Talk:Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New York Times on FATCA[edit]

The New York Times recently weighed in on FATCA (Law to Find Tax Evaders Denounced, 27 Dec 2011, in the business section:

…the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or Fatca, as it is known, is now causing alarm among businesses outside the United States that fear they will have to spend billions of dollars a year to meet the greatly increased reporting burdens, starting in 2013. American expatriates also say the new filing demands are daunting and overblown. …The law demands that virtually every financial firm outside the United States and any foreign company in which Americans are beneficial owners must register with the Internal Revenue Service, check existing accounts in search of Americans and annually declare their compliance. Noncompliance would be punished with a withholding charge of up to 30 percent on any income and capital payments the company gets from the United States. …The I.R.S., under pressure from angry and confused financial officials abroad, has extended the deadline for registration until June 30, 2013, and is struggling to provide more detailed guidance by the end of this year. But beginning in 2012, many American expatriates — already the only developed-nation citizens subject to double taxation from their home government — must furnish the I.R.S. with detailed personal information on their overseas assets. …He said his sense was that Fatca required companies “to prove your innocence.” …Then there is a question of reciprocity: Would the United States accept the same demands for information from the tax authorities in other countries — say Russia or China?

Compliance date is now definitely mid-2013 for non-US financial institutions; it is less clear what/when the obligations oon the American expatriates will take effect. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The obligations on, and more importantly, the (unintended) punishment of US expatriates for living abroad are already in effect. Reports on non-US bank accounts for 2010 and 2011 are due together with the 2011 tax returns. (The form wasn't done in time for last year, so the 2010 data has to be sent together with 2011 data.) And US expatriates are already LOSING THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS. The only way to keep one's bank account seems to be to change one's citizenship. Good riddance. I don't want a country that punishes me for where I live. WackyBoots (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
XOttawahitech (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of "controversy" section[edit]

The "controversy" section, longer than the rest of the article, is outdated, hyperbolic and written like an editorial. Draft regulations have since been issued by Treasury, along with new draft Forms W-8, that provide guidance and should lay to rest concerns about whether it is possible to implement or comply efficiently with FATCA. In addition, many governments (over 50 by some counts) have been or are in the process of entering into intergovernmental agreements with the U.S. to jointly administer FATCA on a bilateral basis, including Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.61.88 (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above unsigned comment seems a bit overblown. The section is certainly not written like an editorial; it expresses no opinion, merely quotes published opinions, with verifiable references. That's what a "controversy" section is supposed to do. I didn't contribute to the "controversy" section but it seems to me to conform to Wikipedia standards.
Barbacana (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - not overblown - but we do need to be careful. For example, "controversy" sections are usually at the end of the article, but is the first section here. Whilst other sections are either sparse or non-existent, that section is most commonly revised / supplemented. That gives an intimation of the thinking of the common editors.
--Legis (talk - contribs) 04:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the controversy section selectively quotes critical sources in a volume and level of detail that is out of proportion to the rest of the article. Further, the criticisms are outdated and many are consequently simply wrong. I don't think it is true that HSBC has stopped serving U.S. clients, for example. And much of the criticism was based on unfinished draft regulations that have since been finalized in a way that the industry has applauded. See e.g. http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2013-02-04/relief-at-fatcas-fine-print

I have tried to keep the article neutral. In particular I have tried to keep the criticisms and "analysis" (criticisms and praise) in its own section. It just so happens there is alot of criticism that has been widely reported by well-funded corporations. No surprise there. But Wikipedia's job is just to be a conduit for information; a bibliography, really. If anyone is wrong, it cannot be Wikipedia, as it is not originally from Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, the voices singing criticisms (rich people) are better at doing their homework and getting their word out than those singing praises. The solution, and I think this needs repeating, the solution for one sided arguments is not to censor that side or its arguments, but to provide arguments representing other viewpoints.

-- A citizen: This is a very biased viewpoint. As it turns out, the serious opposition comes from ordinary american expats, who are paying their tax.
-- A citizen: No. But this is a pointless argument, as anecdotal evidence does not sway opinions easily. Ordinary Americans are not opposed to reporting their $50,000 Swiss bank accounts to the US Treasury, mainly because they have been reporting them to the US Treasury already. This does not modify the foreign earned income exclusion and foreign tax credit expat taxation schemes that I oft hear criticized. I mean, don't get me wrong, plenty of Americans are against this. But I just think more Americans believe in aliens.
Really, I think most Americans know who the main opposition is: tax dodgers that are wealthy and affluent enough to hide their assets from the US government through secretive foreign banks and billion-dollar trusts. Billionaire fun time is just about over, and they are sulking. They are mad that the US put its economic weight behind this enforcement push. This law practically ended any possibility of more negotiations with the Swiss banks: inform on Americans or else. The US can deal with any reciprocal measure, but tiny Switzerland sure can't. The EU will eat their lunch and come back for seconds. Int21h (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This (above) is simply not true. EVERY adult American overseas who does not want to disobey US law is now affected by the extreme penalties and problems created by FATCA. This needs to be addressed in the article. More than seven million Americans live overseas (including me), far more than the US-resident "fatcats" this law was aimed at, and FATCA is having very harmful effects on our everyday lives. We now can't open a mutual fund or pension savings account either in the US (without a US address) or in the country where we live, for example. Banks are refusing to take American customers, and are dumping the ones they have, to avoid extra work (imagine a small bank in the US being told it had to report in detail to the French IRS on a small customer. Easier to dump the customer.) Employers are refusing to hire Americans because any American with signing authority on any foreign account (*any* checking account, even a volunteer group's) is forced by FATCA to report the organization's finances to the IRS online. (Who would hire an American expat executive or vote for an American expat club president or treasurer under these conditions?) Of course expats are upset about it.
The problem with FATCA is that the law assumes that if you have a foreign bank account/mutual account/pension, or signing authority on a foreign account/company treasury, you are ipso facto a probable fatcat tax-dodger. There is NO provision in FATCA for ordinary Americans who live overseas. This needs to be mentioned in the article. The reason is no doubt that US expats are essentially invisible to lawmakers, as we have no representation or spokesperson in Congress (except as a minuscule proportion of "our" representative's constituents).
Foreign banks are now supposed to send details of Americans' (& their spouses' if it is a joint account; as you can imagine, this often leads to marital stress if it is a non-citizen spouse) account to the IRS via their Financial Crimes page. Yes, all expats, including those who don't owe anything to the IRS, thanks to FATCA have to file their ordinary tax forms on the online Financial Crimes page; the forms are very complicated and there are draconian financial penalties for making mistakes on these forms, up to tens of thousands of dollars even for someone who owes nothing; therefore, many expats who don't owe taxes to the US still feel forced to hire expensive and hard-to-find international tax experts to fill them out to be sure there are no mistakes. Many expats live in corrupt countries and it is a recipe for trouble that local bank employees in these countries will be reporting on expats' accounts to the IRS. There are many, many more problems with FATCA and it's important for those who think they support it to understand that the harm to expats is not incidental but THE major effect of this law, harming millions of normal people. This article needs to make that clear.
Don't forget that when we complain about this law, we are already paying full taxes in the countries where we live and work; are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid; and are much of the time ineligible for Social Security (which is based on work only in the USA). We are not eligible for "Obamacare," but in some cases still have to pay penalties for not buying it! Citizenship-based taxation is already a burden that only Eritrea, besides the US, imposes on its citizens; FATCA is an additional, very harmful, and unfair burden. I'm grateful this article has been created but the article needs to address the very real problems of the millions of expats who are suffering or will soon suffer from this law. Many are not aware of the law yet, as it came into effect only last July, and foreign banks have been understandably slow to react. But I know of dozens of people who have had letters from their banks/pension funds/mutual funds, threatening or actually announcing that the bank will dump "US persons" because of FATCA. This includes all the resident foreigners in the US and all green card holders who have kept their bank accounts in their home country, as well as the accidental Americans like Boris Johnson, mayor of London, who has never lived or worked in the USA and discovered he owed more than £100,000 to the IRS for selling his house– a double taxation, as in the UK the rules are different and he had already been taxed on that.
It is no exaggeration to say that Americans who live outside the US now have legal access to fewer financial services than anyone in the world because of this law. Anyone who thinks we are all "rich scumbags" after understanding what FATCA does to ALL expats must think Americans should simply be punished for having the nerve to live outside the Fatherland. Sorry for the rant. Evangeline (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Int21h: You said: I think most Americans know who the main opposition is: tax dodgers I don’t know what you base this statement on. Seems to me that user:Evangeline makes a compelling argument. But since neither view is supported by wp:RS we cannot enter this to the article, sigh… Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

So have at it. Just remember, just because rich scumbags don't want to support their country doesn't mean they should be censored.

-- A citizen: Are you calling ordinary American expats scumbags? This seems a discriminatory statement.
-- A citizen: They are by no means ordinary Americans. It is fairly rare for Americans to use international finance markets directly, mainly because most Americans can't afford to do so. And ordinarily, Americans live in America. And yes, I am, and my viewpoints are, very discriminatory. Wikipedia is neutral; I am often not. Int21h (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the configuration, the implementation section should be split, with law and regulations in the US being separate (and last) than international implementation. US law is less of an issue, because all Wikipedia users already knew US law when they agreed to the Wikimedia TOS. Its common knowledge, all 50,000 sections. Ignorance is no excuse. If you don't know US law, then you cannot possibly knowingly agree to the Wikimedia TOS and must cease all activities on Wikipedia immediately. Uncodified foreign law and regulations are different, because trying to link against, or even keep track of, uncodified Euroean regulations will fail, which as an American I have a hunch is their goal. So we must rely on 3rd parties to tell us what the law is, which makes it less bibliographic and more analytical. Yes, I have heard Germany, France, etc. have "codified" law, but I have never seen an online version that I could program a scraper for or link against... (In all fairness, the UK has a rough equivilent to the Wikisource Statutes at Large, but with only portions available that they think are current law, but I think it is illegal to scrape and/or distribute it--it being the law. Ah, Europa.. Glad to see you haven't changed in the last couple thousand years.) Int21h (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criticisms are not just from rich people. There are millions of American citizens that live outside the US that are not rich. This act has a major impact on them and is deserving of the criticism for the additional burden it places on normal working people. I am American living abroad and have repeatedly been rejected when opening a bank account because the bank does not want to deal with the US regulations. It is incredibly frustrating to be put at such a disadvantage.95.152.231.138 (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's understandable. But in reality "not rich" Americans aren't going to contribute much to any media blitz. Int21h (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IP, the controversies section is shoddily written. It's difficult to understand the criticisms and they aren't balanced with any opposing views. Hardly neutral IMO. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely not neutral. (Shoddy? No I don't think so.) But what to do? Int21h (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Review the sources and re-write the criticisms so they're more understandable.
  2. Remove criticisms that appear less notable (once we understand them).
  3. Research supporters' responses to the criticisms and include them if notable. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not it.
Beware, the solution you advance sounds awefully prone to POV decisions about what is and is not notable. Just because there are no "responses" to a criticism is not carte blanche to censor a viewpoint. Keep in mind a "controversy" is often going to be adverse to a subject, but that does not make a Wikipedia article POV.
The only 2 sources I see that Google Books shows little in the way of notability for is the "American Citizens Abroad" and the "Association of Certified Financial Crime Specialists", but these are only 2 paragraphs. Int21h (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is how wikipedia works. Everything has to be viewed through the lens of notability, with WP:N used as a guide. If editors believe there are POV issues as we work through this process, then they are more than welcome to be WP:BOLD, follow the WP:BRD process, and/or comment here. I agree with your statement that "Just because there are no 'responses' to a criticism is not carte blanche to censor a viewpoint." --Nstrauss (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does the section really rise to the level of 'controversy'? Would 'criticism' be a more apt section heading? As is generally the case, the government does not often provide a strong defense in the public media of its actions, so relying on sites such as "American Citizens Abroad," etc. would tend to show a one-sided viewpoint. I incorporated the rationale behind the law in a new 'background' section and discussed why Congress determined this new law to be necessary (there were a series of GAO reports in the years leading up to the Act that discuss shortcomings of the existing laws). As an aside, Treasury also released the final regulations on Jan. 28, 2013, so this would be a good time to read through TD 9610 and update the Implementation section. --JimB96 (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We need to summarize the viewpoints of 1) expatriates who do not like the additional compliance burden, 2) foreign governments who refuse to agree with information sharing (Russia, China, and others such as the Canadian source referenced), 3) the economic factors cited in the reference such as 'capital flight' and the extra costs associated with compliance. Let's have a general heading which states that the law is controversial for these reasons and then include details in subsections. --JimB96 (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am having a hard time separating the comments in this section from the "comments on the comments". But my quick thoughts are as follows:

  1. New laws invariably attract more comment in relation to their controversial aspects than aspects which have general appeal. No one writes "gosh what a sensible law, we all agree with that" because that doesn't sell newspapers, even in the financial press. If you Google articles on FATCA in the Economist (first two hits: American tax law: Scratched by the FATCA and Finance: Learning the FATCA life) or the WSJ (first two hits: How to Lose Friends, Citizens and Influence and McGurn: Obama's IRS Snoops Abroad), they predictably focus on controversial aspects. See for example: NatWest_Three#Extradition_controversy
  2. That of course means it is very important not to take the newsworthy points stressed by the press out of context, even thought it can be hard finding balancing RS which say "well really that is not so bad."
  3. For my money there are five potentially controversial aspects of FATCA which I have seen covered in the press which probably deserve mention (there may be others, but these seem the key ones):
    1. Cost is out of proportion with projected revenues
    2. Creates potential of capital flight as FFIs potentially try to avoid holding US assets
    3. Alienates foreign countries who object to being turned into unpaid US tax collectors / backlash against Americans abroad (the "no US customers" allegation)
    4. Extra territoriality / regulatory overreach
    5. Allegation that increase in US citizens abandoning their citizenship is linked to FATCA
  4. Issues are phrased in difference ways, but I think most of the criticisms are variations on those core press criticisms of FATCA.
  5. I don't think NPOV requires that a "controversies" section needs to be balanced with a "non-controversies" section. It only requires that controversies are reliably sourced, and their treatment is proportionate to the subject of the article, ie. ensuring that the entire article doesn't get hijacked talking about nothing but negative press. At the moment there is probably too much focus on controversy, and not enough on ensuring that it is concise and reliably sourced.

--Legis (talk - contribs) 14:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested redraft of controversy section[edit]

Suggested redraft below, feel free to fiddle as appropriate. For convenience I have inserted direct internet links rather than formal footnotes or Citeweb templates at this stage. I have tried to keep it short and workable. I freely admit some of the sources could be better, but we can work on that. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certain aspects of FATCA have been a source of controversy in the financial and general press.[1] The controversy primarily relates to five central issues:

  • Cost. Although numbers are still somewhat speculative, estimates of the additional revenue raised seem to be heavily outweighed by the cost of implementing the legislation. The Association of Certified Financial Crime Specialists (ACFCS) claims FATCA is expected to raise revenues of approximately US$800 million per year for the US Treasury; however, the costs of implementation are more difficult to estimate, and estimates between hundreds of millions and over US$10 billion have been published.[2] ACFCS also claims it is extremely likely that the cost of implementing FATCA (which will be borne by the foreign financial institutions) will far outweigh the revenues raised by the US Treasury, even excluding the additional costs to the US Internal Revenue Service for the staffing and resources needed to process the data produced.[3] Unusually, FATCA was not subject to a cost/benefit analysis by the Committee on Ways and Means [Comment: we don't want this to be too long, as there is a separate section exploring costs in more detail immediately below the controversy section]
  • Capital flight. The primary mechanism for enforcing the compliance of foreign financial institutions is a punitive withholding levy on US assets. This may create a strong incentive for foreign financial institutions to divest (or not invest) in US assets, resulting in capital flight.[4]
  • Foreign relations. Forcing foreign financial institutions and foreign governments to collect data on US citizens at their own expense and transmit it to the IRS is divisive. Canada's Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has raised an issue with this "far reaching and extraterritorial implications" which would require Canadian banks to become extensions of the IRS and would jeopardize Canadians' privacy rights.[5] There are also reports of many foreign banks refusing to open accounts for Americans, making it harder for Americans to live and work abroad.[6]
  • Extra territoriality. The legislation enables US authorities to imposes regulatory costs, and potentially penalties, on foreign financial institutions who otherwise have few if any dealings with the United States.[7] The U.S. has sought to ameliorate that criticism by offering reciprocity to potential countries who sign Intergovernmental Agreements, but the idea of the US Government providing information on its citizens to foreign governments has also proved controversial.[8]
  • Citizenship runciations. Time magazine has reported a sevenfold increase in Americans renouncing US citizenship between 2008 and 2011 and has attributed this at least in part to FATCA.[9]

There have also been doubts expressed as to workability of FACTA due to its enormous complexity,[10] and the legislative timetable for implementation has already been pushed back twice.[11]

American Citizens Abroad, a Geneva-based organization representing the interests of six million Americans residing outside the U.S., has been particularly vocal in opposition to the legislation and has launched a campaign to repeal FATCA. The group argues that "FATCA legislation is predicated on the faulty assumption that foreigners throughout the world with no predisposition to favor the U.S. will react positively to its attempts to convert them into unpaid IRS agents.", and in addition to the issues above stresses the increased risk of identity theft, and the risk of a two-tier banking system developing to the partial exclusion of the U.S.[12]

OK, I am going to go ahead and be bold and replace the existing controversy section with the suggested draft above. No doubt it will continue to be refined over time, but hopefully this is overall an improvement. I am also removing the POV tag. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Just a comment; I noticed that the text refers to five key concerns, which has slowly mushroomed into eight bullet points. Those all look to be valid points, but we do need to be careful not to return to the previous issues where we had where the article spent more time talking about FATCA controversies than FATCA. I'll try and find some time to do a little consolidation as a number of the points are really duplicates. --Legis (talk - contribs) 23:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is a financial account?[edit]

For the puposes of this article, which wikipedia page should this be linked to. Curently financial account redirects to Capital account. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

excessive project tagging[edit]

In contravention of BRD, Ottawahitech has reverted my removal of their additions of countries to the list above. Since this legislation affects financial accounts in all countries in the world, and US citizens living anywhere in the world, I see zero value in adding a list of 192 country project tags to this article which would be the logical extension of the scheme Ottawa seems to be proposing. What do other editors think? I suggest we delete all countries, and delete globalization, and keep under tax and US categorization.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave globalization. But the others I don't see much point. That being said it is up to those individual projects if they want to tag this article or not. Any wikiproject can choose to add any article to their scope. -DJSasso (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of Wikiproject Tags[edit]

I have removed most of the non-US wiki projects. While yes this law may affect those countries this is a US law relating to US citizens. As such it does not belong in non-US countries' Wiki Projects. Please obtain a consensus prior to restoring these tags. Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is up to individual wikiprojects what their scope covers. Unlike an article category, a wikiproject can deem any article within their scope. That being said I don't see much point in them being on this article. -DJSasso (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest Ottawa get consensus from each of the country wikiprojects that this article is of direct relevance to their country. I think excessive tagging is a problem - wikiprojects are better served by having a more specific list of topical articles, and not an all-and-sundry list of any topic which might possible touch on them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an "all and sundry" list or a "more specific list" is preferable is entirely up to them. There are projects that take both approaches. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been adding WikiProject banners to article talk-pages for years, and the only objections I get are from the editors such as Mike, who is not an active member of any of these WikProjects. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

I am not sure why you decided to ping me on a 2 year old discussion. That being said I guess you decided to ignore the comments from other editors above? Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion - International Controversy[edit]

I have done a BOLD removal of the international controversy section as it is very opinion based and reads more like news. As Wikipedia is not a newspaper I don't feel like the inclusion of this section adds to the encyclopaedic value of the article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section you removed seemed neutral, as was reporting about opinions, rather than containing opinions. The only question preventing me from reinserting it is whether the sources are reporting opinions, or repeating opinions. If the former, the section should remain. If the latter, no. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International reaction section removed in its entirety?[edit]

An editor has removed the complete section dealing with International reaction saying "removed entire opinion piece on FATCA". It is not clear to me why:

  • This is considered an "opinion piece"
  • Why the editor chooses to remove the whole section instead of simply changing the wording

(the same editor has been following me for weeks reverting material I add to existing articles and nominating several articles and categoories I created for deletion). XOttawahitech (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: Either you are claiming that Mrfrobinson and I are the same, or there is more than one editor removing your inappropriate comments and articles. If the latter, it would suggest to a rational person that your edits might not be appropriate for Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Arthur Rubin: Is this a trick question? I have no idea what you are talking about and how it relates to this article. By the way, thanks for pinging me. XOttawahitech (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No what he is saying is multiple editors disagree with your edits yet you keep playing the "I don't understand please explain it in more and more detail" card. Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this seems like it is potentially getting a bit tetchy, but for what it is worth, my view is:

  1. A section on international reaction seems entirely appropriate to me, probably as a subsection of "controversy" (which already has a bullet point on "foreign relations"). Whilst FATCA might be US legislation, its primary impact is cross border, and there is some fairly well documented commentary on the reactions in various other countries to the impact on them (I seem to recall reading an article in the UK to the effect that the cost of FATCA on UK businesses alone was esimtated at 2.1 billion pounds for some specific time period); and
  2. Clearly any section needs to be neutrally written and well sourced. That is true of everything on Wikipedia of course, but there is a real risk of taking a bunch of hostile commentaries and turning it into some naked FATCA-bashing. We seem to have gotten that mostly under control in this article, so let's not go back to the bad old days.

--Legis (talk - contribs) 23:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MDY?[edit]

This is an American act. Shouldn't the prevailing date format be MDY? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right; feel free to correct... L.tak (talk)
Yeah. I just do DMY by default (commas, commas everywhere), but you're right, it probably should be MDY. Have at it. Int21h (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Territories, constituent countries, etc.[edit]

Regarding the specific jurisdictions which the signed intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) apply to, this article needs only to note where a territorial exception is not inherently indicated by the Wikipedia article as linked to for the sovereignty, or which might have an actual impact on the purpose of the agreement.

Specifically:
1) There are no financial institutions on any territorial claims in Antarctica or the sub-antarctic territories.
2) There are no financial institutions on Norway's Jan Mayen. (Apparently, there is one bank on Svalbard.)
3) The constituent countries of Danish Realm and Kingdom of the Netherlands are by definition excluded by specifying simply Denmark and Netherlands, respectively.
4) The states and territories of Australia are by definition counted as parts of Australia.
5) The overseas departments and territories of France are by definition counted as parts of France. There are also no financial institutions on the Scattered Islands.
6) Åland Islands are by definition counted as part of Finland.
7) British overseas territories and Crown dependencies are by definition distinct from United Kingdom.

All told, the only piece from these corresponding notes that this article might need to mention is the Norway IGA's exclusion of Svalbard. Farolif (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions are not so clear here from a treaty point of view. For example, the Kingdom of the Netherlands is the treaty making authority, and that includes Aruba etc. Treaties of Denmark automatically apply to Greenland etc unless otherwise mentioned... And the "no financial institutions" may be right now, but could change in the future... Although I think some additions are maybe overdone (Aland, Australia), we are doing our readers a service by mentioning at least at those locations where it helps in immediately understanding what is going on... L.tak (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a company is ever granted the right to set up a financial institution on any of the uninhabited territories, it's a reasonable expectation that there will subsequently be a revised agreement to address the changed situation. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. (see also: WP:CRYSTALBALL)
This table doesn't specify who the treaty-making authority is, only which jurisdictions the agreements apply to. In that sense, it is sufficient to indicate Denmark and Netherlands without parsing out the constituent countries. Furthermore, a reader who is aware of any of these exceptioned jurisdictions is very likely also aware of their statuses as constituent countries, dependencies, or overseas territories, and the subsequent need for those jurisdictions to have their own separate IGAs. Farolif (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who added those notes, and I agree that some of them are not really necessary. However, I think that the note for France is still needed. You wrote that the "overseas departments and territories of France are by definition counted as parts of France", but the France IGA includes only the overseas departments, such as Guadeloupe and Reunion, and excludes the overseas territories, such as Saint Martin and French Polynesia. This is an important distinction and should be noted. Heitordp (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I simplified the note for France. It only says what the IGA includes rather than what it excludes. This is also in line with the agreement's own wording. Farolif (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am not in favour of adding all, but for France, DK and NL they have relevance... For DK and NL, the problem is that the country and the Kingdom have the same short name which is extremely confusing. Furhtermore, when ratifying multilateral conventions, they apply to Greenland+Faroe+Denmark automatically, unless stated otherwise; and for the Kingdom of the Netherlands also many, many bilateral treaties are concluded for the whole Kingdom, or are extended later to the Caribben part. One really needs to be an expert to be able to guess (rather than to know) it without looking, so I would be very much in favour of those additions... L.tak (talk)
I think the list as it stands now does not require the reader to be an expert in the political structures of the corresponding Kingdoms or to look up the source agreements to understand what the entries for Denmark and Netherlands mean.
Suppose if we were to put converse footnotes for Denmark and Netherlands, and name only those components that were included in the agreements, rather than what is excluded. Would saying (for example) "Metropolitan Denmark only" be any more specific than the current link to the Wikipedia article for Denmark, which makes several references to Faroes and Greenland as being separate entities from Denmark within the "Kingdom of Denmark"? Similarly, how could specifying (example again) "European Netherlands plus Caribbean Netherlands" be any different from the current link to the article for Netherlands, which makes clear the distinction from "Kingdom of the Netherlands"?
As for the precedent of other mulilateral conventions, that again goes back to my previous point about a reader's prior knowledge. In this case, someone who is actually familiar with treaties involving these states would probably already know the difference between the Kingdoms and their corresponding constituent countries, and would therefore not be near as confused by the "same short name" as you are expressing concern about. Farolif (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, I now find myself rethinking the need to distinguish the Departments of France. The article for France explains that the overseas departments (regions) "are an integral part of France" and are no different politically from the departments in Metropolitan France. Couldn't a reader, by following the WP link, reasonably glean the entry for France on the list to mean to include the overseas departments? Would there be any expectation from a person familiar with French foreign relations that the overseas departments would be excluded? And if the question is over the overseas territories, isn't that the same justification to not specify the British territories as excluded from United Kingdom's IGA? Farolif (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the point for me is not that the link to the country is formally clear; but that there is a ground for doubt because of different treatments of these things. that goes for FR, DK, NL, but not for Norway (Swalbard can never be included) or Finland. So for the casual reader, this would be clear; for the well-informed reader this would be clear. But for part of the middle group, who have heard something about these different treatments, and which wonder... Why not just adding the note; it just makes up a bit of space and is reliably sourced and relevant... (as for your suggesiotn: no "metropolitan Denmark etc" is not helping much. You'd need a "negative" approach ("excluding Greenland")). Anyway, I think it is good to wait and have some others way in on this... L.tak (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What confuses me a bit: why are we adding the Svalbard note (which is not allowed in treaties anyway due to the Svalbard treaty) and the US (adding info on parts that are not part of the sovereign territory of the US), but not NL and DK? L.tak (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my reconsidering of the issue of France that I mentioned previously. My point is that a completely unaware reader - I don't just mean a reader to whom the structure of these sovereign states and their respective constituent countries, territories, etc, is a new concept -- rather, I'm imagining a reader who has never heard of (ex.) "Kingdom of the Netherlands" and doesn't know that a political entity with such a name even exists -- a reader of this background would be able to see the entries for "Netherlands", "Denmark", "France", "United States", etc, and, if necessary, be able to determine - from the provided Wikilinks - what is meant by those jurisdiction names. With that in mind, I've decided to drop the note for France as well as the note I added for United States.
As for Svalbard, I will admit that I, as a reader, did not find the issue significant enough to want to follow the rabbithole, as it were, and determine that the Svalbard Treaty exists to distinguish Svalbard from Norway in various respects. With that in mind, we can remove the Svalbard note as well, since a reader (to whom this question would even come up) could reasonably determine, solely from WP, that the IGA does not apply to Svalbard.
As for Finland, the IGA does not even mention Åland, therefore I have been puzzled from the start over the very introduction of the issue here. Farolif (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I added the notes, my criterion was simply to mention all inhabited territories listed here. This list includes all formal dependencies and other entities "often described as dependencies". I mentioned Åland simply because it is listed there. I didn't consider what is defined in the article for each country, which territories are "normally" included or excluded from treaties, or whether the reader would need the notes. In any case, I agree that the notes are no longer necessary because of the newly added map. Heitordp (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Size of list of intergovernmental agreements[edit]

The number of jurisdictions which will make formal agreements with the US is going to keep getting longer in the near future. With over 200 possible agreements to be signed, are we ready to list every one that eventually comes along, or do we agree to summarize the list? If the latter, then at what point do we start the process of simplifying the list, and what will the simplification(s) involve? Farolif (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume this is a problem for every article that lists countries. I don't think summarization is the default. Hiding the list by default using class="collapsible collapsed" is an option. Int21h (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think collapsibility is in time a good solution indeed. For now, that doesn't seem necessary yet, but when it is at 60 or so, it is about time.... L.tak (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International implementation[edit]

"... removing those hurdles to countries active in third countries." Maybe it is just me, but this doesn't make any sense. If it means non-US countries active in the US plus some other country, what hurdles does FATCA impose on them? 74.205.216.173 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

true, I think it should be "hurdles to companies active in third countries" L.tak (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bilateral agreements EIF[edit]

I have reverted this edit per wp:BRD. Most of the bilateral agreements have a statement regarding internal proceedings at the non-US side: if the country has finished its internal procedures, it is to notify the US by note verbale, upon which the agreement will enter into force (although it maybe provisionally applied, or applied with a different legal basis in the first year). I have no indication that 1 July the countries had done so... At least the ones I checked (France (act not to parliament), Netherlands (act just yesterday to parliament), Switzerland (no Entry into force in agreements database had not)) have not had all formalities finished. In the Netherlands approval act deadlines are made quite explicit "Het streven is en de intentie is daarbij geuit de ratificatie en de implementatie in de nationale wet af te ronden vóór 30 september 2015, wanneer de eerste uitwisseling van informatie moet plaatsvinden. Tegen deze achtergrond is de VS bereid geen bronheffing ten laste van Nederlandse FI’s in te houden, ondanks het feit dat het verdrag nog niet in werking is getreden.", in other words, at least for the Netherlands, there seems to be a standard Grace period until 30 September, which the US will take into account with regards to Dutch Financial Organizations; that deadline can even be extended if ratification before 30 September 2016 seems feasible...(Mocht er sprake zijn van een zodanige vertraging in de procedure voor de goedkeuring van de NL IGA dat de streefdatum van 30 september 2015 niet wordt gehaald, dan zal het Nederlandse ministerie van Financiën in contact treden met de ‘US Treasury’. Deze kan beslissen om het achterwege laten van de inhouding van bronheffing te continueren indien het zeker is dat de vertraging beperkt blijft tot een redelijke periode en zo lang naar het oordeel van de ‘US Treasury’ vaststaat dat inwerkingtreding een jaar later (dus 30 september 2016) haalbaar is.)

In other words; more then enough indications that not all agreements have entered into force; and that thus we need a source for entry into force, before we can set a date.... L.tak (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

Unlike all other developed countries, the United States levies income taxes on its citizens, regardless of residency, and therefore requires Americans living abroad to pay U.S. taxes on foreign income.

This statement is untrue. There are other developed countries with the same tax policy. Waydot (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there aren't. In fact, the only other country (developed or not) with the same tax policy is Eritrea. Most countries do tax foreign income, but from residents; citizenship is irrelevant. See the reference at the end of the statement in the article, and international taxation for more details. Heitordp (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its still untrue. The US may levy taxes on its citizens regardless of residency. Example: assume a given non-resident citizen's income may be exempted from taxes (foreign earned income exclusion) and/or their foreign taxes maybe used as an exemption (foreign tax credit) such that the US does not actually levy a tax upon the citizen. In that case, this statement at issue ("the United States levies income taxes on its citizens") clearly contradicts this assumption ("assume ... such that the US does not actually levy a tax upon the citizen"). In my opinion the solution to resolve the conflict is clear: the statement at issue is false and must be modified, and adding a "may" or "might" is in order. This may sound pedantic, but the statement is obviously contentious, so being false, even if only a little false, does not help. Int21h (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IOW the US does not impose taxes on all non-resident citizens in all circumstances, and this statement should reflect this. Int21h (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the statement needs more work, but it is as true as anything in taxes. The quoted statement doesn't say "all". If it did, it might need correction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it did, it would (not might) require correction. And nor does it say "some"; if it did, it might not need correction. But as it stands now, not only is it ambiguous, but the ambiguity causes needless contention. When you weigh needless contention as a reason for changing it against no reason not to change it, it should be changed. Int21h (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The US does not impose taxes on all resident citizens, either. I see no correction required. A possible phrasing which does not significantly change the meaning, except that I don't see a way to state that the US and Eritrea are the only countries, is that the US taxes all citizens as if resident. It's not precisely correct (foreign earned income exclusion; your example of the "foreign tax credit" is faulty.) More relevant to this article, the US requires citizens to file tax returns based on foreign income. The only exception there is not having enough income. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The term "US-residency" also needs to be discussed. It should be noted that there are no official registration procedures for resident American citizens (other than facultative DMV records, voter registration, or tax forms) while many other countries officially register their citizens or residents, independently of their tax status, voting or driving records. It seems absurd to tax people based on their citizenship rather than on their place of official residence, yet, if no official registration procedures exist, there are no other ways to include all those "Americans". Many countries of the world (but not all) tax (and find) people based on official residence status (a registration procedure for all inhabitants of a city or municipality). Some countries that have ratified FATCA actually identify their residents actively but can't or are not allowed to reveal personal and financial information to a foreign state. This is obviously problematic for the US and the FATCA partner countries involved. (2601:7:2300:11F:E2F8:47FF:FE3C:9BDA (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]
But that's largely a seperate issue. There's no requirement for some sort of official residence register to tax residents, which is why countries like New Zealand, Australia and the UK still have the concept of tax residency, despite no official register of residence. The original statement seems to be largely correct in that the US and Eriteria (I seem to recall there was one more mentioned before) are the only countries which tax the income of citizens living and earned overseas provided it meets the taxation threshold (and with possible reductions due to double taxation agreements) regardless of whether they have any connection to the US other than citizenship (e.g. they may have never been to the US nor have any US property). All other countries other than US and Eriteria and perhaps one or two more (possibly North Korea or Myanmar?) have some concept of tax residency and if you're not a tax resident, your foreign earned income isn't the concern to the government you're a citizen of. Let's not forget the US does have the Substantial Presence Test, effectively a form of tax residence but it only applies it to people who aren't US citizens or permanent residents (as stated which is unlike pretty much all of the rest of the world). They also sort of have it in the form of the Physical presence test relating to the foreign earned income exclusion, but in this case it isn't actually a tax residency since they still tax non US income even if you don't meet it, they just give more generous thresholds. Nil Einne (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that some countries do levy overseas income earnt by their citizens living abroad. But this legislation is unique, in effectively extending the operation of US law to the rest of the world.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not its "unique" requires knowledge of the law of every single jurisdiction in the world; we don't know about the law, on the subject of taxation to the extent that we know about US tax law, of any other country besides those of the US. (Even the US is a work in progress, but again it is a massive amount of knowledge compared to any and all other countries. For example, we know damn near nothing about most European countries' tax laws, the UK included. The UK could have been a candidate for such comprehensive knowledge, but its lack of codification makes an equivalent article about its main tax law, e.g., the Internal Revenue Code of which the FATCA is an amendment to, leaves mostly an incomprehensible mess that makes Wikipedia analysis so much more difficult with even fewer possible editors to sort it out.)
US law has always extended throughout the world, and the universe, so much as a US citizen subject to its laws are located there. And the activities of domestic entities in their dealings with foreign entities. And the requirement that you ask the permission of the US governments before you interact with things under its jurisdiction, e.g., its land (a "visa"). Like, well, many, many other countries, and is by no means unique. I think the core of your concern is the lack of comprehensive knowledge of any other laws besides those of the US (which, I should note, requires a significant knowledge of English law). Int21h (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is nothing "unique" about the operation of the law of one country extending to the rest of the world. Indeed, at least one U.S. criminal law applies to citizens of any country for crimes committed outside of any country (for example, on the high seas) where neither the criminals nor the victims were American. And, U.S. federal income tax law technically applies to non-Americans who have never even visited the United States (albeit only in a limited way -- to taxes on income from a U.S. source). Famspear (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Famspear: Can you or anyone else provide examples where a country (other than the United States) imposes their own law on individuals outside the border of the country in question, whether citizens or not? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
@Ottawahitech: Spain and the UK ("international crimes" I believe was the phrase used). Also it should be said that all countries are required to enforce their laws in military occupied territories to keep order per the Geneva conventions; but that all nations of the world only exercise international jurisdiction in "certain circumstances" of war is tantamount to saying the US only exercises international jurisdiction in "certain circumstances" of birth place. In general, war is a classic example where a country "imposes their own law on individuals outside the border of the country in question" (unless and until that territory is annexed; a good example is following the 1889 Treaty of Berlin and 1899 Tripartite Treaty to the 1962 state of Samoa and the 1900/1904/1925/1929, still not sure when it lost independence, US territory of American Samoa), and, albeit from the arguments given from detractors of the Iraq War, war is quite legal in most countries (in the US, a simple legislative declaration will do, no laws or constitutional changes necessary). UN Trusteeships are another example of one country imposing its laws on another, recognized as independent, state. There are more examples I am sure, not one that most laymen would think of, but exist they do regardless. But outside of treaty obligations, Spain is a 24-7-365 application of extraterritorial jurisdiction. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Int21h: Thank you so much for looking up and providing us with all this information. Looks like the phenomenon of countries that attempt to impose their own law on other jurisdictions is rather limited (?) So far we have examples of the United States, Spain and Britain where only the United States is trying to impose its laws on a large group of non-criminals? I wonder if we should try to get some expert opinion from wp:WikiProject Law to enlighten us further? What do others think? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
@Ottawahitech: In terms of "certain-circumstances" extraterritorial jurisdiction, all sovereigns do, and are required to under customary international law, exercise it. Thus the statement "countries that attempt to impose their own law on other jurisdictions is rather limited" is false because one assumes that most countries follow the customary international law (as required by their membership in the UN, I believe). This example is a non-criminal jurisdiction. Only the circumstances in which such jurisdiction is exercised varies. These "circumstances" run the gambit of ecclesiastical, military, criminal, and in this case, other, commonly known as public law, i.e., between the state and private citizens. But yes, WP Law can be queried, but when it comes to nations other than the US, I doubt very many people have any clue what's going on. (The US is the only Western nation with a statutory code that you can download in XML files directly from the government AFAIK.) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 00:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a slightly different "uniqueness" question. No, I haven't researched the laws of countries other than the United States to any significant extent, so I have no way of answering your question. The point I'm making is that for the United States, the international reach of a law like FATCA is nothing unique. Other U.S. laws also reach internationally, such as the income tax laws and the piracy laws I mentioned. Famspear (talk)

Claimed Jim Bopp Legal Challenge[edit]

The article claims that lawyer Jim Bopp has launched a legal challenge to FATCA, according to the reference provided.[1] Perhaps I am misreading this reference, but it seems to suggest only that Mr. Bopp has researched a lawsuit, not that he has gotten involved in a formal legal challenge.Dash77 (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I disagree. Mr Bopp has declared that his Law Firm is "leading the action to abolish FATCA", http://www.bopplaw.com/fatca-takedown Seniorexpat (talk) 21 August 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of a Potential Canadian Federal Court Ruling[edit]

My understanding is that a Canadian federal court ruling would have a tangible benefit to Canadian citizens resident in Canada who are also claimed as US persons, even if the US doesn't recognize the ruling. One reason is that it would prevent data from joint accounts--eg with spouses or business partners--from being handed over to the IRS. This handover of data can severely damage the relationship of a Canadian deemed a "US person" with their non-US family and colleagues--even if they themselves are fully compliant with US tax law.Dash77 (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The US only needs to recognize whether or not Canadian banks are going to inform on US citizens, or have any funds they receive from the US subject to a 30% withholding. And that a country's actions damage the relationship of its citizens with their foreign colleagues is nothing new, nor limited to non-Canadian countries. Int21h (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition[edit]

The following claim would appear to violate the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people: "would not relieve them of their responsibilities to the United States under FATCA, as United States citizens." As the plaintiffs are specific living people and, in fact, dispute that they have any responsibilities at all to the United States, this claim should be removed absent a clear reference.Dash77 (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user User:Int21h has twice removed my inclusion of the template 'BLP sources' from this page. This article makes reference, in the 'Opposition' section, to a lawsuit currently before the Canadian courts filed by two living persons, Ginny Hillis and Gwen Deegan. It further claims that these two women have obligations to the United States government. As these two women, in fact, dispute such a claim, a reference should be provided, or the assertion that they have obligations to the United States government should be deleted. I have again reinserted the 'BLP sources' template on Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and respectfully ask that User:Int21h not delete it again until it has been appropriately arbitrated. I have noted this dispute and requested arbitration at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.Dash77 (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the template (a bit of a weird template on a non BLP page and the names were removed). But wonder: Was the paragraph that was disputed :
  • "On August 11, 2014, in an action supported by the Alliance for the Defense of Canadian Sovereignty, two Canadian citizens filed suit in the Federal Court of Canada challenging the constitutionality of the Canadian law that implements FATCA in Canada. Both of the citizens were born in the U.S., with at least one Canadian parent, but returned to Canada in childhood and have had no residential ties to the U.S. since. They state that this would result in them having U.S. indicia and therefore being discriminated against by Canadian banks."

In that case: what is exactly the unsourced part? L.tak (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Obviously, I support removal of the template, because this is not a biography article. I have nothing to say as-of-yet about anything other than that template. Int21h (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ "Superlawyer Jim Bopp takes on McCain-backed tax act that targets Americans overseas". The Washington Times.

Mayor of London Owes IRS Money, Won't Pay[edit]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/21/365690481/london-mayor-boris-johnson-owes-irs-money-wont-pay I don't know if this relates to this article, but if it does, I hope someone can add the information somewhere. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as is known, his case has nothing to do with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. There ia an article on this guy where his tax problem is mentioned: Boris Johnson. Famspear (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of proof[edit]

I deleted various poorly sourced references in the article "burden of proof" or changes in the burden of proof supposedly found in FATCA.

The provisions of FATCA dealing with burden of proof -- specifically, with certain legal presumptions -- apparently relate only to civil tax issues, not to guilt or innocence in a federal criminal tax case. Stay tuned.... Famspear (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's the deal. FATCA provides that for purposes of imposing the civil monetary penalty for failure to comply with the requirement that a person disclose, in a federal income tax return, specified "foreign financial assets" of over $50,000, the total value of all such assets in the hands of that person is presumed to be over $50,000 if that person does not provide enough information to demonstrate the total value.

FATCA also provides that for purposes of determining whether a taxpayer is treated as the owner of assets ostensibly held in a foreign trust, the burden of proving that the trust satisfies certain requirements is on the taxpayer.

Neither of those provisions changes the burden of proof for guilt or innocence, which are federal criminal tax law concepts. In a federal criminal tax case, the burden is on the prosecutor (not the taxpayer) to prove each and every element of the crime. Famspear (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced "controversies"[edit]

I just noticed that several of the items listed as "controversies" in the article did not even have citations to a source. A given statement about the law might be correct or not, but unless a citation to a source for the statement is shown with that statement, there is simply no evidence of the existence of a "controversy" about the statement. Having several of these statements in the article gave the appearance that these were just things about the law that one or more Wikipedia editors don't like. Famspear (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Some arguably reliable source is needed. Given the subject matter, with its vocal opposition, if a source can't be found the material doesn't belong on Wikipedia. When citing to primary sources, little or no interpretation is acceptable. Int21h (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental American[edit]

Thailand's king Bhumibol Adulyadej is an accidental American as having been born there when it was highly unlikely he would even be in the line of succession, let alone the world's longest serving — and wealthiest — monarch. The end of the lead of his English-language article was recently changed to add: "Officially the assets managed by the CPB are owned by the crown as an institution, not Bhumibol Adulyadej as an individual." −Pawyilee (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Sun: U.S. tax laws, politics pushing more dual citizens to renounce citizenship[edit]

SEE:Talk:FATCA_agreement_between_Canada_and_the_United_States# Vancouver Sun: U.S. tax laws, politics pushing more dual citizens to renounce citizenship. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1st FATCA prosecution 2019[edit]

Hey, WP Eds. I added the historic first conviction under FATCA, but if anyone sees a better section for it, or wants to add to it, please go ahead. 66.44.123.202 (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albania[edit]

Why does it say Albania is not a FATCA country? Rosengarten Zu Worms (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Rodrigue yes a forin guest has decided to pull out of all for Jessi fuxxxx[edit]

It is what it is did I set off Sarah Sarah 2600:1700:7190:41F0:9D07:6DA5:8E5B:927B (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias: "party lines"[edit]

"The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (of which FATCA is a part) was passed on party lines:" The bill passed the US Senate with 70 votes for, well over 2/3rds. The text as written seeks to conceal that fact, falsely stating it was on party lines. That may have been true in the House, but obviously not in the Senate. Clear intention of bias. 37.169.170.214 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act&oldid=1215519795"