Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
FBAR and FATCA: FYI
81 views
Skip to first unread message
Alan
Apr 13, 2012, 9:09:30 PM4/13/12
to
Forbes has published two articles this month that explain in a handy
table what you are required to do:
Part 1. See
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/04/irs-form-8938-or-fbar/
Part 2. See
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/05/more-on-irs-form-8938-vs-fbar/
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
table what you are required to do:
Part 1. See
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/04/irs-form-8938-or-fbar/
Part 2. See
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/05/more-on-irs-form-8938-vs-fbar/
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
Mark Bole
Apr 17, 2012, 10:15:12 PM4/17/12
to
On 2012/04/13 18:09, Alan wrote:
> Forbes has published two articles this month that explain in a handy
> table what you are required to do:
>
> Part 1. See
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/04/irs-form-8938-or-fbar/
>
> Part 2. See
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/05/more-on-irs-form-8938-vs-fbar/
>
>
First, thank you Alan for keeping us apprised of useful info like
> Forbes has published two articles this month that explain in a handy
> table what you are required to do:
>
> Part 1. See
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/04/irs-form-8938-or-fbar/
>
> Part 2. See
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/05/more-on-irs-form-8938-vs-fbar/
>
>
this... you are a great "feature" of this newsgroup!
Second, as a relative newcomer to the world of professional tax
preparation (only seven tax seasons under my belt so far), I must say
that this strikes me as the epitome of tax law obfuscation and needless
complication. Instead of one requirement, there are now two,
mostly-but-not-quite-overlapping, reporting requirements, which require
a 28-row tabular comparison from Forbes to capture the subtle
differences between them.
What's worse, these requirements by themselves do not directly lead to
any changes in the tax calculation.
I have dealt with three clients this year who had to go on extension
specifically due to this new requirement and trying to interpret it
correctly. Question: in an audit, will a document written in German be
considered evidence of adequate due diligence? Or must we hire a German
translator to certify what information the document contains?
Ridiculous.
--
Mark Bole
EA in CA
makbo at pacbell dot net
Alan
Apr 17, 2012, 10:28:14 PM4/17/12
to
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-time-pushes-americans-hike-204320491.html
removeps-groups
Apr 18, 2012, 7:44:49 PM4/18/12
to
"Alan" <temp...@vacationmail.com> wrote in message
news:jml8rp$c77$1...@dont-email.me...
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-time-pushes-americans-hike-204320491.html
The sentence "The IRS publishes in the Federal Register the names of those
who give up their citizenship" is the name and shame law and strikes me as a
violation of the privacy clauses of the constitution -- the 4th and 5th
amendments.
news:jml8rp$c77$1...@dont-email.me...
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-time-pushes-americans-hike-204320491.html
The sentence "The IRS publishes in the Federal Register the names of those
who give up their citizenship" is the name and shame law and strikes me as a
violation of the privacy clauses of the constitution -- the 4th and 5th
amendments.
Stuart A. Bronstein
Apr 20, 2012, 3:25:21 PM4/20/12
to
"removeps-groups" <removep...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Alan" <temp...@vacationmail.com> wrote
>
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-time-pushes-americans-hike-204
Court has recognized a general privacy right based on the over-all
tone of the Constitution. But there is no privacy right per se.
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
> "Alan" <temp...@vacationmail.com> wrote
>
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-time-pushes-americans-hike-204
>> 320491.html
>
> The sentence "The IRS publishes in the Federal Register the
> names of those who give up their citizenship" is the name and
> shame law and strikes me as a violation of the privacy clauses
> of the constitution -- the 4th and 5th amendments.
There actually is no privacy clause in the Constitution. The Supreme
>
> The sentence "The IRS publishes in the Federal Register the
> names of those who give up their citizenship" is the name and
> shame law and strikes me as a violation of the privacy clauses
> of the constitution -- the 4th and 5th amendments.
Court has recognized a general privacy right based on the over-all
tone of the Constitution. But there is no privacy right per se.
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
removeps-groups
Apr 26, 2012, 12:39:32 PM4/26/12
to
"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote in message
>> The sentence "The IRS publishes in the Federal Register the
>> names of those who give up their citizenship" is the name and
>> shame law and strikes me as a violation of the privacy clauses
>> of the constitution -- the 4th and 5th amendments.
>
> There actually is no privacy clause in the Constitution. The Supreme
> Court has recognized a general privacy right based on the over-all
> tone of the Constitution. But there is no privacy right per se.
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade says that "the Court ruled that
a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment ...".
>> The sentence "The IRS publishes in the Federal Register the
>> names of those who give up their citizenship" is the name and
>> shame law and strikes me as a violation of the privacy clauses
>> of the constitution -- the 4th and 5th amendments.
>
> There actually is no privacy clause in the Constitution. The Supreme
> Court has recognized a general privacy right based on the over-all
> tone of the Constitution. But there is no privacy right per se.
a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment ...".
Stuart A. Bronstein
Apr 26, 2012, 2:01:20 PM4/26/12
to
"removeps-groups" <removep...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Stuart A. Bronstein" <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote in message
>
>>> The sentence "The IRS publishes in the Federal Register the
>>> names of those who give up their citizenship" is the name and
>>> shame law and strikes me as a violation of the privacy clauses
>>> of the constitution -- the 4th and 5th amendments.
>>
>> There actually is no privacy clause in the Constitution. The
>> Supreme Court has recognized a general privacy right based on
>> the over-all tone of the Constitution. But there is no privacy
>> right per se.
>
> The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade says that "the
> Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause
> of the 14th Amendment ...".
Yes, wikipedia articles are always very persuasive when trying to
> "Stuart A. Bronstein" <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote in message
>
>>> The sentence "The IRS publishes in the Federal Register the
>>> names of those who give up their citizenship" is the name and
>>> shame law and strikes me as a violation of the privacy clauses
>>> of the constitution -- the 4th and 5th amendments.
>>
>> There actually is no privacy clause in the Constitution. The
>> Supreme Court has recognized a general privacy right based on
>> the over-all tone of the Constitution. But there is no privacy
>> right per se.
>
> The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade says that "the
> Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause
> of the 14th Amendment ...".
convince a judge.
To quote from Roe v. Wade,
"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.
In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union
Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has
recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of
certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the
Constitution."
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Alan
May 15, 2012, 4:27:41 PM5/15/12
to
On 4/13/12 7:09 PM, Alan wrote:
> Forbes has published two articles this month that explain in a handy
> table what you are required to do:
>
> Part 1. See
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/04/irs-form-8938-or-fbar/
>
> Part 2. See
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/05/more-on-irs-form-8938-vs-fbar/
>
>
In a follow-up article, Forbes published an article on how the
> Forbes has published two articles this month that explain in a handy
> table what you are required to do:
>
> Part 1. See
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/04/irs-form-8938-or-fbar/
>
> Part 2. See
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/05/more-on-irs-form-8938-vs-fbar/
>
>
FBAR/FATCA rules change the statute of limitations.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/05/14/beware-longer-irs-statute-of-limitations-on-foreign-accounts/
--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net
David Rosenbaum
May 25, 2012, 11:47:13 AM5/25/12
to
On Apr 18, 5:15�am, Mark Bole <ma...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2012/04/13 18:09, Alan wrote:
>
> > Forbes has published two articles this month that explain in a handy
> > table what you are required to do:
>
> > Part 1. See
> >http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/04/irs-form-8938-or-fbar/
>
> > Part 2. See
> >http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/05/more-on-irs-form-89...
> On 2012/04/13 18:09, Alan wrote:
>
> > Forbes has published two articles this month that explain in a handy
> > table what you are required to do:
>
> > Part 1. See
> >http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/04/irs-form-8938-or-fbar/
>
> > Part 2. See
>
> First, thank you Alan for keeping us apprised of useful info like
> this... you are a great "feature" of this newsgroup!
>
> Second, as a relative newcomer to the world of professional tax
> preparation (only seven tax seasons under my belt so far), I must say
> that this strikes me as the epitome of tax law obfuscation and needless
> complication. �Instead of one requirement, there are now two,
> mostly-but-not-quite-overlapping, reporting requirements, which require
> a 28-row tabular comparison from Forbes to capture the subtle
> differences between them.
>
> What's worse, these requirements by themselves do not directly lead to
> any changes in the tax calculation.
>
> I have dealt with three clients this year who had to go on extension
> specifically due to this new requirement and trying to interpret it
> correctly. �Question: in an audit, will a document written in German be
> considered evidence of adequate due diligence? �Or must we hire a German
> translator to certify what information the document contains?
>
> Ridiculous.
>
> --
>
> Mark Bole
> EA in CA
> makbo at pacbell dot net
Mark, you're right, it's gotten absurd.
> First, thank you Alan for keeping us apprised of useful info like
> this... you are a great "feature" of this newsgroup!
>
> Second, as a relative newcomer to the world of professional tax
> preparation (only seven tax seasons under my belt so far), I must say
> that this strikes me as the epitome of tax law obfuscation and needless
> complication. �Instead of one requirement, there are now two,
> mostly-but-not-quite-overlapping, reporting requirements, which require
> a 28-row tabular comparison from Forbes to capture the subtle
> differences between them.
>
> What's worse, these requirements by themselves do not directly lead to
> any changes in the tax calculation.
>
> I have dealt with three clients this year who had to go on extension
> specifically due to this new requirement and trying to interpret it
> correctly. �Question: in an audit, will a document written in German be
> considered evidence of adequate due diligence? �Or must we hire a German
> translator to certify what information the document contains?
>
> Ridiculous.
>
> --
>
> Mark Bole
> EA in CA
> makbo at pacbell dot net
As to the translation issue: I can't say what they'll do re this new
form, but recently they've been auditing overseas filers like crazy,
when those overseas filers have claimed the additional child tax
credit. And they have been asking for certified translations of any
document not in English.
David Rosenbaum.
Alan
Oct 22, 2012, 5:19:33 PM10/22/12
to
On 4/13/12 7:09 PM, Alan wrote:
> Forbes has published two articles this month that explain in a handy
> table what you are required to do:
>
> Part 1. See
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/04/irs-form-8938-or-fbar/
>
> Part 2. See
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/05/more-on-irs-form-8938-vs-fbar/
>
>
FYI
> table what you are required to do:
>
> Part 1. See
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/04/irs-form-8938-or-fbar/
>
> Part 2. See
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/05/more-on-irs-form-8938-vs-fbar/
>
>
Bloomberg BNA has published "Form 8938 and the Exception for Foreign
Social Security Plans".
http://www.bna.com/form-8938-exception-n17179870194/
--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net
0 new messages