FATCA Discussion Thread (Ask your questions) Part Two
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.
@Kalc
No, this is the type of person they are going to expend their resources going after…
Businessman owes IRS nothing, still prison bound
Northern star. I can see that you are quite mixed up about all of this. a) you are unlikely to have to sign and b) to avoid any possibility of having an account closed you would be better off not to sign.
Let’s imagine for one second that your bank decides you are recalcitrant. You aren’t but bear with me. Any withholding of 30% only applies to US source income. a) you aren’t recalcitrant and b) you have no US income. Therefore no worries.
Yeah I have a question. When are we going to see a head of state, legislature, governing body, etc or whoever GET A SET OF BALLS and
tell the US Treasury to go *u*ck themselves and bi*_tchslap the nearest rep from this onslaught and stop FATCA in its tracks.
I have rarely seen so much expenditure for so little in return. I still am in disbelief that a person like Putin, the Chinese,Swiss, Singapore or even India won’t stand up to the US on this . Don’t they know if a few big players don’t play with the US on this it will fall apart?
By God India. A bastion of beaurecratic mess and slop. How could they even dream of collectively getting this information properly from its banks even in 20 years time?! Nations true colors come out and it is a sorry sight to see how they roll over like submissive dogs to Treasury demands. All pussies every one of them
northernstar,
If you can get through this, it may explain regarding Canadian RRSPs / RRIFs (and other country equivalents) in final FATCA regulations.
Non-US Pension Fund Exemptions under the Final FATCA Regulations As First Published in the “Benefits Passport” of the American Benefits Council March 5, 2013
WhiteKat re: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/11/10/must-read-paper-defending-fatca-and-citizenship-based-taxation/comment-page-2/#comment-653357,
Yep, same Beth Thomas, telling it like it should be — no holds barred!
@Beth Thomas
Start your bitch slapping with Richard Harvey, Dr FrankenFATCA himself!
@bubblebustin…
A belated thanks for the link to that CNBCAfrica discussion on FATCA. Just finally getting my internet working at a reasonable speed and I can catch up a bit…. That strategist certainly sees the evolution of FATCA to a global GATCA, doesn’t he… and the fact that a lot more data about persons are being collected, and not just some little interest or transaction reporting. Very interesting…
@Just Me
I just watched the video again. Mr Markham is visibly flustered with the implications of FATCA and believes it may be an infringement on human rights. I’d like to know how with all that data, governments are going to discern between secrecy and privacy, when they’ve already trampled on privacy rights in the collection of that data…
Singapore’s Minister For Finance talks FATCA with Treasury Secretary Lew:
http://www.fsitaxposts.com/2013/11/18/singapore-fatca-iga-update/
By the use of John Doe summons, “The IRS is showing that it can tap vast data pools without having to worry about bank secrecy laws in other countries,”
“…two of the taxpayers were sisters who had money wired to them in the U.S. through a correspondent account at Bank of New York.
“Correspondent accounts are the Achilles’ heel of offshore banking, and they can open a window into almost any bank in the world,” says Daniel Reeves, a retired senior IRS official who led the agency’s civil investigation into UBS.”
– See more at: http://exactcpa.blogspot.ca/2013/11/targeting-offshore-accounts-us.html#sthash.wa0S0Ulk.dpuf
It just goes to show that its expats are being targeted, when the IRS can catch their residents hiding money abroad when it gets wired home.
http://www.wsradio.com/wsradio/episode_details/32/24857
Had never run across this Before in any of my searches.
Repugs Abroad have been at work—4 part broadcasts.
@ Mark Twain
Thanks for finding me something to listen to today. My head is not fit for reading today. It sounds, so far, like a very good discussion.
And the beat goes on…
FATCA and Charities
I thought I had posted this earlier but if I did I put it in the wrong place. Re: Mark Twain’s comment …
http://www.wsradio.com/wsradio/episode_details/32/24857
The WSRadio podcast was definitely worth listening to even though it was done over 3 months ago. It was particularly good to hear Andrew Quinlan say there is a light at the end of the tunnel regarding FATCA. (Not so much regarding the USA adoption of RBT though.) I wasn’t able to discover if there has been any more attention paid to FATCA recently by Republicans Abroad. It’s something that needs to be brought up loud, clear and often. The biggest obstacle is ignorance of FATCA’s bad consequences and of its very existence. Mr. Quinlan is working hard to overcome that obstacle but in the podcast he states that more awareness and advocacy (against FATCA) are needed.
http://www.republicansabroadeurope.org/fatca_petition
Sad to see that this petition from a year ago only got 31 signatures.
I don’t pretend to understand the import of this article except that it seems to flag ways in which some previously exempt ‘securities’ will be caught up in FATCA:
‘Less Reverence For ‘Grandfathers’ Possible From Fatca’
Author: Michael Shashoua
Source: Inside Reference Data | 19 Nov 2013
http://www.waterstechnology.com/inside-reference-data/news/2308020/less-reverence-for-grandfathers-possible-from-fatca
“The US foreign account tax rule, scheduled to take effect July 1, may mean changes to previously exempt securities are more likely to put them under the scope of the rule, according to a data services provider working on a means to monitor the effect of any changes
The newest wrinkle to emerge in preparation for compliance with the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (Fatca) is the possibility that certain securities that had been exempt under “grandfather” clauses in the Act, could suddenly be subject to the rules if any change deemed a “material modification” is made.”…….
Happy Clappy Compliance Video.
from Thomson Reuters
Cheerful and upbeat demonstration on how to detect those with ‘US indicia’, etc:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEDU2PoaT3I
Great visuals of forms, advertises ability to detect US and dual citizens, among other highlights.
Badger. WOW! “increased documentation accuracy to up to 90%”
Only 10% error rate!!
Of course she meant to say ….by up to 90%. Makes you wonder.
Reuters says (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bank-groups-seek-more-delay-231204997.html) that four bank lobbying groups (the American Bankers Association, the Clearing House Association, the Institute of International Bankers, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association) have asked for a six month delay to the implementation of FATCA. The letter is located here (http://www.sifma.org/comment-letters/2013/sifma-and-other-associations-submit-comments-to-the-us-treasury-and-irs-requesting-an-additional-extension-of-the-fatca-phased-timeline/). The primary driver appears to be the fact that the final regulations and forms aren’t available. They are assuming these are available by 31 Dec 2013 which would give the industry just 6 months to finalise implementation when they had stated that 18-24 months were needed. A six month delay would give them 12 months instead of the 18-24.
“Nevertheless, all Final Guidance has not yet been issued, and there has been limited progress in the signing of IGAs.”
“Under the current timeline, there is less than 8 full months between now and July 1, 2014, the first scheduled FATCA implementation date. The Associations respectfully submit that this is insufficient time to achieve the effective, full implementation of FATCA.”
“For the reasons described herein, the Associations believe that it would be appropriate to extend further certain milestone dates in order to help ensure a smooth transition to the FATCA regime and minimize the prospects of over withholding as well as the potential for significant disruption to financial markets.”
@Edelweiss: Excellent news. Each delay is another nail in the FATCA coffin. Bloomberg, AP and other news wires need to pick up this story.
Here’s the article from the Reuters website:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/19/us-usa-tax-fatca-idUSBRE9AI1CZ20131119
@Moderators: Could the ABA, et al., request for an additional FATCA delay be posted as a separate section?
FATCA Compliance Uncertainties Keep Lawyers Up At Night
I am not shedding a tear for the well paid lawyers….
FATCA = US Taxes and Romance a hazard – family members moving to the US for study, and coming back a US taxable person – or married to one can contaminate the financial arrangements of a whole group or family.
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/detail.aspx?g=5cd7e0f8-e0ce-4f3e-b83f-248ec2013e22
‘Effect of US individual as a member of discretionary class’:
…”A time comes when the trustee is informed that a grandchild has applied for and received a US green card or passport and so is now considered a US tax resident. Common scenarios that may cause a family to raise a flag with its trustee include when a grandchild becomes romantically involved with a US person or attends a university in the United States and is considering job opportunities in the United States following graduation. A common reaction is to remove the grandchild from the beneficiary class, but is this really necessary? In such a situation the family and its advisers should give consideration to the following:
What are the settlor’s wishes? Would the settlor have wanted her grandchild to be excluded from benefiting from the trust because he or she fell in love or pursued a business opportunity?..”…
@badger
“Canadians don’t marry an America”
A Canadian source article asks the question that (Just Me?) and others have flagged as an increasingly important issue for Canadian banks and FIs – even with the FATCA IGA they are working so hard to manoeuvre into place. I sincerely hope Canadian banks and FIs are tormented about the Responsible Officer issue and liability – and that they thereby get a good dose of what the arrogance of the FATCA and US extraterritorial tax crusade means for those it binds.
I hope the CBA and other FIs haven’t figured out a way to also manipulate and transfer that RO liability and any associated costs onto the CRA and our federal government – whose costs we ALL pay through our Canadian taxes.
Note all the details in the article re Canadian IGA details and timing that the Harper government is NOT sharing with Canadian citizens, voters, taxpayers, legal residents and OWNERS of the legal local Canadian assets in question. See:
‘Who’s on the hook for FATCA?’
Dean DiSpalatro / November 20, 2013
http://www.advisor.ca/tax/tax-news/whos-on-the-hook-for-fatca-136765
“…But who will be responsible for implementing FATCA’s requirements on customer classification, reporting and withholding?”….
…”She [“Jillian Nicolson, Canadian Operational Tax leader at EY”] also notes Canada and the U.S. are close to finalizing the deal. The U.S. shutdown slowed the process down; so did the OECD’s policy paper, “because the industry wanted to talk to [the Department of] Finance about how we could merge those two regimes effectively to have a reduced burden going forward.”
Finance aims to have the deal wrapped up by year’s end, but Nicolson suggests discussions could trickle into 2014. This would “leave little time to adjust for any unexpected content.” Guidance notes from CRA will come within a couple weeks of the deal’s signing, and this is “the important part because [they’ll] tell you how to interpret the [agreement].”
So it’s possible we won’t see CRA guidance until the end of the first quarter of 2014, “which would only give you about three months to get everything in place,” Nicolson concludes.”
Would the settlor have wanted the US pox upon his house, should be the question.
Where to put this one — and what does it mean? Should it have its own post or is it “not relevant”?
The Government of Canada today ratified the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, done at Strasbourg on 25 January 1988, as amended by the Protocol amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters,done at Paris on 27 May 2010 (collectively, the “Convention”). Canada signed the original convention on April 28, 2004 and the Protocol thereto on November 3, 2011. The Convention will enter into force, in respect of Canada, on March 1, 2014, and will have effect in accordance with Article 28 of the Convention.
The Convention, developed jointly by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Council of Europe, is a multilateral instrument, open to all countries, whose purpose is to improve international tax co-operation between the taxation authorities of countries that are a Party to the Convention, with a view to combating international tax avoidance and evasion. In Canada, the Convention will apply to Canadian taxes that fall under the Income Tax Act, Excise Tax Act, and the Excise Act, 2001.
Under the Convention, Canada will exchange tax information pursuant to the OECD standard with other Parties to the Convention. Pursuant to reservations, Canada will not under the Convention be obligated to collect taxes on behalf of another country, or provide assistance in the service of related documents. Canada will instead continue to negotiate a provision on assistance in the collection of taxes on a bilateral basis, and has agreed to include such a provision in certain of its bilateral tax treaties.
**Further information about the Convention is available at: http://www.oecd.org/ctp/eoi/mutual.
For further information contact:
Tax Legislation Division
Phone: (613) 943-9412
For information concerning the interpretation and application of Canada’s tax treaties, please contact the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). Contact information is available on the CRA website. The CRA website has information concerning tax treaties and other information concerning international tax issues.
Terms and Conditions | Transparency