-era law – and the
Republican Party should keep its promises! Please support the Paul Amendment
to repeal FATCA!
[Name, location]
In addition, if you represent an organization, please issue a statement in
support of the Paul Amendment to repeal FATCA and send it to Senate offices
and distribute via social media.
Time is of the essence. Thank you for your help at this critical moment!
Nigel Green and Jim Jatras
Co-Leaders, Campaign to Repeal FATCA
Further information points on why FATCA must be repealed follow:
The GOP called for repeal in its 2016 Platform. “The Foreign Account Tax
Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Foreign Bank and Asset Reporting Requirements
result in government’s warrantless seizure of personal financial information
without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Americans overseas should
enjoy the same rights as Americans residing in the United States, whose
private financial information is not subject to disclosure to the government
except as to interest earned. The requirement for all banks around the world
to provide detailed information to the IRS about American account holders
outside the United States has resulted in banks refusing service to them.
Thus, FATCA not only allows ‘unreasonable search and seizures’ but also
threatens the ability of overseas Americans to lead normal lives. We call
for its repeal and for a change to residency-based taxation for U.S.
citizens overseas.”
FATCA fails in its stated purpose of recovering tax revenues. On enactment
in 2010, FATCA was scored as raising about $800M per year. According to
Texas A&M law professor William Byrnes, actual recoveries are closer to
$100-200M per year and falling. FATCA will soon cost more than it brings in.
FATCA is an indiscriminate violation of privacy. FATCA data reporting
requires no probable cause or even suspicion. Unlike domestic 1099s and W2s,
no taxable event is required. Compliance burdens fall disproportionately
upon people of moderate means, few of whom are engaged in evasion or owe any
tax. Foreign banks’ denying services to Americans leads to increased U.S
citizenship renunciations.
FATCA is costly. Estimates of global compliance spending rely on aggregation
of per-institution costs: millions for each small bank, hundreds of millions
for a big one. One projection puts cumulative cost at $58 to $170 billion.
This is an order of magnitude greater than any recoveries from FATCA.
FATCA relies on Obama-era Executive overreach. Because of other countries’
privacy laws, FATCA is unenforceable without so-called “intergovernmental
agreements” (IGAs) invented by Tim Geithner’s Treasury Department. The IGAs
are not authorized by statute or submitted to the U.S. Senate as treaties.
FATCA threatens our domestic financial industry. Reciprocal “Model 1” IGAs
promise “reciprocity” from U.S. domestic banks. This threatens massive
FATCA-like costs on U.S. banks and consumers.
Keeping FATCA on the books risks future harm. The OECD, which for years has
sought to extinguish personal financial privacy and create a worldwide
financial data fishbowl, has praised the IGAs as a “catalyst” to that end.
If FATCA remains on the books, the next Democrat Administration and Congress
may press reciprocity on domestic American financial firms to create a
global FATCA – or “GATCA.” This is the opposite of what the GOP Platform
promised.
Transparency is when citizens monitor government.
When government monitors citizens, that’s tyranny.
It looks like the troublesome provision (http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2017/11/23/here-is-the-november-24-2017-adcsadct-press-release-asking-u-s-congress-not-to-harm-canadians-even-more-with-its-new-tax-reform-legislation/) has not been fixed.
Furthermore, the Senate has adopted the House language on the State and Local Income Tax deduction. Rather than repealing SALT outright, property taxes are still deductible but NOT on FOREIGN real estate! (see section 11042 bottom of page 81 in the document I linked above).
If anyone sees anything else (or changes to the above that I missed) I’d love to hear about it. The pdf is just a scan, so text is not searchable, which makes it difficult to find relevant provisions.
@Andrew
Agree.
Phil Hodgen recommended some years ago, get out while you still can, it will only get worse.
None of us knew/know how much worse….
Andrew – how much commission do you get from Marino? While I agree that it’s probably time to get out for those who have not done so already and can get out easily, I don’t think it’s appropriate to be pushing (bordering on advertising) any particular professional. Many here have been able to get out without high cost professional help. If your financial life is uncomplicated and you’re nowhere near covered, then why pay thousands for something you can do yourself. And if you have no US ties at all ….
@Karen
I agree that many can get out on their own or even stay hidden but some with complex finances certainly need help. I know how many of us feel about compliance condors but there have been questions in the past on Brock as to whom others have used or recommended either for past tax filing or for pre renunciation structuring. They are for some a necessity.
Andrew sounds genuine, I may be wrong, but I think we all first deserve the benefit of the doubt.
@Andrew
Nobody here is “selling anyone a pipedream.” You seem to think everyone has the money and the ability to renounce. Obviously you have not read very much here.
People on this site are actually against the principle of US law applying outside of the US.
Karen’s comment is certainly appropos- and generally, Brock does not allow any kind of promotion here.
Are you aware that the State Department has been very clear that lawyers are not to accompany clients to a renunciation? It has to do with a person demonstrating he/she is not being influenced and is making a voluntary and conscious decision on one’s own.
Gee, if I didn’t know any better, I would think you are not “Andrew” at all-but rather, “Alex” himself.
Financial situations are to do with IRS compliance – not renunciation. Anyone who needs or wants advice on complying, needs a tax advisor, not a renunciation adviser.
Some may have financial situations which lead them to conclude that it’s necessary or in their interest to retain US citizenship. That’s not relevant to renunciation.
The only finance relevant for renunciation is being able to pay the fee and the associated costs of preparing paperwork and traveling to a consulate.
“The only finance relevant for renunciation is being able to pay the fee and the associated costs of preparing paperwork and traveling to a consulate.”
Paying a “renunciation advisor” would obviously make renouncing even more expensive than it already is, and would do nothing at all to help a person who cannot renounce because of hideously unfair US citizenship laws.
Don’t do it, would-be renouncers. Renounce d-i-y if possible and desired, and save wasting any money on useless “renunciation advice”
@Plaxy
“The only finance relevant for renunciation is being able to pay the fee and the associated costs of preparing paperwork and traveling to a consulate.”
Not entirely, there are ways of avoiding covered status and protecting one’s pension eg through gifting before renunciation. I certainly needed advice before I found Brock.
I don’t know who Andrew is, maybe he is a condor, but I just think it is more pertinent to ask him that question rather than ask him how much he is being paid.
While renunciation is an excellent choice, I think the fight must go one. Indeed there are many people here who continue the fight while having renounced. It’s about fighting for something we believe in. The situation will change some day, and it will thanks to continued fighting.
FATCA may yet be modified by regulatory changes, but it’s surely likely that any such changes will help US-resident holders of non-US accounts, not US Persons living outside the US. Since the donors are US-resident. The US can pull out of the IGAs very easily, which would no doubt suit wealthy US-resident holders of non-US accounts.
“The situation will change some day, and it will thanks to continued fighting.”
The situation will change if the US wants it to change. Which won’t be because they feel sorry for US citizens living outside the US.
Heide – yes, I’m just making the point that that’s tax advice, not renouncing advice. Renouncing doesn’t need any advice – it’s dead easy, just expensive.
“I don’t know who Andrew is”
Neither do I and don’t care.
@ Fred
I have supported the ADCS since I renounced in 2012. It no longer affects me but it does my children.
It saddens me that a country I once embraced and gave much of my professional life to would care so very little about its citizens. I admire Patricia and Karen and all those who continue this fight but I am also getting too old to hope that this inequity will end in my lifetime.
Would-be renouncers with complicated situations, who want to / need to / feel obliged to remain compliant with US tax law, need to find a reliable adviser who will comply with what the client wants to achieve (e.g. avoiding covered status while complying with US tax law), rather than what will please the IRS.
@ Fred
The US does not abide by those wonderful constitutional principles, if it ever did.
The situation will change when and only when it affects the US financially. Are you prepared to wait for that.
Neither US political party is interested, and no one else has the power to change US laws. Sensible to make the decision (renounce, comply, ignore) and move on.
Today’s disappointing legislative result reminds me of one of the conclusions in a paper by Allison Christians: “Human Rights at the Borders of Tax Sovereignty”. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2924925.
The paper argues that non-resident US taxpayers are not getting anywhere because they have no political power – not in the US where they’re spread across every congressional district – and not in their home countries where they are a small minority and similarly dispersed. Business interests have much more power – which is why so many countries passed the FATCA IGAs as quickly as they could. One conclusion is that non-resident US taxpayers are more likely to find relief in the courts than from the legislature (either in the US or where they live).
@All
Mr. Marino does more than just renunciation- the appt & forms. He does the tax planning around it etc.
That said, as an admin, I care very much about who “Andrew” is. There is nothing wrong with promoting renunciation- I was convinced about it being the best choice back in 2012. However, coming here and promoting a particular individual always invites a closer look at who is doing it.
There is such a thing as astroturfing and there are ways to examine that.
The fact that everything appeared aligned for change makes me wonder now if change will ever be possible. There was not a better time than now. i renounced last year in august before the presidential result, i had no interest in waiting. i am a realist. I did not believe in change as a life time solution, only renunciation. it has been said here before, change today can always be undone in a future administration. None of the proposals were real RBT. and any change can be eroded over the years with red tape if not abolished completely.
Those who can renounce, should renounce now. that might send a clear message. those who can’t and are under the radar need to do everything in their power to remain there. those in compliance need to file in a way that is least damaging and possibly be in a position some day to renounce.
and the fight can continue and hopefully maybe some day justice will prevail.
Was the amendment voted down or not voted on
“One conclusion is that non-resident US taxpayers are more likely to find relief in the courts than from the legislature (either in the US or where they live).”
It just makes me think of Bleak House.
“Mr. Marino does more than just renunciation- the appt & forms. He does the tax planning around it etc.”
I don’t know Marino (or any tax advisors) but if it was me I’d be looking for a tax advisor who was willing to help me do what I had decided to do – not a tax advisor who writes articles telling people to contact him for advice on renunciation. Renouncing doesn’t need a paid advisor; US tax compliance may.
A qualifief
Again can someone say what happened to the amendment
George-
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2017/11/29/support-the-paul-amendment-to-repeal-fatca/comment-page-3/#comment-8070577
So there was never a vote on the amendment?
We failed because it did not get in the manager amendment?