[The link to the Moscovici letter can be found at American Expatriates FB site and on a tweet posted by Sophie in’t Veld. There is also a response to the Moscovici letter from Fabien Lehage.]
There are efforts targeting FATCA at the European Union (EU) level. The link above shows a May 2, 2019 response from Pierre Moscovici (EU Commissioner of Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs) to a letter complaining about FATCA from Sophie in’t Veld, an EU Member of Parliament.
In her April 5, 2019 letter Sophie says: “…Why has the Commission decided not to take an initiative and take this responsibility after ongoing problems that the extraterritorial application of FATCA pose to EU citizens?… the association des Americains Accidental brought a legal action before the Conseil d’Etat to contest the intergovernmental agreement between France and the US…it becomes clear that in the Netherlands and France, in the European banking sector and the European Parliament, the problems that Accidental Americans are facing because of FATCA are being taken seriously. It is high time that also the [EU] Commission, especially in its role as guardian of the Treaties, starts taking these problems of EU citizens seriously, and stops hiding behind excuses that it has given in the last year… With European elections in sight…”
Here are some excerpts from the letter of EU Commissioner Moscovici, responding to Sophie in’t Veld:
— “You raise a number of points on the topic of “Accidental Americans” … Nationality ties, even when acquired by “accident”, come together with the existence of reciprocal and duties, and this is at the centre of the issues you raise vis a vis the United States…”
[No, don’t agree — for example, the plaintiffs in our Canadian FATCA lawsuit dispute this as U.S. citizenship was attempted by a foreign country (US) to be imposed on these Canadians without their consent and in the absence of any meaningful relationship with the foreign country. As such, there is no legitimate or rational argument justifying this unwanted and unaccepted “citizenship” or any “duty” associated with this bogus “citizenship”. Although born in the U.S. they are not “accidental” or any kind of “American”.]
— “As regard access to banking facilities by dual EU/US citizens, I understand from the response given at the PETI meeting that only one national authority has signalled having received, albeit very few, relevant complaints, and that the analysis of the national implementation of the Payment Accounts Directive did not find any evidence of discrimination against “accidental Americans…”
— “…no figures [on the number of accidental Americans] have been provided, making it difficult to establish how many citizens are in this position…”
— “On the topic of a possible mandate to negotiate an EU FATCA agreement with the US, I remain open to any support for this from the Council. However, I do not think it useful to formally request one as to date there is no sign that Member States would support such an action…In any event, given the global approach to tax transparency, and future (re)negotiated agreement would be likely to maintain the requirement for individuals who are taxable in the U.S., including joint EU/US citizens, to provide their US TIN when they open a bank account in the EU…”
— “With regard to the recent developments in France and Netherlands, I look forward to learning how these actions develop…”
— “In the case of FATCA, like you, I very much regret that the amount of information that flows from the US to the EU Member States under their bilateral agreements is less that flows from the US to the EU. But, this does not mean that the information should not be provided to the US…”
— “To conclude, I believe that there are two main issues which are often overlooked when discussing this subject. The first concerns sovereignty. All states have the sovereign right to determine who they tax individuals and, in the case of the US, the international community has accepted double Conventions that the US reserves the right to tax its citizens, rather than only its residents. The second concerns the recent worldwide movement towards tax transparency in an effort to ensure that tax avoidance and evasion can be reduced and that every taxable person pays their fair share of taxation…”
[The Government of Canada lawyers in our FATCA lawsuit in Federal Court made in court the very same points as Moscovici in the above paragraph. Will Justice MacTavish agree with Moscovici or with plaintiffs Gwen and Kazia who insist that the Canada’s FATCA “agreement” with US violates their Charter rights (sections 8 and 15) and Canada’s sovereignty and that the FATCA IGA legislation goes too far?]
Ms. in’t Veld responds to the Moscovici letter in an article by Helen Burghof:
— “…I was not surprised by the commission’s refusal to take action – to my regret, I note that is consistent with their attitude so far – but I was surprised by the denigrating tone of the letter…The real problem is of course the blunt refusal by member state governments, with the exception of the Netherlands and France, to stand up for the rights of their citizens…File a complaint, with the data protection authorities, and/or the banking oversight bodies; join one of the associations that has been formed, inform your MP and/or MEP, use social media and traditional media, to make the message heard.”
EU Commissioner responds to EU FATCA complaint.
Calling all EU banking IT contractors, can you provide an Excel file with identified US Persons so it can be used as a prospect list to raise funds for an legals challenges?
Thanks for posting this, Stephen.
It’s infuriating when officials don’t understand the problems that arise when a country BOTH taxes based on citizenship AND is over-inclusive when determining citizenship. Other countries may have signed treaties with a saving clause – but these were introduced into treaties in a different era, when dual citizenship was rare and the level of migration was much lower than it is today. The saving clause and it’s consequent abrogation of the rights of dual citizens, is an artifact of the early 20th century that needs to be updated for 21st century reality.
Helen Burggraf picked up this story for American Expat Financial News Journal including coverage of a reply by Fabien Lehagre and comments from Sophie in ‘t Veld:
https://www.americanexpatfinance.com/news/item/165-europe-s-accidental-americans-react-to-eu-commissioner-s-fatca-letter-response
In the article, Sophie in’t Veld ends with a call to action:
Unbelievable! We really ARE shouting at a deaf and dumb brick wall, aren’t we?!
“…no figures [on the number of accidental Americans] have been provided, making it difficult to establish how many citizens are in this position…”
Even if there was only one, does that person not deserve to be heard and to receive justice from his home nation?
“On the topic of a possible mandate to negotiate an EU FATCA agreement with the US, I remain open to any support for this from the Council. However, I do not think it useful to formally request one as to date there is no sign that Member States would support such an action…”
In other words, there is no leadership amongst European nations (heck, ANY nations anywhere!) to get out there and START a movement to SUPPORT SUCH ACTION. They’re all too scared, tiptoeing around waiting for someone else to make the first move.
“Nationality ties, even when acquired by “accident”, come together with the existence of reciprocal and duties”
This guy actually believes that a baby who left the U.S. in his parents’ arms umpteen years ago actually OWES the U.S. money and maybe even allegiance! Good GAWD! How much more of this crap do we have to take?!
Sophie and Fabien are rays of hope and I am so grateful for their unrelenting fight against this nonsense. As infuriating as it is, thank you, Stephen, for sharing this with us. Go, Sophie! Go Fabien! Go Gwen and Kazia!
Karen: Great article by Helen Burggraf! Thanks for posting it! I guess this has got a lot of blood boiling, and so it should!
Oooo, I just reread and I think I made a huge goof. In the context of Moscovici’s letter I misunderstood his comment on a possible EU FATCA agreement. Of course, we wouldn’t want to see any sort of agreement except one that ditched the whole mess! My error. Guess I shouldn’t write when I’m so mad! 🙂
MuzzledNoMore – We are shouting at politicians that are under the thumb of the international central banking cartel, it is becoming more apparent why they do not want to make changes, the $$$$$ / economy / GDP (Bullshit) is more important to them and their elections.
Calling all EU banking IT contractors, can you provide an Excel file with identified US Persons so it can be used as a prospect list to raise funds for an legals challenges?
Bad idea for many reasons, not the least of which including gdpr…
In the EU the data files now held by banks that identifies US Citizens IMO if hacked, stolen, compromised………in the hands of terrorists will be a death sentence for said innocent persons.
The US Government rightly warns all US Citizens to keep a low profile in Europe for good reason.
For security and no other reason…because of my accent in Europe…I identify as Canadian to protect the safety of my and my family.
All data files reflect my EU nationality.
I have been the victim of cybercrime on three occasions which has solely resulted in financial loss but I am unwilling to accept the risk of a US person file landing in the hands of some terrorist group where they can selectively locate Americans.
Moscovici must be saying to himself, “Thank goodness I was not born into that mess that I had approved.”
Moscovici’s position also reflects the position of the European Commission: just turn a blind eye on the matter.
Does Moscovici really believe the statements he has crafted for public consumption, or is it really that he and others find it convenient to take the path of least resistance – which is to go along with whatever the US demands?
It beggars belief that someone would assert and continue to defend that a baby (particularly those with a stronger citizenship and other connections to another state) inherits a UStaxable burden merely due to an accident of parentage or location at birth, without any USeconomic connection or current residency. A condition which the baby cannot choose or ameliorate. One which I am sure Moscovici by now knows is lifelong for those most vulnerable, who are prevented from renouncing at all ever ( ex. those deemed legally incompetent).
That is a human rights issue.
And since when do states OWN those they claim sovereignty over forever, regardless of their boundaries?
So dubious and so unethical when an EU or other national official (ex. Canada) will go to any extreme to defend US policies and laws over their own.
How do his actions and statements demonstrate that he is meeting his fiduciary and other duty of care obligations towards EU residents and citizens over those of an arrogant, overweening and overreaching foreign power such as the US?
In my comment above, see my revision in square brackets below – I should have said vis a vis Moscovici’s statements;
It beggars belief that someone would assert and continue to defend that [it is right, proper and just that ] a baby (particularly those with a stronger citizenship and other connections to another state) inherits a UStaxable burden merely due to an accident of parentage or location at birth, without any USeconomic connection or current residency.
Badger: Speaking of human rights, I’m going to put a link to this Moscovici correspondence in the next communication to the UN this August, on the 5th Anniversary of the submission of our HR Complaint. It’s a glorious example of why we need – and must receive – the help of a body that is *supposed* to be neutral and willing to fight human rights abuses wherever they may occur, regardless of the power and influence that the abuser may hold. It doesn’t look like we’re going to get any help from our own governments any time soon.
@badger
“It beggars belief that someone would assert and continue to defend that [it is right, proper and just that ] a baby (particularly those with a stronger citizenship and other connections to another state) inherits a UStaxable burden merely due to an accident of parentage or location at birth, without any USeconomic connection or current residency.”
Correct. We as adults choose our country of residence, not our country of birth. How on earth was I suppose to choose the latter? It beggars belief that we still have careerist eurocratic clowns like Moscovici 19 years into the 21st century. Shocking really.
Wait until the EU elections happen soon. People are just pissed off across Europe at the moment…
The tone of Moscovici’s letter favours the American position on the matter. Why doesn’t he pack up and move over to the States? I’m sure the US Treasury will give him a green card to work for them and to file useless FBARs. He serves no purpose whatsoever in Brussels…
I think it is a rare person who understands or tries to understand the position of a ‘US person ’ living abroad unless they are personal involved. Even my US kids did not want to know or hear about it as they perceived that it did not affect them.
I remember we had a bank compliance officer here post on Brock (can’t remember his name) who argued from a US perspective, until we asked him how he would feel if he was married to someone who’s country required him to report all her accounts and any he shared with her and for them to pay tax to a country in which they never lived. It transpired she was in fact an alien in the UK (perhaps Spanish, but can’t remember) and he only then had his Eureka moment and understood our position.
The alternative is that Moscovici is too thick to understand or that the banks rule the world.
I believe that Renunciation is the only real answer to banging our heads against a brick wall .
According to Wikipedia:
“Previously a member of the Trotskyist group the Revolutionary Communist League, Moscovici joined the French Socialist Party (PS) in 1984…..”
Moscovici is a global commie, so go figure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Moscovici
@Bob
“Moscovici is a global commie”
No wonder why we are going nowhere…
The problem with the “accidental American” discussion two-fold:
First: The discussion itself assumes that they actually are U.S. citizens. This is the assumption in the in’t Veld letter, the Moscovici response, the Cassels analysis (see: https://www.americanexpatfinance.com/news/item/164-fatca-expert-sees-challenges-for-accidentals) and possibly within the Accidental American Association itself.
Second: That the United States can (with the stoke of a pen) claim tax residents of other countries as their own U.S. tax residents.
The pushback from the rest of the world should be on the basis that the world will NOT accept the U.S. claim that specific groups are U.S. tax residents at all. The world will NOT accept the claim that the USA can define anybody it wants as a U.S. tax resident.
The most obvious starting point is this:
1. Under no circumstances will the world recognise the U.S. right to forcibly impose taxation on people who were born outside the USA and have not agreed that they are U.S. citizens. Although the U.S. may be free to define them as U.S. citizens, other countries in general and the FATCA IGAs in particular will not permit a definition of “U.S. person” that includes this group of people.
2. Under no circumstances will the world recognise the U.S; to forcibly impose taxation on people (who although) “Born In The USA – Making them tax cheats by birth” – left the USA before they were old enough (under U.S. law) to be allowed to renounce U.S. citizenship. (Unless of course they acknowledged U.S. citizenship themselves.
3. Under no circumstances will the world recognise the U.S. right to forcibly impose taxation on people who were born dual citizens and are tax residents of their country of second citizenship (following the principle in the Sec. 877A Exit Tax rules) …
4. Under no circumstances will the world recognise the U.S. right to forcibly impose taxation on people who are tax residents of Canada, Sweden France, Denmark and the other countries that have treaty provisions preventing the collection of U.S.; taxes.
As long as the accidental American discussion continues on the basis that these people are “American” it will be problematic. Time to forcibly resist the incredible notion that the USA can somehow expand its tax base by simply claiming that “tax residents” of other countries are U.S.; tax residents too. After all, U.S. citizens are not chattel property. Right? U.S. citizenship is not a modern day from of slavery. Right?
Finally, the whole discussion of “making it easier for accidentals to renounce” is problematic. You can only renounce a citizenship you have. Better, to take the position (which I believe is entirely justifiable) that there are not and probably never were U.S. citizens in the first place.
It’s time for a new phrase to describe what needs to take place. Why not call it:
“The deletion of an accusation of U.S. citizenship – AKA “U.S. citizenship deletion” for short.
In closing let me suggest that the following could take place in the lifetimes of our children:
Between 2010 and 2019 (through the use of FATCA and the U.S. tax compliance industry) the USA has vastly increased the number of people who are “U.S. tax residents”. Unless the terms of the discussion are redefined – things will necessarily get worse.
Thank you very much @MuzzledNoMore for continuing to pursue the Human rights complaint to the UN angle on behalf of us all. Human rights issues are at the very core of this. Particularly come to the fore when those arguing against recognizing and rectifying the harms being done to individuals suffering from USextraterritorialCBT tout the sovereignty of the nation state as their defense. We are not property owned by the state. And a state’s powers and sovereignty are not sacred, unlimited and immune from scrutiny – both within and without its boundaries. The state exists (theoretically!) in a democracy to serve the collective interests of the individuals who freely agree to be part of it/ to associate, for the good of all.
Where are our inalienable rights and liberty when we are located outside of the US but it asserts that it owns our persons and the fruits of our labour (ex. demanding that we may only divest ourselves of US citizenship under increasingly onerous and expensive means, and that we extraterritorially report the fruit of our non-US sited labour even if non-residents, as well as the non-US sited contents of our local non-US sited accounts and those of anyone else we may have even potential signing authority on if located outside the US – ex. a non-US sited employer (FBARs) ? USextraterritorialCBT treats those it claims as serfs – lifelong property of the US state, as if we lived still in the Middle Ages and belonged to a feudal lord for life.
@Duality and @Heidi,
re Moscovici;
The EU does not accept that US sovereignty is without boundaries and limits in other matters, so why should it accept US extraterritorial ownership of EU persons and the material fruit of their EU labour outside US borders, against the will of the individual and against the residency based tax basis of the EU CRS? Why does the EU not protect its residents and citizens against the demands of a foreign nation?
It is disingenuous of those like Moscovici defending inaction, and thereby in a sin of omission defending and enabling the extraterritorially arrogant FATCA when they continue to raise international tax ‘transparency’ as a reason for the EU (or Canada) not to challenge FATCA. There is no transparency from the US. US FATCA as we know and as the EU and Moscovici fully knows by now (and partially acknowledges) is essentially a one way street (see pg. 3 for current non-compliant US status) forced on the rest of the world at the point of an unwarranted economic sanction gun – and predicated on a much different basis than the CRS. FATCA weaponizes UScitizenship/birthplace and parentage as a basis for USextraterritorial taxation and information extraction vs. the CRS actual residency and economic nexus.
The OECD CRS regularly repeats its US FATCA note in its updates on CRS compliance – which becomes more of a farce with every year that passes as it pertains to the US; “…* The United States has undertaken automatic information exchanges pursuant to FATCA from 2015 and entered into intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) with other jurisdictions to do so. The Model 1A IGAs entered into by the United States acknowledge the need for the United States to achieve equivalent levels of reciprocal automatic information exchange with partner jurisdictions. They also include a political commitment to pursue the adoption of regulations and to advocate and support relevant legislation to achieve such equivalent levels of reciprocal automatic exchange.”( https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/AEOI-Implementation-Report-2018.pdf ). Moscovici and the OECD and FATCA signatories will not acknowledge that the US emperor is actually stark naked.
Banks and corporations and through their lobbyists, allies and advocates in governments, they do rule the world. They actively acted against us ( ex. see http://www.maplesandbox.ca/2013/letter-to-canadian-bankers-association-issued-jointly-by-isaac-brock-society-and-maple-sandbox-in-opposition-to-fatca/
Our own government was busy listening to and being lobbied by the banks and updating financial institutions behind the scenes while keeping Canadian taxpayers and citizens/residents in the dark (ex. https://web.archive.org/web/20150402003535/http://maplesandbox.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/FATCA-Deadline-Near-Details-Elusive.pdf ) during the decision to sign on to FATCA and the creation of the legislation that made it possible to implement it on Canadian soil – legislation that was hidden inside an omnibus bill and subject to no real discussion before its passage due to the CON majority. The results of our comments in the so-called public ‘consultation’ – (the ‘consultation’ and public notice was merely a Finance Canada notice on an obscure federal government webpage) was not shared with parliamentary decision makers.
I am not convinced that at this point those like Moscovici and those in our own federal government who dismiss our concerns are unable to see the ramifications of their public position and support for a foreign nation’s extraterritorial incursions on the EU and the rest of the world. I think it is more convenient for them to go along with the status quo and where they believe the power and the path of least resistance lies.
There is apparently not enough reward in considering human rights and the rights of EU and other citizens and residents living outside the boundaries of the US. The US empire and financial and corporate institutions rule
@USCitizenAbroad, re; “…..Time to forcibly resist the incredible notion that the USA can somehow expand its tax base by simply claiming that “tax residents” of other countries are U.S.; tax residents too. After all, U.S. citizens are not chattel property. Right? U.S. citizenship is not a modern day from of slavery. Right?”
Exactly.
Badger: As always, you state your points with great eloquence. In the next letter to the UN I’d like to quote from your statement as well, if I may!
@ MuzzledNoMore
Do they ever respond when you send follow-up letters? Or do they just put them on file without even notifying you that they have been received?