JWalker, it's not necessary to be rude, please. The answers to your specific questions are indeed in the articles and anyone who needs the information will find it there. All three articles carry several quotes from specialists and many links to original sources. These provide support for much of the information. Perhaps I overlooked something you feel was essential or I selected not to back up something that you particularly felt needed it. I'm sorry if that is the case. If there are factual errors, I'm happy to correct them; I will look again. When the articles were posted I asked a handful of specialists to check them carefully for accuracy and not one correction came back to me. Maybe you've read these more carefully than they did, or maybe your interpretation differs, but I will check again.

No, I did not mean to be insulting by suggesting you were not candid: I don't work that way. Your comment seemed a harsh one, based on one bit of text that you pulled out, while you ignored much of the text around it that balances it. I wondered why.

Apologies for the misspelling; I have very little free time on weekends, and it was early in the morning - I think I hadn't yet put in my contact lenses. You're right, of course.

Changing the subject - I don't agree, I'm afraid.

Changing the rules: I'm not sure why it's so important to you to argue they have not changed. The change in enforcement is an important one that is frightening many people, and they need information. If you follow the links in all three articles, you'll find IRS documents that refer to changes. I've written the articles once - I don't think it makes sense to rewrite them here, in bits and pieces.

I also believe it's important to be charitable and try to understand the situations some people find themselves in, how they landed there, and why they are worried. I do mention in one of the articles that the FBAR has been in place for several years, but here's something I didn't include, an example of the kind of catch22 some people face. The FBAR is now a particular worry to people with non-US spouses, given the 23 September deadline to be compliant or face the music, a compliance change announced earlier this year. In the past some people failed to fill out the form in order to avoid breaking Swiss law, as they saw it, if their non-US spouses refused to give permission to list their joint bank account numbers. This was often as a matter of principle, since there wasn't really money at stake, I was told. In two cases, these weren't US citizens, but greencard holders, whose spouses had never spent time in the US and felt strongly that it was immoral for the IRS to even ask for the information.

The sensible, if tedious, solution might have been to set up separate accounts instead of joint ones. But some women, in particular, who moved here with spouses who had jobs (while the woman didn't) were under the illusion that they couldn't even have joint bank accounts, much less accounts in their own names. In some cantons they couldn't, or not easily, until the 1990s. So now these women learn that they must file FBAR forms for past years, meaning they have no choice but to give the IRS information about their non-US husbands' bank accounts, since they share them. Or be non-compliant. They're worried. I've spoken to the IRS in Paris about this in the past week, and the finance ministry in Bern, and I'll be writing more about it. There is no easy way out, and yet these are generally people who acted in good faith, who consider themselves good citizens, but who made mistakes.

I certainly don't mind people disagreeing, or insisting on another point of view; just the opposite. But if you insist on calling this journalism of the worst sort, which makes me think you're mainly interested in picking a fight, let me recommend that people go to the American Citizens Abroad pages on foreign bank accounts and on taxes to see more articles on this. Some people might be interested in checking out the American Int. Club of Geneva's lunch meeting Tuesday Sept. 22 on the new double taxation agreement and what it means. The Association of Americans Resident Overseas also has information on taxes and much more.

First, I didn't call you disingenuous, it was the other way around. Secondly, I didn't raise questions, I pointed out an example of your errors, and you still won't reply to the example I cited twice.

It is important because, you dear lady, claimed that the rules had changed, and that was the central point of the 3-part series, repeated over and over again:

"The Rules Have Changed for Citizens" [headline]
"The Rules Have Changed for Americans"
"the IRS (US tax authority) has imposed new rules"
"US citizens...living outside the US should be aware of new tax rules"
"News of changes to US tax filing requirements"

..and you are in error, and apparently you still do not understand (or will not admit) that simple fact.

I asked you to show us where (in the IRC or CFR) there were any changes in the "rules" or the "filing requirements". Why won't you reply?

As I wrote: Please tell us which "rules" and "filing requirements" are "new" or "have changed". You didn't cite a single new rule in your articles, nor in your post here. Please tell us (by IRC or CFR section)? I don't think you can do so...and I think you know it.

If you claim the answer is in the articles, then you are not telling the truth: there is not citation in the articles to any changes in the tax "rules" or in the filing "requirements".

Changes...in what? Are you trying to change the subject again? There is not one single link to any change in "rules" or "filing requirements". Not one.

The FBAR, as I pointed out, has not changed in over 15 years. So where is this "compliance change"?? Please show us the code or regulation that has changed.

That is not even marginally credible. A Green Card is a permanent US residence card. Isn't it immoral to claim the rights of a resident but not the obligations? Any Swiss would be offended if an American had such an attitude towards Swiss law.

Please tell us what makes you think that would be a "solution"? If the husband has a Green Card, he is a "US person" for tax purposes. Having separate accounts would not change his filing requirements one single bit.

I think maybe we have different views on how post comments and forums should work. I don't think it's fair to readers to get into a detailed discussion of a media article in a separate forum, since they can't just glance at the article, as they can do when it's a comment on a post, and decide for themselves. That's the point of having comments sections. Old journalism = citations everywhere. New journalism = links serve that purpose. Rudeness: probably differ here, too, but I think suggesting that people have a low IQ and saying their work is terrible is rude and unnecessary. Frankly, I'm surprised you expect me to take time to answer you.

Ms. Wallace,
Regardless of how you feel about jwalker46's tone, I think he raised some valid questions. You came to this forum voluntarily and, ostensibly, to 'defend' your article. I, for one, did not realize that journalistic standards had changed from 'reporter does research and presents facts and answers questions about facts' to 'reporter presents sound bites, issues vague ominous warnings, and, when asked, deflects questions and tells reader to do their own research'. Perhaps now you'll better understand those polls that show polls that show journalists to be held in such low regard. If you don't wish to defend your work in a public forum, perhaps you should avoid such venues in the future.

Ms. Wallace, you chose to come here and affirm the accuracy of your articles. It was only after you were shown numerous errors in those articles that you suddenly decided it is the wrong forum [pun intended].

You misrepresent what was written.

I did not state or suggest "people have a low IQ"; I did write that "any [US] citizen who has not been filing [tax returns] is an idiot." If that is too caustic, what would you suggest is a better description of a non-filer? (How about "another UBS client"?) You can have your pick, but while you carp over language the point (which you carefully ignore) remains the same.

I also didn't say your work is "terrible"; I did say it is "negligent and wildly inaccurate". I have provided in the posts above numerous examples of your wildly inaccurate statements, and I think it is fair to argue that your lack of research and understanding of the topic on which you write is negligent.

Now, is it "unnecessary" to say that? I think it is quite necessary, since anyone who came to this forum looking for information, and read your article linked above, would be grossly mislead and misinformed.

Is it "rude" to say that? Well, please suggest a polite synonym for "negligent", though quite candidly by this post you seem to view criticism as per se offensive. (Except for "disingenuous", of course.)

The fact remains that the foundation of your 3-part series is a set of "rule changes" and "new filing requirements" which simply don't exist (except in your imagination).

Another error: I didn't expect you to answer the points I raised. I expected you to run away from discussing them. And, you have done just that.

Swiss radio reports that the IRS has extended the 23rd September 2009 "amnesty" deadline until mid October.

No, it's not confirmed: AP says it talked to an unnamed official who doesn't have authorization to make the announcement, but that the IRS will announce it today. And it's the 23 September deadline for the FBAR form, it appears, reportedly delayed to 15 October.

PHDoofus, thanks for responding. We wouldn't have a comments section on our news site if we didn't believe in public forums. I am quite happy to defend the work, in the right forum, in fairness to readers who want to decide for themselves. I think we owe them that. Initial comments here, fine, but a lengthy dissection of an article(s) belongs where the article is, so people can check easily for themselves.

Bloomberg also reported this story yesterday, and updated it here this morning; it states that a formal announcement will be made today.

Here are links to the IRS and Treasury news releases.

Bloomberg's story describes the postponement as applying to the entire program, and in it clearly notes the FBAR filing date as a separate matter. Also, at least one attorney with clients who have joined this "amnesty" states that the FBAR filing date is waived for people who are participating in the program; see here .

The extension of the IRS' amnesty program which Goldtop posted earlier is now official; see news release here.

Anyone have recommendations for a tax advisor with US tax experience in Zurich?

Am quite concerned due to the FBAR reporting deadline (23 sept, but recently extended to 15 Oct) as I am unfortunately behind the filing deadlines for a few years and really want to clean the slate. Was clearly a mistake on my part, for which I have learned my lesson.

The taxes I would owe, if any, would be minimal due to the FEI credit. Many thanks!

The advice I got (I'm in the same situation) from the IRS guy in Paris was to get one of the online tax programs and use that to file taxes. He also told me I only need to file 2006 - 2008.

Give them a call and see what they tell you, but it sounded fairly painless to me.

Oh, do you have a link showing the deadline extension? Thanks

Most sincerely: "go home" (US) to find an attorney/accountant, but above all don't believe any Swiss national will be expert in our laws (unless that person has practiced law in the US, and has represented clients before the Tax Court or a District Court). There are, of course, US attorneys in Switzerland, but they tend to be very expensive.
Unfortunately, the taxes aren't the problem, it is the penalty imposed on an unreported account. For some light reading to cure insomnia starts with this and also this article, then (most importantly) read this IRS Q&A for question #9.

It is here.

Hidden offshore accounts. That's....argh, it implies that by living a normal life overseas you're hiding stuff. Will not rant...will not rant....

Anyway, here's the text of it, for those interested:

In the interest of stabilizing your blood pressure, it implies no such thing; "hidden" is an adjective, so "hidden offshore accounts" (not reported via TDF-90) are distinguished from "offshore accounts". Why you get exercised about this is beyond me; filing the TDF-90 costs you no money, just a few minutes' time. Care to explain (without ranting)?

Pretty simple, really. I don't live there. I don't have property there. I don't even visit there very often. Why should they care about my personal finances? I don't have a lot - we barely scrape by (I'm not here as an expat on a package). I just don't understand why the US is so hot on taxing and knowing what their former residents are doing.

I don't have anything to hide and I'm scrambling to get things together so I am in compliance with their rules - but that doesn't mean I don't have to like it.

As you might remember, the country was formed due to a revolt against taxation without representation. That's what former residents have now.

Good of the IRS in its statement today to once again mention the changes: "Under special provisions issued in March. . ."

As promised above, I've now carefully reread all three GenevaLunch articles and made one small change to avoid any misinterpretation. JWalker, thanks for pointing it out. The rest is correct as stands, and all the statements queried in this thread have had, still have, links to sources. When people read carefully, in context, they will see that many of the statements commented on in this thread are actually attributed to the specialists attending the Geneva meeting. I would now like to have faith that people here are smart enough to decide for themselves if they find this helpful and well-written, or not.

GenevaLunch has an excellent reputation among a lot of people for thoroughness and credibility: we do our homework, we doublecheck information we pick up elsewhere and we work hard to provide balanced reporting. We strive to avoid the noisiness of many media organizations; these articles reflect the mood of the meeting we were covering.

We clearly won't please everyone all the time, but no media does. I'll bow out of this now, and try to get back to doing what we were asked by a few people to do: join the English Forum and provide helpful information when we have time, since we have something like 160 years of experience of living in Switzerland, as foreigners, among us.

I completely agree with evilshell. The whole thing is a joke. And it's a disgrace.

I was born by accident in the US and I left the US when I was 6. I hardly know anything about it. I went to school here in Europe, I went to university here, my friends are here, I got married here, my child was born here, I work here.... My life is here. How dare they ask me to report what I earn and possibly ask me to pay tax? And all this IRS literature... Imagine what it looks like to a non-native english speaker...

They make my life miserable, just because of this bloody birthplace on all my IDs

It's just like the Mafia.... So much for "The Land of the Free". It has more to do with a dictatorship than anything else!!!

If you find "this bloody birthplace" so burdensome, why don't you just give up your citizenship? (That is not a rhetorical question.) You have a choice, and apparently you choose to keep your US citizenship; why??