Can a foreigner not open a bank account in Japan without disclosing their parents’ nationality and place of birth?
Obviously, if status as a USC was known, FIs in *any* (FATCA-compliant) country would report accounts to the US. But the point is, how would a Dutch national carrying a Dutch passport and born in the Netherlands be identified as a US person?
Reporting the accounts currently has no negative consequences for a dual citizen not interested in moving to the US, but that’s another issue. Still worth avoiding, on principle.
“ Can a foreigner not open a bank account in Japan without disclosing their parents’ nationality and place of birth?”
In short, no. A few years ago I opened a new account to find out for myself and to report here what the current requirements were. First I had to present my “Gaijin” card. Long explanation on this cut short. The new “Gaijin” card is optional for Japanese nationals but required of resident aliens. Upon this card is listed one’s nationality and immigration status. Despite that fact that I am a legal, Permanent Resident, I could not open the account until I returned with my passport and U.S SSN card or other proof of my SSN. As a USC, no US SSN=no account. I was also given a FATCA letter and release form to sign stating that I gave the bank permission to report all account activity to the IRS. If any of these were missing, I would not have been able to open the account. (Beyond this, when I first came to Japan as a civilian, one had to allow any rental service to photo copy your passport or gaijin card before engaging the service. Illegal for them to require these but if you refused, they refused you service.)
Additionally, I had to provide my Japanese My Number card which all Japanese residence are to have. Think of it as a super duper SSN. Its stated purpose is to make life more convenient by having a single number for ALL purposes. Not there yet but well on the way and again, that is its stated purpose.
My children were born in Japan. Their mother is Japanese. They have Japanese passports but have not been registered at the US embassy and do not have US SSNs. Yet, due to the fact that their My Numbers are linked to the Family Registry, the fact that their father was a USC at the time of their births is forever linked to their MY Number.
For the Dutch national in question, it would depend upon to what degree the automatic sharing of immigration info has progressed and how Japanese Immigration treat dual nationalities. I know that Japan does not in general recognize dual nationality with their own citizens but I do not know how they treat duals without Japanese nationality.
However, whatever the current situation is, it is undoubtably moving in directions that are unfavorable for us, including this Dutch national.
Talk about “I wish I knew this before.”, if I knew about CBT, I would never have ventured abroad with out taking precautions to protect myself, business associates and most importantly, family.
If our Dutchman does not in someway take care of his problem, he will constantly need to research what the current climate towards USCs are in each and every country he may wish to work in and possibly travel to or through. He would also have to consider the implications for any children he may have.
This is a cancer, ignoring it doesn’t make it go away.
@JapanT
Assume for the purposes of argument that our hypothetical Dutchman-born-in-the-Netherlands is willing to lie, or more benignly, remains blissfully unaware of his possible US citizenship via parentage. (I say possible because of course US citizenship is not automatically transmitted to all children born abroad.)
It’s possible that the immigration paperwork he fills out when entering Japan could ask for information about parents, including birthplace and nationality. That is the case for Germany, though the form field for place of birth (I just checked) is very small and there are no details given for what information belongs there. Again, the fact that one parent was born in the US does not automatically mean that a person is a US citizen.
However, you are suggesting that one parent’s US birthplace would be taken as a determination of US citizenship, and this information would find its way from an immigration form to a Japanese bank, during or after the process of opening an account?
BREAKING: Accidental Americans reel after Dutch court says bank may close account of retired KLM pilot
December 24, 2020
Unfortunate but not surprising. While I am not a lawyer, let along a Dutch lawyer, I thought the odds were not good based on reading about the earlier tribunal (KIFID) decision. Apparently Dutch banks may close a customer’s account if they believe it to be used for purposes of fraud, tax evasion or other random criminality. When Mr. Ariës publicly declared that he didn’t want to acquire an SSN because it might cause him to owe US taxes, he essentially sealed his fate.
At some point I’ll plug the whole decision into Google Translate (which is surprisingly good now) but that short excerpt sums it up well, the judge essentially saying that the whole situation sucks but politicians are responsible and there’s only so much he can do within the limits of the law.
The frustrating aspect to this case is that Mr. Ariës got it fundamentally wrong – being forced to supply his bank with an SSN creates no US tax bills for him. But by going to the tribunal, and then to the press, and then to court, he started in motion a process that would never end well for him. If he sacrificed himself for the sake of some publicity and general outrage, we can thank him if it helps solve the bigger problem. It may or may not.
At this point it’s probably going to be cheaper for Mr. Ariës to shut up and renounce – once that becomes possible – rather than continue paying lawyers to fight this. In the meantime he might need to live without a Dutch bank account – with luck he should be able to open an online account in another eurozone country where he’s less notorious. Hopefully by now someone has explained to him that he can obtain his CLN without ever filing a US tax return.
I don’t think the outcome would be any different in Canada, to be honest. If I went to one of the major banks and identified myself as a US citizen then pointedly refused to provide them with an SSN, they would take action – threaten to close the account, or impose a trading freeze for investments. If I complained to a banking regulator, I’d lose. If it took the bank to court, I’d lose. As for public sympathy, I doubt I’d gain much – every time this subject comes up in a CBC article, most of the comments express a “pay your fair share” or “you benefit from US citizenship” sentiment.
Why are they forcing customers to give a SSN? I thought that the financial institution had to do everything it could to obtain this information but in its absence, reporting the name and date of birth of the customer was sufficient? At least this is what I remember from the FACTA letters that I received from banks years ago. Is that a new requirement?
As of 1 January 2020, banks are required to provide the SSN or risk penalty. There was a grace period, which was extended once, but has now ended. So this year banks began threatening to close accounts for customers who would not provide an SSN – despite the fact that this became more difficult during the pandemic.
Oddly, we’ve heard no reports of anyone in Canada facing account closure. It’s mostly a problem in France and the Netherlands.
The smart move for anyone unable to conceal their US citizenship is to invent a fictional SSN.
I’ve come across several people in the UK who have been told that they must provide a SS number. If they don’t have a number, I tell them the pattern and suggest they make one up. Actually, even if they have a number, I suggest that they might want to scramble the order.
I can’t see that the banks have any way to check whether a number is real or not.
This well intended advise adds a potential legal problem to the compliance problem we already have vis-a-vis IRS. The banks will surely not be able tell whether or not an SSN is valid, but if the SSN you fabricate is not a valid SSN (= an SSN that was actually issued by the Social Security Administration), there will always be a chance of that being detected at some point after transmission to the IRS (for instance if there is an automatic check of valid SSNs when the FATCA data is imported into the IT systems at IRS). This may or may not trigger a chain of events which at some point could find it’s way back to your bank.
If on the other hand the SSN is valid, but not your own, then that means you claim your accounts belong to someone else, which may add potential problems to another person as well (in which case it SURELY would be detected, if that other person gets in trouble for having unreported accounts).
I appreciate the educational role of this site in terms of dealing with the fallout from FATCA, and I am surely sympathetic to those who advice that Accidental Americans should not file anything with the IRS, including when we renounce, but I would take care to not make a compliance problem with the IRS eventually turn into a legal problem where you live. Not so easy to hide from the latter.
As dual citizens abroad we have enough to cause us mental stress as it is; I would not add this to the mix.
‘Dear beloved customer, we write to you because the IRS has stated that they cannot match up the supplied SS number to your other records. Could you please reply with a corrected number? Much love, your Bank.’
‘Dear Bank, so sorry, I suffer from dyscalculia. Here’s the correct number. Love, your customer.’
‘Dear customer, that’s fine, we’ve amended your records. Have a good day! Your Bank.’
That’s how I would foresee that conversation happening. I would expect a bank to assume a simple customer error and ask for this to be corrected. Not a legal problem at all.
I can’t imagine much blowback either. FATCA data doesn’t get looked at in any systematic way, though of course one day in the future it might. If names and countries don’t match, the true owner of an invented SSN isn’t going to suffer any consequences.
It’s entirely appropriate to fight dirty. That being said, far better to conceal US citizenship and avoid this conversation in the first place, if one lives in a country where it is possible to so, like Canada and others (i.e. where ID requirements do include anything that gives away place of birth).
Typo correction: where ID requirements do not include anything that gives away place of birth
I’ll hazard a guess that the IRS FATCA data is already so riddled with errors (both intentional and accidental) that it is functionally useless. There’s just too much chance of errors due to the long chain of transmission. (I.e. customer>bank employee>bank records division>home government>IRS.)
So far, I’ve not heard of a single case of the IRS going after someone who doesn’t live in the US solely because of information the IRS received via FATCA reporting.
“Dear Bank: Never mind, I just renounced. I’ll drop by with my CLN as soon as I receive it. P.S, I don’t know what the issue is with the SSN. It matches MY records.”
Taxpayer Advocate on “harmonizing” FBAR and FATCA reporting requirements for ‘US taxpayers’.
Thank you badger. Perhaps more interesting than the harmonisation is the text below. Any chances they will ever adopt this recommendation though?
In addition, the IRS has not adopted the National Taxpayer Advocate’s recommendation to provide an
exception to FATCA reporting for financial accounts held in the country in which the U.S. taxpayer is a bona
fide resident. If adopted, these recommendations would reduce the compliance burdens for U.S. taxpayers,
who now must file additional complex forms themselves or pay higher tax return preparation fees. If adopted, these recommendations could also reduce the compliance burdens for FFIs, some of which are reluctant to do business with U.S. expatriates because of the significant costs and regulatory risks associated with ongoing FATCA compliance.
Don’t hold your breath. It’s too logical and might eliminate some swivel servants jobs. Oh wait, civil service jobs are never eliminated
Thanks for adding that @Squirrel, I saw it and forgot to highlight it. It’s more important that the harmonization for sure. It is also consistent with what the previous NTA had proposed before. I was afraid that with the change in NTA some of Olson’s dogged persistence and pointed critiques of how the IRS treats those ‘abroad’ and the issues of ordinary people would be lost. I wouldn’t want to be a US resident taxpayer either judging by some of the other issues the NTA has reported on over the years.
Hoping that the new one will continue to pick up where Olson left off. Tough shoes to fill.
The lack of true full US reciprocity re FATCA stinks more as the years go by. Anyone who believed that the US would ever provide more information than it already did under the existing terms of the Canada/US tax treaty is fantasizing or delusional. The Minister of Revenue should be ashamed of the continued obfuscation of the growing imbalance of information ‘exchange’; ex. see the response by our Minister of Revenue to a question about the rising amount of records sent to the US https://openparliament.ca/debates/2020/1/27/pat-kelly-2/https://openparliament.ca/debates/2020/1/27/diane-lebouthillier-2/ ).
Canada should be ashamed of continuing to waste our Canadian taxpayer dollars on defending the FATCA IGA against it’s own Canadian residents and citizen taxpayers.
That the Trudeau government continues the Harper government’s agreement to waste our hard earned domestic tax dollars on defending the unreciprocated interests of a foreign power who forced it on us through extortionate means, in order to impose a foreign US law on our own sovereign soil, is unconscionable.
So what are those the US claims extraterritorially as ‘taxable persons’ in Canada (and elsewhere around the globe) receiving in exchange for the loss of personal and financial data, and a lifelong status as a US serf?
Clearly those the US claims extraterritorially, across borders as ‘taxpayers abroad’ should expect no US extraterritorial help in a global pandemic.
They can be taxed, and fined, and threatened by the US, but can’t expect anything in return during a worldwide catastrophe:
The US State Dept. says;
“The U.S. Department of State has no greater responsibility than the safety and security of U.S. citizens overseas………”.
But not so fast – apparently, in a global pandemic, “US citizens overseas” are on their own, even though the US defines them extraterritorially as “US taxable persons’ no matter where they reside, and lifelong captives of the US extraterritorial CBT, FATCA and the FBAR regime;
“…As part of our efforts to give U.S. citizens timely information so that they can make informed choices about travel abroad, the Department advises that the United States Government does not plan to provide COVID-19 vaccinations to private U.S. citizens overseas. U.S. citizens traveling or residing overseas should follow host country developments and guidelines for COVID-19 vaccination.”……..”
“Q: Given assurances by both President Trump and President-Elect Biden that access to the vaccine for all Americans will be their priority, why isn’t the State Department ensuring U.S. citizens abroad get vaccinated? Why are you vaccinating your own personnel but not private Americans?
Not only isn’t the US and it’s State Department offices abroad (ex. in Canada and elsewhere around the globe) offering COVID-19 pandemic assistance or vaccinations to those it claims from afar as “taxable persons” or lifelong tax-citizen serfs “abroad”, it’s not effectively vaccinating its own State department staff abroad;
“……..“We’re asking them to go to dangerous places. We have an ethical obligation to vaccinate our people overseas,” he’s said. “And it’s hard not to bristle at the idea that we would farm out the protection of our diplomatic corps to a foreign government….”
The US farms out social, economic and other supports for ‘taxable US persons’ ‘abroad’ to the taxpayers of the non-US countries – like Canada, where they live, work and pay layers of local taxes – but reserves the right to demand crossborder first pick of the fruits of their labour and the details of their local legal bank accounts and savings despite being resident outside the borders of the US – with no economic connection, based solely on a US parent and/or a US birthplace.
It’s not the US government, Treasury or State Departments saving ‘taxable US persons’ lives and livelihoods in Canada and elsewhere, it’s the taxpayers of Canada and the rest of the globe. It’s not the US educating children, doctoring the sick, paving our roads or providing for the elderly ‘abroad’ – outside US borders.
So why does our Canadian federal government continue to defend the use of our Canadian tax dollars and the taxpayer supported resources of our Canadian CRA to assist a foreign country – the US – in collecting the personal and financial date of Canadian taxpayers, citizens and residents? And squander our hard earned Canadian tax dollars to defend the FATCA IGA agreement (born out of US threats and extortion) and US interests – against Canadian taxpayers and residents?
The Trudeau government (and the Cons who preceded them) should be ashamed that in a true emergency of global proportions, local taxpayers continue to foot the FATCA bill to further the aims of a foreign country, the US. Reciprocity by the US under the FATCA IGA https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.58/page-2.html?wbdisable=true was always only at best ‘aspirational’ (and delusional if the MPs of the Harper government who rammed it through in an omnibus bill, and those of the Trudeau government who defend it ever actually believed it would materialize).
And as seen below, the OECD continues to give the US it’s predictable *annual free pass – despite the disingenuous stink of FATCA’s lack of true reciprocity growing stronger with every passing year;
* “1 The United States has undertaken automatic information exchanges pursuant to FATCA from 2015and entered into intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) with other jurisdictions to do so. The Model 1A IGAs entered into by the United States acknowledge the need for the United States to achieve equivalent levels of reciprocal automatic information exchange with partner jurisdictions. They also include a political commitment to pursue the adoption of regulations and to advocate and support relevant legislation to achieve such equivalent levels of reciprocal automatic exchange.” https://www.oecd.org/tax/automatic-exchange/commitment-and-monitoring-process/AEOI-commitments.pdf .
Consider donating to the cost of the ADCS lawsuit.
No country in the world is sending vaccines or providing medical care to its citizens overseas – that complaint is utterly bonkers.
However, the US government is happily sending stimulus cheques to its citizens (and sometimes even non-citizens) abroad. The total benefit will be up to $3200 soon (more than enough to cover the renunciation fee). In comparison, I don’t believe that the Canadian government made CRB available to non-residents.
FATCA is of course ridiculous, unfair and a huge waste of money. But the good news, at least, is that any Canadian resident who does not wish to participate is free to not disclose their US citizenship without fear of being challenged by their bank.
Re: “. . . any Canadian resident . . . is free to not disclose their US citizenship without fear of being challenged by their bank.”
Too blanket a statement. Whilst fortunately not common, banks can ask for proof. Some people already have incriminating information of their “US personhood” on file with their bank. Some people, not knowing of FATCA, will answer with a US birthplace (or give the “wrong” answer to one of the other relevant questions). And, importantly, some people, for moral as well as practical reasons, are not comfortable lying.
” And, importantly, some people, for moral as well as practical reasons, are not comfortable lying.”
One can recall many situations ,and especially at a certain age, where one uncomfortable lie would have saved an awful lot a grief afterwards. I would say ,not some,but mostly all reasonable people are not comfortable lying ,especially with fatca where fear of retribution may be more of an issue than morality
and an uncomfortable lie.
Lying to one’s bank about US citizenship isn’t meant to be comfortable (though with practice it becomes almost automatic) but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the smart thing to do?
Retribution? I can’t imagine how.
Sorry I said fear of retribution and not retribution. People do things out of habit,and out of fear. Morally enters the picture when one begins to question as to why.
@RH, re;
“No country in the world is sending vaccines or providing medical care to its citizens overseas – that complaint is utterly bonkers.”
You miss the point – it’s one of principle and one which illustrates the extent of US CBT hypocrisy. If those the US claims as lifelong US taxable people have an obligation imposed on them by the US, does the US not have a reciprocal obligation?
The US demands its FATCA/extraterritorial CBT cake and insists on eating it too. This is only the latest example of the absurdity of US extraterritorial demands – simultaneously, under FATCA and US CBT drawing a distinctively expansive EXTRAterritorial boundary around the duties and obligations foisted onto those it deems UStaxable persons ‘abroad’ worldwide – yet in the case of a global emergency it makes clear that it intends to respond only DOMESTICALLY – taking responsibility only for those residing within its actual territorial boundaries when a true test of the nation’s duty of care has arisen involving ALL those it claims as citizens/taxable persons globally.
The US has not only no plan to assist those it defines as US citizens in Canada and further ‘abroad’, but it has directly interfered with Canada’s purchase of Covid vaccines to vaccinate those in Canada (which logically would include a substantial # of those deemed US citizen/”taxable persons”) ;
“……A Pfizer plant in Michigan was supposed to help supply vaccines to Canada. But an exclusivity deal with the U.S. government guarantees that all of its American-made doses will stay in the country until Washington’s orders are filled. Moderna has a similar arrangement regarding its plant in New Hampshire.
….. A U.S. government official briefed on the White House’s vaccine rollout plans said the Biden administration has no interest in sharing U.S.-produced vaccines with Canada or any other country before all Americans have received the shots.
Consular officials routinelly warned renunciants and relinquishers that the US would no longer be providing assistance to those ‘abroad’ in an emergency if they gave up their US citizenship. This is a global emergency. The US however is not able or willing to provide assistance to those it claims as US citizen taxable persons ‘abroad’ – even in terms of releasing the US made vaccine doses that Canada ordered and the manufacturers agreed to provide. It is concentrating on “domestic” vaccination – for US residents (not restricted to US citizens), including sequestering US manufactured doses ordered and purchased by Canada.
Is there a pandemic rider in FATCA or the rest of the extraterritorial CBT apparatus that lets the US get out of its reciprocal obligations to citizens – where ever they may be found? There is no rider that allows those deemed to be “US taxable persons” to get out of their US imposed information filing and tax obligations based on a global pandemic. The best they can hope for is whatever pandemic funds they qualify for from afar, and some adjustment to filing dates. You can bet that the US will deem any Canadian stimulus funds reportable and taxable.
If the US obligations and duty of care and benefits owed to those it deems to be citizens/taxable persons stops at the US border, then in the absence of any US residency and economic connection, any obligation to report or pay tax should as well.
I would like to see US CBT supporters (ex. see https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/547/ ) of the US extraterritorial citizenship based taxation system explain how their theoretical beliefs are consistent with their rationalizations when the US has concretely demonstrated that it has no motivation, intention (or ability) to assist those members of the US citizen ‘community’ ‘abroad’ in the face of the current worldwide pandemic? Even when we’re just across the longest shared border with the US – a short drive or flight away….
Can a foreigner not open a bank account in Japan without disclosing their parents’ nationality and place of birth?
Obviously, if status as a USC was known, FIs in *any* (FATCA-compliant) country would report accounts to the US. But the point is, how would a Dutch national carrying a Dutch passport and born in the Netherlands be identified as a US person?
Reporting the accounts currently has no negative consequences for a dual citizen not interested in moving to the US, but that’s another issue. Still worth avoiding, on principle.
“ Can a foreigner not open a bank account in Japan without disclosing their parents’ nationality and place of birth?”
In short, no. A few years ago I opened a new account to find out for myself and to report here what the current requirements were. First I had to present my “Gaijin” card. Long explanation on this cut short. The new “Gaijin” card is optional for Japanese nationals but required of resident aliens. Upon this card is listed one’s nationality and immigration status. Despite that fact that I am a legal, Permanent Resident, I could not open the account until I returned with my passport and U.S SSN card or other proof of my SSN. As a USC, no US SSN=no account. I was also given a FATCA letter and release form to sign stating that I gave the bank permission to report all account activity to the IRS. If any of these were missing, I would not have been able to open the account. (Beyond this, when I first came to Japan as a civilian, one had to allow any rental service to photo copy your passport or gaijin card before engaging the service. Illegal for them to require these but if you refused, they refused you service.)
Additionally, I had to provide my Japanese My Number card which all Japanese residence are to have. Think of it as a super duper SSN. Its stated purpose is to make life more convenient by having a single number for ALL purposes. Not there yet but well on the way and again, that is its stated purpose.
My children were born in Japan. Their mother is Japanese. They have Japanese passports but have not been registered at the US embassy and do not have US SSNs. Yet, due to the fact that their My Numbers are linked to the Family Registry, the fact that their father was a USC at the time of their births is forever linked to their MY Number.
For the Dutch national in question, it would depend upon to what degree the automatic sharing of immigration info has progressed and how Japanese Immigration treat dual nationalities. I know that Japan does not in general recognize dual nationality with their own citizens but I do not know how they treat duals without Japanese nationality.
However, whatever the current situation is, it is undoubtably moving in directions that are unfavorable for us, including this Dutch national.
Talk about “I wish I knew this before.”, if I knew about CBT, I would never have ventured abroad with out taking precautions to protect myself, business associates and most importantly, family.
If our Dutchman does not in someway take care of his problem, he will constantly need to research what the current climate towards USCs are in each and every country he may wish to work in and possibly travel to or through. He would also have to consider the implications for any children he may have.
This is a cancer, ignoring it doesn’t make it go away.
@JapanT
Assume for the purposes of argument that our hypothetical Dutchman-born-in-the-Netherlands is willing to lie, or more benignly, remains blissfully unaware of his possible US citizenship via parentage. (I say possible because of course US citizenship is not automatically transmitted to all children born abroad.)
It’s possible that the immigration paperwork he fills out when entering Japan could ask for information about parents, including birthplace and nationality. That is the case for Germany, though the form field for place of birth (I just checked) is very small and there are no details given for what information belongs there. Again, the fact that one parent was born in the US does not automatically mean that a person is a US citizen.
However, you are suggesting that one parent’s US birthplace would be taken as a determination of US citizenship, and this information would find its way from an immigration form to a Japanese bank, during or after the process of opening an account?
BREAKING: Accidental Americans reel after Dutch court says bank may close account of retired KLM pilot
December 24, 2020
https://americanexpatfinance.com/news/item/610-dutch-court-says-bank-may-close-account-of-accidental
Unfortunate but not surprising. While I am not a lawyer, let along a Dutch lawyer, I thought the odds were not good based on reading about the earlier tribunal (KIFID) decision. Apparently Dutch banks may close a customer’s account if they believe it to be used for purposes of fraud, tax evasion or other random criminality. When Mr. Ariës publicly declared that he didn’t want to acquire an SSN because it might cause him to owe US taxes, he essentially sealed his fate.
At some point I’ll plug the whole decision into Google Translate (which is surprisingly good now) but that short excerpt sums it up well, the judge essentially saying that the whole situation sucks but politicians are responsible and there’s only so much he can do within the limits of the law.
The frustrating aspect to this case is that Mr. Ariës got it fundamentally wrong – being forced to supply his bank with an SSN creates no US tax bills for him. But by going to the tribunal, and then to the press, and then to court, he started in motion a process that would never end well for him. If he sacrificed himself for the sake of some publicity and general outrage, we can thank him if it helps solve the bigger problem. It may or may not.
At this point it’s probably going to be cheaper for Mr. Ariës to shut up and renounce – once that becomes possible – rather than continue paying lawyers to fight this. In the meantime he might need to live without a Dutch bank account – with luck he should be able to open an online account in another eurozone country where he’s less notorious. Hopefully by now someone has explained to him that he can obtain his CLN without ever filing a US tax return.
I don’t think the outcome would be any different in Canada, to be honest. If I went to one of the major banks and identified myself as a US citizen then pointedly refused to provide them with an SSN, they would take action – threaten to close the account, or impose a trading freeze for investments. If I complained to a banking regulator, I’d lose. If it took the bank to court, I’d lose. As for public sympathy, I doubt I’d gain much – every time this subject comes up in a CBC article, most of the comments express a “pay your fair share” or “you benefit from US citizenship” sentiment.
Why are they forcing customers to give a SSN? I thought that the financial institution had to do everything it could to obtain this information but in its absence, reporting the name and date of birth of the customer was sufficient? At least this is what I remember from the FACTA letters that I received from banks years ago. Is that a new requirement?
As of 1 January 2020, banks are required to provide the SSN or risk penalty. There was a grace period, which was extended once, but has now ended. So this year banks began threatening to close accounts for customers who would not provide an SSN – despite the fact that this became more difficult during the pandemic.
Oddly, we’ve heard no reports of anyone in Canada facing account closure. It’s mostly a problem in France and the Netherlands.
The smart move for anyone unable to conceal their US citizenship is to invent a fictional SSN.
I’ve come across several people in the UK who have been told that they must provide a SS number. If they don’t have a number, I tell them the pattern and suggest they make one up. Actually, even if they have a number, I suggest that they might want to scramble the order.
I can’t see that the banks have any way to check whether a number is real or not.
This well intended advise adds a potential legal problem to the compliance problem we already have vis-a-vis IRS. The banks will surely not be able tell whether or not an SSN is valid, but if the SSN you fabricate is not a valid SSN (= an SSN that was actually issued by the Social Security Administration), there will always be a chance of that being detected at some point after transmission to the IRS (for instance if there is an automatic check of valid SSNs when the FATCA data is imported into the IT systems at IRS). This may or may not trigger a chain of events which at some point could find it’s way back to your bank.
If on the other hand the SSN is valid, but not your own, then that means you claim your accounts belong to someone else, which may add potential problems to another person as well (in which case it SURELY would be detected, if that other person gets in trouble for having unreported accounts).
I appreciate the educational role of this site in terms of dealing with the fallout from FATCA, and I am surely sympathetic to those who advice that Accidental Americans should not file anything with the IRS, including when we renounce, but I would take care to not make a compliance problem with the IRS eventually turn into a legal problem where you live. Not so easy to hide from the latter.
As dual citizens abroad we have enough to cause us mental stress as it is; I would not add this to the mix.
‘Dear beloved customer, we write to you because the IRS has stated that they cannot match up the supplied SS number to your other records. Could you please reply with a corrected number? Much love, your Bank.’
‘Dear Bank, so sorry, I suffer from dyscalculia. Here’s the correct number. Love, your customer.’
‘Dear customer, that’s fine, we’ve amended your records. Have a good day! Your Bank.’
That’s how I would foresee that conversation happening. I would expect a bank to assume a simple customer error and ask for this to be corrected. Not a legal problem at all.
I can’t imagine much blowback either. FATCA data doesn’t get looked at in any systematic way, though of course one day in the future it might. If names and countries don’t match, the true owner of an invented SSN isn’t going to suffer any consequences.
It’s entirely appropriate to fight dirty. That being said, far better to conceal US citizenship and avoid this conversation in the first place, if one lives in a country where it is possible to so, like Canada and others (i.e. where ID requirements do include anything that gives away place of birth).
Typo correction: where ID requirements do not include anything that gives away place of birth
I’ll hazard a guess that the IRS FATCA data is already so riddled with errors (both intentional and accidental) that it is functionally useless. There’s just too much chance of errors due to the long chain of transmission. (I.e. customer>bank employee>bank records division>home government>IRS.)
So far, I’ve not heard of a single case of the IRS going after someone who doesn’t live in the US solely because of information the IRS received via FATCA reporting.
“Dear Bank: Never mind, I just renounced. I’ll drop by with my CLN as soon as I receive it. P.S, I don’t know what the issue is with the SSN. It matches MY records.”
https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ARC20_PurpleBook_02_ImproveFiling_9.pdf
Taxpayer Advocate on “harmonizing” FBAR and FATCA reporting requirements for ‘US taxpayers’.
Thank you badger. Perhaps more interesting than the harmonisation is the text below. Any chances they will ever adopt this recommendation though?
In addition, the IRS has not adopted the National Taxpayer Advocate’s recommendation to provide an
exception to FATCA reporting for financial accounts held in the country in which the U.S. taxpayer is a bona
fide resident. If adopted, these recommendations would reduce the compliance burdens for U.S. taxpayers,
who now must file additional complex forms themselves or pay higher tax return preparation fees. If adopted, these recommendations could also reduce the compliance burdens for FFIs, some of which are reluctant to do business with U.S. expatriates because of the significant costs and regulatory risks associated with ongoing FATCA compliance.
Don’t hold your breath. It’s too logical and might eliminate some swivel servants jobs. Oh wait, civil service jobs are never eliminated
Thanks for adding that @Squirrel, I saw it and forgot to highlight it. It’s more important that the harmonization for sure. It is also consistent with what the previous NTA had proposed before. I was afraid that with the change in NTA some of Olson’s dogged persistence and pointed critiques of how the IRS treats those ‘abroad’ and the issues of ordinary people would be lost. I wouldn’t want to be a US resident taxpayer either judging by some of the other issues the NTA has reported on over the years.
Hoping that the new one will continue to pick up where Olson left off. Tough shoes to fill.
The lack of true full US reciprocity re FATCA stinks more as the years go by. Anyone who believed that the US would ever provide more information than it already did under the existing terms of the Canada/US tax treaty is fantasizing or delusional. The Minister of Revenue should be ashamed of the continued obfuscation of the growing imbalance of information ‘exchange’; ex. see the response by our Minister of Revenue to a question about the rising amount of records sent to the US https://openparliament.ca/debates/2020/1/27/pat-kelly-2/ https://openparliament.ca/debates/2020/1/27/diane-lebouthillier-2/ ).
Canada should be ashamed of continuing to waste our Canadian taxpayer dollars on defending the FATCA IGA against it’s own Canadian residents and citizen taxpayers.
That the Trudeau government continues the Harper government’s agreement to waste our hard earned domestic tax dollars on defending the unreciprocated interests of a foreign power who forced it on us through extortionate means, in order to impose a foreign US law on our own sovereign soil, is unconscionable.
So what are those the US claims extraterritorially as ‘taxable persons’ in Canada (and elsewhere around the globe) receiving in exchange for the loss of personal and financial data, and a lifelong status as a US serf?
I commented earlier about the lack of US extraterritorial pandemic assistance to those it imposes it’s extraterritorial information and tax regime on ( http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/media-and-blog-articles-open-for-comments-part-8-of-8-year-2021/comment-page-1/#comment-8957346 ).
Clearly those the US claims extraterritorially, across borders as ‘taxpayers abroad’ should expect no US extraterritorial help in a global pandemic.
They can be taxed, and fined, and threatened by the US, but can’t expect anything in return during a worldwide catastrophe:
The US State Dept. says;
“The U.S. Department of State has no greater responsibility than the safety and security of U.S. citizens overseas………”.
But not so fast – apparently, in a global pandemic, “US citizens overseas” are on their own, even though the US defines them extraterritorially as “US taxable persons’ no matter where they reside, and lifelong captives of the US extraterritorial CBT, FATCA and the FBAR regime;
“…As part of our efforts to give U.S. citizens timely information so that they can make informed choices about travel abroad, the Department advises that the United States Government does not plan to provide COVID-19 vaccinations to private U.S. citizens overseas. U.S. citizens traveling or residing overseas should follow host country developments and guidelines for COVID-19 vaccination.”……..”
“Q: Given assurances by both President Trump and President-Elect Biden that access to the vaccine for all Americans will be their priority, why isn’t the State Department ensuring U.S. citizens abroad get vaccinated? Why are you vaccinating your own personnel but not private Americans?
A: The Department of State does not provide direct medical care to private U.S. citizens abroad.”……..
From; https://eg.usembassy.gov/covid-19-vaccinations-and-consular-issues/
Not only isn’t the US and it’s State Department offices abroad (ex. in Canada and elsewhere around the globe) offering COVID-19 pandemic assistance or vaccinations to those it claims from afar as “taxable persons” or lifelong tax-citizen serfs “abroad”, it’s not effectively vaccinating its own State department staff abroad;
“……..“We’re asking them to go to dangerous places. We have an ethical obligation to vaccinate our people overseas,” he’s said. “And it’s hard not to bristle at the idea that we would farm out the protection of our diplomatic corps to a foreign government….”
from; ‘Vaccine shortage prompts U.S. diplomats to request doses from foreign governments, including Russia’
Washington Post by John Hudson, Feb. 17, 2021 https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xnBKKqzOutoJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/state-department-coronavirus-vaccine-diplomats/2021/02/17/ec507e84-70d5-11eb-a4eb-44012a612cf9_story.html+&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-d
The US farms out social, economic and other supports for ‘taxable US persons’ ‘abroad’ to the taxpayers of the non-US countries – like Canada, where they live, work and pay layers of local taxes – but reserves the right to demand crossborder first pick of the fruits of their labour and the details of their local legal bank accounts and savings despite being resident outside the borders of the US – with no economic connection, based solely on a US parent and/or a US birthplace.
It’s not the US government, Treasury or State Departments saving ‘taxable US persons’ lives and livelihoods in Canada and elsewhere, it’s the taxpayers of Canada and the rest of the globe. It’s not the US educating children, doctoring the sick, paving our roads or providing for the elderly ‘abroad’ – outside US borders.
So why does our Canadian federal government continue to defend the use of our Canadian tax dollars and the taxpayer supported resources of our Canadian CRA to assist a foreign country – the US – in collecting the personal and financial date of Canadian taxpayers, citizens and residents? And squander our hard earned Canadian tax dollars to defend the FATCA IGA agreement (born out of US threats and extortion) and US interests – against Canadian taxpayers and residents?
The Trudeau government (and the Cons who preceded them) should be ashamed that in a true emergency of global proportions, local taxpayers continue to foot the FATCA bill to further the aims of a foreign country, the US. Reciprocity by the US under the FATCA IGA https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.58/page-2.html?wbdisable=true was always only at best ‘aspirational’ (and delusional if the MPs of the Harper government who rammed it through in an omnibus bill, and those of the Trudeau government who defend it ever actually believed it would materialize).
All these years later, we’re all still footing the bill for the FATCA IGA, and the US is still the one benefiting. It still isn’t a CRS signatory and continues to offer the benefits of secrecy to both domestic and foreign actors (ex. https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/regulations/article/21963611/domestic-tax-haven-delaware-under-pressure and https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report/why-america-is-the-leading-jurisdiction-for-trusts ).
How much has the administration of FATCA cost our government and our financial sector? The CRA doesn’t tell us how much the IGA costs them and won’t tell Canadians how many additional records it receives under the IGA than it did without it. For example, how many of the budget dollars the Minister likes to cite (https://openparliament.ca/debates/2021/2/23/diane-lebouthillier-1/ https://openparliament.ca/debates/2020/11/30/diane-lebouthillier-1/ https://openparliament.ca/committees/covid-19-pandemic/43-1/13/diane-lebouthillier-6/ ) goes towards the cost of collection and transmission of Canadian taxpayer personal and financial information to the US for FATCA – without any evidence of wrongdoing or US taxes owed?
And as seen below, the OECD continues to give the US it’s predictable *annual free pass – despite the disingenuous stink of FATCA’s lack of true reciprocity growing stronger with every passing year;
* “1 The United States has undertaken automatic information exchanges pursuant to FATCA from 2015and entered into intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) with other jurisdictions to do so. The Model 1A IGAs entered into by the United States acknowledge the need for the United States to achieve equivalent levels of reciprocal automatic information exchange with partner jurisdictions. They also include a political commitment to pursue the adoption of regulations and to advocate and support relevant legislation to achieve such equivalent levels of reciprocal automatic exchange.”
https://www.oecd.org/tax/automatic-exchange/commitment-and-monitoring-process/AEOI-commitments.pdf .
Consider donating to the cost of the ADCS lawsuit.
No country in the world is sending vaccines or providing medical care to its citizens overseas – that complaint is utterly bonkers.
However, the US government is happily sending stimulus cheques to its citizens (and sometimes even non-citizens) abroad. The total benefit will be up to $3200 soon (more than enough to cover the renunciation fee). In comparison, I don’t believe that the Canadian government made CRB available to non-residents.
FATCA is of course ridiculous, unfair and a huge waste of money. But the good news, at least, is that any Canadian resident who does not wish to participate is free to not disclose their US citizenship without fear of being challenged by their bank.
Re: “. . . any Canadian resident . . . is free to not disclose their US citizenship without fear of being challenged by their bank.”
Too blanket a statement. Whilst fortunately not common, banks can ask for proof. Some people already have incriminating information of their “US personhood” on file with their bank. Some people, not knowing of FATCA, will answer with a US birthplace (or give the “wrong” answer to one of the other relevant questions). And, importantly, some people, for moral as well as practical reasons, are not comfortable lying.
” And, importantly, some people, for moral as well as practical reasons, are not comfortable lying.”
One can recall many situations ,and especially at a certain age, where one uncomfortable lie would have saved an awful lot a grief afterwards. I would say ,not some,but mostly all reasonable people are not comfortable lying ,especially with fatca where fear of retribution may be more of an issue than morality
and an uncomfortable lie.
Lying to one’s bank about US citizenship isn’t meant to be comfortable (though with practice it becomes almost automatic) but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the smart thing to do?
Retribution? I can’t imagine how.
Sorry I said fear of retribution and not retribution. People do things out of habit,and out of fear. Morally enters the picture when one begins to question as to why.
@RH, re;
“No country in the world is sending vaccines or providing medical care to its citizens overseas – that complaint is utterly bonkers.”
You miss the point – it’s one of principle and one which illustrates the extent of US CBT hypocrisy. If those the US claims as lifelong US taxable people have an obligation imposed on them by the US, does the US not have a reciprocal obligation?
Instead, when the rubber hit the road in terms of a duty of care and obligation, the US told those same deemed US taxable people to rely instead on the countries they are living in. And in fact, sequestered US made vaccines and PPE supplies from export to other countries like Canada (https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/canada-to-receive-millions-of-masks-won-t-retaliate-for-u-s-ban-on-3m-exports-pm-1.4882563), where substantial numbers of deemed US taxable people live.
The US demands its FATCA/extraterritorial CBT cake and insists on eating it too. This is only the latest example of the absurdity of US extraterritorial demands – simultaneously, under FATCA and US CBT drawing a distinctively expansive EXTRAterritorial boundary around the duties and obligations foisted onto those it deems UStaxable persons ‘abroad’ worldwide – yet in the case of a global emergency it makes clear that it intends to respond only DOMESTICALLY – taking responsibility only for those residing within its actual territorial boundaries when a true test of the nation’s duty of care has arisen involving ALL those it claims as citizens/taxable persons globally.
The US knows that Canada and Mexico for example have the highest population of those also deemed to be US citizens outside of the US ( ex. https://www.aaro.org/about-aaro/8m-americans-abroad , https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/counting-uncountable-overseas-americans ).
The US has not only no plan to assist those it defines as US citizens in Canada and further ‘abroad’, but it has directly interfered with Canada’s purchase of Covid vaccines to vaccinate those in Canada (which logically would include a substantial # of those deemed US citizen/”taxable persons”) ;
“……A Pfizer plant in Michigan was supposed to help supply vaccines to Canada. But an exclusivity deal with the U.S. government guarantees that all of its American-made doses will stay in the country until Washington’s orders are filled. Moderna has a similar arrangement regarding its plant in New Hampshire.
….. A U.S. government official briefed on the White House’s vaccine rollout plans said the Biden administration has no interest in sharing U.S.-produced vaccines with Canada or any other country before all Americans have received the shots.
“It’s important that our global community is healthy,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki told a briefing this week. “But we’re going to focus first on ensuring the American people are vaccinated…….”
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-biden-upholds-us-first-vaccine-policy-shutting-door-on-canada-for-now/
See also;
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/bidens-first-priority-vaccines-getting-203944585.html
Consular officials routinelly warned renunciants and relinquishers that the US would no longer be providing assistance to those ‘abroad’ in an emergency if they gave up their US citizenship. This is a global emergency. The US however is not able or willing to provide assistance to those it claims as US citizen taxable persons ‘abroad’ – even in terms of releasing the US made vaccine doses that Canada ordered and the manufacturers agreed to provide. It is concentrating on “domestic” vaccination – for US residents (not restricted to US citizens), including sequestering US manufactured doses ordered and purchased by Canada.
Is there a pandemic rider in FATCA or the rest of the extraterritorial CBT apparatus that lets the US get out of its reciprocal obligations to citizens – where ever they may be found? There is no rider that allows those deemed to be “US taxable persons” to get out of their US imposed information filing and tax obligations based on a global pandemic. The best they can hope for is whatever pandemic funds they qualify for from afar, and some adjustment to filing dates. You can bet that the US will deem any Canadian stimulus funds reportable and taxable.
If the US obligations and duty of care and benefits owed to those it deems to be citizens/taxable persons stops at the US border, then in the absence of any US residency and economic connection, any obligation to report or pay tax should as well.
I would like to see US CBT supporters (ex. see https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/547/ ) of the US extraterritorial citizenship based taxation system explain how their theoretical beliefs are consistent with their rationalizations when the US has concretely demonstrated that it has no motivation, intention (or ability) to assist those members of the US citizen ‘community’ ‘abroad’ in the face of the current worldwide pandemic? Even when we’re just across the longest shared border with the US – a short drive or flight away….