How Americans in Britain became "toxic citizens"

After FACTA.

"We have become toxic citizens," says Andy Sundberg, the founder of American Citizens Abroad. To what is he referring? Congress passed FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) in 2010, designed to address the issue of US citizens evading tax by using Swiss bank accounts. Those financial institutions wishing to retain their US clients must in future report US account holders to the relevant authorities. This has resulted in several leading private banks deciding to withdraw from the fray, thus rendering their US clients orphans.

This has caused great consternation in the UK, where there are 177,000 Americans (according to the 2011 Census), many of whom have been here a long time. Indeed, some have chosen to settle here permanently or perhaps indefinitely, marrying non-American spouses and educating their children at British schools and universities. Many of them have earned substantial salaries and bonuses in financial services or in law, and until recently, their wealth management needs have been serviced by the full gamut of British and European private banks. Now all this has changed.

Essentially, FATCA is forcing foreign financial institutions to identify and report the accounts and investments of their American clients. The reporting obligation is what is driving many institutions into pushing their US clients away. All the banks, custody houses, trust companies, and insurance companies in Britain that have US citizens as clients now have an obligation to identify who meets the definition of a ‘"US person" and then they have to furnish such information to the authorities who in turn will provide the information to the IRS.

It is certainly having the desired effect as far as the IRS is concerned, since over 600,000 US citizens living overseas filed a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) in 2011 following greater awareness of FATCA, compared to fewer than 300,000 in 2009. FATCA is flushing everyone out into the open and forcing them to sort out their affairs. Nonetheless, those 600,000 are one-tenth of the 6.3 million US persons living in 160 countries around the world.

Companies like mine, Vestra Wealth, have decided to respond differently to FATCA, preferring to see it less as a catastrophe and more as an opportunity. When FATCA was introduced, the partners agreed that there was a significant opportunity to let us create the infrastructure for a dedicated US team. This was driven primarily by client need, as we found that there are a number of British nationals resident in the US as well as US citizens living in the UK, all of who were seeking investment services. So as of May this year we have been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the US as well as being fully regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK.

The US is one of the few countries in the world who taxes its citizens on their worldwide income and gains, regardless of residency status. US residents and non-resident citizens (including Green Card holders) have therefore always had an obligation to report their annual income and gains to the US authorities. All that a US citizen with wealth management requirements in the UK needs to know is that their chance of being caught up in the FATCA net has vastly increased, so they should ensure their affairs are structured and reported correctly.

When a new client comes to us at Vestra US we conduct a rigorous assessment of their affairs to ensure everything is in line. If the client has been unintentionally delinquent in the past, or possibly even misadvised, then we put them in touch with the appropriate legal advisers and accountants, so that we are able to start with a level playing field before giving them investment advice.

Most of our clients are US professionals working in the City of London or Mayfair, who are often too busy to manage their own affairs let alone understand both the UK and US consequences of different investments. For example, some investments set up in the UK to be tax-efficient in the UK are inefficient in the US, and some investments set up to be tax-efficient in the US are inefficient in the UK once you have been resident here for over seven years.

The standard UK-based wealth management solution often involves funds, unit trusts and OEICs. Yet from a US perspective these are considered to be Passive Foreign Investment Companies (PFICs), with all the gains accrued therein liable to US income tax at 39.6 per cent. There is also a reporting requirement with a PFIC, so the problem compounds itself if you fail to declare such investments for several years.

If you hold a PFIC for long enough without reporting it, you could find yourself paying up to 100 per cent tax on any realised gain because of all the penalties and compounded interest charges that would be applied. Therefore we look to structure investment portfolios which would not attract negative tax in either jurisdiction.

As pension lifetime limits keep coming down, along with annual pension contribution limits, so investments in EIS (Enterprise Investment Scheme) companies are becoming more popular. However, it has to be the right type of EIS. It is necessary to ensure the client has sufficient foreign tax credits to offset the relief in the UK, otherwise you are simply reducing UK tax and increasing US tax.

You also have to ensure you do not breach any of the other rules around percentage ownership or the number of Americans that own assets within the EIS. Managed correctly, it is a great way for a US client to utilise their foreign tax credits (under the Double Taxation Agreement) while at the same time increasing their overall tax efficiency.

With mixed marriages between one US citizen and one non-US citizen, the wealth manager needs to make sure that ownership of assets and their respective wills are structured correctly. Certainly in my experience there are a large number of UK-resident Americans who have been shoe-horned into inappropriate products, whether PFICs within ISAs, non-qualifying pensions or insurance policies.

We know the red flags and we know the people who can help resolve the situation. There are scenarios where a client and their estate could end up paying dual inheritance tax for example. US clients need a triumvirate of advisers – a wealth manager, an accountant, and attorney – who are fully aligned and work in a cohesive, not competitive, manner.

Vestra US also advises professionals going to work on Wall Street or elsewhere in the US, who often have investments and pensions that can be structured correctly for US tax purposes or which permit deferral of US capital gains tax and income tax while they are US-resident for tax purposes. We would look to establish a fully US-compliant life insurance wrapper for the client that defers the annual taxation and allows investments to be made into PFICs without penalty or annual reporting.

I have enjoyed playing British American Football, for the London Warriors, in a small British summer league, and I often think the US tax regulations are similar to the rules governing American football. The first time you watch the game it is very difficult to understand what is happening. But once you know that there is an offence and a defence, and that you have four attempts to move the ball ten yards otherwise the other team gains possession, it is suddenly not too difficult to comprehend.

It is the same with running money for US citizens in the UK. There are numerous rules and regulations to consider, but once you know what they are, there is no need to feel intimidated.

Paul Nixon is a director of Vestra US

This piece first appeared on Spear's.

American tourists in Madame Tussards. Photograph: Getty Images

This is a story from the team at Spears magazine.

Getty
Show Hide image

The Women's March against Trump matters – but only if we keep fighting

We won’t win the battle for progressive ideas if we don’t battle in the first place.

Arron Banks, UKIP-funder, Brexit cheerleader and Gibraltar-based insurance salesman, took time out from Trump's inauguration to tweet me about my role in tomorrow's Women’s March Conservative values are in the ascendancy worldwide. Thankfully your values are finished. . . good”.

Just what about the idea of women and men marching for human rights causes such ill will? The sense it is somehow cheeky to say we will champion equality whoever is in office in America or around the world. After all, if progressives like me have lost the battle of ideas, what difference does it make whether we are marching, holding meetings or just moaning on the internet?

The only anti-democratic perspective is to argue that when someone has lost the argument they have to stop making one. When political parties lose elections they reflect, they listen, they learn but if they stand for something, they don’t disband. The same is true, now, for the broader context. We should not dismiss the necessity to learn, to listen, to reflect on the rise of Trump – or indeed reflect on the rise of the right in the UK  but reject the idea that we have to take a vow of silence if we want to win power again.

To march is not to ignore the challenges progressives face. It is to start to ask what are we prepared to do about it.

Historically, conservatives have had no such qualms about regrouping and remaining steadfast in the confidence they have something worth saying. In contrast, the left has always been good at absolving itself of the need to renew.

We spend our time seeking the perfect candidates, the perfect policy, the perfect campaign, as a precondition for action. It justifies doing nothing except sitting on the sidelines bemoaning the state of society.

We also seem to think that changing the world should be easier than reality suggests. The backlash we are now seeing against progressive policies was inevitable once we appeared to take these gains for granted and became arrogant and exclusive about the inevitability of our worldview. Our values demand the rebalancing of power, whether economic, social or cultural, and that means challenging those who currently have it. We may believe that a more equal world is one in which more will thrive, but that doesn’t mean those with entrenched privilege will give up their favoured status without a fight or that the public should express perpetual gratitude for our efforts via the ballot box either.  

Amongst the conferences, tweets and general rumblings there seem three schools of thought about what to do next. The first is Marxist  as in Groucho revisionism: to rise again we must water down our principles to accommodate where we believe the centre ground of politics to now be. Tone down our ideals in the hope that by such acquiescence we can eventually win back public support for our brand – if not our purpose. The very essence of a hollow victory.

The second is to stick to our guns and stick our heads in the sand, believing that eventually, when World War Three breaks out, the public will come grovelling back to us. To luxuriate in an unwillingness to see we are losing not just elected offices but the fight for our shared future.

But what if there really was a third way? It's not going to be easy, and it requires more than a hashtag or funny t-shirt. It’s about picking ourselves up, dusting ourselves down and starting to renew our call to arms in a way that makes sense for the modern world.

For the avoidance of doubt, if we march tomorrow and then go home satisfied we have made our point then we may as well not have marched at all. But if we march and continue to organise out of the networks we make, well, then that’s worth a Saturday in the cold. After all, we won’t win the battle of ideas, if we don’t battle.

We do have to change the way we work. We do have to have the courage not to live in our echo chambers alone. To go with respect and humility to debate and discuss the future of our communities and of our country.

And we have to come together to show there is a willingness not to ask a few brave souls to do that on their own. Not just at election times, but every day and in every corner of Britain, no matter how difficult it may feel.

Saturday is one part of that process of finding others willing not just to walk a mile with a placard, but to put in the hard yards to win the argument again for progressive values and vision. Maybe no one will show up. Maybe not many will keep going. But whilst there are folk with faith in each other, and in that alternative future, they’ll find a friend in me ready to work with them and will them on  and then Mr Banks really should be worried.