Tag Archives: FATCA

“Dual citizenship affords unique opportunities for cross-border tax evasion” claims report issued by @SenateFinance

1 Reply

As described by AARO (“Association of American Residents Overseas”) in an April 7, 2023 blog post:

On March 29 the Senate Finance Committee Democratic staff issued a report titled “Credit Suisse’s Role in U.S. Tax Evasion Schemes of its investigation of Credit Suisse’s compliance with a 2014 plea agreement with the Department of Justice involving the bank’s participation in a conspiracy to hide offshore accounts from the IRS.

Per Committee chair Senator Ron Wyden’s (D-OR) press release, the report details Credit Suisse’s role in a “potentially criminal tax conspiracy” involving accounts of a U.S. based family that were closed 10 years ago, recycles the Clinton/Bush era tax evasion case by U.S. businessman Dan Horsky, and discusses large undeclared accounts belonging to 23 ultra-high net worth U.S. citizens.

We are surprised that such a large and well-resourced committee working for two years was unable to unearth so little misconduct at a mega-bank that has now collapsed due to mis-management. Most outrageously, the report states that “Dual citizenship affords unique opportunities for cross-border tax evasion,” which gives the impression that ordinary Americans living abroad are prone to criminal tax evasion.

AARO has a meeting scheduled with Senator Wyden’s office in May during our annual Overseas Americans Week, during which we will express our extreme dissatisfaction with this characterization. We will let you know if there are any developments.

AARO deserves thanks and credit from all Americans overseas for publicly pushing back on the report created and published by the Democrat led Senate Finance Committee. The report is outrageous, a waste of public funds and appears to be a “back handed attempt” to justify the hiring of more IRS agents and increasing/justifying the imposition of FBAR penalties. The report is NOT (contrary to media reports) really about Credit Suisse. The report uses Credit Suisse as a “prop” to remind the people of America, that there are some people in America (it all took place ten years ago), who deliberately attempt to evade the payment of U.S. tax. The modus operandi includes moving their money to financial institutions and entities outside the United States. Yes, it’s true. Of course, as an added benefit the Senate Finance Committee gets to demonize Swiss banks (in general) and Credit Suisse (in particular). But make no mistake. The Senate Finance report is NOT about Swiss banks. It’s an advertisement to justify the hiring of more IRS agents funded by the Inflation Reduction Act, to legitimize the imposition of more FBAR penalties and to suggest that Republicans are (somehow) soft on tax evasion.

Why this report is dangerous for U.S. citizens generally and for Americans abroad specifically

Continue reading →

The Issue Is Not @CitizenshipTax. The Issue Is Whether The US Can Claim The Tax Residents Of Other Countries As US Tax Residents!

1 Reply

Introduction – The United States has the “sovereign right” to define who are its “tax residents, but …”

Prologue

There is presently heightened advocacy directed toward the goal of influencing the United States to take action to end (what is described as) U.S. citizenship taxation. Notably this goal is for the purpose of influencing the United States to take action.

Perhaps it would be equally useful to define a separate goal of:

Not allowing the United States to claim the residents of other countries as U.S. tax residents!

Notably this goal would be to engage the governments of other countries!

Ideally both Americans abroad and their countries of residence should seek to stop the United States from reaching into those other countries and claiming the residents of those countries as U.S. tax residents!

In FATCA related discussions it has been common for Government Officials to claim that the United States has the sole right to determine who are its tax residents. Although true, this cannot mean that the United States (or any country) has the right to claim the residents of another country as its tax residents. (The debate is illuminated here and here.)

(Interestingly when the European PETI delegation visited Washington in July of 2022 they made it clear that they did NOT question the right of the United States to define European residents as U.S. tax residents. Rather, they just wanted to find a way to make it easier for European residents to be permitted to have access to bank accounts in the European countries where they live.)

It is appropriate for other countries to accept that the United States has the right (like any country) to define who are U.S. tax residents. It is completely inappropriate for Europeans to accept that the United States has the right to treat European tax residents (who actually live and work in Europe) as U.S. tax residents. By protecting European residents from the United States, European countries would be acting in a manner that is consistent with the OECD tax treaty which anticipates situations of “dual tax residency”. In circumstances of dual tax residency, the model OECD tax treaty (Article 4) provides that the treaty “tie break” will be used to assign tax residency to the country that correlates with the “circumstances of life”. (See page 111 in the document linked to in the previous sentence.) Interestingly, citizenship which absent naturalization, is based on “circumstances of birth” is considered to be the least important criterion under the treaty “tie break”rules.

The treaty tie break rules presumptively assign tax residency based on the “circumstances of life” and not on the “circumstances of birth“.

The bottom line is that, it’s time for the world to simply say:

Of course the United States can define who are its tax residents. But, the United States will NOT be permitted to treat the tax residents of our country (who actually live in our country) to be treated by the U.S. as though they are the tax property of the United States! That is the simple message that must be conveyed!!

Let’s now analyze how the United States goes about claiming the residents of other countries as U.S. taxable property. It’s explained by Mr. Paolo Gentoloni as follows …

Continue reading →

U.S. FBAR And Form 8938 Penalties May Be A Bigger Problem For U.S. Residents Than Canada’s Underused Housing Tax

Leave a reply

Introduction

Canada’s Underused Property Tax came into force effective January 1, 2022. The return for the 2022 year is due on April 30, 2023. Generally, a tax of 1% of the value of the property will be imposed on the owners of property that are not occupied in an acceptable manner (principal residence or rented out) for at least six months of the year. The rules are drafted in a way that would appear to exclude short term rentals (think AirBNB) from meeting the test for “occupancy”. In addition, individuals who are are neither Canadian Citizens nor Permanent Resident are (1) required to file a return and (2) may (depending on whether the property meets the test for occupancy) be subject to the 1% tax. To put it simply: U.S. Citizens and Residents May Be Subject to “Canada’s Underused Property Tax”. New York Congressman Brian Higgins is been very active in drawing attention to the unfairness of “Canada’s Underused Property Tax” being applied to U.S. citizens. He has launched a public and visible campaign to pressure the Government of Canada to offer an exemption to U.S. citizens.

The basic structure of Canada’s “Underused Housing Tax”

In contrast to the Municipal (Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver) “Vacant Home Taxes“, Canada’s Underused Property Tax is complicated. It is likely that those required to file the return will need assistance.

Continue reading →

How U.S. Citizenship Tax, The Treaty “Saving Clause” and FATCA Create A Fiscal Prison For Dual Tax Residents

1 Reply

Introduction – The Problem Of Dual Tax Residency For U.S. Citizens

A “Hell greater than the sum of the parts”

There are people in the world who really don’t understand (or say they don’t) what exactly is the problem with U.S. citizenship based taxation. They claim to not understand why defining “tax residency” based on the “circumstances of birth” rather than the “circumstances of life” is a problem. They fail to consider how taxation based on “circumstances of birth”, interacts with U.S. tax treaties and FATCA to create a “hell that is greater than the sum of the parts”.

This is the third post in a series designed to explore and facilitate the understanding of the U.S. “citizenship based” extra-territorial tax regime. The first post explored the practical meaning of U.S. citizenship-based taxation (it’s primary effects are on people who live outside the U.S.). The second post explored the fact that tax residency based on “citizenship” is tax residency based on the “circumstances of one’s birth” rather than the “circumstances of one’s life” (its effects are primarily based on the circumstance of birth in the U.S.). The conclusion drawn from these first two posts was that the U.S. citizenship based extra-territorial tax regime is one in which:

The circumstance of a U.S. birthplace is used as a justification to regulate the lives of people with no connection to the United States and impose U.S. taxation on income that has no connection to the United States and is received by someone who does not live in the United States.

Citizenship taxation has practical and contextual meaning only its application to tax residents of non-US countries. The U.S. uses the circumstance of a “U.S. birthplace” to reach out and “claim” the tax residents of other countries as U.S. “tax residents”.

The purpose of this post is to explain how the interaction of U.S. citizenship taxation (claiming those with a U.S. birth place as U.S. tax residents when they are tax residents of other countries), the “saving clause” (not allowing U.S. citizens with dual tax residency to assign tax residency to the country where they actually live) and FATCA (the tool to hunt, find and enforce the extraterritorial U.S. tax and regulatory regime on the residents of other countries) creates a whole hell greater than the sum of the parts.

Many people understand the three components of “citizenship taxation”, the “saving clause” and “FATCA” as separate entities. Few appear to understand how those three components interact together to destroy the lives of U.S. citizens with dual tax residency. The U.S. has created a “fiscal prison” for its citizens. Seven video accounts of the impact of the U.S. citizenship tax regime are available here.

This problem can be solved ONLY by the United States redefining its rules for “tax residency” so that “citizenship” (the circumstances of one’s birth”) is not relevant to “tax residency” (the circumstances of one’s life).

This post is to identify the component “Part”(s) of the problem. It is organized in “Sections” and “Parts” as follows:

Section I – How The Problem Was Created

Part A – Tax, Residency and Tax Residency
Part B – The general problem of dual tax residency
Part C – Introducing the treaty tie break and how it can be used to end “dual tax residency” under a relevant Canadian tax treaty”
Part D – The general principles of the U.S. Canada “tax treaty tie break – How “circumstances of life” are used to assign tax residency
Part E – Food for thought – Citizenship the least important factor for the treaty tie break
Part F – Two possible examples of assigning residence to one country by using the “treaty tie break” – Green Card Edition
Part G – U.S. Citizens CANNOT Benefit From The “Tax Treaty Tie Break” – Hello “Saving Clause”
Part H – The “Saving Clause” And The Inability For U.S. Citizens To Use The “Treaty Tie Break” Is How The United States Captures The Residents Of The Treaty Partner Country And Claims Them As U.S. Tax Residents
Part I – The Tax Treaty Tie Break And Implications For U.S. Tax Compliance And For FATCA And The CRS Reporting

Section II – How Dual Tax Residents Experience The Extraterritorial Tax Regime

Part J – The U.S. exports a more punitive from of taxation to tax residents of other countries
Part K – The Problem Of Investing, Retirement planning and Retirement Planning – The Punitive Taxation And Reporting Requirements of PFICs and Foreign Trusts
Part L – The Problem Of Non-U.S. Pensions – How Are They Treated Under The Internal Revenue Code? – Different Rules For Different Countries
Part M – Discouraging U.S. Small Business Abroad – The Treatment Of Small Business Corporations Generally And On A Country By Country Basis
Part N – The “FBAR Marriage”: How Marriage To An Alien Results In Higher Taxation, More Reporting, Difficulties With Asset Transfers, Higher Divorce Costs And Possibly A Requirement To File A Tax Return With As Little As $5 Of Income

Section III – How The U.S. Extraterritorial Tax Regime Attacks The Sovereignty Of Other Countries

Part O – The U.S. taxation of residents of other countries attacks and erodes the tax base of those other countries

Section IV – Solving The Problem: Regulatory And Legislative Solutions

Part P – Regulatory Solution: “A Regulatory Fix For Citizenship Taxation
Part Q – Regulatory Solution: Amending The “Saving Clause” In U.S. Tax Treaties
Part R – Territorial Taxation For U.S. Citizen Individuals
Part S – Redefining U.S. Tax Residency To Move To Residence-based Taxation”

Continue reading →

Should tax residency Be Based On The “Circumstances Of Your Birth” Or The “Circumstances Of Your Life”?

1 Reply

Panel session – US Expat Tax Conference from Deborah Hicks on Vimeo.

Should taxation be based on the “circumstances of your birth” or the “circumstances of your life”? President Obama doesn’t think (apparently) that the “circumstances of your birth” birth should determine the “outcome of your life”. Should the “circumstances of your birth” determine your tax residency?

This is a second post exploring what is the true meaning of U.S. citizenship-based taxation. In an earlier post – “Toward A Definition Of Citizenship Taxation” – I explored the contextual meaning and effect of U.S. “citizenship taxation”. The only “contextual effect” and “practical meaning” of U.S. citizenship taxation may be described as:

Therefore, the practical meaning of “citizenship taxation” is the United States imposing taxation on the non-US source income earned by people who live in other countries. To be clear: citizenship taxation means that the United States is claiming the residents of OTHER countries as US residents for tax purposes!

That’s amazing stuff! Most countries believe that they are sovereign and that includes sovereignty over matters of taxation. Yet, any country that is a party to a U.S. tax treaty has actually agreed that a subset of the treaty partner’s tax residents are ALSO U.S. tax residents! Although nobody questions the right of the United States to prescribe its own definition of tax residency, few would agree that the United States has the right to claim the residents of other countries as U.S. tax residents. Yet, this is what the U.S. citizenship taxation regime means. This U.S. extraterritorial claim of taxation is at the root of the FATCA administration problems and at the root of the the events that led to Treasury Notice 2023-11 (released on December 30, 2022).

Continue reading →

Report Of Members Of The PETI Committee Of The EU Parliament Of Their July 2022 FATCA Visit To Washington

Leave a reply

Prologue

July 2022 – A FATCA Delegation Goes To Washington, DC

This post is to document a small part of the practical impact of the US citizenship taxation regime. It is a continuation of a series of posts exploring what US citizenship taxation is and how it impacts people who live outside the United States and the countries where they live.

The first post – “Toward A Definition Of Citizenship Taxation” – concluded that the only practical and contextual meaning of citizenship tax is:

Therefore, the practical meaning of “citizenship taxation” is the United States imposing taxation on the non-US source income earned by people who live in other countries. To be clear: citizenship taxation means that the United States is claiming the residents of OTHER countries as US residents for tax purposes!

The second post – “Should tax residency Be Based On The “Circumstances Of Your Birth” Or The “Circumstances Of Your Life”?”

The US claim of tax residency is based on the “circumstances of their birth”. The “push back” from those impacted is based on the “circumstances of their life”.

Combining the themes of the first two posts we see that:

The United States claims the right based on and only an individual’s “circumstances of birth” to impose regulations and taxation on that individuals’s income earned outside the United States when his “circumstances of life” are such that he lives outside the United States.

Or to describe it slightly differently:

The United States claims the right based on and only an individual’s “circumstances of birth” to impose taxation on the non-US source income of people when their “circumstances of live” are that do NOT live in the United States.

Or maybe …

The United States claims the right based on and only an individual’s “circumstances of birth” to regulate, penalize and tax those individuals when they no longer live in the United States. This includes imposing tax on the non-US source income of people who do NOT live in the United States.

It is very difficult to arrive at a succinct and simple description of what tax and regulation of individuals based on a a “U.S. birthplace” means.

The effect of claiming these nonresidents as US tax residents results in a massive interference (because of the punitive US tax treatment of non-US assets and income sources) in their ability save, invest and carry on businesses in their country of residence AND their ability (because of FATCA) to access bank accounts in their country of residence.

Categories of problems caused by this US extra-territorial claim of tax residency include (but are not limited to):

1. Direct taxation of non-US source income earned by nonresidents

2. Expensive and penalty compliance requirements which interfere withe the ability to manage the financial/retirement planning options in their country of residence

3. The ability to open and maintain basic bank and investment accounts

The problem of bank account access

The European Delegation visiting Washington, DC in July of 2022 was concerned with and ONLY with access to bank and financial accounts. Significantly and disappointedly the delegation expressed no objection to the U.S. extra-territorial tax policies that “claim” European residents as tax residents of the United States.

Banking Access Problems Of European Residents Who Are US Citizens

The perception in July of 2022

On July 18 to 22 of 2022, a delegation from the PETI Committee of the European Union made a visit to Washington, DC to discuss “FATCA Concerns” with US Treasury and certain members of Congress. An excellent report on the meeting was written by Helen Burggraf in the American Expat Financial News Journal. On January 25, 2023 those members delivered a live report to the European Parliament of the visit.

The perception in January of 2023

The following video – January 25, 2023 in which the delegates report on their trip to Washington to the PETI Committee is worth watching.

https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/event_20230125-0900-COMMITTEE-PETI_vd?start=20230125080941&end=20230125111858

The members discuss:

– how they experienced the meetings

– the necessity of continuing to work on the “European FATCA” problem

– the general attitude of their American hosts towards the FATCA problem (in some cases outright denial).

I would say that the sentiment was “cautious optimism”.

(The article by Stephen Gardner referenced in the above tweet continues additional commentary.)

The video also includes the thoughts of “Prof Carlo Garbarino – Bocconi University, Milano, Italy” who prepared the following report titled: “FATCA LEGISLATION AND ITS APPLICATION AT INTERNATIONAL AND EU LEVEL: – AN UPDATE”

IPOL_IDA(2022)734765_EN

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

Part 3 – Notice 2023-11: Is FATCA Aimed At Resident Americans, Residents Of Other Countries Or Both?

Leave a reply

Summary – The Reader’s Digest Version …

Although FATCA was clearly motivated by the behaviour of US citizens resident in the United States, Treasury did NOT interpret the “purpose” as being limited to prevent abuses by “residents of the United States”. Rather Treasury appears to have interpreted the purpose of FATCA (very broadly) to target residents of other countries.

Had Treasury done what it was required by statute to do (consider the purpose of IRC 1471) it might have approached its responsibilities very differently. What began as an attempt to curb the behaviour of US residents became an attack on residents of other countries who happen to be US citizens. The evidence further suggest that the FFIs most heavily impacted by FATCA are located in the high tax jurisdictions where US citizens abroad are most likely to reside. Can it reasonably be concluded that the purpose of IRC 1471 – AKA FATCA – was to attack the residents of other countries and the banks in those countries? If not, then why did Treasury target the whole world, rather than the parts of the world with conditions that facilitated tax evasion for resident Americans? Can anybody seriously make the claim that banks in Canada, the UK, Australia New Zealand and other first world democracies were attractive locations for tax evaders? Yet, this is precisely what Treasury did.

It didn’t have to be this way!

Continue reading →

Part 2 – Notice 2023-11: Non-US Banks May Be Forced To Sever Ties With US Citizen Clients Because Of FATCA

1 Reply

Introduction – The Readers’ Digest Version

This is Part 2 of a series of posts discussing the world of FATCA and how IRS Notice 2023-11 is likely to impact it. In Part 1 I described how Notice 2023-11 imposes significant additional obligations on both non-US banks and the IGA Model 1 governments. (This post will be best understood by first reading Part 1 and understanding the additional compliance burdens imposed on non-US banks as a result of Notice 2023-11.) The purpose of this post (Part 2) is to suggest that the overall context of FATCA, the FATCA IGAs and US citizenship taxation will incentivize non-US banks to purge US citizen clients. It is reasonable to conclude, that US citizen clients are a clear and present danger to their businesses.

Continue reading →

Part 1 – Notice 2023-11: The Carrot, The Stick And Heightened FATCA Enforcement On Overseas Americans

1 Reply

Welcome To 2023 – A Year Of Heightened FATCA Enforcement

On December 30, 2022 US Treasury released Notice 2023-11. The broad purpose of the Notice is to prescribe conditions that would allow non-US banks to temporarily avoid a designation of “significant non-compliance” under the FATCA IGAs. It is important to note that Notice 2023-11 is NOT simply a “stay of execution”. It is a “stay of execution” that is conditional on both non-US banks and their governments participating in a significant escalation of FATCA enforcement on US citizens who live outside the United States.

The purpose of this post is to comment on and analyze the provisions of Notice 2023-13 which strongly incentivize non-US banks to purge themselves of existing US citizen clients. In Part 2 I will explain why I believe that non-US banks may be forced to close the accounts of all their US citizen customers.

n-23-11

Prologue And Summary Of The Issue

Through a combination of FATCA (“Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act”) found Chapter 4 of the Internal Revenue Code and the FATCA IGAs (the mechanism for countries to comply with FATCA) the United States has created conditions where US citizen customers are a burden and risk to non-US banks. These provisions have created conditions that threaten punitive financial sanctions on non-US banks who cannot notify the IRS of a US citizen’s Social Security Number. Generally this is because the US citizen has lived abroad for many years and does NOT have a SSN. This situation has created worry for the banks and for their US citizen customers. The fact that the US citizen does NOT have a SSN is NOT relevant to the reporting obligation imposed on the bank. To be clear: The FATCA IGAs mean that non-US banks can easily be in “significant non-compliance” for the failure to comply with something that is impossible to comply with.

Continue reading →

“Bear Necessities”: Argentina US #FATCA IGA Confirms No Obligation Of Reciprocity On US

Leave a reply

The Readers Digest Version: A Tweet By Tweet Explanation

Prologue – Argentina December 5, 2022

The State Department website featured the following announcement:

On December 5, Ambassador Marc Stanley and Argentine Minister of Economy Sergio Massa signed an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to facilitate implementation of the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). The IGA advances the shared objective of improving international tax compliance. The United States enters into bilateral FATCA IGAs with foreign jurisdictions to provide for the implementation of FATCA through domestic reporting and automatic exchange of information.

This IGA will enable the reciprocal exchange of certain financial account information between the United States and Argentina, while ensuring appropriate data protection. The United States enacted FATCA in 2010 to combat offshore tax evasion. There are currently 113 FATCA IGAs in effect between the United States and foreign jurisdictions.

Note the inclusion of the word “reciprocal”. Describing an agreement as reciprocal does not make it reciprocal. The US Argentina FATCA IGA is a reminder of how one-sided and unequal these FATCA IGAs really are. The reason for the inequality is that the United States imposes “citizenship taxation” and Argentina (like the rest of the world) imposes “residence taxation”. Therefore, the terms of the FATCA IGAs reflect the attempts of the United States to use its system of “citizenship taxation” to claim the residents of OTHER countries as US tax residents.

Detailing The Inequality Of The US Argentina FATCA IGA

or read the Threadreaderapp version here.

In the spirit of bringing an exciting end to 2022, the United States and Argentina have entered into a FATCA Intergovernmental Agreement. The Model 1 FATCA IGAs are not and were never intended to impose reciprocal exchange of information obligations on the United States. Not only does the US get far more than it gives, but the definition of “reportable accounts” reflects the difference between a US tax system based on citizenship and an Argentine tax system that is based on “residence”. One result is that under the FATCA IGAs information flows from a country (Argentina) where the US citizens are likely to live to a country (the United States) where the US citizens reported on do NOT likely live. On the other hand, the agreement clearly states that the US will send information (what little it is obligated to send) from a country where the person does NOT live (the United States) to a country where they do live (Argentina). An important effect of the FATCA IGAs is they assist the United States in claiming the tax residents of other countries (in this case Argentina) as US tax residents as well. This is one of many respects in which the FATCA (“Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act”) is different from the CRS (“Common Reporting Standard”).

To put it simply: the FATCA IGAs have the effect of expanding the US tax system into the FATCA partner country (in this case Argentina).

Summary …

For the “Bare Necessities” click on the following tweet …

Those interested in a more detailed discussion of why the FATCA IGAs are not reciprocal are invited to read the discussion here.

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw