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. @BCDoc
   HOW did they find out all this information? That the iranian woman had a husband back in Iran? That somebody had been convicted of a crime in their past? How did they find this out? How did they know who to inspect?

2. @Calgary411 Re: no Warning Sticker on the RESP (or the RDSP), Under Canadian Law (Tax Treaty) these are taxable by the US (by not saying otherwise). This sounds like not acknowledging the problem, trying to pretend not broke so don’t fix it. How about the CRA website? They acknowledge US double taxation. How about for their section on RESP (or the RDSP)? They might be violating their guarantee of accuracy and not to mislead as to tax obligations for Canadian residents under Canadian law.

3. Here is something new:
   https://www.facebook.com/groups/AmericanExpatriates/permalink/668059256693483/
   Mark Sewald

   Today I received a memo that a specific German bank is starting to search for U.S. persons (U.S. citizens; dual nationals and green card holders) on a broad scale within their complete (German) workforce.

   This time it is not FATCA, now the background are the U.S. OFAC regulations. Everybody employed by this specific bank was asked to report if she might be a U.S. person and was asked to report such status to the compliance department and the HR team. The bank is offering specific information / trainings for such individuals. From the memo I have learned that the bank would like to explain the risks for the bank to employ U.S. persons and the risk of the person to work for a foreign bank, while keeping her U.S. status.

   Probably the U.S. persons will be excluded from specific jobs and assignments in a second step, once identified?!
   —-
   11. Who must comply with OFAC regulations?
   U.S. persons must comply with OFAC regulations, including all U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens regardless of where they are located, all persons and entities within the United States, all U.S. incorporated entities and their foreign branches. In the cases of certain programs, foreign subsidiaries owned or controlled by U.S. companies also must comply. Certain programs also require foreign persons in possession of U.S.-origin goods to comply. [01-15-15]
   https://www.treasury.gov/…/faqs/Sanc…/Pages/faq_general.aspx

4. There’s a conversation going on on the American Expatriate’s FB page regarding Americans getting turned down for employment opportunities abroad.

   One commenter said that other countries have refrained from treating Americans as pariahs because of “civility” on their part. I say that others must be aware of what Americans in the midst mean to them before they can respond with “civility” or not.

   Should an American who’s aware of what it means to marry or employ an American lack “civility” by failing to disclose to non-Americans what it means to marry or employ an American?

5. Thanks, JC. That’s the conversation I’m referring to.

6. It appears Germany is trying to gee up trade with Iran:
   http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germany-iran-usa-idUKKCN1230J1?il=0

   If there’s likely to be a discrepancy between Germany’s position on trade with Iran, and the US position on trade with Iran, that might be why a German bank would suddenly want to identify any USP employees. A page at https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/iran.pdf makes it illegal for a USP – “wherever located” – to do practically anything related to Iran.

   “Probably the U.S. persons will be excluded from specific jobs and assignments in a second step, once identified?!”

   Or perhaps they will be encouraged to renounce? The modern employment benefit: $2350 for U.S. citizenship renunciation.

7. WSJ piece about the Germany-Iran trade difficulties caused by banks’ fear of US fines:

   German companies hoped the opening of Iran’s economy following the lifting of international sanctions in January would let them rekindle longstanding commercial ties and quickly strike gold.

   Despite a jump in exports, the results have left Germans disappointed.
   [..]
   …many German business and government leaders had predicted the lifting of sanctions on Iran would trigger a bonanza for their industrial firms, which want to sell Iran equipment to help rebuild its aging infrastructure.

   Disappointed Germans are now blaming the shortfall primarily on remaining U.S. prohibitions on some transactions with Iran.

   “The development lags behind our expectations by far, because of the [U.S.] sanctions still in place,” said Gregor Wolf, director of European and international affairs at the Federation of German Wholesale Foreign Trade and Services. “Companies are afraid of U.S. retaliation,” he added.

   Many Western financial institutions are hesitant about engaging with the Iranian market for fear of facing U.S. fines, Mr. Wolf said. That reticence complicates payments.

   http://www.wsj.com/articles/german-business-blames-u-s-for-iran-trade-disappointment-1472646058

   And this article at http://www.breakingviews.com/considered-view/tehran-timidity-says-more-about-banks-than-iran/ names the elephant in the room:

   Fear FATCA

   The United States really wants European banks to lend to Iran. Secretary of State John Kerry used a London meeting with financial institutions on Thursday to stress the scope for legitimate Iranian business, following the lifting of sanctions in January. Their likely reluctance to follow his advice says more about the state of banking than the state of Tehran.

   On the face of it, European banks have a huge opportunity in an economy with around $400 billion of GDP and the potential to grow 6 percent next year. While U.S. groups are still barred from transacting with Iranian clients, others can go to Tehran, set up a branch and start lending. They just have to make sure they don’t do business in U.S. dollars, or lend to anyone on the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list of Iranians deemed to have undesirable or terrorist links.

   This is, of course, a huge caveat. The risks are massive. Iran comes a lowly 130th out of 168 in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. With lots of business likely to hinge on middlemen, the scope for lending to someone linked in some way to bribery or a SDN is high, and that would mean the European bank falling foul of American and British foreign bribery laws. For banks like BNP Paribas – fined $9 billion by U.S. authorities in 2014 for sanctions violations – the risks are fresh in the memory.

   Any Tehran-bound bank would have to ensure no American staff deal with the client. Any involvement would also run the risk of annoying Iran’s regional rival Saudi Arabia at a time when the latter is hiring banks for the initial public offering of the $2 trillion Saudi Aramco. Throw in the fact that the election of Donald Trump as president could mean a U.S. policy shift, and there’s a watertight case for steering clear.

   But that’s not the point. Banks like Goldman Sachs staked a claim in China by getting in early, and won special treatment from regulators and much respect from clients for doing so. By skirting Iran, lenders risk giving the impression that they don’t have faith in their own compliance systems to ward off harm. That could be taken as a problem with Tehran, but it’s a symptom of a trust problem that runs much deeper.

8. I am getting so tired of the lack of distinctions in articles about FATCA and ‘offshore’ ‘foreign’ accounts – in this case, the second halfof this article by Robert Wood (who has shown before that he well knows better) where it does not acknowledge that the 6-8 million or more people and families deemed ‘UStaxablecitizens’ living, working and banking outside the US are counted as having a ‘foreign’ bank account despite the bank account being practically down the street from their home.
   http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/10/10/actor-john-malkovich-wins-libel-suit-over-false-tax-story-as-fatca-dislosures-continue/#1e9ab8c554c5

9. For those on Facebook (I’m not) and are so inclined, this article could stand some commenting:

   http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/12415192

10. So if you’re a US person living in the UK they have basically reduced the benefit you can have that’s protected by the tax treaty in favor of a vehicle that isn’t.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/11/pension-tax-changes-may-cost-uk-5bn-annually-2035

    Not the short term nature of the change. Must like the budget ‘get some money now’ change for Roth conversions in the US.
    This also means more revenue for the IRS and makes living in the UK as a US person even worse.

11. Is this article proof that the vast majority of Canadians about to get FATCA’d are still totally oblivious to that fact?
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/trump-clinton-absentee-election-us-1.3802060

12. @PierreD

    So what you seem to be suggesting is that any US person/US voter living in Canada who would not vote for Donald Trump must be oblivious to FATCA, because otherwise they would clearly not be voting in their own self-interest? Sorry, but under the current circumstances of this historic election year that is not only utterly absurd, but an insult to the intelligence of US persons everywhere.

    Just as moderate Republicans in the US must now make a choice between party and country, US Persons who are still US voters are faced with a choice between an extremely remote and unlikely promise of FATCA repeal buried deep within the Republican platform, or likely four more years of Democrat-led, CBT “fair share of taxes” bullshit ideology. In any normal election year, the choice for US persons would be pretty obvious – but this year has turned out to be anything but normal.

    As I’ve said before, I am now entirely willing to defer resolution of “our” cause if it ensures that Donald Trump stays as far away from the White House as possible. I am not a US voter, but I hope US voters do indeed put love of country (and the entire world for that matter) above party in this election. Besides, Donald Trump has already torn asunder what we once knew of as the Republican Party, so those hopeful little baubles of CBT and FATCA repeal in the now-irrelevant Republican platform are already nothing more than dust in the wind. It will take the GOP at least a generation or more to recover from this self-immolation and I can’t imagine that FATCA repeal is going to be very high on their list of priorities.

    I am absolutely no fan of Hillary Clinton, but there can be no other rational choice in this election than to keep her opponent far, far away from the levers of power. Donald Trump is an irredeemable narcissist, misogynist, racist, bigot and xenophobe. My conscience would never allow me to put my sad little FATCA woes ahead of voting-in this utterly vile and despicable creature to assume the most powerful position in the world. Never. Never. Never.

    I couldn’t put it much better than Michelle Obama did today, so I’ll let her words underline my own thoughts and feelings:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michelle-obama-donald-trump-women_us_57ffc1d8e4b05eff558236e7

13. Just my Canadian POV opinion (not worth much I know) …
    The Clintons and Bushes are a combined political dynasty whose primary goal is to protect and enrich themselves and the establishment which they represent. We could all die nasty for that diabolical dynasty because I think the odds of WW3 happening with Hillary in the White House are greater than with Donald. (He’s more into construction; she’s definitely into destruction … Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and so on.) This time the stakes are nuclear. I cannot vote of course but I can empathize with Americans who feel they have to vote AGAINST what they believe to be the most evil of the two lessers.

14. I am with Em on this one, at least Donald wants to work with the Russians and not engage in another cold war.

15. @Heidi

    You do realize that members of Donald’s inner circle are already working with the Russians and that the cold war never actually ended?

    Some useful information about the nuclear threat worldwide:

    https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

16. Yes, it drags on even after communism fell, the US will always have to have an ‘ism’ to fight against.

17. …and why not try to work with the Russians rather than against them. The US has never balked from working with all sorts of dictators in the past and still does if it suits their purpose. They more often than not get it wrong, they would have been fighting alongside ISIS rebels in Syria and involved the UK too if parliament didn’t outvote their plan.
    Their incompetent Ambassador April Glaspie gave Sadam Hussain the nod to invade Iraq.
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE5/april.html
    Who knows what Hilary will do by sabre rattling with Russia.

18. @Heidi

    I always wanted to be an astronaut, so here’s my favourite example of how Americans can and do work with the Russians:

    

    Breitbart conspiracy theories notwithstanding, Hillary is not looking to start a war with the Russians any more than Donald Trump is.

19. @ Deckard1138
    I don’t read Breitbart but I do read Counter Punch and I think Gerald Sussman is pretty much on target with this article:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/11/russkies-at-the-doorstep/
    I’m not quite as enthralled with Assange and Snowden as he appears to be but I’m glad he accented and illustrated US (and UK) hypocrisy regarding Russia, plus the MSM parroting of that hypocrisy.

20. Deckard….you got ahead of me on that one. My implications were that zero mention of FATCA was made in the article, nor does anyone seem to understand the implication of voting, period, as in this showing an “intent” to remains a USC. That’s all. And for the record, even if I could vote in that election I would not. Both of the main candidates are despicable to me.

21. As a Democrat all my ‘ex’ US life, I would not vote either.

22. Re: Wikileaks e-mail recommending that HRC make a statement on FATCA reform:

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6580

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/citizenshiptaxation/permalink/1169631233126623/

    Retweets welcome.

    https://twitter.com/JCDoubleTaxed/status/786703013901729793

23. @JC, re the wikileaks email
    “…Stan [Grossman] and I feel that support from Hillary for FATCA and FBAR reform would go a very long way to gain support among overseas voters. Best regards, Joseph Smallhoover”
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6580

    Solid evidence of their empty and disingenous political ploys. Consciously ab/using ‘overseas voters’ as pawns while doing absolutely nothing to actually address the harm that FATCA, FBAR and US extraterritorial CBT has already done and will do.

    Democrats Abroad make me sick. Shades of the advice the Canadian branch of the Democrats Abroad gave a packed audience hearing about all this for the first time, back in 2012 and looking for help. DA telling them that nothing could happen to address their well founded concerns until after THAT upcoming election. Now here we are at yet another election – in 2016 – and nothing has changed. And nothing will.

    Glad that I didn’t wait around to see if that ruling government (or any subsequent one no matter which party) would actually come to their senses and have a twinge of conscience about their abuse of those living outside the US.

    Ask yourselves why NZ lawyers in New Zealand have to wrestle with whether their NZ firm’s or clients accounts are FATCA fodder or not, and how to FATCAnize them according to an extraterritorial US law.
    https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/news-and-communications/news/update-on-fatca-trust-account-requirements

24. Regarding the latest WikiLeaks emails: perhaps the timing is merely a coincidence, or perhaps not, but Podesta sent his first FATCA email (the one socrates posted earlier) on 13 May 2015, and then four days later a Dems Abroad operative showed up here to leave a drive-by comment accusing us of being a “Republican rant organization”

    http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/04/29/senate-finance-committee-posts-submissions-and-shadow-raider-reports-to-brock/comment-page-9/#comment-6103112

    Clearly, Dems Abroad can move fast when there’s something at stake about which they actually care.

    Meanwhile, three months after it was pointed out to Dems Abroad that there’s a Democrat running for Senate in Iowa against the most anti-diaspora Republican since Jacob Collamer during the Civil War, they still can’t take a moment to say a single kind word about her:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=%22patty+judge%22+%22democrats+abroad%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

25. @JC,

    Funnily enough FBAR (FinCen 114) and FATCA (8938) have caused me so much grief that I rarely forget what letters and numbers are in their names and in what order.
    It’s great that they are talking about saying something about it when during these many years they could have done something. I doubt the republicans would have opposed changes.

Comments are closed.