FATCA and the EU
April 2019
July 2018
06: EU Lawmakers Vote to Kick-Start FATCA Talks With United States
05: Independence Day attempt in European Parliament–the Empire lives well
July 2017
11: Refreshing: @SophieintVeld calls EU answer to plight of #AccidentalAmericans “bullshit”
September 2016
30: #FATCA Came Last to EU, but Mandatory Fingerprinting was First
August 2015
31: Parliamentary Question: Legality of intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) on FATCA
January 2015
10: EU Residents/Citizens: This is For You
September 2014
13: US seeks additional Customs Pre-Clearance locations in the EU
August 2013
24: European Parliament opposes exchanging bank data with the US
June 2013
May 2013
31: Public Hearing on FATCA at the European Parliament in Brussels
23: EU Parliament Hearing on FATCA May 28th
April 2013
04: MEP Sophia In’t Veld discusses FATCA in EU Parliament
March 2013
25: Question and Answer on FATCA in the European Parliament
February 2013
26: EU Tax Chief Urges U.S. Support for Transactions Levy @BloombergNews
April 2012
19: US bullies the EU into sharing passenger data
March 2012
10: Two prominent members of European Parliament raise concern over FATCA five agreement
February 2012
16: Are China, Russia, the EU and Switzerland poised to give in to FATCA?
January 2012
@plaxy
“No way would they ever be allowed to spend public money on that, even if they wanted to.”
But taxpayers still have to bear the cost to enforce FATCA locally: by way of increased costs to locsl FIs as well as to the local revenue authority.
“But taxpayers still have to bear the cost to enforce FATCA locally: by way of increased costs to locsl FIs as well as to the local revenue authority.”
The banks bear the cost of AEOI compliance. Tax of course pays for tax admin costs. USC’s renunciation fees are not EU taxpayers’ problem.
“French ‘Américains Accidentels’ get boost from en Marche party leader”
http://www.internationalinvestment.net/products/tax/french-americains-accidentels-get-boost-key-en-marche-party-leader/
Don’t think I’ve posted this EU answer to one of MEPIn’t Veld’s written questions to the EU?
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegistreWeb/search/simple.htm?relName=REPONSEA&relValue=P-000724/2018
Written answer : US tax reform affecting EU citizens and SMEs
Document date: 2018-03-14
P8_RE(2018)000724
“ENP-000724/2018Answer given by Mr Moscovicion behalf of the Commission(14.3.2018)
The Commission is aware that the Eritrean and the US models of citizen-based taxation impose reporting and tax requirements on Eritrean and American citizens overseas.
Decisions on such rules are taken nationally. The Commission is not able to propose legislation for these states and sees a limited scope for diplomatic intervention on these matters of national competence whether itself or via a joint EU approach.
The Commission is analysing the legal and economic impacts of the recent US tax reform. Regarding the specific question about the global intangible low-taxed income or ‘GILTI’ provisions included in the US tax reform legislation, it should be noted that this measure would apply only to US controlled foreign companies.
“
@badger
Moscovici says: “Decisions on such rules are taken nationally.”
Hello? Extraterritorial enforcement of CBT and FATCA? There is nothing “national” about these rules. The European Commission is utterly useless…
Let’s hope Ms in’t Veld will ask whether the EC has considered the consequences of the EU’s decision to go along with the Common Reporting Standard’s acceptance that it’s up to each country to say who is tax-resident in their jurisdiction, and other countries must respect that.
If the OECD drew up a standard definition of who is “tax-resident”, that would prevent the US from smearing whoever they choose as “tax-resident.”
Which is why the OECD doesn’t want to define “tax-resident”. And is also why the EC doesn’t want to ask them to.
Answer given by Vice-President Dombrovskis on behalf of the Commission concerning the implementation of the Payment Accounts Directive (PAD) and FATCA:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2018-000298&language=EN
“The Commission is concerned about the possible impact of Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the related Inter-Governmental Agreements on access to financial services for EU residents who are considered as ‘US persons’ by the US authorities.”
(Yawn)… déjà vu, déjà entendu…
@plaxy, it is heartening that MEP in’t Veld continues to be determined to pursue this on behalf of those affected.
@Duality, thanks for posting that re the answer by Dombrovski/Commission re the PAD and FATCA. No teeth, no real determination shown. Access to only basic banking does not mean much when people need accounts to legally and locally save for retirement, arrange mortgages and loans, etc. EU citizenship and EU rights don’t mean anything if a foreign nation is allowed to lay extraterritorial claim to those born EU citizens and/or legally residing there just because it is the US.
Beggar the rest of the world to satisfy the out-sized ego of the US. While the real criminals are long gone, laughing in Delaware and other parts of tax haven USA. Really sounds more and more like the plan all along.
“The Commission is also exploring with the industry possible measures by any of the parties involved aimed at facilitating access by ‘US persons’ to financial services in the EU.”
I think that’s fantastic news!
Thanks for posting Duality.
Also I’m cheered to see those quotation marks around that iniquitous term “US persons”!
@badger @plaxy
Dombrovski states that “[t]he Commission is also exploring with the industry possible measures by any of the parties involved aimed at facilitating access by ‘US persons’ to financial services in the EU.”
To explore “possible measures” to me implies just that: a remote possibilty of something happening to remedy this mess. Also, “facilitating access by ‘US persons’ to financial services in the EU” makes it sound as if some EU citizens have got disabilities and are therefore unable to open a bank account as normal.
@badger
“No teeth, no real determination shown. Access to only basic banking does not mean much when people need accounts to legally and locally save for retirement, arrange mortgages and loans, etc.”
Precisely.
Duality – “To explore “possible measures” to me implies just that: a remote possibilty of something happening to remedy this mess. ”
We can all only speculate as to the meaning of the comment. To me, it implies that the EC may raise the issue, or possibly has already raised the issue, with the EBF. If so, it is at the very least an acknowledgment by the EC that the issue needs to be addressed, and therefore some way of resolving the issue needs to be found.
I also feel that there has been a distinct change of tone in the EC’s answers to Ms in’t Veld’s questions, following the US tax reform bill.
I may be seeing what I’d like to see. Time will tell.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2018-000298&language=EN
A very welcome development.
Perhaps worth noting that Ms in’t Veld’s question is about access to financial services for “accidental Americans.”
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2018-000298&language=EN
But the Commission’s answer is about “access to financial services for EU residents who are considered as ‘US persons’ by the US authorities.”
Personally I welcome this. The question excludes me, the answer does not – and what’s more, the answer makes it crystal clear that a “US Person” (the subject of FATCA’s John Doe summons) is a person who is considered by the US authorities to be a “US person”.
The implication being (as I see it) that while the US might label a particular person or entity to be a “US Person” and therefore subject to US tax law, the EU and/or EU member states don’t necessarily have to agree with that label.
I found this site,
https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/eu-rights-clinic/about-us/
Has it been posted before?
Here is one of their cases;
”
EU nationals in Spain complain about discriminatory tax reporting requirements
The EU Rights Clinic’s assistance was requested by a Spanish NGO which represents the interests of EU citizens residing in Spain. Their concerns centred on the introduction of new tax declaration requirements by the Spanish Government which they view as discriminatory for several reasons. Firstly, the rules concerning foreign assets involve shorter filing deadlines that the corresponding rules on Spanish assets. Secondly, given that foreign nationals are on the whole more likely to have assets held back home and thus are much more likely to be affected by the rules than Spanish citizens who are more likely to hold Spanish assets. Thirdly, in view of complex and restrictive reporting system requiring specialist tax knowledge and fluency in Spanish, foreigners are put at a disadvantage because incomplete or incorrect filings will incur higher penalties than those affecting other tax declarations.
The EU Rights Clinic examined the Spanish tax rules and came to the conclusion that the Spanish foreign assets declaration rules discriminate against EU citizens who reside in Spain contrary to EU law. In particular, the Clinic considered that these requirements constitute a breach of Article 18 TFEU (non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality) and, separately, Article 63 TFEU (freedom of movement of capital). As a result, the Clinic has filed a petition with the European Parliament and a complaint with the European Commission. Following a hearing held by the European Parliament’s committee on petitions on the issue, the European Commission has launched official infringement proceedings against Spain (case 2014/4330).”
https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/eu-rights-clinic/case-studies/
Further to the case mentioned above;
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/peti/cm/1034/1034231/1034231en.pdf
Committee on Petitions
29.8.2014
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
Subject:
Petition
0393/2013
by
F.T.
(British
), bearing 750 signatures on
new Spanish legislation which mandates the reporting of assets and rights held abroad
Petition 0478/2013 by Patrick Le Cam (French), on Spanish tax legislation
Petition 0566/2013 by Anthony Valcke (Belgian), on behalf of EU Rights
Clinic and Abusos Urbanístic
os NO, on new Spanish legislation which
mandates the reporting of assets and rights held abroad
1 result(s) found for “7th parliamentary term, Petition 0566/2013”
4 August 2016
PE 528.224v06-00 PETI_CM(2016)528224
NOTICE TO MEMBERS pdf word
Petition 0393/2013 by F.T. (British), bearing 750 signatures on new Spanish legislation which mandates the reporting of assets and rights held abroad Petition 0478/2013 by Patrick Le Cam (French), on Spanish tax legislation Petition 0566/2013 by Anthony Valcke (Belgian), on behalf of EU Rights Clinic and Abusos Urbanísticos NO, on new Spanish legislation which mandates the reporting of assets and rights held abroad
Committee on Petitions
PETI/7/14103 : Documents in preparation in committee are classified by dossier. Search for the documents in the dossier. Documents in dossier PETI/7/14103
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parlArchives/comArch/comDocSearch/documentSearch.do
Very interesting to know about this clinic, badger. Thanks for posting.
The EC responded very differently to JR’s petition about FATCA, unfortunately – taking the position that the IGAs don’t infringe EU law provide PAD is not infringed.
Here’s a link to the EC’s response (back in 2014)
Evidently, their enquiries led to action.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/peti/cm/1034/1034231/1034231en.pdf
Apologies badger – belatedly realized you already posted that link.
Wikipedia entry explaining the Spanish legislation including Real Madrid aspect!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beckham_law
Thanks @plaxy. Am wondering what happened to the rest of the content of the petitions (there were 3), and what came of the issue re the asset reporting aspect.
This further response was dated 2016
3.8.2016
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-528.224&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=06
This appears to be a related commentary
https://www.montero-aramburu.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/20151211_nl_form_720_eng.pdf