Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

The Isaac Brock Society

FATCA Discussion Thread (Ask your questions) Part Two

If clicking on a link brings you to the wrong page in the comment stream, click on this sentence to arrive at the current page of the comments.

Please ask your questions here about FATCA.

Participants will need to provide their e-mail address (real or fake) and an alias. The only written rule is that participants must use a same alias each time they post (and not “anonymous” or derivatives thereof).

Bear in mind that any responses that you get from participants is peer-to-peer help, and it is not intended as a replacement for professional advice. Also, the Isaac Brock Society provides this disclaimer: neither the Society nor any of its members are professionals. We offer our advice here only in friendship and we recommend that our readers seek professional advice if they need it.

If you wish to receive an e-mail notification of comments, check the box to that effect when making your first comment.

NB: This discussion is a continuation of an older discussion that became too large for our software to handle well.  See FATCA Discussion Thread (Ask your questions) for earlier discussion.

If clicking on a link brings you to the wrong page in the comment stream, click on this sentence to arrive at the current page of the comments.

 

3,498 thoughts on “FATCA Discussion Thread (Ask your questions) Part Two”

  4. @Mark…

    Budget Smudget… What does it matter? They never spend according to the budget anyway. If they want to spend more, for war say or some favorite new entitlement, then they just pass a supplemental budget and play the game that it doesn’t count against that years budget deficit. They ignore that it continues to add to the national debt. The ignorant populace who pays not a whit of attention doesn’t get the distinction, or do they even know there is a budget battle going on.

    It is all a game and a charade…a fraud

  5. Em,
    Where do you get that Lebanon is leaping into the arms of FATCA…

    I read this…

    http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/us-law-overturns-lebanon-bank-secrecy

    BDL had attempted to reach a compromise regarding the reporting process under FATCA, proposing to the US Treasury Department an arrangement where BDL reports on behalf of local banks. However, the American side rejected this wholly.

    Instead, the Americans insisted on having a direct relationship between the US Treasury and every bank in Lebanon individually. Consequently, every bank in Lebanon will be forced to report directly to the US government, without passing first through sovereign Lebanese institutions, such as the BDL.

  6. @ Just Me
    Leaping doesn’t necessarily mean gleefully leaping. Sometimes a leap comes as a result of a push. I was just pointing out that the Treasury doesn’t seem to be keeping an up to date tally of their FATCA IGA agreements, signed or close to being signed. It’s either poor record keeping or they aren’t doing as well as Mr. Stack would have us believe.

  8. Where to put this LA Times Letter to the Editor (be the first to comment): http://www.latimes.com/opinion/letters/la-le-expat-tax-issues-20131017,0,6436417.story

    October 18, 2013
    Re “Waiving the U.S. flag,” Oct. 14

    The article on American expatriates renouncing their citizenship because of U.S. tax laws hit home.

    My daughter was born in the U.S., as were her parents and grandparents. She now lives in Canada. To comply with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA, and to complete her federal Form 1040, she had to spend hundreds on assistance. In the end, she owed no taxes.

    My daughter is not a corporate executive or a professional athlete. She is an instructor (not a professor) at a university. She recently gave birth to our granddaughter, who is entitled to U.S. citizenship. She has declined to file the paperwork because she does not want to subject her to the draconian FATCA.

    David E. Ross
    Oak Park

    Where to begin to explain? I commented, but it doesn’t (yet?) show.

  10. @IRSCompliantForever

    You wrote:
    ” The US was obligated under the tax treaties with Canada, the UK, and probably many other countries to formally advise those countries that the Obamacare surtax contradicts the treaties and to consult with the countries to work out a solution. The US never bothered.”

    Can you point me to a clause in one of the treaties that you are familiar with that describes this obligation? I am about to write further to NZ Treasury and would like to see if this is in the NZ treaty as well. In what way does the Obamacare surtax contradict the treaty?

  13. Welcome to the world of creative accounting. Still, the US is not alone in it’s budgetary mess. The EU may agree an annual budget, but they haven’t passed a proper audit in years.

  17. The FATCA equivalent of the Sales Tax requirements in the States which I like to throw back into the faces of apologist that speak in moral high terms about being compliant with all taxes required…

    The U.S. Senate passed the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 (S. 743) which requires Internet sellers with $1 million a year or more in sales outside their home states to collect each state’s sales tax.

    It was passed because, guess why? Like FBAR and offshore taxes, there was a lot of non compliance…

    Technically, consumers are supposed to send in the applicable sales tax to their home state if they buy from a web site that doesn’t collect it.

    This “Fairness” act will probably eventually end up at SCOTUS. Wished FATCA was on a similar track, but since it is applied offshore, who cares.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2013/10/18/illinois-high-court-shoots-down-amazon-sales-tax-law-will-scotus-step-in/

  18. Saw this post and question on Linked in…

    Responsible Officer role in FFI registration process (IGA Model 1 countries)

    Cees Onderwater
    Projectmanager FATCA bij Rabobank

    On 12 and 13 June 2013 the OECD met in London with an IRS delegation headed by Mike Danilack. Business delegates raised a concern regarding the FFI registration process and the role of the ‘Re-sponsible Officer (RO)’. IRS staff verbally stated that the RO role in IGA Model 1 countries “would only serve to registration purposes and would not extend to FATCA compliance in general”. However, when we now look at the Registration Portal: ‘Submit (Part 4)’ of the registration form still states that the RO role is extended with a compliance commitment: “I, (…) will comply with its FATCA obligations (…)”.

    In my view the IRS should re-confirm explicitly and officially that the RO role in IGA Model 1 countries is strictly limited to registration and remove any reference to an individual compliance commitment.

    To which I had to reply…

    If you guys living abroad and dealing with the IRS haven’t learned that they are NOT to be trusted, and willingly join the FATCA Portal of Mordor with all YOUR information available for sharing with U.S, law enforcement authorities, then there is no hope! Sorry, I would NOT take any verbal promise from any Treasury or IRS official. Even written assurances can be changed at their whim and without notice, or withdrawn secretly with no notification. That is how they operate. Buyer beware.

  19. @JustMe
    I just watched the Maloney video. Very good. Thank you so much for posting it. Interesting that Ron Paul and Forbes are both on at the end.
    I passed it on to friends.
    Any one know of late if Canada Savings Bond will escape reporting to the IRS?

    How about physical ounces of gold?

    GOLD Canadian and Silver Canadian coins?

  21. @JustMe
    What is DNA and paper people. I could not connect these words with article about Ireland.

  22. @northernstar

    It is a musical chairs game, and when it stops, you then begin to better understand the sudden 2008 freeze up of credit and why the ports in China and Seattle went silent. It all hangs by a precarious thread of continued debt issuance and currency creation from thin air.

  23. @northernstar I think DNA people refers to actual human beings and paper people refers to corporations which I gather are considered “persons” by the USG/IRS

  24. @DM56
    I was thinking that but was not sure ifmi surmised mcorrectly. It is an unfair 2 tier tax system.

  25. @nothernStar…

    Corporations are persons, according to the Supreme Court and Romney with his famous quip, “Corporations are People too”. However, actually, their personhood is only created by papers of incorporation and rights that are granted to them by governments (or Supreme Court) are different than the grants and rights we supposedly have….

    So, I call them “Paper People”, and the tax rules that apply to them are way different than the rules that apply to us, real people, created from DNA. So, that is why I say, “one rule for Paper People and a different rule for DNA persons.”

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: