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. @Polly

   Yet the courts have ruled that US banks must comply with the regs though they may not yet require the same level of reporting.

2. US news websites blocked in EU over GDPR http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44248448
   New data protection laws in EU.
   In extension, can it extend to consequences for insecure Fatca data?

3. Has Solomon Yue made any of the documents accessible that he has used, or will be using for his #TTFI presentation today?

4. Uncle Tell:

   “Has Solomon Yue made any of the documents accessible that he has used, or will be using for his #TTFI presentation today?”

   Yes, that would be great. And maybe a link to the video of the presentation? Apparently AmchamHK have a Youtube channel but I suppose it’s for members only.

5. @Heidi

   “US news websites blocked in EU over GDPR http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44248448
   New data protection laws in EU.
   In extension, can it extend to consequences for insecure Fatca data?”

   This is one of the strangest thing about this. My coworkers were all up in arms over the revelations of the NSA recording pretty much everything but are not at all concerned over their financial data being shared. Curious.

   I hope GDPR will have a positive effect for those in the EU but somehow doubt it will.

6. Japan T

   Yes, some banks are just reporting everything, and ignoring the threshold. I’d like to see someone with an account below the threshold who challenges their inclusion in the FATCA data as a violation of their right to privacy. I think this is very possible under GDPR.

   You might find it interesting to see what the US agreed to report (using the Australian IGA as an example):

   The term “Australian Reportable Account” means a Financial Account maintained by a Reporting U.S. Financial Institution if: (i) in the case of a Depository Account, the account is held by an individual resident in Australia and more than $10 of interest is paid to such account in any given calendar year; or (ii) in the case of a Financial Account other than a Depository Account, the Account Holder is a resident of Australia, including an Entity that certifies that it is resident in Australia for tax purposes, with respect to which U.S. source income that is subject to reporting under chapter 3 of subtitle A or chapter 61 of subtitle F of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code is paid or credited.

   I believe the IRS is using form 1042-S for this purpose. US banks are required to complete form 1042-S for NRA individuals with more than $10 in deposit interest (even though no US tax is withheld on deposit- they may very well report lower interest amounts. Withholding agents will also file form 1042-S for any withholdable payment made to an NRA or foreign entity, and the IGA does not provide a threshold for this reporting.

   And the information the US agreed to provide does NOT include an Australian tax ID number (just name, address and date of birth) and does not include the balance of the account, only US-source income.

7. @Karen

   Thanks for the info. Seems that the US will not yet be reporting on Australians residing in the US or anywhere else other than Australia who have accounts in the US.

8. Japan T – true. But the US will NOT be telling Australia about US accounts of US citizens/green card holders living in Australia. Only NRAs resident in Australia will be reported to Australia.

9. Karen:

   “I’d like to see someone with an account below the threshold who challenges their inclusion in the FATCA data as a violation of their right to privacy. I think this is very possible under GDPR.”

   It’s a violation of the right to privacy for those over the threshold as well. Let’s hope the ECJ will (eventually, if the case gets that far) agree.

10. Plaxy,
    I agree that it is a violation of privacy/data protection rights even for those above the threshold, but the case may be easier to make for those below the threshold.

11. I don’t think so. I think it would be far less likely to win, as it would in effect be accepting that those with accounts over the threshold do not have privacy rights.

    However, it’s probably theoretical, as no one who’s below the reporting threshold is likely to have money to sue.

12. Karen,

    Sad that that is true.

13. Plaxy,

    Ain’t that the truth!

14. When I was still at the Postbank in Germany, I talked them into sending me the exact data they sent for 2015 and it included all accounts. Even the one with just ca. €1000 in it.

15. IRS Medic, Anthony Parent at Tax Connections: For Those Who Can’t Afford The Luxury Of IRS Compliance, You Are Not Alone

16. Calgary411 – Thanks for that link.

    Very disturbing to read that comment (foreign child having to prove no claim to US citizenship).

17. Further to the question of whether the IRS can tax an individual who has a right to claim US citizenship but has not applied to do so):

    Phil Hodgen has done a public service by preserving a copy of Revenue Ruling
    92-109, which does not seem to be available online anywhere else, not even unclefed.com.

    https://hodgen.com/revenue-ruling-92-109/

    The relevant Issue is Number 2:

    Whether, and to what extent, former United States citizens who are eligible to have their United States citizenship retroactively restored (but have not applied to do so) are liable for federal income and gift taxes as United States citizens.

    and the answer is that they are not – despite the USG’s attempts to impose citizenship on them without their consent.

    It follows (I assume) that the USG also
    cannot impose US citizenship on an individual born outside the US without the individual’s consent.

    I assume that that is why the Tax Connections piece (link posted above by Calgary411) cited this ruling.

    IANAL

18. Should have said, why the commenter on the Tax Connections piece cited this ruling.

19. These aren’t avenues for commenting, but there are some very interesting (but in-depth, technical) articles which discuss the IRS use of the FATCA form 8938 provisions to extend reporting and penalty periods – even for pre-FATCA form returns, and passport revocation provisions, etc.

    https://www.chamberlainlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/Second%20Section%207345%20and%20Passport%20Article.pdf

    https://www.chamberlainlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/Form%208938%20and%20extended%20ASED%20-%20Rafizadeh%20article.pdf

    Usual caveat;
    I’m not posting these links to endorse services, but for the benefit of those readers here who are interested in these aspects of the IRS uses/abuses and enforcement of US extraterritorial CBT. Many more very interesting and well written material is here; https://www.chamberlainlaw.com/attorneys-Hale_Sheppard.html .

20. “Calgary411 – Thanks for that link.

    Very disturbing to read that comment (foreign child having to prove no claim to US citizenship).”

    Very disturbing, yes. A surprise, no. At least it should not be.

21. Going back to the topic if banks providing more information than required, why are they doing so?

22. because they can. (its cheaper)

23. Exactly. It is cheaper to set up the one new system that reports everything they have that it is to go back and change it or set up another new system when more info is demanded.

    The exact same circumstance will most likely occur with US banks reporting to other countries.

24. This article doesn’t have comments, but does invite a rebuttal or reply.

    http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2018/why-benefits-of-citizenship-arent-always-equal/

25. The IRS has published a fresh bunch of threats-mislabelled-as-rights:

    https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p3744.pdf

Comments are closed.