Proposal to Repeal FATCA in U.S. Congress

Republican U.S. Congressman Mark Meadows is proposing to repeal “the heart of FATCA” according to Bloomberg.

In the article FATCA Reporting Under Assault in U.S. House Legislation, Bloomberg says:

The law “goes well beyond what is appropriate” and violates U.S. citizens’ constitutional right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, Meadows said in a news release Sept. 7. FATCA also creates “unnecessary burdens,” he said.

The actual bill begins:

“To repeal the violation of sovereign nations’ laws and privacy matters”

The rest is legalese. Any legal minds out there who can decipher this for us?

I’m not certain from reading this article if the bill has actually be introduced in Congress or if it is just proposed. I suspect this will never be passed.

But someone is listening. I would love to have a new version of “Congress has spoken.”

15 thoughts on “Proposal to Repeal FATCA in U.S. Congress

  1. Lynn
    2 question
    1) What is happening with the US banker lawsuit? Trump wants to get rid of stupid regulations.
    2) Will you contact national revenue minister to make certain that Financial institution convert all account balances to US$ before they monitor them?
    Thanks
    If you talk to national revenue minister you may want to pass along the idea if Trump want to change NAFTA he uses congress to overturn FATCA

    • I don’t know what is happening with the U.S. bank lawsuit.

      I will not contact the Minister of Revenue on technicalities of FATCA.  I have and will communicate with her and other Fibbing Libs that no information should be gathered or reported on any aCanadian citizen or resident–as put forward in Scott Brison’s amendment while in Opposition.

      I will, of course, communicate on Charter issues. I have suggested to Trudeau that he tear up FATCA when Donald Trump tears up NAFTA. 

      Unfortunately, a Liberal Hypocrite is a Hypocrite is a Hypocrite.

  2. I think FBAR is far more impact expats. I believe, lots of people renounce their citizenship is because of FBAR not FATCA.
    FBAR is an never-ending reporting requirement, As long as you alive, no matter you have income or not,. think about that if you are 80 years old and Single. no one have the obligation to help you out while you can not file for yourself.
    then, no matter how hard you work while you were young, your saving for late years use will be seized by IRS

    • I renounced my USA citizenship because of both FATCA and FBAR. But you are correct Jessica, “FBAR is an never-ending reporting requirement ,… ” which only makes matters worse. The thought of the requirement to report to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Unit in the USA for the rest of one’s life, really seals the deal in the decision to renounce. Keeping one’s sanity takes a front seat here.

    • @Jessica Are you in Canada?

      IRS CANNOT seize the assets of a Canadian citizen.  CRA will mot do it for them if the person is a Canadian citizen in Canada and Canadian courts have refused to enforce IRS claims in Canada.

    • If the lawsuit does not succeed:
      Lynn would you considering asking the Liberal that a statement about Canadian government is not going to collect US taxes similar to Flaherety comments be sent out to all people reported by FATCA.

      Eliminating revenue from FATCA will make no economic for the American especially if they have to force their banks are forced to report.

  3. Lynn would you or Steve approach the Liberal National Revenue minister to change this in guideline for FATCA. Indicate this will not change your support of Canadian law suit.
    “7.35 When accounts are denominated in a currency other than U.S. dollars, the threshold limits must be converted into the currency in which the accounts are denominated before determining if they apply. For Canadian dollar denominated accounts (or other non-U.S. dollar denominated accounts), this conversion can be done using the spot rate for the relevant date published by the Bank of Canada or a reputable and widely-used financial service.
    Example
    The threshold to be applied to a Canadian dollar denominated preexisting individual depository account when the published Bank of Canada spot rate for December 31, 2015, is “1.0500 CAD” would be CAN$52,500 (US$50,000 * 1.0500).
    However, a Canadian financial institution may treat the Canadian dollar at par with the U.S. dollar in respect of a particular year when the Canadian dollar was, at all times in that year, valued at less than the U.S. dollar. ”

    This last paragraph is stupid and should be removed.
    Can you please see if they will require all Canadian FFI to do an actual conversion. The Canadian dollar is way under par and all this does it increase amount of people caught. If they can not do that they should release a list of companies that are not doing conversion. The Liberal are only following FATCA because Obama is coercing them. They would probably like to do as limited a compliance as possible. please note I am not a Liberal supporter and I think all the major political parties would do exactly the same thing.

    In addition what has Steve heard back from the US banker association?
    I assume that the Trump administration will not fight back but it still have to be overturned. The Trump administration realize that FATCA US bank compliance is a waste of money. Anybody who worked for any banks would know this.

    Tim Geithner did not have the brain power to figure out FATCA was a waste of money His department wrote FATCA and gave the outline to Max Bacus.

  4. Normally you need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in Senate. Schumer has said he will not co-operate with Trump on Dodd Frank which is a Trump priority. I doubt the Republican can overcome the filibuster on FATCA.

    The may try and pass something through budget reconciliation but this may not work and if The Democratic ever get control of Presidency, Senate and House of Representative they can reverse it.
    read this Wikipedia article on reconciliation
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)
    In addition FATCA repeal through reconciliation will only last 10 year because it technically increase deficit.

    You know I never was a US citizen. It would be nice if Americans and ex-American knew the USA parliamentary rules.

    • Keith Redmond posted the following on Facebook earlier this week:

      Congressman Meadows‘ office confirmed that the House FATCA Repeal Bill will be re-introduced when the new Congress convenes in January and the FATCA Hearing will be scheduled when the new Congress is in session. Senator Rand Paul will re-introduce the Senate FATCA Repeal Bill at the same time.

      Keith will testify at a U.S. Congressional Hearing about the devastating effects of FATCA on nine million expats. People interested in testifying can contact Keith at FATCA_Testimonials@outlook.com

      I dont’t know how likely it is to pass or how long it could take. With the Repubs controlling the House and the Senate, I hope they will follow through on the RNC resolution and pass the FATCA Repeal. But I must admit I am very skeptical that they will.

  5. Through a google search, I found this posting on “Americans Overseas for Donald Trump — Stop FATCA.”

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/51szbu/americans_overseas_for_donald_trump_stop_fatca/

    The article gives a strong rationale for getting rid of FATCA and the harm it does to people with US citizenship overseas. One example is this:
    “Indeed, there is a case of an American ESL teacher being unable to collect a victim of terrorism payment from the French government after the Paris attacks, because he was unable to open a bank account thanks to FATCA.”

    Near the bottom of the article are the two paragraphs of the platform of the Republican Party which show the party’s intent to repeal FATCA.

  6. Thanks for the news! Yes, the bill to repeal FATCA because it violates the 4th Amendment is on Mark Meadows’ FB page, which links to the release you posted.

    I love the last sentence which shows support by others:

    “The bill is similar to legislation introduced by Dr. Rand Paul in the Senate and has two original cosponsors—Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC).”

    It is significant that the bill has two cosponsors, as well as being similar to Rand’s bill in the Senate, because all U.S. representatives and 1/3 of the Senate (including Rand this year) will be determined by the upcoming election Nov. 8. If Mark Meadows does not keep his seat in N. Carolina, the reps in S. Carolina might. [N. Carolina is a "purple" state, in-between republican red and democrat blue]. I doubt this bill will move anywhere before the election, but if there is a “red” sweep there can be significant action!

    • Unfortunately most bills that are introduced never reach the floor to come up for a vote. Introducing a bill is often just a publicity stunt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Optionally add an image (JPEG only)