FATCA and accidental Americans

Is Monzo doing anything to stand out amongst the other banks to assist customers being hounded for back taxes despite never having lived or worked in the US.

(Let’s not go into a debate about regulatory obligations please, there’s plenty of scope for leeway and assistance within the rules as we all know.)

Is it anything to do with Monzo? I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression it was a matter between the individual and the US government.

2 Likes

I’m not familiar with it but I think FATCA can force banks to freeze accounts. It certainly can force reporting to the IRS via HMRC.

There might be something where banks prefer to “over report” rather than under report. I understand they want to stay in the good graces of the US but their primary responsibility is to their customers and it’s anything other than a clear cut obligation I’d hope they robustly stick to the law.

This is why I’m curious about Monzo’s stance in comparison to other banks. e.g. some banks like Barclays and Lloyds are known to be much more likely to collaborate with the IRS than others who stand up for their customers rights more.

It can and does happen and it’s been well reported for some time now.

As I stated, they assist by freezing assets. Also by reporting to the IRS.

Again please read what I’m actually asking not what you want me to be asking.

It is a fact that there is a discrepancy in the level of reporting and freezing between banks.
Each bank has come to an interpretation of their responsibilities under FATCA and how they approach compliance.

My question is really very simple.

It IS NOT: “can Monzo ignore regulations or legal obligations”
It IS NOT: “can Monzo ignore tax law”

PLEASE DO EVERYONE A FAVOUR AND STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH I HAVEN’T UTTERED.

My question is, as it was from the very first post: Is Monzo doing anything to stand out amongst the other banks

i.e. where does Monzo fall amongst their peers/“Monzo’s stance in comparison to other banks”

Bit of a clumsy sentence by me, the “or” includes the “never having” applies to " i.e. “never having lived or never having worked”.

I have evidence of the latter and I believe it applies to anyone born in the US so also applies to the former. So even if they come back from holiday the day/week/month later they are still fair game for the IRS. Even if they’ve never worked a day in the US or never been old enough to work. Even if they left as newborn babies or toddlers.

Got a source, I’d like to read up on this?

2 Likes

In that specific case, they could always do what our Prime Minister himself has done and renounce US citizenship (if they want to be no more than visitors in future)

Correct. I believe that’s what they have to do. But many aren’t aware this is the only way to avoid the IRS nor how to legally do that when they left as babies.

Not really sure why you’d continually call my assertion into question when it’s easily verified.

Cursory google brings up:

(@Codf this might help?)

Granted I haven’t met these people or seen their accounts but I believe their stories.

I’d heard the Boris story before.

I would imagine this leaves Monzo powerless to resist as are any other bank. What a ridiculous situation to be put in and our toothless government won’t legislate to protect people for fear of Trump’s wrath.

Oh dear :frowning: :frowning: :frowning:

I reject your original argument that UK banks have more of a responsibility to customers than they do to adhering to US tax law.

Please please stop this insane straw man argument! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY “PLEASE DO EVERYONE A FAVOUR AND STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH I HAVEN’T UTTERED”.

I NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

I went to the trouble of prefacing all this with “Let’s not go into a debate about regulatory obligations please”. If you want to do that, start your own thread. In this thread I’d like to discuss where on the spectrum Monzo are aligning themselves.

It’s not as simple as “requires”. That’s not how these things work as is manifest by the difference in how it’s dealt with by banks. CAN WE PLEASE JUST ACCEPT THIS INDISPUTABLE FACT? As I said in my original post, there’s plenty of scope for leeway.

If you doubt this, read the 150+ page HMRC guidance.

That’s why I spelled it out as clearly as possible so that there could be no ridiculous derailing as in the other thread by people unable to read. what. I’ve. written.

I’ll state it one more time (now the third time I’ve had to drag you back on topic)

It is a fact that there is a discrepancy in the level of reporting and freezing between banks.
Each bank has come to an interpretation of their responsibilities under FATCA and how they approach compliance.

My question is, as it was from the very first post: Is Monzo doing anything to stand out amongst the other banks

i.e. where does Monzo fall amongst their peers/“Monzo’s stance in comparison to other banks”

I have a lot of things to say about US policies, both recently and less so, but in this case I find their desire to ensure that US citizens do not avoid paying “sufficient” tax somewhere in the world to be somewhat laudable - so long as you pay the tax you owe in the UK the US are unlikely to come asking for more

It is something successive UK governments have given all too wide a berth to for whatever reasons (I am imagining craven and self-interested ones given our track record on tax havens)

This is not a x vs y debate, I’m not against you. It’s a simple question I’d like to hear opinions about :slight_smile:

You denied it happens, I gave evidence it does and now…?

If that’s all they were doing that would be fine but it’s not.

If that is the be all and end all question for this thread, then I would suggest the answer is no

2 Likes

I provided evidence but there’s plenty more within easy reach. They aren’t exactly outrageous claims requiring extreme levels of proof. And I’ve not been able to find anyone disputing them which does classify them as undisputed at least.

Ask yourself why I had to resort to that? I started off explicitly asking you politely to not derail. You ignored me. I then asked you not to straw man me. You ignored me and stepped it up a level. You started asking vexatious questions which I patiently replied to.

And then your next (now-deleted) post was literally a whole paragraph ranting about the offtopic things I asked you to avoid and repeatedly straw manning. Why did you persist in doing this multiple times after being asked politely the first two times?

I accept bold capitals are rude but nothing like on the scale of the above.

What can you possibly get from repeatedly trying to take a thread off topic by arguing against something nobody has said?

That’s fine :slight_smile: I anticipate as much too.

The follow-up is a more precise self-positioning on the spectrum.

CreamyWellwornIndochinahogdeer-max-1mb

You are under no obligation to reply to anyone on any thread.

Please keep the conversation civil everyone

This is an emotive issue for US citizens. The reality is that the US government has unique power to hound and harass them beyond US borders and there’s very little the UK can do about it (if it wanted to), let alone Monzo

3 Likes

Correct, there’s very little. But there’s evidently leeway hence my question.