I'm the author of the article as well as editor of GenevaLunch, so I'd like to reply to some of the points made here.For a start, the three-part series has as its new peg a highly emotional and non-partisan meeting of 200-plus people in Geneva. It was clear that more information was needed. We've since been asked by American Citizens Abroad if they can reproduce these "excellent" articles and been thanked by several accountants and lawyers who refer to them as "first class", "very helpful" and extremely useful."
Motivation: it's a subject that interests and worries many, many Americans because it's been hard to find information on the current situation. Journalists have the same range of IQs as other groups, thanks.
Language: Our job, as a group of very experienced journalists (I worked for several years for Time, Business Week and the International Herald Tribune, am now editor of GenevaLunch) is to research information thoroughly and present it in a way that people who are not specialists can understand. So no, we don't use industry jargon, and sometimes that means we err on the side of imprecision, but that is not the same as incorrect, and I stand by the correctness of the information.
blonaybear: Thanks for the link, and we can see by the way the articles are being passed around, that a lot of people have indeed found them helpful.
jwalker: To say "The majority is non-compliant" is disingenious on your part - you might have instead quoted this: "The size of the group of non-compliant taxpayers outside the US is difficult to judge, but three tax consultants (see Ed. note below) have told GenevaLunch their experience shows the number is large." You could have noted that the article was about a large and very emotional meeting in Geneva, organized by American Citizens Abroad, Republicans Abroad and Democrats Abroad. And that although this is a direct quote, the reason the source could not be cited more precisely is that the meeting had extraordinary rules: no one's name can be used. There were 200 witnesses to the statement.
pabcbc: No, I didn't say most people are tax cheats: that's your interpretation, but not everyone's. People angry over double taxation do not consider themselves tax cheats.
jwalker: parallels between Swiss and US law - anyone obliged to file both these taxes has plenty of experience comparing them!
goldtop: from one of the articles (and an example of a real case was provided by one of the tax consultants presenting): "The FBAR requires you to list your accounts if 'You have financial interest in, signature authority, or other authority over one or more accounts in a foreign country, and the aggregate value of all foreign financial accounts exceeds $10,000 at any time during the calendar year.' Note there is a link to the IRS document, in our GL article and repeated here.
jwalker: Yes, there is something new about IRS enforcement, which is why the Democrats, Republicans and ACA joined forces to have the meeting. And the details are in the articles.