Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 3 of 11 (Year 2016)

2,818 thoughts on “Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 3 of 11 (Year 2016)”

1. Comments open, chance to educate. (Site of Bill Moyers; former WH speaker and now political journalist)

   http://billmoyers.com/story/democratic-party-learn-overseas-footsoldiers/

2. Irony department:

   Melania Trump, the wife of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, has rejected suggestions that she violated visa rules when she started working as a model in New York.

   In a statement she said she had followed immigration laws “at all times”.

   Mrs Trump has yet to clarify what type of visa she used during a 1995 photo shoot in New York.

   Mr Trump has taken a hard line on illegal immigration in his campaign.

   So far, the Trump campaign has refused to say exactly which visas Mrs Trump had, and when she had them.
   [..]
   Mrs Trump said she began working as a model in the US in 1996, but nude photos published at the weekend by a New York tabloid appear to have been taken in 1995 for a now defunct French magazine.

   BBC Washington correspondent Gary O’Donoghue says this discrepancy has raised questions about her immigration status at the time and whether she had the right to work.

   The owner of one modelling agency, Paolo Zampolli, says he sponsored Mrs Trump for an H1B work visa in 1996.

   She has said that she had to go back to her native Slovenia every few months to renew her permit – something that is only generally necessary for tourist and business visas that do not permit work.

   Our correspondent says the confusion has the potential to do significant damage to Mr Trump’s campaign, given his robust views on illegal immigrants.

   He has also railed against the use of the H1B visa specifically, suggesting abuse of it is widespread and rampant. [..]

   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36981502

3. Nightline producer Roxanna Sherwood

   She is rethinking of Rachael’s partly filmed renunciation piece

   http://rachelheller.org/certificate-loss-nationality/

   http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/10/19/interview-opportunity-abc-news-nightline-would-like-to-interview-an-american-living-abroad-who-is-in-the-process-of-renouncing-his-or-her-us-citizenship/

   If BOTH parties give assurances of RBT then expats can vote on more than one issue

   She is aware of the Republicans platform repeal of CBT . May be worth Facebooking and Twittering her

   https://www.facebook.com/roxanna.sherwood

   https://twitter.com/rzsherwood

4. Nice one by Fernando Betancor. Also uses evidence of green card renunciations to argue against FATCA:

   http://www.fdbetancor.com/2016/08/03/repeal-fatca/

5. @Barbara
   That IS an EXCELLENT article!

6. “…What About IRS Publications?

   Well, as for IRS Publications, they appear to be worth less than the paper they are printed on. Many taxpayers are likely familiar with IRS publications. The IRS issues many of them; they contain information about a particular tax topic, the general intent of which is to assist taxpayers in preparing their tax returns.

   Unfortunately for the unknowing taxpayer, the IRS has taken the position that taxpayers cannot rely on its publications! See 4.10.7.2.8 (01-01-2006): “IRS Publications explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors. They typically highlight changes in the law, provide examples illustrating Service positions, and include worksheets. Publications are nonbinding on the Service and do not necessarily cover all positions for a given issue. While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position. The Tax Court apparently agrees with this view…”

   “…Instructions to the tax forms fare no better. See, e.g., Montgomery v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 43, 65 (2006) (‘‘It is settled law that taxpayers cannot rely on [IRS] instructions to justify a reporting position otherwise inconsistent with controlling statutory provisions…’’).

   “…Just like cancer-causing cigarettes, taxpayers should be advised in clear and unmistakable language, prominently posted (or announced) that they cannot rely on such forms of IRS advice.”

   http://blogs.angloinfo.com/us-tax/2016/08/05/4699/

7. Everyone that is on FB PLEASE go to Chuck Todd’s “Meet the Press” FB page and comment under Keith Redmond’s entry. We need a gazillion comments and “likes”.

   Chuck Todd: “Would love to get more information on this… I’ll admit, it’s not an issue I’ve followed closely.”

   https://www.facebook.com/MeetThePress/photos/a.285190767870.147612.103708747870/10154498666397871/?type=3

8. I want to underscore Charl’s posting just above. This request has a short shelf life!

   Keith Redmond has at least momentarily caught the attention of “Meet the Press” regarding our issues. At the moment, of all 211 “questions” submitted to Chuck Todd, Keith’s has far and away the most “likes” and therefore sticks to the top of the page. Click the link in Charl’s comment and at the very least add your “like” to Keith Redmond’s original comment.

   If we can get hundreds of “likes”, who knows, Todd may actually be motivated to shed light on these topics for a very influential news show.

9. A detailed review of the US Treasury’s FATCA reciprocity wet-dream (bolded sections mine):

   On May 23 2016 the US Treasury released proposed regulations that, if they become effective, will require US domestic LLCs that are wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by a non-US person, to obtain a US tax identification number and file an annual return (Form 5472) reporting transactions between the LLC and its foreign owner. In addition, the LLC must maintain permanent books of account or records sufficient to establish the accuracy of the return. These proposed regulations would not alter the existing default disregarded entity classification. Instead, they are intended to provide the IRS with the information that it needs to satisfy US obligations under tax treaties, tax information exchange agreements and the like.

   http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d17fcd6d-d7f8-41e5-8860-35bdb883af47

10. Petty positive (for us) FATCA article:

    http://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/us-tax-hunt-overseas-causes-global-headaches/article8955904.ece

11. Treasury says Barbados will gets info from the US so it’s great. Model 1 IGA is lovely because you give info to your own gov.
    I see Julia Tonkovich and a bunch of other treasury types are on linked in. Maybe we should send them all a message complaining about the situation. Stack is on there for example.

    http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/business/business-monday-new-agreement-benefit-b%E2%80%99dos-usa

12. @Neill

    More smoke and mirrors from Treasury. Without reciprocity, the IGAs don’t give Model 1 countries any more information than they would have under their existing treaties.

13. The prospect of Canadian banks whining about how FATCA has created an “untenable situation” for their relationship managers infuriates me. The Canadian Bankers Association lobbied hard for the Harper government to enter into the FATCA IGA her in Canada.

    Cry me a river, banks. You made your bed, now lie in it:

    http://finops.co/investors/fatca-gatca-tax-patience-of-fund-relationship-managers/

14. @ Bubblebustin
    If all the world’s finanacial institutions had banded together to pay a lobbyist to present the true facts of FATCA to the US congress, the act would have been DOA. Jim Jatras said right from the git-go that a small sum, a mere pittance, far far less than a “rounding error”, would have been all that was needed but they let that opportunity pass and instead opted to lobby their governments to sign on FATCA’s bottom line. A pox be on them all.

15. I liked this comment about FBAR:

    Richard Bartholomew DoubleTaxed • 6 hours ago

    I agree wholeheartedly. What our dear elected federal representatives are doing to overseas citizens is scandalous. In fact, it’s straight-up extortion. You should also mention that if you have any sort of foreign bank account the balance of which was greater than USD 10 000 at any time during the year, then you’re required to report the details of that bank account to the US department of the Treasury’s Financial Criminal Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

    The name says it all: you’re a criminal, because you have a foreign bank account with a balance greater than USD 10 000. The worthies at Treasury don’t need a warrant or probable cause to extort information out of you. If you refuse and they catch you then you’re subject to draconian penalties. If you make an honest reporting error, then you’re subject to draconian penalties.

    So much for the fourth amendment. You have to prove that you’re not a dirty little money-laundering creep. But at the same time, you have to wonder who the real creeps are here.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/is-america-due-for-a-tax-hike/494795/#comment-2828687523

16. @EmBee

    It was so much easier to throw us under the bus. After all, we should be obeying US law anyway.

17. @Bubblebustin

    Kinda makes you sick hearing their protests doesn’t it? This is a bit disturbing though (emphasis added).

    In a situation where the investor has completed the paperwork and the relationship manager notices a discrepancy between the information the investor provides for tax purposes and what he or she has disclosed in conversations or other documents, more politically correct yet firm language is recommended. “‘We noticed there is a difference in the information you have provided between this form and that form. Unless it is corrected we cannot open your account,’ is what I would tell relationship managers to say,” says the New York tax attorney. What if the investor refuses or insists there is no discrepancy? The attorney says he leaves it up to the fund management firm to make the call. The fund management firm might decide to refuse the account, or in the case of FATCA, identify the investor as a US person anyway.

18. @osgood, that quote is very creepy;

    ex. “…or in the case of FATCA, identify the investor as a US person anyway.”

    Wonder if this is happening in Canada? No firm proof of US personhood – yet the fund is being advised to “.. identify the investor as a US person anyway”. Ready to violate the rights of individuals to save their own skin.

19. @osgood @badger

    As far as new account openings go, Canada’s IGA “allows” for the account to be reportable vs closed.

    http://sovos.com/blog/fatca-self-certification-could-cause-headaches-for-financial-institutions/

    I wonder how this is really doing the existing account holder or new applicant any favours, considering the difficulties some have experienced in trying to prove they are in fact NOT US persons. Fromthe American Expatriate’s FB page today,

    “An interesting conversation that I had with a branch business manager recently…I was at the bank on a work related matter. The bank kept sending the form for my Canadian ONLY employer to fill out to certify that he was not a US person for tax purposes. He had filled out the form and returned it three times stating that he was a sole propietorship with NO US ties. Yet he kept getting the forms returned to him requesting additional information or claiming the form was incomplete. HE HAD FILLED THE FORM OUT CORRECTLY AS IT TURN OUT. The business manager trying to take the sting out of things a bit tried to down play the whole business; just a little form that needed to be filled out. No big deal. Never mentioned FATCA once. I mentioned Fatca. I could tell she was surprised I knew so much about it. I did not volunteer that I had renounced. I told her I was disgusted that Canada would change it’s privacy laws to accomodate the USA. She became an instant cheerleader saying how much she admired the US for going after tax cheats. I quickly told her that the majority of those tax cheats weren’t tax cheats at all, but people living real lives abroad just trying to pay bills. And…any taxes or fines levied/paid were taking from Canada’s growth and recovery. Next, She mentioned the US was going to levy 30% against Canada if they didn’t sign. I told her other countries had waited to sign the IGA and got a better IGA. Bottom line…this bank has one of the largest foot prints in the USA. We didn’t want shut out. It’s just business. OFF THE RECORD OF COURSE. I wish we had the kind of funds to lobby like the banks.”

20. Re: December IGA Amendment deadline.

    Could Canada or any other country use this to say something like US: you are not providing reciprocal data as indicated you would, your banks are not asking nationality of account holders; until you provide reciprocal data we will not provide data to the US under the IGA.

    What could be asked for under this provision?

    And, what if December passes and amendment not asked for? Lose opportunity to ask for amendment?

21. I asked the above to Haydon Perryman: Who says It is an “Emperor’s new clothes” scenario.

    https://twitter.com/haydonperryman/status/763279331259023362

22. U.S.A. has its hands tied:

    http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/517336/withholding+tax/IRS+Seeks+To+Speed+Up+FATCA+Reporting+With+Imposition+Of+Year+End+Deadline+To+Finalize+Igas

    United States: IRS Seeks To Speed Up FATCA Reporting With Imposition Of Year End Deadline To Finalize IGAs

    If they don’t have an IGA, each bank is free to decide whether or not to comply. One bank refusing, such as the bank I might open in the Dominican Republic, and the whole house of cards collapses. There are banks in some non-IGA countries that do not in fact comply. See the website linked to this post.

23. @JC I completely agree. We need to start a letter writing campaign to our respective governments/MPs to remind them of this deadline, least they forget.

    They need to justify why they are still complying with an agreement that is null and void:
    US is not providing reciprocal data as indicated, US banks are not asking nationality of account holders; until they provide reciprocal data you must not provide data to the US under the IGA.

24. Between their IGA crackdown and nonexistent reciprocity, the IRS’ motto should be, “Do as we say, not as we don’t.”

25. My appeals to my Liberal MP have fallen on deaf ears.

    I think I’ll now write to the Revenue Minister thanking her for her personal response to my query as to whether the CRA has sent my Canadian banking info to the IRS. I’ll bring the reciprocity issue up in my letter. I’d like to send her info on when the IGA comes under review here in Canada, however I can’t find any. Do any of our fine researchers have a link they can provide me that addresses this?

Comments are closed.