This page is not a forum for general discussion about Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
X Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The "controversy" section, longer than the rest of the article, is outdated, hyperbolic and written like an editorial.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)
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.
So have at it. Just remember, just because rich scumbags don't want to support their country doesn't mean they should be censored.
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)
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)
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:
-- Legis ( talk - contribs) 14:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
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:
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]
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)
For the puposes of this article, which wikipedia page should this be linked to. Curently financial account redirects to Capital account. Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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:
(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). X Ottawahitech ( talk) 13:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, this seems like it is potentially getting a bit tetchy, but for what it is worth, my view is:
-- Legis ( talk - contribs) 23:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
This is an American act. Shouldn't the prevailing date format be MDY? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
"... 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In that case: what is exactly the unsourced part? L.tak ( talk) 21:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
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, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 23:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://andysundberg.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/more-on-the-state-department-foi-follies.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://bsmlegal.com/PDFs/FATCA_ANZBankGrp.pdfWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
Why does it say Albania is not a FATCA country? Rosengarten Zu Worms ( talk) 15:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
"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)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
X Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.
So have at it. Just remember, just because rich scumbags don't want to support their country doesn't mean they should be censored.
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)
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)
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:
-- Legis ( talk - contribs) 14:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
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:
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]
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)
For the puposes of this article, which wikipedia page should this be linked to. Curently financial account redirects to Capital account. Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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:
(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). X Ottawahitech ( talk) 13:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, this seems like it is potentially getting a bit tetchy, but for what it is worth, my view is:
-- Legis ( talk - contribs) 23:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
This is an American act. Shouldn't the prevailing date format be MDY? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
"... 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In that case: what is exactly the unsourced part? L.tak ( talk) 21:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
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, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 23:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://andysundberg.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/more-on-the-state-department-foi-follies.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://bsmlegal.com/PDFs/FATCA_ANZBankGrp.pdfWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
Why does it say Albania is not a FATCA country? Rosengarten Zu Worms ( talk) 15:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
"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)