# W-8BEN - another question



## Ex NRASpouse

My husband renounced in 2013 and his last US tax return and the 8854 were submitted in 2014. 

He has recently received from our (UK) bank a FATCA letter asking him to provide information to clarify his US tax status.

I'm just filling in the W-8BEN and am uncertain whether I should/need to enter his SSN. The instructions for this line are, unsurprisingly, not entirely clear. 

I've entered his UK tax reference and, since he is no longer a US Person and has no assets or accounts in the US, my inclination is to omit the SSN.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Bevdeforges

I'd actually go the other way - there are plenty of "foreigners" who have US SSNs (usually from having worked in the US). Even after renouncing, your husband may have a claim on US SS benefits down the line. And, I can't help but think that if it ever came to actually checking on his status, being traceable through his SSN to his renunciation (which I think has to be reported to the SSA at some point) might not be a bad thing at all.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## iota2014

I can only speak for myself. I've renounced, and I've just recently filed my 8854. I'll definitely not be providing my SSN should I get a FATCA letter from any of my banks. Nor will I be signing any IRS forms. I see no reason why an explanatory letter enclosing proof of renunciation should not suffice.

However, I'm only saying what I myself intend to do - not offering it as advice for anyone else.


----------



## Ex NRASpouse

Thanks, Bev. That makes sense; I'll add it in.


----------



## Ex NRASpouse

iota2014 said:


> I see no reason why an explanatory letter enclosing proof of renunciation should not suffice..


I very much agree, IOTA, but I'm afraid that the banks don't seem to be seeing it that way and, for me, it's just easier to give them what they want and be done with it.

I'll be interested to know how you get on when the dreaded FATCA letter arrives. It would be good to know if common sense prevailed. I hope it does -but I have to say that I'm not overly optimistic.


----------



## Bevdeforges

One thing to remember, though, is that different banks have different practices and policies.

I just helped a friend with her US bank. She's a US citizen, but lives over here in Europe. Due to some mail problems (and shifting between addresses), she recently got a letter from her US threatening to close her accounts because the bank needed some information from her. I figured it had to be the W-9 form, but no, the bank insisted she had to either come in to a branch of the bank in person or call the bank herself.

It took a bit of negotiating over the phone, but ultimately we managed to confirm the information they had on file and everyone seems to be happy. But no mention of the W-9 - only something about the USA Patriot Act.

OTOH, neither my US bank, nor my French bank have ever asked for any W-9. I'll probably just fill one out for them if they ever do, but until that day... :noidea:
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## iota2014

Ex NRASpouse said:


> I very much agree, IOTA, but I'm afraid that the banks don't seem to be seeing it that way and, for me, it's just easier to give them what they want and be done with it.


Yep, I know the feeling. There's a lot to be said for that approach.



> I'll be interested to know how you get on when the dreaded FATCA letter arrives. It would be good to know if common sense prevailed. I hope it does -but I have to say that I'm not overly optimistic.


You may be right. I'll report any developments.


----------



## iota2014

Bevdeforges said:


> One thing to remember, though, is that different banks have different practices and policies.
> 
> I just helped a friend with her US bank. She's a US citizen, but lives over here in Europe. Due to some mail problems (and shifting between addresses), she recently got a letter from her US threatening to close her accounts because the bank needed some information from her. I figured it had to be the W-9 form, but no, the bank insisted she had to either come in to a branch of the bank in person or call the bank herself.
> 
> It took a bit of negotiating over the phone, but ultimately we managed to confirm the information they had on file and everyone seems to be happy. But no mention of the W-9 - only something about the USA Patriot Act.
> 
> OTOH, neither my US bank, nor my French bank have ever asked for any W-9. I'll probably just fill one out for them if they ever do, but until that day... :noidea:
> Cheers,
> Bev


It's almost enough to make one feel sorry for the banks, the staff must be so confused! 

And now they have the joys of CRS to get their heads round...


----------



## jbr439

Wouldn't his SSN become inactive once he's renounced? If so, an argument can be made that it would be incorrect to use it in a W-8BEN, no?

The instructions say "If you have a social security number (SSN), enter it here". It doesn't say "If you have or had ...".


----------



## BBCWatcher

jbr439 said:


> Wouldn't his SSN become inactive once he's renounced?


Nope. It's yours for life and a bit beyond.


----------



## iota2014

BBCWatcher said:


> Nope. It's yours for life and a bit beyond.


A *bit* beyond? Do they get recycled?


----------



## Bevdeforges

jbr439 said:


> Wouldn't his SSN become inactive once he's renounced? If so, an argument can be made that it would be incorrect to use it in a W-8BEN, no?
> 
> The instructions say "If you have a social security number (SSN), enter it here". It doesn't say "If you have or had ...".


As I mentioned before, LOTS of non-citizens have perfectly valid US SSNs - including anyone who worked for a time in the US and have since returned back "home" without having taken citizenship.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## BBCWatcher

iota2014 said:


> Do they get recycled?


Not yet -- at least not legally. (There are a few people who illegally or inadvertently use somebody else's number, including sometimes a dead person's number. And a few people have duplicate numbers.) In the fairly distant future, after all possible numbers have been assigned within the current XXX-YY-ZZZZ scheme, who knows.

My prediction, for what it's worth, is that the SSA will expand the scheme in the fairly distant future to allow letters within the same 9 character length but only those letters that cannot be mistaken for numerals. For example, the letters O, S, and I won't be allowed (as examples).

I think the SSA has consumed a bit less than half the numbers available over the past 80+ years, so this question won't need to be settled for at least another couple decades.


----------



## iota2014

jbr439 said:


> Wouldn't his SSN become inactive once he's renounced? If so, an argument can be made that it would be incorrect to use it in a W-8BEN, no?
> 
> The instructions say "If you have a social security number (SSN), enter it here". It doesn't say "If you have or had ...".


The UK IGA says:


> 4.8 Self Certification
> 
> Self certification may be used by a Financial Institution in relation to individual account holders as follows:
> 
>  To establish the tax residence of the holder of a New Individual Account,
> 
>  To obtain a US TIN from a New Individual Account holder who is a US resident for tax purposes, *or*
> 
>  In order to show that an individual is not in fact a US citizen or US resident for tax purposes, even if US indicia are found in respect of a Lower Value or High Value Pre-existing Individual Account that they hold.
> 
> [..skip the bit about how S/C may be used in relation to entities]
> 
> A self certification *can be in any format* and the term self certification includes the use of withholding certificates, such as the IRS W Series of forms, or other similar agreed forms.


That's the bit I would be relying on, should push come to shove - law of my own government, not US law. SSNs not mentioned.

However, I also agree with the OP and Bev that not bothering to argue about it would probably be the quickest and easiest way to make the problem shut up and go away.


----------



## BBCWatcher

You forgot to bold the words "similar agreed," also important words. One must assign at least some weight to every word absent flat out contradictory language (not present here).


----------



## iota2014

BBCWatcher said:


> Not yet -- at least not legally. (There are a few people who illegally or inadvertently use somebody else's number, including sometimes a dead person's number. And a few people have duplicate numbers.) In the fairly distant future, after all possible numbers have been assigned within the current XXX-YY-ZZZZ scheme, who knows.
> 
> My prediction, for what it's worth, is that the SSA will expand the scheme in the fairly distant future to allow letters within the same 9 character length but only those letters that cannot be mistaken for numerals. For example, the letters O, S, and I won't be allowed (as examples).
> 
> I think the SSA has consumed a bit less than half the numbers available over the past 80+ years, so this question won't need to be settled for at least another couple decades.


Interesting. Thanks.


----------



## iota2014

BBCWatcher said:


> You forgot to bold the words "similar agreed," also important words. One must assign at least some weight to every word absent flat out contradictory language (not present here).


No one mustn't. One can just point out the para to one's harried underpaid FATCA-hating bank assistant and let them decide whether they want to go to the wire trying to extract an IRS W- form from a non-US citizen.


----------



## Ex NRASpouse

I've been doing some more reading of the instructions for the W-8BEN (the Form)and I'm moving to IOTA's view re self-certification. 

It seems to me that our bank (Lloyds Banking Group) is requiring the W-8BEN as the self-certificate - and putting the onus on the account holder to decide how to fill it in rather than trying use a simpler document.

None of our UK accounts have ever been subject to withholding and we do not have any assets of any kind in the US. So, as I understand it, there is no US Source income.

I think that all this is needed is to "counter" the "US indicia" linked to the Lloyds accounts - i.e. the US birthplace - by sending the CLN and copy of the UK passport to prove that he is not a "US person".

The W-8BEN, as I read it, is valid for 3 years only and I can foresee requests for updating in the future...

Having said that, I'm not sure how this will play with Lloyds Bank!


----------



## Bevdeforges

The thing to remember is that the W-8BEN (as well as the W-9, for folks who are asked for one of those) is that it doesn't go to the IRS. It's up to the bank how they want/expect you to certify your status. It's the bank who will have to justify themselves if the IRS determines that they aren't turning over the information the IRS wants from the bank. (Or if the banks go through their national banking authority.)

The individual banks can accept (or not) whatever they want to justify their actions as far as withholding or not withholding on the US-related accounts and customers.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## iota2014

Ex NRASpouse said:


> I've been doing some more reading of the instructions for the W-8BEN (the Form)and I'm moving to IOTA's view re self-certification.
> 
> It seems to me that our bank (Lloyds Banking Group) is requiring the W-8BEN as the self-certificate - and putting the onus on the account holder to decide how to fill it in rather than trying use a simpler document.
> 
> None of our UK accounts have ever been subject to withholding and we do not have any assets of any kind in the US. So, as I understand it, there is no US Source income.
> 
> I think that all this is needed is to "counter" the "US indicia" linked to the Lloyds accounts - i.e. the US birthplace - by sending the CLN and copy of the UK passport to prove that he is not a "US person".
> 
> The W-8BEN, as I read it, is valid for 3 years only and I can foresee requests for updating in the future...
> 
> Having said that, I'm not sure how this will play with Lloyds Bank!


OP, I'm glad you agree with me but I wouldn't want to encourage you to do anything you feel uneasy about. Especially with Lloyds, who take a hardnosed attitude to most things. I expect their t&c's give them plenty of wriggle room to close an account if they want to do so, so if that would be inconvenient, it might be worth sucking it up and giving them their W-whatsit. 

In my case, I'm probably not risking account closure - I've been with all the banks for decades, and we know each other well. And even if my current accounts were to be closed, it wouldn't seriously inconvenience me. So it's easy for me to rebel.


----------



## iota2014

iota2014 said:


> The UK IGA says:
> 
> _
> *"4.8 Self Certification
> 
> Self certification may be used by a Financial Institution in relation to individual account holders as follows:
> 
>  To establish the tax residence of the holder of a New Individual Account,
> 
>  To obtain a US TIN from a New Individual Account holder who is a US resident for tax purposes, or
> 
>  In order to show that an individual is not in fact a US citizen or US resident for tax purposes, even if US indicia are found in respect of a Lower Value or High Value Pre-existing Individual Account that they hold.
> 
> [..skip the bit about how S/C may be used in relation to entities]
> 
> A self certification can be in any format and the term self certification includes the use of withholding certificates, such as the IRS W Series of forms, or other similar agreed forms."*_
> 
> 
> That's the bit I would be relying on, should push come to shove - law of my own government, not US law. SSNs not mentioned.


I'm pleased to say that having opened a new account with Santander, I've duly received a FATCA letter, and the self-certification form is the bank's own form. No mention of a W8-BEN.


----------

