Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 4 of 11 (Year 2017)
You can access all years at this link: Media and Blog Articles – Links for All Years
If clicking on a comment link brings you to the wrong comment, click here to get on the most recent page of comments.(alternatively, to reach the most recent comment page, go to the url in the bar at the top of your browser and delete everything after http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/media-and-blog-articles-open-for-comments-part-4-of-4)
Media and Blog Articles
EmBee suggested that it would be good if there was a thread for new articles, so that people would be aware of where to comment. So, I created this permanent page. I’ll make a permanent list of links posted here and keep adding to it, but not deleting, so we’ll end up having sort of a “bibliography” of FATCA/CBT articles. [Note: Some articles are not open for comments]
For more articles on FATCA, enter FATCA into Google then click on the link “more news for fatca” just below the most recent featured article.
Notes:
From JC: To see #FATCA on Twitter for latest breaking news. JC finds that is quite a good source and there even are some international articles that one may read using Google Translate. Others may help certain tweets and articles remain in elevated position by retweeting them.
From Badger: On an important archival note, please use the Internet Archive Wayback machine https://archive.org/web/ (see bottom right ‘Save Page Now’ box to enter URLs of webpages you want saved for posterity, and try to save backup copies of articles and other items of interest in some other form – such as a datastick or external drive. Some important and very significant webpages and the fulltexts of articles are no longer available (although some can be retrieved if someone using the Wayback machine saved them).
Be sure to read the comment stream for this thread — there are usually very recent articles mentioned there that aren’t on this list yet.
2017.12.28
It’s time to address the double standard about tax havens, Angela Wrights, Macleans, Canada.
The US Is Becoming the World’s New Tax Haven, The Editors, Bloomberg View, US.
2017.12.21
Rep. Dina Titus Supports Americans Abroad Tax Reform, Democrats Abroad, US.
Now That The GOP Tax Bill Is Approved, The IRS Gets Busy, Brian Naylor, NPR, US.
2017.12.20
Taxpayers will have to wait to find out how they fare under new legislation , Renae Merle and Aaron Gregg, Denver Post (reprint from Washington Post), US.
U.S. Shareholders –Take Action by December 31, KPMG.
2017.12.18
Have You Ever Felt Sorry for the I.R.S? Now Might Be the Time, Patricia Cohen, New York Times, US.
2017.12.12
EU finance ministers issue warning to Trump over tax reforms, RTÉ, Ireland.
2017.12.11
Banque: les consequences étonnantes de l’accord FATCA, Edouard Lederer, Les Echos, France.
2017.12.10
As Australia ousts MPs with dual citizenship, Canada’s Parliament embraces many in its ranks, Kathleen Harris, Canada. (mentions MP who “assumed his U.S. citizenship was automatically rescinded because he did not meet several requirements for continued citizenship. [But when travelling to Washington] was told he was ineligible to enter the U.S. on a Canadian passport because he was a U.S. citizen. He was . . . allowed in on a one-time basis . . . it cost him $3,000 to later sort out the administrative requirements.”)
2017.12.09
The American Diaspora: Outreach and Organization, Victoria Ferauge, The Franco-American Flophouse, Japan.
2017.12.08
Foreign-owned banks to be hit by US tax rules, Financial Times, UK.
Trump Tax Plan Worries Europe, Christian Reiermann, Der Spiegel, Germany.
For articles earlier in 2017, click here.
JC– that’s effin’ interesting. How about PEOPLE, bunch of useless EU ministers!!!! (this from someone who is staunchly pro-European, not least because of the hope that only as the EU can European countries stand up to the USA).
Polly – aren’t all the rich OECD countries supposedly co-operating on tax reform?
Only (a) the OECD is actually controlled by the US and (b) their idea of tax reform is about the rights of the taxers, not the rights of the taxed.
1. Those affected by these issues are indeed a disparate group, in varying circumstances, affected by CBT/FATCA/IGA in different ways, viewing America differently, and wanting different outcomes.
2. Some USCs identify as American, file US tax returns, make use of USC tax benefits, and want that to continue – but would welcome relief from the insane level of reporting.
3. Some USCs want to retain their US citizenship without CBT/FATCA.
4. Some USCs don’t want US citizenship and want renunciation to be quick and cheap and entirely a matter of individual choice.
5. Some USCs and former USCs want not to be treated as AEOI-reportable on the basis of birthplace.
Does that cover everybody? Who have I left out?
Sorry – the first paragraph shouldn’t have had a number. Four sub-groups, not five.
Plaxy: Got me in category 3 & 5, with 4 on the horizon.
That said, I remain optimistic that Trump, Brexit (and to a very tiny degree, FATCA) will actually help Europe be more independent, or at least wary, of the US thought police and American legal imperialism.
Fred(B) – I’m just thinking that it might be useful if we could work out what are the different measures that would be needed to provide a remedy or remedies that would be beneficial for some or all of the sub-groups while being harmful/objectionable to none of the sub-groups.
My list would be:
– renunciation rights
– option to retain US citizenship, choosing whether to be treated as US-tax-resident
– obligation for FATCA/CRS signatory countries’ tax agencies to determine out-of-country tax residency, rather than letting banks take the safe (for them) way out and report or close/refuse account “just in case”
The difficulty in finding a name that encompasses all the subgroups is just a reflection of the reality that we are a heterogeneous bunch. The thing we all have in common is only the fact that we’re all affected by the interaction of US tax law and US citizenship law.
Clarifying who wants what might help identify a common goal which more could unite behind.
Plaxy: CBT, CBT, CBT is the issue. That’s all. That’s why we’re all here (desperately in need of better hobbies, as someone said here).
1/ In Brussels I meet people from everywhere on earth. The only ones who even contemplate trashing their original citizenship are Americans. Quite a paradox, for the shining sun god of nations, or whatever. None of these other people, except for the year they moved, are bothered by double taxation, double filing, or such junk. The only thing they now have to worry about, because of CRS, is that their home accounts could be reported to Belgium.
2/ The current renunciation fee is laughable, but it’s only an issue because of … CBT. Nobody would pay that if they didn’t have to. They wouldn’t make you pay that if they didn’t want to punish renunciation;
Truly the shining sun god of nations has gone a long way in irony (ok, nothing new) since Kennedy’s Berlin Wall Speech :
“…Freedom has many difficulties, and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us. While the wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the communist system, for all the world to see we take no satisfaction in it, for it is as your mayor has said, “an offense not only against history, but an offense against humanity…”
He had it right: the renunciation procedure and fee is an obvious and vivid demonstration of the failure of CBT, for all the world to see (I wish).
3/ CRS seems to be all the rage. I don’t like it but whatever. FATCA is America’s CRS, whatever. But other countries should force the US to use CRS like everybody else, and refuse FATCA’s unique dictates. That said, There would not be a problem, again, if we did away with CBT. FATCA should concern only homelanders.
To be pragmatic, however, you could mitigate CBT: renunciation made easy and free, FATCA exempting local accounts (same country). Some people who are our strange bedfellows are homelanders who hate taxes, libertarians, and various advocates for TTFI. We need them, and support them, but we’d be off the hook with simple RBT.
There is already a group with a fabulous name that DOES hit straight at the issue that affects ALL of us. The name contains no reference to any specific nationality and no reference to any specific location of the “membership”. It’s called the “Alliance for the Defeat of Citizenship Taxation” (ADCT). Does the wheel need re-inventing?
Some interesting discussion over at Victoria’s blog pertaining to my comment above: https://francoamericanflophouse.wordpress.com/2017/12/09/the-american-diaspora-outreach-and-organization/comment-page-1/#comment-5580
Fred (B): Great comment!
Fred – “The single problem is CBT. “
For you that may be so. For others, not. Some USCs prefer to have access to USC benefits rather than treaty benefits.
“The current renunciation fee is laughable, but it’s only an issue because of … CBT. Nobody would pay that if they didn’t have to.”
Sure they would. I did.
But I agree that if we could choose not to be US-tax-resident, that would partly solve FATCA / CRS problems.
MuzzledNoMore – “There is already a group with a fabulous name that DOES hit straight at the issue that affects ALL of us. … It’s called the “Alliance for the Defeat of Citizenship Taxation” ”
Some USCs would be worse off if they could no longer be treated as tax-resident in the US. USCs in that position might be more likely to support a solution that allowed USCs to choose whether to be treated as US-tax-resident.
@ plaxy
There is no sub-group for me … don’t even try to think one up. I am affected by all this though, but some like DoD would probably tell me, “Don’t worry. Be happy.” I thought I’d be long gone before TPTB would have a worldwide network in place to control our every move but things are progressing so quickly that I might actually experience that horror. I can’t fight everything in all directions at once so, in order to be able to tell myself that I tried, I’m keeping my focus on the CBT/FBAR/FATCA monster which is the part of the bigger whole which happens to hit closest to home, so to speak. I see CBT/FBAR/FATCA as being, above all, a control issue.
Embee – I used to see CBT/FBAR/FATCA/USCIS as a control issue, but since it became clear that they can’t actually enforce CBT (and don’t really even seem to be interested in trying), I see it more as a legislative mess fuelled by vindictive incompetent posturing politicians.
Plaxy: It’s very much a control issue. My investment options are now entirely controlled by the spectre of FATCA as CBT’s enforcer. Sure I could formally renounce my US citizenship to avoid the possibility of being outed by FATCA but, there again, it is FATCA as CBT’s enforcer, controlling my life choices once again. In that there are now huge swathes of my life which I must pass through the FATCA/CBT filter I will not be in true control of that life until these laws and regulations are relegated to history. Personally, I would be very happy if the group of Americans that you speak of could arrange to “choose” to remain US taxpayers if they so wish, but I will not stand for the rest of us being enslaved just so that can come to pass. That was the problem with ACA’s opt in/opt out program for RBT. It would have mired us ALL in an even worse mess. Those who want things to stay as they are will have to fight their own battles.
I was thinking more of the sort of solution Holding suggested – based on the way NRAs are taxed, as that’s already in the tax code and would be easier to do than ACA’s complicated proposal.
” I would be very happy if the group of Americans that you speak of could arrange to “choose” to remain US taxpayers if they so wish, but I will not stand for the rest of us being enslaved just so that can come to pass.”
It’s already the status quo.
I see a “choice” solution as more workable, more fair, and more achievable; but in the end it will be down to the US to decide, be it the courts, the congress, or the executive branch.
Plaxy: If it were indeed a real choice. I just fear that anything short of scrapping the premise of citizenship as a taxable “event” would keep the door open for further abuse in the future.
Yes I know what you mean.
Plaxy:
Re CBT: “For you that may be so. For others, not. Some USCs prefer to have access to USC benefits rather than treaty benefits.”
I’m French, I live in Belgium, I lived in Spain, and in the US previously. I use the French consular services, I can get my kids into the Lycée Français (choose not to, though), I can vote in France, I can do lots of stuff with and in France. I traveled the world with my French passport, which was advantageous in some parts (cheaper visa in Cambodia for instance). But I don’t reside there and France leaves me the “eff” alone, and does not ask for account info or tax returns. I see no reason why the US could not settle for that too. What kind of “USC benefits” could warrant such invasiveness? Heck, even when in the US there are few benefits (as compared to many EU countries, and certainly those I know).
You paid the renunciation fee. I said “Nobody would pay that if they didn’t have to.” While my statement is literally wrong, the renunciation numbers make my point. When people didn’t have to pay to get a CLN, they didn’t get one. They didn’t even get one when it was free. Most people don’t fork over 2+ grand when they don’t have to.
“But I agree that if we could choose not to be US-tax-resident, that would partly solve FATCA / CRS problems.” I don’t even think there should be a choice. If you live elsewhere, you are no longer a tax resident. I mean sure, one could send in returns to the IRS, but what’s the point? Should one send in returns to every country one has lived in over the course of a lifetime? Continue to send in returns to Lithuania because someone lived there in 1988?
The only issues RBT don’t solve are homelander issues, which is exactly the point, after all. It won’t solve FATCA for them, but that’s life. Others deal with CRS, they deal with FATCA. Big whoop. At least their home bank accounts are left alone.
Fred – “What kind of “USC benefits” could warrant such invasiveness? ”
It’s not a question of what is warranted or not warranted – it’s what happens to USCs living outside the US: they either file US taxes, in which case they pay US tax at USC rates on worldwide income, and can claim USC deductions, child tax credit, FEIE, FTCs, etc; or they don’t file US taxes, in which case they pay US tax on US-source income only, in line with treaty provisions.
Compliance is as we know virtually impossible if you invest in non-US assets; so those who comply have an incentive to put their money into US retirement plans, stocks, etc. While those who don’t comply (in many cases don’t even know CBT exists) naturally respond to the tax-free or low-tax saving opportunities available where they live.
FATCA treats us all as likely tax cheats, the compliant along with the non-compliant, the renunciants along with the citizens. The FATCA due-diligence criteria aren’t designed to winkle out non-compliant USCs with local accounts; the criteria are designed to catch US residents with unreported foreign accounts. That’s the goal which, in the minds of the FATCA inventors, warrants the intrusion and warrants labelling all US citizens – wherever found – as criminal suspects.
“When people didn’t have to pay to get a CLN, they didn’t get one. They didn’t even get one when it was free. Most people don’t fork over 2+ grand when they don’t have to.”
Agreed. Most USCs who pay the fee do so because of FATCA.
As I’ve said, to me having the option seems more workable, more fair, and more possible to happen.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/13/alabama-jones-moore-exit-polls-294159?lo=ap_c1
The Alabama Senate election shows how fragile the GOP majority is. Gillibrand, Schumer et al. will certainly not be amenable to FATCA repeal; how about RBT? I doubt it too.
—
Plaxy: I get the impression we mostly agree. Your suggestion is that we could choose, when living abroad, to be US-tax resident or not. Fine with me. That said, remembering past proposals, the “choice” to opt for RBT was, in some proposals, accompanied by an “exit tax” or “IRS user fee”, which was also ridiculously high. Fortunately for me, duals at birth seemed to be exempt, but still, I find this unacceptable. So, yes, agreed that one should be able to opt for RBT, which is better than nothing, but it does seem a complex, costly, and needless caveat as compared to simply stating that your residence is where you live and where you are taxed, period.
Fred – yes, it would certainly be better for all concerned if CBT had never existed and RBT had always been the default.
“…remembering past proposals, the “choice” to opt for RBT was, in some proposals, accompanied by an “exit tax” or “IRS user fee”, which was also ridiculously high.”
Yes, I think the writers of the ACA proposal were perhaps trying to (a) improve the chances of a neutral revenue score, and (b) ward off accusations of giving us high-living tax cheats a get out of jail free card.
I think that if change happens, either as a result of successful court action, or because it suits the agenda of the current administration, it might be more along the least-effort lines suggested by Holding (adapting the NRA provisions).
But who knows. Have to wait and see.
“LAST night at The Vice President’s Residence Christmas reception, RO Vice Chairman & CEO Solomon Yue (right) lobbied Vice President Pence (middle) on why Congress needs 2 end double taxation for 9M overseas Americans by replacing #CBT with #TTFI . Mr. Pence agreed. #FATCA”
https://twitter.com/SolomonYue/status/940965768669356032
“Excellent meme on growing up to be a corporation.”
Let’s encourage the creativity by retweeting and liking this tweet:
https://twitter.com/dkouba/status/941346953513832448
@ JC
That’s a clever image — “When I grow up, I want to be a Corporation.” I hope Twitter’s new offensive censorship of what it deems to be offensive doesn’t affect the campaign against FATCA/FBAR/CBT. I find control in all its variations to be offensive.