This Is an Urgent Campaign to Repeal FATCA ALERT!
Support the Paul Amendment to Repeal FATCA!
November 29, 2017
This week the Senate version of the tax reform bill will come to the Senate
floor. The Campaign to Repeal FATCA has learned that Senator Rand Paul
(R-Kentucky) plans to offer as a floor amendment his bill S. 869 to repeal
the so-called “Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).
The Campaign to Repeal FATCA is asking everyone immediately to contact your
Senators with this simple message:
“Support the Paul Amendment to Repeal FATCA!”
You can find the contact information for your state’s two Senators
here. Given the partisan divide
in the Senate, it is especially important to contact Republican Senators. If
your state has one from each party, contact the Republican first!
Here is a suggested draft message you can use via the email contact. (NOTE:
If you are contacting a Democratic Senator, please delete the sentence in
red referring to the Platform.):
Dear Senator [Name]:
As your constituent, I strongly urge you to support the floor amendment to
be offered by Senator Rand Paul to repeal the so-called Foreign Account Tax
Compliance Act, or FATCA. Despite the claims of its sponsors when it was
passed in 2010, FATCA is a failure in its supposed aim to recover offshore
tax assets hidden by “fat cats.” Instead, it has imposed massive costs on
middle class Americans, violated Americans’ privacy without probable cause,
and led to a huge increase in U.S. citizenship renunciations. The 2016 GOP
Platform called for the repeal of this wrongheaded Obama-era law – and the
Republican Party should keep its promises! Please support the Paul Amendment
to repeal FATCA!
[Name, location]
In addition, if you represent an organization, please issue a statement in
support of the Paul Amendment to repeal FATCA and send it to Senate offices
and distribute via social media.
Time is of the essence. Thank you for your help at this critical moment!
Nigel Green and Jim Jatras
Co-Leaders, Campaign to Repeal FATCA
Further information points on why FATCA must be repealed follow:
The GOP called for repeal in its 2016 Platform. “The Foreign Account Tax
Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Foreign Bank and Asset Reporting Requirements
result in government’s warrantless seizure of personal financial information
without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Americans overseas should
enjoy the same rights as Americans residing in the United States, whose
private financial information is not subject to disclosure to the government
except as to interest earned. The requirement for all banks around the world
to provide detailed information to the IRS about American account holders
outside the United States has resulted in banks refusing service to them.
Thus, FATCA not only allows ‘unreasonable search and seizures’ but also
threatens the ability of overseas Americans to lead normal lives. We call
for its repeal and for a change to residency-based taxation for U.S.
citizens overseas.”
FATCA fails in its stated purpose of recovering tax revenues. On enactment
in 2010, FATCA was scored as raising about $800M per year. According to
Texas A&M law professor William Byrnes, actual recoveries are closer to
$100-200M per year and falling. FATCA will soon cost more than it brings in.
FATCA is an indiscriminate violation of privacy. FATCA data reporting
requires no probable cause or even suspicion. Unlike domestic 1099s and W2s,
no taxable event is required. Compliance burdens fall disproportionately
upon people of moderate means, few of whom are engaged in evasion or owe any
tax. Foreign banks’ denying services to Americans leads to increased U.S
citizenship renunciations.
FATCA is costly. Estimates of global compliance spending rely on aggregation
of per-institution costs: millions for each small bank, hundreds of millions
for a big one. One projection puts cumulative cost at $58 to $170 billion.
This is an order of magnitude greater than any recoveries from FATCA.
FATCA relies on Obama-era Executive overreach. Because of other countries’
privacy laws, FATCA is unenforceable without so-called “intergovernmental
agreements” (IGAs) invented by Tim Geithner’s Treasury Department. The IGAs
are not authorized by statute or submitted to the U.S. Senate as treaties.
FATCA threatens our domestic financial industry. Reciprocal “Model 1” IGAs
promise “reciprocity” from U.S. domestic banks. This threatens massive
FATCA-like costs on U.S. banks and consumers.
Keeping FATCA on the books risks future harm. The OECD, which for years has
sought to extinguish personal financial privacy and create a worldwide
financial data fishbowl, has praised the IGAs as a “catalyst” to that end.
If FATCA remains on the books, the next Democrat Administration and Congress
may press reciprocity on domestic American financial firms to create a
global FATCA – or “GATCA.” This is the opposite of what the GOP Platform
promised.
Transparency is when citizens monitor government.
When government monitors citizens, that’s tyranny.
Yes, Dave you’re absolutely right. A lot of people here are in the same situation as you. Thankfully there are some here, and many on other forums, who do have senators to contact and I pray that every one has taken BB’s lead and sent their emails and made their phone calls. And I hope those who are calling/emailing are making sure they mention the abolition of CBT as a necessity.
Representation in the government is a right in any democratic society. If representation is contingent on payment/filing of taxes it is no longer a right.
In case anyone isn’t aware, that ATR statement (Grover Norquist) is YUGE. It vastly increases chance the repeal measure gets into the Senate bill.
Was just going to post the same link as James. Did so in all the expat Facebook groups so are up to date.
Is there any sense in contacting the two Democratic senators of a state where you voted once, a quarter-century ago, and have not voted since? Or will thus just be a party-line thing anyway?
Why should there be any question whether we should contact any representative, be they Dem or Rep??? Certainly saying something is better than nothing even if they are toeing the party line – because who knows, their party line may one day be in our favour!
Tim said:
Is this all of the floor amendments, or will there be more?
I also see nothing to correct the transition tax for corporations.
Would anyone else like to have a go at figuring out this mess of legislative mumbo jumbo?
SEC. 14601. REPEAL OF WITHHOLDING AND REPORTING WITH RESPECT
TO CERTAIN FOREIGN ACCOUNTS.
(a) In General.–Chapter 4 is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments for Rules for Electronically
Filed Returns.–Section 6011(e)(4) is amended–
(1) by inserting “, as in effect on January 1, 2017”
after “(as defined in section 1471(d)(5)”, and
(2) by striking “or 1474(a)”.
(c) Conforming Amendment Related to Substitute Dividends.–
Section 871(m) is amended by striking “chapters 3 and 4”
both places it appears and inserting “chapter 3”.
(d) Other Conforming Amendments.–
(1) Section 6414 s amended by striking “or 4”.
(2) Paragraph (1) of section 6501(b) is amended by striking
“4,”.
(3) Paragraph (2) of section 6501(b) is amended–
(A) by striking “4,”, and
(B) by striking “and witholding taxes” in the heading and
inserting “taxes and tax imposed by chapter 3”.
(4) Paragraph (3) of section 6513(b) is amended–
(A) by striking “or 4”, and
(B) by striking “or 1474(b)”.
(5) Section 6513(c) is amended by striking “4,”.
(6) Section 6611(e)(4) is amended by striking “or 4”.
(7) Paragraph (1) of section 6724(d) is amended by striking
“under chapter 4 or”.
(8) Paragraph (2) of section 6724(d) is amended by striking
“or 4”.
(e) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section
shall apply to payments made after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 14602. REPEAL OF INFORMATION REPORTING WITH RESPECT TO
FOREIGN FINANCIAL ASSETS.
(a) In General.–Subpart A of part III of subchapter A of
chapter 61 is amended by striking section 6038D.
(b) Repeal of Modification of Statute of Limitations for
Significant Omission of Income in Connection With Foreign
Assets.–
(1) Paragraph (1) of section 6501(e) is amended by striking
subparagraph (A) and by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and
(C) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively.
(2) Subparagraph (A) of section 6501(e), as redesignated by
paragraph (1), is amended by striking all that precedes
clause (i) and inserting the following:
“(A) General rule.–If the taxpayer omits from gross
income an amount properly included therein which is in excess
of 25 percent of the amount of gross income stated in the
return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for
the collection of such tax may be begun without assessment,
at any time within 6 years after the return was filed. For
purposes of this subparagraph–”.
[[Page S7469]]
(3) Paragraph (2) of section 6229(c) is amended by striking
“and such amount is described in clause (i) or (ii) of
section 6501(e)(1)(A)” and inserting “which is in excess of
25 percent of the amount of gross income stated in its
return”.
(4) Paragraph (8) of section 6501(c) is amended–
(A) by striking “pursuant to an election under section
1295(b) or”,
(B) by striking “1298(f)”, and
(C) by striking “6038D,”.
(c) Clerical Amendment.–The table of sections for subpart
A of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 is amended by
striking the item related to section 6038D.
(d) Effective Date.–
(1) In general.–Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years
ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Returns.–The amendments made by subsection (b) shall
apply to returns filed after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 14603. REPEAL OF PENALTIES FOR UNDERPAYMENTS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN FINANCIAL
ASSETS.
(a) In General.–Section 6662 is amended–
(1) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (7) and
redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (7), and
(2) by striking subsection (j) and redesignating subsection
(k) as subsection (j).
(b) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 14604. REPEAL OF REPORTING OF ACTIVITIES WITH RESPECT TO
PASSIVE FOREIGN INVESTMENT COMPANIES.
(a) In General.–Section 1298 is amended by striking
subsection (f) and by redesignating subsection (g) as
subsection (f).
(b) Conforming Amendment.–Section 1291(e) is amended by
striking “and (d)” and inserting “, (d), and (f)”.
(c) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 14605. REPEAL OF REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR UNITED STATES
OWNERS OF FOREIGN TRUSTS.
(a) In General.–Paragraph (1) of section 6048(b) is
amended by striking “shall submit such information as the
Secretary may prescribe with respect to such trust for such
year and”.
(b) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 14606. REPEAL OF MINIMUM PENALTY WITH RESPECT TO FAILURE
TO REPORT ON CERTAIN FOREIGN TRUSTS.
(a) In General.–Section 6677(a) is amended–
(1) by striking “the greater of $10,000 or”, and
(2) by striking the last sentence and inserting the
following: “In no event shall the penalty under this
subsection with respect to any failure exceed the gross
reportable amount.”.
(b) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section
shall apply to notices and returns required to be filed after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
______
Because after a second near-miss with pneumonia – caught the lung infection in time before it became pneumonia, I don’t have the energy nor the wherewithal to look through a bunch of legislative crap to find out what this “REPEAL” does or doesn’t do for us. ..
All I have to say is that when the Tax Code – a law that is intended for the layman to be able to understand so that he or she can be in compliance or whatever (or tell you-know-who to go fuck themselves)…is so unclear and convoluted that you have to have a tax lawyer to make heads or tails out of this BULLSHIT, how is anyone supposed to understand it, least of all the Senators and Congressmen who vote on these stupid bills?
As an expat I definitely have a dog in this fight and I do vote by absentee ballot in every US federal election . As long as I am required to file a US tax return at great expense along with FBAR I will do what I can to do away with this unfair violation of the privacy of the millions of us who reside outside the US. The Canadian government does nothing to help us either.
@The Animal
The amendment text that you refer to basically Repeals FATCA and reverts the US tax code to what it was pre 2010. It has been cleared and written by people on “our” side.
Tim: I have trouble wading through the legalese as well. I have a question regarding: “SEC. 14602. REPEAL OF INFORMATION REPORTING WITH RESPECT TO
FOREIGN FINANCIAL ASSETS.” in Animal’s quote of the document. Is this by any chance a reference to FBAR? In my opinion, FBAR as applied to expats and accidental Americans, is one of the worst aspects of the terrible tax trio against which our UN Complaint was submitted over three years ago. Has it been addressed in the amendment?
@The_Animal – what Tim said. Here’s a bit more detail –
“Chapter 4 is repealed” – means that foreign banks would no longer need to report their US Person account holders to the IRS. — the rest of section 14601 is just removing references to Chapter 4 elsewhere in the tax code.
“Repeal of Information Reporting” – this section essentially removes the rules that brought in form 8938
The rest of it is repealing other reporting requirements with regard to “foreign” assets that were included in the original FATCA legislation.
MuzzledNoMore – This has no effect on FBAR. That provision essentially repeals form 8938
@Jim Jatras, win, lose or draw.
Thank you and God Bless you.
Karen: I was afraid of that. And, of course, now that I think about it, FBAR is a Treasury Department rule, not part of the tax code. That’s going to take a whole other fight! But, wow, we’ve never been so close!
George (GB): Ditto!
Is it all done with amendments? TTFI?
@Muzzled…”That’s going to take a whole other fight!”
If I remember the enabling legislation gives the Secretary wide flexibility in establishing FBAR rules.
The Secretary has the power to index the $10,000 limit and exclude persons who need to report and what countries were applicable.
Trump does have the power to make FBAR much easier and bring the law back to the original intent.
Getting rid of FATCA gets rid of part, but not all, of the cancer affecting Americans living outside the US.
CBT and FBAR must go too, particularly CBT, which amounts to little more than a modern form of slavery.
How do I work out who my senator is? I am British-American and I have not lived in the USA since I was 8.
“CBT and FBAR must go too, particularly CBT, which amounts to little more than a modern form of slavery.”
Not only is it slavery, it’s persecution, discrimination and a grave breach of multiple articles of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights.
Sadly, too many merely see it as a tax issue with some trying to avoid their fair share.
On another forum, one chap asked me what the problem was because as far as he could tell it was just a little form filling to prove you paid your taxes elsewhere.
It took me an hour to list some of the damage caused to a normal middle class life overseas and I barely scrapped the surface.
@salamander
Your US domicile (and hence, voting residence) would be the last place you lived in in the US.
@Jim Jatras; in this battle you are following the Second Greatest Commandment as taught by Jesus on a matter that does not affect you. Every blessing and great thanks, George
@George
Many thanks! The good fight is one thing. But it’s better to WIN! {{;-{)}}}
FBARS and CBT have to go.
That said, getting rid of CBT would be enough to solve the problem of people residing abroad.
But if CBT stays, it can be mitigated, notably by adjusting FBAR amount as mentioned above.
As far as I’m concerned, getting rid of FATCA is a YUGE first step, should it happen. This would free me from having to give any US info to my banks, and be a normal EU Citizen again.
@Fred….”and be a normal EU Citizen again.”
They do not under understand that is all we want. We want no better treatment and no worse treatment.