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. Republicans Overseas: Opportunity to submit a comment to Congress on the Repatriation Tax

   https://republicansoverseas.com/opportunity-submit-comment-congress-repatriation-tax/

   May 20, 2018/

   The House Ways & Means Committee is holding a ‘Hearing Seiries on Tax Reform: Growing Our Economy and Creating Jobs.’ They are collecting statements for the congressional record, and this is a great opportunity to provide testimony as to the unintended and potentially disastrous consequences of the Repatriation Tax and GILTI tax regime. Comments must be submitted by May 30, 2018.

   If you would like to submit a testimony about the harm these taxes will do to your business, then you can email a letter to them.

2. I can only guess that Keith Redmond has been having problems with comments because the American Expatriates facebook site appears to be no longer public (i.e. no access without sign-in). Pity. It was a good source of information.

3. @EmBee – perhaps now you must join that group.

   I may agree with this privacy concern: people post on there then they don’t want family and friends seeing their posts. Now the only way they could see those posts is to join the group.

   American Expatriates 2.0 is a closed group. The group’s mission is to put as THE PRIORITY the serious issues adversely affecting Americans living overseas and Accidental Americans as it pertains to US government policy overreach. The policies include FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act), US Non-Resident Taxation, US citizenship laws, and any other policies which inhibit the American overseas and Accidental American to live a normal life in their country of residence.

   This group does not address homeland American issues or the problems of homeland Americans.

   This group will support those individuals, groups, organisations, and other entities which put American overseas and Accidental American issues as THE PRIORITY and will call out and push back on those who do not regardless of party affiliation or non-affiliation. Additionally, this group is not about US tax compliance. Any postings not aligned with the group’s mission will not be approved by the administrators.

   As a member or prospective member, if you cannot handle the praise or criticism of a group which may be different from your personal political ideology then this group is not for you. Constructive critique & debate are welcome. Hence think before you post or comment.

   The group is open to Americans overseas, Accidental Americans, Americans who have renounced, and Green Card holders. Homeland Americans & journalists from around the world who are interested in learning more about these serious issues are more than welcomed to join.

   If a member blocks any of the group administrators, the member will be removed from the group. Advertising is not permitted.

   A donation to the American Overseas Global Advocate Fund is sincerely appreciated. The support enables Keith REDMOND, group founder, to continue the important, critical work needed and to give the necessary voice to Americans overseas and Accidental Americans and keeping them as THE PRIORITY. A donation is not a prerequisite to joining the group.

   Donation link: https://www.gofundme.com/American-Overseas-Advocate

   Should you prefer PayPal, you can private message Keith REDMOND and he will send the e-mail linked to the account.

4. Citizen Taxation is an excellent Facebook Group to join.

   https://www.facebook.com/groups/citizenshiptaxation/

5. @ JC
   I won’t be joining FB (Twitter either) but I wish all the American Expatriates well and I appreciate everything that Keith Redmond is doing to fight the good fight. You too, JC … you are a hard-working advocate for change in the US tax code. (Change for the better that is, not like the latest fiasco of Trump’s “tax reform”.)

6. While the tax reform was signed by Trump, it was a product of the legislative branch.

7. “IRS Defends Budget That Would Cut More Than 2,200 Full-Time Jobs”
   https://m.govexec.com/management/2018/05/irs-defends-budget-would-cut-more-2200-full-time-jobs/148415/

   Acting Internal Revenue Service chief David Kautter on Tuesday touted the Trump administration’s $11.1 billion fiscal 2019 budget request for its projected savings of $24.5 million and cuts of more than 2,200 full-time equivalent jobs.

   Appearing with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, Kautter—who doubles as assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy—joined his boss in defending the budget’s assigning of higher priority to modernizing the tax agency’s information technology than to improving enforcement and customer service.

   “We had to make some choices in funding” given the increase in cyber threats to IRS data and the aging of software and hardware, Kautter said. He acknowledged that enforcement, as measured in the number of taxpayers audited, had gone down 37 percent over the past decade, but said, “We have much more sophisticated technology and data analytics” that result in more wealthy taxpayers being audited. “In a finite world, we have to make choices.”
   …
   Kautter also tangled with Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who quizzed him on why the Treasury Departmen has only released a one-page document after Mnuchin’s frequent talk of 100 career professionals analyzing last year’s major tax legislation. “The Joint Tax Committee produces a long analysis on how they got to” their projections on the bill’s impact, and the Congressional Budget Office has forecast that the law will add $2 trillion to the debt over 10 years, the Democrat said. He demanded to know on what basis the secretary is making his claims that the law’s tax cuts will pay for themselves.

   “We did extensive analysis as the bill was being considered, which culminated in one page with a lot behind it,” Kautter said. The Joint Tax Committee produces a long analysis on how they got to” their projections on the bill’s impact, and the Congressional Budget Office has forecast that the law will add $2 trillion to the debt over 10 years, the Democrat said. He demanded to know on what basis the secretary is making his claims that the law’s tax cuts will pay for themselves.

   “We did extensive analysis as the bill was being considered, which culminated in one page with a lot behind it,” Kautter said. The Joint Tax Committee delivered “a reasonable analysis, but when you’re predicting the future, there is a wide range of reasonable estimates.”

   Kautter said he wasn’t aware of any longer Treasury analysis that hadn’t been released, but promised to heed Van Hollen’s request—supported by Chairman James Lankford, R-Okla., that Treasury search for such a document, along with any related income distributional tables prepared to gauge the tax cuts’ impact.

   Gee, I guess they forgot to press Save.

8. Manafort, FBAR, and the Statute of Limitations:

   http://federaltaxcrimes.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/special-counsel-opposes-motion-to.html?m=1

9. Apologies if these have been posted already. Prepare to throw things at your computer as you watch EU Commissioners defend FATCA (in the second video). “The law is what it is.” “Only one occurrence of an issue” (related to FATCA). “Only one complaint” from any consumers of banking anywhere in Europe. “No occasion where the dissemination of data from the FATCA regime” violated data protection laws.

   Report presentation about FATCA at the European Parliament
   https://youtu.be/1Kvm8JiDLUc

   EU Commission representatives answers to FATCA report
   https://youtu.be/iD5b8xkwWQ4

10. Indeed. As expected. The Plenary debate is still to come (July), but clearly the EC is not likely to change its position without a ruling from the ECJ.

    Nevertheless, the EU has referred the US to the OECD panel on harmful tax practices (over GILTI, BEAT, etc,) so we’ll see what comes of that – if anything.

    Kudos to PETI in any case, for setting out the facts and putting it on record.

11. @Barbara
    As disheartening the middle guy with the bald head and french accent was…. the last guy with the italian accent says there are issues and the whole thing has to be reviewed and reassessed. So despite the wording “delicate issue” by the lady, it does seem to me that somebody is going to look further into this matter. Just be take a hopeful stance….

12. Funny how the preview of the second video shows up in my message. Just so you know, there are links to two videos in my post above about the EU Commission. The first one (text link) is Part 1, and the one with the preview showing is Part 2.

13. “the last guy with the italian accent says there are issues and the whole thing has to be reviewed and reassessed.”

    The writer of the report. Not speaking for the EC, unfortunately.

    There will indeed be a debate at the Plenary meeting in July.

14. “As disheartening the middle guy with the bald head and french accent was…”

    The EC speaker.

15. Link to the text of the “Oral Question to Commission/Council”
    tabled following the presentation of the FATCA study:

    http://www.emeeting.europarl.europa.eu/committees/download.do?docUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.europarl.europa.eu%2Fmeetdocs%2F2014_2019%2Fplmrep%2FCOMMITTEES%2FPETI%2FDV%2F2018%2F05-16%2FOQ_FATCA_COM_Council_EN.pdf

    Link to the Resolution:

    http://www.emeeting.europarl.europa.eu/committees/download.do?docUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.europarl.europa.eu%2Fmeetdocs%2F2014_2019%2Fplmrep%2FCOMMITTEES%2FPETI%2FRE%2F2018%2F05-16%2F1151349EN.pdf

    The Plenary meeting is scheduled for July.

16. Research paper discussing the GDPR issues:

    “Can GDPR revive taxpayers` rights to privacy in relation to exchange of tax information?”

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vladislav_Burilov/publication/321462943_Can_GDPR_revive_taxpayerstaxpayersrights_to_privacy_in_relation_to_exchange_of_tax_information/links/5a228536a6fdcc8e866568a7/Can-GDPR-revive-taxpayers-taxpayers-rights-to-privacy-in-relation-to-exchange-of-tax-information.pdf

17. Not sure if anyone has posted this before but it’s a very comprehensive account of the problems faced by US citizens abroad including why Homelanders should also care, apart from general empathy (yea right)
    It also mentions why Markle will undoubtedly have to renounce.
    https://www.thomhartmann.com/users/laurainparis/blog/2018/02/think-you-can-leave-us-think-again

18. Re the EC Commissioner who made a point of saying that the IGA Model 1s are reciprocal. But he sins by omission – because he doesn’t define what ‘reciprocal’ truly means in practice for IGA signatories vs. the US – and it is hard to believe that he doesn’t know by now that the devil is in those very nitty gritty details.

    Somebody send that speaker this;
    Christians, Allison, What You Give and What You Get: Reciprocity Under a Model 1 Intergovernmental Agreement on FATCA (April 12, 2013). Cayman Fin. Rev. April 2013. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2292645

    The US of course does not provide truly ‘reciprocal’ or equivalent information and it doesn’t make US banks collect or remit such information – and it currently can’t make them collect and report it to ‘foreign’ nations. It doesn’t track accountholders by their non-US citizenships, and doesn’t report bank balances, withdrawals, deposits, etc. of their US sited accounts to IGA signatories – though that is what it demands of all the world. Prof. Christians referred to any US ‘reciprocity’ as ‘aspirational’ at best. I prefer to call it deliberate disingenuous US bs.

    Canadians could make the actual workings of the FATCA Model 1 ‘exchange’ clearer for the EU and the EU Commissioner – since we already had the most extensive exchange of information with the US under the Canada/US tax treaty – well BEFORE the implementation of the FATCA IGA, and it is very doubtful whether Canada is getting anything additional that it didn’t already get – which was based on ACTUAL residency, NOT citizenship. Our Canada Revenue Agency refuses to tell Canadian taxpayers any information in answer to the question of what is ‘enhanced’ or truly ‘reciprocal’ about the amount or type of info the US remitted after the IGA was signed that it didn’t remit to Canada before under the pre-existing tax treaty. Probably because the CRA knows that there is no ‘enhanced’ ‘reciprocal’ equivalency coming from the US side but doesn’t want to acknowledge that to Canadian taxpayers who’re footing the US FATCA tab for no actual Canadian benefit (except if you can with a straight face claim that the victim of FATCA extortion ‘benefits’ from satisfying the US criminal wielding the weapon of unwarranted economic sanction in order not to be assaulted).

19. Folks,

    Why are we still saying the IGAs are not reciprocal. Instead of legislation, the US used Treasury Dept. regulations to force banks to reciprocate. There has already bedn at least one lawsuit to challenge these regs. and the banks lost. No gorounds, you see. Not sure exactly where itstands at the moment as far as what other options banks may have, but the regs still stand.

20. @JapanT, US banks do NOT automatically identify and sort out ALL their accountholders by US birthplace, or citizenship. They do NOT report all the balances, withdrawals, deposits, transfers, etc. annually of US sited bank accounts by non-US citizenship to the governments of other countries. They report on interest (for accounts that earn at least $10 of interest earned per year) earned and paid on certain US sited accounts belonging to non-resident aliens from countries with which the U.S. has a tax treaty or other information exchange agreement.

    That is not the same as US demands under FATCA. Thus, it is not truly ‘reciprocal’ or equivalently reciprocal. Some of that reporting and exchange was already being done under pre-existing tax treaties – such as the one with Canada – based on actual RESIDENCY. So, as far as we know (and the CRA and IRS won’t tell) the US is providing NO additional type of information to Canada, on NO additional categories of Canadian residents with US bank accounts than it was before.

    Also, the US FATCA definition of who must report – the non-US FIs and non-US non-FIs that must report is far broader than what the treaties had covered before and what the US is providing to the IGA signatories.

    Other readers – correct me if I’m not explaining this correctly or there is another clearer way to explain why the Model 1 IGAs are NOT truly reciprocal – because what the signatories provide and what the US provides are not sufficiently equivalently reciprocal.

    Also, can you call something truly ‘reciprocal’ when party B complies to avoid an extortionate economic sanction imposed by party A , and Party A faces no sanctions at all?

    Can it be ‘reciprocal’ when one party says the other party has to change its own domestic laws and constitution in order to satisfy the US and the US does not do likewise?

    FATCA is unilateral. The IGAs were rigged to defeat and work around the laws of other countries. FATCA can be changed at US whim since it is a US law. The last in time rule and the savings clause are already jeopardies for the non-US countries involved any tax treaty with the US. FATCA was never meant to be reciprocal or entered into by mutual agreement.

21. @Badger,

    That is all well nd good but it begs the question of why banks would then expend time and money to challenge it in court?

    As far as “Also, can you call something truly ‘reciprocal’ when party B complies to avoid an extortionate economic sanction imposed by party A , and Party A faces no sanctions at all?

    Can it be ‘reciprocal’ when one party says the other party has to change its own domestic laws and constitution in order to satisfy the US and the US does not do likewise?

    FATCA is unilateral. The IGAs were rigged to defeat and work around the laws of other countries. FATCA can be changed at US whim since it is a US law. The last in time rule and the savings clause are already jeopardies for the non-US countries involved any tax treaty with the US. FATCA was never meant to be reciprocal or entered into by mutual agreement.”

    I agree entirely.

22. Badger & Japan T,
    I believe the US is sending its IGA “partners” a bit more information than they did before FATCA. But, even for the accounts of non-US citizen residents of other countries, it’s not as much data as the US receives. What the US is not doing yet (but promised in the IGAs) is identifying the beneficial owner of entity accounts. The IGAs require FFIs to do a massive search (“due diligence”) of their entire client base. This costly exercise has not been reciprocated, turning the US into one of the few places left where one can easily hide beneficial ownership.

    And, while the US insists that everyone else treat US citizens as tax resident in a country where they don’t live, I don’t believe the US reporting system allows for more than one tax residence. The US accounts of nonresident US Persons are reported to the IRS, but not to the country where they actually live.

23. The Council will presumably respond on the reciprocity issue, during the Plenary debate. See the Resolution (7, 8, 9).

    The issue of reciprocity is also to be tested in court in France next year, as part of the AAA’s legal case. (Not sure if it might also figure in the Resolution adopted unanimously by the French Senate? Mislaid that link)

24. As I remember, rooting out the account holders in American banks would cost more than FATCA could ever bring in! The whole FATCA system has caused foreign banks billions! America doesn’t want to pay for that too. So yeah- it is unilateral and the costs go to everybody else but not America.

25. @Karen

    Thanks for the additional information and clarification. A concern to me is the fact that while certain info is required to be shared, there seems to be nothing to forbin more info from being shared.

    FATCA only requires accounts over a certain amount ($50,000 if I remember correctly) yet, at least some banke are reporting any and all accounts held by suspected US persons regardless of balance.

    Why would this not likely occur the opposite direction?

Comments are closed.