Category: Penalties

The Conscience of a Lawyer and “The FBAR Fundraiser” Revisited

Many of you may remember this outstanding post (below) from the early days……when the incessant torment was massive fear of “#FBAR penalties.” Compounded by #OVDP, (or #OVDI in 2011); FAQ35, minnows, whales, LCU’s, FATCA, DATCA, GATCA, FATCAnatics, JustMe, Opting out, in lieu of FBAR penalty etc ad nauseum. People who were minnows, tax compliant but did not know about FBAR being fined $75,000; Just Me engaging the Taxpayer Advocate to get his ridiculous fine of $172k lowered to “only” $25k. Those were days of real terror. Now time has passed, those who want to be compliant can do Streamlined, many have seen they can remain under the radar. The strong possibility of Tax Reform had everyone feeling “safe” again (relatively speaking). About the last thing expected, was that things would get worse. Well guess what, they did.

Anyone who owns a small corporation is being told a one time transition tax is part of the new Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Now this is a very curious thing as not one word was said about the expat situation during the House or Senate sessions; all of the talk focused on changing the status of large non-resident corporations to a territorial model. I actually watched a very good portion and listened carefully for any mention of us and for any information about this tax. It was clearly concerned only with these large corporations. How many compliance people watched? Can the intent of the law be determined only from a strict reading without any regard for context? The transition tax was a way of the US extracting something from large multinational corporations’ earnings that would never be repatriated. This is the context, the situation the law was meant to address. Shortly after the first version of the bill was passed by the House, the first Canadian tax lawyer wrote that this same tax would apply to smaller corporations, single-shareholder owners in spite of the fact that they will not be able to transition to a territorial system after this “tax” is paid. An excellent discussion took place at Brock between USCitizenAbroad & Karen.

This is like a repeat of a very bad movie, one which we all should take a close look at.

Like the OVDP, expats are at risk of confiscation of a considerable portion of wealth based on a non-event.

And like the OVDP, the enforcers will not be the IRS but the cross-border tax compliance community.

Remember how strongly OVDP was pushed, due to the fact there would be no criminal charges? It was revoltingly referred to as an “amnesty program.” It was a program for criminals, and was not intended for people who had in no way, consciously chosen to omit filing an FBAR. Virtually no one had ever heard of it and it had never been unforced prior to the Swiss bank debacle.

How about all the hoopla about “quiet disclosures” which were misunderstood (misrepresented?) as amounting to a first disclosure filed without going through the program/without anything to flag it as new (i.e., likely delinquent for FBAR). As I recall, a real “quiet” disclosure was amending a previous return without calling the IRS’ attention to it.

As has been said, the law says “you have to file” it does not say you have to go through the OVDP/OVDI. Fear of being labelled a “quiet disclosure” stopped people from following the actual law, of just entering the system. There was no way many of us would have entered OVDP, even without the FactSheet 2011-13 (which did not say that one had to enter OVDP).

Yet the tax compliance community pushed OVDP and many people who did not belong there went through 2+ years of pure hell plus penalties. And later, so many lamented the fact that it was clear OVDP was not for minnows………….However, the fact remains that the actions of the compliance community at the very least, established themselves as “IRS agents-at-large.” Many feel the influence of the tax compliance community amounts to actually making the law, rather than deferring to what Congress passed (case in point – the “retroactivity” of 877A).

If it were not for the tax community, nobody would have noticed anything in the bill to suggest this idea that small foreign corporations (who do NOT have shareholders resident in the U.S.)would be required to pay the Transition Tax. No one would ever have imagined nor come to the conclusion that this portion of the law would apply to them. While we wait for some kind of indication from Congress as to their intention, the compliance community continues to engage in an education campaign; more and more articles are appearing. Some make reference to the fact it is not entirely clear whether it applies or not yet all are claiming it does. In other words, this is absolutely a creation of the compliance community.

Are we about to see a repeat of the tax compliance community insisting the transition tax applies which will cost people many thousands of dollars just to compute the actual retained earnings figure and an obscene amount of tax that will transition expats nowhere? Let’s not forget that for the 5 countries with Mutual Collection Agreements (Canada, Denmark, France, Sweden & the Netherlands), people who were citizens at the time the tax was incurred do not at this time, have any reason to fear.

As far as we know, RO was unable to get clarification from the Congress before the bill was passed. Guidance from the IRS only gives examples for large corporations. Guidance also here

And while we assume penalties for non-compliance will be threatened, has anyone actually seen, read or heard of anything specific?

Will this be the “straw that broke the camel’s back?” How many will refuse to turn over their pensions to the IRS? Where will this end?

It is still clear that the best protection is renouncing U.S.citizenship.

More Information

********************
The Conscience of a Lawyer and “The FBAR Fundraiser”

Cross posted from RenounceUScitizenship.

Having a license to practise law (bar admission) does not a lawyer make.

Admission to the Bar, gives an individual the legal right to conduct oneself as  a lawyer. A lawyer operates within a specific construct of ethics and morality. The American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct make it clear that

A lawyer has an obligation to the client that is more important than loyalty to any other person or entity. This principle is made clear in Rule 1.7 of  The American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct.  Rule 1.7 clarifies that a lawyer should not act for a client if there exists any conflict of interest. It reads as follows: Continue reading “The Conscience of a Lawyer and “The FBAR Fundraiser” Revisited”

Dewees 3: Lessons about the “Oh My God Moment” and dealing with the problems of U.S. citizenship

cross posted from citizenshipsolutions

As I write this post, my mind goes back to one of my very first posts about U.S. compliance issues. This post was called “What you should consider before contacting a lawyer“. Since that time I have written hundreds of post describing the problems faced by Americans abroad.

More recently …

In Dewees 1, I explained the importance of the Canada U.S. tax treaty and how it provides “some protection” to Canadian citizens from U.S. tax debts.

In Dewees 2, I explained some of the characteristics of the OVDP program and how Mr. Dewees got caught in it.

In Dewees 3 (this post), I am suggesting some possible lessons that can be learned from the story of Donald Dewees.

Ten thoughts on U.S. taxation, non-compliance, Americans Abroad and the U.S. taxation of Americans abroad

Continue reading “Dewees 3: Lessons about the “Oh My God Moment” and dealing with the problems of U.S. citizenship”

Dewees 2: Why did he participate in the 2009 #OVDP Horror Show?

cross posted from citizenship solutions

In an earlier post I explained why the Canada Revenue Agency assisted the IRS in collecting a $133,000 U.S. dollar penalty on a Canadian resident. The bottom line was that he was presumably NOT a Canadian citizen and therefore did NOT have the benefits of the tax treaty. This post is to explain where the penalty came from in the first place.

Will you walk into my parlour?’ – #Americansabroad and IRS “amnesty” offers in the 2009 #OVDP

It has been widely reported that a U.S. citizen residing in Toronto, Canada since 1971, paid a $133,000 U.S. dollar penalty for failing to file IRS forms disclosing that he was running a business through a Canadian corporation. How did this fly get caught in the spider’s web?

The Spider and the Fly is a poem by Mary Howitt (1799–1888), published in 1829. The first line of the poem is “‘Will you walk into my parlour?’ said the Spider to the Fly.” The story tells of a cunning Spider who ensnares a naïve Fly through the use of seduction and flattery. The poem is a
cautionary tale against those who use
flattery and charm to disguise their true evil intentions.

More here

The Canada U.S. tax treaty does NOT protect Canadians from U.S. tax liability but does mean that Canada will NOT assist the U.S. in collection!

cross posted from citizenship solutions

Can the common law “revenue rule” be used to stop the enforcement of U.S. “citizenship taxation” on non-U.S. residents?
What the United States calls “citizenship taxation” is actually U.S. taxation of certain citizens and residents of other countries. The U.S. claims the right to impose full U.S. taxation on the “world income” of certain people who do NOT even live in the United States.

Prologue: In August of 2017 it was widely reported that the Canada Revenue Agency had assisted the IRS in enforcing a massive penalty ON A CANADIAN RESIDENT levied under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. The penalty was imposed on that Canadian resident was for failing to report to the IRS, that he had been carrying on a Canadian business, through a Canadian Controlled Private Corporation. At the time of collection, the penalty was for approximately $133,000 U.S. dollars!

Q. How did this happen? A. He entered the 2009 IRS OVDP (“Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program”). Those who entered #OVDP were basically “signing up” to pay penalties to the IRS. Those interested in reading about the horrific treatment of another Canadian resident, who tried to “do the right thing” by entering OVDP should read this.

For the rest of the story, please see here .

When government turns predator

 

This was the very first post at the Isaac Brock Society, published there on December 10, 2011 by the founder of Brock, Petros. At the time, there was outright terror in the expat community. Horror stories from the 2009 OVDP were coming out. Threats from Shulman (then IRS Commissioner), the media and primarily, the tax compliance industry were non-stop. Confusion and fear reigned and it was like being in a perpetual OMG moment……….

Over 5 years later there is little to suggest much has changed. It would take a major shift, such as passing tax reform that included a switch to RBT for me to even consider the U.S. government has anything less than outright malice for Americans living outside the country. The year is half-over and health care reform is still the focus. There will be no hope for change in 2018 due to the midterm elections.

There have been a few minor concessions-Streamlined was improved and offers foreign filers penalty-free filing as long as there is “reasonable cause.” However, we now have passport revocation for unpaid taxes of $50k and over; extended OVDP with the in-lieu of penalty of 27.5% of the highest aggregate value of OVDP assets (50% if the foreign financial institution is already under investigation by the IRS); attempts to pass the EXPATRIOT ACT; adjustment resulting in increase of FBAR penalties to reflect inflation (without similar treatment for the $10k threshold); two years of FATCA reporting have taken place; threats that the Streamlined Program will be discontinued; collection agencies are coming after us, the list goes on and on.

Though this comment will provoke the compliance community, one thing apparent now, is the IRS seems to have no real way to collect unless one comes forward. And we can see those who have done so, are the ones hurt the most. It is obvious that the majority of expatriates are NOT filing (out of a total of 9 million, approximately 1 million are). There are situations where some can remain hidden, depending to a point on one’s risk-tolerance. Outward resistance remains; the Canadian IGA suit is moving toward the second trial; the Bopp suit will be refiled; ADCT is on hold until we see whether there is RBT or not. And the Accidental Americans in France have begun their fight to bring forth litigation there and/or in the EU courts.

At any rate, I have always considered the post below to be a sort of rallying cry, a call to wake up to the fact that the U.S. government is indeed a predator to be dealt with…..

UPDATE

This recent comment of Andrew over at Brock says it all:

This entire story is and continues to be sickening. I too am so grateful to have renounced several years ago and to have been able to completely extricate myself from this web of nightmares. Sadly, friends and business contacts haven’t been so lucky and many of them are now embroiled in protracted legal cases, with demands that they pay millions, even though they, in two cases, have never lived in the United States and were total “accidentals” one having spent twelve days there after birth and never returned, the other only five days! Still, the corrupt system has gone after them both and they are fighting it as hard as they can. One thing both of them have said is that thy won’t pay anything, no matter what the threats. One, who has business interests in no less than sixteen countries will cut off all activity with the U.S. and stop all investment from his associates into the U.S. arm of their business.
If I didn’t witness all of this for myself I wouldn’t believe that it could be possible, but then, look at the U.S. today and the state of how it is governed. Who could believe that is possible? The best advice, stay away from that place and advise others to do the same.

*******
When Government Turns Predator by Petros

Honest US citizens are being turned into prey by the IRS, the victims a hunt for tax evaders. It is the natural, if lamentable, product of the urge to power our Founders warned us against.

More than two centuries ago, George Washington stated:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Over the years, General Washington’s prescience has been demonstrated as government usurped and abused power. The myth that government serves the people should be shattered by now. Increasingly, government behaves as the master, not as the intended servant.

Oppression abounds, but nowhere is the raw abuse of power and coercion more possible and evident than in the Internal Revenue Service. They are the most dangerous member of the government gang. Now they have another tool to bully and expropriate wealth from innocents — US citizens living abroad.

Early in his presidency, Barack Obama pledged to add 800 new IRS agents to punish tax evaders with overseas accounts. In an effort, presumably designed to curtail and punish tax evasion on the part of wealthy Americans, legislation aimed at criminals now threatens the income and savings of the law-abiding.

Background

The Bank Secrecy Act became law in 1970 and implemented the Foreign Bank Accounts Report (FBAR) to monitor money laundering. The FBAR law required that US persons owning or having signing authority over foreign bank accounts report this information to the US Treasury Department. It was not much enforced for the obvious reason that a criminal does not willingly divulge incriminating information. During the first three decades of FBAR, there was widespread ignorance and disregard for the law.

In 2003, the Treasury Department handed over enforcement to the IRS. In 2004 non-willful non-compliance increased to a $10,000 fine per account per annum. Willful non-compliance allows criminal charges, a prison sentence, and fines of $100,000 or 50% of bank account’s contents, whichever is more (see Shepherd, p. 10).

The IRS has implemented two Voluntary Disclosure Programs I (2009) and II (2011), in which they waive criminal charges provided that all back taxes and penalties have been paid, along with an FBAR penalty of 20% (in 2009) or 25% (in 2011) of the account’s highest balance over the last six years. The penalty is lower (12.5%) for balances under $75,000. Persons who were unknowingly US citizens face a 5% penalty (see FAQ 52).

In 2010, Congress passed FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) which forces foreign banks to report on American clients, even if doing so would violate the banking and privacy laws of their country. Implementation of FACTA will be coerced by withholding 30% of US income from banks not in compliance.

The arrogance and brutality of the legislation is apparent. The penalties are severe and disproportionate. Economic blackmail of foreign banks is disgraceful. All of these actions will have repercussions, probably not intended.

US Citizens Abroad

US citizens living abroad must open a foreign bank account because commerce is done in the local currency. All who do are potentially in violation of the FBAR law. Most were unaware of the FBAR requirements; but now that the IRS has rattled its FBAR saber, taxpayers abroad are in a quandary.

Wealthier citizens spend thousands of dollars on accountants and tax lawyers to try to put themselves into compliance with the least financial damage. The average citizen not in compliance has limited options. His choices include:

  1. Do Nothing The IRS doesn’t know about you, so continuing to keep a low profile and ignore the law might be the best route. This option may become impossible once FACTA comes into force.
  2. File FBAR Forms IRS FAQ 17 of the 2011 Voluntary Disclosure Program states that filers who have complied with all taxes and filing requirements except FBAR should not enter the program but simply file the delinquent forms by August 31, 2011 with a letter of explanation. They promise that no penalties will apply to such persons. But given the severe threats of punishment issued to anyone failing to comply, many wonder whether the IRS will accept the excuse of ignorance of the FBAR requirement.
  3. Enter 2011 Voluntary Disclosure Program: Some US citizens who entered the 2009 Voluntary Disclosure Program and were otherwise in compliance with US tax laws, found that the IRS intended to apply to them the full 20% penalty (see, e.g., hereand here).
  4. Renounce Citizenship Many US citizens living overseas have lives fully integrated into their new country. They comply with the local tax laws and often possess dual citizenship. Compliance with US tax laws and FBAR are a nuisance and liability that they may be able to live without.

Renunciation of citizenship is not riskless. Such a decision will set citizens free from future liability, but may subject them to IRS penalties for prior non-compliance. In addition, for covered expatriates, those having two million in assets or $145,000 in average annual tax liability over the last five years, an exit tax is also required.

To appreciate the uncertainty and duress faced by US citizens living abroad, a couple of hypothetical situations are useful. International tax lawyer Phil Hodgen partly inspired the following hypothetical cases:

Hypothetical Case 1: Jim lives in a foreign country and has dutifully filed a US income tax return each year, but was unaware of FBAR filing retirements. Jim operates eight accounts: four retirement accounts (which he reported on his annual tax returns), two trading accounts, a checking account and a high interest savings account. The highest balance in these accounts is $1,000,000 over the last six years. His current balance is $800,000 after the market dip.

Jim doesn’t know what to do. After great worry, he enters the Voluntary Disclosure Program. The IRS assesses Jim a $250,000 FBAR penalty. In order to pay the penalty, Jim must withdraw funds from his retirement accounts forcing an additional tax liability of $100,000 on the income. Jim is no longer able to retire because his $800,000 has been reduced to $450,000, solely as a result of IRS capriciousness.

Hypothetical case 2: Nancy is a teacher and mother of three, married to a citizen of the foreign country where she has lived for fifteen years. She dutifully filed her taxes in the US, but never knew about FBAR. A friend entered the Voluntary Disclosure Program and was assessed $14,000. She contemplates the renunciation of American citizen, because her foreign husband owns a successful business and Nancy is a signer on business accounts. She fears exposing her husband’s business to the IRS and also fears that upon her death, the IRS will seek its pound of flesh from her estate. She renounces citizenship, though it breaks her heart.

Abuse Of the Law

FBAR was initially a harmless and little known embarrassment for the United States. It began as an ineffective attempt to stop money laundering. Like so many other laws (RICO, Homeland Security, etc.), it began with what some believed noble purposes, only to morph into a tyranny imposed upon law-abiding citizens. It is now a tool capable of arbitrary and oppressive expropriation of the wealth of millions of US citizens living abroad.

An insolvent government is a dangerous government. It is akin to a wounded and cornered animal. When conditions become really difficult, it is likely to do anything to survive. Arbitrariness in the interpretation of any law is dangerous to freedom, but especially so when government’s primary concern is survival rather than justice.

There are many reasons to be critical of FBAR. The following two will illustrate:

  1. Excessive fines: Ayn Rand said “The severity of the punishment must match the gravity of the crime.” This basic principle of human rights, enshrined in the Eighth Amendment, forbids excessive fines. It is immoral for the IRS to intimidate innocent citizens. Any law so uncertain that it could result in a loss of 50% of your wealth, depending upon the whims of the IRS, is not a law. It is government-sanctioned extortion.
  2. Guilt Presumed: The Fourth Amendment protects (or was supposed to) citizens against arbitrary fishing expeditions by government. Probable cause is required. The FBAR requirements circumvent this Fourth Amendment right, in effect saying: “You will volunteer to open the door to your house and let us look inside. If you don’t, we will fine and/or imprison you.” The IRS demands bank information based on a presumption of guilt even though holding funds in a foreign bank account is no crime.

Unintended Consequences

The term unintended consequences, a convenient euphemism for stupid policy or law, is appropriate. Some of the foreseeable outcomes are the following:

  1. An avalanche of US persons will renounce their citizenship. In July 2010, the State Department implemented a $450 fee for making a renunciation before a consular officer, presumably to exact additional income and possibly (highly unlikely) deter some from making the decision.
  2. Foreign banks and investors may decide doing business with the US is not worth the trouble of compliance with FACTA, particularly as the US economy collapses and the global economy shifts to the East.
  3. US Citizens abroad already find it challenging to open bank accounts both in US and in their countries of residence. This annoyance makes it more difficult for American companies and their employees to engage in foreign missions, business and trade.
  4. US citizens are already shunned from positions in foreign companies which do not want their banking details revealed to the United States Treasury Department.

Conclusion

The Bank Secrecy Act, passed in 1970, is an example of law designed for one purpose being expanded to be used against innocent citizens. Regardless of its good intentions, it is now a tyranny used to extort wealth from otherwise legal, law-abiding US citizens living abroad.

It represents a classic case of how government usurps freedom. What level of morality must government have to think they are entitled to shake-down hard-working citizens?

Monty Pelerin has never lived abroad or had a foreign bank account. He has friends who do and hopes that exposing this State plunder will cause it to cease in this and other parts of our lives.

NB: The preceding article appeared first at the American Thinker on April 5, 2011, then at Monty Pelerin’s World. Monty Pelerin is a retired economist who writes under a pen name. In March, I approached Monty asking if he would publish under his pen name an article on FBAR. He agreed and then we co-wrote the article and he kindly gave me no credit because I feared the long arm of the IRS. Then, Monty submitted it to the American Thinker. Now that I am out in the open with my IRS concerns, I’ve decided I can reproduce it here. So I want to thank Monty for his extraordinary help when nearly no one in the mainstream media or even conservative blogs were talking about this injustice which the IRS has afflicted upon millions of Americans – Petros

U.S. “culture of penalty” and inflation: First, inflation used to first increase the size of #FBAR penalty base and then increase the size of actual penalties

cross-posted from citizenshipsolutions blog
written by John Richardson

Introduction: Penalty as a part of American Culture

The above tweet links to a wide range of examples of America’s culture of penalty.

The purpose of this post is to explore how inflation results in the facilitation of enhanced penalty collection in America today.

What is inflation?

In its simplest terms:

“Inflation is defined as a sustained increase in the general
level of prices for goods and services in a county, and is measured as
an annual percentage change. Under conditions of inflation, the prices
of things rise over time. Put differently, as inflation rises, every
dollar you own buys a smaller percentage of a good or service. When
prices rise, and alternatively when the value of money falls you have
inflation.”

Source: Adam Hayes, CFA

(Note his use of the words “goods and services“. Are
FBAR penalties and the S. 877A Exit Tax consumer goods or
government services?)

Inflation can either be helpful or can be hurtful. Some benefit from
inflation and others are hurt by inflation. At a minimum, inflation will
always erode the value of cash.

Effect of inflation on owners/lenders of cash: When it
comes to cash inflation will hurt the owners/lenders of cash. This is
because inflation will erode the value of cash.

Effect of inflation on borrowers of cash: Inflation
will help he borrowers of cash. This is because inflation erodes the
value of the cash that must be repaid.
Continue reading “U.S. “culture of penalty” and inflation: First, inflation used to first increase the size of #FBAR penalty base and then increase the size of actual penalties”

#IRS abuse of Americans Abroad – The greater the effort! The greater the punishment!

This post is from the RenouceUScitizenship blog.

serenity

 God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

We are now more than two years into the Obama/Geithner/Shulman/IRS assault on U.S. Citizens Abroad. It is commonly accepted that the origin of the assault has been – what can now be understood to be – a clear, deliberate, and conscious decision of the Obama administration. That decision is  to equate the day-to-day bank accounts of U.S. citizens abroad with the offshore accounts used by Homelander tax cheats. It’s no longer possible to believe the administration and the IRS are unaware of what they have done. There are  signs that the IRS is slowly trying to change the  rules, change the policies, and change the enforcement. That said, one gets the feeling that the IRS is motivated by considerations of “processing efficiency” and not by considerations of “fairness and justice”.

Two important aspects of the problem are:

1. All bank accounts outside the United States are considered to be “sacred instruments” of tax evasion. Not even the IRS is stupid enough to believe this. Therefore, it’s clear that the IRS is at least threatening (how do you like your freedom now?) to use the day-to-day bank accounts of  U.S. citizens abroad as an  “FBAR Fundraiser“. The IRS is using the  retirements plans of U.S. citizens in their country of residence, to levy fines for failure to file Form 3520. The IRS is using the fact that middle class U.S. citizens invest in mutual funds to subject them to impossible compliance costs and more threats of penalties. This has been documented by Taxpayer Advocate and ignored by the IRS.  We know this. What is different is that in 2011, there was a sense that this “must be some kind of mistake”. It must be “some kind of misunderstanding”. Only a fool would believe that today. The only sane way to view this today is as follows:

The Obama administration is deliberately using penalties and threats of penalties to confiscate the assets of U.S. citizens abroad. Don’t believe it? What’s Form 8938? This is not about taxation. It is about confiscation. But you know that. But, this is not the purpose of this post.

2. The purpose of this post is to explore an aspect of  this that has not been adequately discussed. In the same way that it is a mistake to treat all “non-U.S. banks accounts” the same. It is a mistake to think that the impact of all of this is the same on all. In fact, the people who are the hardest hit  are those U.S. citizens abroad who have tried the hardest.

Group 1 – Those Who Have Been In The U.S. Tax System

This group has  been filing their U.S. tax returns, to the best of their abilities. They are in the system. They are now “low hanging fruit”.  The fact that they have been filing all these years means that they are likely very financially responsible, very aware, very law abiding people. That’s the good news. The bad news is that they are also people who by vritue of having tried to save for retirement have assets that the U.S. wants to confiscate. Obviously this includes the PFIC mutual fund problem.

The problem of owning mutual funds is two-fold:

First, mutual funds are not subject to rules of taxation. They are subject to rules of confiscation.

Second, that in order for the IRS to confiscate them, one must first comply with all kinds of reporting requirements that are impossible to understand and are far too expensive for the average person.

Here is a historical analogy to the IRS treatment of U.S. citizens abroad who have mutual funds:

Jesus was forced to carry his own cross (paying the cross-border professionals to complete the forms) to his crucifixion (the confiscation rules will take it all).

Now, I know that at this moment, at least some readers are howling at the last sentence.  Really! What that tells me is that you:

A. Have not tried to be U.S. tax compliant;

B. Have not tried to use mutual funds to invest for retirement;

C. Probably do NOT feel strongly that one should be tax compliant;

D. Probably are far enough enough away from retirement age so that you can make up the losses.

Just try living this reality!

The people most hurt by this are the people who have tried the hardest to comply with the law. I remind you that it was not until OVDP started in 2009 that the IRS enough knew now to deal with mutual funds and not until 2010 that the ruling came from an IRS counsel (that the cross-border professionals are using to deem mutual funds as vehicles of confiscation).

Group 2 – Those Who Tried To Fix Any Past Compliance Problems

It has become increasingly clear that those who entered OVDP or OVDI were simply suckered. After the vicious and frightening propaganda of the summer of 2011, many people were terrorized into entering OVDI. The lawyers were there to usher them in. They are now locked into the program (although there is some indication that some will be moved to “Streamlined Compliance”). Those who waited appear to have better compliance options.

Of course, by December 2011, the IRS had issued the infamous FS which made it clear that, one didn’t need a formal program of voluntary disclosure. Of course, that didn’t stop the IRS, with full knowledge that minnow were being terrorized into the program,  from resurrecting (another Biblical analogy) the corrupt OVDP program in 2012.

My point is a simple one: those who tried to become compliant by entering the OVDP programs have been the hardest hit. The main reason has nothing to do with taxes. It has nothing to do with compliance. It is the fact that many of them have heard nothing from the IRS. Reminds of the Steven Miller (a cousin of his perhaps) song:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WCFUGCOLLU&w=420&h=315]

Those who entered OVDI have been living in fear and anxiety since entering the program. What have they heard from the IRS? In many cases, nothing.

IRS Bait and Switch Tactics in OVDP and OVDI

One would think the terms of the OVDP programs were abusive enough. But, the IRS didn’t stop there. In 2009 the IRS changed the terms of the program after people had entered the program. In 2013 the IRS kicked a group of people out of the program after accepting them into the program. It is now certain that:

Any lawyer who advises a client to enter the OVDP program should be disbarred!

The only benefit to the OVDP program was certainty of result and now that certainty has been forever compromised. As a letter from the New York State Bar suggests, who could possibly trust the IRS? The trust issue was recently highlighted by former IRS lawyer Steven Mopsick on this blog. (See also the Mopsick Trilogy – a series of posts about OVDP and its impact on U.S. citizens abroad and Green Card Holders.)

So, what’s a law abiding person who believes he is supposed to be tax compliant supposed to do?

I am writing this post in response to a series of comments at the Isaac Brock Society. The post was about PFICs and it generated a number of comments. The interesting comment stream starts here. We are confronted with a situation of a frightened, confused U.S. citizen abroad, who really wants to be tax compliant, did his best to save for retirement, like the IRS knew nothing about the perils of mutual funds, and must now choose between:

A. Financial ruin – all his money must to to the IRS and compliance costs

B. Non-compliance – but having to live as a “tax cheat”

The problem is that this is exactly the situation of many U.S. citizens abroad who have have lived commendable responsible lives. It is worth noting that neither the IRS nor the U.S. government has ever AND TO THIS DAY DOES NOT make any real effort to educate U.S. citizens about their tax responsibilities! The IRS defines “education” as “threats or penalties”. I feel for the children of Douglas Shulman and Steve Miller (if they have any).

I am going to reproduce this comment stream and invite suggestions on how what people like this should do.

  1. @USCitizenAbroad, @Kalc, @Bubblebustin

    “What would you expect a U.S. person with many years of fillings in the system to do?”

    That is exactly the issue. This whole PFIC thing makes me SO ANGRY and FRUSTRATED!
    I don’t see ANY good answer for such persons. No matter what option you look at it spells financial disaster, especially for people who are at or near retirement age. They cannot afford
    to lose all of the money they have invested over many years just to now become “compliant” (i.e.pay big bucks to have some accountant fill dozens of 8621s, pay back taxes, interest, and penalties and more taxes and interest after they sell the PFICs) and they do not have any other regular source of revenue to replace such a loss.

    “If you are a Canadian citizen without US assets, you are protected. Don’t tell your FI if you happen to have been born in the US. Don’t have more than 1 million in one account.”

    It’s not so simple. If you’ve had a long term relationship with your financial advisor, he likely may already know that you are a USC. Many mutual fund portfolios contain a mixture of US and non- US assets, so you likely may have some in your portfolio already. What should you do? Sell them and then what?
    How do you deal with them on the following year’s tax return? FATCA kicks in way below having 1 million in one account.

    “I do NOT believe that the Government of Canada understands this problem in its entirety. Would you be willing to collect these comments (including the one about the interaction between PFICs and SubPart F),”

    I agree totally. If the government of Canada DID understand all the implications and what a horrendous financial burden this will create for U S persons in Canada, when their financial institutions turn over the data about their TFSAs, RESPs, PFICs, and other investments via FATCA, I think they would not be so ready to sign an IGA. Those persons will be financial bankrupted if the IRS gets their data and goes after them. And when these people are left bankrupted, it will be the Canadian government that will have
    to help support them because we all know that the US government won’t do anything for USCs abroad.

    So, please, please do everything that you can to inform them (Kevin Schoom and others) of what are all the implications if they go down the FATCA compliance path. I think this PFIC problem has certainly not been given enough visibility with our government. It is incredulous to me that the IRS could make a policy change in 2010 about Canadian mutual funds without a formal regulation and then apply it retroactively. This is just WRONG and the Canadian govenment needs to stand up for us and fight this.

    Sorry for the rant, but this issue makes me crazy. Reading what USCitizenAbroad suggested as the only solution for the most financially responsible citizens today just makes me feel more depressed about an already depressing situation. Yes, it does help to be able to talk about it here with others but the reality that is looming in the near future if FATCA kicks in as planned is just too awful.

  2. @Albatross

    Here are the solutions:

    Solutions From The Government of Canada

    Any IGA would exempt from its application lawful residents of Canada regardless of their citizenship. Put it another way, the U.S. can’t both have FATCA and citizenship-based taxation. Is this possible? Not unless this issue is really understood which is not.

    Solutions From U.S. Persons Abroad – Take Charge Yourself

    You and I agree that the ones with the biggest problems are the ones who are entrenched in the system. Their options are:

    1. Do not sell their PFICs. The problems kick in when they are sold. Continue to treat the distributions the way you have always treated them on your tax return. Repeat: It’s the sale that triggers the very worst of the problems.

    2. The time has come to recognize that you will never be able to be U.S. tax compliant. Just not possible unless you pay the staggering costs of compliance and all the fines associated with trying to plan for retirement. I would stay away from the lawyers who will scare you to death. Just keep living your life. Don’t do anything that will trigger taxable events. The advice that most accountants and lawyers give is: sell your PFICs. For those who have had them for the long term, that is the worst possible advice. You do NOT sell them. You hold them and simply pay tax on the distributions the way you always have. That’s the best case scenario. Include the income on your taxes.

    3. RRSPs – This may be the exception to my suggestion for holding the PFICs. Assuming that because they are in an RRSP that the sale inside the RRSP is NOT a taxable event, then perhaps you get rid of those (but get competent advice for taking that step).

    4. Don’t listen to the F_____ cross border professionals. Most of them have really not thought this through plus they have trouble separating their interest from your interest.

    5. If all else fails, hide behind the treaty.

    6. Become a Canadian citizen if you are not already. Then start lobbying the Cdn government to pass law saying that all naturalized Canadian citizens were Canadian citizens from birth. This will protect their own tax base and their citizens from the U.S. exit tax.

    7. Just accept that the US considers you to be a criminal. Hell, people live like that all the time. Of course, you should stay out of the U.S. You might even learn to like it. Dress the part. Pick up the language. Learn to talk that way. It might be fun for you. You might get the respect that you think you are lacking. Pick a criminal to model yourself on – say Barack Obama.

    8. If none of these work, and you have Supart F income, then, well you know my suggestion.

    Curious what you think of those suggestions?

  3. @USCitizenAbroad

    For those entrenched in the system, surely renouncing is still a better option than continuing to have to deal with this BS year after year. At least that frees you from the ongoing obligation. Yes, I accept that it may leave issues from the past and may not be a great idea for those that have a need or desire to set foot in the US in the future.

    Yes, there is still an issue with the 8854 compliance, but there is still a choice on how to play that game, depending on the circumstances and risk tolerance.

  4. @USCitizenAbroad,
    Thanks for your comments on my posting. Here are my thoughts on your suggestions. I’ve included a
    few questions I have on some points you raised.

    Solutions from the Government of Canada
    Yes, I agree that this would be a great solution, but I don’t believe they do understand it.

    Solutions From U.S. Persons Abroad – Take Charge Yourself
    1. Yes, I agree that it makes no sense to sell the PFICs as that will trigger a nightmare.

    2. Yes, the lawyers and accountants that I’ve talked to have all said to sell ALL the PFICs, but of course they don’t have to worry about paying the costs associated with doing so. I concur that there is thus NO
    way to ever be tax compliant in this scenario, unless of course the tax code changes.

    “You hold them and simply pay tax on the distributions the way you always have. That’s the best case scenario. Include the income on your taxes.”
    QUESTION: So I infer from your suggestion that one should not bother with now filing 8621′s and the
    complicated calculation of “income” derived from them, but just continue to include the actual interest or
    dividends or capital gains distributions you receive from the mutual funds on your tax return. Is that what you are suggesting? As soon as you look at filing 8621s for each mutual fund you are talking BIG bucks
    to have an accountant prepare it and these forms are way too complex for the average taxpayer to attempt.
    QUESTION: What happens when FATCA kicks in and the FFI or CRA turns over the details of these funds to the IRS? Won’t they then identify them as PFICs and come screaming for all they back taxes, 8621 forms, etc? Is that where your suggestion 5 comes in?

    3. Don’t know about the RRSPs. This would require more research. For now these are not as
    important since the tax is deferred by 8891.

    4. Agreed.

    5. “If all else fails, hide behind the treaty” Not sure just how one can hide behind the treaty. Can you
    clarify what you mean here?

    6. Definitely a Canadian citizen. Ideas how we can get the Canadian government to pass such a law?

    7. Yes, definitely safer to stay out of the US. Not really a big hardship on that point for many of us.

    8. I didn’t really understand the Subpart F business completely but sure hope it doesn’t apply. I’d hate to think that that would be the only solution.

    I’d be interested in your further comments and answers to my questions above. Your comments are always very informative. I appreciate having the means to exchange thoughts with people like you who do understand this complex and horrendous issue.

    It is clear that this person is in a situation where he completely compromises his financial security by allowing the cross-border professionals and the IRS to confiscate his assets or he must live with the knowledge that the U.S. considers him to be a “tax cheat”, somebody who is worthy of a “FATCA Hunt” or possibly a Whistle Blower’s Retirement Plan.

    It is impossible to live with either scenario.

    The first scenario subjects one to a total rape and having to live with the consequences the rest of your life.

    The second scenario, if not dealt with properly, has the potential to change your own “self image”. On this point though I would say:

    To be considered a criminal by the U.S. government is like being called ugly by a frog. To be a criminal is to have a certain moral stature. In the U.S. there is no correlation between law and morality – in fact, law has become a substitute for morality.

    At a minimum, leaving aside the financial issues, the emotional stress and damage is more than a person who was financially responsible can bear. So, those U.S. citizens abroad who are nearing their retirement years and have most of their wealth in mutual funds must choose one of two options. Tax compliance is possible only in a logical sense. In a practical sense, for many U.S. citizens abroad, tax compliance is not possible.  This is perfectly understandable when issues of “taxation” are confused with “confiscation”.

    The current U.S. Canada Tax Treaty, as I understand it, does NOT require Canada to assist the U.S. in the collection of taxes on Canadian residents, if the person was a Canadian citizen at the time the “debt” arose. This is information  of possible relevance. It doesn’t mean you don’t owe the money. It just means Canada won’t help the U.S. collect it. I presume that that those renouncing U.S. citizenship would be able to use the treaty to shield them from possible Exit Tax Enforcement. But, to use the treaty is to live with another layer of worry!

    The best solution is always to renounce. At this point the only reason to NOT renounce is because you think the U.S. will move to Residence Based Taxation.  Who knows? Tax reform is on the agenda. U.S. citizens abroad made a number of excellent submissions to the Ways and Means Committee. I don’t know about you. But, there are NO circumstances under which I would want to be a U.S. citizen.

    I am writing this post at time when:

    1. Canada is considering a FATCA IGA with the U.S. I hope Canada understands what it will do to one million Canadians by turning them over to the IRS.

    2. Generalized IRS abuse of taxpayers is under way in Washington. It is possible that this post has relevance to that issue.

    3. Congress is considering moving to Residence Based Taxation. That would solve ALL of these problems.

    In closing, to all U.S. citizens abroad who worked so hard to save for your retirement …

    God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
    The courage to change the things I can,
    And wisdom to know the difference.

    This is for real. You must accept that the U.S. government is not what you thought it was. It has made a conscious decision to attack you, your families and your assets.

    Courage is the willingness to proceed in the face of fear. In this case it requires you to face up to a decision with no good outcome. You must choose between being destitute or being tax compliant. “American  exeptionalism” means you cannot have both.

    Wisdom means finding a way to move beyond this frightening chapter in your life. Look at it this way: there are parts of the world where people have never experienced life without U.S. tyranny. The good news is that you do NOT live in the United States.

    On that note, I will conclude with a thought from Winston Churchill. His wife did not approve of his drinking. One night he came home and she said:

    Winston, you are drunk.

    Winston thought about it a minute and said:

    Yes, I am drunk. But you are ugly and tomorrow I will be sober.

    Put it this way, you can renounce your U.S. citizenship. Every day, for the rest of their lives, Homelanders will wake up in the Homeland!

Searching for Uncle #FATCA: Where is he? What does he do? Why is he a danger to America? Can Congressman Meadows and Senator Paul save America?

 
Searching for Uncle #FATCA: Where is he? What does he do? Why is he a danger to America? Can Congressman Meadows and Senator Paul save America?
 

 
 
 
 
 

A Guest Post by
John Richardson

 


 
Congressman Mark Meadows has recently introduced H.R. 5935 – a
bill to “Repeal FATCA”. The title is:

“H.R.5935 – To repeal the
violation of sovereign nations’ laws and privacy matters.”

The title provides strong clues of the motivation for the bill. I
received an email asking exactly how the Meadows Bill would “repeal
FATCA”. This post is an attempt to answer that particular question. In
order to understand how the Meadows Bill would repeal FATCA, one must
understand exactly what is the FATCA law that would be repealed.
(Note that a repeal of FATCA would leave the FATCA IGAs
intact.) I have previously written about the origins of Mr. FBAR. This
“Search For Uncle FATCA” – a search for what America
has become – is a companion post.

Part 3 – What does it mean to repeal FATCA and how exactly does
the Meadow Bill repeal FATCA? A section by section analysis

I apologize for the long post, but don’t have time to write a
shorter one …

I was asked to answer the question:

“What exactly would it mean to repeal FATCA?”

The short answer to the question is:

“We make FATCA go away by reversing all the changes to the Internal Revenue Code that collectively comprise FATCA.”

The real question becomes: “How do we reverse FATCA?”

The detailed answer is long and technical.
It includes (as appendixes) the complete text of Part V of the HIRE
Act (which created FATCA) and the complete text of H.R. 5935 – the Meadows Bill. I would not expect people to read the text of the legislation (it is overwhelming).

The Three Faces Of FATCA

Whether you support FATCA or oppose FATCA,
a broad understanding of the original FATCA legislation will help in
your “FATCA Discussions”. It will also help you understand that there
are actually “Three Faces To FATCA”. When you find
yourself in a “FATCA Chat” you should be clear on whether you are
talking about:

  • Face 1 – The part of FATCA that is aimed at
    foreign financial institutions (Internal Revenue Code Sections
    1471 – 1474 – Chapter 4)
  • Face 2 – The FATCA IGAs that have for all
    practical purposes replaced “Chapter 4: Sections 1471 – 1474”
    (the part of FATCA that applies to non-U.S. financial
    institutions) of the Internal Revenue Code
  • Face 3 – The various amendments to the
    Internal Revenue Code (particularly Section 6038D) which presume
    that Americans abroad are tax evaders and (1) force disclosure
    of much of their financial lives and (2) impose punitive
    taxation (particularly in the case of “foreign trusts” and
    penalties (form 8938) on them.

 
Question: What does the Meadows bill do actually do?

Answer: It gets rid of Face 1 and Face 3 but leaves Face 2 (The FATCA IGAs intact). This is an important point. Because the FATCA IGAs were never authorized by FATCA, the repeal of FATCA would leave the FATCA IGAs intact!

The full text of Meadows Bill is here. You will see that it reverses (section by section) the HIRE Act amendments to the Internal Revenue Code that created FATCA. It converts the Internal Revenue Code (at least in terms of FATCA provisions) to what it was before FATCA.

But, to appreciate the Meadows Bill, we must first understand FATCA in its original incarnation.

In the beginning, Congress created …

In order to understand the Meadows Bill, you must understand the legislative origins of FATCA – specifically the HIRE Act which is found here:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ147/html/PLAW-111publ147.htm

All legislation must have an “Offset Provision” (which
explains how to pay for the new law). (Almost all legislation
affecting Americans abroad is found in “Revenue Offset Provisions”.
The effect is to force a politically powerless group to pay for a
powerful majority. On this point, See the following submission made to
the Senate Finance Committee in 2015.

richardsonkish-revenue-raising-measures-april-14-2015-international-tax-1-1)

In this case the “Offset Provision” (which created FATCA) is Title 5 of
the HIRE Act. The “Offset Provisions” are summarized as follows. I have
added IN BOLD what the significance of this is. Please note that
Subtitle A is the “Income Taxes” section of the Internal Revenue Code.
Remember that FATCA contains two specific targets. Target 1 is
“foreign financial institutions“. Target 2 is
“Americans abroad” (and a few Homeland Americans) who
have accounts (mostly for legitimate reasons) at Foreign Financial
Institutions.

Explaining the FATCA legislation …

What follows is an explanation of what the “FATCA legislation really is.
It will explain how FATCA has two specific targets: (1) Foreign
Financial Institutions and (2) The “U.S. Persons” who make use of their
services.

At the end of the post I have included:

Appendix A – The Actual Text Of The “Offset Provision
in the HIRE Act which created FATCA

Appendix B – The Actual Text Of The Meadows Bill (which
in effect repeals the sections of the HIRE Act which created FATCA)

Explanation of what the FATCA legislation really is …

A Summary of the changes made to the Internal Revenue Code by
the HIRE Act

I have included links to the exact sections of the Internal Revenue Code
after the HIRE Act amendments. To see a discussion of
the pre-HIRE Act Internal Revenue Code, see Part B (the exact text of
the HIRE Act). This demonstrates how FATCA Targets:

  • non-U.S. financial institutions (FATCA Face 1); and
  • Americans abroad (FATCA Face 3).

Summary of the FATCA provisions in the HIRE Act

(NOTE THAT I HAVE ADDED MY COMMENTARY IN CAPITAL LETTERS.)

TITLE V–OFFSET PROVISIONS

Subtitle A (SUBTITLE A IS THE INCOME TAX SECTION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE) –Foreign Account Tax Compliance

Part I–Increased Disclosure of Beneficial Owners–
AIMED AT FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Sec. 501. Reporting on certain foreign accounts.

THIS CREATES CHAPTER 4 (SECTIONS 1471 – 1474) THAT ARE THE SECTIONS
AIMED AT FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. IT IS WHAT MOST PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND FATCA TO BE. SEE WHERE CHAPTER 4 APPEARS HERE:

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-7-18-29-am

It’s right there. It’s Chapter 4. That said, Chapter 4 of the Internal
Revenue Code has been rendered largely irrelevant by the FATCA IGAs.
However, here is what Chapter 4 looks like:

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-11-07-07-am

Sec. 502. Repeal of certain foreign exceptions to registered bond
requirements

Part II–Under Reporting With Respect to Foreign Assets –
AIMED SQUARELY AT AMERICANS ABROAD – INCREASES THE OVERALL
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR U.S. PERSONS, CREATES FORM 8938 AND IMPOSES
PENALTIES ON NORMAL DAY-TO-DAY-LIVING

Sec. 511. Disclosure of information with respect to foreign financial
assets. – CREATES INTERNAL REV CODE 6038D WHICH RESULTS IN FORM 8938.
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE S. 6038D READS AS FOLLOWS:
 

26 U.S. Code § 6038D – Information
with respect to foreign financial assets

(a) In general Any individual who, during any taxable year, holds any
interest in a specified foreign financial asset shall attach to such
person’s return of tax imposed by subtitle A for such taxable year the
information described in subsection (c) with respect to each such asset
if the aggregate value of all such assets exceeds $50,000 (or such
higher dollar amount as the Secretary may prescribe).

(b) Specified foreign financial assets For purposes of this section, the
term “specified foreign financial asset” means—

(1)any financial account (as defined in section 1471(d)(2)) maintained by a
foreign financial institution (as defined in section 1471(d)(4)), and

(2) any of the following assets which are not held in an account
maintained by a financial institution (as defined in section 1471(d)(5))—

(A)any stock or security issued by a person other than a United States person,

(B) any financial instrument or contract held for investment that has an
issuer or counterparty which is other than a United States person, and

(C) any interest in a foreign entity (as defined in section 1473).

(c) Required information The information described in this subsection
with respect to any asset is:

(1)In the case of any account, the name
and address of the financial institution in which such account is
maintained and the number of such account.

(2) In the case of any stock or security, the name and address of the
issuer and such information as is necessary to identify the class or
issue of which such stock or security is a part.

(3) In the case of any other instrument, contract, or interest—

(A) such information as is necessary to identify such instrument, contract, or
interest, and
(B) the names and addresses of all issuers and counterparties with
respect to such instrument, contract, or interest.

(4)The maximum value of the asset during the taxable year.

(d) Penalty for failure to disclose

(1) In general If any individual
fails to furnish the information described in subsection (c) with
respect to any taxable year at the time and in the manner described in
subsection (a), such person shall pay a penalty of $10,000.

(2) Increase in penalty where failure continues after notification If
any failure described in paragraph (1) continues for more than 90 days
after the day on which the Secretary mails notice of such failure to the
individual, such individual shall pay a penalty (in addition to the
penalties under paragraph (1)) of $10,000 for each 30-day period (or
fraction thereof) during which such failure continues after the
expiration of such 90-day period. The penalty imposed under this
paragraph with respect to any failure shall not exceed $50,000.

(e) Presumption that value of specified foreign financial assets exceeds
dollar threshold If—

(1)the Secretary determines that an individual has
an interest in one or more specified foreign financial assets, and
(2) such individual does not provide sufficient information to
demonstrate the aggregate value of such assets, then the aggregate value
of such assets shall be treated as being in excess of $50,000 (or such
higher dollar amount as the Secretary prescribes for purposes of
subsection (a)) for purposes of assessing the penalties imposed under
this section.

(f) Application to certain entities To the extent provided by the
Secretary in regulations or other guidance, the provisions of this
section shall apply to any domestic entity which is formed or availed of
for purposes of holding, directly or indirectly, specified foreign
financial assets, in the same manner as if such entity were an
individual.

(g) Reasonable cause exception No penalty shall be imposed by this
section on any failure which is shown to be due to reasonable cause and
not due to willful neglect. The fact that a foreign jurisdiction
would impose a civil or criminal penalty on the taxpayer (or any other
person) for disclosing the required information is not reasonable
cause.

(h) Regulations The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations
or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the
purposes of this section, including regulations or other
guidance which provide appropriate exceptions from the application of
this section in the case of—

(1) classes of assets identified by the
Secretary, including any assets with respect to which the Secretary
determines that disclosure under this section would be duplicative of
other disclosures,
(2) nonresident aliens, and
(3) bona fide residents of any possession of the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 111–147, title V, § 511(a), Mar. 18, 2010, 124 Stat.
109.)

 

THE FOLLOWING POINTS ARE NOTEWORTHY:

  1. THE REFERENCES TO S. 1471 AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CHAPTER 4
    FATCA PROVISIONS.
  2. THE SECRETARY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO EXEMPT NONRESIDENT ALIENS
    FROM THE FORM 8938 FILING OBLIGATION AND HAS CHOSEN TO DO SO.
    THE EXEMPTION EXTENDS TO GREEN CARD HOLDERS
    WHO ARE, BY VIRTUE OF TREATY TIE BREAKER RULES, NONRESIDENT
    ALIENS.
  3. THE SECRETARY MAY PRESCRIBE A REPORTING THRESHOLD WHICH
    EXCEEDS $50,000 (WHICH HAS BEEN DONE IN THE CASE OF AMERICANS
    ABROAD)
  4. THE SECRETARY HAS THE A BROAD AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE
    REGULATIONS TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF S. 6038D. THIS IS
    PROBABLY BROAD ENOUGH TO EXEMPT AMERICANS ABROAD, WHICH
    PRESUMABLY IS THE BASIS FOR THE SUGGESTED FATCA SAME COUNTRY
    EXEMPTION    . NOTE THAT IN DECEMBER 2016 TREASURY SPECIFICALLY
    CONSIDERED AND REJECTED THE FATCA SAME COUNTRY EXEMPTION
    PROPOSED BY “ACA”     AND “DEMOCRATS ABROAD”.
  5. IN A CONFLICT BETWEEN U.S. LAW AND THE FOREIGN LAW, THE U.S.
    LAW WILL TAKE PRECEDENCE – SEE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE S.
    6038D.

 
The Secretary may prescribe – The FATCA Regulations – AND THE
REGULATIONS ARE HERE …

 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.6038D-2

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.6038D-3

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.6038D-4

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.6038D-5
 

S. 6038D gave birth to IRS Form 8938 …

FATCA Form 8938 is the
Form that is used to report the “Foreign Assets” mandated by Internal
Revenue Code S. 6038D.

Effects:

1. Americans abroad are required to report virtually
all of their “foreign assets” (but local to them) to the IRS.

2. This creates a “paper trail” which will make it more likely that Americans abroad will pay an Exit Tax if (when) they renounce U.S. citizenship.

All of these concepts are summarized by the IRS here …

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/do-i-need-to-file-form-8938-statement-of-specified-foreign-financial-assets

The relationship between Form 8938 and Mr. FBAR is described here
…

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/comparison-of-form-8938-and-fbar-requirements

Sec. 512. Penalties for underpayments attributable to undisclosed
foreign financial assets. –

INCREASES PENALTIES WHEN TAXES OWED ON UNDISCLOSED ACCOUNTS ARE FOUND. THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE REQUIRES THE
FILING OF NUMEROUS INFORMATION
RETURNS. AMERICANS ABROAD ARE “PERSONS SUBJECT TO SPECIAL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS“.
THESE SPECIFIC DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS INCLUDE S. 6038 (FORM 5471 AND FORM 8865 – FOREIGN CORPORATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS), S. 6038D (FOREIGN FINANCIAL ASSETS ON FROM
8398) AND FOREIGN TRUST REPORTING S. 6048 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-F/chapter-61/subchapter-A/part-III

Sec. 513. Modification of statute of limitations for significant omission of income in connection with foreign assets. –
WHEN IT COMES TO FOREIGN ACCOUNTS THE IRS CAN AUDIT FOR 6 YEARS INTO OF THE USUAL 3 YEARS

Part III–Other Disclosure Provisions

Sec. 521. Reporting of activities with respect to passive foreign investment companies. –

FOR THE FIRST TIME PFICS ARE REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED WHETHER THERE IS OR THERE IS NOT INCOME FROM THE FUNDS (THIS
IS INCREDIBLY SIGNIFICANT) – INTERNAL REV CODE 1298(f) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1298
WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT AMERICANS ABROAD WHO OWN A NON-U.S. MUTUAL FUND ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT THIS TO THE IRS WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE OTHERWISE REQUIRED TO FILE A U.S. INCOME TAX RETURN!

The disclosure takes place on Form 8621. The instructions to Form 8621 are incomprehensible to all but a select group of tax preparers. IT IS VERY
EXPENSIVE TO PAY A TAX PREPARER TO COMPLETE FORM 8621.

Effect: Americans abroad are effectively prohibited from owning
all but U.S. mutual funds.

Sec. 522. Secretary permitted to require financial institutions to file
certain returns related to withholding on foreign transfers
electronically.

Part IV–Provisions Related to Foreign Trusts

Sec. 531. Clarifications with respect to foreign trusts which are
treated as having a United States beneficiary. – SEE INTERNAL REV CODE
S. 679(f) – https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/679

Sec. 532. Presumption that foreign trust has United States beneficiary.
CREATES A PRESUMPTION THAT THE USA CAN TAX THE BENEFICIARY OF ANY TRUST
ANYWHERE. NOTE THAT THIS IS A PRESUMPTION, BUT IT DOES PUT THE ONUS ON
THE TRUST/BENEFICIARY TO SHOW THAT THE BENEFICIARY IS NOT A U.S. PERSON.

Sec. 533. Uncompensated use of trust property. –
BASICALLY THE USE OF TRUST PROPERTY IS NOW TREATED AS A TAXABLE DISTRIBUTION TO THE PERSON
USING THE PROPERTY – IRC SECTION 643(I)https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/643

Sec. 534. Reporting requirement of United States owners of foreign
trusts. –
AMENDS THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO FOREIGN
TRUSTS – THE SECRETARY CAN SPECIFY WHICH INFORMATION IS REQUIRED TO BE
REPORTED

Sec. 535. Minimum penalty with respect to failure to report on certain
foreign trusts. –
CREATES A PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE INTEREST IN THE FOREIGN TRUST (SEE S. 534 ABOVE) WHICH IS THE GREATER OF 10,000 OR 35% OF THE VALUE OF THE REPORTABLE AMOUNT OF THE TRUST. (INTERNAL REVENUE CODE S. 677)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6677

Part V–Substitute Dividends and Dividend Equivalent Payments Received
by Foreign Persons Treated as Dividends

Sec. 541. Substitute dividends and dividend equivalent payments received
by foreign persons treated as dividends.

Subtitle B–Delay in Application of Worldwide Allocation of Interest

Sec. 551. Delay in application of worldwide allocation of interest