A new resource on all the issues faced by expats, #AmericansAbroad, #AccidentalAmericans, #US persons, et al:
FATCA: Citizenship-Based Taxation,
Foreign Asset Reporting Requirements and
American Citizens Abroad
I don’t think there is anything else which is so extensive or thorough. This is brilliant research and gives reference to many, many court cases. Definitely a resource we are fortunate to have. (Brock SWAT to compliance community: “Watch out!”)
Thank you Andrew Grossman!
It is permanently located on the sidebar at Brock under the Important Information box – Introductory and Essential Material on CBT, FATCA, Citizenship Issues.
Outstanding compilation indeed. Would love to hear his impressions of the Repatriation Tax.
Thanks for this compilation to Andy Grossman. I am sure it will be a well-referenced and respected resource for those who come to this Brock site.
Have just finished reading the Introduction and look forward to delving into the rest of this massive work as time permits. We are certainly in good company when someone with the life experience of Andy Grossman contributes an effort like this. My deepest thanks to him!
This is ten kinds of excellent. Some fascinating reading in there!
What a terrific resource! I’ll be referring to it a lot and recommending it to others who want/need to learn about this as well. It’s so comprehensive and packed with information, and the trove of links in it is great too. Many thanks, Andy!
Some may not be familiar with Andy; one of our earlier connections to him came from an interview John Richardson did with him in Montreal in March 2014.
This was part of a program in Montreal at the Atwater Library on December 5, 2016. I had the good fortune to be present for this and enjoyed it immensely.
I’ve read the first three sections and part of the fourth. Need a break.
But I did find this, among other points.
“The principle of FATCA and the Intergovernmental Agreements is to privatize enforcement by forcing foreign financial institutions to report the activities and assets of U.S. Persons. It is considered by the U.S. Government that constitutional, international law and privacy issues are bypassed through the recruitment of foreign governments and foreign financial institutions to undertake implementation. Whether this is a long-term viable solution or not remains to be seen. At the time of writing there is litigation under way in the U.S.A., Canada, France and Israel.”
I keep saying that there is no need to fear the IRS because the IRS isn’t even looking for you. They have forced your FI to do so.
How might I get in touch with the gentleman who wrote this?
As I look at this, I want to shout at my dual AU/US children to renounce– now.
There’s no history or anything which says otherwise.
We came to AU in 2007. None of this was there then.
I’ve come to despise the USA.
@Jane,
Reading it does not leave one will much hope, does it.
I might I get in touch with Andrew Grossman?
Doggone it, typo again.
How can I get in touch with the author, Andrew Grossman?
The last line of text in this posting is:
“Here is the original.”
Click on the word “Here”.
The first sentence in the main text of the original article, after the title and author’s name, starts with two words which are the author’s name again. Hyperlinked. A mailto link. He probably gets enough spam already so I won’t copy it here, but you can use it.
@ND
Thanks.
I think that that is the link that directed me to a German language version of “Linked In.”
I have google searched his name and found many hits that could be him but did not have contact information.
Does he have a business address for inquireries?
A mailto link does not direct to a web page in any language on any site. Look again.
Has there been a court case yet where the US government forced citizenship on a person whose citizenship was derived from descent- ? Is that the other side to the coin – up until now it has been court cases for those who WANT citizenship -but no court case for those who do NOT want citizenship. Specifically someone born abroad / never registered/ no passport etc / but faces outing due to ownership of a US asset. – this is not about tax – any tax would be paid as a NRA – but total refusal of citizenship .
A person who may have a claim to US citizenship by descent has to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the claim.
If they don’t want to be a US citizen, and don’t claim to be a US citizen, they have no CBT/FATCA-related problem. All’s well.
“A person who may have a claim to US citizenship by descent has to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the claim.
If they don’t want to be a US citizen, and don’t claim to be a US citizen, they have no CBT/FATCA-related problem. All’s well.”
Except in Japan, certain countries that were once under the rule of Napoleonic France and possibly others that maintain registries of the nationality of the parents of all born within their borders.
I am no legal scholar by any means but have been reading on the citizenship cases – basically what the US government was doing was “constructively expatriating” individuals when they performed certain acts – ie voting in foreign election. Constructive expatriation meaning that by your actions you no longer wanted US citizenship – of course we know the court ruled that the government can not expatriate anyone = only the individual can do this . I also found a term called “constructive retention” . Prior to 1978 in order to retain citizenship if born abroad you had to fulfill residency requirements. In 1978 they changed the law removing this requirement and made it retroactive to those born from 1952 on. If you were born in 1951 you were still subject to the residency requirement. However under constructive retention – you would make your case to the State Dept ( if you were born in 1951 and failed to make your residency requirement) that because you were born abroad and were ignorant of the law but if you HAD KNOWN the rule then you would have fulfilled the requirement but only your IGNORANCE of the law caused you not to do as needed. The State Dept then could rule that if you had known the law but were ignorant of the law they would say you “constructively retained” your citizenship. Could an argument be made that a person born abroad and ignorant of their citizenship by descent have”constructively expatriated” if they never acted as a US citizen?. In other words if the person had been aware of their status when they were 18 they would have fulfilled the requirements of expatriation ( ie go to the embassy) but because they were IGNORANT of the law and did not do this but would have if they had known then in effect they “:constructively expatriated”because their actions indicate they never were US citizens. I did not see in any of the rulings by the courts that the individual can not constructively expatriate themselves – only that the government can not expatriate an individual. I understand that this has not been tested in court – but could it be another argument in removing the “stickiness” of US citizenship and giving the power back to the individual to determine their fate?
unamerican – what’s the problem? If the person hasn’t claimed US citizenship, they haven’t got it. Is a bank is trying to force them to sign a W-9?
“Is a bank is trying to force them to sign a W-9?”
Possibly. I had to sign a document allowing one of my banks to report all data they have on me or not be allowed to open the account. The documents make it clear that not only do USCs but also Japanese citizens who have spent over a specified number of days in the US have to sign them.
That already being the reality, having us sign a W-9 is not a big step at all.
There have been cases cited here at IBS and elsewhere of people having their Citizenship reinstated and it causing them grief. Others had their USCship activated without their knowledge nor consent.
As far as court cases go, I have a feeling that if one were rich enough to try that route that they would be ruled to lack standing.
“That already being the reality, having us sign a W-9 is not a big step at all.”
Signing a W-9 means the person confirms they’re a US Person. True for a USC and a person who has spent more than whatever number of days in the US. Not true for a non-US-citizen non-US-resident person, even one who owns a US asset.
“There have been cases cited here at IBS and elsewhere of people having their Citizenship reinstated and it causing them grief. Others had their USCship activated without their knowledge nor consent.”
Will you stop with the scaremongering?