long time resident and taxes

I've been a resident in the UK since 1994. I have lived all of my working life here and have always filed taxes here.
I have never filed in the US! I didn't know I was suppose to...
I don't make much money (artist) and it just never came up. What should I do? I am scared I might open a can of worms here!

Being scared is the normal OMG reaction. You are not alone. If you plan to renounce file 5 years. If not, file 3 years. Use the streamlined procedures.

Because of either foreign tax credits or the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion you probably owe little to no US tax and so will face no penalty for that. If you are worried about getting back into compliance Google "IRS streamlined procedure" and maybe think about spending a bit to get a professional to hold your hand. Make sure you go to someone who is qualified in both US and UK tax.

The assumption is caseyorr has an SSN.

If, by some chance, they don't, then, according to recently released IRS guidance, they now need to have an SSN before filing 'Streamlined' in order to take advantage of its penalty free offerings.

ATTENTION ALL TAXPAYERS LACKING SSN – NO STREAMLINED!
 
http://blogs.angloinfo.com/us-tax/2016/10/06/attention-all-taxpayers-lacking-ssn-no-streamlined/

It's beginning to look as though the US will have another 4 years of a Democratic administration. "The hits just keep on coming!" Personal disclosure: I don't want any of the choices available for POTUS 2016, and am acting accordingly.

..what about Johnson or Stein?

..what about Johnson or Stein?

I said ANY of the choices available!   

I watched Johnson's speech and Q&A at the Detroit Economic Club. We've also heard the comment about Aleppo and the one naming world leaders.

No.

I've not given Stein a fair shake. I've not heard a speech, but have gone on the web site. Seems a one issue party.

No.

Remember "Party Platforms"? If one were to be a single issue voter (income tax and the US expat resident abroad), the vote would be Republican. No contest.

Write-in candidate? Any suggestions? (And don't tell me Elizabeth Warren.) 

Write-in candidate? Any suggestions? (And don't tell me Elizabeth Warren.)

None of the candidates are qualified, but to paraphrase Orwell "some are more unqualified than others". I wish I could actively vote against someone rather than for the choices available. I'm currently struggling with either abstaining or voting for the least worst candidate.

In terms of breadth of experience and length of public service, Hillary Clinton is quite possibly the most qualified person to ever run for president, never mind among this batch. Dislike her all you want (though I would ask that you at least question why you dislike her, and how much of your list of reasons is actually verifiable fact rather than 20+ years of right wing smears and attacks unprecedented against any other politician, and whether you would judge a male candidate the same way), but to claim she is unqualified is patently ridiculous.

Hello DrSuperL99! It's good to hear from you again. Hope all is well with you.

IMHO  this years US election is the most depressing, embarrassing, and ridiculous election spectacle I've ever witnessed, and that starts with Nixon/Kennedy and Johnson/Goldwater forward. Other than the major knock on effect of the US President/policies for the rest of the world, I couldn't give a toss whether the folks in the US elect Clinton or Trump. In either case, they deserve what they get. So endeth my media/social media inspired comment.

I'm sure you have some opinions on The Donald, but I find it refreshing to hear you argue for your preferred candidate in positive terms.

Divisiveness has become a world wide problem, be it the US, UK, France (Le Pen), Germany (AfD), etc.. In the US, it's the 1%/99%, Donald/Hillary, race, age, and American/foreign (isolationist) for starters, without getting into healthcare, immigration, taxation, or religion. Enough, America, with the groping, crass, funny hair, and Bill's lovers slangs. We get the picture. When will someone start talking about what happens after the election and one of these folks gets elected! What are the programmes (from the parties platform!) that will attempt to solve these problems. Forget the wall, banning immigrants, or whatever, if potential (grown up) solutions were to became the sole topic of all future debate, either here, on Facebook/twitter, or in the media, all would go astonishing quiet. (And don't tell us to go to Hillary.com., we want to hear it from Hillary's lips.)

And that's why I find your comment refreshing. Could someone please continue the adult conversation!

Without reservation, I do find Hillary qualified. No argument there.

NOW, IMHO, I only find my reluctance to support Hillary a selection of 1/4 Hillary (I do honestly find her insincere and IMHO, her administration would be a continuation of the last 8 years.)

DISCLAIMER: I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

And since this is in the tax section, 3/4 of my problem with Hillary is the Democratic parties policies, especially towards US expats. I won't support Trump, although as regards expats, Republican policies are far and away more positive. The current administration has had 5 of the last 8 years to solve the problem for Americans abroad. If 'Executive Orders' are enough to start the problem, why aren't 'Executive Orders' used to solve the obvious problems. (I never said I didn't 'lean towards' being a 1 issue voter.  )

Enough of these ramblings. I've thus far avoided discussing my concerns with this election, and I already feel bad about starting them now. Before I go, I will make one last observation. Uniting a population is easy. Maggie did it in 1982. I really, really do not want to see it go there, but with the increased rhetoric on Russia (and no rhetoric on solutions), I fear the worst of reunification with either Trump or Clinton.

 

 

 

 

Last I checked, the Republicans have been in control of the House of Representatives (the only house that can originate tax legislation) since 2011, but as far as I can tell, there was only one attempt to repeal FATCA and that failed to even reach the Senate. Compare that to the 60+ times they've tried to repeal the ACA and you kind of get the feeling they don't actually care that much about getting rid of FATCA. They've also had plenty of opportunities over the last few decades to switch to a residency-based taxation system, and haven't bothered to do that either. I also struggle to get behind the reasons for Republicans being slightly more favourable for expat tax laws, which is that they're chums with the actual tax evaders who are the reason for regular expats getting screwed.

Last I checked, the Republicans have been in control of the House of Representatives (the only house that can originate tax legislation) since 2011, but as far as I can tell, there was only one attempt to repeal FATCA and that failed to even reach the Senate.

As for FATCA, the legislation, when it was passed, was still born. It could not be enforced. It required foreign financial institutions to either uphold regulations (Privacy Acts) in their own foreign countries and suffer the consequences of violating FATCA, or agree to the demands of FATCA and violate the privacy regulations of their own foreign countries.

The US Treasury found a way around the problem by 'creating' the IGAs. The Senate/House had absolutely no part in this further action. In order to go forward with the IGAs, the Treasury relied on '(Presidential) Executive Orders' under the Obama administration. After the issuance of an executive order, one must assume that any attempt to pass further legislation in contradiction would be met with a veto. 

A Republican offshoot group of the RNC, Republicans Overseas, challenged FATCA by filing a suit in a US District Federal Court. The initial ruling resulted in the suit being dismissed for 'lack of standing' by the plaintiffs (no one has, as of yet, suffered demonstrable damage). The ruling is now under appeal and the question of what constitutes 'standing' (and demonstrable damage) is being challenged. An additional suit, filed by the same group, challenging CBT is in the process of being put before the court.

I also struggle to get behind the reasons for Republicans being slightly more favourable for expat tax laws, which is that they're chums with the actual tax evaders who are the reason for regular expats getting screwed.

From the Republican Platform:

“The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Foreign Bank and Asset Reporting Requirements result in government’s warrantless seizure of personal financial information without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Americans overseas should enjoy the same rights as Americans residing in the United States, whose private financial information is not subject to disclosure to the government except as to interest earned. The requirement for all banks around the world to provide detailed information to the IRS about American account holders outside the United States has resulted in banks refusing service to them. Thus, FATCA not only allows ‘unreasonable search and seizures’ but also threatens the ability of overseas Americans to lead normal lives. We call for its repeal and for a change to residency-based taxation for U.S. citizens overseas.” (bold mine)

Do I believe it would happen under a Republican administration? Mmmmm,.... can pigs fly? If they repeal FATCA, will they subscribe to the requirements of the OECD CRS? They have no comment. But at least it's in writing and can be challenged if no action is taken. (Somewhat similar to any statements made in a Party Manifesto in the UK.) Is it simply 'click bait' aimed at US expats? It certainly could be. Is it a back door way allowing the Repub. rich abroad to evade tax? Wink wink nod nod. 

From the Democratic Platform:

“Democrats believe that no one should be able avoid paying their fair share by hiding money abroad, and that corrupt leaders and terrorists should not be able to use the system of international finance to their advantage. We will work to crack down on tax evasion and promote transparency to fight corruption and terrorism. And we will make sure that law-abiding Americans living abroad are not unfairly penalized by finding the right solutions for them to the requirements under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR).” (bold mine. The bolded text was added at the convention in July at the urging of Democrats Abroad.)

As I said above, if one were a single issue voter the record of the Democratic administration to solve the obvious problems for some US expats (denial of banking access) would have been met with stronger actions than a simple late insert in the Party Platform for a problem that has existed for the past 5 years.

There is no need to even discuss the actions of the current administration, acting unilaterally, in relation to relinquishment fees, loss of home exemption in the exit tax, the impact of NIIT, and on and on.

The question isn't "are the Republicans going to be knights in shinning armour and save US expats from the turmoil's of CBT". Promises, promises.

The fact is under the current Democratic regime, the life of many US expats have been needlessly complicated; and, the prospects of it continuing to worsen seem incontrovertible.

This isn't a call for a Republican victory in November, or an attempt to prove Hillary will be disastrous. It's a review of issues beyond the echo chambers of media/social media. Successful Democracy only exists when there is a strong (or viable) opposition (including in the UK Labour and the SNP). One may not agree with the Republicans, but let's try not to eradicate them. After all, in America (right now) they're the only alternative. And by the way, where does the accusation come from that any of the above comments by nun or myself were made due to Hillary being a woman?

       

If the USA really wanted to go after tax havens they should look within their own borders.  When the Panama Papers were released there was a lot of press about tax havens and it turns out that the USA ranks well above Panama in easy places to evade and avoid taxes.  I read that it is easier to create a shell company in the USA than to obtain a library card.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35998801

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13518601/8/10-biggest-tax-havens-in-the-world-going-beyond-the-panama-papers.html

3. The United States

Despite being a major voice on the world stage for increased financial accountability, the U.S. has become one of the world’s largest offshore destinations for foreign money. There are many reasons for this, including the country’s vast system of corporate tax loopholes, but two major ones stick out. First, despite urging global standards for disclosure, America has fiercely resisted signing on to those standards.

Second is America’s federated system of states. Many have engaged in a race to the bottom to make themselves the most business friendly to try and draw more domestic employers, but as a result they’ve also become a huge draw for international firms as well. Delaware, in particular, has long been known for its state laws which impose low taxes and very limited corporate liability. The result is a system similar to the Cayman Islands, with filing cabinets that serve as the technical headquarters for hundreds of firms worldwide in order to take advantage of a friendly legal and judicial system.

That's a relief. When I saw you had made a post, I feared after all the above we might get a visit from PORKY PIG!      

If the USA really wanted to go after tax havens they should look within their own borders.  When the Panama Papers were released there was a lot of press about tax havens and it turns out that the USA ranks well above Panama in easy places to evade and avoid taxes.  I read that it is easier to create a shell company in the USA than to obtain a library card.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35998801

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13518601/8/10-biggest-tax-havens-in-the-world-going-beyond-the-panama-papers.html

Yes, that's correct. Delaware, Montana, and Nevada for starters. That's why I noted in the Repub. platform CRS wasn't mentioned. (CRS = Common Reporting Standard)

The Dems. have seemed to avoid consideration of CRS as well, although a high-up Treasury official did comment that in his opinion it might be better to replace FATCA with CRS.

That's a relief. When I saw you had made a post, I feared after all the above we might get a visit from PORKY PIG!      

Don't worry, I have no spider-pig powers on this site