US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)

Guya is one of the most well versed tax professionals in both the UK and US.  If he's calm, be calm.   

Here's some advice no US tax professional can give you: Do nothing. Unless you plan to live or work in the USA, there is no compelling reason to act. You live in the UK, are a UK citizen and are compliant with UK law. There are no reports of the IRS chasing people in your situation. Do not put your head in lion's mouth.

There will be a new administration in the US and policy may change. Various proposals have been floated giving accidentals, such as yourself, an easy out from US citizenship. Best to wait and see what happens.

What do people think of Weller's advice if you were born and lived in the US but don't see moving back as a big possibility?

As a serious tax question, could a Trump presidency see the whole FATCA thing binned and nobody will care if it was not done for those years?

As a serious tax question, could a Trump presidency see the whole FATCA thing binned and nobody will care if it was not done for those years?

FATCA would be such a small item on Trump's "to do" list that I can't see him ever pushing for a full repeal. Possibly an exemption for USCs who have never lived in the USA as an adult, never plan to, and have no US financial interests.

As a serious tax question, could a Trump presidency see the whole FATCA thing binned and nobody will care if it was not done for those years?

Perhaps not an answer to your question, but a link you may find interesting.

A US Presidential debate was held on Oct. 19, in PARIS.

The audience are American citizen expats, and the organisation is AARO (Association of American Residents Abroad). Republican, Democrat, and Libratarian viewpoints are represented.

Opening arguments begin at 10:30 (Trump's commitment to FATCA repeal at 23:30), concerns for US expats (including tax and FATCA) are discussed starting at 28:30.

https://www.aaro.org/vote/583-aaro-presidential-debate

Perhaps not an answer to your question, but a link you may find interesting.

A US Presidential debate was held on Oct. 19, in PARIS.

The audience are American citizen expats, and the organisation is AARO (Association of American Residents Abroad). Republican, Democrat, and Libraltarian viewpoints are represented.

Opening arguments begin at 10:30, concerns for US expats (including tax and FATCA) are discussed starting at 28:30.

https://www.aaro.org/vote/583-aaro-presidential-debate

God, don't make me watch a video about tax policy.  I'm curious, but that's a step too far . Could you please sum it up?

God, don't make me watch a video about tax policy.  I'm curious, but that's a step too far . Could you please sum it up?

You asked about Trump's support for FATCA repeal. A response is given at 23:30. (You only have to watch for 45 seconds.)

[ ]
Isn't democracy a bummer! In order to form an opinion, you're forced to listen and observe.
[/sarcasm]

You asked about Trump's support for FATCA repeal. A response is given at 23:30. (You only have to watch for 45 seconds.)

[ ]
Isn't democracy a bummer! In order to form an opinion, you're forced to listen and observe.
[/sarcasm]

Fortunately, I don't usually have to rely on primary sources for every scrap of information about tax policy, especially when it's not a matter of opinion, just a factual question of whether some policy is supported or not.  Trusting you to sum up something as simple as this doesn't mean I am shirking my role in democracy.

For everyone else, I have taken my punishment and watched the relevant portions of the video.  I can say with some confidence that the Republicans have it in their platform to change the tax system in such a way that would relieve the FACTA reporting obligations on all of us.  The Republican representative had no idea wether Trump supported this or not.  I can only assume every time the Republican guy was with Trump they spent much of their time talking about sexual assault instead.

The Democrats agreed that some parts of FACTA are not great but would like to keep other parts of it.   

Sarcasm aside, thanks for the link, it was more interesting than I imagined it would be.  The funniest part was listening to the Libertarian representative asserting that members of the military prefer Gary "What's an Aleppo" Johnson.

The Republican representative had no idea wether Trump supported this or not.

As the full fledged Americans would say, I don't have a dog in this fight.

OK, I'll play your secretary.

The "Republican guy's" exact comment was:
"I do not know to what extent Donald Trump had anything to do with it [FATCA repeal]....I have heard, from friends, that he definitely supports this position in the Republican Platform, and I believe if elected he would follow through on this."

As you say, he cannot confirm Trump's position "from first hand experience". (No groping pun intended.)

Two additional points:
1. The "Republican guy" did not fully support Trump, but only the Republican Party.

And: 

I can only assume every time the Republican guy was with Trump they spent much of their time talking about sexual assault instead.

2. Be careful: The "Republican guy" is an attorney. Libel suits can be international.   

The Democrats agreed that some parts of FACTA are not great but would like to keep other parts of it.

Until a month or two before the party convention, Democrats Abroad supported the "Same Country Exemption" for FATCA. Since then, and as is reflected in the Dem. stance, it's now completely off the radar. Why?
   
Glad you enjoyed parts of the video, but I always refuse to summarize someone else's comments (such as on the video) in 140 characters or less. Now back to Jim Newell's dilemma and Weller's comment.