Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

BANAMEX....who are the chosen?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Pete J. says he is afraid to move to Ajijic permanently. I'm puzzled. I can't see how Citibank's troubles would affect a decision to live in Mexico. There are plenty of Mexican banks not connected to Banamex USA where I'm quite comfortable having my SS check deposited. Life savings, no.

What's to be afraid of that's new? We have the same old kidnappings, murders, cartels, extortion and general lawlessness that we had before the bank's troubles.

As far as renouncing U.S. citizenship is concerned, you have to go through a big process to do that.

You can be a Mexican citizen and still be a U.S. citizen (and owe taxes).

As far as avoiding taxes are concerned, some people worship the great god Money 24/7/365 above all else, and for them, becoming an ex-citizen of their home country makes some kind of sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read the Bloomberg link article. Absolutely mind-boggling. Maybe we are fruit that's already laying on the ground under the tree. Scoopable; no picking effort needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete J. says he is afraid to move to Ajijic permanently. I'm puzzled. I can't see how Citibank's troubles would affect a decision to live in Mexico. There are plenty of Mexican banks not connected to Banamex USA where I'm quite comfortable having my SS check deposited. Life savings, no.

What's to be afraid of that's new? We have the same old kidnappings, murders, cartels, extortion and general lawlessness that we had before the bank's troubles.

Every camel has that proverbial 'straw' that breaks its back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete J. says he is afraid to move to Ajijic permanently. I'm puzzled. I can't see how Citibank's troubles would affect a decision to live in Mexico. There are plenty of Mexican banks not connected to Banamex USA where I'm quite comfortable having my SS check deposited. Life savings, no.

What's to be afraid of that's new? We have the same old kidnappings, murders, cartels, extortion and general lawlessness that we had before the bank's troubles.

As far as renouncing U.S. citizenship is concerned, you have to go through a big process to do that.

You can be a Mexican citizen and still be a U.S. citizen (and owe taxes).

As far as avoiding taxes are concerned, some people worship the great god Money 24/7/365 above all else, and for them, becoming an ex-citizen of their home country makes some kind of sense.

Monday I'm looking into EFT using XE.com to transfer to Banamex MX from a U.S. account. Supposedly it has a better exchange rate and no fees to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I said I was afraid to move permanently, maybe I should have written, it just seems too complicated with too many problems that you might have to face. Yes I'm an Residente Permanente, but making that final move to come down 24/7 just may not be worth it.

Besides I like getting my meds up here for almost free plus free doctors visits, + free MRIs etc, and coming up here for short visits, makes me appreciate Mexico even more.

The worst thing about coming up north is that I have too many people asking me to bring things back for them, And when I have to say no to some of them, how irritated a few will get. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I said I was afraid to move permanently, maybe I should have written, it just seems too complicated with too many problems that you might have to face. Yes I'm an Residente Permanente, but making that final move to come down 24/7 just may not be worth it.

Besides I like getting my meds up here for almost free plus free doctors visits, + free MRIs etc, and coming up here for short visits, makes me appreciate Mexico even more.

The worst thing about coming up north is that I have too many people asking me to bring things back for them, And when I have to say no to some of them, how irritated a few will get. :)

Good reasons, Pete. Especially the health related ones. Y'all come visit, though.

I'm amazed that anyone would get the nerve/bad attitude to get irritated when you don't want to be their "mule"! Some folks just are just "me me's". No help for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps those getting booted keep small balances and have enough transactions where the bank doesnt make money but loses some.

Someone with a SS deposit of $1,200 per month, average balance of $400 and 8 ATM withdrawals. vs. Someone with a balance of $30,000 and one withdrawal. Any evidence to support my theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps those getting booted keep small balances and have enough transactions where the bank doesnt make money but loses some.

Someone with a SS deposit of $1,200 per month, average balance of $400 and 8 ATM withdrawals. vs. Someone with a balance of $30,000 and one withdrawal. Any evidence to support my theory?

Very little, if any. That theory is a convenient explanation, but it doesn't fit many cases. I think those who are laying this at the door of government regulations taking effect shortly are closer to the mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Intercase but I had a very large balance in my account for 11 years.

When I started this thread I was hoping to hear from enough people so that we might get some idea of why certain people were selected and other were not.

So far none of the lucky one who were not selected have weighed in with what made them different from the unlucky ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe in order to explain why they are different they would need to reveal to strangers more financial information than they are comfortable with revealing?

Bearing in mind that ANYTHING you post on the net is available to EVERYONE who is curious, you are exactly correct, Zena. No one in his or her right mind is going to do that kind of "sharing" . Many of the "unchosen" are going to be closing those accounts voluntarily, for good reason, at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I am afraid that this FATCA is going to be a real boondoggle. If you have more than $50,000 in assets in a complying foreign country, you will have a problem. If you own a home, it had better be a real jacal, otherwise you will be above the $50,000 limit. If you own stock in a foreign enterprise, they must report on you. If you have too much money in a financial institution, they will have to report you.

Nations that agree to this program will in turn get financial information on their citizens' financial affairs in the US. For some countries, it is no big deal. For others, it opens up a lot of people to extortion and kidnapping. People keep lots of assets NOB just to prevent that sort of abuse.

So far, it seems as if the easiest way around the onerous paperwork is to restrict deposits of US citizens, relatives of US citizens and those resident aliens and relatives of resident aliens. Corporations will also refuse investments from those people.

Nations not signing on to this program will have thirty per cent of funds transferred through the US withheld. Thirty per cent of a social security check and a retirement check may just break the back of some people. They can file for a return of these funds if and when they can prove they are legitimately earned and that taxes were paid on them. Who can wait until April 15th to get thirty per cent of their income back?

The more I read about this, the worse it seems. I am no expert, but I think everyone needs to read up on it before they are blind sided.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corporations/InformationforUSTaxpayers

Read through it and decide just how it will affect you personally. Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I am afraid that this FATCA is going to be a real boondoggle. If you have more than $50,000 in assets in a complying foreign country, you will have a problem. If you own a home, it had better be a real jacal, otherwise you will be above the $50,000 limit. If you own stock in a foreign enterprise, they must report on you. If you have too much money in a financial institution, they will have to report you.

The more I read about this, the worse it seems. I am no expert, but I think everyone needs to read up on it before they are blind sided.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corporations/InformationforUSTaxpayers

Read through it and decide just how it will affect you personally. Good luck.

You need to re-read it yourself. The value of your home does NOT count towards the FATCA limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of us will not need to file under FACTA:


If you are a taxpayer living abroad you must file if:
You are filing a return other than a joint return and the total value of your specified foreign assets is more than $200,000 on the last day of the tax year or more than $300,000 at any time during the year; or
You are filing a joint return and the value of your specified foreign asset is more than $400,000 on the last day of the tax year or more than $600,000 at any time during the year.
For now, only specified individuals are required to file Form 8938.
If you do not have to file an income tax return for the tax year, you do not need to file Form 8938, even if the value of your specified foreign assets is more than the appropriate reporting threshold.
If you are required to file Form 8938, you do not have to report financial accounts maintained by:
a U.S. payer (such as a U.S. domestic financial institution),
the foreign branch of a U.S. financial institution, or
the U.S. branch of a foreign financial institution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The authorities in Mexico have issued arrest warrants for former executives of Citigroup’s Mexican subsidiary, Banamex, in an investigation of a $400 million fraud.

Attorney General Jesús Murillo Karam of Mexico confirmed on Friday that the authorities were seeking the former executives. He declined to say how many were involved.

“Yes, there are warrants, but I won’t say who,” Mr. Murillo Karam told reporters.

The fraud involved a politically connected marine oil services company, Oceanografía, which borrowed $585 million short term from Banamex against contracts that it said it had with Pemex, Mexico’s state-owned oil monopoly. A Banamex investigation determined that $400 million of those contracts did not exist only after Mexico’s federal comptroller barred Oceanografía from doing further business with the government.

The head of Oceanografía, Amado Yáñez Osuna, was arrested on Wednesday on fraud charges. Mr. Murillo Karam confirmed that his bail had been set at about $6.2 million.

In response to questions, Mr. Murillo Karam also declined to say whether the authorities were seeking additional employees of Oceanografía or Pemex.

Citigroup is aware of the warrants, but Mexican authorities have not told the bank who is named, said someone briefed on the matter who was not authorized to speak on the record.

The bank fired 11 people about two weeks ago, including four managing directors, and later took disciplinary action against additional employees at Banamex, the person said.

At the time, Citigroup’s chief executive, Michael L. Corbat, said the fired employees’ “actions or inactions failed to protect our company from this fraud.”

A 12th employee, who worked at a regional branch near Oceanografía headquarters on the Gulf Coast of Mexico, was fired and arrested in February, shortly before the fraud was made public, but was released on bail and has disappeared.

The bank is likely to take disciplinary action against other employees, including some in the United States, before it completes its investigation into the fraud, said the person briefed on Citigroup’s investigation.

A Citigroup spokesman declined to comment.

The fraud involved Banamex’s accounts receivable program with Oceanografía, which did almost all its business with Pemex.

Banamex would advance short-term credit to Oceanografía based on invoices from Pemex that the oil company would then repay. But Banamex’s internal review found that most of the invoices had been falsified.

Banamex accounts for 13 percent of Citigroup’s revenue and has been an important part of its global portfolio. But the Oceanografía scandal has tarnished its reputation, prompting criminal and regulatory investigations in Mexico and the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bwhite, as I said, I am no expert. That is why I said everyone should read it and make up their own mind about it. Do you own your own home outright, or is it through a bank trust?

Foreign real estate held through a foreign entity

No, but the foreign entity itself is a specified foreign financial asset and its maximum value includes the value of the real estate

Now, where does that leave us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone with a Programa Amistad account been told they are not being closed?

Me. I have had Amistad since 1995. When I called Banamex last week they said my account has not been closed. However, I am not taking any chances and am changing my Direct Deposits to a different bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joco's substitution of the $200,000 USD FATCA limit for "Americans living abroad", (in place of the $50,000 USD FATCA limit for people filing normal returns with the IRS), fails to mention the other IRS tests and requirements we must meet to qualify for the higher limits.

Per IRS rules, on their website, to use Joco's exception we must meet special qualifications:

  • Taxpayers living abroad. You are a taxpayer living abroad if:
    • You are a U.S. citizen whose tax home is in a foreign country and you are either a bona fide resident of a foreign country or countries for an uninterrupted period that includes the entire tax year, or
    • You are a US citizen or resident, who during a period of 12 consecutive months ending in the tax year is physically present in a foreign country or countries at least 330 days. "

How many of us stay out of the USA at least 330 days a year?

Go back and visit the grandkids for a total of 36 days that year, and bingo - you are liable at $50,000 of foreign financial assets, (if your tax home is the USA).

or

How many of us stay out of the US, uninterrupted, for the entire tax year.... not one day back in the USA.

( when claiming that the USA is not your "tax home").

When we read just the parts that fit our opinions, (ignoring the important bits), and then report that incomplete tax advice to others, we can put readers at risk of serious penalties ranging from $10,000 for FATCA non-filing, and $50,000 for continued non-filing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Continuing in the vein of telling the whole story (not just the part that fits our hopes), if one has more than $50,000 total in foreign financial accounts for any day during the tax year, you really should read IRS Pub. 104 , focusing on pages 12 - 14 on how we determine where our "Tax Home" is under IRS definitions and rules.

The "whole story" for deciding whether you qualify for the FATCA exemptions under the "Physical Presence Test" (330 days or more outside the USA that tax year), or whether you can try to qualify as a "bona fide" resident of a foreign country is complex , and takes the IRS 5 pages to explain.... which means you should talk with a qualified tax professional who knows the international rules, and the US-Mexican 1993 tax convention (aka the US-Mexico Tax Treaty)... or read Publication 104 very carefully and understand it well.

In other words, please do not rely on Joco's very incomplete advice, as the penalties for simply "not filing" under FATCA start at $10,000 USD and go up from there. Also do not rely on my advice either, because the IRS needs 5 pages to cover this little item of deciding where our "tax home" really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Continuing in the vein of telling the whole story (not just the part that fits our hopes), if one has more than $50,000 total in foreign financial accounts for any day during the tax year, you really should read IRS Pub. 104 , focusing on pages 12 - 14 on how we determine where our "Tax Home" is under IRS definitions and rules.

The "whole story" for deciding whether you qualify for the FATCA exemptions under the "Physical Presence Test" (330 days or more outside the USA that tax year), or whether you can try to qualify as a "bona fide" resident of a foreign country is complex , and takes the IRS 5 pages to explain.... which means you should talk with a qualified tax professional who knows the international rules, and the US-Mexican 1993 tax convention (aka the US-Mexico Tax Treaty)... or read Publication 104 very carefully and understand it well.

In other words, please do not rely on Joco's very incomplete advice, as the penalties for simply "not filing" under FATCA start at $10,000 USD and go up from there. Also do not rely on my advice either, because the IRS needs 5 pages to cover this little item of deciding where our "tax home" really is.

I didn't give anyone any advice, that seems to be your job. I posted an IRS link for people to read. That link stated everything you just wrote but in fewer words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...