Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

The Isaac Brock Society

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 56 Comments

56 thoughts on “New #FATCA based lawsuit organized in the UK – momentum building”

  1. @Rose thank you so much! There are hundreds of thousands of us affected, so if everybody did the same as you, the target would be met many times over very easily. I agree this website and community are amazing!

  2. I really hope you’re successful Jenny. I only wish I could have given you the renouncing fee! Such a ridiculous, sad situation we find ourselves in.

  3. @ Jenny
    Is there a way for someone (moi actually) who uses only cash and cheques to make a contribution? I was able to mail cash, cheques and occasionally money orders to Dr. Kish when we were fund raising for the Canadian lawsuit. I’d like to help. Meanwhile I send my best wishes for your success with this FATCA challenge.

  6. I have a few questions, for Jenny and all.

    On the Crowdjustice site it says the bank threatens to send information to the IRS. I assume that what they mean is they will send information to HMRC, as per IGA model 1.

    Jenny: Do you know if your bank has sent data to HMRC? (I personally have not dared ask my banks in Belgium if they did because I don’t want to muck things up in case they didn’t; they know I was born in the US but never asked for US tax data and have me down as tax resident for Belgium only). A side question: does anyone know if banks in Model 1 countries have communicated directly to the IRS rather than the government of that country?

    Is it possible for one to know if HMRC have transmitted data on oneself? I have been toying with the idea of asking my government, but again have sort of chickened out. Although I’m more comfortable asking them than the bank.

    I also wonder:

    1/ Do banks transmit all the data to HMRC, or only reportable accounts (what is the threshold, $50K?). I’d assume this varies from bank to bank and that some report everything indiscriminately. Maybe all do.

    2/ Does HMRC then transfer whatever they get, or do they filter things, in order to transfer only the reportable bank accounts under FATCA? Probably not. Would it be better for US persons abroad if they did? I’d assume so, since anyone below thresholds would know that the IRS is getting no information.

    Finally, this is occurring to me as I write, and to play devil’s advocate, FATCA isn’t about taxing, just about knowing about accounts abroad… The whole thing is absurd, but within this absurdity, isn’t getting relevant account balances perfectly proportional? (again, being provocative here).

  7. I wrote to the head of the Canada Revenue Agency, Canada’s Revenue Minister and after several months was informed that some of my accounts were reported to the IRS. Those accounts where I did not sign a W9 were not. In my case, CRA knows I’m a US person and where I bank and earn interest, even on accounts that are not reported. I guess they won’t go out of their way to notify those banks of my US personhood, will they?

    Interesting that both FBAR and FATCA form 8938 require highest account balance during the year, yet the CRA only reports year end balances under the FATCA IGA. Kind of useless in determining whether people are underreporting, me thinks.

  8. @EmBee, sorry Crowd Justice said they cannot take cash, cheques or money orders, due to compliance reasons. But they are happy to email with you in case there’s something they can do to assist.

  9. @Fred, yes FATCA is all about data, not about tax. HMRC say that you can only ask your bank about the data they sent to HMRC; you cannot ask HMRC about the data they are sending to the IRS. This is straight from a Freedom of Information Act decision. https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2019/2614446/fs50751683.pdf

    We should not have to do the hokey-cokey for months and years on end to get a simple answer as to what our banks and HMRC have done with our data. The right to be informed about one’s own data is the most basic right under GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.

  10. @ Jenny
    Okay … maybe I can get another Brocker who knows me to forward my contribution in their name.
    @ Patricia @ Carol — would one of you be willing?

  12. That’s outrageous that HMRC won’t give to that data on request. Canada’s Revenue Minister sent me copies of the slips the CRA sent to the IRS, complete with redactions of my Canadian Social Insurance Number and “specific references for storage in the CRA’s systems”.

    I guess the CRA values it’s own privacy.

  14. Lets hope that in the UK they do not have corrupt judges and governments like they do here in Canada. Even our Prime minister’s corruption doesn’t seem to be changing the fact that he might get re-elected here. The whole entire system is corrupt and you can’t do a dam thing about it!

  15. Jenny: Fascinating read (your link to the Information Commissioner’s Office). Infuriating, really. So the UK gov’t doesn’t “hold” the information (hard to believe, and even if true a bit scary) and just transfers it indiscriminately to the IRS. And it refuses to elaborate. And it relies on banks to inform customers, with no safeguards or oversight. I’d argue that this answer from HMRC and the IGO in themselves are harmful to the UK’s image as having a government that is well-run and transparent. In the end, though, this is just “when the US asks us to jump we ask, how high?” and they actually sort of admit as much. And of course this is true of all other countries, which is why we need to drag the EU into this mess.

  16. Thank you for the pledge @EmBee!

    @Fred and @BB, absolutely, the lack of transparency from HMRC about a ‘transparency law’ is unbelievable, and it is indeed frightening that they are now attempting to make the people transparent to the government whilst keeping the government hidden from the people. The correspondence with my banks has been equally infuriating and raised more questions than it answered. It is unacceptable under any data protection legislation for individuals to be thwarted at every turn when they are asking the simple question of what data has been sent and where it has gone.

  17. Jenny: “they are now attempting to make the people transparent to the government whilst keeping the government hidden from the people.” WELL SAID!!! I’ll think of this statement whenever I hear the term “government transparency” in future . . . and we seem to hear it a lot!!

  18. @Muzzled, thank you 🙂 That’s why our impact on data protection case law, which is still quite incipient, will be so important. We have personally experienced government overreach and violations of data protection and privacy in a very profound way and have seen for ourselves the consequences on innocent people’s lives of the government’s shady attempts to turn ‘transparency’ on its head.

  19. All those who can, why not pledge again? Jenny seems to be halfway there. If all those who pledged do so again, she’ll meet the threshold. I just went back and pledged the same amount again.
    Think of it: haven’t you always wanted to put the new privacy rules to work on FATCA? Maybe for the price of lunch we can help this case get started.

  24. One day to go and Jenny only needs £2,090 more to hit her target. Please pledge! This is a good initiative which deserves our support.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: