http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Myth-vs-FATCA.aspx
Myth vs. FATCA: The Truth About Treasury’s Effort To Combat Offshore Tax Evasion
The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) is rapidly becoming the global standard in the effort to curtail offshore tax evasion. This month’s G-20 communique marked another important milestone; highlighting the importance of global tax transparency and a renewed commitment to work towards an international standard for the exchange of tax information.
For years, there has been concern about the so-called “tax gap” – the difference between the tax dollars that are owed under the law, and those that are actually collected. Offshore tax evasion is a significant contributor to the tax gap. FATCA establishes a process for foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to report information about U.S. account holders to the IRS.
Treasury developed intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) to implement FATCA effectively. These IGAs will require all of the relevant FFIs in a jurisdiction to report information about offshore U.S. accounts – a reporting obligation that will help the IRS catch tax evaders. Yet despite the clear, positive benefits of FATCA, many continue to make misleading claims about its implementation and impact. Here are the facts on FATCA:
Myth No. 1: Some claim it’s overly costly and burdensome due to complex regulations and difficult to meet reporting requirements.
FACT: Treasury and the IRS have designed our regulations in a way that minimizes administrative burdens and related costs. Specifically, the regulations were intentionally designed to appropriately balance the scope of entities and accounts subject to FATCA with due diligence requirements, while also phasing in the related obligations over several years. For example, the final regulations exempt all preexisting accounts held by individuals with $50,000 or less from review. For similar accounts with less than $1,000,000, an FFI is only required to search the account information that is electronically available. In many cases, FFIs are permitted to rely on information that they already must collect for local anti-money laundering and know-your-customer rules.
Many of these cost-saving simplifications were the result of comments received from affected financial institutions and foreign governments, which helped us to tailor the rules to achieve the policy objectives of the statute without imposing undue burdens or costs.
Myth No. 2: Some claim that U.S. citizens living overseas will become outcasts in the international financial world.
FACT: FATCA withholding applies to the U.S. investments of FFIs whether or not they have U.S. account holders, so turning away known U.S. account holders will not enable an FFI to avoid FATCA. We expect that many, if not most, of the governments implementing FATCA through IGAs will require their financial institutions to identify and report on all non-resident account holders, not just U.S. account holders.
Those governments agree with FATCA’s policy objectives, and want to facilitate the collection of information about the offshore accounts of their own residents. For example, 19 countries have already announced a pilot project to exchange account information about each other’s residents that will be collected by the governments in line with FATCA’s due diligence and reporting procedures. FATCA is quickly becoming the global standard for automatic information exchange and we expect the number of jurisdictions that choose to implement the same reporting procedures for all offshore accounts to continue to grow.
Myth No. 3: Some claim that Americans living abroad will give up their U.S. citizenship because of liabilities and burdens created by FATCA.
FACT: FATCA provisions impose no new obligations on U.S. citizens living abroad. Instead, FATCA’s withholding obligations fall on institutions making payments to FFIs, and the due diligence and reporting requirements fall on the FFIs themselves.
U.S. taxpayers, including U.S. citizens living abroad, are required to comply with U.S. tax laws. Individuals that have used offshore accounts to evade tax obligations may rightly fear that FATCA will identify their illicit activities. Yet a decision to renounce U.S. citizenship would not relieve these individuals of prior U.S. tax obligations, and might well create additional U.S. tax obligations for certain citizens and long-term residents who give up citizenship or residency.
Myth No. 4: Some claim that countries are opposed to FATCA, in part because the legislation could force foreign banks to violate laws in their own countries.
FACT: Treasury’s decision to implement FATCA through IGAs that are respectful of the individual laws and customs of partner jurisdictions has contributed to the significant international interest in participating in FATCA compliance efforts. The two FATCA model IGAs incorporate a two-pronged approach: under the first model, FFIs report to their respective governments who then relay that information to the IRS; or, under the second model, they report directly to the IRS to the extent the account holder consents or such reporting is otherwise legally permitted, supplemented by government-to-government cooperation to facilitate reporting on non-consenting accounts. These model IGAs offer alternative frameworks for information sharing that abides by local laws.
The success of this approach is evidenced by the international response to this legislation. To date, Treasury has signed 9 IGAs and has reached 15 agreements in substance, including with Malta, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands. We are also engaged with over 70 additional countries and expect to conclude negotiations with several others soon.
In September 2013, G-20 leaders committed to the automatic exchange of information as the new global standard, and endorsed the development of a single model for this exchange, which is expected to be based on the FATCA IGAs.
Myth No. 5: Some claim that FATCA will generate a backlash from foreign governments who view this as an overreach of U.S. law.
FACT: FATCA has received considerable international support because most foreign governments recognize how effective FATCA, and in particular our intergovernmental approach, will be in detecting and combatting tax evaders. G-8 leaders recently acknowledged the central role of tax information exchange, stating in their June 2013 communiqué: “A critical tool in the fight against tax evasion is the exchange of information between jurisdictions,” and urging that “[t]ax authorities across the world should automatically share information to fight the scourge of tax evasion.”
Myth No. 6: Some claim that FATCA will unfairly expose FFIs to heavy penalties before they have the necessary mechanisms in place to comply.
FACT: We recently announced a six-month extension to our withholding and account due diligence requirements because we recognize that FFIs need sufficient time to register for, understand, and implement their due diligence and reporting processes. Those requirements will now start on July 1, 2014. This extension exemplifies our commitment to ensuring that foreign jurisdictions and FFIs have sufficient time to properly prepare so that the law can be implemented effectively.
Myth No. 7: Some claim that FATCA aims to use foreign banks as an extension of the IRS.
FACT: Individuals making this claim have confused reporting responsibilities with actual enforcement. The objective of FATCA is the reporting of foreign financial accounts held by U.S. persons or certain entities with U.S. owners. This law only requires FFIs to share information about financial accounts held by U.S. taxpayers, similar to what is already required of U.S. financial institutions; it does not include an enforcement component for those FFIs.
They are getting desperate. They fail to mention the imposition upon foreign spouses. They just leave that out as if it’s not a major consideration. They also leave out foreign born children. It’s foreign family considerations that are driving the most renunciations NOT taxes. They have to know this.
“Some have claimed” This will not harm your foreign spouses and children”
FACT: It certainly will. Your bank against Canadian law will turn over all account numbers, balances and transactions to a foreign nation, the United States simply because there is one U.S. person in the family. It does not matter if the money in the account was earned by a U.S. person or not.
“Some have claimed” There’s nothing new in FATCA
FACT: FATCA has threatened foreign banks by bullying that if they do not go along they will be penalized in ways they have never been before. This was necessary because no foreign bank, especially in countries that are not tax havens would have ever agreed to FATCA.
Some have claimed ” FATCA is not causing people to renounce”
FACT: If you cannot comply as was already mentioned by the tax payer advocate Nina Olsen then you may have no other option but, to renounce.
Robert Stack does not have his facts straight and we need to send this to Flaherty.
Robert Stack read this and I’m sure you are. Stick it.
You are a Homelander who doesn’t understand the tax issues of Americans Abroad. If tax law was exactly the same across every country there wouldn’t be an issue.
However CBT fails to address the issue that each country has its own fiscal needs that translate into into its unique taxation.
Americans Abroad cannot be a servant to two tax masters while the rest of the world only serves ONE – the country they are resident in.
We’ll see once legal challenges mount and if the US is going to pull the 30% trigger. You can paint FATCA in the positive, however, only the Homelanders will believe these misrepresentations.
American exceptionalism at its paternal finest. Refuse to listen to others, look down on their arguments when you disagree. FATCA has already caused many thousands of Americans abroad to renounce. This much is clear. He is either stupid or lying.
@Don, he understands. He’s not a stupid man. He just doesn’t care. The U.S. has decided to throw expats under the bus in trying to create a world wide reporting regime. That’s a “FACT”
They are worried we may gain notice and create push back and they are alarmed about that. I knew that instead of creating a means to go after actual tax cheats in tax havens without harming honest expats they would instead seek to demonize us to be able to support FATCA. I knew that was the way they would respond. I’ve said all along a bully does not change it’s ways. So this is just more of the same. That post will be copy pasted on the FATCAnatics blog sites but, it will not change the FACT of what they are doing, what they have done, who has been harmed by it, and how it as created a back lash and a huge increase of renunciations. You cannot live where you cannot bank. They cannot change the FACT that banks HAVE been turning away long time U.S. customers where they live, work and earn. They cannot change the FACT that foreign spouses and children have been swept up and harmed by this. We have evidence of it. How will they rebut the actual evidence.
As I fill in form 8938 at the start of next year with a bunch of duplicate information from the FBAR I will be able to take solace that FATCA didn’t put any new obligations on me.
I guess it’s just a coincidence that FATCA legislation in 6038D happens to have the same last digits as form 8938. I guess I just imagined them releasing this form for FATCA reporting. I guess I imagined the anger I felt when having to duplicate all the same information in another confusing form with terrible penalties if I got stuff wrong or didn’t file.
FACT: Represenatives of the US government LIED to me, over 20 years ago, in telling me that I was not a US citizen.
FACT: For over 25 years, the US government failed to inform me that they required me to file tax returns from Canada.
FACT: The US calls me a US person, despite my “apparent” rights never having been used.
FACT: The IRS demands the personal financial information of Canadian non-US persons financially linked to me, despite the FACT that I have had an income of $0.
FACT: The US has caused me to spend over $1,200 to have them tell me that I am no longer a US citizen, which I had been told in 1992.
FACT: Mr. Stack can stick his well-spun “facts” up his….
Utter nonsense! Mr. Stack lives in Bizarro World.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World
Previous at Isaac Brock re Mr. Stack:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/06/01/the-bigger-perspective-on-eu-fatca-public-hearing-policy-laundering-reciprocity-and-the-consequences/
and: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/06/27/sifma-and-american-bankers-call-for-fatca-to-be-delayed-until-2015/comment-page-1/#comment-430957 and other comments here.
As well,
FACT: The US entraps my son and others like him into US citizenship. Again, my son (and others like him, born to US citizen parent(s) outside the US) was born in Canada, never registered with the US, never lived in the US, never had any benefit from the US, only from the country of his birth, Canada. He has no way out of the insanity of yearly compliance, for absolutely $0.00 that would be owed to the US as the US says that one with a ‘mental incapacity’ does not have the requisite mental capacity to understand the concept of citizenship and why or why not it can be renounced. Absurdly, a parent, a guardian or a trustee for my son or other such persons (persons who make many life and death decisions, among others, for these persons) do not have the RIGHT to renounce US citizenship on their (most often) family member’s behalf, even with a court order. They face discrimination from the US and by their own countries who are signing IGA’s with the US, discrimination by 1) nationality, and 2) discrimination by disability.
Among help from other professionals, I employed a Washington, DC immigration / nationality lawyer for advice on the status of my adult son, who has a developmental disability after I was told by the US Consulate that he was not able to renounce his ‘supposed’ citizenship because of his ‘mental incapacity.’ This US lawyer said he could do nothing for my son. He unofficially had conversations with those high in Department of State, especially regarding a situation like my son and another more profound case where there is no communication on the part of the disabled person, but there is some comprehension. We discussed my two options – go through with trying to “teach” my son everything they could ask him regarding his knowledge of what citizenship means, what US citizenship means for him; what renunciation of US citizenship means for him – what he would be giving up. Did he have any influence from anyone? Of course.
DOS persons he talked with on an informal basis have “sympathy” for such cases. However, the developmentally disabled person will have to have FULL understanding of what he’s doing; if any question of lack of comprehension and grasping meaning and importance of ramifications, they could NOT approve such a case. From DOS point of view, US citizenship is precious and they have therefore established fundamental requirements for “compelling reason”. Even though there is the risk that a person’s financial resources could run out before his/her life was over, they will never approve a renunciation for financial / economic reasons. DOS has NEVER had such a renunciation case approved due to “compelling circumstances”. Bottom line: “compelling reason” in their regulations is not helpful to my son’s case. I could sue – persons he talked with at DOS are SURE no one would ever win such a case as the courts view the discretionary action that DOS has would take precedence.
That, Mr. Stack, is the very definition of US entrapment.
Further the amount of hard-earned Canadian (administrative assistant) retirement savings I have spent for tax law, tax accounting and immigration/nationality law to come into compliance to be able to renounce my US citizenship (in order not to be subject to any of the outrageous penalties for not understanding the complexities of US Tax and thus the likelihood of making an expensive mistake or mistakes) is US extortion.
@Calgary, what has happened to you and your son must be happening to others too. They have done all these things to innocent families and now they are saying it didn’t happen. That is the very definition of an abusive bully. First they abuse you, then they say you are making it up, they say how just they are. They seek to garner by standers who will support them by portraying the victims as the abusers. Projection is very easy to spot. Great tactic but, so simplistic as to be very easily called out. It’s extremely shameful to see a government engage in the same tactics all abusers are well known to use. Smear the victims, change their story. Wow…I’m very sad to see this in black and white as evidence of how far America has come from what it used to be.
Atticus,
It has to be the same for many other families — who don’t yet know it!!!!
Ol’ Stack-o-lies says all those who are renouncing are misguided.
Yes, F8938 alone makes him a liar.
Oh yeah, glaring omission. Canada.
We should send this to Richard Harvey for a rebuttal!
Tim, number 3 sort of bothers me when it gets to this part:
Yet a decision to renounce U.S. citizenship would not relieve these individuals of prior U.S. tax obligations, and might well create additional U.S. tax obligations for certain citizens and long-term residents who give up citizenship or residency.
Do you … does anyone … have any idea what this might mean? Are there plans in the works to, perhaps, change the rules (again) and require reporting for a certain number of years past an expatriation date by the FFI’s?
Grrr, last paragraph should be in italics. I am using quotations from now on.
@Yoga Girl
The exit tax?
Treasury must be panicking that they are unable to really push through more than a handful of IGAs and the truth about the abusive, extraterritorial and imperial nature of this highly flawed law is being exposed for all to see (especially considering the increased press coverage this law has garnered in the past few months).
But it doesn’t matter how much they spin this, my US passport is being delivered to Embassy Bern very very soon.
If the US has a tax collection problem, that’s because their system and policies are not providing a healthy environment to expand the country’s tax base. Of course money will flee to where it’s best taken care of.
Blatant attempt to profit off the suffering of others then lie when they complain.
bubblebustin, sounds like more than the exit tax, which I am sure isn’t going anywhere. Maybe requiring that you continue to file for an additional five years or whatever though my husband seems to think they are referring to the fact that some expats have pensions or investments in the US which they will continue to have to file on. However non-resident aliens have an easier tax form, or so I understand.
My guess is number 3 is simply scare tactics to discourage people from renouncing.
I would suggest that a response to this Treasury propaganda be drafted, and sent to ACA for publication and distribution to Congress. ACA is well positioned to do this, and IBS is well positioned to draft the initial point by point response. In addition, a similar response can be sent to Canadian representatives.
Steve,
Others are working on this as I type. Coordinating the different parties who wish to respond is the present challenge.
They are obviously desperate, delusional and deliberately disingenuous (i.e. fancy word for lying) as previously didn’t they previously say that there was no or only anecdotal evidence that US citizens were being denied bank accounts and being shut out of ‘foreign’ banks where they live outside the US? But then remember the footage of Geithner being questioned by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney http://www.fawco.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2009:congresswoman-carolyn-maloney-defends-bank-access-for-overseas-americans&catid=182:us-taxation&Itemid=604 ?
Didn’t they pooh-pooh the numbers renouncing as insignificant and meaningless? Then why has at least one US consulate referred to the numbers as a ‘deluge’ worldwide when asked about delays http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/renunciation/comment-page-53/#comment-538762 ? Why the secrecy and obfuscation about the real numbers, which are far larger than the US is willing to admit http://globalnews.ca/news/782020/why-are-so-many-american-expats-giving-up-citizenship-its-a-taxing-issue/ ?
See in counterpoint: …”…Let’s talk about US tax: The RBT Proposal also talks about FATCA’s onerous compliance requirement resulting in foreign banks either refusing US customers, dropping current account holder and even causing many Americans and green cardholders to expatriate. Did you know about that?
Yates: Oh, yes. We knew. We even received a letter from a U.S. taxpayer who’s foreign bank account had been closed without an explanation from the bank. The taxpayer wanted to know why. Eventually, a response went out to the effect that we simply didn’t know why the bank closed the individual’s account. Politically, that’s all we could say.
As for expatriations, I received lots of calls from practitioner friends of mine all over the world telling me that Americans are getting out. We even heard that the wait list to make an appointment to expatriate at some U.S. consulates was over one-year long….”…
quote from interview with Bill Yates former IRS counsel, from http://blogs.angloinfo.com/us-tax/2013/07/22/residence-based-taxation-interview-with-bill-yates-former-attorney-office-of-associate-chief-counsel-international-irs-2/
See also: “The ambassador to Bern, Donald Beyer, said at an American International Club dinner in Geneva this year that 900 people renounced their American nationality in Switzerland in 2012 alone, according to American Citizens Abroad…” http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/why-so-many-swiss-binationals-are-giving-up-u.s.-citizenship/switzerland-binationals-nationality-fatca-u.s./c3s13134/#.UjzhziRXk4c
and,
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Rise_in_US_passport_renunciations.html?cid=36688996
Isn’t FATCA form reporting for individuals referred to as ‘Son of FBAR’ – or ‘Super FBAR’ and didn’t W. Yates – retired IRS counsel describe how it was deliberately designed to give the IRS an FBAR of its very own – under Title 26 of the code rather than the Bank Secrecy Act FBAR with its limitations (Title 31) ? Didn’t they design FATCA reporting for individuals with powers to suspend or extend SOLs on the associated return and other useful characteristics? See; …”…The three of us assigned to the Form 8938 project read Section 6038D a few times and, decided that our project to create a form didn’t look too bad after all. That was the kiss of death, but of course, we didn’t realize it at the time.
Let’s Talk About US Tax: Why?
Yates: Well, we all knew the reason for section 6038D. Section 6038D was enacted in order to put the kind of foreign bank account reporting required by Form 90-22.1, Foreign Bank Account Report (FBAR), under Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code. FBAR reporting is required pursuant Title 31, the Bank Secrecy Act. Because of this, IRS could not initiate an audit of a taxpayer based solely on an FBAR filing. The taxpayer being examined had to have an underlying Title 26 issue. Only with a Title 26 issue could IRS use account information found on an FBAR in furtherance of an audit or exam of the taxpayer. Hence, Congress gave IRS section 6038D, Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code. In short, Congress gave IRS its own FBAR….”. excerpt from http://blogs.angloinfo.com/us-tax/2013/07/01/fatca-interview-with-bill-yates-former-attorney-office-of-associate-chief-counsel-international-irs/
Didn’t the IRS itself say; “The new Form 8938 filing requirement does not replace or otherwise affect a taxpayer’s obligation to file Form TD F 90-22.1 (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts). Individuals must file each form for which they meet the relevant reporting threshold. See also http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-403 . Stack’s claim that FATCA does not create any extra burden is a lie, and his attempt to offer that usual lame claim that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear – in order to deflect criticism. See also ; ….”…..Form 8938 closely resembles older versions of the Foreign Bank Account Report (FBAR). But Form 8938 requests greater detail and serves a different purpose than the FBAR. The purpose of Form 8938 is to facilitate compliance with an internal revenue law (FATCA) and is part of the tax return, and is considered confidential tax return information. The purpose of the FBAR is compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act, is not part of the tax return, and is not considered confidential tax return information. FBARs can be and are shared among governmental agencies and are used primarily by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to track and combat international money laundering. Form 8938 is designed to be used by the Internal Revenue Service for combating international tax evasion.
Also, Form 8938 requests information about foreign assets, which includes foreign accounts that hold assets, while the FBAR requests information only about foreign accounts… “… http://taxes.about.com/od/preparingyourtaxes/a/Foreign-Financial-Assets.htm
Don’t they already acknowledge that many of us would already owe the US zero US taxes – a point made by the IRS Taxpayer advocate in her reports, and by others. Unless of course the penalty regimes – of which FATCA form 8938 has a doozy – are really designed as an ‘in lieu of’ or stand in for the actual tax that they know many do not owe due to Foreign Tax Credits and the FEIE. So, if we don’t owe now, how would we have ‘past US tax obligations’ after we renounce?
Why would we want to continue to be subjected to anymore of this – the slurs, the blame, the useless and expensive cost of ‘compliance’, the fear of making an error or filing incorrectly – the many complex and incomprehensible forms, the multiple deadlines and conflicting instructions, the marriage penalty, the mistreatment of our children’s university savings (RESPs), our dependents with intellectual incapacity prevented from renouncing and UStaxed on the disability savings (RDSPs) and grants they need to live above the poverty line, the punitive US tax and penalty treatment of our legal Canadian accounts (ex. TFSAs) as toxic ‘foreign trusts’ and PFICs, the pre-supposition and prophylactic pre-sentencing of everyone of us deemed a ‘US taxable person’ living outside the US as a guilty tax-evading-money-laundering-terror-funding-druglord, and the annual need to be absolved of all that accumulated burden of presumed sin re our ‘foreign’ local accounts through the FBAR and FATCA confession form filing and reporting to the high priests of tax at the IRS and Treasury – over our entire lifetime and beyond via our estates?
Why would we choose to continue to subject our non-US person joint account holders such as our non-US spouses, business partners, employers, voluntary organizations and family members to the unwarranted IRS and Treasury intrusion and scrutiny of their personal non-US assets based on no legal obligation of theirs, but only in association with us captives – since we must report? Why would we choose to subject our children to the same?
Remember that it was Robert Stack that was present during that footage of Sophie In’t Veld at the EU session asking her questions about FATCA and privacy and data protection issues http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/05/23/eu-parliament-hearing-on-fatca-may-28th/comment-page-3/ http://www.aaro.org/banking/402 .
It is not only privacy laws that FATCA is in conflict with – http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/tax-law/b/fatcacentral/archive/2013/01/21/why-fatca-is-a-tax-treaty-override.aspx
Stack disingenuously keeps referring to the information that countries with an IGA and others around the world might want re the sharing of information on the accounts of their RESIDENTS. Whereas, we know that the US is not only interested in the accounts of US residents, but the accounts and assets of anyone the US deems a ‘taxable person’ – no matter where they might reside, earn and bank. He is counting on the ignorance of readers who might assume that the US tax system is the same as that of the rest of the world, and don’t know how the US system is in essential conflict with the systems in nations in the rest of the globe.
Stack is counting on those abroad not knowing that the IRS and Treasury likely do not have the authority to enter into IGAs and promise equivalent or any other type of banking information exchange by US banks with other countries, http://www.compasscayman.com/cfr/2013/04/12/What-You-Give-and-What-You-Get–Reciprocity-under-a-Model-1/ and that Obama will have to ask Congress for authority http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/04/us-usa-tax-fatca-idUSBRE91312W20130204
and that Florida and Texas Banking associations are suing the US government (see ‘Florida Bankers Association v. U.S. Department of Treasury, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 13-529.’) to prevent ‘automatic’ reporting of interest paid to US accounts of non-resident alien depositors http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/19/us-usa-tax-lawsuit-idUSBRE93I02D20130419 .
And what is the withholding feature of FATCA if not ‘enforcement’? And what is the reporting for if not for followup enforcement?
And didn’t Stack previously say that the 6 month delay was due to the ‘overwhelming interest’ in FATCA, not due to more time needed to implement the rats nest and dogs breakfast of >700 pages of FATCA details “more than 700 pages of tax regulations and other administrative guidance” http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Features/8725FE1C20AA5D4F85257BE8005D0E86?OpenDocument ? Stack previously said: …”…“Given the groundswell of international interest in FATCA, we are providing an additional six months to complete agreements with countries and jurisdictions across the globe, before withholding begins,” said Treasury Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Tax Affairs Robert B. Stack. …”… http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2013/07/13/u-s-inks-fatca-tax-deals-with-9-nations-pursues-80-more-during-6-month-reprieve/
This is just what I found easily and wrote hastily to rebut Stack’s propaganda. There is enough additional information out there to produce our own detailed rebuttal point by point if we wanted to.
@Yogagirl
I think you are reading too much into it.
“Yet a decision to renounce U.S. citizenship would not relieve these individuals of prior U.S. tax obligations” in other words, you are not off the hook for taxes prior to the renunciation-nothing new there…. 8854 and all that.
“,might well create additional U.S. tax obligations (exit tax) for certain citizens (covered expatriates) and long-term residents who give up citizenship or residency.”
I really don’t think there is any reason the think it means anything else..