Prologue
Q. What does this "form" of logic have to do with a discussion about #FATCA and the #CRS? A. It's the basis of much of the comparison (for the FATCAnatics). pic.twitter.com/9fnYkkaLWH
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) July 25, 2022
For those more interested in logic than in FATCA, you will find a discussion of the logical fallacy here.
Introduction
Last week I participated in a group discussion about FATCA and its effect on Accidental Americans. It’s difficult to have a discussion about FATCA that doesn’t include the CRS (“Common Reporting Standard”). Neither FATCA nor the CRS is well understood. That said, an introduction of the CRS into a discussion about FATCA detracts from a consideration of how FATCA impacts Accidental Americans (and others). Furthermore, there is a generalized assumption that the CRS is a positive development. Associating FATCA with the CRS enhances the “illusion” that FATCA is also a positive development.
In part, the discussion assumed that:
– FATCA (U.S. “Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act”) and the OECD CRS (“Common Reporting Standard“) were similar kinds of information exchange agreements; and
– To attack/criticize FATCA would be to criticize and have the effect of weakening the CRS.
These are absurd claims which are based on faulty logic. The faulty logic is that because FATCA and the CRS overlap in one aspect that they are functionally equivalent in intent, effect, purpose and other aspects. The argument appears to be based on the following reasoning:
