This post is the fruit of discussions in the Americans in France group on Facebook and lunch with Victoria. Victoria has an excellent blog, The Franco-American Flophouse. We met and became good friends about 5 years ago. She's shuttling back and forth between France and Japan and has gone back to university for a degree in international migration. It's a subject we always talked about from the first time we met.
Now, back to that Facebook group. It's made up of mostly Americans, as its name indicates. It seems to me that most of the participants are fairly recent arrivals. The questions are about obtaining and renewing visas, getting student status, finding some kind of work. There is also a core of very long-term residents who are always answering questions. I'm one of those.
Discussions often turn to food and other comfort items one misses from home or where to find this or that. The other day, I put up the link to the Costco website because the first store in France is due to open in June. It was just information. It turned out to be a can of worms. Most people seemed to like that I posted it, but among the ones who chose to comment, there was a lot of negativity. They see the arrival of Costco as importation of the worst of American consumerism, American products and so on. We have to be French, buy French, shop in an idealized, French movie set.
I don't want to discuss Costco, other than to say I'm fine with seeing it arrive in France. What bothered me in the comments was the attitude of some of my fellow immigrants. They were taking such a superior stance. More French than the French. Got to save French from rampant, evil Americanism. My examples relate to Americans, but you see the same thing among the British, and quite frankly, among other immigrant groups.
This is what Victoria and I spoke about over lunch. She thinks it might be a class thing and she can explain it better. There are the wealthier expats, who are abroad on a company contract and who will return home. In many cases, the trailing spouse can't get a work visa and seeks the company of fellow trailing spouses. Their children get to go to the expensive international schools. Then, there are those who came on their own, married a local, and need to integrate into the local culture. They don't have the money to live the movie-depicted elegant life of an expat. They even consider the term expat derogatory. Yet, if they come from an OECD country, they might not want to call themselves immigrants, either. That's a whole other discussion.
My question is "What's with the attitude?"
I first came to France 47 years ago. I've lived here, permanently, since January 1972. I'm French. I feel perfectly well integrated until someone points out that I still have a pretty little accent. France has changed dramatically since I arrived. More women work. Little shops -- the butcher, the charcutier-traiteur, the cheese shop, the fish monger -- have disappeared. There is still the market, with those stalls, but fewer stalls. I like to knit and sew, but fabric stores have all but disappeared and so have notions. Yes, I get nostalgic for the time I could walk into Nogent and find whatever I was looking for, and now I might have to schlep into Paris or troll the Internet. I take these changes as societal changes that would have happened anyway. Look at the changes in society from 1900 to 1947, the same time period -- or any other 47 year span. Another friend who writes about us with great humor is Harriet Welty Rochefort.
The fact that there are so many "hypermarkets" in France is a purely French phenomenon, not imported from anywhere else, and they have drained the life out of many town centers. Costco will not change that; it's happened, already. In fact, it's the hypermarkets that fought to prevent Costco from entering the French market, not the smaller shops. The fact that hypermarkets usually form a ring around the towns is based on the laws that were passed to protect the town centers from the big stores. Instead, they've killed the towns. They didn't need the influence of Walmart for size or for discount stores. The result is, in my opinion, a disaster for many cities and towns all over France. In France, the discount store phenomenon comes from Germany. The same thing has happened in England. There's no turning back the clock, though. Feeling sorry that the Singer store is gone is not going to prevent me from going to Lidl to pick up the sewing machine on special sale. The fact that we have a grocery store on the corner that sells almost everything we want doesn't stop us from going to Auchan to stock up. This is something that the French do. It's something people do. We go for less expensive options.
Now, what about the attitude of turning up your nose when people mention their cravings for things from "home"? Or for the familiarity of a brand or the name of a store? I like to think of these cravings as the impetus for diversity, from all sectors. We go to the 13th arrondissement in Paris to buy Oriental specialties because of the influence of the Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Chinese population, there. There are supermarkets dedicated to those products. Anyone complaining about the imperialism? We can even find small bottles of soy sauce locally! Yes, we can now find Oreo cookies (made in Spain) in France, now. But in the US, Americans now have Lu! Is it because of the cravings of the Americans in France that McDonald's is so successful? I don't think so. If the French didn't want to go to McDonald's, they'd shut down. (I'm not a fan of McDo, so if they counted on some sort of American faithfulness to anything sounding American, they'd shut down.) When newcomers arrive, they might love what they find, here, and still miss things from home. As time goes on, either they find substitutes, discover that whatever they were craving is now available, here. As we get older, our tastes change, too, so we just don't crave for what we did when we were twenty. I no longer have a list of things to bring back from the US.
I hate getting the question on whether I cook American or French food. I cook food. I do not make a point by not making a good hamburger if in the mood. I do not go out of my way to make boeuf bourguignon, either. I welcome the newcomers with their questions and concerns. I'm friends with the long-term immigrants.
Showing posts with label Victoria Ferauge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Victoria Ferauge. Show all posts
Saturday, May 13, 2017
Thursday, March 27, 2014
OAW - Day 2, Day 3, no time to write
There's the objective of keeping everyone posted on Overseas Americans Week. Then there's the reality of just not being able to sit down and write something. Forget about tweeting -- it's just not for me. Look at the logistics. If I leave the wifi on all the time on my phone, I'll wear down the battery. Plus, we don't always have decent wifi. I've got a pre-paid card (and in the US, that's not a really cheap option, just marginally less expensive than the 7-day plan I could have gotten on SFR with my French number) so I don't want to leave it on data mode, either. We don't have time to get out the computer all the time, either. I have managed to sit down, maybe once during the "work" day, each day, to connect myself, post a facebook update, or something.. But I also want to take the time to assemble my notes, so I can't spend all that time on internet.
I do want to thank the readers who have tweeted, referring their followers to my posts, and those who have shared on Facebook. My readership has spiked. My blog is not really intended for wide readership, but on these occasions, I do appreciate it.
Back to these last two days. Tuesday was a day full of meetings. We can't give the details of the talks. We have our position papers and this year we are talking a lot about banking discrimination both from the US side and the foreign side. I think we all know about the banking discrimination. I've talked about it enough; so has Victoria. And we'll continue to gripe. And when you talk about the discrimination on the part of foreign financial institutions, you talk about FATCA.
The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Traveler Card. (APEC card) is something new. The US is one of the 27 partners in APEC and the card is to allow business travelers from member economies to have streamlined immigration procedures when entering member territories. All the member economies have issued the cards except the US, which passed the law authorizing the cards in 2011. Homeland Security has not yet issued the cards, so we are asking legislators to put some pressure on. This has raised lots of eyebrows. It's something to aid commerce. US commerce.
The staff members we meet in legislators offices are very receptive to our positions. It's surprising how many of them have parents, siblings, friends living in foreign countries who have let them know already of our issues. They just didn't realize how widespread they were. Since I was privileged to have participated in this last year, it's also nice to go into some offices and see familiar faces -- we're bringing them up to date.
There are other meetings with administration representatives, like the one with Nina Olson on Monday and the one at the State Department this morning. I was at a meeting in Senator Toomey's office this morning, so I missed the State Department meeting, but I know it lasted a full hour longer than was scheduled, because I was saving seats for everyone for a long, long, long time at the Longworth cafeteria. That's always an important meeting where the citizenship questions are raised, and consular services....
I did mention spotty internet at the beginning. I interrupted this post for dinner and had no internet afterwards. So, Day 4 is dawning and I'm sending this off before we get cut off again.
I do want to thank the readers who have tweeted, referring their followers to my posts, and those who have shared on Facebook. My readership has spiked. My blog is not really intended for wide readership, but on these occasions, I do appreciate it.
Back to these last two days. Tuesday was a day full of meetings. We can't give the details of the talks. We have our position papers and this year we are talking a lot about banking discrimination both from the US side and the foreign side. I think we all know about the banking discrimination. I've talked about it enough; so has Victoria. And we'll continue to gripe. And when you talk about the discrimination on the part of foreign financial institutions, you talk about FATCA.
The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Traveler Card. (APEC card) is something new. The US is one of the 27 partners in APEC and the card is to allow business travelers from member economies to have streamlined immigration procedures when entering member territories. All the member economies have issued the cards except the US, which passed the law authorizing the cards in 2011. Homeland Security has not yet issued the cards, so we are asking legislators to put some pressure on. This has raised lots of eyebrows. It's something to aid commerce. US commerce.
The staff members we meet in legislators offices are very receptive to our positions. It's surprising how many of them have parents, siblings, friends living in foreign countries who have let them know already of our issues. They just didn't realize how widespread they were. Since I was privileged to have participated in this last year, it's also nice to go into some offices and see familiar faces -- we're bringing them up to date.
There are other meetings with administration representatives, like the one with Nina Olson on Monday and the one at the State Department this morning. I was at a meeting in Senator Toomey's office this morning, so I missed the State Department meeting, but I know it lasted a full hour longer than was scheduled, because I was saving seats for everyone for a long, long, long time at the Longworth cafeteria. That's always an important meeting where the citizenship questions are raised, and consular services....
I did mention spotty internet at the beginning. I interrupted this post for dinner and had no internet afterwards. So, Day 4 is dawning and I'm sending this off before we get cut off again.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Here I go again -- FATCA
Okay, if you are sick of hearing about FATCA from me, just stop reading this post, now. You might want to read a really nice post about Bastille Day and see some remarkable pictures: arunwithaview.wordpress.com
This is not about the US and FATCA. The US has created a little wagon and that is growing into a train. Let me add that the wagon is a bit of a runaway, so that the others that want to hitch on to it are going to have a hell of a ride. While there is starting to be some debate in the US about getting rid of FATCA, on this side of the ocean, they starting to think that the US may be on to something and "we" should do it, too.
TS, one of the people I met up with in Brussels a couple of months ago, sent me these links to some videos he found: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
TS wanted to know what they were saying. They're in French, not English. So, I watched.
Between the solid lined is the body of my email to T:
________________________________
Before getting on to what they said, I did some very quick research into who the speakers are:
MD opened with announcing there is confusion between what the US is doing and the rest of the world. She went on with a summary of what FATCA means -- collecting the bank data on US "ressortissants", both individuals and corporations (which we know means US persons). She then said there were differences between those countries that signed IGAs and those that have not. For the most part, discussions are about how to comply and or reach an IGA, not about implementing their own comparable legislation. Considering how hard it has been for the last 10 years to get Luxembourg and Austria to agree to current EU data sharing, she hopes that FATCA will bring them around. Her conclusion is that France be a leader and should enact its own version of FATCA as a step towards EU law, not wait for the EU to act first.
ES said the the EELV had come up with such a law proposal but that the government has amended it to say only that if the EU enacts such legislation, it would apply immediately in France. She wants France to enact first, because FATCA is a model and has shown it is possible and that it is time to stop the "laissez-faire" attitude that allows frauds to wait out.
PC emphasized that the US is the biggest market, so it has great clout because no one wants to be excluded. And the US has its own fiscal paradise: Delaware. He said the US was right to do FATCA the way they are, but that here there are difficulties to such an approach. He said that LU, CH, AT will come around, but the City (UK) remains the 1st offshore platform in the world and will not. So, we need to work on EU consensus and start it here (in France) first. He thinks working on public opinion will be effective in the long term in the UK.
M-NL thinks we need a French law and the Senate has started the process of thinking it out. Bercy (French finance ministry) is against France taking action as it would necessitate the renegotiation of every bi-lateral treaty (so she says, better to get started now, then). She says we (FR) could start with selected countries: those with which agreement is mostly guaranteed and those with which France can apply political pressure. She said we could and should do it. We have the means (secret services and current data sources). We can start also within the EU with "coopération renforcée" (enhanced cooperation) among a few EU countries.
NDA is also in favor of French enacting a FATCA-type law. And doing it first, because he does not think there is a need for an EU law. He is astonished that the French administration is contemplating an IGA with the US that does not guarantee reciprocity. If that is the case, it should not be ratified by parliament. (MD said that France foresees a reciprocity IGA, but with the knowledge that the US is not ready to comply.) He also suggested that France could use the same leverage (no access to our market) rather than judicial debate...
------------------------
Video 2
JM opened with the question: why don't we do the same?
SC said, of course, we can. France, alone, might be too small, but in conjunction with others, why not? Rules and procedures will be necessary for data protection.
AP said that there is a need for safeguards, but the info is already there, already collected for police enquiries, not for general fiscal collection. He said, though, that trusts remain opaque and that many frauds are outside the commercial banks, in private, "family" banks in Jersey, Guernsey, etc.
----------------------
My take:
No matter how much we might want to see FATCA go away, it won't. Even if the US turns against it, the cat is out of the bag. It'll grow into a global monster. I might not want it, but, actually, as a compliant taxpayer, I can live with it -- as long as discrimination against me is not allowed. As the case stands, now, there is discrimination.
I'm of a mind to write to the people who spoke in these videos. For them it's about banks and frauds, not about real people. Also, where the US wants info on its "persons", every other country is only interested in its "contribuables", taxpayers, who, based on residency-based-taxation, do not include their citizens who live outside the country. (But then, I am a pessimist on that count, too, as I think some countries consider the US system of citizen-based-taxation to be something to aim for! I know François Hollande does!)
_______________________
After all that, I then wrote to those deputies and senator and pleaded for them to consider the average expat/immigrant, who is not a fraud, who is simply living and working in a country, who is not really the target of FATCA. I asked that if they are really considering such legislation, that they think first -- something the US Congress neglected to do. That if France signs an IGA, that it hold off enforcement until the US can assure reciprocity. That they insist that financial institutions in signatory countries not be able to discriminate against nationals of those countries, and have due recourse in case of discrimination, that they define "foreign account" so that accounts in the country of residence not be considered "foreign".
But let's face it. I'm sick of writing to senators, deputies, representatives here, there, and everywhere. I'm sick of writing about it to you. I'm about ready to give up.
And that's it for today. It's a beautiful day. Here's that link, again, to that nice post about Bastille Day and great pictures: arunwithaview.wordpress.com
This is not about the US and FATCA. The US has created a little wagon and that is growing into a train. Let me add that the wagon is a bit of a runaway, so that the others that want to hitch on to it are going to have a hell of a ride. While there is starting to be some debate in the US about getting rid of FATCA, on this side of the ocean, they starting to think that the US may be on to something and "we" should do it, too.
TS, one of the people I met up with in Brussels a couple of months ago, sent me these links to some videos he found: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
TS wanted to know what they were saying. They're in French, not English. So, I watched.
Between the solid lined is the body of my email to T:
________________________________
Before getting on to what they said, I did some very quick research into who the speakers are:
- Mathilde Dupré is the moderator of the first video is a member of Europe Ecologie Les Verts (EELV), (no longer)* a deputy in the French Parliament, member of the Finance, General Economy, and Budget Control Commission. At the CCFD-Terre solidaire, a leftist-Catholic association, Mathilde Dupré is the lead in pleading against fiscal fraud.
* I mis-identified her as a currently a deputy in my email.
- Éva Sas is also an EELV deputy, member of the Finance, General Economy, and Budget Control Commission.
- Pascal Cherki is a deputy, member of the Parti socialiste, and member of the Commission des finances
- Marie-Noëlle Lienemann is a member of the Parti socialiste, a senator and former member of the European Parliament. She is currently attached to the EELV
- Nicolas Dupont-Aignan is president of Debout la République, a gaullist party, and he is co-president of the parti européen UE. He is a deputy.
- Jean Merckaert is the moderator of the second video. He is editor-in-chief of www.Revue-Projet.com, previously with :
- CCFD-Terre Solidaire,
- FICONPAZ. Within CCFD (Comité catholique contre la faim et pour le développement) he pleads for financing developing countries and in that role is a leader against fiscal paradises...
- Serge Colin is the head of the union of tax agency employees (secrétaire général du syndicat national unifié des impôts (SNUI)).
- Antoine Peillon: is a Journaliste at La Croix, was formerly at Le Monde, La Tribune, Le Figaro, InfoMatin, Le Point, L’Express, VSD, La Vie, Terre Sauvage, Grands Reportages. He blogs on Médiapart: blogs.mediapart.fr/
blog/antoine-p…
MD opened with announcing there is confusion between what the US is doing and the rest of the world. She went on with a summary of what FATCA means -- collecting the bank data on US "ressortissants", both individuals and corporations (which we know means US persons). She then said there were differences between those countries that signed IGAs and those that have not. For the most part, discussions are about how to comply and or reach an IGA, not about implementing their own comparable legislation. Considering how hard it has been for the last 10 years to get Luxembourg and Austria to agree to current EU data sharing, she hopes that FATCA will bring them around. Her conclusion is that France be a leader and should enact its own version of FATCA as a step towards EU law, not wait for the EU to act first.
ES said the the EELV had come up with such a law proposal but that the government has amended it to say only that if the EU enacts such legislation, it would apply immediately in France. She wants France to enact first, because FATCA is a model and has shown it is possible and that it is time to stop the "laissez-faire" attitude that allows frauds to wait out.
PC emphasized that the US is the biggest market, so it has great clout because no one wants to be excluded. And the US has its own fiscal paradise: Delaware. He said the US was right to do FATCA the way they are, but that here there are difficulties to such an approach. He said that LU, CH, AT will come around, but the City (UK) remains the 1st offshore platform in the world and will not. So, we need to work on EU consensus and start it here (in France) first. He thinks working on public opinion will be effective in the long term in the UK.
M-NL thinks we need a French law and the Senate has started the process of thinking it out. Bercy (French finance ministry) is against France taking action as it would necessitate the renegotiation of every bi-lateral treaty (so she says, better to get started now, then). She says we (FR) could start with selected countries: those with which agreement is mostly guaranteed and those with which France can apply political pressure. She said we could and should do it. We have the means (secret services and current data sources). We can start also within the EU with "coopération renforcée" (enhanced cooperation) among a few EU countries.
NDA is also in favor of French enacting a FATCA-type law. And doing it first, because he does not think there is a need for an EU law. He is astonished that the French administration is contemplating an IGA with the US that does not guarantee reciprocity. If that is the case, it should not be ratified by parliament. (MD said that France foresees a reciprocity IGA, but with the knowledge that the US is not ready to comply.) He also suggested that France could use the same leverage (no access to our market) rather than judicial debate...
------------------------
Video 2
JM opened with the question: why don't we do the same?
SC said, of course, we can. France, alone, might be too small, but in conjunction with others, why not? Rules and procedures will be necessary for data protection.
AP said that there is a need for safeguards, but the info is already there, already collected for police enquiries, not for general fiscal collection. He said, though, that trusts remain opaque and that many frauds are outside the commercial banks, in private, "family" banks in Jersey, Guernsey, etc.
----------------------
My take:
No matter how much we might want to see FATCA go away, it won't. Even if the US turns against it, the cat is out of the bag. It'll grow into a global monster. I might not want it, but, actually, as a compliant taxpayer, I can live with it -- as long as discrimination against me is not allowed. As the case stands, now, there is discrimination.
I'm of a mind to write to the people who spoke in these videos. For them it's about banks and frauds, not about real people. Also, where the US wants info on its "persons", every other country is only interested in its "contribuables", taxpayers, who, based on residency-based-taxation, do not include their citizens who live outside the country. (But then, I am a pessimist on that count, too, as I think some countries consider the US system of citizen-based-taxation to be something to aim for! I know François Hollande does!)
_______________________
After all that, I then wrote to those deputies and senator and pleaded for them to consider the average expat/immigrant, who is not a fraud, who is simply living and working in a country, who is not really the target of FATCA. I asked that if they are really considering such legislation, that they think first -- something the US Congress neglected to do. That if France signs an IGA, that it hold off enforcement until the US can assure reciprocity. That they insist that financial institutions in signatory countries not be able to discriminate against nationals of those countries, and have due recourse in case of discrimination, that they define "foreign account" so that accounts in the country of residence not be considered "foreign".
But let's face it. I'm sick of writing to senators, deputies, representatives here, there, and everywhere. I'm sick of writing about it to you. I'm about ready to give up.
And that's it for today. It's a beautiful day. Here's that link, again, to that nice post about Bastille Day and great pictures: arunwithaview.wordpress.com
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Spring in Brussels
Yesterday, I attended the EU hearing on FATCA, on behalf of AARO, in Brussels, with Victoria Ferauge, B.J., and M.E. Apologies for not letting Brussels friends know that I was coming. I didn't know, either, until late last week and once it was decided I'd go, I knew that it would be a packed day with no time to meet up or call.
First of all, you can also read about our day from Victoria's perspective on her blog, The Franco-American Flophouse. I really recommend her blog for the variety and interest of her subjects and her excellent writing.
Victoria and I were both traveling from Paris to Brussels and I managed to get on the same train and into the same car, so we sat together and got better acquainted. We'd already met once last year at the library. I'm always amazed at how little time it takes -- less than an hour and a half. I had a scare on my way to the station, though; the RER A was having one of those days of slowly limping from station to station and then sitting in the stations for a while. I was afraid I'd be late. But I wasn't and we had a good trip.
We got to Brussels, hopped into a cab and were delivered to the restaurant, where one of our little group was already waiting for us. He's also a dual national, living in Scandinavia. Surprise! The weather report for Paris was for more cold and rain and we are so used to that now that the sun and warm temperatures were almost a shock. We ate outside on the terrace! And we ate well, in case you're interested: Pasticcio.
The EU hearing on FATCA was scheduled for 3:30, so we had plenty of time. The Altiero Spinelli building is imposing, modern and the plaza in front of it is hosting a beautiful photo exhibit. What on earth inspired us to scout the area and find out if there was any particular procedure to get in? I have no idea, but we were well-inspired. It turns out that a meeting open to the public does not mean that J. Q. Public can just go in and sit down. You need an escort to get into the building. And we discovered that wifi access was not as easy to find as we thought. M. found the phone number of the MEP Victoria had been in contact with, Sophie in't Veld, MEP from the Netherlands. My phone to make the call and Victoria, as the one who had been the contact person, speaking, we got through to Emily, who immediately called us back to tell us to meet her at the entrance. I imagine we were interrupting her work, but if we were, she did not show it. She and another staffer, Thomas, took us to the registration office, got us our badges, and escorted us into the building and all the way to the meeting room in the most friendly and welcoming way. If you are reading this, Emily and Thomas, you should know how your taking care of us made us feel so welcome. Thank you.
So pampered, we were there early enough to choose our seats. There are only about 20 "public" seats in the room and once the meeting started, it was S.R.O. The official attendees straggled in, but Sophie in't Veld was early enough for us to be able to introduce ourselves to her and chat. Lucy Laederich, president of AARO and US Liaison for FAWCO, had sent her a letter earlier and although there will be more in our report, I can say here, that in the hearing, it was obvious that she took it to heart.
B.J. arrived a little later. She had been delayed by the procedure to get in. I have since learned that another AARO member came, but was not able to get in. If only we'd known that he was coming, we could have gotten him in with us.
The hearing was streamed on the Internet and, from comments, it looks like it was OK. I think this is it - it seems I don't have the proper extension on my browser to watch. Here's a briefing describing what's going on, so far concerning the US and the EU on the FATCA front.
After the hearing, in the hall outside the meeting room, we more or less ran into some of the participants at the meeting and were able to chat with them. This was exciting because they were truly interested in learning how EU citizens, not just banking institutions, were being affected, because of their dual nationalities or partnerships with Americans. There is a real problem of discrimination that they had no idea of. They also gave us good tips to contact other important MEPs and EU commissions.
We had time for a short, informal debriefing around a beer or a coke and walked a bit before catching a cab back to the station. It was a good thing we had our jackets, because the bad weather did come to Belgium, although we did not get rained on too much. On the ride back to Paris, we learned that the wifi access on the train is not all it's cranked up to be.
First of all, you can also read about our day from Victoria's perspective on her blog, The Franco-American Flophouse. I really recommend her blog for the variety and interest of her subjects and her excellent writing.
Victoria and I were both traveling from Paris to Brussels and I managed to get on the same train and into the same car, so we sat together and got better acquainted. We'd already met once last year at the library. I'm always amazed at how little time it takes -- less than an hour and a half. I had a scare on my way to the station, though; the RER A was having one of those days of slowly limping from station to station and then sitting in the stations for a while. I was afraid I'd be late. But I wasn't and we had a good trip.
We got to Brussels, hopped into a cab and were delivered to the restaurant, where one of our little group was already waiting for us. He's also a dual national, living in Scandinavia. Surprise! The weather report for Paris was for more cold and rain and we are so used to that now that the sun and warm temperatures were almost a shock. We ate outside on the terrace! And we ate well, in case you're interested: Pasticcio.
The EU hearing on FATCA was scheduled for 3:30, so we had plenty of time. The Altiero Spinelli building is imposing, modern and the plaza in front of it is hosting a beautiful photo exhibit. What on earth inspired us to scout the area and find out if there was any particular procedure to get in? I have no idea, but we were well-inspired. It turns out that a meeting open to the public does not mean that J. Q. Public can just go in and sit down. You need an escort to get into the building. And we discovered that wifi access was not as easy to find as we thought. M. found the phone number of the MEP Victoria had been in contact with, Sophie in't Veld, MEP from the Netherlands. My phone to make the call and Victoria, as the one who had been the contact person, speaking, we got through to Emily, who immediately called us back to tell us to meet her at the entrance. I imagine we were interrupting her work, but if we were, she did not show it. She and another staffer, Thomas, took us to the registration office, got us our badges, and escorted us into the building and all the way to the meeting room in the most friendly and welcoming way. If you are reading this, Emily and Thomas, you should know how your taking care of us made us feel so welcome. Thank you.
So pampered, we were there early enough to choose our seats. There are only about 20 "public" seats in the room and once the meeting started, it was S.R.O. The official attendees straggled in, but Sophie in't Veld was early enough for us to be able to introduce ourselves to her and chat. Lucy Laederich, president of AARO and US Liaison for FAWCO, had sent her a letter earlier and although there will be more in our report, I can say here, that in the hearing, it was obvious that she took it to heart.
B.J. arrived a little later. She had been delayed by the procedure to get in. I have since learned that another AARO member came, but was not able to get in. If only we'd known that he was coming, we could have gotten him in with us.
After the hearing, in the hall outside the meeting room, we more or less ran into some of the participants at the meeting and were able to chat with them. This was exciting because they were truly interested in learning how EU citizens, not just banking institutions, were being affected, because of their dual nationalities or partnerships with Americans. There is a real problem of discrimination that they had no idea of. They also gave us good tips to contact other important MEPs and EU commissions.
We had time for a short, informal debriefing around a beer or a coke and walked a bit before catching a cab back to the station. It was a good thing we had our jackets, because the bad weather did come to Belgium, although we did not get rained on too much. On the ride back to Paris, we learned that the wifi access on the train is not all it's cranked up to be.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
OAW (Overseas Americans Week)
It was an exciting week, especially for a newbie, like me. Our week started on Sunday evening with a get-together to make sure all the meetings were covered, that there were no conflicting appointments, and that, when possible, someone from each organization (AARO, ACA, and FAWCO) was in on each meeting. It was also the first occasion for some of us to put faces on the people we'd been emailing. To start, Julie, who was our scheduler for this week, did a wonderful job and continued to do so throughout the week as the calendar of appointments needed tweaking.
My main job, as a newbie, was to attend as many meetings as I could and to quietly take notes. I did pipe up occasionally, but it is better in a meeting with one staffer and 3 or 4 of us for only one of us to be presenting our issues. I am still not finished with my notes for the last day, but I did want to write my impressions this morning.
First, we have many topics of interest. This year, we agreed to try to limit ourselves to presenting only taxation, banking and voting issues. FATCA, which is now an acronym well-known to Americans living overseas, is the link between taxation and banking, thus bundling taxation, banking and FATCA into a single major sore point. (If you don't know, FATCA, stands for Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and just click on the link if you really want the details.)
ACA has written a proposal for residence-based-taxation and AARO and FAWCO support this proposal, so that was the main issue at most meetings. Everyone in Washington is talking about tax reform and the president mentioned it, himself, in the State of the Union speech on Tuesday. It's on everyone's mind, but reform will not even begin to be discussed until after the whole business of "the sequester" is over. What residence-based-taxation means is that we Americans who live and work outside the United States would be taxed in the same way as non-resident aliens. Income earned on assets in the US and income earned in the US would be subject to a withholding tax, between 15% and 30%, depending on tax treaties with countries. So, the US would get that tax revenue and the resident abroad would be able to take tax credits in his or her home country. It would be so simple. There are points to deal with how to define a resident overseas (not military or State Department employee who has US-sourced income, nor residents of determined tax havens, nor short-term stints abroad (study programs, sabbaticals, etc.). Accounts in the home country would not be subject to FATCA regulations and there would be no more problems of non-reciprocity of retirement accounts. Accounts in countries where one may have left accounts whilst moving around would still be considered foreign accounts. And there were questions about the treatment of accounts in home countries of US-resident aliens, but it seems that, as now, for residents in the US, alien or citizen, all accounts elsewhere would be foreign. (Victoria Ferauge has just written a piece on the FATCA meeting at OECD this week in Paris. There may be hope.)
FATCA is half of the banking problem. Foreign banks will have to comply with I.R.S. regulations to report on the accounts of US tax-persons (citizens, green-card holders). If there is an inter-governmental agreement, the reporting will be done through the governments and if not, the banks will report directly to the I.R.S. This opens up a Pandora's box of problems: reporting complications for the US-tax persons, reporting costs for the banks, information security concerns.... The easy solution for banks is to simply get rid of US-tax persons' accounts, especially investment accounts. The result is that we are being shut out of accounts and business partnerships and jobs that involve signatory authority. It affects personal lives and business. It affects business development for US companies trying to export abroad. If residence-based-taxation were to become the norm, as it is in every other country (except Eritrea, North Korea, and the Philippines), FATCA would no longer apply to our local accounts because we would no longer be US-tax persons.
The other half of the banking problem is in the Patriot Act, which requires banks and brokerages to "know your customer". They seem to interpret to mean the customer must live in the US. Therefore they are shutting out their customers who now live abroad and they haven't allowed such customers to open accounts for years. Some are closing US-held retirement accounts arbitrarily, subjecting the customer to early-withdrawal penalties and taxes. There is a letter from the State Department and another from the treasury saying that this is a misinterpretation and we can have accounts in the US, but the banks are still making the commercial decision against us. So, if you can't have an account in your home country and you can't maintain an account in the US, you are in a real bind. Of course, the FATCA regulations may yet apply to US banks if there is reciprocity between countries.
The proposal was very well-received in both chambers by both parties and by the heads of the key committees. It's a good start.
What else?
Carolyn Maloney and Representative Honda have co-sponsored HR597, a bill to establish a commission how Federal laws and policies affect Unites States citizens living in foreign countries. We are encouraging all to write their representatives to support this bill, especially if the representative is on one of these committees: House Education and the Workforce; House Energy and Commerce; House Financial Services; House House Administration; House Oversight and Government Reform; House Judiciary; House Ways and Means. In our meetings at the Senate side, we asked the staffers to consider advising their Senators to introduce a sister bill. Again, in both houses, on both sides of the aisle, this bill was well-received.
AARO presented Ms. Maloney the plaque for the award we gave her last summer. At the time, we gave her a certificate, in Paris. We then had a good, long, discussion with her, talking about the pleasant reception her bill seems to be getting, the need for more sponsors, the work of the Americans Abroad Caucus, and our objectives for OAW. I don't have a picture of that; I was hoping to have received the others' photos.
We also reported that overseas voting was improving. Unfortunately, many voters did not receive their ballots in time, again, and we expressed concern that this kind of problem could get worse if the postal service does away with Saturday pick-up, sorting, and delivery as scheduled. The Election Assistance Commission may not survive cutbacks and there is no indication of what might take its place or how its work could be taken over by other entities.
There was a meeting at the State Department to discuss citizenship issues. There are what they call efficiency bills, slight modifications to existing legislation, to allow single US-citizen mothers to be able to transmit citizenship more easily, but no change is in the works for single fathers. The whole issue of how unwed parents transmit will not be overturned as it would negate the citizenship of all those who had acquired citizenship under it.
We each had 6, 7, 8 meetings a day for four days. There were some left-over meetings to go to on Friday that I was unable to attend for a grand total of 82 meetings. I was very glad to be part of it and hope to be able to go next time, not as a newbie, but as someone ready to present our interests. It would be nice, some day, to be able to say there are no issues. Wishful thinking.
My main job, as a newbie, was to attend as many meetings as I could and to quietly take notes. I did pipe up occasionally, but it is better in a meeting with one staffer and 3 or 4 of us for only one of us to be presenting our issues. I am still not finished with my notes for the last day, but I did want to write my impressions this morning.
First, we have many topics of interest. This year, we agreed to try to limit ourselves to presenting only taxation, banking and voting issues. FATCA, which is now an acronym well-known to Americans living overseas, is the link between taxation and banking, thus bundling taxation, banking and FATCA into a single major sore point. (If you don't know, FATCA, stands for Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and just click on the link if you really want the details.)
ACA has written a proposal for residence-based-taxation and AARO and FAWCO support this proposal, so that was the main issue at most meetings. Everyone in Washington is talking about tax reform and the president mentioned it, himself, in the State of the Union speech on Tuesday. It's on everyone's mind, but reform will not even begin to be discussed until after the whole business of "the sequester" is over. What residence-based-taxation means is that we Americans who live and work outside the United States would be taxed in the same way as non-resident aliens. Income earned on assets in the US and income earned in the US would be subject to a withholding tax, between 15% and 30%, depending on tax treaties with countries. So, the US would get that tax revenue and the resident abroad would be able to take tax credits in his or her home country. It would be so simple. There are points to deal with how to define a resident overseas (not military or State Department employee who has US-sourced income, nor residents of determined tax havens, nor short-term stints abroad (study programs, sabbaticals, etc.). Accounts in the home country would not be subject to FATCA regulations and there would be no more problems of non-reciprocity of retirement accounts. Accounts in countries where one may have left accounts whilst moving around would still be considered foreign accounts. And there were questions about the treatment of accounts in home countries of US-resident aliens, but it seems that, as now, for residents in the US, alien or citizen, all accounts elsewhere would be foreign. (Victoria Ferauge has just written a piece on the FATCA meeting at OECD this week in Paris. There may be hope.)
FATCA is half of the banking problem. Foreign banks will have to comply with I.R.S. regulations to report on the accounts of US tax-persons (citizens, green-card holders). If there is an inter-governmental agreement, the reporting will be done through the governments and if not, the banks will report directly to the I.R.S. This opens up a Pandora's box of problems: reporting complications for the US-tax persons, reporting costs for the banks, information security concerns.... The easy solution for banks is to simply get rid of US-tax persons' accounts, especially investment accounts. The result is that we are being shut out of accounts and business partnerships and jobs that involve signatory authority. It affects personal lives and business. It affects business development for US companies trying to export abroad. If residence-based-taxation were to become the norm, as it is in every other country (except Eritrea, North Korea, and the Philippines), FATCA would no longer apply to our local accounts because we would no longer be US-tax persons.
The other half of the banking problem is in the Patriot Act, which requires banks and brokerages to "know your customer". They seem to interpret to mean the customer must live in the US. Therefore they are shutting out their customers who now live abroad and they haven't allowed such customers to open accounts for years. Some are closing US-held retirement accounts arbitrarily, subjecting the customer to early-withdrawal penalties and taxes. There is a letter from the State Department and another from the treasury saying that this is a misinterpretation and we can have accounts in the US, but the banks are still making the commercial decision against us. So, if you can't have an account in your home country and you can't maintain an account in the US, you are in a real bind. Of course, the FATCA regulations may yet apply to US banks if there is reciprocity between countries.
The proposal was very well-received in both chambers by both parties and by the heads of the key committees. It's a good start.
What else?
AARO presented Ms. Maloney the plaque for the award we gave her last summer. At the time, we gave her a certificate, in Paris. We then had a good, long, discussion with her, talking about the pleasant reception her bill seems to be getting, the need for more sponsors, the work of the Americans Abroad Caucus, and our objectives for OAW. I don't have a picture of that; I was hoping to have received the others' photos.
We also reported that overseas voting was improving. Unfortunately, many voters did not receive their ballots in time, again, and we expressed concern that this kind of problem could get worse if the postal service does away with Saturday pick-up, sorting, and delivery as scheduled. The Election Assistance Commission may not survive cutbacks and there is no indication of what might take its place or how its work could be taken over by other entities.
There was a meeting at the State Department to discuss citizenship issues. There are what they call efficiency bills, slight modifications to existing legislation, to allow single US-citizen mothers to be able to transmit citizenship more easily, but no change is in the works for single fathers. The whole issue of how unwed parents transmit will not be overturned as it would negate the citizenship of all those who had acquired citizenship under it.
We each had 6, 7, 8 meetings a day for four days. There were some left-over meetings to go to on Friday that I was unable to attend for a grand total of 82 meetings. I was very glad to be part of it and hope to be able to go next time, not as a newbie, but as someone ready to present our interests. It would be nice, some day, to be able to say there are no issues. Wishful thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)