The GDPR route is an interesting idea, but I don't see how it will work. It makes sense that it would be illegal for banks to provide information to a foreign government without consent, but the...
The GDPR route is an interesting idea, but I don't see how it will work. It makes sense that it would be illegal for banks to provide information to a foreign government without consent, but the US techniques for punishing banks are extra-jurisdictional and severe, and the most obvious solution to having both disclosure and non-disclosure be untenable options would be to simply refuse to provide services to US citizens at all, as many banks already do.
Meanwhile, the US seems to have such little regard to people who don't live there that simply keeping the situation as it is seems difficult. Warren, for example, seemed to run in the primary on a platform including making lives for foreign US citizens even more difficult, sacrificing them without any regard in the pursuit of tax evaders. Looking at political view surveys, it appears many Americans would support making it illegal for US citizens to have foreign bank accounts at all.
FATCA likely never intended to target foreigners like Brouwer-Hoogsteen, who have no connection to the U.S., and do not owe a dime in U.S. taxes.
This isn't true. My understanding is that foreigners who happen have US citizenship but have no other connection to the US do owe taxes to the US government, even if they have no US-source income. The only reason why this is often not a problem is that people with accidental US citizenship often live in countries that have higher income taxes. The US taxes all income of citizens, even if those people have never stepped foot in the US for more than a day after their birth.
I don’t see the GDPR doing this, but suppose the bank isn’t allowed to ask whether they have US citizenship or not, and they also don’t share info with the US?
I don’t see the GDPR doing this, but suppose the bank isn’t allowed to ask whether they have US citizenship or not, and they also don’t share info with the US?
The GDPR route is an interesting idea, but I don't see how it will work. It makes sense that it would be illegal for banks to provide information to a foreign government without consent, but the US techniques for punishing banks are extra-jurisdictional and severe, and the most obvious solution to having both disclosure and non-disclosure be untenable options would be to simply refuse to provide services to US citizens at all, as many banks already do.
Meanwhile, the US seems to have such little regard to people who don't live there that simply keeping the situation as it is seems difficult. Warren, for example, seemed to run in the primary on a platform including making lives for foreign US citizens even more difficult, sacrificing them without any regard in the pursuit of tax evaders. Looking at political view surveys, it appears many Americans would support making it illegal for US citizens to have foreign bank accounts at all.
This isn't true. My understanding is that foreigners who happen have US citizenship but have no other connection to the US do owe taxes to the US government, even if they have no US-source income. The only reason why this is often not a problem is that people with accidental US citizenship often live in countries that have higher income taxes. The US taxes all income of citizens, even if those people have never stepped foot in the US for more than a day after their birth.
I don’t see the GDPR doing this, but suppose the bank isn’t allowed to ask whether they have US citizenship or not, and they also don’t share info with the US?