Republicans’ “common sense” fightback against FATCA championed by global advisory giant.

1) Plaintiff U.S. Senator Rand Paul: Through FATCA, the Executive Branch is attempting to usurp Congress’s constitutional power to approve international tax agreements and override the law written by Congress simply because the IRS and US Treasury would prefer to enforce a different law. Senator Paul has been a vocal opponent of FATCA from the beginning. He has introduced legislation to repeal parts of FATCA in 2013 and 2015 and opposed international tax treaties in the Senate related to FATCA. However, because the Treasury Department and IRS have refused to abide by the constitutional framework for concluding international agreements, Senator..Read More

Ten Detailed Points on ROA FATCA/IGAs/FBAR Lawsuit 1) Republicans Overseas Action, Inc. challenges the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), the intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) unilaterally negotiated by the U.S. Treasury to supplant FATCA in the signatory countries, and the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) legal requirements in the U.S. district court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of seven plaintiffs. The U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Ohio is in the jurisdiction of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Click below to read the full document. Ten Detailed Points on ROA..Read More

The defendants United States Department of the Treasury, United States Internal Revenue Service, and United States Financial Crimes Enforcement Network oppose plaintiffs’ motion for expedited review (Doc. No. 9) of their motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 8), which was filed on July 22, 2015. Plaintiffs have asked that the defendants’ response to the motion for preliminary injunction be due within 14 days, i.e., by August 5, 2015. The request (1) violates local rules, (2) is impractical, (3) is overbroad, and (4) is unsupported.

Defendants U.S. Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (collectively “Defendants” or “Government”) submit this memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 8).

Today on behalf of Presidential candidate, Senator Rand Paul, and six other co-plaintiffs, Republicans Overseas Action, Inc. (ROA) filed a 44-page Plaintiff’s Preliminary-Injunction Reply responding to the 57-page DOJ Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Last Friday on behalf of Presidential candidate, Senator Rand Paul along with other nine co-plaintiffs, Republicans Overseas Action, Inc. (ROA) files the 78-page Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amended Complaint against the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), the intergovernmental agreements (IGAs), and the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The Amended Complaint addresses standing issues, adding new facts about plaintiffs (such as who meets certain trigger amounts for disclosure) and adds challenges to two other IGAs: Danish IGA and French IGA to address harm caused to..Read More

Plaintiffs reply to the Government’s Opposition (Doc. No. 34) to their Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 31). The Government (i) requests dismissal, incorporating by reference large portions of its dismissal motion, and (ii) claims that amendment would be futile. But (I) dismissal should only be considered on full, final briefing on dismissal based on the amended complaint; (II) any “futility” must be obvious (which is not the case here), with far-reaching analysis reserved for the dismissal-motion context, and (III) amendment would not be futile.

The Procedural Posture of the Case Supports Dismissal A. The Court Should Grant the Motion to Dismiss for the Same Reasons Stated in Its Decision Denying the Motion for Preliminary Injunction 1 In ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction, the Court found that plaintiffs almost entirely lack standing and that their Fifth and Eighth Amendment claims are legally meritless. Doc. 30.

Plaintiffs request oral argument. 6 Cir. R. 34(a). This case involves many facts and plaintiffs, eight counts, and complex legal arguments. Moreover, it is a case of national import, with effects reaching far beyond the present Plaintiffs because the challenged provisions and agreements cause serious harm to myriad Americans. The opportunity for counsel to answer questions and clarify facts, issues, and arguments is essential to proper resolution of this appeal.

Plaintiffs have standing. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), complaints need only provide a “short and plain statement” regarding jurisdiction and claims. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint needs only to contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).

6th Circuit Court Opinion

This memo highlights the flaws in the 6th Circuit Court’s opinion and the bases on which Republicans Overseas can appeal to the Supreme Court.

If you’re an American living overseas, Uncle Sam is making life hard for you—and he’s probably giving your bank a headache, too. For one, the U.S. government often taxes the earnings you make outside the U.S., meaning you can be double-taxed—both by the U.S. and by your host country. But even if you don’t owe U.S. taxes, reporting your foreign earnings to the IRS can be expensive and complicated. In addition to that, if you live overseas, your bank is probably quite annoyed at you and has an incentive to stop doing business with you.  Read more here. 

The US Treasury responded to Republicans Overseas’ lawsuit, stating that they agreed with the 6th Circuit Court that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring suit. The response can be read here.

The Supreme Court declined to hear Republicans Overseas’ FATCA case, effectively ending the lawsuit. You can read the list of  cases declined by the Supreme Court here.