FACTA: the unintended consequence for Expatriate US citizens
I have an affinity with the USA, my first manager during a part time job with a UK insurance broker in the 1970’s was an American, a Malcom J Clifford who drove around in a red E.Type. Then, my first full time sales roles in the UK was a happy 8 years spent with SC Johnson, the US company based in Racine in Wisconsin. My first client in Spain was and is an American lady married to an Englishman who both worked offshore before retiring here. And now I have my first grandchild, born in the US, of English parents with my son-in- law working there.
It seems that there are an awful lot of “firsts” that I have to be grateful for, that emanate directly and indirectly from ties with the USA.
On a recent business trip to San Sebastian to look for potential expat clients, the majority seemed to be from the US, not an Englishman in sight. So for a potential niche market a seed was planted.
That was until I researched FACTA and began to understand its complexities, and in many ways its injustices to the individuals that retire or work abroad as US expatriate citizens.
The United States is the only OECD country in the world to tax its citizens based on their citizenship, not residence. It also, as an OCED country, has the fewest percentage of citizens living abroad (according to the US State Department, 7.6 million US citizens work or live abroad out of a population estimate in 2015 of 320,206 million which is only 0.023%). Help might be on its way though via the US Senate Committee on Finance. Hatch and Wyden released the Public Input on Bipartisan Tax Reform (see link below).
The interesting thing to note was that up to the final submission date of the 29th April a total 1,400 submissions were made of which 347 submissions were submitted in relation to “International Tax”. This came second only to an “Individual Income Tax” figure of 448.
Whilst the principle was fine, especially in relation to those that tried to dodge paying tax of any kind, anti terrorism, trafficking et al, the majority of middle class US citizens abroad were, and are, honest citizens, paying tax in their country of permanent residence whilst still trying to desperately retain their American citizenship. The rules are both complex and numerous, and it is easy to fall foul of these, and be penalised. There is a major differential between “large body Corporate” that gets many tax breaks vs the individual and or small company.
The majority of submissions started with “I live in or have lived in for a number of years and paid my taxes in”.
On reading reports on the impact on this legislation I have come to realise that the
“unintended consequences” have been numerous, which is strange for a country that promotes that it is part of the global economy, and believes in freedom of movement etc, democracy and fairness.
There are many different scenarios so I will just highlight a few that have major consequences for individuals living abroad;
- Married couples where one is a non US citizen and not recognised by the US, paying taxes in the country of residence, and the US citizen having to consider giving up their US citizenship because of the losses sustained by being taxed by the US as a single person.
- Onerous paperwork via FACTA, that is not fully understood with very few choices of locally based small accountancy firms that understand it, yet still paying legitimate taxes in the country of residence and having to pay for the filing of local resident taxes too.
- The ability to save for retirement, because local pensions do not comply with US regulations on pensions, and could be subject to tax both on the way in and on exit.
- Currency “ghost gains” applied by the US IRS on a capital gain. Whilst large companies can use a “functional currency”, individuals have to report in US$. If an American bought a primary residence for 200,000 Euros when the exchange rate was 1 EURO = $1.50 ( ie 133,333.33 US$ ) and they sell the same home for 200,000 Euros when1 Euro = $1.00, ( ie 200,000.US$ ) they would have a US taxable gain of $66,666.66 in phantom profit. This same example applies to mortgages and a variety of other investments. In many cases Americans have to pay taxes on these exchange rate gains but cannot use the losses if they occur.
- The substantial reduction in the number of foreign institutions in the country of residence offering banking, savings and investments, that are compliant to the country of residence. This is due to the increase in both legal and compliance costs of these institutions of complying with FACTA. But, a US citizen who is resident in a foreign country cannot open a US sited bank account or investment either.
These are just a few examples, and whilst we cannot change the rules or the reporting procedures, we can at least provide limited financial advice, a range of products and services appropriate to the country of residence to which we operate in, and investment advice that is locally compliant, written in English and available in multi currencies.