- This topic has 1 reply, 18 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Sprite
unfortunetly and even though it pains me to say.
your right 🙂
the only true freedom we have as individuals.. is to get up and leave.
anyway
lets have a big cheer for
walkabouts 😀
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]My reading of Scott’s article [ https://www.welovecostarica.com/members/3285.cfm ] on the The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act suggests that it is only applicable to U.S. taxpayers who hold assets in foreign financial institutions in an aggregate amount of $50,000 or more. Is that correct?
How do the individual banks who will need to send reports to the IRS know if you have funds in other banks? For instance if a gringo has $15K in BNCR, $15K in BCR and $15K in BAC and $15K in Banco Popular. Will each bank be required to send a document on behalf of the gringo to the IRS reporting the gringos balance in their respective banks?
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]Tom, I think it’s the taxpayer, not the bank, who must do the reporting to IRS.[/quote]
According to Scotts article:
Reporting by Foreign Financial Institutions.
FATCA will also require foreign financial institutions (“FFIs”) to report directly to the IRS certain information about financial accounts held by U.S. taxpayers, or by foreign entities in which U.S. taxpayers hold a substantial ownership interest.the onus is on the banks to report this info. that is one reason many may not want US clients because they are required to have the mechanism in place to turn us all in to the gestapo.
Quick update on a point about FATCA and whether one should report real estate in Costa Rica…
From: http://www.sovereignman.com/
There’s good news and here’s bad news …
“Foreign real estate does not need to be reported.
If you own foreign real estate -personally-, it does not count as a financial asset and does not need to be reported. If, however, you own shares of a foreign company which owns foreign real estate, you do need to report the company as a financial asset. “
Hope that helps…
Scott
A new ‘Seriously Disturbing Tax News For U.S. Citizens Living in Costa Rica: IRS Withholds Foreign Investor’s Tax-Free Income at 30%’ article just published on 14th June 2012 can be read at:
[ https://www.welovecostarica.com/members/3694.cfm ]
Please do me a favour and DO NOT post comments about this new article in this old thread here, please post them in the new Discussion Forum thread – you’ll find the link in the article.
Scott
Americans were once revered for their freedom, entrepreneurship, but now American citizens becoming second class citizens in the eyes of the world. The restrictions set forth by FATCA, are so repulsive to some foreign institutions that they have elected to simply stop doing business with Americans.
US regulators are to delay the implementation of the controversial Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) until the beginning of 2014.
if you own real estate in your own name in CR, without a mortgage, isn’t that risky from a civil litigation standpoint?
I’ve been living under a rock for awhile so just heard about this form 8938 today on this site. The instructions are now out on the IRS website…
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i8938.pdf
Jon
Scott wrote with regard to derivatives held by major banks:
“And they have moved those phony dollars to their commercial side, making them FDIC insured.”
Please explain how a derivative investment could qualify as an insured deposit. I think you are in error. A derivative would be an investment of the commercial side of the bank, just like their over-valued mortgages and the related notes. It would be an asset of the bank. The FDIC does not insure bank assets. It insures deposits, which are bank liabilities, in favor of the depositor, not the bank. Its exposure is limited to certain deposit amounts and does not include investment exposures of banks. While one may think that the government in a way of speaking has “insured” the banks to date by advancing them funds to prevent failure, this has been at the option of the government, not the legally binding obligation that would arise from actual insurance. The insurance amounts are limited by the deposit limits and not subject to bank increases ad infinitum putting the US “on the hook” in excess of the gross product of the world, as the video suggests.
[quote=”hakesp”]Scott wrote with regard to derivatives held by major banks:
“And they have moved those phony dollars to their commercial side, making them FDIC insured.”
Please explain how a derivative investment could qualify as an insured deposit. I think you are in error. A derivative would be an investment of the commercial side of the bank, just like their over-valued mortgages and the related notes. It would be an asset of the bank. The FDIC does not insure bank assets. It insures deposits, which are bank liabilities, in favor of the depositor, not the bank. Its exposure is limited to certain deposit amounts and does not include investment exposures of banks. While one may think that the government in a way of speaking has “insured” the banks to date by advancing them funds to prevent failure, this has been at the option of the government, not the legally binding obligation that would arise from actual insurance. The insurance amounts are limited by the deposit limits and not subject to bank increases ad infinitum putting the US “on the hook” in excess of the gross product of the world, as the video suggests.
[/quote]That’s not my quote, as stated it’s a quite from The Thom Hartmann Program, Free Speech TV 10/19.
Scott
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
