Category Archives: Issues regarding US persons abroad

I am making a post of this comment by Muzzled No More.

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

Could I suggest that Brockers make comments at the following link.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOS_FRDOC_0001-2956

Comments on the fee-hikes for consular services are being accepted until Oct. 21.

I am unable to do so (still Muzzled in some regards) but if I could, my comment would be as follows:

“It is every American’s constitutional right to renounce his citizenship. As a right, renunciation of citizenship should be free of charge or, at worst, available at an extremely nominal fee, certainly no higher than the “user-pay” fee one would be charged for a passport. A $450 fee was bad enough. For many citizens, the new fee of $2350.00 has priced renunciation beyond their ability to pay. The $2350.00 fee effectively denies them their constitutional right to renounce.

“Renunciation of citizenship is a right guaranteed to all, not a privilege reserved for a few. As such, the US government *must* provide the necessary service at no or low cost. If a renunciation application actually costs the State Department $2350.00 then it is its responsibility to simplify its procedure thereby reducing those costs.

“Perhaps a lesson can be taken from the German government’s renunciation procedure. The application form is available online. The applicant fills out the form and mails it in with certified copies of a couple of documents. No fee. No in-person interviews. No fancy ceremonies. The renunciation is considered in effect when a certificate is received by the applicant. Simple. Efficient. Cost-effective. There is no need for the complexity with which the US State Department’s process is currently burdened.”

If anybody wants to submit that comment under their own moniker I’d be delighted!

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

“ricard” notes:

At the site you mention one can submit a comment with complete anonymity. There is no requirement to give any name. I mention this in case anyone else has been put off from commenting by thinking it is necessary to give real identification. Take you chance.

I am inclined to feel trusting. I do not think they will be recording IP addresses and hunting down people whose comments they don’t like.

It surprises me that they are only showing 34 comments received.

Excellent FATCA coverage by Siri Srinivas at The Guardian, based in London.  Siri quotes Isaac Brock Society regulars about bank account closures and renunciations.  Comments are open.

‘I was terrified we’d lose all our money’: banks tell US customers they won’t work with Americans

Read More

http://maplesandbox.ca/2014/are-other-canadian-credit-unions-being-as-responsible-about-fatca-as-vancity/comment-page-1/#comments

I am delighted and, as a roughly-35-years member, proud to report that Alterna Savings and Credit Union. formerly CS Co-op and formerly mainly in Ottawa but now I believe with branches elsewhere in Ontario, IS IN FACT A LOCAL CLIENT BASE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION UNDER FATCA even though it has assets of more than $2 billion.

I received today the following reply to my query (from two days ago) to Alterna, which I quote in full as it is (at my request) classified public information by them in their reply. This is a full copy-paste minus only my personal identifiers.

“Thank you for contacting Alterna.

“In response to your email, Alterna Savings is a full-service, member-focused and community-based financial co-operative with over $2.4 billion in assets and we must comply with all applicable laws and regulations under FATCA since July 2014. In order to minimize the impact to our members, Alterna registered as a Local Client Base Financial Institutions, and we are only required to collect information and report on member accounts held by non-Canadian residents that are considered a U.S. person.”

(BTW I appreciate that a phrase in that last sentence, “non-Canadian residents,” could be interpreted as persons resident in Canada but not Canadian citizens, OR persons not resident in Canada that are considered US persons. The correct interpretation is the latter, according to the CRA website’s FAQ mention of Local Client Base institutions, which is much clearer. CRA says a Local Client Base institution “will not be obliged to apply due diligence or report on accounts held by individuals who are Canadian residents.” I.e., Canadian citizen or not, doesn’t matter, they don’t get reported.)

For whatever reason or oversight, Alterna doesn’t actually mention their Local Client Base status on their FATCA webpage. I’ve written a reply strongly urging them to correct that oversight. Last I checked, their webpage says they must comply with all applicable laws and regs, but they stop short at mentioning the Local Client Base etc after that in the above quote. Ridiculous; with that extra sentence they likely will attract significant business away from local chartered banks, not mention putting at ease the minds of so-called US persons resident in Canada who already have accounts with them. I mentioned these points too.

FYI, I wrote to them “on behalf of several US-origin friends” mentioning in parenthesis that I am a Canadian citizen and NOT a US citizen nor US resident for US tax purposes (I’ve had a CLN since 1976, actually). So I figured there’s absolutely no risk to me of asking the question about Local Client Base status.

Since I know some folks are nervous about even writing queries like this as possibly “outing” themselves, I would urge all readers of this thread who already have a CLN, are thus not even slightly at risk, and who also are members of any credit union, to do as I’ve done and ask your credit union, on behalf of US-origin friends and fellow members, whether they’ve registered as Local Client Base and, if not, exactly why not. And report back on this thread. As a member and voter of the credit union it’s your absolute right to demand to know this, and to demand to know why the hell they haven’t registered as such if they haven’t. It’s your organization, its board owes you a reply.

ASK SPECIFICALLY whether your credit union has registered for Local Client Base status and, if not, why not. If Alterna’s staff were dense enough not to realize the importance of mentioning this on their website, maybe other credit unions don’t get that point (and might even neglect to mention this in an email reply). Don’t just ask if they’re complying with FATCA; even Alterna has said that (see above). Go the extra step and ask specifically about Local Client Base registration. Others haven’t until now, and as a result there has been some mis-information on this and other threads that Alterna might be reporting accounts of Canadian-resident holders. THEY WILL NOT BE DOING THAT.

BTW maybe there are some good reasons why some credit unions can’t register, but I know for a fact that Alterna has for some years now provided US-dollar accounts in our local branches and also their ATM cards link with Cirrus and Interac (as well as The Exchange, Accel, and Coop Network) ATM networks. Cirrus and Interac are definitely world-wide, I’ve used my ATM card from Alterna to get local cash from ATMs in the US, Germany, Greece and Switzerland with no problems. Neither of these services seem to be any impediment to Alterna’s Local Client Base status.

Also BTW, a number of months ago I inquired whether someone not a resident of Canada could open an account with Alterna (claiming I was asking on behalf of a visiting friend from the US) and was politely told that Alterna can’t legally open accounts with anyone who doesn’t reside in Ontario. So I don’t know who they in fact would ever have to report to CRA and IRS, unless maybe Ontario-resident members who later move to the US but keep an account here for visits might be allowed to keep the account open. Or maybe snowbirds who screw up and stay in the US longer than 180 days or whenever it is when suddenly you’re US-resident-pumpkin for tax purposes under IRS regs.

Anyway, great news for anyone living near an Alterna branch in Ontario! And BTW I’ve been a very happy member and client of Alterna since the late 1970s. I can recommend them without qualification, in terms of service and convenience. Maybe not quite in the completeness of their current FATCA webpage, though, but I hope they’ll fix that …

How might this Supreme Court decision apply to Canada’s banks (and provincial financial institutions) with Bill C-31 legislation implementing the IGA that Canada signed with the US re FATCA?

Financial Post, Drew Hasselback, September 19, 2014: Supreme Court of Canada says provincial consumer protection laws apply to banks

Presenter: John Richardson, B.A., L.L.B., J.D., is a Toronto lawyer and a member of the Ontario Bar. Citizenshipsolutions.ca

Where: McBain Community Centre – Room A – 7150 Montrose Rd., Niagara Falls, Ontario L2H 3N3 MAP

When: Tuesday, November 11, 2014, 8:00 – 10:00 pm

Admission: $20 individual or $40 for a family of up to four people. Payable in cash at the door, please (to cover costs). Hope to see you and your families on November 11. Spread the word!

It is estimated there are 7 million U.S. citizens living outside the United States. Some of these people don’t know that the U.S. may consider them to be citizens. The vast majority of these Americans abroad (according to U.S. law), are required to pay taxes and complete information reporting forms to the United States. Although “citizenship-based” taxation has existed for years, what is new, is the enforcement.
Continue reading →

UPDATE: September 23, 2014, from JC comment, additional to The_Animal’s original list:

The injustice is even worse than presented:

a) Canadian Welfare payments are considered taxable by the US in Canadian Government POV
b) Canadian Disability payments are considered taxable by the US in Canadian Government POV
c) Canadian Employment Insurance is considered taxable by US in Canadian Government POV
d) Canadian Worker’s Compensation is considered taxable by US in Canadian Government POV
e) Canadian Child Support Payments are considered taxable by US in Canadian Government POV
f) Canadian Child Tax Benefit payments are considered taxable by US in Canadian Government POV

The Canadian-US Tax Treaty is an abomination to embody the point of view of the Canadian government, that Canadian government assistance to families is taxable U.S. income. These areas above should have been explicitly exempted from U.S. tax in the tax treaty. Without the exemption, there is no clearer case of US government infringement on Canadian sovereignty.

I believe this subject is so very important. These are the families I, too, worry about the most — and, believe me, I worry about ALL *US Person* families. For these families, how will they ever have enough for the US citizenship renunciation fee, let alone the cost of compliance either to remain a US citizen abroad or to check out of the USA properly? How will many even understand all of the complexity? Who at a US Consulate OR what Canadian MP, who must take responsibility in subjecting persons to this by not standing up for these *US Person* Canadians, their rights waived by the signing of an intergovernmental agreement for FATCA with the US Treasury, will assist these low-income persons?

From The_Animal, put into this post to be further discussed in comments.

How FATCA will impact those of modest means (low income families).

Homelanders like to trumpet the fact that we have an “foreign earned income exemption” of 97,000. Unfortunately, the trump card is the “earned income” classification. Earned income means pay checks from an employer. So what does that do to most sources of income for those expats of low-income or on social assistance?

a) Welfare payments are not considered “earned income” in IRS’s POV.
b) Disability payments are not considered “earned income” in IRS’s POV
c) Employment Insurance is not considered “earned income” in IRS’s POV
d) Worker’s Compensation is not considered “earned income” in IRS’s POV
e) Child Support Payments are not considered “earned income” in IRS’s POV
f) Canada Child Tax Benefit payments are not considered “earned income” in IRS’s point of view.

So all of these are taxed by the United States Internal Revenue Service in its overreaching grasp. Since most expats of modest means have a corresponding lack of education, they are furthermore hindered by not being able to understand the intricacies of the US tax system. Furthermore they do not have the monetary resources to get into compliance as their choice is between putting food on the table for their families or starving and coming into compliance.

Secondly all accounts that are not disclosed by means of an FBAR are subject to a financial penalty of $10,000 per account that is not considered wilful non-disclosure – the penalty for wilful is $100,000 or 50% of one’s account balance, whichever is greater. How is someone who makes $18,000 per annum supposed to come up with $10,000 for a non-wilful penalty let alone $100,000 (if the whim of the IRS is that the account-holder is a wilful non-disclosure)? For these families there is no financial safety net to dip into. For these people there is not a single way to come into compliance that would not wreak financial ruin on the family.

“There has to be a better way” is the constant refrain that I’ve been hearing from everyone. Unfortunately there is NO way for those of low-income to even think of coming into “compliance”.

***************
From a comment I made this morning, the portion pertaining to low income persons who have Canadian Registered Disability Savings Plans: https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/06/01/its-time/comment-page-72/#comment-3097016
Continue reading →