151 thoughts on “Ways & Means Urged to Hold a Hearing on #FATCA”
@yep.
I think it’s called subject drift. It started with questioning Beyer’s MO in signing that letter, perhaps a fund raising problem then morphed into Beyer’s history in Dems party fund raising in CH.
Truce ?
A difference of opinion hardly requires a truce. 🙂
As for the letter – who knows. My guess was wrong so I’ll speculate about it no more.
I cannot fathom being in George Clooney’s financial situation, but I’d venture to guess that he doesn’t have to sweat much about it. Teams of accountants and lawyers probably review and take care of everything. They probably do so now for Amal Clooney too. I’d bet his marriage underwent some in-house legal and financial scrutiny and they were able to be proactive. What I’m trying to say is that he very probably doesn’t care (or know) that he might be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars more because of his wife and FATCA. The very wealthy may also bear the cost of FATCA but it probably has no daily impact on them, not only because of the help they can afford, but because penalties are, for them, peanuts, as would be the renunciation fee. Maybe I’m wrong.
They’re each extremely rich, and I have no doubt they each have their accountants, perhaps in the US, the UK, Italy and Lebanon.
Any bank in its right mind will be opening the champagne not refusing to open an account.
“he might be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars more because of his wife and FATCA. ”
How so?
@fred
I would think that he would most certainly have been informed by his accountants as to why they would need to structure his and Amal’s financial situation separately. But then maybe he would think the rest of mixed citizenship
marriages do likewise. Amal would surely be cognizant of the UK being RBT in line with the rest of the world.
But yes, it is probably no sweat for them.
“How so”
He would probably have had to agree to put UK house in wife’s name to avoid any future capital gains tax on sale but maybe rich enough they don’t care about that.
“maybe he would think the rest of mixed citizenship
marriages do likewise.”
Most rich-rich marriages probably do.
@plaxy
We are not talking about bank access but about financial risk structuring; that costs money.
“He would probably have had to agree to put UK house in wife’s name to avoid any future capital gains tax on sale but maybe rich enough they don’t care about that.”
Don’t you think it’s likely they’re joint owners of all three houses? This is all sounding very patriarchal.
“We are not talking about bank access but about financial risk structuring; that costs money.”
That’s exactly my point: FATCA causes bank access problems. These rich people are not going to have those problems.
@plaxy
That’s their choice but if I was resident in the UK with an expensive house that would be liable for cap gains tax as I was married to an American, I would want it in my name if I was male or female. The other houses would of course be up for Capital gains regardless, ( if one was not resident there.)
PS
This is not a case of The US can’t collect. Clooney is a US resident.
I am not saying they will have bank access problems but tax and financial structuring problems that FATCA has enabled.
US people lived all over the world with no problems before FATCA and their banks and financial services exposed them. We are arguing semantics here.
I am off to dig my garden 🙂
But Heidi, that’s a tax issue, not a FATCA issue.
“if I was resident in the UK with an expensive house that would be liable for cap gains tax as I was married to an American, I would want it in my name if I was male or female”
Goodness, I must say I’m shocked! Anybody would be unwise to agree to such an ultimatum IMO. If the intended insisting on sole ownership of expensive property, we’re probably not talking about luv.
Seriously, the point I keep trying to make is that in IGA1 jurisdictions such as European countries, FATCA does not force Americans to file US taxes.
Love and prudence can go hand in hand. Spouse will always inherit in the UK with no tax obligations.
Divorce is the only risk and I guess it would be proof of love to trust spouse with house ownership.
Thread shift again.
“Divorce is the only risk and I guess it would be proof of love to trust spouse with house ownership.”
Thank goodness we’ve left those benighted days behind. One spouse demanding that the other spouse hand over his/her share of the family home as a proof of love? It’s totally barbaric.
“Thread shift again.”
Indeed. The thread is about FATCA.
@plaxy
That is exactly what spouse and myself and many others had to do to avoid covered status and US pension taxation.
We are still married. 🙂
Heidi – “That is exactly what spouse and myself and many others had to do to avoid covered status and US pension taxation.”
But not because of FATCA.
It’s good news that US-born individuals in IGA1 jurisdictions aren’t automatically trapped into becoming US taxpayers.
And good news that some of the problems facing IRS-compliant US expats may be helped by promised US legislative action, in future.
FATCA is still a damned nuisance, but that too may change in future, at least in some countries.
Yes, because of FATCA. It enabled CBT They are not mutually exclusive. I and many could have ignored the US confident that our financial affars , ‘foreign’ assets etc were the business of our resident country .
“Yes, because of FATCA. It enabled CBT”
Fortunately, FATCA can’t force anyone to pay US taxes in IGA1 jurisdictions. If banks in Switzerland won’t take US customers without proof of IRS compliance, that’s a serious problem I agree. It would be good to see it challenged in court. Switzerland is subject to the ECJ, yes?
“I and many could have ignored the US confident that our financial affars , ‘foreign’ assets etc were the business of our resident country .”
As I and many did, and many are still doing.
@plaxy
But not if you have US assets that are locked in (pension)
Over and out.:-)
PS Yep, ECJ.
Heidi:
“not if you have US assets that are locked in (pension)”
What’s the FATCA connection?
I have US income, which I report to HMRC. The US withholds tax at the applicable rate (currently zero). Nothing to do with FATCA.
According to the Swiss Banking Association, Switzerland is switching to a Model 1 IGA from 1 Jan 2019.
@yep.
I think it’s called subject drift. It started with questioning Beyer’s MO in signing that letter, perhaps a fund raising problem then morphed into Beyer’s history in Dems party fund raising in CH.
Truce ?
A difference of opinion hardly requires a truce. 🙂
As for the letter – who knows. My guess was wrong so I’ll speculate about it no more.
I cannot fathom being in George Clooney’s financial situation, but I’d venture to guess that he doesn’t have to sweat much about it. Teams of accountants and lawyers probably review and take care of everything. They probably do so now for Amal Clooney too. I’d bet his marriage underwent some in-house legal and financial scrutiny and they were able to be proactive. What I’m trying to say is that he very probably doesn’t care (or know) that he might be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars more because of his wife and FATCA. The very wealthy may also bear the cost of FATCA but it probably has no daily impact on them, not only because of the help they can afford, but because penalties are, for them, peanuts, as would be the renunciation fee. Maybe I’m wrong.
They’re each extremely rich, and I have no doubt they each have their accountants, perhaps in the US, the UK, Italy and Lebanon.
Any bank in its right mind will be opening the champagne not refusing to open an account.
“he might be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars more because of his wife and FATCA. ”
How so?
@fred
I would think that he would most certainly have been informed by his accountants as to why they would need to structure his and Amal’s financial situation separately. But then maybe he would think the rest of mixed citizenship
marriages do likewise. Amal would surely be cognizant of the UK being RBT in line with the rest of the world.
But yes, it is probably no sweat for them.
“How so”
He would probably have had to agree to put UK house in wife’s name to avoid any future capital gains tax on sale but maybe rich enough they don’t care about that.
“maybe he would think the rest of mixed citizenship
marriages do likewise.”
Most rich-rich marriages probably do.
@plaxy
We are not talking about bank access but about financial risk structuring; that costs money.
“He would probably have had to agree to put UK house in wife’s name to avoid any future capital gains tax on sale but maybe rich enough they don’t care about that.”
Don’t you think it’s likely they’re joint owners of all three houses? This is all sounding very patriarchal.
“We are not talking about bank access but about financial risk structuring; that costs money.”
That’s exactly my point: FATCA causes bank access problems. These rich people are not going to have those problems.
@plaxy
That’s their choice but if I was resident in the UK with an expensive house that would be liable for cap gains tax as I was married to an American, I would want it in my name if I was male or female. The other houses would of course be up for Capital gains regardless, ( if one was not resident there.)
PS
This is not a case of The US can’t collect. Clooney is a US resident.
I am not saying they will have bank access problems but tax and financial structuring problems that FATCA has enabled.
US people lived all over the world with no problems before FATCA and their banks and financial services exposed them. We are arguing semantics here.
I am off to dig my garden 🙂
But Heidi, that’s a tax issue, not a FATCA issue.
“if I was resident in the UK with an expensive house that would be liable for cap gains tax as I was married to an American, I would want it in my name if I was male or female”
Goodness, I must say I’m shocked! Anybody would be unwise to agree to such an ultimatum IMO. If the intended insisting on sole ownership of expensive property, we’re probably not talking about luv.
Seriously, the point I keep trying to make is that in IGA1 jurisdictions such as European countries, FATCA does not force Americans to file US taxes.
Love and prudence can go hand in hand. Spouse will always inherit in the UK with no tax obligations.
Divorce is the only risk and I guess it would be proof of love to trust spouse with house ownership.
Thread shift again.
“Divorce is the only risk and I guess it would be proof of love to trust spouse with house ownership.”
Thank goodness we’ve left those benighted days behind. One spouse demanding that the other spouse hand over his/her share of the family home as a proof of love? It’s totally barbaric.
“Thread shift again.”
Indeed. The thread is about FATCA.
@plaxy
That is exactly what spouse and myself and many others had to do to avoid covered status and US pension taxation.
We are still married. 🙂
Heidi – “That is exactly what spouse and myself and many others had to do to avoid covered status and US pension taxation.”
But not because of FATCA.
It’s good news that US-born individuals in IGA1 jurisdictions aren’t automatically trapped into becoming US taxpayers.
And good news that some of the problems facing IRS-compliant US expats may be helped by promised US legislative action, in future.
FATCA is still a damned nuisance, but that too may change in future, at least in some countries.
Yes, because of FATCA. It enabled CBT They are not mutually exclusive. I and many could have ignored the US confident that our financial affars , ‘foreign’ assets etc were the business of our resident country .
“Yes, because of FATCA. It enabled CBT”
Fortunately, FATCA can’t force anyone to pay US taxes in IGA1 jurisdictions. If banks in Switzerland won’t take US customers without proof of IRS compliance, that’s a serious problem I agree. It would be good to see it challenged in court. Switzerland is subject to the ECJ, yes?
“I and many could have ignored the US confident that our financial affars , ‘foreign’ assets etc were the business of our resident country .”
As I and many did, and many are still doing.
@plaxy
But not if you have US assets that are locked in (pension)
Over and out.:-)
PS Yep, ECJ.
Heidi:
“not if you have US assets that are locked in (pension)”
What’s the FATCA connection?
I have US income, which I report to HMRC. The US withholds tax at the applicable rate (currently zero). Nothing to do with FATCA.
According to the Swiss Banking Association, Switzerland is switching to a Model 1 IGA from 1 Jan 2019.
https://www.swissbanking.org/en/services/insight/2.16/fatca-turn-2-into-1