151 thoughts on “Ways & Means Urged to Hold a Hearing on #FATCA”
“This is yet another example of Congress writing the law with US resident taxpayers in mind without any consideration of how the rules affect US taxpayers who are residents of other countries.”
We do not exist, as far as they are concerned. They could rile up all 6-9 million of us and still not have their chances of continuing in their cushy jobs affected in any negative way.
“I wonder if this is about to change, continuing the pattern of each and every new tax reform somehow making things measurably worse for expatriates.”
That would be the safe bet.
“We are saved! Yipee!”
Because banks in CRS+FATCA(IGA1) jurisdictions must carry out due diligence on all customers, they can no longer avoid the due diligence costs by avoiding US customers.
“There is no recovery for lost privacy.”
I thought it was interesting that the very brief letter reproduced the concerns of the antiFATCA case and was signed by the Democrat former Swiss ambassador. However, it appears I was mistaken. It seems it might be more to do with Beyer’s rôle as chief campaign fundraiser for the House Democrats. But who knows.
Me: “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.”
JapanT: “You do not live in the real world.”
You and I both live in the real world. I live in an IGA 1 jurisdiction and you live in an IGA 2 jurisdiction. My comment refers to IGA 1 jurisdictions, as stated.
““We are saved! Yipee!”
Because banks in CRS+FATCA(IGA1) jurisdictions must carry out due diligence on all customers, they can no longer avoid the due diligence costs by avoiding US customers.”
Oh, yeah. Everybody on the planet losing all pretext of privacy is so much better than just USCs losing ours. Wonderful!
“”There is no recovery for lost privacy.”
I thought it was interesting that the very brief letter reproduced the concerns of the antiFATCA case and was signed by the Democrat former Swiss ambassador. However, it appears I was mistaken. It seems it might be more to do with Beyer’s rôle as chief campaign fundraiser for the House Democrats. But who knows.”
Concerns over lose of privacy after the loss of privacy is a sick joke at best. Concern now is absolutely worthless. Concern was needed before loss of privacy. After is too late. Meaningless.
Anyone who does not take all actions possible to prevent their nonresident alien spouse’s financial data to be shared with the US can not make comments about how much “luv” does and does not exist in the marriages of those who have taken whatever actions they have to shield their spouse from the abuses of the US.
“Everybody on the planet losing all pretext of privacy is so much better than just USCs losing ours. Wonderful!”
I definitely think it’s better for laws to apply to all rather than to discriminate by national origin, yes.
You’re a nutter.
I said:
“I definitely think it’s better for laws to apply to all rather than to discriminate by national origin,”
Japan T said:
“You’re a nutter.”
I don’t think so. When laws apply to all, their consequences apply to all. If all are affected equally, any evil consequences are more likely to be addressed.
Whereas, if the law only affects a small minority (immigrants of a particular nationality), the majority may not care a flip, probably won’t even notice, so the law is less likely to be changed.
“Concerns over lose of privacy after the loss of privacy is a sick joke at best. Concern now is absolutely worthless. Concern was needed before loss of privacy. After is too late. Meaningless.”
Personally I’d be very glad to see the US taking seriously the concerns of citizens of other countries affected by poisonous, slanderous, discriminatory US laws.
While I agree that bad laws that are strictly enforced are more likely to be repealed, two wrongs do not make a right. Killing all so the the killing stops does not help those killed.
Once you’ve lost financial and other orivacy, you never get back.
“While I agree that bad laws that are strictly enforced are more likely to be repealed, two wrongs do not make a right. Killing all so the the killing stops does not help those killed.”
Nobody’s getting killed. A lot of data is being sprayed around the planet without the owners’ consent. The sooner that stops the better – you agree?
“Nobody’s getting killed.”
Jay’s survivors would disagree.
“A lot of data is being sprayed around the planet without the owners’ consent. The sooner that stops the better – you agree?”
So, the more people who suffer irreparable loss the better.
You’re a nutter.
Plaxy,
You have demonstated exactly what I mean by saying that you do not live in the real world. Your comments through out this discussion and all others I have read betray either the inability or unwillingness to understand the real world consequences of any of this.
FATCA has indeed claimed the life of at least one US dual citizen living abroad. How many divorces has FATCA caused? Several have reported that their nonresident alien spouses were non too pleased with their USC spouses sharing their financial data to the US. Divorce was talked about by some of these.
Exposing a greater part of humanity to these outcomes hepls no one. In short, not a good thing.
My self, I have under 5 years for a solution or risk losing my passport when it expires, thus losing all I have. Loss of my passport would leave me alone back on America’s shores without job, fixed abode nor even a penny nor ability to drive as I no longer have a valid DL for the States. At present, I have yet to find a route around this deadend, through the search continues.
You apparently have the luxury of treating this as little more than an acedemic exercise, lucky you. But for those us in the real world, the consequences are real.
“Exposing a greater part of humanity to these outcomes hepls no one. In short, not a good thing.”
Indeed not. I certainly don’t advocate stripping people of data protection rights.
If it’s done to six people or thirty people or a couple of hundred people, not only is that bloody unfair but nothing will be done to stop it because six or thirty or a couple of hundred average-income people can easily be ignored. If it suddenly starts happening to all, it’s going to annoy those with the power and the pockets to put a stop to it.
“If it’s done to six people or thirty people or a couple of hundred people, not only is that bloody unfair but nothing will be done to stop it because six or thirty or a couple of hundred average-income people can easily be ignored. If it suddenly starts happening to all, it’s going to annoy those with the power and the pockets to put a stop to it.”
You’re a nutter.
Can stop that which has been done. You can only stop ot from happening to more but can not undo the damage already done.
You’re a nutter.
“You can only stop ot from happening to more but can not undo the damage already done.”
If the legal case against CRS gets as far as the ECJ and the ECJ rules that CRS is not compliant with GDPR, that would have implications not only for CRS (within the EU) but also for FATCA (within the EU). It could have a much more far-reaching benefit than a case against FATCA.
It wouldn’t, of course, have any direct effect outside the EU.
How many lives lost or ruined by that time?
You’d prefer that CRS not be challenged?
Not at all, but I do not like CRS given as an excuse to allow FATCA to stand.
Additionally, CRS needs to be attacked much more aggressively.
FATCA must also be more aggressively attacked also.
As these are bound to be too slow, other options need to be explored and exploited.
As it now stands, by the time a legislative or court so,ution is found, there will be no more USCs living abroad with their non USC families, our passports having expired and not been renewed.
Many duals may find themselves losing their non USCship as countries grow intolerant of the problems such persons cause for them and their institutions, this would deprnd upon the country of course but human history has shown that any nation is capable of trying to rid itself of the other within.
Time is not on our side.
In what way is CRS being used as an excuse to allow FATCA to stand?
If the ECJ rules that CRS as currently implemented within the EU breaks GDPR protections and must be changed, then the IGA implementation laws would also probably have to be changed to come into line with the ECJ ruling. That’s the very opposite of using CRS as an excuse for allowing FATCA to stand.
“This is yet another example of Congress writing the law with US resident taxpayers in mind without any consideration of how the rules affect US taxpayers who are residents of other countries.”
We do not exist, as far as they are concerned. They could rile up all 6-9 million of us and still not have their chances of continuing in their cushy jobs affected in any negative way.
“I wonder if this is about to change, continuing the pattern of each and every new tax reform somehow making things measurably worse for expatriates.”
That would be the safe bet.
“We are saved! Yipee!”
Because banks in CRS+FATCA(IGA1) jurisdictions must carry out due diligence on all customers, they can no longer avoid the due diligence costs by avoiding US customers.
“There is no recovery for lost privacy.”
I thought it was interesting that the very brief letter reproduced the concerns of the antiFATCA case and was signed by the Democrat former Swiss ambassador. However, it appears I was mistaken. It seems it might be more to do with Beyer’s rôle as chief campaign fundraiser for the House Democrats. But who knows.
Me: “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.”
JapanT: “You do not live in the real world.”
You and I both live in the real world. I live in an IGA 1 jurisdiction and you live in an IGA 2 jurisdiction. My comment refers to IGA 1 jurisdictions, as stated.
““We are saved! Yipee!”
Because banks in CRS+FATCA(IGA1) jurisdictions must carry out due diligence on all customers, they can no longer avoid the due diligence costs by avoiding US customers.”
Oh, yeah. Everybody on the planet losing all pretext of privacy is so much better than just USCs losing ours. Wonderful!
“”There is no recovery for lost privacy.”
I thought it was interesting that the very brief letter reproduced the concerns of the antiFATCA case and was signed by the Democrat former Swiss ambassador. However, it appears I was mistaken. It seems it might be more to do with Beyer’s rôle as chief campaign fundraiser for the House Democrats. But who knows.”
Concerns over lose of privacy after the loss of privacy is a sick joke at best. Concern now is absolutely worthless. Concern was needed before loss of privacy. After is too late. Meaningless.
Anyone who does not take all actions possible to prevent their nonresident alien spouse’s financial data to be shared with the US can not make comments about how much “luv” does and does not exist in the marriages of those who have taken whatever actions they have to shield their spouse from the abuses of the US.
“Everybody on the planet losing all pretext of privacy is so much better than just USCs losing ours. Wonderful!”
I definitely think it’s better for laws to apply to all rather than to discriminate by national origin, yes.
You’re a nutter.
I said:
“I definitely think it’s better for laws to apply to all rather than to discriminate by national origin,”
Japan T said:
“You’re a nutter.”
I don’t think so. When laws apply to all, their consequences apply to all. If all are affected equally, any evil consequences are more likely to be addressed.
Whereas, if the law only affects a small minority (immigrants of a particular nationality), the majority may not care a flip, probably won’t even notice, so the law is less likely to be changed.
“Concerns over lose of privacy after the loss of privacy is a sick joke at best. Concern now is absolutely worthless. Concern was needed before loss of privacy. After is too late. Meaningless.”
Personally I’d be very glad to see the US taking seriously the concerns of citizens of other countries affected by poisonous, slanderous, discriminatory US laws.
While I agree that bad laws that are strictly enforced are more likely to be repealed, two wrongs do not make a right. Killing all so the the killing stops does not help those killed.
Once you’ve lost financial and other orivacy, you never get back.
“While I agree that bad laws that are strictly enforced are more likely to be repealed, two wrongs do not make a right. Killing all so the the killing stops does not help those killed.”
Nobody’s getting killed. A lot of data is being sprayed around the planet without the owners’ consent. The sooner that stops the better – you agree?
“Nobody’s getting killed.”
Jay’s survivors would disagree.
“A lot of data is being sprayed around the planet without the owners’ consent. The sooner that stops the better – you agree?”
So, the more people who suffer irreparable loss the better.
You’re a nutter.
Plaxy,
You have demonstated exactly what I mean by saying that you do not live in the real world. Your comments through out this discussion and all others I have read betray either the inability or unwillingness to understand the real world consequences of any of this.
FATCA has indeed claimed the life of at least one US dual citizen living abroad. How many divorces has FATCA caused? Several have reported that their nonresident alien spouses were non too pleased with their USC spouses sharing their financial data to the US. Divorce was talked about by some of these.
Exposing a greater part of humanity to these outcomes hepls no one. In short, not a good thing.
My self, I have under 5 years for a solution or risk losing my passport when it expires, thus losing all I have. Loss of my passport would leave me alone back on America’s shores without job, fixed abode nor even a penny nor ability to drive as I no longer have a valid DL for the States. At present, I have yet to find a route around this deadend, through the search continues.
You apparently have the luxury of treating this as little more than an acedemic exercise, lucky you. But for those us in the real world, the consequences are real.
“Exposing a greater part of humanity to these outcomes hepls no one. In short, not a good thing.”
Indeed not. I certainly don’t advocate stripping people of data protection rights.
If it’s done to six people or thirty people or a couple of hundred people, not only is that bloody unfair but nothing will be done to stop it because six or thirty or a couple of hundred average-income people can easily be ignored. If it suddenly starts happening to all, it’s going to annoy those with the power and the pockets to put a stop to it.
“If it’s done to six people or thirty people or a couple of hundred people, not only is that bloody unfair but nothing will be done to stop it because six or thirty or a couple of hundred average-income people can easily be ignored. If it suddenly starts happening to all, it’s going to annoy those with the power and the pockets to put a stop to it.”
You’re a nutter.
Can stop that which has been done. You can only stop ot from happening to more but can not undo the damage already done.
You’re a nutter.
“You can only stop ot from happening to more but can not undo the damage already done.”
If the legal case against CRS gets as far as the ECJ and the ECJ rules that CRS is not compliant with GDPR, that would have implications not only for CRS (within the EU) but also for FATCA (within the EU). It could have a much more far-reaching benefit than a case against FATCA.
It wouldn’t, of course, have any direct effect outside the EU.
How many lives lost or ruined by that time?
You’d prefer that CRS not be challenged?
Not at all, but I do not like CRS given as an excuse to allow FATCA to stand.
Additionally, CRS needs to be attacked much more aggressively.
FATCA must also be more aggressively attacked also.
As these are bound to be too slow, other options need to be explored and exploited.
As it now stands, by the time a legislative or court so,ution is found, there will be no more USCs living abroad with their non USC families, our passports having expired and not been renewed.
Many duals may find themselves losing their non USCship as countries grow intolerant of the problems such persons cause for them and their institutions, this would deprnd upon the country of course but human history has shown that any nation is capable of trying to rid itself of the other within.
Time is not on our side.
In what way is CRS being used as an excuse to allow FATCA to stand?
If the ECJ rules that CRS as currently implemented within the EU breaks GDPR protections and must be changed, then the IGA implementation laws would also probably have to be changed to come into line with the ECJ ruling. That’s the very opposite of using CRS as an excuse for allowing FATCA to stand.