254 thoughts on “Support the Paul Amendment to Repeal FATCA!”

1. “Dots could be connected, lightbulbs might light over senatorial heads.”

   Unfortunately for us. RL is not “the Sims”. No thought-bubbles containing lightbulbs present in that caucus. in fact, I’m quite certain that a lot of lights are burnt out.

2. Lol, you’re probably both right.

   Still, Brady and Holding are both on Ways & Means, Brady’s W&M Chairman, and Holding’s on the Tax Policy Committee, and both of them went out of their way to mention RBT before the House Tax Cuts circus. Something could materialize, if they actually want that to occur.

   Have to wait and see.

3. “Pointing to intergovernmental agreements, Mr. Jatras said “there will be other, better opportunities in the future. I am meeting with Treasury [department officials] tomorrow [(Tuesday] and hope to know more after that.”

   FATCA repeal fails, new efforts focus on government agreements
   By Tad Stoner -December 5, 2017
   https://www.caymancompass.com/2017/12/05/fatca-repeal-fails-new-efforts-focus-on-government-agreements/

4. Interesting. But confusing.

   FATCA critics claim intergovernmental agreements, never authorized by the act, are in effect bilateral foreign treaties, illegal because the U.S. Congress has never ratified them, and may be vacated by executive order.

   It would be much better, as far as access to financial services goes, for the IGAs to be modified or renegotiated, rather than for the US to withdraw. In my country, I’m sure that if the banks were to lose the protection of the IGA and once again risk 30% withholding if they fail to identify USCs, they’d just shun anyone who can’t prove non-US birth. The IGA signatory governments have made that discrimination perfectly legal.

5. Actually over 100 countries from Nepal to Azerbaijan, Turkemenistan as well as Europe, Canada and almost all Asian countries have signed these requirements and almost all banks are requiring forms to sign by everyone in the world not just US citizens/permanent to verify if US citizen/ permanent resident or not. In India, just last year banks had warned to get these forms or risk forfeiture of all accounts. It was on yahoo news section all over the world . So any repeal if any should have been done a long time while this was starting. It’s too late now. The cat is out of the bag already and I believe best if stuck is renounced while you can.
   Best piece of advice that I received too a long time ago but I guess I held on it too like so many others thinking someone would repeal it. Worst result of it now almost all banks and brokerages are refusing accounts if your second nationality happens to be US. Oh they make you sign this form whether you are US citizen/permanent resident or not and if you sign it stating you are then they refuse to open in almost all cases or close it (risk loosing their assets too) if opened a long time ago.
   Every citizen in the world is impacted by this law and have to sign it by forcing them to sign or risk loosing their assets.

6. Depending on the country of residence, if the US were to unilaterally withdraw from the IGAs, renouncing might not help. You’d need to be born again – and choose more carefully.

7. @Plaxy, the reality is that the IGA have no standing in the USA. They are not legal and action must be taken.

   The US Senate needs to ratify them or Trump needs to write them away with his pen.

   If Trump writes them away then there will be mass problems as you indicate and so be it!!

   I want to bring the whole damn FATCA structure down to the ground in pieces.

   And to do that if it takes One Million Canadian Citizens locked out of the Canadian Banking system then so be it.

8. George – I lose no sleep over the status of the IGAs in the US. In my country, the IGA prevents banks from dumping my existing accounts due to my birthplace, and makes them less inclined to say no when I apply for a new account.

   ”
   I want to bring the whole damn FATCA structure down to the ground in pieces.”

   If FATCA is repealed, or otherwise rendered toothless, fine;

   or if the US withdraws from the IGAs but doesn’t resume threatening my banks with 30% withholding if they have anything to do with me or anyone else born in the US – fine;

   Dumping the IGAs and resuming the threats – not fine.

   “…if it takes One Million Canadian Citizens locked out of the Canadian Banking system then so be it.”

   I gather Canadian banks are more relaxed about due diligence than the banks in my country.

9. This whole thing is what the Japanese People call kabucki Theater. Everything they do is false. Ways and Means will only strip away the things they can add back for a large campaign contribution.
   Tax Reform has not happened and will not happen as long as they can sell the massive tax breaks for ”Campaign Contributions”
   IT saddens me that I have worked since 1985 asking congress to pass a National sales tax and since 1999 we called it The FairTax. Any chance oft hat happening in my lifetime is slipping away. I fear for the future of those who have never even heard of the FairTax and who will just go thru the motions of democracy and never ask their congressmen for anything to save the republic./ So Long America and the constitutional government the founders started.

10. “…situations in which the USC’s financial affairs may end up being handled or heavily controlled by lawyers, accountants, etc.

    Probate, for instance, which generally requires payment of “all taxes due”; or legal guardianship. Situations in which US tax law will not be ignored, regardless of what the USC would have wished.”

    One particular situation in which US tax law will not be ignored: an adult with a US birthplace, who
    – is deemed by the US as incapable of relinquishing/renouncing US citizenship , and
    – has been placed under legal guardianship (perhaps following death of parent or family guardian).

    Very difficult situation.

    In a very few countries the Hague Convention of Protection of Adults has been ratified and has come into force. It looks as if it might be applicable for a person in the situation described above, but not being a lawyer I may be misinterpreting it.

    The Convention, and an explanation, can be downloaded at https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=582

    Status table: see https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=71

    If it seems as if it might be applicable, it might be worth discussing the Convention with political representatives, even in one of the countries that hasn’t ratified (which is most of them). It seems to set out a standard of protection that should be due from a country towards its residents.

11. Thank you for this, plaxy. Very difficult situation INDEED, including that most countries (shown in the status table) have not ratified. Many beneficiaries *without requisite mental capacity* that the US will not allow (or let a parent, guardian or trustee to act on their behalves) will have some sort of discretionary trust to provide for them in an estate, ex. in Canada, https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/3988/for-a-child-with-disabilities-think-lifetime-benefit-trust…

    Henson Trust

    A Henson Trust is used by parents of adult-dependent children (outside Alberta) to exempt the inheritance assets held in the trust from government asset tests. This means that money held in the trust won’t interfere with the adult-dependent child’s eligibility for provincial government disability benefits.

    Henson Trusts cannot receive RRSPs or RRIFs on a tax-deferred basis as registered assets cannot be directly rolled over into the trust. The assets can only flow into the trust on an after-tax basis. RRSPs and RRIFs must be de-registered first, then are taxed. The estate will pay the taxes and the full original amount will be deposited into the Henson Trust. Although the registered assets are received by the trust in full, the estate is responsible for paying the taxes. There is no withholding and remittance on death, and this can skew the intended division of the estate.

    Effectively, so can the US-deemed US citizenship of the beneficiary, however US-defined, within such a discretionary trust which is supposed to protect that beneficiary without capacity.

12. Calgary, yes, it’s a shame so few countries have ratified (and a number of the countries that have ratified have made reservations about various terms they won’t accept).

    Given that Canada presumably doesn’t actively intend for your son’s inheritance to be vulnerable to being raided by a foreign country, is there a chance someone in the Canadian government might be open to a discussion around the cruelness of the situation, the Canadian charter rights, and the standard of protection set out in the Hague Adult Charter? Even though Canada may not be willing to ratify the Convention, maybe there are other steps it could take to protect your son, such as making an exception under Canadian law to allow your son and others in a similar position to be treated as Canadian-only rather than dual? Or the Canadian Competent Authority raising it with the US Competent Authority to make such inheritances exempt under the treaty?

13. Thanks, plaxy, for suggesting other questions to ask when I get up enough nerve to get back into a lawyer to change terms of my Will as 1) my husband and I have now been separated for two years so he can best get on with his life at the age of 77 as 2) I have not been able to let go of what lies ahead for my two children and what it means for them when I am gone. I realize it is folly I have not. I need to get what I can resolved if I can so I can update instructions in my Will and the discretionary trust in place for my son.

    (I still hold Canadian financial accounts for my son – will that mean I am STILL considered by the US a US Person though I offically renounced my USC in 2012, at which time I identified the accounts I hold for my son in my FBARs, held by me due to his inability to understand and maintain his own financial accounts, which includes the Canadian Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP for which I am the Holder, my son the beneficiary) that the Canadian government contributes bonds and grants in addition to what I contribute each month?) The IRS collected tax from me for the bonds and grants that the Canadian government contributed to the RDSP I hold for my son, the only $$$ I owed the IRS. The clock continues to tick as I am now 74.

    I have gotten no resolution on anything regarding my son from any of my Canadian government representatives (and therefore for others like him, US-deemed USCs for whatever US definition, denied renunciation and entrapped into ongoing huge compliance costs for yearly US tax and reporting). I have gotten only, so far, a passing of the buck with any of my Canadian government representatives, Conservative or Liberal.

    To do something other than just my *whining* here and to government representatives (“Everyone in Canada has a sob story” – http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/media-and-blog-articles-open-for-comments-part-4-of-4/comment-page-61/#comment-8073571, Canada’s Honourable Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities), as a Witness, I have completed an Affidavit for the ADCS-ADSC litigation in hopes that others not make the same expensive mistakes that I have and perhaps to help obtain resolution for all of us / *discrimination by national origin*, including Accidental Americans and the sub-group of Accidentals who also are so entrapped into US compliance consequences with no way to complete a renunciation of a USC or US-deemed USC – for any price.

14. I’m so sorry Calgary. Wish I could think of any helpful suggestion.

    I hope things will change for the better.

15. RO’s response to me about Rand Paul, TTFI scoring and Heller Amendments:

    “…TTFI was not scored in time due to the fact that we were behind the curve ball for following reasons:

    1) TTFI was not part of the House version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Even though ending CBT was added to the 2016 Republican National Platform in July of 2016, TTFI was not written into the platform.

    2) Neither candidate Trump nor Republican Senate and House members ran on TTFI in 2016.

    3) RO proposed TTFI to the Congress in January of 2017 while TTFC has been lobbied for the last 10 years with millions dollars spent.

    4) The RNC passed a TTFI inclusion resolution in August of 2017.

    5) TTFC was driven by the White House because candidate Trump campaigned on it in 2016 and now he is delivering his another campaign promise.

    6) The TTFI score was ordered by the House Ways and Means Committee leadership after RO delivered TTFI inclusion letters to President Trump and petitions to the Congress and after the Financial Times interviewed Chairman Brady.

    7) The Joint Committee on Taxation didn’t have the time to score TTFI since it released the Senate version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act just the day before the Senate tax reform plan went to the Senate floor.

    It was remarkable that Sen. Rand Paul used his leverage to submit his FATCA amendment with a 7-year old FATCA score for the Senate floor debate and vote. The senator couldn’t use his vote as a leverage because the Senate would still pass the tax reform bill with 50 Republican votes and Vice President Pence’s tie- breaking vote. His FATCA amendment was not considered because the Senate ran out of its 20-hour clock for debate and vote on amendments. As a result, only two amendments were voted on out of the hundreds that were filed.

    Sen. Dean Heller is a member of the Senate Finance Committee. As a result, he offered two amendments: #9 & #10 as place holders without actual texts in order to amend his committee’s finished plan provided there was a TTFI score released in time by the JCT before the plan was sent to the Senate floor. Sen. Heller’s strategy was to add basic TTFI language to the Senate tax reform plan and then he could provide detailed TTFI language at the conference as part of the reconciliation process.“

16. You have given helpful suggestions to discuss further — with thanks, plaxy!

17. BB – thanks for posting the detailed explanation from RO.

    Paragraph 6 seems to me to confirm that Brady’s breakfast remark to the FT

    (“It is under consideration. They have made the case…Lawmakers representing that area of the tax code have made that case.”)

    referred not to TTFI but to something else – maybe just the general concept of changing CBT. The “lawmakers representing that area of the tax code” possibly referring to Holding, who is on the Tax Policy Committee.

    For some unknown tax policy reason they want changes to CBT.

    That interpretation would fit with the subsequent comments from Brady and Holding as the House vote-a-rama began, and it would fit with Holding’s statement that he plans to put forward a standalone bill sometime in the New Year.

    Possibly encouraging – depending on whether Holding’s bill materializes, and what’s in it. Could be good or bad.

18. The FT piece ends:

    “The US Chamber of Commerce, a business lobby group, has urged policymakers to consider US-only taxation for individuals, too, arguing that taxing foreign income hurts American managers at the overseas affiliates of US exporters. The US Chamber of Commerce, a business lobby group, has urged policymakers to consider US-only taxation for individuals, too, arguing that taxing foreign income hurts American managers at the overseas affiliates of US exporters.”

    The American Chamber of Commerce Singapore website has this:

    “AmCham Singapore continues to lobby for better taxation policy for both American workers and American companies, and is working closely with APCAC leaders to advocate for a territorial tax system. ”

    and the APCAC site has this:

    “ENACT TAX REFORM FOR CORPORATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS

    The U.S. taxes Americans on their worldwide income. This unique system results in an un-level playing eld as American citizens compete for jobs abroad – including at U.S. companies — with foreigners who are less expensive to employ. The on-going reduction in the number of American citizens in key management positions diminishes the natural procurement ties to U.S. goods. As the Administration and Congress consider a territorial tax system for U.S. corporations, so, too, should such a system be adopted for each individual taxpayer. This will level the competitive playing eld, promote exports, and create more investment and jobs for U.S. companies and citizens.”

    and this:

    “FATCA’s costly reporting requirements and its signicant legal and financial risks can make it unprofitable for financial companies to serve Americans overseas. While the introduction of the Common Reporting Standard has somewhat leveled the playing field, APCAC urges lawmakers to reform the law comprehensively or support speci c reform proposals, including a Same Country Safe Harbor provision, which would treat the financial accounts of Americans abroad in their country of residence the same way as it treats the U.S. accounts of Americans residing in the U.S.”

    apcac.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-Policy-White-Paper.pdf

19. APCAC also issued a press release 15 Nov 2017:
    apcac.org/tax-reform

    Jackson Cox, Chairman of APCAC, said, “Unfortunately, the tax reform bills introduced recently in the U.S. House and Senate fall short of advancing American commercial interests around the world by the omission of territorial taxation for American citizens abroad. Congressional leaders are well aware of the issue and are familiar with the revenue-neutral solution that business groups have been advocating for years.”

    Richard Weisman, a Hong Kong-based attorney and a leader of APCAC’s Tax Committee provided further comment, “While we are encouraged that both the House and Senate bills include elements of territorial taxation for American companies, it is important to extend territorial taxation also to American individuals abroad. We remain hopeful that a solution will be included in the final tax reform bill.”

    APCAC has recently launched a broad-based advocacy effort to mobilize support for the inclusion of territorial taxation for American individuals abroad as part of the current tax reform effort in Congress. APCAC is the association of 29 American Chambers of Commerce in the Asia-Pacific region. APCAC’s collective membership represents over 15,000 American companies and over 50,000 overseas American executives in the Asia-Pacific region. Securing Resident-Based Taxation for Americans abroad has been a pillar of APCAC’s advocacy work going back near 50 years.

    “Broadbased” may suggest a degree of joint lobbying effort between APCAC, ACA, and RO?

20. “Broadbased” may suggest a degree of joint lobbying effort between APCAC, ACA, and RO?

    I don’t know about a joint lobbying effort more than our issues are broad based. I think there’s going to be a lot of nose-holding going on if any of these groups are going to deliver any meat to Americans abroad. We’re growing hungrier, with less appetite for in fighting.

21. I don’t care if they tear each other to ribbons if they do something to clear up this mess first.

    APCAC’s press release is linked to from ACA’s website; APCAC seems to refer interchangeably to “residence-based taxation” / TTFI; DeSombre & Co delivered TTFI letters and petition signatures and may have influenced FT’s helpful question to Brady; DeSombre is spoken of as Trump’s preferred candidate for assistant secretary of state for East Asia and Pacific Affairs.

    All of them with some influence, all of them in East Asia, all of them apparently wanting something done about FATCA / CBT.

    I just hope that what they want is not something that would be even worse for expats than the current oppression.

22. The Liberty List is our best opinion poll. Until the renunciations are reduced to a trickle, everything else is a failure.

23. Opinion polls aren’t helpful. We know what’s wrong, we know why people renounce. What we don’t know is what (if anything) the current US administration is going to do about it.

    Have to wait and see. But at least it’s beginning to make some sense.

24. I meant our opinion of how well US lawmakers are dealing with the situation 🙂

25. Plaxy: if the IGAs fall and the 30% menace holds, that’s fine. I owe a lot of money to my banks. Happy to see them squirm. And of course, at that point, EU antidiscrimination laws will no longer be avoidable. The banks will be sued for closed accounts of EU citizens based on birthplace (ILLEGAL), and what’s more, there is a right to a bank account (at least in France). The banks will be between a rock and a hard place and the US will be forced to either not enforce the withholding, or do so and raise hell. The EU might then have to take up the matter (in lieu of individual countries) and threaten retaliation. Could be fun. My view has always been that the IGAs are toxic in that they mitigate the situation. Let the situation blow up and it will have to be resolved. Of course, it might not be and we might suffer more. Ok, then I’ll switch to cash & gold.