Republicans bash U.S. law targeting offshore tax dodgers

WASHINGTON Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:36pm EST

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican National Committee (RNC) on Friday called for the repeal of a U.S. anti-tax-evasion law, siding with big banks, libertarians and American expatriates that have criticized the Obama administration statute.

At its winter meeting in Washington, the RNC approved by voice vote a resolution in favor of abolishing the 2010 Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), set to take effect in July, marking the party's first explicit attack on the law.

FATCA will require most foreign banks and investment funds to report to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service information about U.S. customers' accounts worth $50,000 or more. The law was enacted after a scandal involving Americans hiding assets in Swiss bank accounts to dodge U.S. taxes.

Critics have blasted the law as an unfair government overreach and invasion of financial privacy.

"The Republican National Committee ... urges the U.S. Congress to repeal FATCA," said the measure, staking out a campaign position ahead of 2014's mid-term elections.

On Wednesday, with the RNC vote expected to occur, a senior Treasury Department official said the vote would not hurt the administration's efforts to implement FATCA via a web of tax information-sharing agreements with other countries.

Tax watchdog groups that support FATCA slammed the Republican vote. "It is mind-boggling that a major political party would even consider endorsing a resolution to facilitate tax evasion," said Heather Lowe, director of government affairs at anti-graft watchdog group Global Financial Integrity.

"Repealing the law would cripple the U.S. and global efforts to fight offshore tax evasion," she said in a statement.

The Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a group that advocates for lower taxes and financial privacy, praised the RNC vote. "The GOP's adoption of FATCA repeal to its platform is a major victory for taxpayer privacy rights," said the center's Director of Government Affairs Brian Garst.

Republican Senator Rand Paul last year introduced legislation to repeal parts of FATCA, citing privacy concerns.

Repeal is unlikely and the issue was not expected to resonate with average U.S. voters, said lobbyists on both ends of the political spectrum. But they said Republican opposition to the law could help the party raise campaign funds.

(Reporting by Patrick Temle-West; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Alden Bentley)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (4)
Bakhtin wrote:
Of course the GOP support tax-dodgers. The GOP don’t like to pay their way – they want everything for free. Ask them to pay for their health-care and they start crying. Ask them to pay their share of national expenses and they start crying.

If they don’t want to pay to live in the USA, they should leave.

Jan 25, 2014 4:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
alwaysskeptic wrote:
Not surprising, as republicans are the biggest culprits.

Jan 25, 2014 6:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:
Indeed they are.

Stunning hypocrisy: they wrap themselves in the flag and pose as patriots; treat the Founding Fathers as deities; view the Constitution as a religious text (when it suits them), but when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is and supporting the USA… then it is a u-turn and they will do anything they can to avoid paying to live in the USA.

Always the same with the GOP. What they say and what they do are completely opposite.

Jan 25, 2014 8:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

BOSTON, ONE YEAR LATER