JAJ

U.K. banks have reported to HMRC for many years. And HMRC can (and does) share the information with the United States, under article 27 of the U.K./U.S. tax treaty. For most onshore bank accounts nothing really changes with the new reporting to the U.S. in 2014. Although there is a lot of scaremongering about same.

nun

If you apply for UK account things could get a bit tricky if you are a US citizen. You need to make sure your broker is set up to deal with you as a US citizen....Hargreaves and Lansdown has taken the necessary steps to accommodate US citizens, but you will be asked if you qualify as a "US person" and won't be able to simply file the usual form......you'll have to talk to someone and I assume you'll be allowed to open an account once you explain that you are a US citizen living in the UK. Then you have to makes sure you invest in things that are tax efficient for US taxes.

If you want to open a US account as a UK resident you're out of luck.....most US banks and brokers simply won't talk to you.

JAJ

There is no particular problem (for a U.S. citizen in the United Kingdom) to open U.K. bank accounts, as distinct from brokerage accounts. As you note, for those who do want brokerage accounts, there are still options.

ClosedAcc 7654

You're too much. A brokerage account is far from expensive and extremely useful to manage your investments. Your advice varies between encouraging dodgy behaviour and misunderstanding, and you're just not a tax attorney. You believe what you want to - just don't tell others it's gospel.

So, I am bored with this forum. I had hoped it would be useful and there are some good folk here. Many seem to want to use it to self-promote or just argue. Any attempt to share our specific situation and solid information from a professional source is met with a constant barrage of negative comments. Moderators permit personal attacks and foul language.

So enough is enough. If any of what I've said is useful please use our experience. If not, continue to believe the half truths in lieu of actually seeking professional advice.

Anything short of a professional opinion is speculation.

As to me, this really is a waste of time overall so I'm out of here.

It's a forum people. There's an actual life out there. That is all.

lansbury

theOAP

Article 27 does allow for the sharing of information, but in general I believe it is allowed on request when the need arises in a specific investigation (and even a John Doe summons). I'm not aware that a general, random exchange of any account information not requested takes place for just the fun of it. I may be wrong, and JAJ can correct me if that is, in fact, the case.

FATCA is different. It may be covered by the US Code under obligations to file a tax or information form (or an act of Parliament) but it is in its most basic form simply a fishing expedition.

I think the UK FFI's might disagree with that statement. From the taxpayers point of view, nothing does change in terms of reporting. No one can, at this time, guarantee that no accounts will be closed, guarantee a 1099 or other information form will not be required, or guarantee the account holder will not have to forego their privacy rights.

Then allow me to scaremonger!

There was a previous question about privacy. The IRS instituted the IGA's for two reasons. First, it allows for an 'easing' of the reporting criteria for those FFI's in a country that signs one. For an example, an FFI is no longer required to close a recalcitrant account. Secondly, as can be found in IRS literature as well as IRS information videos, the IGA was developed as a way to overcome the privacy legislation in countries where the FFI would be in violation of that countries privacy legislation if they furnished the IRS with the required information on account holders.

In the US/UK IGA, the FFI will first supply HMRC with the required information once it discovers a 'US Person account'. It is then required to notify the account holder that it has done so. If the account holder feels they are not a US Person, they can appeal to the institution. If proven correct, the FFI will no longer continue to supply the information.

nun

For those that can invest in brokerage accounts, I hope that my post was useful.

ClosedAcc 7654

Please note nun catches JAJ's actual post that she changed to avoid the following comments. Before that she said most people here don't have them. Beware of creative editing after the fact.

Just waiting for Sue to finish closing the account. Might as well call out that little trick in the meantime.

And OAP is absolutely spot on.

durham_lad

Welcome back

JAJ

There have been cases (involving Australia with other countries), where "please explain" letters were generated by a tax authority based on information shared under tax conventions. Enough to suggest that the information exchange was (and is) done in a systematic fashion. I've not seen anything specific related to the U.K. or U.S. but I would work under the assumption that data sharing between HMRC and the IRS is routine.

FATCA is different, although for onshore jurisdictions not radically so. One thing that will change is that most U.S. accounts will have a U.S. social security number or tax ID number attached. Right now, the IRS has to match up amounts manually. Secondly, the identification of U.S. accounts for data sharing is currently done based on correspondence address, while in future it would be harder to avoid such scrutiny (on a U.K. account) by using a non-U.S. address since the bank may look for other indicators of U.S. ownership.

We've yet to see many instances of U.K. or Australian banks requesting U.S. tax identification numbers from accounts with obvious U.S. indicators (such as mailing address). However, many of the U.K. banks, such as Lloyds, have changed their terms and conditions to allow FATCA type disclosures to either HMRC, or direct to the IRS.

The FATCA legislation is intended to put a stop to the situation where tax could easily be evaded by planing funds outside the U.S., especially in a so-called "offshore" bank. It will impact the onshore jurisdictions, but largely puts a formal and public structure around data sharing practices that are likely in place already.

nun

Surely, UK banks and financial institutions will have the added requirement and expense of identifying their "US persons" customers.

theOAP

I would hope everyone on this forum operates under the assumption that every detail of their financial life in both countries is shared between the US and UK, even if at present the actual official stance may appear more relaxed. Starting 1 July 2014, there will no longer be any question. While there may be some really affluent persons here who employ reputable and expensive advisors to be 'aggressive' with returns, it makes so much more sense for the average person to not play games when dealing with cross border taxes. That includes UK tax returns as well as US returns.

As nun points out, this requires active participation in understanding your investments and all the consequences tax wise. It's not pleasant but it's the price one pays if they elect to be an expat, whether in the US and subject to the US tax code or outside the US as a US Person.

You mention Lloyds; HSBC has also strengthened its T&Cs but in a clever way. They never mention FATCA or the US (or IGA situations), but only talk of the consequences for the customers information (and the need for TINs and 'foreign' declaration forms to be completed) if required by law to share that information with a 'foreign' tax service. This covers FATCA as well as information sharing within the EU regulations or elsewhere for OECD, G20 purposes (and beyond).

I'm a believer that all reputable jurisdictions will eventually be part of bilateral information exchange. What I find objectionable about FATCA is its unilateral approach. I don't believe Congress has fully grasped the consequences of a truly bilateral exchange of information. I'm afraid it made for very good politicking, and that's as far as they considered it. On the other hand, I think the IRS is very aware of the consequences of bilateral exchange, and most probably welcomes it (or welcomes the official recognition of it as the case may be). I suspect there has been some very uncomfortable meetings both with Congress and at the State level.

nun

US financial institutions certainly won't welcome mutual exchange, but US exceptionalism will probably win out and they'll require others to give them information while refusing to give any of their own.