Links to the FATCA debate in European parliament on FATCA.
European citizens versus the Borg
Links to the FATCA debate in European parliament on FATCA.
European citizens versus the Borg
by Monte Silver
reprinted with permission of the author

The U.S. 2017 tax reform has made it very problematic for an American residing in the UK to conduct business through a UK corporation. Operating through a UK corporation exposes the expat to two new taxes: Repatriation and GILTI. This article will discuss the little known 962 election, how it can be used to reduce Repatriation tax liability, and some issues that must be considered before doing so.
A numerical example is helpful. An American living in the UK has been operating a CPA sole practice or family restaurant for 30 years through a wholly owned UK company. After paying UK corporate income tax on profits over the years, the company has $500,000 in retained earnings in its bank account, which the expat is counting on for retirement. Under the Repatriation tax, the expat is now personally liable for $87,700 (17.54% * $500,000) of that amount.
How is this tax paid? In eight annual payments, with the first payment of 8% (or $7,016) being due June 15, 2019 (as a result of the extension achieved from the U.S. Treasury).
Let’s assume that the expat has no personal foreign tax credits to use to offset to the Repatriation tax. In other words, in previous years the expat has already used all personal income tax paid in the UK to offset U.S. income tax.
Continue reading →
According to an article by Michael Cohn in Accounting Today, a multi-lateral tax enforcement group has been formed. The Joint Chiefs of Global Tax Enforcement (or J5 for short), intend to “collaborate in fighting international and transnational tax crimes and money laundering.”
U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and Netherlands form international tax enforcement group https://t.co/x3bX03Ardw Enough Already! We've got Treaties, #FATCA , #CRS When will it end? pic.twitter.com/4DRrjKSVhg
— Citizenship Taxation (@CitizenshipTax) July 1, 2018
Membership of the J5 includes the heads of tax crime and senior officials from Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation (IRS CI), Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) in the U.K., the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) and Australian Taxation Office (ATO), the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), and the Dutch Fiscal Information and Investigation Service (FIOD).
Leaders of the group met Thursday in Montreal to formulate their plans. The J5 plans to work together to gather and share information and intelligence, as well as conduct operations and build capacity for tax crime enforcement officials. Areas of focus include cybercrime and cryptocurrency, data analytics, and enablers and facilitators of tax crimes. The alliance will concentrate on building international enforcement capacity, as well as enhancing operational capability by piloting new approaches and conducting joint operations, to bring perpetrators who enable and facilitate offshore tax crime to justice
Greg Swanson of PurpleExpat.org created a change.org petition to abolish “citizenship-based taxation”. You can still sign it. But, as it stands only 700 people in the whole wide world – even though they have nothing to lose – signed this petition. The problem is not the effectiveness of the petition. The problem is that Americans abroad as a group will not stand up for themselves.
https://twitter.com/Keith__REDMOND/status/1009101233066598400
Mr. Swanson published an interesting post where he summarized the comments and added some additional commentary.
The comments include:
Is there a parallel between #Americansabroad commiting #citizide and the following story? "Why my grandfather dissolved the Michel First Nation and renounced his Indian status" | CBC Radio https://t.co/fFMmmOn1FL
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) June 4, 2018
I recently became aware of a fascinating article at CBC titled:
Why my grandfather dissolved the Michel First Nation and renounced his Indian status
The title suggests a discussion of two separate issues:
1. “Renouncing Indian status” – Is this analogous to U.S. citizens renouncing U.S. citizenship today?
2. “Dissolving the Michel First Nation” – Is this analogous to “tax residents” of other countries returning to the United States to avoid the indignities inflicted on Americans abroad?
For some time I have been interested in some of the parallels between the U.S. treatment of its citizens living abroad and the Canadian and U.S. Government treatment of their First Nations people. To be clear: I am NOT suggesting that the treatment of Americans abroad is of the same caliber as the treatment of First Nations peoples.
Nevertheless:
– First Nations people have historically been subjected to a separate regulatory regime – the Indian Act – by the Government of Canada. U.S. citizens abroad are subjected to a separate tax regime by the Government of the United States
– First Nations people are subjected to a separate financial reporting regime by the Government of Canada. U.S. citizens abroad are subjected to a separate reporting regime by the U.S. Government
– First Nations people have historically been subjected to policies that have resulted in diminished opportunities relative to other Canadians. U.S. citizens abroad simply do NOT have the same opportunities as those who are not U.S. citizens
Continue reading →
Thousands of Canadian residents hit by #Trump #tax get temporary reprieve as battle begins for permanent fix https://t.co/j379IO5RPm #cdnpoli #IRS #TaxReform
— Elizabeth Thompson (@LizT1) June 13, 2018
The above tweet references CBC reporter Elizabeth Thompson’s latest article on the U.S. “transition tax”. While reporting on the delay (referenced at the Isaac Brock Society here), Ms. Thompson’s article offers the tantalising possibility that the “delay” may be linked to a desire for a legislative fix.
Her article at CBC includes:
Brian Masse, an NDP MP who sits on the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group, said U.S. lawmakers were very much aware of the tax reform’s unintended consequences when MPs and senators met with them in Washington last month.
Masse said he was told legislation to fix the problem could be introduced in the coming weeks.
“There seemed to be a genuine understanding and appreciation that these are victims.”
By the way, the comments to the article are (as usual) not off to a good start. (In fact they are indescribably ignorant.) It appears that the average Canadian:
1. Hates corporations; and
2. Hates U.S. citizens (even when they are also Canadian)
But, when you have (1) “U.S. citizens” (2) owing Canadian “corporations” these people lose any semblance of rationality. (You can actually see their abilities to reason and process information implode in real time.)
It would be helpful to add some comments (calling all Brockers) that would provide some balance and education. Seems like a number of commenters don’t believe that “dual” citizens (usually they call them “duel” citizens) are actually Canadians.
There are a couple of really good comments from one “Karen Alpert” (a familiar name) which includes:
Technically, yes. It applies to any US citizen who owned a foreign corporation when the tax reform bill was signed last December. Anyone who renounces after that point would be liable for the tax. However, I suspect that a number of affected Canadian citizens will decline to comply with this tax and will hide behind the tax treaty provision that states that Canada will not help the IRS collect in Canada on tax liabilities that arose when the taxpayer was a Canadian citizen,
Ms. Alpert is absolutely correct – the issue of the “Canadian citizenship” defence to collection was recently explored at the Isaac Brock Society here.
____________________________________________
Elizabeth Thompson’s article about the “transition tax” have been featured on Brock as follows:
and
In the last little while, there are 4 new Accidental American groups which appear to be under the umbrella of Fabien Lehavgre’s group ( website , Facebook , Twitter . I don’t believe I have seen any of these mentioned here so want to be sure this information is available so people are aware of it.
For those of you on Facebook and Twitter, kindly share, RT and like these pages. Thanks.
UK
UK #AccidentalAmericans. You have no more excuses to act now.
Join us and fight for your freedom.#FATCA #CBT pic.twitter.com/FfKIuvAVi2— Accidental Americans (@USAccidental) June 2, 2018
UK Accidental Americans Facebook Page
ITALY
Italian #AccidentalAmericans now have their own group to fight #FATCA and Citizishensiph Based Taxation pic.twitter.com/4vA5HXzBKO
— Accidental Americans (@USAccidental) June 3, 2018
Italian Accidental Americans Facebook Page
IRELAND
Irish #AccidentalAmericans. You have no more excuses to act now.
Join us and fight for your freedom. pic.twitter.com/KaaE9S0UPC— Accidental Americans (@USAccidental) June 3, 2018
Irish Accidental Americans Facebook Page
BELGIUM
Les "américains accidentels" de Belgique s'organisent.
Rejoignez-les en envoyant vos coordonnées à belgium.aaa@gmail.com pic.twitter.com/k8Flx1zMJq— Accidental Americans (@USAccidental) May 7, 2018
Update from “Accounting Today” – June 4/18 – 11:00 p.m. EST:
__________________________________________
RT Looks like many (but not all) #Ameriansabroad impacted by the Sec. 965 @USTransitionTax will NOT be required to make the June 15, 2018 first payment deadline. But, it is YOUR responsibility to read, understand and see how this applies to your situation! https://t.co/FuZ7ZRJbca pic.twitter.com/CmD3u84WxY
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) June 4, 2018
I haven’t had time to really read and digest this Bulletin from U.S. Treasury.
You will have to read and draw your own conclusions, but it appears that paragraph 16 speaks to this issue:
Q16: If an individual fails to timely pay his or her first installment of tax due under section 965(h), will the IRS assess an addition to tax for failure to pay? Will the taxpayer’s requirement to pay all subsequent installments be accelerated under section 965(h)(3)?
A16: If an individual meets the criteria in this paragraph and pays the total amount of the first installment on or before the due date for the second installment, the IRS will not assess an addition to tax for failure to timely pay the first installment and will not accelerate subsequent installments under section 965(h)(3). An individual with a net tax liability under section 965 is required to report the liability on his or her tax return for the year in which or with which the inclusion year of the deferred foreign income corporation ends and pay the full amount of that liability on the unextended due date of that return, unless the individual elects to pay the liability in eight annual installments pursuant to section 965(h)(1). However, the IRS has determined that, if an individual’s net tax liability under section 965 in the individual’s 2017 taxable year is less than $1 million, the individual makes a timely election under section 965(h), and the individual did not pay the full amount of the first installment by the due date under section 965(h)(2), the failure to make the payment will not result in an acceleration event under section 965(h)(3) so long as the individual pays the full amount of the first installment (and its second installment) by the due date for its 2018 return (determined without regard to extensions). For this purpose, the relevant due date generally is April 15, 2019. In the case of United States citizens or residents whose tax homes and abodes, in a real and substantial sense, are outside the United States and Puerto Rico, and United States citizens and residents in military or naval service on duty, including non-permanent or short term duty, outside the United States and Puerto Rico, the relevant due date is June 17, 2019, which is provided by Treas. Reg. §1.6081-5(a)(5) and (6). Although the IRS will not assess an addition to tax for failure to timely pay the first installment, a taxpayer will be liable for interest on such amount from the due date of the installment. See I.R.C. §6601.If the IRS sends a taxpayer a notice of an addition to tax for failure to timely pay the first installment, and the taxpayer meets all the conditions for relief described above (including making the required payment by the due date for the second installment due under section 965(h)), the taxpayer should contact the IRS office that issued the notice and request abatement of the addition to tax for failure to timely pay the first installment in accordance with the provisions in these FAQs.
Posted: 06/04/2018
Note that this does NOT apply to all people (appearing to give relief only to small businesses).
In my previous post about the June 15, 2018 “transition tax deadline” I referenced the letter received from Minister Morneau’s office which included:
… Canada recognizes the sovereign right and policy choice, of the U.S. to tax its citizens, including citizens who are resident abroad. The Canada-United States Tax Convention (the Convention), preserves this right.
This post should be construed as an information bulletin. It is not to be construed as practical advice, legal advice, moral advice, retirement planning advice or any other kind of advice. If you feel that you need professional advice then you should go and get it. This post contains the following five parts:
Part 1 – A reminder of what the transition tax is and what it (according to the tax professionals) requires you to do
Part 2 – A statement of part of the Canada U.S. Tax Treaty that you might find to be of relevance
Part 3 – Confirmation from the Department of Finance that the Canada Revenue Agency will not assist the IRS in collecting the "transition tax" on Canadian citizens
Part 4 – It is likely that the same situation would also apply to citizens of France, Sweden, Netherlands and Denmark
Part 5 – Residents of countries other than France, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark and Canada
Again, this post is an information bulletin and is NOT to be construed as providing any form or advice.
There have been a large number of Brock posts devoted to the "transition tax".
For example: