Yearly Archives: 2012

After two attempts to have Rickerby Wealth Group respond to my requests to have them cover the “elephant in the room” (FATCA) on one of their regular guest appearance on the morning news, Shaun Rickerby informs Global TV viewers of the impending US legislation. (My apologies for the low- tech recording off my PVR. Viewerrickerby2s need QuickTime Player-downloads are free).

Just read this on Jack Townsend’s site

Here is the accompanying document.

“On remand, the district judge entered an order of compulsion and contempt against M.H.”

Now what?

[Editor’s note:  This post clears up the issue of whether 8854 is required for people receiving backdated CLNs: If your expatriation date is before 2004, the rules are different]

In this post, I want to point out a clear contradiction both in the logic and the wording of the instructions for Form 8854.  This is a follow-up post to the question posed by USX about who must file the 8854. Continue reading →

Cross posted from ExpatAmi

On 04/03/2012, the Social Security Administration wrote that when I retire at the age of 67, I’ll get a mighty monthly Social Security benefit of $495, partially in exchange for the time spent serving loyally in the United States military.  If I was 67 today, then this benefit would enable me to afford to rent the cheapest one bedroom apartment in San Francisco for only $370 per month, according to WalkScore, and have $125 left over for food, drinks, electricity, health care, transportation, taxes, clothing, etc.

This would be the case if there was no expat penalty, also known as the “Windfall Elimination Provision“ (WEP). On WEP, the Social Security Administration writes:

If you work for an employer who does not withhold Social Security taxes from your salary, such as a government agency or an employer in another country, the pension you get based on that work may reduce your Social Security benefits… The Windfall Elimination Provision primarily affects you if you earned a pension in any job where you did not pay Social Security taxes and you also worked in other jobs long enough to qualify for a Social Security retirement or disability benefit.

Continue reading →

[Editor’s note:  This post clears up the issue of whether 8854 is required for people receiving backdated CLNs: If your expatriation date is before 2004, the rules are different]

(This comment from yesterday, buried at the end of an ancient thread, may have gotten lost in the perpetual flurry. So I repeat it here as a posting in its own right.)

Nobody has yet convinced me that any person who now relinquishes or renounces is not required to file Form 8854 to satisfy the IRS.

This official document says that 8854 applies to anyone expatriating after 16 June 2008.

And this official document says at 2.A — unless I can’t read — that for practically all of the Brock crew, unless you have already done the US consulate thing, you have not expatriated yet. Backdate that precious CLN to 1776 if you want, but when did you actually visit the US consulate?
Continue reading →

A headline from the morning news caught my attention:

“June 13 (Reuters) – Honda Motor Co Ltd said on Wednesday it will recall about 50,000 Civic small cars in the United States from the 2012 model year for a potential driveshaft assembly issue that could lead to loss of engine power. “

It occurred to me that there are more mechanisms in place to notify a consumer of an issue effecting product safety than the US government uses in informing its citizens abroad of their duty to pay US taxes. What if manufacturers were to leave safety recalls to foreign media, or to print it in mouse-type on the last page of a document that a consumer may or may now renew every 10 years, or adopt a laissez faire regard for the law that leads to sellers of the product not informing purchasers of an important safety instruction? Yet the US government continues to punish its citizens by way of onerous penalties and threats of exile for neglecting to report forms that these otherwise law-abiding citizens could not have reasonably known about, and continues to make little in the way of effort to facilitate.

Continue reading →

I came across an interesting article on IPolitics.ca about a deepening mystery about Canadian’s holding bank accounts in Liechtenstein. I linked to article below but its behind a registration wall so I copied and pasted the most intriguing passage [Editor’s note: I’ve rerouted the link through google and so the entire article should be available]:

The mystery surrounding Canadian owners of offshore accounts in a secretive bank in Liechtenstein has deepened with the discovery by the Canada Revenue Agency that nearly half the names it was given are not the real owners of the accounts, iPolitics has learned.

CRA’s probe has determined that 51 of the 106 names it received of account holders in the LGT Bank in the tax haven of Liechtenstein “were not the true beneficial owners for the account.”

“With regards to the 51 cases that were not the true beneficial owners for the accounts, the CRA has determined, through audit actions, that they do not have any tax obligation in relation to the information obtained,” explained Philippe Brideau, spokesman for the Canada Revenue Agency. “However, the CRA has taken actions to determine the true beneficiaries and has taken audit actions to ensure compliance with the Income Tax Act.”

Brideau said further details are protected under confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act.

I am going to put out the supposition that whoever the “real” owners of these accounts are they aren’t Canadian and furthermore the real owners of these account are residents of a certain other country to the south and the premise of FATCA just got blown out of the water. (The information CRA got was stolen by a disgruntled bank employee so even the bank didn’t know who the real owners are). What is interesting is these “51” people appear to be free and clear as a matter of Canadian law so if a certain other’s countries Justice Department wants to do what it normally wants to do its going to have to pick the same type of fight with Canada that is currently ongoing with Switzerland over club “51”. I am going to post this over at Jack Townsend’s blog to see what he thinks of it.

Mystery deepens around Canadian accounts in secretive offshore tax haven

Interestingly there were four account holders outside of the 51 that were fully compliant and 22 that were partially compliant.