659 thoughts on “Solving the problems of U.S. citizenship – Information sessions!”

1. @George. There is a credit union here that is entirely locally based. We wanted to switch our mortgage there. They didn’t want us. They solicited our business last year and do have an account with my son and husband. As soon as they learned of one U.S. person in the family the tuned changed drastically. It’s better in some cases for these local small institutions to just not have any Americans to deal with at all.

   It may not always be that easy to move over and only use them in lots of cases. And yes, you’re right. Canada’s proximity to the U.S. creates numerous problems.

2. @atticus,
   Thank you for updating us on your experience at that credit union http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/01/14/solving-the-problems-of-u-s-citizenship-information-sessions/comment-page-10/#comment-1036619 .Very interesting that they responded that way even though an IGA had not been signed by Canada at that point (as far as we know) – and your family are Canadian residents and Canadian citizens. This represents a significant entry point on to the continuum of those reporting experiences being effectively denied banking services in Europe and elsewhere (ala mythbusting Stack’s disingenuous claims to the contrary).

   In other words, FATCA is already having an impact on access to basic banking services in Canada despite FATCA not even being in legal force here.

   I wonder – does the charter of credit unions allow for denial of services and accounts based on national origin despite the legal local residence of the would-be (or current member) – with or without a FATCA IGA in force? If one cannot even join a local member owned credit union, then one is denied choice as a consumer and access to basic banking.

   It would be interesting to know what is happening in border areas or large urban centres like Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, where there are so many with US status or economic ties. I run into more and more people with US status all the time – most unaware. What initial experiences are they having (like your family at the credit union) that we don’t know about yet?

3. @badger, they didn’t outright state that was the reason but, as soon as they knew *like within two minutes* I was a U.S. person their tune changed from “Let’s talk about moving you over to our credit union” to “I’m sure we couldn’t give you favourable rates here”

   It was obvious the way they did it as they had been soliciting our business for over a year since my son and husband share an education fund there. I had several phone conversations with them and never said I was a U.S. person. Which I am NOT anymore and I made that clear but, did ask them a question as to how they planned to deal with FATCA. I never got a straight answer on that and they seemed very uncomfortable being asked about it. After that discussion I was discouraged from moving our accounts there by being told they could not give us very good rates etc. etc. *insert your excuse here*

   I’m sure they know they can’t deny services on nation of origin…that wasn’t their stated reason however, it was pretty clear how quickly they changed their tune.

4. @nobledreamer
   Thanks for giving us an account of the Information meeting.
   @Samuel Adams
   That video was very good Thanks for putting it on the blog.
   @IRS Compliant Forever
   Thanks for the pdf report you submitted to the US Finance Committee.
   I will be reading this long read shortly.

   I regret I could not attend the meeting due to the very bad road conditions.
   I would have loved to meet all the people who attended and hope they join this Brock
   blog.. I have found being on here has saved my sanity.

5. @George

   I think you commented that you were pleased that a number of account types were exempt from reporting in an IGA. First, just because the account types are exempt from reporting by FFIs doesn’t make them exempt from reporting by the individuals. It does nothing to resolve the personal liability for FBAR and 8938. Second, in the UK, the existence of accounts exempt from reporting hasn’t stopped FFIs from not offering them to those with US indicia. The Individual Savings Account (ISA) is very popular in the UK and offers a generous contribution of about £11,500 per annum. A stocks and shares ISA allows you to hold individual shares or funds. The investment account providers who have banned those with US indicia from having an investment account also ban them from having a stocks and shares ISA.

   You had asked about the “local bank” exemption in the IGA. There are a number of extremely limiting constraints to being eligible to apply to be in this category. First, you may only operate in one country (the EU as a whole is one country). Second, your local country must withhold tax on interest at source. Third, there is an asset limitation which I can’t find so you have to be very small. Third, 98% of the assets must be held within the country (or within the EU) so you may have to dump a bunch of customers in order to qualify. Fourth, you may not offer USD accounts which is problematic in some countries. Fifth, you may not solicit account holders outside of your country. If you meet the previous requirements AND you are prepared to spend millions implementing a system that allows you to report on non-resident US persons but not on resident US persons AND you agree not to discriminate against US persons then you might be eligible to become a deemed compliant local bank.

   First, there will be very few banks that are capable of qualifying. The Canadian Bankers Association estimated that in all of Canada there were 4 that met the asset limit (“By our estimate, there are only four
   domestic banks in all of Canada that would meet the asset size limit for the local bank deemed compliant category. – http://www.cba.ca/contents/files/presentations/pre_20120515_irsfatca_en.pdf). It’s possible that this number is impacted by the membership of the CBA ie that credit unions aren’t CBA members. Personally, I think that there will be very very few FFIs that will choose to be in the deemed compliant local bank category. Even if you naturally meet the criteria and are happy to accept the business restriction that you can’t discriminate against persons with US indicia, you would still have to spend millions to implement a reporting system that reports on non-residents with US indicia and collects but doesn’t report on residents with US indicia. The issue all along has been that FATCA is extortionately expensive to implement for 0.1% of your customer base. It is far easier and cheaper to dump your customers with US indicia. Dumping your customers with US indicia saves you millions. Additionally, any one customer with US indicia not reported on properly exposes you to the potential catastrophic risk of becoming FATCA non-compliant and the subsequent withholding.

6. @Mykitty

   Welcome to Brock! We are delighted you found it interesting/useful. Please contribute as much as you like here. We all learn from each other. I came across many individual situations I had not seen before, so learned as much as all of you!

   @Joe Blow

   I am not sure I presented it exactly correctly. Please see updated content in same comment that came from the presenter. Also, there is a bit more about f5471 that I simply cannot get to until later today.

   @Mister Magoo,

   Sorry you couldn’t get there. Hopefully next time. What is clear is that there will have to be many more meetings.

7. Question from audience concerned a child who was born in the US and was told would have to take decision as to whether keep or not. So, a USC or not?
   Answer-If the process not completed, NOT a USC

   I was under the impression that if a person was born in the US, then they are a USC, and the only exception being children born of foreign diplomats. Can anyone shed light on this?

8. @Tricia, thanks so much for your notes, (eager for any vicarious crumbs, unable to attend in the flesh – unavoidable though I desperately wanted to) I will try for one of the others.

   @northernstar,
   Keep shining brightly. Glad for your company and that of the others here, together lighting the path, helping others to see.

   @IRSCompliantForever,
   Read through that wonderfully argued submission once,and will again. Amazing to have Willard Yates as a co-contributor.

   @all presenters/organizers of the sessions. Grateful thanks.

9. @calgary411, sorry to have missed the session where you were present, thank you for travelling all that way.

   Hope I can attend a session just to be able to listen to all the different scenarios and understand them better, and so pass on information to others I run into as well as recommending IBS and Maple Sandbox for concrete info about expatriating and options.

10. IBS Administrators, not sure where to put this event slated for those in BC. (and yes, I haven’t mastered the art of posting myself yet : ) )

    This may be an event with advice coming only from those in the compliance industry, but it is sponsored by NDP MP Atamanenko – who spoke strongly against FATCA back in 2011 http://openparliament.ca/search/?q=atamanenko+fatca .

    See:
    “…Alex Atamanenko, MP BC Southern Interior, is sponsoring a public tax information session for Canadians considered to be “U.S. persons….”
    “For more information contact the office of Alex Atamanenko at 250.365.2792 or 1.800.667.2393.” http://www.castlegarnews.com/news/241985751.html

    You might remember that MP Atamananko and the NDP BC Caucus were very forthright in opposing FATCA from the beginning.
    Ex.
    http://andysundberg.weebly.com/1/post/2012/04/canadian-mp-trying-to-help-expats-fight-fatca.html

    http://rosslandtelegraph.com/news/oped/atamanenko-us-tax-policy-affront-canadian-sovereignty-12552#.UuV_ILQo5pg
    ‘Atamanenko: US Tax Policy an Affront to Canadian Sovereignty’
    by Contributor on 13 Jul 2011

11. @Badger
    very good research.
    I wish we had a Brocker from that area. May MP Atamanenko could use some info sent to him.

12. @atticusincanada

    Get it in writing! Send a letter to them registered mail (requires signature) explaining what happened and ask them to open an account for you and if they decline ask them for the exact reason.

    This is what is needed for a class action lawsuit but it seems that some of the so called constitutional lawyers in this country have been threatened or have no ethics or gonads. Until a class action lawsuit is announced Canada and its legal system remains a joke in my eyes.

13. @LM
    Could US citizens be banned from direct investing through, say, mutual fund organizations or Raymond James or Edward Jones Investments?

    The husband of our friend who died in December went to Edward Jones to transfer their joint investments into his name only. He had to fill out new application forms which asked if he was an American citizen (on the mutual fund and a couple of other forms). He is Canadian but knows of my nightmare with the IRS.

14. Forty six (46) attendees. Great!

    The more ex-pats marked with “US person indicia” that are forewarned about Uncle Sam’s oncoming onslaught against them, the better.

    Hat tip to the Isaac Brock presenters. Job well done!

15. Thank you IBS for organizing the event, and thank you to all that attended. For those who have not contacted your federal representatives, I think it is very important that you do so. Let them know how FATCA will impact you and your family.

16. A blast from the recent past: Interview with Petros

17. @ Anne Boleyn

    In the UK, I have been tracking the availability of investment accounts (e.g. online brokers). Sixteen of the 30 or so I am tracking have updated their account terms and conditions to reflect a FATCA world. Of the sixteen, 15 have implemented bans on US persons. Right now, there’s only one online investment account provider in the UK who plans to be FATCA compliant by implementing the systems to report US person accounts. The others have decided that it’s too expensive and are dumping their US person customers and will be FATCA compliant by certifying they don’t have any US person customers.

    I think it’s less likely to happen in Canada since Canada has 5x the number of US persons as the UK and because the financial systems are more intertwined (some Canadian banks have US subsidiaries). Edward Jones is a US company.

18. Brokerage firm ask for SSN if you are an American citizen. This includes duals.

19. It was a privilege to be part of the Toronto information session. The guests of honour, Trish, were those that came out and who were able to get guidelines on the how’s and even some of the why’s of this EXTRA-TERRITORIAL US law into other countries. That we and our financial institutions are considered “foreign” in our own countries is repugnant — to see people in their OMG moments of this realization is almost too much to take. We cannot live normal lives in the countries we choose to live in and have become citizens of if the US considers us chattel. If they cannot see the way to residence-based taxation, it is all about punishment, keeping

    You did an excellent job of getting some of the vast amount of what was discussed down in a summary for others. Hopefully, lurkers here will see the depth of the session and be encouraged to attend the next Toronto information session or a session that might be an area they are able to travel to. I don’t think they will be disappointed when they then get the valuable information and discussion of this past Saturday.

    How I wish there had been such an information session when I started the journey because of MY problem of US compliance, my OMG moment started earlier — in 2007. There were no resources as Isaac Brock and Maple Sandbox. Because of that, I made many mistakes it is my wish to prevent others from making. These FATCA / citizenship-based taxation information sessions are the logical complement to our online sites.

    My time in Toronto was special. In addition to being part of the valuable information session, I met some of the people that give so much to this fight — a fight for our very rights. We seem to have lost to history the times when standing up for rights was a more natural thing to do, a duty. So, to better know some of those of you have not lost your values and speak up on this was special — so many here have my unending respect.

    @tdott,

    I was under the impression that if a person was born in the US, then they are a USC, and the only exception being children born of foreign diplomats. Can anyone shed light on this?

    I agree that this affects so many and we must have definitions clearly stated. Continued US obfuscation is not right. How this is defined will be the basis for people to know to start (or not) their process. DOS / US Consulates or Embassies must give out correct information. Just what is that correct, and hopefully clear and consistent, definition?

20. I am going to repost the beginning of the description of the meeting in Toronto on Saturday 25 January so that the report appears as one long piece rather than posted as 2 separate comments. You can easily skip over the reposted first section by scrolling down to the astericks.

    Greetings Brockers!

    I cannot even begin to tell you how amazing the meeting was today. There were 46 people there, the room was full. We were euphoric and thrilled and it was a completely rewarding experience. We were Petros, Marie, GwEvil, IRSCompliantForever, myself and our very special guest of honor Calgary411. (George and Attius and NorthernStar felt the weather was simply too dangerous to warrant venturing out.) And of course our presenter, who was energetic, entertaining, full of great information and unique perspectives that challenged. Many times, an answer or comment would initially sound right and yet, when considered more fully, almost the opposite would actually be true. I felt like I was re-learning and re-thinking many things in a completely different light.

    Everyone there was completely into it, though many were clearly in their OMG stage, most not in compliance and more than half were interested in info regarding renunciation. It was informal and completely interactive. My notes were not as complete as at previous meetings. However, some of the prominent points were:

    Citizenship (emphasis on how the laws can be interpreted)
    *a constitutionally (respected?) right
    *14th amendment- cannot take it away against your will
    i.e., you OWN your citizenship
    *so if you intended to lose it, for those who became CDN and were told they would lose their USC,
    YOU DID LOSE IT. And you are NOT OBLIGATED TO TAKE IT BACK.
    *so prior to 1986, one became a CDN citizen, you can take the position that you lost your USC

    Recently seen movies that paralled how US views it citizens
    *Oblivion” with Tom Cruise, aliens that “suck the life out of you”
    *the new Jack Ryan movie-unbelievably is focused on a COMPLIANCE OFFICER seeking out
    OFFSHORE ACCOUNTS!!!
    Question from audience concerned a child who was born in the US and was told would have to take decision as to whether keep or not. So, a USC or not?
    Answer-If the process not completed, NOT a USC

    Question – became a CDN citizen in 1995. Would being forced to use US Passport nullify ability to
    relinquish?
    Answer – was asked, use of Passport/Voting? Point being, passport not a direct effect on loss of
    citizenship or not. Voting is more problematic. Evidence of intention (as compared to passport which is
    more passive in terms of being just a govt-issued document).

    Discussion of situation also occurring in the past. In 1987, people could swear an affidavit that they did not intend to lose their USC by taking on CDN citizenship. Two people present indicated they had done just thought. Documents were sent to the State Dept. One person confirmed they actually checked to see if DOS had it, which they did. 🙁 These people are clearly in a different category than others who took CDN citizenship in the ’80′s.

    Comment from lady in the audience – Was told that DOS could deny claim of relinquishment.
    Presenter made the point that all loss of citizenship is relinquishment and that renunciation is one form of relinquishing. Renunciation is something that happens at that time, in the present as compared to relinquishment, which occured in the past.

    Of the various versions of the exit tax provision, the most punitive is 2008 (others being 1996 and 2004).

    Question was asked whether a SSN was need to file an FBAR. The answer is no, according to actual copy of FBAR there-providing a foreign passport or other foreign ID can be substituted. Though a SSN was necessary in order to file a 1040.

    An audience member commented he had been born in the US but was a British subject/Canadian citizen. Reference was made to a time period where this particular status of being a British subject was the norm and had since been changed. Not sure I understood all that was said but in this case, use of his CDN passport indicated intention (of being CDN).

    Tax Law
    *Agree that US tax law is definitely extra-territorial; i,e, citizenship-based taxation (CBT)
    *Rooted in the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations
    does not refer to US citizens but to US PERSONS
    consist of citizen, green-card holders and those who meet the substantial presence test.

    Correlation to hockey “You live your life in the Penalty Box.”

    In CBT, you get credit for some and only some very specific types of tax already paid
    Example, the IRC does not include VAT or Self-Employment Tax

    2 Principles of IRC

    * Thou shall not DEFER TAXES. US Tax law is hostile to tax-deferral.
    Most in CDN tax system consider their principal residence as a primary retirement resource and there
    are no capital gains (CG) The US taxes CGs of USCs abroad, after first $250k gain
    *The word foreign equates with penalty; punitive tax consequences; CDN Mutual Funds which amount
    to PFICs (Passive Foreign Investment Corporations) in the code since 1986. Actually not discovered by
    the IRS until 2009 correlating to the OVDP program of that year; the OVDP punishing investments
    made as long as 20 years ago
    US is in a league all its own; Eritrea only taxes those outside the country at 2%

    How PFICs (MUTUAL fUNDS) are taxed
    *in US Law, a corporation must pay out dividends/earnings every year; i.e., they cannot be re-invested;
    tax must be paid
    *in Canada, there does not have to be a payout so equals DEFERRAL
    *a PFIC 50% assets test or 75% income test; involves dividends and CGs

    US treats as if the MF is sold; example $1,000 times 10 years = $10,000; instead of valuing it is one $10k gain, the US assumes it is a $1,000 gain each year for the ten years times the prescribed rate, the interest and daily compounding. The taxes can be equal or greater than the entire gain. The tax is figured at the rate for income at the highest rate for the year.

    Canadian Controlled Private Corporation (CCPC) – Sub Part F Income Rules
    even if not paid out, must claim as personal income (higher rate than corporation)

    THIS IS IN RELATION TO PASSIVE (INTEREST, DIVIDENDS, CAPITAL GAINS) INCOME. THE EFFECT IS TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO DEFER INCOME. ALTHOUGH, THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE, BUT IT HAS A NUMBER OF OTHER TWISTS AND TURNS. IN ANY EVENT, THE BASIC PRINCIPLE IS THIS:

    IT IS VERY PROBLEMATIC, AND VERY COSTLY FOR AN AMERICAN ABROAD TO CARRY ON BUSINESS IN A NORMAL WAY (BY CANADIANS STANDARDS). UNLESS THERE IS A LOT OF INCOME AT STAKE, AMERICANS ABROAD WILL BE SEVERELY PUNISHED FOR USING A CANADIAN CONRTOLLED PRIVATE CORPORATION

    THIS IS ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF HOW DIFFICULT IT IS FOR AMERICANS ABROAD TO ENGAGE IN MEANINGUL RETIREMENT PLANNING. THE INABILITY TO ENGAGE IN MEANINGFUL RETIREMENT PLANNING IS IS ONE MORE REASON WHY U.S. CITIZENSHIP IS AN EXTREME LIABILITY FOR THOSE LIVING IN “FOREIGN OFFSHORE JURISDICTIONS”

    Information Reporting – How will they find out one owns 10% of corporation – via f5471 to be continued. I have a few more pages to type but a falling asleep sitting up. More tomorrow

    *********
    *********

    CCPC’s- must report on form 5471; generally described as US Person who owns 10% or more of a foreign corporation; there are 5 different categories of US persons who must file. Failure to file can cause a penalty of $10,000 per year for failing to file the form; if the form is not filed, your personal income tax return is deemed to be incomplete and the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the information required by Form 5471 has been submitted.

    John Templeton, pioneer of foreign intesting and founder of the famous Templeton Fund had heard of 4 or 5 renunciations in the US in the 1960′s. In 1962, came the Sub Part F rules He renounced in 1964.

    FBAR
    *Not a tax form but of Title 31; adopted in 1970; Bank Secrecy Laws, Nixon. Notice that from 2003-2008 in Publication 54 (Tax Guide for Us Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad) there is NO MENTION OF FBAR; however in 2009, coinciding with OVDP & the Swiss bank debacle, there is mention of FBAR. Perfect set-up for forcing the issue of ignorance of requirement and thus, obligation to enter OVDP

    There are approximately 40 Information Returns, common examples FBAR (which must be filed digitally at this point) and 8938.

    FBAR Marriage

    1) Surviving spouse, there is no estate tax if the marriage is US person to US person
    there is Estate Tax if the marriage is US person to alien

    2) US Tax Laws- punished for marrying outside the tribe; usually as married filing separately where income is very much lower; laws are punitive

    3) Tax Credit for Children – only if the child is a USC

    Think long term

    FATCA a mystery inside the HIRE Act
    HIRE Act – FATCA; Allison Christians so aptly described as the apple-pie filling with the poison-filled crust

    Law vs the Regulations

    2 Parts to FATCA

    1) the extra-territorial offshore aspect where FFI’s must search DBs and identify US Persons to withhold every pmt originating from or passing thru US
    30%; this aspect is more about reporting requirements and the focus is INFO similar to the NSA and mass spying

    2) the more dangerous part for Americans Abroad is the Information Return 8938 – an FBAR on steroids includes enhanced reporting of PFICs; and
    additional reporting requirements for Americans abroad.

    IBS & MSB are focusing largely on 1); missing the point of the danger of 2); the new reporting requirements will remain whether an IGA is signed or
    not

    NB: I don’t quite understand the following note I made:

    The discussion of citizenship based upon 14th Amendment
    CDN Charter
    & ?????
    ?? It may be legal to discriminate via citizenship

    BANKS want the IGA because

    They don’t want to deal directly with the IRS
    They don’t want to break the law
    The IGA covers All of them; an IGA will produce no holdouts which would produce a FATCA hunt

    Ironically, the very first Supreme Court of Canada decision following adoption of the charter was a case in 1989 where a citizenship law in BC was struck down

    Main concerns for expats: Will I be outed?
    Can I have a bank account?

    A discussion followed where it is noted that the government of Canada has nothing to gain by signing an IGA and it may very well be likely that they will not sign and throw the banks under the bus, letting it be the banks’ problem.

    Practical aspect

    If one is outed to the IRS – will probably just get a letter from the IRS asking to come into compliance and that will be the end of it

    if go to an accountant, will not have the protection of privilege
    if go to a lawyer, will have the protection of lawyer-client privilege

    Different ways to become compliant

    OVDP (called OVDP in 2009/ OVDI in 2011/ OVDP in 2012) ub 2009 required 8 yrs of taxes/FBARs; penalty based upon tax owed + interest + penalties of
    20% accuracy penalty and 25% of net worth (or in limited cases, 12/5% or 5%)

    Streamlined not as simple as seems; narrow and treacherous 20-pt questionnaire before admission

    so-called “quiet” disclosure – prior to programs, this was how one came into compliance

    IT IS NOT THE LAW THAT ONE MUST ENTER ONE OF THE PROGRAMS- no legislative program gives IRS the power to demand programs over “quiet” disclosure
    In essence, the IRS is advocating a form of not paying your taxes

    FS-2011-13, December 2011 Information for U.S. Citizens or Dual Citizens Residing Outside the U.S.-was linked to another page geared to CDNs and Brits, interestingly enough spelled “duel” citizens; to do exactly that. Submit forms without entering one of the programs

    Simply submitting forms is not quiet disclosure

    George Bush “How do you like your freedom now?”

    US lawyers, EA’s and CPA’s are required to be ethical according to circular 230, thus there is more pressure in the US to enter OVDP
    They cannot advocate breaking the law; cannot just look at what the IRS says

    Renouncing changed again in 2008
    One can gift a total of $5 million over lifetime; if give away sooner, a way to lower net worth, and not end up as covered expatriate

    AVOID BEING COVERED

    PFIC can’t be given away without triggering the issue
    but won’t prompt by renouncing

    if one is covered and the deemed disposition is applied, there is a $600,000 exemption however, that threshold is allocated in certain ways to certain assets

    if gift tax is triggered, it still will lower net worth and is 45% if recipient is a US citizen

21. @Tdott

    I believe the lady was referring to a time period when it was an option (?) to decide/indicate at the age of 18 whether the young adult wanted to keep it or not. I need to check on that as I wanted a clearer explanation. It may be one of those things that often has a life of it’s own, kind of like if you expatriate, you have to pay taxes for 10 years and so on………

    I found an interesting description I was trying to post about this but I couldn’t get it formatted the way I wanted. Here is the link anyway:

    https://cliniclegal.org/sites/default/files/KHFourteenthAmendmentforWeb9-13-11.pdf

    Legislative History & Direct Language of the Amendment
    The legislative history surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment shows that Congress intended to
    give citizenship to all children born in the U.S., including children of immigrants. Indeed, this
    question was debated, and delegates who wanted to exclude children from U.S. citizenship lost
    the debate. Only two classes of children were explicitly excluded from U.S. citizenship at the
    time of the writing of the Fourteenth Amendment: (1) children of diplomats, and (2) children of
    some Native American tribes who maintained quasi-sovereign status in 1868. Today, the phrase
    “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes from automatic citizenship only (1) U.S.-born
    children of diplomats of foreign countries, who generally have immunity from U.S. laws, and (2)
    children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory.

22. @Calgary

    I agree with you about the guests of honor but you are still a different kind of guest of honor, for us I mean. And thanks for your kind comments about the notes; I had not intended to do it so it is not especially complete but I guess better than nothing. No tape so that we could transcribe all that was said. :’-(

23. @Tricia, you are great at this type of note taking and I not so much! Hopefully other than an over view the content will be similar in Kingston because I’m fairly positive I am not going to be able to take such extensive notes!

    Thanks so much for transcribing this!

24. @ Tricia
    You’ve hit a home run. Again, many thanks.

25. FATCA rollout in Belgium has started.

    To capture anyone with US indiciae, the bank blocks your bank card and forces the people to come in and sign the required paperwork.

    Could you rally your members to help post “awareness” responses on this blog to help the poor clueless expats of Europe and Belgium to realize what is happening.

    http://www.expat-blog.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=330388