FATCA and France

97 thoughts on “FATCA and France”

1. Google translation of above:
   “Article Content

   The Foreign Affairs and Finance of the National Assembly decided to establish a joint information mission extraterritoriality of certain US laws, which held its constituent meeting Wednesday, March 2, 2016. The President of the mission is Pierre Lellouche (Republicans, Paris) and Karine Berger rapporteur (Socialist, Republican and citizen, Hautes-Alpes).

   Several recent events have highlighted the tendency of US courts and administrations to pretend punish foreign individuals or legal persons for acts outside the US: it will record the fine paid voluntarily by one of our big banks to US administration (for not respecting any of its embargoes) the conditions of the Alstom acquisition by General Electric amid US prosecution for international corruption against executives of Alstom, through the IRS claims against the french living in France but born in the United States and therefore “accidental Americans,” as such likely to be subject to US tax.

   Based on the hearing of personalities from all walks of life, the mission account information clarifying the concept of “extraterritoriality”, endeavor to identify exhaustively cases of extraterritorial application of US laws, analyze the consequences, including the distortion of competition and the economic damage to our businesses that result, but also study ways of countering such practices at national and European level.

   She hoped that this work will lead to concrete recommendations for action. The length and depth of Franco-American friendship can not justify the United States claim to exercise a legal imperium well beyond their borders.”

2. Wondering what happened at the Foreign Affairs and Finance of the National Assembly (France) joint information mission discussing extraterritoriality of certain US laws, which held its constituent meeting Wednesday, March 2, 2016.

   Could anyone with french language skills see if they can find any other related meeting minutes, findings, etc.? I found thishttps://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://karineberger.org/category/commmission-des-finances/&prev=search
   and
   http://www.lopinion.fr/edition/economie/pierre-lellouche-nom-lutte-contre-corruption-etats-unis-imposent-leurs-104011

   and;
   http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/cr-cfiab/15-16/c1516077.asp
   Commission des finances, de l’économie générale et du contrôle budgétaire
   Mercredi 18 mai 2016
   Séance de 16 heures 30
   Compte rendu n° 77
   – Communication de M. Pierre Lellouche, président, et Mme Karine Berger, rapporteure, sur les travaux de la mission d’information commune sur l’extraterritorialité de la législation américaine (réunion conjointe avec la commission des affaires étrangères)
   – Présences en réunion

   La commission entend, en audition conjointe avec la commission des affaires étrangères, M. Pierre Lellouche, président, et Mme Karine Berger, rapporteure, sur les travaux de la mission d’information commune sur l’extraterritorialité de la législation américaine (réunion conjointe avec la commission des affaires étrangères).
   “Communication from Mr Pierre Lellouche, President, and Ms. Karine Berger, rapporteur on the work of the joint information mission extraterritoriality of US law (joint meeting with the Foreign Affairs Committee)
   – Attendance at meetings

   The Commission intends, by joint hearing with the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Pierre Lellouche, President, and Ms. Karine Berger, rapporteur on the work of the joint information mission extraterritoriality of US law (joint meeting with the Foreign Affairs Committee).

   Madam Chair Elizabeth Guigou. We are pleased to welcome to our room our colleagues in the Finance Committee for a meeting open to the press. The mission of information that we have made on US extraterritorial laws began its work in March. Although his investigations are far from being completed, its chairman and its rapporteur, Pierre Lellouche and Karine Berger, asked me and Gilles Carrez, to a communication today, in connection with the project law on transparency, the fight against corruption and modernizing the economy, says “Tree 2”, which will be discussed soon. These are the provisions on corruption that are involved.

   Indeed, when looking at the matter closely, we see that the extraterritoriality of US law potentially affects many areas, but some are more sensitive, one of them being the US claim to punish facts international corruption even when committed outside the US by non-US companies.

   Four French companies Alcatel, Technip, Total and Alstom have agreed in recent years, in the context of transactional procedures, pay considerable penalties. They also agreed to be subjected for several years to control “monitors” appointed in agreement with the US authorities, which raises questions of sovereignty. The coincidence between the American procedure Alstom and the acquisition of the company by General Electric has also raised questions and interpretations.

   Sapin 2 bill includes anti-corruption provisions modeled on the US system, with the hope of better protecting our business against intrusion of US authorities. The future debate should be informed by the findings that we can do on the American system. I refer specifically to the question of whether or not to re-introduce a provision allowing a system to plead guilty to the French on corruption. This text may be an opportunity to bring some security to our businesses.

   Pierre Lellouche, President of the fact-finding mission on the extraterritoriality of US law. Several recent developments seem characterize extraterritoriality practiced by the United States. I think of two agreements with the countries examined by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, one being the transaction intended to end the legal harassment of the train in the United States, the other says FATCA, in terms of tax information . I also think the fines including Alstom and BNP Paribas. These are cases that have led me to propose the creation of an information mission. The President of the Assembly and the President of the Foreign Affairs Committee and Chairman of the Finance, were willing to accept it, I thank them.

   We have just with some colleagues here, to be the mission of information and we started – we are in the early auditions – in the dense forest undergrowth US law.

   There are three main areas where the US extraterritoriality has a large impact on our economy. The question is unknown to the general public; she is a little better businesses, but not completely, hence their vulnerability.

   The first area concerns the taxation of people, with FATCA and the agreements for its implementation: the US fiscalisent their citizens worldwide and require banks worldwide to their automatically transmit the bank data of their customers ” with American-indices “that without going through the traditional interstate tax data exchange. This is unprecedented and it is not consistent with our own philosophy.

   This US law has been translated into an agreement, but it does not really provide for reciprocity. There is also the problem of “accidental Americans” who have US citizenship to be born, but left the country for a long time and no longer have any link with the United States. Today, the French banks close their accounts!

   Second problematic field, US embargoes and sanctions against countries with two hot topics, Iran and Russia. Regarding Iran, although there is agreement on the nuclear including the lifting of sanctions for almost a year, the business will not leave, because nobody dares to fund operations, except for some regional banks German. I come from the United States, where I had confirmation that the prohibition of compensation by US dollar B operations is maintained. Actually sanctions remain. The final report of the mission will return course in detail on these issues.

   Yet what motivates today’s meeting is the third major field of expansion of the US extraterritorial, namely the suppression of corruption of public officials abroad, pursuant to the Foreign Law Corrrupt Practices Act (FCPA), mandated by the OECD Convention of 1997 following the efforts of US diplomacy. The Americans argue, to justify punish European firms that otherwise there would distort competition to the detriment of their companies. They punish themselves directly foreign companies explaining that national systems of sanctions are not effective.

   In the report of the mission, we develop well without the concept of extraterritoriality. I will say just a word today: having extraterritorial legislation is not in itself contrary to international law. A national law may be extraterritorial, within reasonable limits. Moreover, the EU has also, for example on competition.

   The United States have adopted the FCPA in 1977 and have strengthened in the years 1980. This law potentially applies to US companies or when corrupt payments were made in the United States but also to all companies that are considered “issuers” in US financial markets and must therefore publish the financial and accounting information. Because of the predominance of Wall Street, which makes all the big multinationals, at least European, want to be traded, this system allows to submit to US law many companies, although they are not American and that otherwise the facts are basing prosecutions are committed across the world.

   The United States also relies on the OECD Convention “on the fight against the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions” of 17 December 1997. This agreement commits all developed countries, including La France. Article 4 provides that “each Party shall take measures necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the bribery of a foreign public official when the offense is committed in whole or in part in its territory.” In this context, the issue of collection of evidence, in particular to establish the territorial link, is decisive. As such Alstom, US officials learned that a meeting where acts of corruption were discussed was held in Connecticut. How did they know?

   Still, the wording of the Convention gives great freedom to the states and justify a broad jurisdiction of their courts. Both morally right that the existence of this international treaty commitment makes it more difficult to challenge national laws with broad application in the case, for example, US embargoes, which have a strictly national basis.

   Long a limited amount, the sanctions imposed on companies under the FCPA have exploded from 2008. In total, they reached record amounts in 2010, with an annual total of $ 1.8 billion and 2014. They affect some US companies, but especially European companies, especially French. The three highest hit three European companies. Of the twelve most important, there are eight European companies, four French, three US: if, for example, Halliburton and Alcoa, American, were sanctioned, there also and especially Siemens, Alstom, BAE, Total, Vimpelcom, Snamprogetti, Technip, Daimler, Alcatel … Even American sources are questioning this targeting European companies.

   The philosophy of fir 2 bill is to respond to the US argument that France does not sufficiently penalizing legal mechanism to ensure that competition is fair.

   Karine Berger, Information Mission rapporteur on extraterritoriality of US law. Sapin 2 bill contains potential tools to address the problems exposed by Pierre Lellouche: heavy penalties for corruption imposed on French companies and non-reciprocity vis-à-vis treatments including US companies, while we know that these companies operate in markets where competition between French and American companies proved. In a formal statement of 2014, the OECD had highlighted the fact that France does not comply with the Convention on the fight against corruption in 1997 nor the 2009 recommendation to strengthen this fight. So it was important to act. Sapin 2 project involves many things: the establishment of mechanisms of “compliance” in companies in the fight against corruption, the creation of an agency that will control these mechanisms and stronger sanctions in proven cases of corruption. On this last point, it should be noted that the highest penalty imposed in France for acts of corruption amounted to EUR 750 000, when we know that in the US, these sanctions may reach 800 million of dollars.

   We asked three questions with regard to the draft law Sapin 2:

   – If you plan a muscular device of fight against corruption in this context, Will we be able to remove the US prosecution of French companies, or at least balance the US lawsuits and prosecutions French ?

   – Is it important to provide transactional legal system on the American model, or does it have a system “French”?

   – And finally, should we think about a possible French extraterritorial laws?

   On the first point, it seems that the answer is rather positive. Some cases seem to show that if we put in place control systems against the strong corruption, US lawsuits go out or leave room for negotiation in order to distribute penalties. It should also be noted that the OECD Convention provides for this possibility to divide the penalties when both parties are affected by the problem of corruption and have interest in acting. It is a kind of rule ‘non bis in idem “pragmatic, without the right: the balance of power created by the 2 Sapin law probably would respond to US criticism by closing what they see as a vacuum in our criminal legislation.

   Secondly, should we reintroduce a transactional system in the text of the law Sapin 2? It was planned in the initial version of the bill. In its opinion, the Council of State has ruled that such a transaction system can be implemented for internal corruption. However, he did not rule on international cases. The opinion of the mission is clear: we support an effective fight against corruption, and do not want the Americans are the only ones punished. From this point of view, the transaction mechanism appears to be the most effective. For fifteen years, virtually no company has been convicted in France for international corruption, even though the legal framework exists. The fact is that at present, the prosecution barely gather the necessary information to launch proceedings. If one remains in a setting of pure criminal proceedings without the possibility of negotiating with companies, it is quite possible that this difficulty persists. A settlement mechanism would probably make a lot more companies are prosecuted. There is no consensus in the mission on the operational mode of the transaction; a mechanism to plead guilty with transaction could be a discussion between the rapporteurs of the bill and the Government. In any case, the only solution to stop or balance the US lawsuits is that the effectiveness of laws against corruption in France is proven and strong sanctions.

   Third, should we seek to extend the territorial scope of the French anti-corruption legislation? The United States has a very broad reading of the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice in this area and could be considered the same French side. This is currently not the optics project Sapin 2, but there are possible paths. For instance, the UK allows corruption to continue any business that makes all or part of its turnover in the UK; extraterritoriality is even larger than the United States. This aspect is to consider, although this is not a recommendation of the mission at this stage. We must fight against corruption, but also to ensure that, in international competition, French companies are treated fairly by the different systems of justice.

   Pierre Lellouche. It is essential that the transaction mechanism be put into law to strengthen the fight against corruption and therefore stop US tendencies of direct sanctions on French companies. It’s unbearable, France is a sovereign country. We need to establish an effective penalty system. Now, according to the OECD reports, 69% of corruption cases were treated by transactions since the entry into force of the Convention. Secondly, we also need reciprocity – fundamental principle in international law – is provided in the text: that the United States impose on our businesses, we must be able to impose on American companies, where ‘interest to have a broad interpretation of the extraterritoriality of the French law on the British model. I added that if France had, under the rules laid down by the OECD Convention and in particular Article 4 open lawsuits against companies about which there were allegations of corruption and asked for a Americans consultation on the best placed jurisdiction, it would have avoided direct US sanctions against some of our businesses. These are the points on which it would be useful to introduce amendments to the bill Sapin 2.

   Whether in the field of corruption, sanctions or taxation, the United States maintains its unilateral right without going through the normal mechanisms of judicial cooperation. This is not acceptable. In these areas, we need to mount a credible offensive and defensive mechanisms to rebalance our relationship with the United States.

   Mr. President Gilles Carrez. Just a word first of all to thank our two colleagues for the high quality of their work. I am quite impressed with the clarity of your analysis, because I remember the first meetings we had – Elisabeth Guigou also recalls the subject is still extremely difficult to identify. Regarding the bill Sapin 2, is that the Government, with whom you have had exchanges, is ready to accept the first amendment? Is the subject has matured?

   Madam Chair Elizabeth Guigou. It turns out that I did ratify the OECD convention when I was Minister of Justice, so I know this text and I never really explained why the French justice had not come to condemn companies guilty of corruption on the basis of this text. We had developed in connection with Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Minister of Finance. I think if is for general instructions were given to the prosecutor to pursue vis-à-vis companies where there were allegations of corruption, we do would perhaps not there: I’d like this question or placed in your report. I remember when it came to fight against financial crime in Corsica, we faced a situation in which we never managed to get the slightest evidence or the slightest conviction. Or, a financial parquet in Bastia we eventually get there when appointed that did its job. So I ask myself for international corruption.

   Before we embark on the criminal settlement systems are an Anglo-Saxon tradition, I call for some caution. There is a general offensive for years the right type of Anglo-Saxon vis-à-vis our system of civil law system. I think we must be extremely vigilant on this. I’m not saying that you should not do, but I think it is appropriate, before saying that the only effective solution is criminal transaction, deepen if there is not another way that is more in keeping with our tradition. It is not surprising that the UK has made the choice of a close system of the United States, but our situation is different; there are some serious issues that should deepen with the Law Committee.

   Mr. Jacques Myard. Madam Chair, I can only agree with your point: be careful where we commit in terms of concepts and where it can lead us. That said, we have signed and ratified the OECD Convention, one annex states that ‘the territorial jurisdiction should be interpreted broadly so that an extensive physical connection to the bribery act is not required. ” So we agreed with that kind of interpretation.

   The problem is that Americans have a genuine judicial policy. They are not unhappy either, Pierre Lellouche pointed out, to occasionally competing in a difficult position and then some companies go under US control … Moreover, the issue of extraterritoriality of US law does not apply only corruption, there is also the question of embargoes, an area where the United States are going too far in arguing “attachment” to the US territory of all transactions in dollars. While traveling, I also saw that there are also questions in Congress about the compatibility of the external legal policy of the United States with the general principles of international law and on the risks of sovereignty disputes and diplomatic crises. That said, the European Union has the same tendency to extraterritoriality with regard to abuse of dominant position. There should be more careful.

   I also want to raise the issue of “monitors” imposed on French companies following the corruption cases. This type of information transmissions should be the judicial cooperation. This practice could be challenged in the courts because it is implementing measures on French territory! This goes much too far, you have to set limits.

   Mr. Thierry Mariani. In terms of extraterritoriality, as stated Jacques Myard, we also European practices and abuse of dominant position in French criminal law, for example with the trial of those involved in the events in Rwanda, where France n is absolutely not, for genocide in question involved.

   With regard to the OECD Convention, I spend my time meeting with French Chambers of Commerce abroad in my riding. A number of companies explain to me that they do not fight on equal terms. The departments responsible for “compliance” took power here, but not everywhere. There are companies, including American, who continue to rely on intermediaries officially responsible for lobbying, according to well-known trick. I hope that the law will be adopted not only aim to curb the behavior of French companies. Our large companies abroad do their utmost to respect the rules and, I repeat, are almost paralyzed by the texts. I hope that we also we have a broad interpretation vis-à-vis some of our competitors who are present on the French market and are not always very fair play on external markets.

   Pierre Lellouche. There is a key question that I ask myself from the beginning and that we all ask. We have no inventory on whether corruption has decreased since the signing of the OECD convention; we believe it has decreased but we have no certainty. They apply US companies the convention? I do not know. Companies of States not party to the OECD still they corrupt? Yes it’s clear. There are many countries that are not bound by the Convention and which are exporters of raw materials, infrastructure, armaments, procurement and others.

   If we want to impose morality, we must ensure that things also apply to all partners. Americans use for this reason the phrase “level playing field”. But I do not feel that this formula is respected. Thus, in the bill Sapin 2, I want to make sure that we have all the weapons to enforce reciprocity.

   We must not delude ourselves, the information gathered by the US authorities from Listens intelligence agencies working in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice. This practice is called soft power, it was even conceptualized. I wish that French level we do exactly the same and we stop having convened and French companies subject to US procedures.

   On the monitors, the law Sapin 2 provides a compliance procedure that does not extend to monitoring. One could consider introducing into French law a similar procedure, ie to ensure that a company declared guilty of corruption should be required to implement a compliance device with a controller appointed by France. I want the game to be fair to all and that therefore would be spotted in France a US corporation or another who engages in acts of corruption, one can impose the same type of measures as those imposed on French companies.

   I also like to be asked the OECD to develop a repertoire of control mechanisms to get an idea of ​​the effectiveness of the Convention, to identify countries that engage in this practice. Transparency should apply to everyone: our national interest requires us to give ourselves the means to enforce the law to all companies on the French soil, with a definition of territoriality inspired by English law, but also that information is public and that we can have available a binding legal instrument applicable to all.

   Karine Berger. Regarding the comments of Thierry Mariani, we all agree that we do not live in a world of “Care Bears” to borrow a phrase used by the Director of Legal Affairs of the OECD. Nevertheless, I invite you not to reverse the logic of the Sapin Act 2. The purpose of the law is the fight against corruption, not to ensure that French companies win more markets abroad. So the fight against corruption is the priority, but must be done in a framework for fair competition, which is not evident today.

   The first step being the fight against corruption, the question Madam Chair is very important: why France has she failed to sufficiently suppress international corruption after the ratification of the OECD Convention? Those interviewed say that it is not possible, when the company is not party to information, to gather as technical and accurate data for the French justice. This is not the only explanation, no one claims it, but it is facing this problem that has become the American system, including the use of monitors. It is clear that internal information is the blind spot of the issue of the fight against corruption. This is how our mission arrived at the idea that, without copying the Anglo-Saxon system and staying in our traditional legal framework, we could get companies to cooperate and deliver information. If there is not a minimum capacity to capture information, justice will not have the ammunition needed to fight.

   Madam Chair Elizabeth Guigou. Have you asked it to national financial parquet?

   Pierre Lellouche. No.

   Madam Chair Elizabeth Guigou. Frankly I remain skeptical. You have to see with the Law Committee and the Financial Prosecutor General. Of course, whenever we have a problem of judicial cooperation with other countries, it depends on the good will. But we still have good relations with a number of countries. I really wish you were more down to it, some for reasons of principle, but also that entering these transaction systems is not completely innocuous.

   Dominique Lefebvre. We have three committees asked project Sapin 2, the law commission, which will meet next week. I suggest to the mission to contact the reporter Sébastien Denaja or with our group leader on this, Sandrine Mazetier.

   At this point, the debate can come to a general discussion in committee or in the chamber, but to go further, it is necessary that amendments be tabled. I did not understand that the Government, which removed these provisions of the text, intends to reintroduce them, even if the minister stated its willingness to move for reasons of efficiency. I did not understand either that a resumption of text as it had been filed to the State Council be considered by the rapporteur or by our colleagues. Yet I remain convinced that it is important to have a support on this issue; therefore amendments to be tabled, knowing that we have a fairly comprehensive platform of NGOs, mostly declare themselves totally hostile to the transaction for various reasons, including because it can blur the political message. Only Transparency International is favorable.

   Pierre Lellouche. I am a lawyer, I studied law in France and the United States, so I’m very sensitive to Elisabeth Guigou argument. There is no question of polluting our legal traditions by baroque pieces imports of foreign rights.

   However, I remind Madam Chair she chaired here in the adoption of two agreements with the United States that I found shocking: one who was trying to buy peace on legal affairs SNCF, the other moved to the French tax law a piece of US legislation, FATCA, transcribed verbatim. I am willing to be an advocate and a purist French law, but in this case it should not let Mr. Fabius do this kind of things I fiercely criticized at the time, and I stand by my criticism.

   Now, in this case, it must be understood that we are at the heart of a business intelligence system.”

   and;
   Commission des affaires étrangères
   Mercredi 18 mai 2016
   Séance de 16 heures 30
   Compte rendu n°71

   – Réunion, ouverte à la presse et conjointe avec la commission des finances : communication de M. Pierre Lellouche, président, et de Mme Karine Berger, rapporteure, sur les travaux de la mission d’information sur l’extraterritorialité de la législation américaine.

   Réunion, ouverte à la presse et conjointe avec la commission des finances : communication de M. Pierre Lellouche, président, et de Mme Karine Berger, rapporteure, sur les travaux de la mission d’information sur l’extraterritorialité de la législation américaine.
   http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/cr-cafe/15-16/c1516071.asp

   ex.
   “….There are three main areas where the US extraterritoriality has a large impact on our economy. The question is unknown to the general public; she is a little better businesses, but not completely, hence their vulnerability.

   The first area concerns the taxation of people, with FATCA and the agreements for its implementation: the US fiscalisent their citizens worldwide and require banks worldwide to their automatically transmit the bank data of their customers ” with American-indices “that without going through the traditional interstate tax data exchange. This is unprecedented and it is not consistent with our own philosophy.

   This US law has been translated into an agreement, but it does not really provide for reciprocity. There is also the problem of “accidental Americans” who have US citizenship to be born, but left the country for a long time and no longer have any link with the United States. Today, the French banks close their accounts!….”

   I see this very recent written question submitted:
   14ème législature
   Question N° 99013
   de M. Frédéric Lefebvre (Les Républicains – Français établis hors de France )
   Question écrite
   Ministère interrogé > Économie et finances
   Ministère attributaire > Économie et finances

   Rubrique > Français de l’étranger

   Tête d’analyse > banques et établissements financiers

   Analyse > résidents des États-Unis. comptes domiciliés en France. frais.
   Question publiée au JO le : 20/09/2016 page : 8286
   http://questions.assemblee-nationale.fr/q14/14-99013QE.htm

   Google translation into English;
   “…..Frédéric Lefebvre draws the attention of the Minister of Economy and Finance on the consequences for non-residents of the United States Foreign account tax compliance act (FATCA). Number of French expatriates for professional reasons want to keep a bank account in France. If FACTA agreement does not prohibit French expatriates residing in the United States to have an account in France, he imposes on French banks to comply with US regulations. This submission to the US regulation leads, according to French credit institutions, certain expenses. These institutions consider that the management of expatriates accounts of limited economic interest and have chosen not to comply with US law, and thus decide to close the accounts of their customers French expatriates. While the account closure phenomenon had barely begun, the author of this question was seized of the matter by filing with the Government’s written question No. 48264 of 28 January 2014, to which no response has unfortunately been made in spite of multiple renewals. The author of this issue in Parliament fought to defeat the ratification of the agreement for the application of FATCA in France and has arrested many times the Government, the Bank of France and the MLCA prudential banking to enforce the right to the account of non-resident French citizens in the United States. In discussing the Macron Act, the author of this question had finally got the vote of an amendment, unfortunately censored thereafter by the Constitutional Council for procedural reasons, and for automatic referral to the Authority prudential supervision for sanction by the bank does not respect the right to the account. The Defender of Rights, seized by a person affected by FATCA challenged refusal opening account with a financial institution made in the first half of 2016 a major decision. After recommending to the credit institution concerned by this referral to modify its account opening procedures in order to allow the subscription to US persons, dual nationals and French residents of the United States, the Rights Defender suggested to the Ministry of economy to conduct the analysis of the impact of FATCA regulations on the trade policies of French financial institutions against US citizen clients, binational and French residing in the US . This recommendation was accompanied by a request to the Government to inform it of the measures it intends to take to prevent account opening refusals and cancellations decided by credit institutions considered discriminatory criteria of nationality or place of residence. This decision was also sent to the prudential and resolution Authority and the French Banking Federation and the French Association of Financial Companies. He asked whether the Government intended to give a concrete and rapid response to the recommendations and suggestions of the Defender of Rights.”

   ……………………………………………………..
   Also trying to find the original testimony and submissions of individuals in France who testified before the Commission ‘la mission d’information commune sur l’extraterritorialité de la législation américaine (réunion conjointe avec la commission des affaires étrangères)’ as to the US extraterritorial impact of FATCA and CBT on French citizens/residents.

   I also tried sifting through these results (but can’t easily decide which are relevant) so haven’t finished the sifting;
   http://www2.assemblee-nationale.fr/recherche/resultats_recherche

3. 14ème législature
   Question N° 99142
   de M. Frédéric Lefebvre (Les Républicains – Français établis hors de France )
   Question écrite
   Ministère interrogé > Affaires étrangères
   Ministère attributaire > Économie et finances

   Rubrique > traités et conventions

   Tête d’analyse > convention fiscale avec les États-unis

   Analyse > États des États-Unis. convention. reconnaissance.
   Question publiée au JO le : 20/09/2016 page : 8252
   Date de changement d’attribution: 27/09/2016
   http://questions.assemblee-nationale.fr/q14/14-99142QE.htm

   Google translate;
   “Frédéric Lefebvre draws the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development on the scope of the 1994 tax treaty between France and the United States. Following recent changes in US legislation on the taxation of its nationals living abroad, it would appear that despite the existence of this treaty, it is still possible to be imposed by the United States on French income even if they are not taxable in France for the French-American dual nationals. For example, it seems that a bi-national resident in France must pay taxes on real estate gains and interest and dividends tax-French financial accounts or benefit from certain tax advantages, the fact that some American states, such as Louisiana and Maryland, do not recognize the tax treaty. Here it is necessary to point out the risks of conflicting interpretations for the binational French resident, who is now under US laws, some French taxable income tax exempt, not taxed on the same income according to Annex 2 of the Agreement FATCA. He asks her accordingly again Written Question No. 78552 of April 21, 2015 did not receive an answer, to communicate the scope and conditions of application of the tax treaty between France and the United States next to the current implementation of the FATCA agreement and in particular to clarify the status of the implementation modalities of the bilateral agreements between France and the US states that do not recognize the 1994 Convention.”

4. Tried also a search for phrase;
   “la mission d’information sur l’extraterritorialité de la législation américaine”

5. Report of the ‘Commission des affaires étrangères et commission des finances : l’extraterritorialité de la législation américaine’ :

   http://videos.assemblee-nationale.fr/video.4277000_57f50f969fbbe.commission-des-affaires-etrangeres-et-commission-des-finances–l-extraterritorialite-de-la-legislat-5-octobre-2016

6. Thank you to Keith Redmond for posting the above link to the report by the Commission des affaires étrangères et commission des finances : l’extraterritorialité de la législation américaine to the French Assembly.
   https://twitter.com/kred65/status/783757450130382848

7. English translation via Google translate;
   “Extraterritoriality of US law: a review of the information report
   Article Content

   Wednesday, October 5, 2016 afternoon, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Finance Committee have considered and approved the report published joint information mission on the extraterritoriality of US law.

   See the video http://www.assemblee-nationale.tv/video.4277000_57f50f969fbbe.commission-des-affaires-etrangeres-et-commission-des-finances–l-extraterritorialite-de-la-legislat-5-octobre-2016
   Drapeau des USA sur carte

   The Foreign Affairs and Finance have decided to create the joint information mission in March 2016 following several events that highlighted the tendency of US courts and administrations to pretend punish foreign individuals or legal persons for developments outside the US.

   The extraterritoriality of US law regarding particular three areas.

   First, regarding the taxation of people, the extraterritoriality of US tax law is harmful for a binational category, namely “accidental Americans.” These people, born in the United States and which therefore have US citizenship have, however, no other links with that country. They are, however, subject to US tax, because of this single American, and may be exposed to investigation and possible prosecution of the US tax authorities. Then, US law allows to condemn companies that violate a US embargo because sometimes tenuous links with the US (payment in dollars for example). Thus, BNP Paribas was fined 8.97 billion (€ 6.6 billion) in June 2014) for violation of the embargo against Iran, Sudan and Cuba. Last but not least, the repression of corruption of public officials abroad, under the FCPA (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act), gave rise to legal transactions with very large amounts between European companies and US authorities on charges of corruption that took place outside US territory.

   Based on the hearing of personalities from all walks of life, mission information clarifies the notion of “extraterritoriality”, attempts to identify cases of extraterritorial application of US laws the most problematic, d analyze its consequences, including the distortion of competition and the economic damage to French companies, but also to study ways of countering such practices at national, European and bilateral level. ”

   Original website;
   http://www2.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/commissions-permanentes/commission-des-affaires-etrangeres/secretariat/a-la-une/extraterritorialite-du-droit-americain-examen-du-rapport-d-information

8. @ badger

   Fabien Lehagre posted a summary (in French) on the American Expatriates FB group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/AmericanExpatriates/666330506866358/. Apparently an official report will follow. A Google Translate English version is available on the Fix The Tax Treaty FB group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/FixTheTaxTreaty/340610462951631/ (thanks, Carl). (the summary is in a pdf file – if you can’t access either version, let me know and I can email it for posting here)

9. Thanks for that @Karen. And thanks to Tricia for;
   http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2016/10/11/good-news-from-the-french-commission/

10. http://frenchmorning.com/78408-2/
    ‘FATCA : le calvaire des “Américains accidentels” ‘
    Alexis Buisson –
    16 January 2017

    Use Google or other translation to read in English
    ex.
    “….If they could go back in time, they would choose not to be born in the United States. “They” are the Franco-Americans qualified as “accidental Americans”.

    Some of them spent only a few months on American soil before returning to France with their parents. Now they find themselves caught up by the tax authorities.

    Reason: the implementation of FACTA, a law passed in 2010 by Congress to combat tax evasion. In particular, it requires foreign banks to report to the US tax authorities the banking information of their customers who have “American signs ” (US visa, green card, residence in the United States, binationals, etc.). ….”
    ‘FATCA: The Calvary of “Accidental Americans” ‘
    By

11. https://www.facebook.com/groups/AmericanExpatriates/permalink/802101076622633/
    Latest re effort to organize to defeat the FATCA IGA in France/and or EU.

12. Not easy trying to enlighten American expats about FATCA https://www.survivefrance.com/t/fatca-and-we-yanks-in-europe/17539

13. Link posted on Keith Redmond’s site to this;

    ‘Fraude fiscale : 50 États échangent désormais automatiquement des données’

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2017/09/30/20002-20170930ARTFIG00019-fraude-fiscale-50-etats-echangent-desormais-automatiquement-des-donnees.php?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#fig-comments

    Mentions US lack of reciprocity

14. http://www.notretemps.com/argent/un-collectif-de-franco-americains-afp-201710,i151862

    via Google translate;

    A group of Franco-Americans appeals against the Fatca
    By AFP the 03 October 2017

    The association of “accidental Americans”, grouping French people born on American soil, has initiated legal proceedings to oppose the application in France of Fatca, a US tax regulation of which they consider themselves victims, said Tuesday to their lawyer…… ”

    …….
    “In its application, filed Monday at the Council of State and which AFP was able to consult, the association of Americans accidental asks for the “cancellation” of the decree which allowed the creation by the Directorate General of Public Finance , of the “automatic processing of automatic exchange of information called + EAI +”……..”………..

    …..
    “…The association also denounces “the massive nature of the storage and transmission of tax data to the US tax administration” authorized by the agreement. A situation that “disregards the right to privacy and the protection of personal data,” she insists.

    According to Mr Spinosi, the Conseil d’Etat has about 18 months to rule on the merits of the appeal. “If he gives the right to the request for cancellation”, “the implementation of the tax collaboration agreement concluded between France and the United States would then be called into question,” he assures.”

15. http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2017/10/03/20002-20171003ARTFIG00306-fiscalite-les-americains-accidentels-engagent-un-recours-aupres-du-conseil-d-etat.php
    ‘Fiscalité : les «Américains accidentels» engagent un recours auprès du Conseil d’État’

16. https://www.lesechos.fr/finance-marches/banque-assurances/0301007032722-les-consequences-etonnantes-de-laccord-fatca-2137426.php
    ‘Banque : les conséquences étonnantes de l’accord FATCA’
    Edouard Lederer Le 11/12 à 16:05

17. http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/fatca-and-the-eu/comment-page-7/#comment-8123981
    re-posting a comment by Duality quoting an article that mentions an updated on the Lehagre challenge to FATCA in France;
    “…the French litigant association, headed by Fabien Lehagre, are working with the Parisian law firm Spinosi-Sureau. In October 2017, they filed an appeal to quell the enforcement of Fatca at the Conseil d’Etat, which is similar to the Συμβούλιο της Επικρατείας (or Council of State) in Greece.

    More importantly, Mr Lehagre states,”Si jamais il botte en touche, on passera au niveau supérieur: la cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE)”

    So their case will be heading to the European Court of Justice should their appeal fail in France. At present, funding does not appear to be an obstacle…”

    Duality cites the article;
    ‘Les “Américains accidentels”, oubliés de la réforme fiscale de Trump’
    Par Alexis Buisson –
    21 novembre 2017
    https://frenchmorning.com/americains-accidentels-oublies-de-reforme-fiscale-de-trump/

18. @badger

    Thank you for adding my comment under the French section. The French team’s appeal is excellent progress, which was long overdue in Europe. It’s time to spread the news…

19. Don’t know if these links were was posted before,
    https://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2017/12/27/2711672-la-fin-du-cauchemar-fiscal-pour-les-americains-accidentels.html
    https://www.lesechos.fr/idees-debats/editos-analyses/0301220197621-le-cauchemar-fiscal-de-ces-francais-nes-aux-etats-unis-2150401.php

    They are cited in this recent article;
    http://www.internationalinvestment.net/products/accidental-americans-france-looking-french-govt-help/

20. Association des Américains Accidentels
    https://www.facebook.com/Association.Americains.Accidentels/?hc_ref=ART0g-xHuOInFUdbgLPBo_5WUzfKYPvecyoSfmKG7qn3m4ffK86TByG7rhDXsxI6Nw8&fref=nf

    Wasn’t able to find the link to their petition to the French government.

21. https://www.americains-accidentels.fr/page/222256-qui-sommes-nous
    L’Association des Américains Accidentels (AAA) website now up.

    AAA mentioned in this article;
    http://www.internationalinvestment.net/products/tax/french-americains-accidentels-get-boost-key-en-marche-party-leader/

22. http://www.lepoint.fr/economie/l-enfer-administratif-des-americains-accidentels-13-04-2018-2210452_28.php
    L’enfer administratif des « Américains accidentels »
    Nés aux États-Unis, des milliers de Français se retrouvent aujourd’hui dans l’illégalité faute d’avoir déclaré leurs revenus outre-Atlantique. Explications.
    Par Baudouin Eschapasse
    Publié le 13/04/2018

23. ‘Accidental Americans’ in France Press Macron for IRS Relief, Gregory Viscusi, Bloomberg, US.

    Plight of French ‘Américains Accidentels’ gets major US media coverage, ,Helen Burggraf, International Investment.

24. Merci!

25. Google translate English version of https://www.questionfiscale.fr/FATCA-la-situation-des-americains-accidentels_a2414.html

    “FATCA: the situation of accidental Americans

    Asked about the situation of French citizens “accidental Americans”, the Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs said that “France is arguing in favor of a facilitated renunciation of US nationality for these” accidental Americans “, it being understood that the conditions for the granting of nationality and the principle of taxation on the basis of citizenship are within the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States “and that means are employed to ensure that the procedure for renouncing nationality is rendered simpler and less expensive.

    Ministerial Response Millienne Question N ° 6963 published in the OJ on April 10, 2018 page 3057
    FATCA : la situation des américains accidentels

    The American tax system is distinguished by the fact that it is based on the principle of taxation on the basis of citizenship that can be acquired by birth only on American soil. Thus, French citizens who also have US citizenship are required to make a declaration of their income from the tax services of that country and to pay, if necessary, the taxes due. Some French citizens born on American soil are sometimes not aware of their “Americanness” to the extent that they were born in the United States. We then speak of “accidental Americans”. ”

    In the context of a ministerial question, Mr. Bruno Millienne has alerted the Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs about the situation of “accidental Americans” with regard to the application of the FATCA agreement.

    For the record, according to the ” foreign account tax compliance act” (FATCA) all banks around the world have the obligation to transmit to the United States information on the accounts of US citizens opened in their books. Otherwise, a 30% withholding tax is applied to the financial income paid from the United States to the accounts maintained by the foreign financial institution.

    In France, the FACTA law materialized by the signing of an intergovernmental agreement that came into force in January 2015 that allows French banks to transmit information relating to the accounts of their US customers not directly in the United States but to the administration. French tax system, for which it is responsible for transferring them to the United States. As part of this agreement, French banks are also required, since July 1, 2014, for the opening of any new account, to obtain a self-certification to determine if the person wishing to open the account has the American nationality or if he is a resident of the United States for tax purposes. Americans are required to provide their US tax identification number. Banks can be heavily penalized if they do not comply with the obligations of this agreement.

    It is therefore often in the context of the opening of a bank account that the “accidental Americans” become aware of their “Americanness” and their tax obligations towards the United States.

    The ministerial question highlights the fact that the French born in the United States are ” collateral victims of this agreement ” and that these ” thousands of French born in the United States by chance or accident are found in the viscer of the fisc American, their situation falling within the “indices of Americanity “. It is further emphasized that ” Dual nationality holders, some of whom were born on American soil or left the country, discovered only years later that they were considered as American taxpayers ” .

    The minister is therefore questioned about how to remedy this situation since the only way out of this situation is for them to give up their US citizenship, which is long and very expensive.

    The minister responded as follows:
    Text of the answer
    In the field of taxation, the United States recognizes the principle of taxation on the basis of citizenship, which can be acquired by birth only on American soil.

    French citizens who also have American nationality are thus required by US law to report their income to the tax authorities of that country and to pay, where applicable, the taxes due .

    The same goes for all American citizens residing in France .

    A bilateral tax treaty has been concluded between France and the United States for the avoidance of double taxation, only in cases where French tax is lower than that due in the United States or certain income are not effectively taxed under French tax law and are, moreover, taxable under United States law, that additional taxation could be claimed by the US tax authorities .

    On November 14, 2013, France signed an intergovernmental agreement, known as the ” FATCA agreement”, relating to compliance with tax obligations relating to foreign accounts.

    Entered into force on October 14, 2014, this agreement sets a framework for the automatic exchange of tax information with the United States and aims to protect the legal security of French financial institutions.

    It was concluded as a result of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which the United States passed in 2010, which establishes an obligation for all financial institutions to transmit to the US tax authorities detailed information on accounts held directly or indirectly by US taxpayers.

    In this context, a collective was formed to draw the attention of the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Economy and Finance to the particular situation of ” accidental Americans”, ie French citizens who are also of US nationality but have no ties to the United States.

    In the absence of concrete links with the United States, where they have not resided, and official documents from this country, these people may indeed encounter difficulties in providing the information requested by French financial institutions, including a US tax identification number which can be particularly lengthy.

    In response, the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs has sought the attention of US authorities on these situations. France pleads in favor of a facilitated renunciation of American nationality for these “accidental Americans”, on the understanding that the conditions for granting nationality and the principle of taxation on the basis of citizenship fall within the sovereign competence the United States.

    This issue is also the subject of discussions at European level, which the Ministry of Economy and Finance particularly follows. A letter was sent to the US Treasury Secretary on May 8, 2017, by the EU Presidency, drawing attention to the concrete difficulties faced by some European citizens who also have US citizenship.
    France wishes to continue the dialogue on this subject, by working jointly with other European countries also concerned, to ensure that, in situations where relations with the United States are tenuous , the procedure for renouncing nationality is made more difficult. simple and less expensive.

    In addition, the government will be vigilant about the respect by the banks of their obligations towards persons of American nationality, so that the right to the account is recognized and applied effectively.

    France recalls on this occasion that there is a procedure of appeal before the Bank of France to compel a bank to accept the opening of an account, the institution then being designated by the Bank of France.
    France will continue to monitor this subject closely and seek appropriate solutions”

    04/11/2018

    Source:
    https://www.questionfiscale.fr