Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 5 of 11 (Year 2018)

1,714 thoughts on “Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 5 of 11 (Year 2018)”

1. Also – you say many would not want their local accounts to be exempt from reporting under FATCA because “they would still be second-class citizens. They want to be treated the same way as their countrymen and not to be limited to only banking in their country of residence.”

   As Fred has mentioned, CRS requires reporting of cross-border accounts to the country of residence. Not just USC cross-border accounts but (under the Wider Approach) all cross-border accounts Exempting USC local accounts from FATCA reporting would mean treating USC residents and citizens the same as their fellow residents/citizens.

2. Heidi – “It won’t cause fresh problems, it’s just if this is agreed and passed, it would be classified in the US as problem solved and CBT will be in place forever.”

   It would certainly be classified by me as problem solved, and I expect a lot of other US-born individuals would feel the same.

   For decades CBT has been in place and USCs have not complied with CBT and USC local accounts have not been reported to the US. If USC accounts were exempt from FATCA reporting, that would again be the situation.

   Arguing that USCs should oppose exemption of their local accounts is like saying all us US-born should put up with having our bank access interfered with by the IRS on the grounds that deeming local accounts to be foreign accounts is so insane it will cause the US to …. do what?

   What outcome is wanted, that exempting local accounts would make less likely?

3. Fred – “only simple true full RBT resolves the issue. Question is, will this Congress implement RBT?”

   I don’t understand what is meant by Congress implementing RBT. What US legislation would you like to see?

4. CBT is optional. Opt in by filing, or ignore. Millions choose to ignore. FATCA reporting of local accounts is the problem.

   US tax law is of course horrendously oppressive. A good reason not to opt in.

5. @Plaxy
   I was talking about bank ACCESS problems for US citizens in their non resident counties.
   As a non US person living in Switzerland I can get an account in France if I need one. It will be reported to the Swiss under CRS , I don’t like it but I am stuck with it the same as any other EU citizen . As a US citizen I cannot get a new bank account in France if I am not resident there, I cannot buy a holiday home in France as my fellow countrymen can , I cannot help out my elderly parents living outside my resident country.
   US citizens are only treated the same as their countrymen in respect of their resident local accounts because any non local banks don’t want the FATCA fear those US citizens bring with them, CRS doesn’t come with that toxicity.

6. @ Plaxy
   I think you fully understand what we are saying but you just love an argument :-}
   Of course SCE would help to an extent, and some may have to be content with that hand out, but it does not solve all the problems RBT or renunciation does

7. Sorry Heidi, I think I may not have expressed myself clearly.

   USCs and those with a US birthplace want to be treated by their country of residence in the same way as their fellow residents/citizens. If local accounts were exempt from FATCA, USCs and those with a US birthplace would once again be treated by their country of residence in the same way as their fellow residents/citizens. Yes?

8. “I think you fully understand what we are saying but you just love an argument”

   You are dead wrong about that. I would like to understand whay it is that people are hoping will be implemented.

   What do you want to see? What US legislation are you hoping will be passed?

9. @plaxy
   1.Yes, but ONLY in their country of residence. That’s why it’s only a half arsed solution, it effectively makes them prisoners there.
   2. RBT period….. like the rest of the world.
   But then it does not affect me anymore so not really my choice to make.

10. “Yes, but ONLY in their country of residence. That’s why it’s only a half arsed solution, it effectively makes them prisoners there.”

    You think ceasing to report USCs’ local accounts to the IRS would make them prisoners in their residence country? I don’t see how.

    “RBT period….. like the rest of the world.”

    Could you clarify? Do you want to see Cook v. Tait overturned, stripping the Secretary of the Treasury of the (illusory) power to tax USCs on their worldwide income regardless of source and regardless of residence?

    “But then it does not affect me anymore so not really my choice to make.”

    That’s my view too. But FATCA birthplace discrimination does affect me. That’s why I take the view that exempting local accounts from FATCA reporting would be a good thing.

11. Plaxy:

    “I don’t understand what is meant by Congress implementing RBT. What US legislation would you like to see?”

    Well, I’d simply like legislation to state that taxation is no longer based on citizenship, but on tax residency, the latter term meaning actually living in the USA.

    I do like your idea that it is opt in. You must however realize that we’re all listening to each other here and after a while we have very firm notions of what is to us self-evident (and I strongly believe we are right). However to many people who don’t come here, uh, as often…, or at all, the first thing they want to do (or think they have to do) is “comply” with CBT (opt in).
    To get them to even understand what you’re talking about will take at least a few months (so it sinks in). So I’d like it to be spelled out by law.

12. @Plaxy
    “You think ceasing to report USCs’ local accounts to the IRS would make them prisoners in their residence country? I don’t see how.”
    I just want US citizens who come to Brock to understand that SCE is not the best thing since sliced bread.
    That before signing petitions and lending their support , they should understand that it has its limitations. That they will still be regarded as Toxic to banks in any country other than their resident country.
    It shouldn’t be glossed over, every carve out except full RBT is a compromise. Americans deserve better than this.

13. Thanks, Fred, for the clarification. I agree with your comments about it not being easy to put it into words when something feels like it ought to be obvious.

    “I’d simply like legislation to state that taxation is no longer based on citizenship, but on tax residency, the latter term meaning actually living in the USA.”

    That would mean overturning Cook v. Tait, as I mentioned above. I’m not very clear about what that require. I think that if it was challenged in Court, SCOTUS could overturn it; or Congress could pass legislation which would then need to go to a conference for a constitutional amendment, and then if it withstood court challenges, CBT would presumably be over.

    So, not easy. And would presumably be fought tooth and nail by (inter alia) those USCs outside the US who don’t want to lose US tax breaks. But now I have a better understanding of what is seen as the desired outcome. So thanks for that.

14. “I just want US citizens who come to Brock to understand that SCE is not the best thing since sliced bread.”

    Certainly not. Anything is better than American-style sliced bread. 🙂

15. It’s ‘Wonder’ bread!
    No, not easy to overturn Cook vs Tait but what is worth doing is not always easy.

16. @ administrators
    I think it would be useful to have an index of acronyms here maybe under important information?
    We tend to use them more and more often, then any newbie reading some of the posts will be able to understand the references.

17. Cook v. Tait as (at this point in history) absolutely nothing to do with issue.

    At the very most, Cook v. Tait would/could be interpreted to mean that in 1924, that none of the Revenue Act, U.S. constitution, nor international law prohibited the United States from imposing extra-territorial taxation (of the type that was the subject of the lawsuit) on Mr. Cook. If it were reargued today, is is not clear what the outcome would be (given that the notions of citizenship, taxation, reporting requirements have changed so much). Furthermore, when Cook v. Tait was argued even taking an oath of allegiance to another country would have resulted in the loss of citizenship (and if one looked at the regulations made under the 1924 Revenue Act) loss of IRS jurisdiction.

    In most respects U.S. tax policies are political and not (except at the margins) constitutional issues. Cook v. Tait is just an old decision that is probably referenced in law school tax courses as a way to get people to remember that the USA imposes extra-territorial taxation on the world.

18. But FATCA birthplace discrimination does affect me. That’s why I take the view that exempting local accounts from FATCA reporting would be a good thing.

    And if it did NOT affect YOU, then your view would be what?

    The broader problem with FATCA and CBT is that it interferes with the lives of people who are in no way (other than a claim by the U.S. Government) U.S. citizens. @Heidi provides examples … For the most part these people are resident/citizens of the countries where you are living. They are totally innocent. They are not Americans. In many cases they didn’t have any reason to believe they were American. In almost no cases did they have any reason to associate being American with tax slavery.

    “Solutions” like SCE (which are conditioned on U.S. tax compliance) are really examples of “Ugly Americanism” at it’s finest. To support SCE is to support a “carve out” for people who are U.S. tax compliant – leaving the rest of the people to fend for themselves. It’s allowing Americans to move into a country and claim that a requirement should NOT apply to them (because they are U.S. tax compliant) but should somehow apply to (vast majority) others who are residents and are simply being trapped by these unjust laws.

    SCE is every bit as evil as FATCA and possibly more so. To support SCE is to participate in the implementation of FATCA on innocent people in other countries.

19. USCitizenAbroad – thanks for the clarification. It was my understanding that CBT rested on Cook v. Tait, and therefore Cook v. Tait would have to be overturned in order to abolish CBT.

    Do you have a view on what legislation would be necessary in order to abolish CBT? I’d be interested to hear.

20. “SCE is every bit as evil as FATCA and possibly more so. To support SCE is to participate in the implementation of FATCA on innocent people in other countries.”

    LOL – that’s me, evil. 🙂

    You sure know how to win support for your cause – brand them as evil if they don’t.

21. “Solutions” like SCE (which are conditioned on U.S. tax compliance) are really examples of “Ugly Americanism” at it’s finest. To support SCE is to support a “carve out” for people who are U.S. tax compliant – leaving the rest of the people to fend for themselves.”

    The Taxpayer Advocate recommended that the IRS regulations should exclude same-country accounts from being treated as foreign accounts. In my evil way, I see that as a very good recommendation, and would definitely be evilly pleased should it come to pass.

22. “They are totally innocent. They are not Americans.”

    Me neither. Evilly un-American, that’s me.

23. “It’s allowing Americans to move into a country and claim that a requirement should NOT apply to them (because they are U.S. tax compliant) but should somehow apply to (vast majority) others who are residents and are simply being trapped by these unjust laws.”

    I do think your name-calling is a little unbalanced. Having a US birthplace and not wanting the IRS to interfere with one’s banking affairs is not an evil scheme to oppress others who have a US birthplace. It,s the opposite.

24. “But FATCA birthplace discrimination does affect me. That’s why I take the view that exempting local accounts from FATCA reporting would be a good thing.”

    And if it did NOT affect YOU, then your view would be what?

    Eh? If I didn’t have a US birthplace I doubt if I’d have a view on FATCA at all.

25. I said:

    “Do you have a view on what legislation would be necessary in order to abolish CBT? I’d be interested to hear.”

    Anyone?

Comments are closed.