Category Archives: Issues regarding US persons abroad

from American Expatriates FB group:

Louisianans – AMERICANS ABROAD NEED YOU! The US 2017 reform created two new and very complex taxes aimed at US companies like Google/Apple. By congressional mistake these taxes hit Americans with tiny businesses abroad who run their businesses through a company. For example, an Americans in Paris who runs a tiny restaurant or CPA office via a French company. Such small business owner is hammered by these two taxes by mistake. Senator Cassidy of Louisiana has listened to the plea of such Americans abroad and is willing to help. He wants his staff to speak to a few Louisianans in this position. If you are impacted or know a Louisianan who is, I CAN NOT TELL YOU KNOW VALUABLE THIS IS TO OUR EFFORT. If you or another expat Louisianan you know has a small business, PLEASE HAVE THEM CONTACT ME AT monte.silver@gmail.com
*****

Monte Silver
Yesterday at 3:58 PM

EXPAT FROM LOUISIANA? YOU CAN HELP get Americans abroad exempted from the Repatriation/GILTI taxes. If you are an expat from Louisiana and impacted by these taxes, or know someone that is, pls contact me. Thx

www.americansabroadfortaxfairness.org

Patricia Moon posted part I:

Legislative History Reveals FATCA Had Nothing To Do With Collecting Tax Revenue From U.S. Persons With Foreign Accounts Evading Taxes (Part I)

In Part II, the author argues (among other things) that FATCA is nothing more than a continuation of the “FBAR Fundraiser“.

Here we go …

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________-
Reposted with permission of Tax Connections.

Written by Gary Heald | Posted in FATCA • Gary Heald

In FACTA Part I, I argued that in light of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCTX-5-10),[1] Congress failed to engage in the necessary due-diligence to reasonably relate FATCA to the collection of tax revenue lost through “tax schemes” and “tax evasion” by U.S. persons with foreign financial institution accounts. Congress operates as America’s legislative fact-finder. They are charged with determining whether relevant and reliable evidence negates the underlying policy-purpose for a particular law, when presented with evidence to that effect. JCTX-5-10 was directly relevant because it offered a direct answer to the question of “how much” FATCA revenue. As for reliability, the Joint Committee on Taxation produces some of the most reliable evidence on The Hill, and this was no exception to that general rule. Congress knew FATCA would collect less than one-half of one-percent of what was sworn to during the Ways and Means hearing estimates.[2] They also knew that even after ten-years, FATCA would not fully-fund the Hiring Incentives To Restore Employment (HIRE) Act (and that does not take into account the costs for implementation and renewed requests for additional expansion and implementation funding).

In Part II, I want to touch on three related areas of concern. First, and as has been discussed by more than a few other people, the $10B that the IRS collected between 2009 and 2016 included a disproportionately low amount of tax revenue coupled with a substantial amount of penalties associated with FBAR. Further, alongside a disproportionate amount of penalties, FATCA and Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Programs (OVDP) illegally filled the gap left by Qualified Intermediaries (QI) pooling, forcing foreign financial institutions to report on the account value of U.S. persons in violation of their own law, and if reproduced domestically, in violation of our own laws as well.[3] Finally, FATCA has become a continuation of the IRS war on FBAR perpetrated by Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), federal law enforcement and the intelligence community all of which sought to curtail the use of secret foreign bank accounts for illegal purposes (e.g., tax evasion as well as securities manipulation, insider trading, evasion of Federal Reserve margin limitations, storing and laundering funds from illegal activities, and acquiring control of U.S. industries without detection by the SEC) [4] by establishing a worldwide-financial-industry informant system.[5]
Continue reading →

Further to Patricia Moon’s comment here yesterday about having been contacted by Stephanie Soong Johnston of TaxAnalysts regarding the European Union’s resolution to open negotiations on FATCA with the US, Ms. Johnston’s article appeared today:  EU Lawmakers Vote to Kick Start FATCA Talks With United States.  It contains several quotes and observations by John Richardson along with mention of the Isaac Brock Society and ADCS.

” . . . .  John Richardson, a lawyer speaking on behalf of advocacy groups the Isaac Brock Society and the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty, noted that only a few countries confer citizenship based only on birth in their countries and that only two countries impose worldwide taxation based only on citizenship: the United States and Eritrea. The United States, however, is the only country to do both, according to Richardson.

Richardson welcomed the EU resolution because it recognizes that the United States is imposing worldwide taxation on people who are tax residents of Europe and have no connection with the United States, adding that the combination of FATCA and U.S. citizenship-based taxation has rendered the citizens and residents of other countries as second-class citizens in their home countries.

“’On a broader level, the EU resolution will be welcomed by Canada and other countries who are suffering the effects of U.S. extraterritorial laws — FATCA and citizenship-based taxation,’ Richardson said. ‘All countries should support the EU resolution and all countries should work together to ensure that U.S. tax laws cannot extend to the tax residents of other countries.’”

Links to the FATCA debate in European parliament on FATCA.

European citizens versus the Borg

Greg Swanson of PurpleExpat.org created a change.org petition to abolish “citizenship-based taxation”. You can still sign it. But, as it stands only 700 people in the whole wide world – even though they have nothing to lose – signed this petition. The problem is not the effectiveness of the petition. The problem is that Americans abroad as a group will not stand up for themselves.

Jackie Bugnion (formerly of ACA and a well respected American overseas) requested that this petition be shared. Hopefully there will be a sufficient number of Americans overseas who will sign it. #FATCA #TTFI https://t.co/uUIAor9D9Z

— Keith REDMOND (@Keith__REDMOND) June 19, 2018

Mr. Swanson published an interesting post where he summarized the comments and added some additional commentary.

The comments include:

Continue reading →

Is there a parallel between #Americansabroad commiting #citizide and the following story? "Why my grandfather dissolved the Michel First Nation and renounced his Indian status" | CBC Radio https://t.co/fFMmmOn1FL

— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) June 4, 2018

I recently became aware of a fascinating article at CBC titled:

Why my grandfather dissolved the Michel First Nation and renounced his Indian status

The title suggests a discussion of two separate issues:

1. “Renouncing Indian status” - Is this analogous to U.S. citizens renouncing U.S. citizenship today?

2. “Dissolving the Michel First Nation” – Is this analogous to “tax residents” of other countries returning to the United States to avoid the indignities inflicted on Americans abroad?

For some time I have been interested in some of the parallels between the U.S. treatment of its citizens living abroad and the Canadian and U.S. Government treatment of their First Nations people. To be clear: I am NOT suggesting that the treatment of Americans abroad is of the same caliber as the treatment of First Nations peoples.

Nevertheless:

- First Nations people have historically been subjected to a separate regulatory regime – the Indian Act – by the Government of Canada. U.S. citizens abroad are subjected to a separate tax regime by the Government of the United States

- First Nations people are subjected to a separate financial reporting regime by the Government of Canada. U.S. citizens abroad are subjected to a separate reporting regime by the U.S. Government

- First Nations people have historically been subjected to policies that have resulted in diminished opportunities relative to other Canadians. U.S. citizens abroad simply do NOT have the same opportunities as those who are not U.S. citizens
Continue reading →