"JR" (deported from USA at age 5) explains why he was born into #FATCA "tax slavery" @Sophieintveld says "bullshit" https://t.co/93CA769Lre
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) July 12, 2017
Many thanks @Embee for providing the link to the spectacle in her comments here and here. The latter comment included:
A message from Jus de Fruit on American Expatriates FB:
So no need for a summary of the audition seeing as a filmed version will be available soon. Suffice to say that things went as well as we could hope.
In the morning I met with an MEP who will be travelling with the next ECON delegation to the US. He was not aware of the issues. He is now. He agreed to find a slot in the itinerary to raise the issue of Accidental Americans with the relevant US Authorities.
The presentation of the petition went well. Followed Tim Smyth’s advice and tried to put the Commission in a corner. Seems Sophie Int Veld is on the same wave length. The Commission in Sophie’s words sent messengers to be shot. Personally I took the fact that three different teams from the Commission were represented as a badge of honour. They simply don’t know what to do with us! Ok got a bit belligerent with one of them, offering to step outside (not to fight but to witness me failing to get an account at BNP Fortis).
Various MEPs approached me after the meeting for more details. I am back at the EP tomorrow to meet more MEPs and their assistants.
We live to fight another round!
I encourage all of you to take the time to watch this video starting at the 1 hour 21 minute mark.
The video features:
– two very spirited presentations (the first by the petitioner “JR”) and the second by Sophie int Veld.
– three pathetic responses from “the three representatives” of the “teams of the commissions” sent by their “bosses” to respond to the petition. I mean really, how stupid can these people actually be? The responses can be basically summarized as: what? This is the first I have heard of this? If any of this is really true, then please file a report. No suggestions that they understood the pure evil of “taxation-based citizenship. No, more like: “See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil.”
Europe is obviously home to millions and millions of unfortunate “souls” who are considered not only:
1. U.S. tax slaves (recent discussion on whether “slave” is an appropriate term here – perhaps “prisoner” is a better term); but
2. Nodes to siphon European capital out of Europe to the U.S. Treasury for “better use”.
My thoughts on this video were a combination of empathy for “JR” the petitioner, respect for Ms. int Veld, embarrassment for the stupidity of the “technocrats” (sent to be the “messengers”) and a sense that (as was so aptly demonstrated by Ms. int Veld) that political institutions don’t operate for the benefit of their citizens.
On the point of “not operating for the benefit of their citizens”, this explains small events like:
– the election of Donald Trump (whether you like him or not) a president with far more democratic legitimacy than any president who was the representative of a political party (although not popular he was NOT the choice of any political party)
– the U.K. vote to exit the EU
In any event …
These “slaves” (or at least “prisoners”) are NOT going to be set free by the politicians. It’s painfully obvious the the EU doesn’t care in the least about its citizens who are claimed as U.S. property. They are quite happy to simply “turn them over”.
It’s also very obvious that the United States of America – that “Great Citadel of Freedom and Justice” – also knows exactly what its doing. As the petitioner makes clear in the video, the United States has “weaponized nationality” and is using that weapon against any country whose residents include those who the USA deems to be its’ property citizens.
Interestingly the petitioner (“JR”) talks about the costs of “buying his freedom” (compliance costs, etc.) Rather than “buying his freedom”, perhaps he (and others like him) should simply “declare their freedom” rather than buy it. Although there are “tax consequences to renouncing U.S. citizenship”, there is NO requirement – “Go ahead make my day” – of tax compliance to renounce U.S. citizenship.
Although, at the present time, “All Roads Lead To Renunciation“, one wonders whether renunciation will continue to be an option at all.
Seriously, the whole situation is ridiculous. As I have written many times:
All Homelanders need to see what is in store for them is to watch how the U.S. treats its citizens outside the USA!
Donald Trump wants to build that wall. Ron Paul famously noted that walls could be used to “keep people in”.
The USA doesn’t need a physical wall to “keep people in”. FATCA, FBAR, CBT, PFIC, CFC and the “alphabet soup” list of indignities inflicted on Americans abroad are a wall.
Have you ever seen the “invisible fence” used to keep the dog in the yard?
Congratulations to the petitioner and to Ms. int Veld for a a fantastic job.
Looking forward …
Tax reform (in some form) will be taking place in the USA.
The USA is well aware of the problems of CBT and FATCA.
The only reason for the USA to continue CBT is to transfer the capital of other nations to the USA (Boris Johnson style).
The only reason to continue FATCA and NOT join the CRS is to enhance the USA as the world’s premier Tax Haven – “Tax Haven USA“.
If you believe in and/or admire the USA’s status as the world’s number one tax haven, then why not:
Like Tax Haven USA on Facebook!
In other words, the failure to change will be intentional and willful with respect to the effects on other nations and their citizen/residents.
It’s like this:
You are either against the “weaponization of nationality” or you are with the Americans!
@Norman
Point taken. The UK trade commission are now busy visiting and cosying up to many human rights abuse countries, in their desperation to make trade deals after Brexit.
@Heidi
“Yes, the EU en mass could have resisted Fatca, but they didn’t. Probably because they didn’t understand the consequences.”
Yes, agreed. But now they know about America’s anachronistic fiscal policies and the non-existent FATCA reciprocity. I say counter the 30% withholding tax reciprocally with a 30% withholding tax on all US bank profits in Europe. Maybe even ban US banks from doing business in Europe. I really do not know what the best solution is, but the EU can take the lead now and put an end to US extraterritoriality. Bear in mind that the EU is a very big market as well as a global player…
“the EU en mass could have resisted Fatca, but they didn’t. Probably because they didn’t understand the consequences. ”
That’s wishful thinking, I’m afraid. The EU, like the G5, saw FATCA as an opportunity. And that’s exactly what it proved to be, from the Commission’s point of view, as it facilitated the repeal of the comparatively limited Savings Directive and its replacement by the far more sweeping FATCA-like CRS (DAC).
A brief summary from Fircosoft (a UK software company that sells AEOI due diligence software to banks):
http://www.fircosoft.com/services/fatca-expert-corner/
(Foreign) Banks provide to the (local) tax services of the balance at the end of each year of each account of every American citizen living officially abroad . This is required by the IRS. No other information is provided by the banks.
However, FBAR requires the “highest” balance during any given year, information that is not provided by the banks at all. So, how do the Treasury verify the figures supplied for FBAR by American citizens living abroad?
Moreover, the currency exchange rate used by the IRS differs from the one used by the Treasury.
This seems to indicate that FATCA and FBAR have nothing to do with each other, but they do… Messy.
Isn’t the FBAR “highest balance” the datum that determines whether a US citizen with a foreign account is required to report it?
Once the IRS knows a taxpayer has a foreign account holding significant money (perhaps from whistle-blower, perhaps from FATCA report), they can check a 1040 to see if there’s a Schedule B, and if there’s not, and also no FBAR, it’s the non-filing of the FBAR that lets them wipe the person’s financial life out of existence. They don’t care what the “highest balance” is, except to allow them to penalize.
@plaxy
Yes, I remember reading that the EU had been trying to break bank secrecy with foreign account reporting for many years but it was impossible to get banks to invest in the high cost of installing compliance software and also the fact that the US was reluctant to come on board. They thought they had at last succeeded when Obama implemented Fatca. I think it has been a slow learning curve in discovering the lack of reciprocity as well as the consequences of cbt on their dual and accidental citizens.
Heidi – yes, I agree they may have had (and still may have) unrealistic hopes for full reciprocity.
I don’t think they lose any sleep over the consequences of CRS/FATCA/IGA on EU residents who have US citizenship, as long as EU law isn’t being broken. Once there’s a successful challenge on grounds of discrimination or data protection – both areas in which rights are guaranteed under EU law – the AEOI laws will have to be brought into compliance with the court ruling. Roll on that day.
European bankers vent on FATCA (31/07/2017):
http://www.ebf.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/EBF_028279-EBF-Response-to-Treasury-Request-for-Information-published-on-14-June-2017_82-F.R.-27217-1.pdf
@plaxy @Heidi
“That’s wishful thinking, I’m afraid. The EU, like the G5, saw FATCA as an opportunity. And that’s exactly what it proved to be, from the Commission’s point of view, as it facilitated the repeal of the comparatively limited Savings Directive and its replacement by the far more sweeping FATCA-like CRS (DAC).”
There is a point of diminishing returns with all of this tax compliance crap. The “comparatively limited” Savings Directive was probably as good of a tax enforcement mechanism as you could get without breaching human rights (e.g. discrimination by birth), taxpayers’ rights (e.g. double taxation) as well as data protection (e.g. data submission to third countries) on such an extraordinary scale. If I remember correctly, small-balance non-resident EU accounts earning less than €200 of interest per annum were even exempt from the Directive (e.g. a Belgian resident with a Spanish current account to pay for bills from his Spanish flat). The Directive was quite sensible, in my opinion.