I agree 3Wishes. Banks/government got into a tiswas over the prosecutions and then sold out on FATCA because of it. As the article said:

“The Americans intelligently applied the leverage that had been able to gain” from successfully prosecuting UBS and smaller banks like Wegelin to force Switzerland into an unequal bargain, he concluded.

Tagesanzeiger has a rather critical article on FATCA....the slashes to the IRS budget over the pas few years has made the management of the FATCA Data flood hopelessly impssible. At best, the USA can hope for 0 sum result of FATCA.
LINK

UBS to be probed again by the Justice Dept by the looks of it.

http://www.thelocal.ch/20150205/ubs-...n-probe-report

Frankly, they should get out of the States and say "enough is enough." They can't be made scapegoats for the US's abysmal fiscal policy.

Thanks to US "Exceptionalism" under which International Law, comity and conflict of laws are all subject to pre-emption by US statute and policy, it would make no difference, even if UBS sold off all its US assets.

I remember cantonal banks (when I brought in clients) boasting that b/c they had no US offices or visits, they were immune from USG enforcement. Nonetheless, when I said that the clients were and would remain fully tax-compliant EU and USA, they hurried to write that down.

I would have thought that Postbank would have shared sovereign immunity, but Exceptionalism does away even with that. Hey, we know from recent wars (Grenada ...) that they can and will invade. At will. Or impose draconian penalties and confiscations. Or corporate bankruptcy. The Lehman Brothers affair was, after all, pour encourager les autres. Anybody remember Alphonse D'Amato?

Cross-border bankruptcy is an arcane field of law. And often as not, the US claims pre-emption there too. In cases of political interest. (And FWIW US bankruptcy judges are not Article III judges, which subjects them to control, if only for the dream of future advancement to a District Court bench.)

Looks like Boris might have another go at giving up his US citizenship.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31475945

Will he actually go through with it and how much will it cost him do you think?

Thanks to murphy70 for posting this link on another thread. There's a petition to get rid of FATCA so get signing people.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...broad/dwZ1c5wL

Another person giving up his USA passport...



http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the...me_latest_news

I may be next in line!!!

Senator Rand Paul has proposed a law to repeal Fatca.

"Rand Paul pushes repeal of Obama tax law despised by Americans living abroad
Says Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) has forced many to renounce U.S. citizenship

By Ralph Z. Hallow - The Washington Times - Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Rand Paul, the Kentucky senator and 2016 Republican presidential hopeful, is leading an effort to repeal a tax law prized by President Obama but despised by millions of Americas who live and work outside the United States.

Mr. Paul formally introduced legislation this month in the Senate to reverse the main requirements of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, saying the law has wrongly deprived American ex-patriots of access to banking services, violated their privacy and forced many to renounce their citizenship.

“Not only is FATCA dangerous with respect to the privacy protections owed to every American — home or abroad — it has threatened the livelihood of millions of Americans working or living overseas,” Mr. Paul said."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...law-despised-/

I like Senator Rand Paul more with each passing day.

I'm really glad to see somebody in Washington actually took that step. Here's hoping it garners enough support to get the job done the first time!

I think we all would like to believe that but the key word here is "re-introduce", which implies that the first attempt went nowhere. FATCA, as I see it, is only the tip of the IRS overreach. The Treasury had similar requests for such information from private citizens (and still does). FATCA is a stopgap short-term measure to locate all of the foreign accounts. This will diminish over time and gradually lose significance as a revenue stream. The result is that they will need to find new revenue streams and I suspect this will involve reducing the tax credit and income exclusion so they can claim more tax. So, the real problem remains the citizenship-based tax liability. This is not likely to go away until the same thing happens for foreigners in the US but most foreign governments recognize that the cost is higher than the benefit. If they do pursue this strategy, the concept of 'globalization' will be dead in the water.

Already there are draconian efforts to bring international corporate profits back to the US as a revenue stream. This will suceed until the companies find a way to circumvent this in a way that even further reduces the tax machine in the US.

I remember reading an older post here stating that the US deplores taxation of expatriates in the US while defending their own abuse of their expats. How utterly ironic.

As a follow-up, I've heard that some people believe it is better to have a lawyer's assistance when going through this process. What is the general opinion of this?

I didn't seek a lawyer's assistance and I don't know anybody who did. Not sure what difference a lawyer would make, other than making the process even more expensive and time-consuming.

What? Renouncing or relinquishing? Don't waste your money. You don't need a lawyer for either process.

To renounce you simply contact the embassy/consulate, they'll send you the relevant forms, you make an appointment, turn up at said embassy/consulate, they check the paperwork is correct, you pay your $2,350 fee and then swear the oath and the statement of understanding in front of the consul then sign the two documents. Absolutely no need for a lawyer. To relinquish you'd need to fill in form DS-4079 which helps the embassy/consulate staff decide whether you have a valid case for relinquishment. Otherwise, the process is exactly the same without having to pay the fee.

The various forms are here:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/81606.pdf

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/81607.pdf

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/97025.pdf

Remember that DS-4079 is aimed at people who are trying to determine whether they've lost their citizenship or not. It's not really designed for people who are proving they've committed a relinquishing act.

If you have less than 2 million in assets, then do it yourself. If you have more than that, then do some shuffling prior to renouncing. If reshuffling doesn't seem to work, then it might be good to get legal advice on the consequences of being a "US tax person" after renouncing.

I found this yesterday on IBS's website. Think carefully all you people who are still able to vote in US elections. Choose your candidate well.

http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/06/...ance-on-fatca/

A couple of interesting quotes from the link:

"No wonder that a deVere Group survey undertaken earlier this year revealed that a massive 73 per cent of Americans living overseas are tempted to give up their U.S. passports."

And on the possibility of a GATCA:

"The deVere CEO insists, “I would also urge Americans who care about prosperity and freedom to take up the call to seek to have FATCA repealed. Not only because it is, arguably, one of the most toxic and potentially damaging laws passed in recent times, but because I suspect it is a blue print for worse to come.”

Mr Green explains, “FATCA is paving the way for GATCA, the Global Account Tax Compliance Act. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which is based in France and is the defacto world tax authority, is proposing that accounts opened by foreign nationals be routinely reported to that individual’s homeland tax authorities. It is thought approximately 65 countries could ultimately be involved.

“GATCA – which for Americans would arguably violate the Fourth Amendment – is FATCA on steroids.

“It would take authorised government snooping into innocent people’s financial affairs to a whole new level, it would lead to increased government and statism, it would lead to higher tax burdens for all, it would pose a risk to human rights and a serious threat to data protection, and it would trample all over time-honoured sovereignty, amongst other serious issues”

He concludes: “The best way of halting the dangerous overreach of GATCA in its tracks is to repeal FATCA. As such, presidential candidates owe it to American voters to firmly set out their intentions on this crucial issue.”"

Gee, why is it okay for the US to do this to its own citizens living abroad, but when duals living in the US homeland are threatened with the same suddenly the increased tax, human rights, data protection and country soverignty arguments come out of the woodwork? And why is it a "dangerous overreach" when GATCA is mentioned, but not FATCA?

Given that American internet security is leaking like a sieve

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33017310

it's no wonder they're scared.

America, you gave birth to FATCA and showed the world how to do it - so don't complain when it comes back to bite you. Frankly, I hope it does.

Presidential hopeful Paul Rand is to sue the US government over FATCA.

http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/06/...as/#more-40893

It finally happened. Sen. Rand Paul and six other plaintiffs, including two from Switzerland, filed suit yesterday against the Obama administration challenging the legality of FATCA:

"Rand Paul sues Obama over foreign banking law

FATCA blamed for causing overseas Americans to renounce citizenship

Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday officially sued the Obama administration, seeking to stop it from enforcing a federal banking law that has led large numbers of Americans overseas to renounce their citizenship.In a move with implications for his 2016 presidential bid, Mr. Paul joined six other plaintiffs in a suit filed by Republicans Overseas Action (ROA), arguing that the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit maintains Mr. Paul has unique standing as a plaintiff since it argues the Obama administration violated the right of himself and other 99 senators to advise and consent on agreements with foreign countries."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-banking-law/

That's all well and good, I'm glad it's becoming an issue, and I hope the efforts go somewhere, but I've never been a one issue voter and I'm certainly not about to become one now.

I can't support a platform and a party I loathe so I have what, less annoying paperwork? Who does that?

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Which party would that be?

Tom