So, you have received bank letter asking about your tax residence for CRS or FATCA – A @taxresidency primer – Part 4 -Conclusion

cross-posted from

Part F – A “U.S. citizen” cannot use a “tax treaty tie breaker” to break U.S. “tax residence”. How then does a “U.S. citizen” cease to be a “U.S. tax resident”?

Q. I am a U.S. citizen. I do not live in the United States. I live in Canada. I am a Canadian citizen. How do I stop being subject to the all of the FBAR and other reporting rules, tax rules (including PFIC), life restrictions and inability to effectively invest and plan for retirement imposed by the Internal Revenue Code?

A. You relinquish U.S. citizenship. Please note that a “renunciation” is one form of “relinquishment”. In general, the date of relinquishment of U.S. citizenship is more important than the form of relinquishment of U.S. citizenship. A Certificate of Loss of Nationality (“CLN”) may or may not (depending on the date of relinquishment) be necessary to cease to be subject to U.S. taxation.

Q. In simple terms, where do I get information about the process of renouncing U.S. citizenship?

A. You can start here.

Q. What are the tax consequences of relinquishing or renouncing U.S. citizenship?

A. The Internal Revenue Code describes the tax consequences of relinquishing/renouncing U.S. citizenship. See Internal Revenue Code S. 877A (the “Exit Tax” rules).

Part G – How a “permanent resident” of the U.S. – AKA “Green Card Holder” – ceases to be a U.S. tax resident

Q. I understand that IF I am a U.S. “tax resident” then I may be able to use a “tax treaty tie breaker” to NOT be treated as a U.S. “tax resident”. But, how do I cease being a U.S. tax resident period?

A. The definition of “residence” for tax purposes is NOT the same as the definition of “residence” for immigration purposes. In fact it is possible to have lost the right to live permanently in the United States, but still be treated as a “resident for tax purposes.” “Residence for tax purposes” is defined in Sec. 7701(b) of the Internal Revenue Code and is discussed in the Topsnik case. Most “lawful permanent residents of the United States” cease to be “tax residents” of the United States by either (1) Filing Form I-407 or (2) Filing a “tax treaty election”. You are advised to seek professional advice on the best way to proceed.

ATTENTION!! A permanent resident of the United Sates AKA “Green Card Holder” does NOT cease to be a U.S. “tax resident” by simply moving from the United States to another country. One must take specific steps to sever “tax residency” with the United States.

Part H – Are you, or have you ever been a U.S. citizen or Green card holder? Sometimes it’s not what it seems.

Q. Are you a “U.S. Person” for FATCA purposes?

A. See the articles referenced in the following two tweets.

Conclusion …

The receipt of a FATCA or “CRS” letter is a frightening thing. Take a deep breath. Deal with it rationally and logically. If you are NOT a U.S. citizen you are probably NOT a “tax resident” of more than one country. On the other hand, if you are a “U.S. citizen” …

How would you go about “Solving this problem of U.S. citizenship”?

or maybe this

(For an interesting article on the “Possible Meghan Markle U.S. Tax Chronicles” by Helen Burggraf read here).

I am available on a “consultation basis” to help you sort out your “Tax Residency” in a FATCA and CRS world.

John Richardson

So, you have received bank letter asking about your tax residence for CRS or FATCA – A @taxresidency primer – Part 3

cross-posted from

Part D – Different definitions of “tax residence” – Not all countries define “tax residence” in the same way

Q. What is the criteria that different countries use to define who is a “tax resident” of the country?

A. The circumstances that constitute “tax residence” will differ from country to country. Generally speaking “tax residence” is based on definitions of (1) “residency” (deemed and actual), (2) “domicile” and (3) (in the case of the United States and Eritrea) “citizenship”. Note that different countries may define “tax residency” differently.

Q. How can I learn the definition of “tax resident” for the OECD countries?

A. In an earlier post about “OECD tax residency” I referenced the following chart which summarizes the definitions of “tax residency” in OECD countries. (I suggest that you use these definitions as a “start” to your research and not as the “last word”.)

Q. What is the significance of the “OECD” and why does “OECD tax residency” matter?

A. About the “CRS”: “OECD” tax residency matters because the “OECD” has implemented what is called the “Common Reporting Standard” (“CRS”). The purpose of the “CRS” is to require members to exchange information about the existence of financial accounts, owned by individuals in countries where they do NOT have “tax residence”. For example, if a “tax resident” of Germany had a bank account in Canada, then the German Government would want to know about it! Ultimately this is to ensure that all “individuals” pay their “fair share” of taxes. (By the way, the salaries of OECD employees are generally tax exempt. See an interesting post by Dan Mitchell on the OECD. Seems pretty clear that if OECD employees do not pay tax, that they are not paying their “fair share”.)

Q. About FATCA: Tell me more about the requirements to be a “tax resident of the United States”.

A. The United States has a system of “deemed tax residency”. In other words, the rules are very clear. At a minimum both U.S. citizens and “permanent residents” of the United States (“Green Card Holders”) are U.S. “tax residents” (Note that unless you are a U.S. citizen or “permanent resident” – a physical presence in the United States is necessary make one a U.S. “tax resident”. Here is a post I wrote describing what it means to be a “tax resident of the United States“.

Q. Tell me more about the requirements to be a “tax resident” of Canada.

A. The definition of “tax resident” in Canada includes both “deemed tax residency” and “tax residency based on facts and circumstances”. Here is a post I wrote describing what it means to be a “tax resident of Canada“.

Q. What about South Africa? The way that South Africa imposes taxation on its expats has been in the news lately. Can you tell me about the definitions of “tax residency” for South Africa? Is it true that South Africa is considering “citizenship-based taxation” just like the United States has?

A. No, South Africa has NOT considered “citizenship-based taxation”. But, it doesn’t require much to meet the test of “residence” for tax purposes in South Africa. To understand the “South Africa issue”, see:

Part 1: South Africa is NOT attempting to compete with the USA by enacting “citizenship-based taxation”; and

Part 2: The problem is NOT “worldwide taxation”. The problem is imposing “worldwide taxation” on people who don’t live in the South Africa or the USA and are “tax residents’ of other countries

Part E – Oh My God! I think I might be a “tax resident” of two countries – What is a “tax treaty tie breaker”? How does a “tax treaty” tie breaker work?

Q. I am a U.S. citizen and a “tax resident” of Canada who actually lives in Canada and not the United States. Can I use the “tax treaty” to become a “tax resident” of only Canada?

A. Absolutely, positively NOT. U.S. citizens CANNOT use a tax treaty to break “tax residence” with the United States. The reason is that almost all U.S. tax treaties includes what is called a “savings clause“. The purpose of the “savings clause” is two-fold:

First, to ensure that U.S. citizens can never (without relinquishment or renunciation) cease to be U.S. tax residents; and

Second, to force other countries to agree that the U.S. can impose U.S. taxation (according to U.S. tax rules) on people who are actual residents of those other countries (because those residents are deemed to be U.S. citizens). To understand how this impacts the lives of U.S. citizens living outside the United States see: “How to live outside the United Staes in an FBAR and FATCA world“.

Q. I am a U.S. “permanent resident” (Green Card Holder) and a “tax resident” of Canada who actually lives in Canada and not the United States. Can I use the “tax treaty” to become a “tax resident” of only Canada?

A. Yes, the “savings clause” does NOT apply to Green Card holders. A “Green Card holder” is a “tax resident” of the United States. Therefore, a “Green Card” holder who actually lives in Canada and is a “tax resident” of Canada, may use a “tax treaty tie breaker” to cease to be a U.S. tax resident. But, this decision must be made VERY CAREFULLY because the use of the “tax treaty tie breaker” by a Green Card Holder “may” have the following NEGATIVE implications:

On the other hand, there are many reasons why a Green Card Holder might want to use a “tax treaty tie breaker” to cease to be a “tax resident” of the United States. These reasons include (but are not limited to):

Note: If you are a Green Card holder, the decision to use a “tax treaty tie breaker” should be made only after consultation with an appropriate advisor! I am not kidding! The fallout from making this election can be enormous!

Q. I am a “tax resident” of Canada. I am not a U.S. citizen. I am a pure Canadian! Can I use a “tax treaty tie breaker” to break “tax residence” with another country!

A. Thankfully (as long as you are a “Tax resident” of both Canada and that other country), the answer is YES! Canada (apparently) has more than 90 tax treaties that include a “tax treaty” tie breaker provision. Here is a post that describes how the “tax treaty tax tie breaker” can be used to break “tax residence” with another country.

John Richardson

So, you have received bank letter asking about your tax residence for CRS or FATCA – A @taxresidency primer Part 2

cross-posted from

Part B – The Combined FATCA/CRS Letter

This letter is particularly worrisome for Canadian residents (whether Canadian citizens or not) who were either born in the United States or are (otherwise) U.S. citizens or U.S. permanent residents (AKA Green Card Holders). Could this mean that they would be required to apply for a U.S. Social Security number?

What follows is a sample letter …

Dear Valued Customer:

We appreciate our relationship with you and we are committed to informing you about matters that affect you. We are writing today to inform you that changes have been made to the Canadian Income Tax Act (Part XVIII and Part XXIX), requiring TD to provide information about customers who have a tax residence in other countries to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The CRA may then share information with other countries through existing provisions and safeguards under the Tax Convention.

To comply with this legislation, we have reviewed our records (eg. address) in order to identify customers who may be residents of other countries for tax purposes.”

Part C – “Tax Residency 101”: It’s about where you should be paying your taxes

Some Question and Answer …

Q. I don’t want to listen to the above interview. What is meant by “tax residence” or “tax residency”?

A. At the risk of oversimplification, your “tax residence” AKA country of “tax residency” is usually (with the exception of the United States which also imposes taxation based on citizenship) the country where you live or have another type of connection. It’s the country that has the right to impose taxation on your “worldwide income” BECAUSE you live in or have a sufficient other connection to the country. For example, if you live in Canada, sleep in Canada, work in Canada, raise your family in Canada, have a Canadian drivers license in Canada, etc. – you are a ““tax resident” of Canada“. For most people, “tax residency” is a “common sense” concept. It’s like this:

“I am subject to taxation on my “worldwide income”* in Canada because I live in Canada”.


“I am subject to taxation on my “worldwide income”* in ________ because I live in _______”

(*Most countries impose taxation on the “worldwide income” of their “tax residents”. A small number of countries impose “territorial taxation” on their “tax residents”. “Territorial taxation” is where a country imposes tax on ONLY the income sourced in the country of residence.)

Q. Does this mean that ONLY my country of “tax residence” can impose taxation on me?

A. No. Every country has the primary right to impose taxation on income sourced in that country. Maybe you receive income which is “sourced” in another country. Maybe you own property in another country. In these cases you might be subject to tax in the countries where you own the property or receive the income. In general, if you are not a “tax resident”, you would be taxed in another country ONLY on the income sourced in that other country. On the other hand, your country of “tax residence” would impose taxation on ALL of your income wherever its source.

Q. Is it possible that I could actually meet the conditions to be a “tax resident” of more than one country?

A. Absolutely yes! Different countries have different rules for determining tax residency. There is no reason why a person could not meet the definition of “tax resident” in more than one country. In fact, it is very possible that one could be a “tax resident” of more than country. (This is the reason for the existence of “tax treaty tie breaker” provisions.)

Q. If I meet the conditions to be a “tax resident” of more than one country, will I really be treated as a “tax resident” of more than one country?

A. Yes. Although it is possible to meet the definition of “tax resident” for more than one country, most countries have tax treaties that (1) identify those “instances” where an individual is a “tax resident” of more than country and (2) use the tax treaty to deem the individual to be a “tax resident” of only one country. It wouldn’t be fair for an individual to be treated as a “tax resident” of more than one country, would it? (U.S. citizens living outside the United States are always tax residents of the United States even if they are also “tax residents” of another country.)

Q. What do you mean by “unless you are a U.S. citizen”? As a “U.S. citizen” am I a “tax resident of more than one country?

A. Well, if you are a “U.S. citizen” (or Green Card holder) you are ALWAYS a “tax resident” of the United States. It doesn’t matter whether you actually live there or not. As long as you are a U.S. citizen, you are subject to the full force of the Internal Revenue Code. This includes a variety of “Taxes, Forms and Penalties”. It includes a number of very specific reporting requirements including (but not limited to): FBAR, Form 8938, Form 3520 and Form 5471. For this reason, it is very difficult for a U.S. citizen to move from the United States, become a “tax resident” of that other country and engage in effective financial and retirement planning. See for example:

The biggest cost of being a “dual Canada/U.S. tax filer” is the “lost opportunity” available to pure Canadians

“How To Live Outside The United States In An FBAR And FATCA World”

Q. I understand that as a “U.S. citizen” I am always a “tax resident” of the United States. But, if I move to Canada, does that mean that I am a “tax resident” of Canada too?

A. Absolutely YES!!! You are an American. “To whom much is given, much is expected.” U.S. citizens living in Canada (who meet the definitions of Canadian “tax residency”) are ALSO “tax residents” of Canada (or any other country where they may live). In other words, U.S. citizens living abroad are generally “tax residents” of at least two countries! How cool is that?

John Richardson

So, you have received bank letter asking about your tax residence for CRS or FATCA – A @taxresidency primer – Part 1

cross-posted from

So, you have received bank letter asking about your tax residence for CRS or FATCA – A @taxresidency primer

Introduction – So, what’s this “tax residence” stuff about? What does “tax residence” mean?

In 2014, as people started to receive “FATCA letters” I wrote a lengthy post describing “What to do if you receive a FATCA letter“. Information exchange under the Common Reporting Standard “CRS” has begun in 2018. As a result, I am writing this post which is to explain what the CRS is and how it relates to the FATCA letter. It is important to understand that the “CRS letter is actually a combined “CRS/FATCA” letter which is more likely to be received than the original FATCA letter. I urge that those who have received a letter of this type to read this post PRIOR to seeking professional advice!!!

You are reading this post because you have received a letter from your bank that is asking you to identify the countries where you are a “tax resident” and/or whether you are a “U.S. Person”.

The purpose of this post is to help you understand:

– why you are receiving the letter
– what the letter means
– what is the meaning of “tax resident”, “tax residence” and “tax residency” (terms which are used interchangeably)
– why “tax residency” is important to you
– the significance of being a U.S. citizen or Green Card holder
– how to identify where you may be a “tax resident”

Why are you receiving this letter?

The letter is intended to fulfill the bank’s due diligence obligations under both the OECD Common Reporting Standard (all countries of “tax residence” except the United States) and FATCA (whether you are a “tax resident” of the United States).

In other words, the letter is for the purpose of satisfying bank “due diligence” under two separate reporting regimes – FATCA and the OECD Common Reporting Standard “CRS”

This is long post which is broken into the following parts:

Part A – How does FATCA differ from the “CRS”?
Part B – The Combined FATCA/CRS Letter
Part C – “Tax Residency 101”: It’s about where you should be paying your taxes
Part D – Different definitions of “tax residence” – Not all countries define “tax residence” in the same way
Part E – Oh My God! I think I might be a “tax resident” of two countries – What is a “tax treaty tie breaker”? How does a “tax treaty” tie breaker work?
Part F – A “U.S. citizen” cannot use a “tax treaty tie breaker” to break U.S. “tax residence”. How then does a “U.S. citizen” cease to be a “U.S. tax resident”?
Part G – How a “permanent resident” of the U.S. – AKA “Green Card Holder” – ceases to be a U.S. tax resident
Part H – Are you, or have you ever been a U.S. citizen or Green card holder? Sometimes it’s not what it seems.
Continue reading “So, you have received bank letter asking about your tax residence for CRS or FATCA – A @taxresidency primer – Part 1”

Legislative History Reveals FATCA Had Nothing To Do With Collecting Tax Revenue From U.S. Persons With Foreign Accounts Evading Taxes (Part I)

reprinted with permission from Tax Connections

Prior to the enactment of FATCA, Congress and the Executive were in possession of concrete-evidence revealing FATCA would fail to collect any meaningful amount of tax-revenue from U.S. persons evading tax through offshore financial center holdings. Congress should have halted enactment of HIRE – if in fact, FATCA’s purpose was to collect tax-revenue from offshore tax evasion by U.S. persons.

The United States Congress used estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) as the foundation for supporting the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), contained in the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (HIRE).

HIRE was a tax expenditure designed to encourage U.S. small business to hire new employees. HIRE included two tax expenditures of note: a payroll tax exemption to employers and a one-thousand dollar tax credit for employers hiring employees between February of 2010 and January of 2011. [1] FATCA was included in HIRE because the tax revenue collected from FATCA was supposed to offset the tax expenditures authorized by HIRE. [2] The tax revenue FATCA was said to be targeting was from U.S. persons with foreign bank accounts who were evading tax.

In July of 2008, and around the time of the UBS scandal and the Global Financial Crisis the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held a hearing and issued a report entitled “Tax Haven Banks and U.S. Tax Compliance”. [3] The underlying justification for FATCA as a substantial revenue raiser rested on a single statement found in a footnote in the 2008 hearing report: “Each year, the United States loses an estimated $100B in tax revenue due to offshore tax abuses.” [4] In a 2009 follow-up report, the Ways and Means’ Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures held a hearing entitled: Banking Secrecy Practices and Wealthy Americans. During this hearing, the Senate increased the U.S. tax revenue loss-estimate by 50 percent stating: “Contributing to the annual tax gap are offshore tax schemes responsible for lost tax revenues totaling an estimated $150B each year.” [5] The estimates entered into the record during these hearings measured the offshore tax gap, or the amount of tax revenue[6] that would be collected if offshore tax evasion by U.S. persons holding foreign bank accounts was ended. One month, before HIRE was signed into law by President Obama, new evidence revealed the offshore tax gap was nowhere near as large as previously thought.

On February 23, 2010, the JCT released a report estimating that FATCA would instead, only collect $8.7B over ten-years or $870M per year; a huge difference from last-year’s estimate of $150B per year.[7] Assuming this latest estimate was accurate, the 2008 and 2009 estimates were drastically overinflated – to the tune of over $149B annually! At that point, a reasonable person puts on the breaks and asks questions. At the very least Congress should have engaged in some due diligence to determine why there was such a huge discrepancy. After all, there was plenty of time remaining on the legislative clock,[8] and the report invalidated the policy justification for FATCA. Instead, Congress and President Obama steamrolled FATCA into law in less-than a month after the JCT estimate – almost like, they wanted to hurry to get it in, before someone caught wind that the FATCA had nothing to do with closing the fictitious $150B offshore tax gap, because there was really no tax revenue outstanding. (Part I….To Be Continued)


[1] The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act of 2010 (Pub.L. 111–147, 124 Stat. 71, enacted March 18, 2010, H.R. 2847).

[2] HIRE was originally a $150B dollar incentive package, but the package was reduced to $15B before enactment. It would be interesting to take a look at the timing of the reduction in the HIRE economic incentive package (from $150B to $15B), and compare it with the JCT’s February 23rd estimate, to determine if the reduction in the spending package was a result of learning FATCA would not collect any meaningful amount of tax revenue from offshore accounts, because there was none to collect.

[3] Tax Haven Banks and U.S. Taxpayer Compliance, Senate Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 110th Cong. (2008).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Banking Secrecy Practices and Wealthy Americans, Senate Ways and Means Subcomm. on Select Revenue Measures, 111th Cong. (2009). Emphasis added.

[6] In the U.S., we have a 1099 system, where banks are forced to report interest and dividends. Unless there is some income from the account, it follows that there can be no income tax due from that account. The way to determine whether there is income from an account is to require the accountholder’s financial institution to report on the income from the account.

[7] The 2010 JCT report estimate of $8.7B in offshore tax evasion tax-revenue to be collected over ten-years or $870M per year (median average). It should be noted that the report breaks down the estimate by year. Therefore the median average is not the best number to use in every case. Individual calculations based on empirical data from a particular year proving the current validity of the report will incorporate the amounts listed on the report for each relevant year in question to preserve the integrity of the proposition for which the calculation was intended to support.

[8] The House Ways & Means Committee held the Hearing on Banking Secrecy Practices and Wealthy American Taxpayers on March 31st, 2009. The House passed the original version of HIRE on June 18th, 2009. The JCTs estimate was released on February 23rd, 2010. HIRE passed the Senate the following day on February 24th, 2010 (with amendment). The House followed by adding an amendment on March 4th, 2010 (with amendment) which was approved by the Senate on March 17th, 2010. March 18th, 2010, President Obama signed HIRE into law, and thereby FATCA into law as well. Therefore, there was a full month from the time the JCT report was issued, and the day President Obama signed HIRE (containing FATCA) into law. (Part I….To Be Continued)

The Repatriation tax and the 962 Election for Americans with a U.K. corporation

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.

Section 962 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) may help. Section 962 allows the expat to be treated as a corporation for a specific year (say in 2017) solely for purposes of the Repatriation tax (and other Subpart F income which taxpayers rarely have).

Why does this help? Simple. If we assume an average UK corporate tax rate of 20% over the past 10 years, then approximately $100,000 ($500,000*1.20%) of UK corporate tax has been paid. As the UK corporation never owned U.S. taxes, it never utilized these taxes as credits on any U.S. corporate tax return.

And if the expat utilizes the 962 election in 2017, there are two potential benefits: (1) ability to use the corporate taxes paid in the UK to offset the Repatriation tax, and (2) enjoy the lower corporate Repatriation tax rate.

In the real world, situations are rarely black and white – i.e. lots of corporate credits but no personal credits. For example, if the expat has some personal tax credits available, the point at which the 962 election becomes beneficial requires analyzing different numerical scenarios, taking into account many factors, such as gross-up rules under section 78. However, in cases where the UK corporation has a significant pool of unused tax credits and the expat has none, the 962 election may make sense.

The remainder of the article will discuss one significant landmine that may arise when using the election. And it is important to state until now, 962 has rarely been used, so there may be others:

Post-2017 distributions. What happens when the UK corporation finally distributes the $500,000 to the expat? If no 962 election was made, no additional U.S. tax is paid by the expat (IRC 959). UK tax, however, may be due. And if 962 election was made? Bad news: all the distributions out of the accumulated earnings, beyond what was paid on the Repatriation tax, are subject to U.S. tax (IRC 962(d))! Ouch. At what rates? Most likely personal marginal rates. Double ouch.

An example will help illustrate this. In the above example, if no 962 election is used and no personal tax credits are available, the expat would be liable for $87,700 in Repatriation tax, but no more U.S. tax would be due upon distributing the $500,000. But under 962, let’s assume that the $100,000 in corporate tax credits eliminated any Repatriation tax liability. Upon distribution of the $500,000, the expat would pay U.S. taxes at the marginal rate, or as much as $185,000 ($500,000 * 37% – the highest marginal rate). Triple ouch!

Does 962 make sense? It may in the following three situations, but careful analysis is required: (1) When the UK corporate tax credits far outweigh the personal income tax credits available, and/or (2) when the expat has no plans to withdraw the money in the corporation, and/or (3) the UK taxes due at the time of distribution may render any U.S. additional taxes minimal.

In summary, in planning around the Repatriation tax, the 962 election is an option. However, careful analysis is required to achieve the best results under U.S. and UK tax law. A totally different analysis exists for the 962 election with regard to GILTI in 2018 onward.

Nothing herein shall be deemed legal advice
American Tax Solutions

New Accidental American Groups

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 Accidental Americans Facebook Page


Italian Accidental Americans Facebook Page

Irish Accidental Americans Facebook Page


Belgian Accidental Americans Facebook Page

If you Decide to Comply, DON’T choose a Homelander Tax Compliance Professional

I was very surprised to receive the following email on Friday evening. I cannot recall ever getting anything like this before. I will not identify the author because it is not proper to publicly share an email without the permission of the sender. It is not anyone I have ever heard of before and I doubt any of you have either. It took me a while to decide if I would answer or not. I tried to put my reaction aside after all, why be surprised that a tax compliance professional would demonstrate so little awareness outside of his/her experience. In the end, I simply could not ignore how I felt. I replied and have decided to publish the email without naming its author and my response.

I wish I had pointed out to this person that technically, due to the Canadian IGA (or likely any Model I agreement), that there are no harsh penalties that have been implemented. A professional who is truly conversant with this situation should have stated this better. Does such a statement show a conscious attempt to confuse the expat, assuming penalties from FBAR, OVDP etc will come to mind? Could it be a reference to the idea that Form 8938 is a harsh penalty all on it’s own? (As a matter of torture, most definitely….) Or is the practitioner just sloppy? (Maybe we could get this person to rule on all the “plain language” misapplications we hear of….retroactive 877A, anyone?).

I also wish I had challenged the statement that “the program is working.” There is nothing to suggest that the majority of non-resident (or resident, for that matter) Americans have become compliant. The numbers quoted in the statistics for the OVDP are nowhere near 9 million and we know some of those who came forward are Homelanders. For some interesting figures regarding compliance please see Professor William Byrnes’ “Is FATCA Much Ado About Nothing“? . Prof. Byrnes states “The IRS War on the FBAR is simply not working.” (“The IRS received 807,040 FUBARS FBARs in 2012; compliance with FBAR filing appears to be declining.”) Every tax compliance professional should be required to read this report. It would go a long way in curtailing the inflammatory language we experience, intended to confuse & frighten and assumes we are all idiots.

I also should have challenged the nonsense about ICE not allowing visas of former citizens being allowed to enter the U.S. This amounts to the usual threat of the Reed Amendment. Does ICE have the power to override the State Department?

I am simply astonished at the arrogance of this person. What to say of the obvious limited exposure of such an “expert.” (I have never heard anyone suggest that there are bank problems in Canada). Mentioning OVDP and not Streamlined. Who on earth does this person think he/she is?

My USC/resident-CPA sister strongly suggests I complain to the appropriate accountancy board.

And the unmitigated gall of implying I should send clients………good gawd………


(emphases are mine)

If this is the Patricia Moon who has given up her US citizenship because of FATCA, then this is for you. I have seen your “protests” regarding FATCA and filing US tax returns. You stated that you were delinquent in your filings, and that you caught yourself up and then renounced your citizenship.

You are one of the very reasons that FATCA with its harsh penalties was implemented. I have been practicing in the international tax area, specializing in US expatriates, for over 31 years. I am the chairman of a state CPA Society’s International Tax Committee, and have an international reputation in this area. Over my 31 years’ time I have prepared and/or reviewed several thousand tax return. I have seen dozens of people such as yourself , people who are American citizens, and enjoy the benefits of being an American citizen, while failing to fulfill the obligations that come with citizenship – namely filing a US tax return and paying any tax due. One cannot enjoy the benefits of American citizenship without complying with the responsibilities.

Since FATCA has been implemented, there have been citizens such as yourself who have renounced their citizenship. I understand from a couple of US Customs & Immigration attorneys that I work with that ICE often won’t allow visas to come back to the US, sometimes even for vacations, to former US citizens. However, a much larger number of persons have come forward and are now filing tax returns and complying with the responsibilities of being a US citizen.

So the law has worked. It is accomplishing its intended goals. I personally have worked with several formerly noncompliant individuals to “get them legal” through the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program.

Staying legal is not a difficult process. It requires filing a US tax return every year. Often there is no tax due from it, as the foreign tax credits and the foreign earned income exclusion will reduce or eliminate the tax on all but US-sourced income.

Giving up citizenship is a drastic step when compliance is so easy. It is like amputating your arm because you have a hang nail.

And, from my experience, most larger banks WILL continue to work with Americans abroad. Very few are closing American accounts. In Canada, for example, I know that BMO Harris actually promotes accounts for Americans. I have several clients in Canada who bank with them. RBS Bank, Banque Scotia, TD Mortgage Corporation, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, and many others.

Just my thoughts. Feel free to give my name to any individual who wants to become legal, but does not want to go to the extreme that you did.

Thank you.


My response:

Your email is extremely offensive and demonstrates that you understand this situation from one point of view and one only.

Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that the large majority of expats living outside the US for decades were simply unaware of any requirement to file taxes and information returns. The U.S. made no attempts to educate or notify people of these requirements. Surely you have known people who were “non-willful.” I certainly hope you did not put any persons such as these in the OVDP/OVDI.

Your comment “You are one of the very reasons that FATCA with its harsh penalties was implemented” is curious, given I did not owe any tax. I was a stay-at-home mother with an annual income that never exceeded $11,000 CAD from doing the books for my husband’s company. An annuity inherited from my parents was transferred at a later time and I most certainly paid the tax that was due.

As to “I have seen dozens of people such as yourself, people who are American citizens, and enjoy the benefits of being an American citizen….”

  • I had not lived in the United States for thirty years and was/am a law-abiding, tax compliant citizen/resident of Canada
  • I was not “enjoying the benefits of being an American citizen”
  • If you are referring to having the right of return, there is nothing particularly unique there; the majority of countries on earth allow their citizens to return
  • And I certainly am in no need of the Marines coming to save me in Canada (a “benefit” that one would have to pay for, were it even relevant to those living in first-world countries).

If by “benefit” you mean having access to “the greatest country on earth” I will tell you that a component of renouncing involved my observations about Abu Gharib, Guantanamo, the assassination of American citizens by drone without due process and other actions that frankly made me ashamed to have ever been an American citizen. In other words, your assertion that my renunciation was “like amputating your arm because you have a hang nail” simply does not cover all that was involved. Not the least of which, was my Canadian family and how they felt about the effect of U.S. policy on their lives. My husband resented any account information being turned over to FINCEN (given the fact it was his money)and it was a huge issue in the marriage.

I have remained active in this movement having renounced over 6 years ago. I don’t gain anything personally by volunteering a huge portion of my life to this. I am fully conversant with what is required regarding compliance. It is not always simple and it is very expensive. You fail to mention facts such as:

  • the U.S. would expect capital gains tax on the sale of our personal residence for a gain greater than $250k
  • the U.S. treatment of Canadian mutual funds as PFICs is particularly punitive and would require 8621 every year
  • the U.S. insistence that my country’s tax-deferred vehicles designed to help save for education, disability and non-RRSP uses are foreign trusts requiring 3520 and 3520A every year; all of these plans mirror similar programs in the US (529s, ABLE and Roth IRAs)
  • had I been signed on my husband’s company (I wasn’t) we could have found ourselves subject to an annual 5471 and the particularly abusive Transition Tax

I personally have no desire whatsoever to go to the United States. I don’t care what CBP and ICE do. It doesn’t frighten me at all. A Canadian does not need a visa to visit the U.S. anyway.

None of us have ever claimed that obtaining bank accounts or mortgages is difficult in Canada. This is a situation that primarily affects Europeans and it is very, very real. I know many people who have been severely impacted by it. It was perversely disingenuous for Judge Rose claim in the Bopp FATCA ruling, that this was not due to FATCA but to independent action of the banks.

Over the years I have encountered many people such as yourself, who seem to think they are entitled to inflict their opinions and judgments about character based upon presumptions made about U.S. expectations. I wonder if it could ever occur to you that there are other places and people in the world who do not base the value of their existence upon opinions such as you have expressed. I find it difficult to believe you would end asking me to send you clients. I trust this will be the end of any communication.


Patricia Moon
Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty &
Alliance for the Defeat of Citizenship Taxation

Part 7: Responding to the Sec. 965 “transition tax”: Why the transition tax creates a fictional tax event that allows the U.S. to collect tax where it never could have before


cross posted from citizenshipsolutions

    by John Richardson


This is the seventh in my series of posts about the Sec. 965 Transition Tax and whether/how it applies to the small business corporations owned by taxpaying residents of other countries (who may also have U.S. citizenship). These small business corporations are in no way “foreign”. They are certainly “local” to the resident of another country who just happens to have the misfortune of being a U.S. citizen.

Continue reading “Part 7: Responding to the Sec. 965 “transition tax”: Why the transition tax creates a fictional tax event that allows the U.S. to collect tax where it never could have before”