151 thoughts on “Ways & Means Urged to Hold a Hearing on #FATCA”
@Plaxy,
While the comments I make are not exclusively about your statements quated below, these quotes are part of the larger fabric of you over arguments. Some are also not CRS specific but are putting FATCA’s blame elsewhere.
“Actually, in Europe the banks seem to have calmed down quite a lot, since CRS arrived. Now they have to do the due diligence on all their customers, not just the ones born in the US. Everybody’s a suspected tax cheat, nowadays.”
FATCA spawn.
“That’s exactly my point: FATCA causes bank access problems.”
And loss of privacy.
“But not because of FATCA.”
FATCA reports anything with a US person’s name in it, regardless who else shares the account/asset.
“Fortunately, FATCA can’t force anyone to pay US taxes in IGA1 jurisdictions. “
You constantly focus on taxes and ignore the data sharing aspect of FATCA and often cite CRS as the data sharing problem. CRS is FATCAs offspring.
““not if you have US assets that are locked in (pension)”
What’s the FATCA connection?” “there is no radar. I agree, USCs with US assets may need to file a return. But that’s because of the US asset, not because of FATCA.”
Then you’d have assets in the US that the US could seize as payment on taxes owed to the US based upon what FATCA forced your FIs to report about you.
FATCA is the radar. The may not be able to go weapons free (yet) if all your assets are abroad but they still have you on radar.
“You constantly focus on taxes and ignore the data sharing aspect of FATCA”
No, my point is that there is no need for a dual USC to be afraid of the IRS if they have no US assets or income and don’t file US tax returns.
“You … ignore the data sharing aspect of FATCA”
Not at all. As I’ve just been saying, if the legal action against CRS gets as far as the ECJ and succeeds, that will have an impact on FATCA.
“and often cite CRS as the data sharing problem.”
All the AEOI regimes share data; that’s their raison d’être. That’s exactly what the CRS legal case is about.
Then you’d have assets in the US that the US could seize as payment on taxes owed to the US based upon what FATCA forced your FIs to report about you.
FATCA is the radar. The may not be able to go weapons free (yet) if all your assets are abroad but they still have you on radar.
There is no radar. If you mean the IRS know of my existence, indeed they do, they’ve always known of my existence, ever since I got my first job, and they know I left America many years ago and never filed a 1040 again. It’s not a problem, and has never been a problem. Dual USCs in IGA1 jurisdictions with no US assets don’t need to worry about the IRS “coming after them.” Most USCs don’t file US tax returns.
“Then you’d have assets in the US that the US could seize as payment on taxes owed to the US based upon what FATCA forced your FIs to report about you.”
Obviously, income from US assets is or may be US-taxable, and tax may be withheld. USCs may be able to reclaim part or all of the tax by filing a US tax return.
No, my point is that there is no need for a dual USC to be afraid of the IRS if they have no US assets or income and don’t file US tax returns.
Except for the fact that the financial data is being shared with the IRS which has prived it can not be trusted with such information.
“You … ignore the data sharing aspect of FATCA”
Not at all. As I’ve just been saying, if the legal action against CRS gets as far as the ECJ and succeeds, that will have an impact on FATCA.
Too late, thus meaningless.
May be able to. But, that goes against what your claim that they have nothing to fear unless they file. In this case, the must file in order to reclaim part if it.
Circular logic if ever there was.
Like I said, lucky you. It is nothing but and acedemic exercise for you, at least for now. But to say there is no radar but then say they know about you is to argue two ways at once. Sounds like you might be one of those judges ND has dealt with.
Or, perhaps you do know know the purpose of radar?
“meaningless.”
For USCs outside the EU, inapplicable. Though some non-EU countries could I suppose take note of any such ECJ win. Certainly not to be counted on, though – the CRS legal case may never get as far as the ECJ.
“In this case, the must file in order to reclaim part if it.”
Exactly: a non-US-resident USC receiving US-source income, who wants to exercise his/her right as a US citizen to file a US tax return to claim deductions in order to reduce his/her US tax liability, must file a US return to do so.
“to say there is no radar but then say they know about you is to argue two ways at once.”
Not at all. They know about me because I naturally paid US tax when I lived in America. No radar required.
@Plaxy
You say,
“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.”
Heidi,
“That is exactly what spouse and myself and many others had to do to avoid covered status and US pension taxation.”
Plaxy
“But not because of FATCA.”
Heidi
“But not if you have US assets that are locked in (pension)”
Plaxy
“What’s the FATCA connection?” “there is no radar. I agree, USCs with US assets may need to file a return. But that’s because of the US asset, not because of FATCA.”
Japan T
Then you’d have assets in the US that the US could seize as payment on taxes owed to the US based upon what FATCA forced your FIs to report about you.
FATCA is the radar. The may not be able to go weapons free (yet) if all your assets are abroad but they still have you on radar.
Without FATCA, yes file on what is earned from assets in the US but only assets in the US. With FATCA, if you do not report your local assets, your assets in the US are at risk. They were not at risk before FATCA, they are at risk after FATCA. Thus, FATCA forces the US person abroad to report their assets outside the US, if they have assets in the US. The blanket statement that FATCA does not force US persons abroad to file US taxes and information returns does not stand.
“For USCs outside the EU, inapplicable. Though some non-EU countries could I suppose take note of any such ECJ win. Certainly not to be counted on, though – the CRS legal case may never get as far as the ECJ.”
Meaningless for whoever losses anything due to FATCA in the mean time.
“Exactly: a non-US-resident USC receiving US-source income, who wants to exercise his/her right as a US citizen to file a US tax return to claim deductions in order to reduce his/her US tax liability, must file a US return to do so.”
And file on non US income as the US knows of it via the FATCA radar.
I think it’s time to step back from the keyboard, go outside and get some fresh air. Vigorous exercise is very therapeutic.
“Without FATCA, yes file on what is earned from assets in the US but only assets in the US. With FATCA, if you do not report your local assets, your assets in the US are at risk.”
Obviously, if the USC files to claim a report s/he has to report worldwide income. Not because of FATCA but because filing US tax returns means certifying under penalty of perjury that s/he has reported all income worldwide. So that his/her US tax liability can be accurately assessed.
(Though no doubt many a US tax return gets filed that doesn’t mention all income worldwide.)
“if the USC files to claim a report”
Predictive typing. Should be:
“if the USC files to claim a refund”
“Obviously, if the USC files to claim a report s/he has to report worldwide income. Not because of FATCA but because filing US tax returns means certifying under penalty of perjury that s/he has reported all income worldwide. So that his/her US tax liability can be accurately assessed.
(Though no doubt many a US tax return gets filed that doesn’t mention all income worldwide.)”
Yes, because of FATCA. Before FATCA, US persons abroad were outside US juristiction. Now, with FATCA, were are under US juristiction.
“Predictive typing.”
I think you may agree, “predictive typo” is more accurate. I hate computers.
“Though no doubt many a US tax return gets filed that doesn’t mention all income worldwide.)”
Yes, because of FATCA.
No – to minimise US tax liability
Before FATCA, US persons abroad were outside US juristiction. Now, with FATCA, were are under US juristiction.
FATCA changed nothing in that respect.
Before FATCA, US persons abroad were outside US juristiction. Now, with FATCA, were are under US juristiction.
Japan T:
“I hate computers.”
Soon they’ll be able to hate you right back. 🙂
I wonder if Hal will need to send a 1040 .
Hal’s probably going to have more straightforward ways of obtaining a refund. Cut out the middle-man and just use the SSN. The procedure is already in use by humans.
So, TTFI is missing again… not surprised.
“Before FATCA, US persons abroad were outside US juristiction. Now, with FATCA, were are under US juristiction.
FATCA changed nothing in that respect.”
Sure it has. Before FATCA, there was NONE of this.
““I hate computers.”
Soon they’ll be able to hate you right back. :-)”
I think they have long had that ability, just not the ability to openly express it.
“I wonder if Hal will need to send a 1040.”
Hal was a British citizen hatched in Sri Lanka. I’m not sure if he worked in the US for a short time before launch, or where he was launched from, but I doubt he had a green card.
@Plaxy,
While the comments I make are not exclusively about your statements quated below, these quotes are part of the larger fabric of you over arguments. Some are also not CRS specific but are putting FATCA’s blame elsewhere.
“Actually, in Europe the banks seem to have calmed down quite a lot, since CRS arrived. Now they have to do the due diligence on all their customers, not just the ones born in the US. Everybody’s a suspected tax cheat, nowadays.”
FATCA spawn.
“That’s exactly my point: FATCA causes bank access problems.”
And loss of privacy.
“But not because of FATCA.”
FATCA reports anything with a US person’s name in it, regardless who else shares the account/asset.
“Fortunately, FATCA can’t force anyone to pay US taxes in IGA1 jurisdictions. “
You constantly focus on taxes and ignore the data sharing aspect of FATCA and often cite CRS as the data sharing problem. CRS is FATCAs offspring.
““not if you have US assets that are locked in (pension)”
What’s the FATCA connection?” “there is no radar. I agree, USCs with US assets may need to file a return. But that’s because of the US asset, not because of FATCA.”
Then you’d have assets in the US that the US could seize as payment on taxes owed to the US based upon what FATCA forced your FIs to report about you.
FATCA is the radar. The may not be able to go weapons free (yet) if all your assets are abroad but they still have you on radar.
“You constantly focus on taxes and ignore the data sharing aspect of FATCA”
No, my point is that there is no need for a dual USC to be afraid of the IRS if they have no US assets or income and don’t file US tax returns.
“You … ignore the data sharing aspect of FATCA”
Not at all. As I’ve just been saying, if the legal action against CRS gets as far as the ECJ and succeeds, that will have an impact on FATCA.
“and often cite CRS as the data sharing problem.”
All the AEOI regimes share data; that’s their raison d’être. That’s exactly what the CRS legal case is about.
There is no radar. If you mean the IRS know of my existence, indeed they do, they’ve always known of my existence, ever since I got my first job, and they know I left America many years ago and never filed a 1040 again. It’s not a problem, and has never been a problem. Dual USCs in IGA1 jurisdictions with no US assets don’t need to worry about the IRS “coming after them.” Most USCs don’t file US tax returns.
“Then you’d have assets in the US that the US could seize as payment on taxes owed to the US based upon what FATCA forced your FIs to report about you.”
Obviously, income from US assets is or may be US-taxable, and tax may be withheld. USCs may be able to reclaim part or all of the tax by filing a US tax return.
No, my point is that there is no need for a dual USC to be afraid of the IRS if they have no US assets or income and don’t file US tax returns.
Except for the fact that the financial data is being shared with the IRS which has prived it can not be trusted with such information.
“You … ignore the data sharing aspect of FATCA”
Not at all. As I’ve just been saying, if the legal action against CRS gets as far as the ECJ and succeeds, that will have an impact on FATCA.
Too late, thus meaningless.
May be able to. But, that goes against what your claim that they have nothing to fear unless they file. In this case, the must file in order to reclaim part if it.
Circular logic if ever there was.
Like I said, lucky you. It is nothing but and acedemic exercise for you, at least for now. But to say there is no radar but then say they know about you is to argue two ways at once. Sounds like you might be one of those judges ND has dealt with.
Or, perhaps you do know know the purpose of radar?
“meaningless.”
For USCs outside the EU, inapplicable. Though some non-EU countries could I suppose take note of any such ECJ win. Certainly not to be counted on, though – the CRS legal case may never get as far as the ECJ.
“In this case, the must file in order to reclaim part if it.”
Exactly: a non-US-resident USC receiving US-source income, who wants to exercise his/her right as a US citizen to file a US tax return to claim deductions in order to reduce his/her US tax liability, must file a US return to do so.
“to say there is no radar but then say they know about you is to argue two ways at once.”
Not at all. They know about me because I naturally paid US tax when I lived in America. No radar required.
@Plaxy
You say,
“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.”
Heidi,
“That is exactly what spouse and myself and many others had to do to avoid covered status and US pension taxation.”
Plaxy
“But not because of FATCA.”
Heidi
“But not if you have US assets that are locked in (pension)”
Plaxy
“What’s the FATCA connection?” “there is no radar. I agree, USCs with US assets may need to file a return. But that’s because of the US asset, not because of FATCA.”
Japan T
Then you’d have assets in the US that the US could seize as payment on taxes owed to the US based upon what FATCA forced your FIs to report about you.
FATCA is the radar. The may not be able to go weapons free (yet) if all your assets are abroad but they still have you on radar.
Without FATCA, yes file on what is earned from assets in the US but only assets in the US. With FATCA, if you do not report your local assets, your assets in the US are at risk. They were not at risk before FATCA, they are at risk after FATCA. Thus, FATCA forces the US person abroad to report their assets outside the US, if they have assets in the US. The blanket statement that FATCA does not force US persons abroad to file US taxes and information returns does not stand.
“For USCs outside the EU, inapplicable. Though some non-EU countries could I suppose take note of any such ECJ win. Certainly not to be counted on, though – the CRS legal case may never get as far as the ECJ.”
Meaningless for whoever losses anything due to FATCA in the mean time.
“Exactly: a non-US-resident USC receiving US-source income, who wants to exercise his/her right as a US citizen to file a US tax return to claim deductions in order to reduce his/her US tax liability, must file a US return to do so.”
And file on non US income as the US knows of it via the FATCA radar.
I think it’s time to step back from the keyboard, go outside and get some fresh air. Vigorous exercise is very therapeutic.
“Without FATCA, yes file on what is earned from assets in the US but only assets in the US. With FATCA, if you do not report your local assets, your assets in the US are at risk.”
Obviously, if the USC files to claim a report s/he has to report worldwide income. Not because of FATCA but because filing US tax returns means certifying under penalty of perjury that s/he has reported all income worldwide. So that his/her US tax liability can be accurately assessed.
(Though no doubt many a US tax return gets filed that doesn’t mention all income worldwide.)
“if the USC files to claim a report”
Predictive typing. Should be:
“if the USC files to claim a refund”
“Obviously, if the USC files to claim a report s/he has to report worldwide income. Not because of FATCA but because filing US tax returns means certifying under penalty of perjury that s/he has reported all income worldwide. So that his/her US tax liability can be accurately assessed.
(Though no doubt many a US tax return gets filed that doesn’t mention all income worldwide.)”
Yes, because of FATCA. Before FATCA, US persons abroad were outside US juristiction. Now, with FATCA, were are under US juristiction.
“Predictive typing.”
I think you may agree, “predictive typo” is more accurate. I hate computers.
No – to minimise US tax liability
FATCA changed nothing in that respect.
Before FATCA, US persons abroad were outside US juristiction. Now, with FATCA, were are under US juristiction.
Japan T:
“I hate computers.”
Soon they’ll be able to hate you right back. 🙂
I wonder if Hal will need to send a 1040 .
Hal’s probably going to have more straightforward ways of obtaining a refund. Cut out the middle-man and just use the SSN. The procedure is already in use by humans.
So, TTFI is missing again… not surprised.
“Before FATCA, US persons abroad were outside US juristiction. Now, with FATCA, were are under US juristiction.
FATCA changed nothing in that respect.”
Sure it has. Before FATCA, there was NONE of this.
““I hate computers.”
Soon they’ll be able to hate you right back. :-)”
I think they have long had that ability, just not the ability to openly express it.
“I wonder if Hal will need to send a 1040.”
Hal was a British citizen hatched in Sri Lanka. I’m not sure if he worked in the US for a short time before launch, or where he was launched from, but I doubt he had a green card.