Category Archives: FBAR and reporting

Snapshot in time: Eyewitness account of evolution of Schedule B and the #FBAR Form TDF 90-22.1 from 1981 to 1986

The above tweet references a fascinating discussion about Mr. #FBAR in the early years prior to the “The FBAR Fundraiser“.

Interestingly for the years 2003 to 2008 (if memory serves), IRS Publication 54 did NOT reference the FBAR requirement.

OAP says
October 11, 2016 at 4:23 pm

@heidi, @pacifica777

Now you’ve peaked my curiosity, and I’ve done a sad thing. My first filing from abroad was in 1981 and I’m sure I filed an FBAR, so I’ve dug out all the old records.

1981

A. Schedule B – It contains Part III and the question about financial accounts in a foreign country.
(I believe the instructions for Sch. B referenced FBAR.)

B. FBAR, top instructions – “This form blah, blah blah. You are not required to file a report if the aggregate value of the accounts did not exceed $1,000.”
(That’s not a typing error, it says $1,000.)

C. FBAR Line 9 – “ If you had a financial interest in one or more….accounts which are required to be reported, and the total maximum value of the accounts exceeded $10,000 during the year,….”
(Note total maximum value of the accounts, not maximum aggregate value of the accounts, and $10,000 figure.)

D. Instructions on back of FBAR – Unfortunately, for 1981 I only have the top copy and not the back.

1982
A. Schedule B – It contains Part III and the question about financial accounts in a foreign country.

B. FBAR, top instructions – Same as 1981

C. FBAR Line 9 – Same as 1981

D. Instructions on back of FBAR – Unfortunately, top copy only..

1983

A. Schedule B – It contains Part III and the question about financial accounts in a foreign country.
(For 1983, includes directions to FBAR instructions and now asks for which countries the accounts are located in.)

B. FBAR, top instructions – “This form blah, blah blah. You are not required to file a report if the aggregate value of the accounts did not exceed $5,000.”
(That’s not a typing error, it says $5,000.)

C. FBAR Line 9 – Same as 1981.

D. Instructions on back of FBAR, Who must file – Each United States Person who has financial interest in or signature authority or other authority over bank, …..or other financial accounts in a foreign country which exceeds $5,000 in aggregate value at any time during the calendar year, must report that relationship each calendar year by filing TD F 90.22.1….”
(Note $5,000 figure.)

1984

A. Schedule B – Same as 1983

B. FBAR, top instructions – “This form blah, blah blah. You are not required to file a report if the aggregate value of the accounts did not exceed $5,000.”
(That’s not a typing error, it says $5,000.)

C. FBAR Line 9 – “ If you had a financial interest in one or more….accounts which are required to be reported, and the total maximum value of the accounts exceeded $10,000 during the year,….”
(Note total maximum value of the accounts, not maximum aggregate value of the accounts.)

D. Instructions on back of FBAR, Who must file – Same as 1983. ($5,000)

1985

A. Schedule B – Same as 1983.

B. FBAR, top instructions – “This form blah, blah blah. You are not required to file a report if the aggregate value of the accounts did not exceed $5,000.”
(That’s not a typing error, it says $5,000.)

C. FBAR Line 9 – Same as 1981.

D. Instructions on back of FBAR, Who must file – Unfortunately, only top copy.

1986

A. Schedule B – Same as 1983.

B. FBAR, top instructions – “This form blah, blah blah. You are not required to file a report if the aggregate value of the accounts did not exceed $10,000.”
(It now says $10,000.)

C. FBAR Line 9 – Same as 1981.

D. Instructions on back of FBAR, Who must file – Unfortunately, I only have the top copy.

From my limited files confusion reigns. For 1983, as for 1981, (C) FBAR Line 9 mentions “total maximum value of accounts exceeded $10,000″, but the instructions on the back of the FBAR states “which exceeds $5,000 in aggregate value at any time during the calendar year”. The (B) Top instructions don’t mention $10,000 until 1986.

I’m now off to find a life.

Advertisements

Nice collection of #FATCA #FBAR #Renouncecitizenship comments from @GlobeAndMail

Very nice collection of comments from StudentAdvocate including:

Our neighbour just got more dysfunctional

US dysfunction affects all Canadians. Due to US law the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), the world’s banks and financial institutions are now agents of the US Treasury Department, and are on a witch-hunt for so-called US persons – basically anyone with a US place of birth. FATCA is one of the most arrogant and dysfunctional laws to ever pass Congress, and was passed as an add-on rider, with little debate or consideration for consequence. In Canada, the Harper Conservatives capitulated to the US law FATCA, and made history by making banking and financial discrimination against any Canadian with a US birthplace mandatory. Embedded in omnibus budget bill C31 was an an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to embody the dysfunctional US law FATCA into Canadian law. This was largely covert and under-reported, the US demanded FATCA compliance and the Canadian government – at the behest of Canada’s banks – pushed it through, despite unanimous opposition from NDP, LIberal and Green Party. Now, the hunt is on for so-called US persons in Canada. All banks, financial institutions and insurers must search their customers records for indications of a US place of birth. They must ask all new customers if they have a US birthplace or similar connection. If found, the confidential bank records will be forwarded to the US IRS – via compliant poodles at CRA. The US considers the local and legal Canadian financial accounts of any Canadian with a tie of so-called US person-hood to be a potential undeclared and illicit “offshore account” – and the penalties are draconian. Because so many Canadians were either born in the US or immigrated from the US, the effect is profound. This may effect up to one million Canadians, many of whom have only a tenuous tie to the US (including border babies: Canadians incidentally born in the US due to happenstance or medical referral). Because the Canadian FATCA IGA in Bill C31 violates the Charter by making “place of birth” discrimination mandatory, it is being legally challenged. A small grassroots organization – The Alliance for Defense of Canadian Sovereignty – has raised almost $300,000 through crowdfunding and hired leading Constitutional advocate Joe Arvay to challenge this in court. All Canadians should oppose the shameful embedding of dysfunctional US law in Canadian law, because it has created a new class of 2nd class Canadians: any Canadian with a US place of birth now has significantly reduced financial

Seems to me that @RepubAbroadHK have cart before horse – RBT legislation needed now

 

 

 

Possible benefits of the coming into U.S. tax compliance through the Streamlined program?

This post originally appeared at the Isaac Brock Society.

Updated November 3, 2014 – Readers are strongly encouraged to read the comments as well. One must remember that Streamlined and OVDP are programs which have been invented by the IRS. They are not found in the Internal Revenue Code. Consequently this post should be read in the context of the following comment to this post:

Commentary on the ‘clarifying rules’:

http://tax-expatriation.com/2014/10/14/irs-releases-clarifying-rules-for-u-s-citizens-living-outside-the-u-s-re-streamlined-filing-guidance/

“……..FAQs are all the rage these days with the IRS, as the government does not take the time or spend the resources to follow the Administrative Procedures Act or similar requirements which are required in order to issue binding rules and regulations. See a previous post regarding these requirements, specifically regarding those who renounce U.S. citizenship or abandon LPR status and have not complied with IRS Notice 2009-85. See,Does IRS Notice 2009-85 regarding expatriation have the “force of law”? Posted on April 14, 2014

Hence, these SFCP are not legally binding on the IRS and they can pick cases as they choose for audit, review and penalty assessment in any manner they think is consistent with the law. Sometimes they do it in a manner that is not consistent with the law.”………….

Americans abroad are getting special attention from the IRS

 

Continue reading

Judge: Curran should seek Presential pardon after adventures in #FBAR

Curran could have gotten as much as 37 months in prison. However, her counsel sought probation and the prosecution did not oppose it. At a Wednesday sentencing hearing in federal court in West Palm Beach, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Ryskamp gave her one year of probation and then immediately revoked it.

“This is really a tragic situation,” the judge said, urging Black to seek a presidential pardon on Curran’s behalf. “It seems to me the government should have used a little more discretion.”

Also representing Curran was attorney Nathan Hochman, who said the sentence was unique in his 25 years of prosecution and criminal defense practice.

“Judge Ryskamp’s sentencing is unprecedented in a number of respects: calling the government’s case against Mrs. Curran ‘tragic’ and ‘unfortunate,’ putting her on probation for effectively five seconds, urging Mrs. Curran to file a pardon application with the president, and telling the prosecutors they would be spiteful to oppose it,” he told the news agency.

The prosecution declined to comment.