On Twitter, Andrew Grossman mentioned Housden v. Commissioner, 63 T.C.M. 2063 (1992). Mr. Housden, a partner of famous Canadian architecture firm WZMH, got a loan from the Royal Bank of Canada. He later moved to the U.S. to operate a WZMH subsidiary, and made some payments on the loan from 1980 until 1983 — meaning that RBC earned interest income “from sources within the United States” within the meaning of 26 USC § 871(a)(1).
The U.S. Tax Court ruled that when an individual resident of the United States has borrowed money from a non-U.S. bank, the individual is supposed to be the withholding agent for the 30% tax on interest income earned by the bank under § 871(a). So Housden had to pay that 30% out of his own pocket and try on his own to get it back from RBC. The only relief for Housden was that he didn’t get hit with penalties for underpayment or failure to file required forms, since two famous nests of compliance condors — first Deloitte, later the now-defunct Laventhol & Horwath — failed to warn him about his withholding obligations until he was already being audited.
Brockers with local mortgages or credit cards are probably about to panic upon reading this. Fortunately, the IRS suggested in 1992 regulations that an individual interest payor should probably only be considered a “resident of the United States” if the individual meets the substantial presence test (SPT), regardless of citizenship. As Phil Hodgen pointed out two years ago, the IRS confirmed this view in (non-precedential) Chief Counsel Advice in 2012. So if you have lived in another country for your entire adult life, IRS lawyers do not seem to think they can reasonably interpret § 871 or its regulations to grab 30% of all your mortgage payments.
In other words, this is a tiny island of residence-based sanity in the citizenship-based “Internal” Revenue Code — well, almost. Nothing involving the U.S. tax system can ever be as simple as it sounds.
[May 18 2017 update: I now include in this LINK the recommendations of Elise Bean, a long-time FATCA supporter and witness at the FATCA hearing.]
On April 26 2017 there was a Hearing at the U.S. House Subcommittee on Government Operations dealing with the harm caused by the U.S. FATCA law imposed on the world.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Chairman Meadows asked the Witnesses for “three recommendations on how to improve the legal framework set up by the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act” (FATCA).
My personal-only interpretation of this request is that the Chair is saying something like: “If FATCA has to be replaced with something else, can you recommend three compromise laws/approaches that would achieve the “good” aims of FATCA but minimize the harm, and which would receive bipartisan support?”
— I enclose as a link the May 15, 2017 submitted personal recommendations of Jim Bopp, a witness and attorney for the U.S. FATCA/IGA/FBAR lawsuit currently pending in United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (I am one of the plaintiffs).
From the Bopp text:
“This letter provides three recommendations on how to improve the legal framework set up by the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”).
First, we recommend that any taxation of overseas Americans comply with established United States constitutional principles and international legal norms.
Second, we recommend that the current laws be repealed in their entirety [Bopp goes on to include specifically FATCA, IGAs, FBAR, and citizenship-based taxation] and certain proposals rejected.
Third, we recommend that Congress enact a 1099 requirement on foreign banks, established by treaty, as long as this complies with established United States constitutional principles and international legal norms…”
—- Appended to the end of the Bopp recommendations are my personal thoughts as a separate submission: I support, as does Mr. Bopp, the repeal in entirety of FATCA, FBAR, IGAs, and citizenship-based taxation (the latter to be replaced with territorial/residence-based taxation), do not support any “watered-down” FATCA-replacement legislation whatsoever — which I believe will continue the harm, and offer suggestions on changing U.S. citizenship laws in the very limited context of FATCA harm. In hindsight, I now feel that I should have gone further in my recommendations for citizenship law changes.
—- When I receive the recommendations of strong FATCA supporter Elise Bean, a hearing witness, I will post.
— Ongoing developments: Republicans Overseas has initiated an intensive lobbying campaign with Congress to kill citizenship-based taxation and replace with territorial taxation. There can be no promise of success, but these people are trying. I am not aware of similar efforts on the Democrat side.
“…The government of Canada has a responsibility to stand up for its citizens when foreign governments are encroaching on their rights…We believe that the deal reached between Canada and the U.S. is insufficient to protect affected Canadians…” June 2015 Pre-Election statement of Mr. Justin Trudeau (now Prime Minister of the Government we are suing) to a constituent
May 13 2017 Canadian FATCA Litigation Update:
SUMMARY TRIAL MOTION has now been submitted on Constitutional/Charter issues. We are finally moving closer to trial and our Vancouver litigators have now served and filed in Canada’s Federal Court a “Notice of Motion for Summary Trial”.
As detailed in this brief motion (see link) this is a pleading to the Federal Court of Canada for a summary judgement we are seeking on the Constitutional-Charter issues.
We argue in the motion that the Canadian legislation enabling the FATCA Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) violates Canada’s Constitution Act (by forfeiting Canada’s sovereignty and facilitating the extra-territorial enforcement of a foreign state’s taxation and tax compliance regime on Canadians) and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Sections 7, 8, and 15).
Some of you do not consent to be “U.S. Persons”. There is this statement in the Motion:
“The contours of United States citizenship and the definition of US Person are matters of United States law and/or policy and are subject to be changed by the United States at any time.”
There is also this:
“It is a principle of international law that every sovereign state has the right to conduct its affairs without intervention by other states (the “Principle of Non-Intervention”). The Principle of Non-Intervention is at the core of the international legal order and is a corollary of every state’s right to sovereignty, territorial integrity and political Independence. The Principle of Non-Intervention is an element of the unwritten constitution.”
Will the Federal Court of Canada accept this Constitutional argument?
This motion is NOT the main, detailed legal submission (i.e., where all of the case law is discussed, etc.) which will be filed much closer to the hearing date (yet to be decided).
AFFIDAVITS. You will notice on pages 22-23 a long list of affidavit titles. Because of a technical issue related to the litigation, it is not possible to publish the text of these affidavits at the present time.
Some of the affidavits include those we previously submitted and those Government submitted – which we feel will help our case.
There are also expert reports from three witnesses (Ryan Liss, Roy Berg, Kevyn Nightingale) who were selected by our litigators to provide an expert opinion based on our litigators’ assessment of their expertise and experience.
In addition, there are affidavits listed from lay witnesses.
Our litigators made a strategic decision on the selection of specific lay witnesses for the trial from the larger group of volunteers. I thank the lay witnesses and all witness volunteers for their courage and commitment to push for return of Canada to Canadians.
LIKELY NEXT STEPS. On May 19, 2017 there will be a teleconference with Government, Case Management Judge, and our side to deal with the Government Motion to compel further documents from the three plaintiffs (we oppose the motion).
After the ruling, Examinations for Discovery of the three expert witnesses and the plaintiffs will be scheduled and conducted. Our lawyers will likewise examine the Attorney General’s witnesses. It is also possible that the Attorney General might examine our lay witnesses. We currently do not know if they will elect to do so.
Upon completion of the all examinations of the parties, and after filing all required submissions, we will await a trial date to be set by the court. Trial dates are dependent on the availability of Justices and court (backlog) schedules.
I know that the slow pace of our litigation is frustrating. Thank you for your continued support and kind thoughts.
I am posting this comment of Gary Clueit that appeared on the Robert Wood article couple of days ago. Over the past few months, we have “met” Gary on FB, Twitter etc. Especially the Wednesday Tweet Rally- A group that just keeps on giving!!
by Gary Clueit
The article provides a good, if brief, overview of the perils and pitfalls of being a green card holder. The reality is somewhat bleaker.
As a long-term green card holder with no way to escape “covered expatriate” status should I decide the leave the US, I must point out a few of the other insidious side effects of being the holder of a residence permit.
If a green card holder were to decide to leave and relinquish his or her green card, here are some the issues they face in a bit more detail:
Determining the $2M net worth threshold does not cover any assets that the person might have had before ever moving to the US or assets received after taking up residence due to bequests from relatives that have never set foot in the US. The net worth amount signed into law in 2004 and was, I believe, related to the estate tax, despite being less than half the amount of the estate tax (which is indexed whereas the expatriation exit tax threshold is not). Anyone who has diligently saved for retirement and owned houses in San Francisco, Seattle or other major cities over the past dozen or so years can quite easily reach the $2M threshold. It does not make you “rich” by any stretch of the imagination. The non-indexed $2M figure simply appears to be a punitive amount designed to punish anyone for daring to want to leave the US.
Even after paying the exit tax on the “deemed sale” of everything you own worldwide, you will have to pay actual capital gains when you do actually sell since no tax treaty provides a credit for a deemed sale of anything. Outright double taxation. For example, if I own a house in Toronto and sell under normal conditions, I will pay capital gains tax on any profit in Canada. When filing my US tax return I will get a credit for the tax paid to Canada resulting in a single tax bite. However, if I own the Toronto property on the day of expatriation, the US taxes me on any paper profit. Since I have not actually sold the property, there is nothing to declare to Canada’s Revenue Agency (CRA) at that time. When I do eventually sell, CRA will then tax the actual profit, but there is no ability to get a credit from the IRS since expatriation is a terminating event.
After departure and payment of the exit tax, every penny of any bequest or gift you make to someone resident in the US (e.g. a child, grandchild or friend, even if they are not US citizens) is then further taxed at a flat 40%. Because this tax is imposed on the recipient, there is no opportunity to offset estate, wealth or inheritance taxes that might be imposed on the estate of the deceased person by another country even when there is a treaty in effect. Here is where it gets really interesting: assume your net worth is $2.5M on the date of expatriation, you pay the exit tax. Let us also assume that your wealth increases to $250M AFTER you leave the US due to hard work and good luck. If your heirs live in the US (again, whether citizens or not) and you leave all that wealth to them, the entire $250M estate will be taxable to them at 40% regardless of the fact that 99% of your wealth at the time of death was created outside the US and after you had ceased to be a resident. By what stretch of any imagination is this fair or equitable on either the expatriate or their US resident heirs?
Most foreign tax treaties contain tie-breaker clauses to prevent double taxation of those living abroad. However, if a green card holder is living overseas (on assignment, for example) and elects to use a tax treaty benefit to avoid double taxation, that in itself is considered an expatriating act.
I will point out that most of the above situations also apply to US citizens who decide to give up their citizenship, as well as to Accidental Americans who are compulsory citizens simply by being born in the US but who may never have lived, been educated in or worked in the country. The fundamental difference between the citizen and green card holder is that a citizen can only lose their citizenship through the proactive step of filing Form DS-4079. This might at least provide some ability to time events to minimize the tax consequences. A green card holder can voluntarily relinquish their card too. However, a green card holder may be denied re-entry into the US simply by staying out of the country for more than 1 year. Even a re-entry permit, applied for before leaving, is only valid for 2 years and is not be renewable. As a result, a 2 year and 1 month overseas assignment for a green card holder can result in refusal to enter upon return. You then have the alien(!) situation where you are not allowed to reside in the US by action of Customs and Border Protection, but are still considered a US resident by the IRS and still subject to FBAR, FATCA, PFIC, CFC filing requirements and taxation on your worldwide assets. Or at least until you explicitly relinquish the green card or the IRS finds out you are no longer living in the US at which point it becomes an involuntary expatriation and immediately invokes the expatriation regime and tax based on the date you were denied entry back into the US. Why is the ability to time any expatriation important? Take the case of your primary residence. If you plan to expatriate, you make sure you sell your house before that event to ensure that up to $250K profit is not taxable. If you are involuntarily expatriated for any reason, there is no tax break because you have not actually sold the house. The paper profit from the deemed sale will be added to your taxable base subject to the exit tax. When you do sell in the future, you may well be subject to tax on that profit from your new country of residence.
Even while a green card holder resides in the US, they are subject to discrimination. Besides never being allowed to vote (not really an issue since presumably one never desired to be a citizen), they are still expected to pay taxes on worldwide income (not really an issue either since almost every OECD country taxes worldwide income now). The real problems arise in estate planning:
… review all significant tax regulations issued by the Department of the Treasury on or after January 1, 2016, and, in consultation with the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, identify in an interim report to the President all such regulations that:
(i) impose an undue financial burden on United States taxpayers;
(ii) add undue complexity to the Federal tax laws; or
(iii) exceed the statutory authority of the Internal Revenue Service.
Unfortunately for beleaguered U.S. Persons abroad, that time frame does not include the original FATCA regulations released in 2014, and the scope does not include past refusals to use clear statutory authority to issue new regulations to excuse us from incomprehensible “offshore” information forms with obscene fines.
For foreigners investing in the U.S. it’s better news: the Trump/Mnuchin review might repeal the Form 5472 filing requirement for single-foreign-member LLCs (proposed on 10 May 2016, 81 FR 28784; finalised on 13 December 2016, 81 FR 89849). That requirement was widely seen as a tiny, halting step towards imposing genuine FATCA reciprocity on inbound investors who were trying to remain anonymous. But even if it doesn’t get repealed, it’s no big deal: the Obama administration left plenty of loopholes to make sure that foreigners can keep hiding their identities from both the U.S. government and their own governments.
FATCA Hearings in Washington, DC – April 26, 2017
April 26, 2017 – Washington, DC – REVIEWING THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE FOREIGN ACCOUNT TAX COMPLIANCE ACT https://t.co/VmeUIdJlqb
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) April 30, 2017
Beginnings – It all began in July 2016
The purpose of this post is NOT to describe the hearing in detail (that has already been well done), but rather to provide my overall (and perhaps broader) impressions based on actually having attended the hearing.
The April 26, 2017 FATCA hearing in Washington was long in the making.
Its genesis was rooted in a meeting that took place in July of 2016 at the Republican National Convention. The planning and preparation involved the efforts and consistent cooperation (weekly meetings since August) of a number of people in different countries and on different continents. It was a privilege to have been part of this group. A list of the people who worked on making the hearing happen – the “FATCA prep team” – is described here. Those efforts culminated in what some witnessed “in real time” on April 26, and what thousands more will see (thanks to Youtube) in days to come.
The hearing has already been documented IN DETAIL and discussed in various places IN DETAIL, with the best commentary coming from posts at the Isaac Brock Society here and here and various Facebook groups here, here, here and here. (An example of ridiculous commentary is here.) When I say “commentary” I mean NOT ONLY the posts, but the rich and insightful comments. Seriously, this collection of “digital experiences” really is “History In The Making!”
Thinking about FATCA, What is it anyway?
I have written numerous posts about FATCA – “The Little Red FATCA Book” which you will find here. An explanation of how the Meadows “Repeal FATCA” bill would actually work is here.
Basically, FATCA is the collective effect of a number of amendments (including the creation of a new Chapter 4 of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code – which has made largely irrelevant by the FATCA IGAs) which are designed to identify, attack and impose sanctions on:
A. FATCA: Non-U.S. banks and other financial institutions
Forcing them to “hunt down” the financial accounts and entities (examples include mutual funds, corporations, trusts and some insurance policies) owned by “U.S. persons”. The goal is to “turn them over” to the IRS.
This imposes enormous compliance costs on non-U.S. banks. The obvious effect is that they will not want U.S. person customers. Would you? Interestingly the focus of the witnesses
(Mr. Crawford and Mr. Kuettel) was primarily on the denial of basic access to financial and banking services.
Although important, this is only one half of the equation. What happens when “U.S. persons” learn (the vast majority had no idea) that they are subject to U.S. taxation?
B. FATCA: “U.S. Persons” with non-U.S. financial assets and bank accounts
It is not possible for “U.S. citizens” to BOTH: be U.S. tax compliant and live a productive life outside the United States, when they are also subject to the tax laws of other nations. (Digital nomads are the exception.) The reason is that U.S. citizens living outside the United States are living under a system where:
- They are presumed to live in the United States (which they
- Their assets (which are local to them) are presumed to be
“foreign” to the United States.
If you don’t understand (or don’t believe) why this is true, you will find an explanation here.
“When In Rome, Live As A Homelander” and do NOT “Commit Personal Finance Abroad!” (It’s UnAmerican)
Although a major effect of FATCA is to subject Americans abroad to a very special set of tax rules (think PFIC, foreign pension, CFC, and a crushing burden of forms that impact ONLY Americans abroad), there was NO witness that even alluded to this as one of the effects of FATCA. (FATCA is the enforcer of the uniquely American policy of “taxation-based citizenship”). There was also no witness that described how a “FATCA letter” can lead to absolute financial ruin for honest taxpayers, who have made a life outside the friendly borders of the United States of America. There was no witness who explained the confiscatory effects of entering one of the IRS “Amnesty – Ministry of Love” programs.
This had the effect of making it seem as though FATCA (in terms of the effect on Americans abroad) was just a simple “disclosure- Form 8938 issue. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If it were not for “taxation-based citizenship”, FATCA would be no more or less a problem for Americans abroad than it would be for Homelanders (which doesn’t mean it is not a problem). Unfortunately, the hearing did not provide evidence on this point.
(This is NOT a criticism. But, just imagine if there had been witnesses who had been
identified as a “U.S. Person” because of FATCA, did NOT know about “taxation-based citizenship” and then were forced into the “Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program“. Now that would have been a story …!)
It is “taxation-based citizenship” that makes the effects of FATCA so hard on Americans abroad! In 2011, I remember thinking:
The United States can have either FATCA or it can have “taxation-based citizenship” but it CANNOT have both!
Thank you to all those who worked so hard to make this hearing a reality, and in particular to witnesses Daniel Kuettel and Mark Crawford for putting a human face on the FATCA disaster. Here’s a brief overview of what happens during each section of the hearing. Longer and more detailed notes after the jump. See also the official webpage for the hearing.
|14:36||Quick introduction by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC-11)
Meadows is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations
|15:32||Testimony by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
Mentions that FATCA gathers far more information on foreign accounts than Form 1099 does on domestic accounts (I’ll call this “8966 vs. 1099” for short). States that he hopes to get FATCA repeal done as part of tax reform.
|23:07||Opening statement by Meadows
Mentions poor return-on-investment from money spent on enforcing FATCA.
|27:45||Video by Donna-Lane Nelson
Discusses her renunciation. Mentions that she’s a lifelong Democrat and not rich.
|30:45||Meadows continues opening statement|
|31:30||Opening statement by Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA-11)
Connolly is the ranking member of the subcommittee. Makes incorrect statement that most countries tax worldwide income of citizens. Notes FATCA implementation difficulties.
|37:00||Introduction and swearing-in of witnesses|
|38:30||Testimony by James Bopp
Lawyer for Republicans Overseas. Mentions Democrats Abroad survey showing FATCA’s effects, and that U.S. is one of only two countries which tax citizens abroad. See written submission.
|44:50||Testimony by Mark Crawford
American businessman in Europe. Mentions how Same-Country Exception (SCE) would not have solved his business banking issues. See written submission.
|50:10||Testimony by Daniel Kuettel
Ex-American who renounced to save his mortgage. Mentions that his daughter will eventually face the same choice he did, of having U.S. citizenship or having a normal life where she lives. See written submission.
|54:00||Interstitial remarks by Crawford and Connolly||Link|
|55:30||Testimony by Elise Bean
Former Carl Levin counsel. Says Forms 8966 and 1099 are equivalent, and that the number of citizens renouncing is not a concern because more immigrants are naturalising. See written submission.
|1:03:50||Meadows questions Bean
Asks about U.S. banks’ views of FATCA reciprocity, if revenue from OVDP was taxes or penalties, if suspicion of wrongdoing is sufficient justification for FATCA.
|1:10:30||Connolly questions Bean
Asks about FATCA implementation difficulties. Bean denies that FATCA is the problem, pointing instead to CBT and the lengthy renunciation process.
|1:15:50||Connolly asks Bopp for response to Bean
Bopp says that FATCA is causing problems for large numbers of people, not just renunciants; rebuts Bean’s earlier point about 8966 vs. 1099; notes that penalties are not tax penalties but FBAR penalties.
Microphones left on, pick up some chatter at 1:22:00 regarding the Democrats Abroad survey.
|1:55:25||Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA-10) questions Bean
Asks Bean how much revenue is lost to offshore tax evasion, how much FATCA recovers; Bean not familiar with JCT $870 million recovery estimate. Hice expresses concern at such poor results for potentially law which has both Fourth Amendment and separation-of-powers issues.
|1:59:45||Hice questions Bopp
Asks whether FATCA should be repealed or modified. Bopp responds proposed fixes (probably means SCE) don’t solve problems. Kuettel and Crawford also support repeal. Bean supports modification.
|2:00:59||Statement by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY-12)
Mentions membership in Americans Abroad Caucus, concerns about terrorism financing, disappointment at Treasury’s non-response to SCE (actually, Treasury said no). Notes she has introduced a bill to require SCE implementation.
|2:08:53||Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) questions Bopp and Bean
Asks Bopp about SCE; Bopp says SCE will not relieve burdens. Asks Bean whether repealing FATCA and joining CRS would get same information; Bean unsure. Criticises Bopp, Crawford, and Kuettel’s call for repeal.
|2:16:00||Meadows questions Bopp and Bean
If nothing else, watch this. Meadows comes to the conclusion, based on Bean’s statements regarding 8966 vs. 1099, that FATCA was intended to circumvent the protections of the subpoena process.
|2:27:07||Maloney questions Kuettel about SCE
Kuettel responds that SCE would not have solved his problems because “the damage has already been done”, the banks are terrified of America, and that SCE still puts a burden on the banks themselves.
|2:31:10||Closing statement by Meadows
Rebuts remarks by Democratic members stating that FATCA addresses terrorism financing, noting that a Hezbollah sanctions bill he sponsored used different tools. Asks each witness to give him three suggestions for modifying FATCA if there is not bipartisan support for repeal.
Earlier this month, Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ-3) and forty other Democrats introduced the Veterans Visa and Protection Act of 2017 (H.R. 1405), a bill to shield current and former members of the U.S. armed forces against deportation or removal from the United States and to let them apply for green cards. Grijalva is the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and the bill’s co-sponsors include twenty-six other CPC members.
When Homelanders proclaim that they want to protect immigrants, they only mean immigrants from other countries to the United States, not immigrants from the United States to other countries. However, Grijalva’s bill is so broadly written that it would protect veterans in both groups of immigrants — those who were never U.S. citizens in the first place and got deported, and those who emigrated and gave up U.S. citizenship after being discharged.
SEC. 4. Protecting veterans and service members from removal.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227), a noncitizen who is a veteran or service member shall not be removed from the United States unless the noncitizen has a criminal conviction for a crime of violence.
As I understand it, this prohibition against removal extends to expedited removal of inadmissible aliens at ports of entry. In simpler terms, not only would non-citizen veterans now in the U.S. not have to worry about being sent away against their will, non-citizen veterans outside of the U.S. could show up at the border without fear of being turned away — whether they intended to stay in the U.S. for a week or for the rest of their lives. This is much better news than other CPC-supported legislation like the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, which forced at least one veteran living in another country to renounce U.S. citizenship in order to save his home.
UPDATED WED APRIL 26
videos are posted at youtube
ONLY PLACE TO GET AUDIO FEED AT THIS LINK
As Ms. Bean testifies to the insignificance of #Americansabroad, Dani’s uniform and passport are to her right. Yes, those of us abroad, only 4300 renouncing vs 730,000 coming in, simply do not matter. Noticeable large errors regarding foreign countries supposedly taxing their citizens when they leave (that is not what CRS is); not getting it clear that OVDI is the source of the collection, starting in 2009, before FATCA was even signed; US banks do not like FATCA, they don’t want to report like foreign banks required. Maybe someone should explain to Ms. Bean that Hillary was the shield of the other 47,500 that were not turned over.
Before adjourning, Mr. Meadows has asked each witness to come up with 3 ways revisions could be made that would address the issues heard about today. While we all want FATCA repealed, maybe for the sake of compromise, we could at least try the same……………….
Updates April 25, 2017!!
TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES FOR TOMORROW’S HEARING ARE HERE
REVIEWING THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE FOREIGN ACCOUNT TAX COMPLIANCE ACT
Subcommittee on Government Operations
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
HEARING DATE: APRIL 26, 2017 2:00 PM 2154 RHOB
To examine the effects of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) on the U.S. and international economy, as well as potential legislative remedies.
Signed into law in 2010, FATCA requires non-U.S. financial institutions to report assets and identities of U.S. citizens with non-U.S. financial accounts to the Internal Revenue Service.
As a result, many foreign banks have stopped serving U.S. citizens, and record numbers of Americans have renounced their citizenship.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and five expatriates filed a lawsuit claiming FATCA constitutes an unconstitutional breach of privacy, as well as an illegal treaty
WITNESSES AND TESTIMONIES
Name Title Organization Panel Document
The Honorable Rand PaulU.S. Senator State of Kentucky
Mr. James Bopp, Jr. Attorney The Bopp Law Firm, PC
Mr. Mark Crawford Director AKSIONER International Security Brokerage
Mr. Daniel Kuettel Former U.S. citizen living in Switzerland who renounced his U.S. citizenship due to FATCA
Ms. Elise Bean Washington Co-Director Levin Center at Wayne Law Wayne State University