cross posted from AmericanExpatFinance.com
By Helen Burggraf, Editor – September 08, 2018
A panel discussion that will consider recent and growing efforts to convince U.S. lawmakers to end America’s increasingly-unpopular “citizenship-based” tax regime is set to take place at a venue in the Mayfair district of London, on the 18th of September.
American expats with concerns about the way they are being tax are being invited to the event, which is entitled “What’s next: a light at the end of the tunnel? The possible end of U.S. citizenship-based taxation.”
The discussion will feature Solomon Yue (pictured), the Oregon-based global chief executive of the Republicans Overseas, who has been a long-time and visible campaigner on behalf of expatriate Americans, but the event’s organizers say he will be joined in London by tax, Solomon Yue legal and citizenship experts from across the political spectrum.
Some tax experts who are determinedly non-political, including at least one non-American, will also participate, the event’s organizers, an un-affiliated group of individuals who include some Republican Overseas members, said.
A question-and-answer period will be held at the end.
Last month Yue participated in three similar such events in Toronto, including one that was filmed and posted on YouTube.
This followed an earlier appearance in May in Hong Kong. Yue is set to follow up the London event in coming weeks with similar programs in Paris, Berlin, Frankfurt and Rome, most of which are being sponsored by the respective local chapters of the American Chamber of Commerce.
Among those scheduled to join Yue at the London event will be John Richardson, a Toronto-based lawyer who specializes in citizenship issues, and who is an American-Canadian dual national himself.
He and Yue are also set to participate in another, more informal event on the subject of America’s expat tax regime, also in London, on the 17th of September, at a venue yet to be decided (but probably near Kings Cross Station). More information ******* about this event will be made available in due course, Richardson said.
When: Tuesday 18 September 2018 – 17:30 to 19:00
Where: Central London location – to be confirmed upon RSVP (nearest tube: Westminster)
Venue: To be provided upon RSVP (nearest tube: Westminster)
Cost: Free to attend
RSVP: drewliquerman@gmail.com by 17:00 Monday 17 September 2018
*******
UPDATE – Wednesday Sept 12 2018
Due to unforeseen circumstances, Solomon Yue WILL NOT be able to attend the “grassroots” meeting on Monday, September 17 listed below. John Richardson will run this program as scheduled.
In addition to the meeting mentioned above, we will have a second, more informal program for expats and their families and friends. This format will be a more intimate question and answer session which will be focused on individuals subject to the CBT regime.
When: Monday 17 September 2018 – 19:00 – 21:00
Where: 40 Bernard St, Bloomsbury, London WC1N 1LE, UK- across from Russell Square Station
Venue: Pret a Manger
Cost: FREE
Registration : REQUIRED: nobledreamer16 at gmail dot com by 5 pm (EDT) Saturday 15 September 2018
MAP 
Jules:
It would be interesting to hear more of the solution Fabien LeHagre is pushing for. Do you have any information you can share?
“US citizens can’t get a visa… no kidding? Citizens don’t need visas so the point is moot.”
The point is not moot.
When I was a US citizen, it would have been helpful if I could get a US tourist visa so that my accompanying family member would also be able to get a US tourist visa. Eventually two US consuls (in different countries) decided to violate US law and issue tourist visas to an applicant who could not legally be issued one, but that’s not the proper solution.
As a Canadian citizen, it would have been helpful if I could get a Canadian tourist visa so that my accompanying family member would also be able to get a Canadian tourist visa. Two Canadian consuls (in different countries) did not change their minds, and even though it would have been legal for a tourist visa to be issued to the applicant, one consul promised that she will never get one. I can sponsor her for immigration if a consul believes that she will stay in Canada, but a Canadian citizen cannot sponsor an applicant to visit and return home after visiting.
‘Muzzled, Would a cheaper, easier route to “clean” renunciation( no compliance requirements) be a better option for you as opposed to real end of CBT?’
Expatriation Act of 1868 says: ‘Hi there, I’m not Muzzled, but … oops, I’m muzzled.’
There don’t seem to be reports of any concrete proposals for easy cheap renunciation exclusively for people who got born in America but were removed from America by their parents during childhood. It seems to just be a wish.
“What we are trying to get the French government to do is to negotiate a way forward with the United States that would allow us [accidental Americans] to relinquish our American citizenship without cost, and without tax.”
So it seems that LeHagre is pushing the French government to push the US government to give free CLNs to USCs who left America when young.
Smallhoover of the DAs says:
“I can see that it might be worthwhile pressuring a government, such as the French government, to come to an arrangement with the US which would permit ‘expedited renunciation of citizenship acquired at birth at a significantly reduced cost’ in certain situations, such as in the case of ‘accidental Americans’ – provided that it’s done early enough in their lives, or with proof that the person really didn’t know that they were a dual national”.
http://www.internationalinvestment.net/products/accidental-americans-france-looking-french-govt-help/
All credit to the French bringer of the EU Parliament petition, which led to the Europarl FATCA study and resolution; all credit also to the plaintiff in the French anti-IGA case. But I think pleas for a free CLN for selected renouncers may be barking up the wrong tree.
MuzzledNoMore:
“Having just read that shocking article you posted I rest my case about why I have no current plans to visit the United States. ”
If you renounced you would be able to enter on a visa.
Entering on a visa, as a non-citizen, you would be subject to US law as it pertains to a temporary visitor, rather than being subject to the full panoply of US law as it pertains to citizens and PRs. A huge freedom!
Of course, you would be subject to border control, like any other visitor. You probably would have more sense than to suppose that “an ESTA visa waiver would suffice for starters” – knowing, as you undoubtedly do and as the woman in the article also now understands, that there is no US visa waiver which will suffice “for starters.”
The waiver arrangement is not supposed to be used as an easy way to pop in and out of America as liked. That privilege is for citizens; and god knows they pay the price.
“IRS Medic recently published a YT video on green card holders and it confirmed that the tax obligations, especially the exit tax after 8 years of US residence, are never disclosed up-front to applicants. ”
They never told me either.
Which I appreciate, as I lived for decades happily untroubled by any thoughts of the IRS. And left when I learned about it – paying no exit tax.
“how hard did the US try to educate its expats about their tax-filing obligations? You mean that tiny 1mm-font, single line in your passport that no one ever reads? ”
That’s not there to educate American expats; it’s there to cover the USG’s back
They most certainly aren’t educating green card holders. i am still having to educate people I know interested in obtaining a green card with the facts. i even need to provide evidence because I encounter disbelief. What’s more they still aren’t educating people in the USA either. Most homelanders are cluless to these issues and are still under the illusion that they are free people. The fine print in the passport I believe was also not always there and mentions nothing about fbar.
Jules: Absolutely! If there were zero (and I mean “zero”) financial consequences aside from a reasonable fee to cover paper-work (I’d settle for the 450 bucks although even that isn’t reasonable in my opinion) I would renounce in a heartbeat.
Plaxy: You bring up some interesting points. 1) “So it seems that LeHagre is pushing the French government to push the US government to give free CLNs to USCs who left America when young.” This would solve my problem!
It’s what you quote Smallhoover as saying that worries me: “‘I can see that it might be worthwhile pressuring a government, such as the French government, to come to an arrangement with the US which would permit ‘expedited renunciation of citizenship acquired at birth at a significantly reduced cost’ in certain situations, such as in the case of ‘accidental Americans’ – ***provided that it’s done early enough in their lives, or with proof that the person really didn’t know that they were a dual national'”***. (I’ve starred the portion of concern.)
This statement knocks out all hope for retired folk like me for whom it’s obviously not “early enough in their lives” for this to apply. And some of us DID know they were dual – they just didn’t know, pre-FATCA, what ridiculous “obligations” that status included. I just always accepted it as my identity, nothing more.
MuzzledNoMore:
“You bring up some interesting points. 1) “So it seems that LeHagre is pushing the French government to push the US government to give free CLNs to USCs who left America when young.” This would solve my problem!”
Only if it came to pass. I don’t understand why LeHagre seems to believe that asking Macron to ask the USG for a free CLN is a workable solution. If Macron asked the question, wouldn’t the USG just say no?
“This statement knocks out all hope for retired folk like me for whom it’s obviously not “early enough in their lives” for this to apply. And some of us DID know they were dual – they just didn’t know, pre-FATCA, what ridiculous “obligations” that status included.”
Indeed. Me too. And perhaps LeHagre, if he knew he had US citizenship.
The CLN is expensive, indeed. It solves the FATCA problem though, for those who can afford to buy it and are willing to do so. Not so essential in Canada though, it seems.
“If there were zero (and I mean “zero”) financial consequences aside from a reasonable fee to cover paper-work (I’d settle for the 450 bucks although even that isn’t reasonable in my opinion) I would renounce in a heartbeat.”
There are no financial consequences aside from the fee; but the fee is (IMO) never going to be lower than it is today.
For a dual USC who didn’t know about the tax laws, nothing has changed except the reporting of cross-border accounts.
In Canada, this is apparently not a problem, because the banks aren’t required to verify the self-certification.
So in Canada, it seems, nothing has changed. Be happy.
“I don’t understand why LeHagre seems to believe that asking Macron to ask the USG for a free CLN is a workable solution. If Macron asked the question, wouldn’t the USG just say no?”
No. The USG would say yes and then renege. The art of the deal was well practiced even before its most famous practitioner got the job.
“In Canada, this is apparently not a problem, because the banks aren’t required to verify the self-certification.
So in Canada, it seems, nothing has changed. Be happy.”
Sure, we know that NOW, but we didn’t know it when we needed to, when we stupidly told the truth.
“In Canada, this is apparently not a problem, because the banks aren’t required to verify the self-certification.
So in Canada, it seems, nothing has changed. Be happy.”
Sure, we know that NOW, but we didn’t know it when we needed to, when we stupidly told the truth.
Yes, a Canadian who has self-certified as USC, is in the same position as a US-born European with no CLN, with regard to pre-existing accounts: the accounts may be treated as reportable. Hence the Canadian court case.
Re-posting to correct the formatting:
Yes, a Canadian who has self-certified as USC, is in the same position as a US-born European with no CLN, with regard to pre-existing accounts: the accounts may be treated as reportable. Hence the Canadian court case.
Norman Diamond:
“The USG would say yes and then renege.”
There’s nothing to renege on. If Macron asks the USG to change US citizenship law, and the law doesn’t get changed, it’s like when a few hundred USCs send petitions to the USG asking for US tax laws to be changed, and the law doesn’t get changed. Nothing happens; the law just stays the same.
@ND
I knew it then. I saw that they weren’t asking for proof, so I gave them the “right” answer.
If the FATCA issue arises, it brings up a question: do you want to keep being an American.
If you do want to keep the citizenship, you can then decide how to deal with the difficulties it presents. File or don’t file; petition the US for changes to the tax law; etc.
If you don’t want to keep the citizenship, the solution is to renounce. If that’s unaffordable, the decision for many Europeans is to sign the W-9 or do without the bank accounts. In Canada, it seems it’s possible to avoid signing the W9. In both Canada and Europe, it’s also possible to protest against, and challenge, the local law that implements FATCA.
My 2p.
Legislation to help American Expats imminent, London audience told, Helen Burggraf, American Expat Finance.