This petrol and diesel ban could help cut car emissions to 46m tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2030, down from an equivalent of 68 MtCO2e (metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent) emitted today.
The sale of electric vehicles has increased in the UK by 185.9% year on year; however, the majority of cars that are imported from other countries still have an internal combustion engine (ICE) – meaning they are either petrol, diesel, or hybrid. Around 26 countries are huge exporters of ICE vehicles to the UK, including the Czech Republic, Turkey, South Africa, Poland, and Italy. In the Czech Republic, the car industry accounts for 9% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). 154,468 petrol and diesel models were exported to the UK in 2019.
Challenges posed
While yes, the move to electric vehicles will drive down global emissions, which is becoming a crucial consideration for governments and populations worldwide following the United Nations’ ‘code red for humanity’ climate change warning, it will be expensive.
Road Haulage Association Managing Director Rod McKenzie told Sky News that alternative fuels for transport such as hydrogen and electricity will be too costly or won't offer enough range. For such a drastic shift to a different method of fuel, there needs to be less doubt and more certainty for something that is hugely relied on.
McKenzie commented: "This proposal is unrealistic. Alternative HGVs don't yet exist. We don't know when they'll exist, and we don't know how much they'll cost, and it's not clear what any transition will look like.
"So this is blue-sky thinking way ahead of real-life reality. For many haulage companies, there are big fears around the cost of new vehicles and a collapse in the resale value of existing ones."
Businesses involving heavy goods vehicles will be faced with many significant challenges – it will likely take a while for the price of alternative HGVs to be driven down while we wait for research and development to innovate them and make them cheaper to manufacture and run. Transitioning an entire fleet to alternative fuel won’t be cheap. However, there is a huge need for the transport industry to be electrified – according to the UK Government, 79% of domestic freight was moved by road in 2019, and the transport was the largest sector for emitting domestic greenhouse gases.
Greg Archer, UK Director of the European green transport campaign group Transport and Environment, argued for the ICE vehicle ban and the ever-growing need for this ambition. He said: "This plan is a milestone in the shift to a more sustainable UK transport system. The decision to only use zero-emission road vehicles – including trucks – by 2050 is world-leading and will significantly reduce Britain's climate impact and improve the air we breathe."
In a bid to help businesses, seven major British companies have joined forces to accelerate the transition to hybrid and electric vehicles – some of which have some of the largest commercial fleets in the UK.
Cost advantages for business
Businesses can save money on fuel – a report by British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association report found that electric vehicles cost between 2p and 4p a mile whereas the equivalent in diesel costs 12p per mile. Tax refunds are also available for the purchase of electric vehicles, meaning you can relieve some costs.
The government is offering grants towards the cost of a new van of up to 20% and 75% towards the cost of installing a rapid charge point at your place of business. Congestion charges such as ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEVs) have been introduced in some cities to achieve cleaner air to breathe. While a great initiative for local ecosystems, it makes some cities impractical or expensive to drive through with ICE vehicles. All of these considerations make van leasing deals seem a more attractive prospect for businesses relying on fleets.
What do you think about the plan to ban the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles? Is this giving you the push you need to adopt greener alternatives in your life?
Sources
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/108960/2030-petrol-and-diesel-ban-what-it-and-which-cars-are-affected
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/18/uk-ban-on-new-fossil-fuel-vehicles-by-2030-not-enough-to-hit-climate-targets
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry-news-environment/analysis-uk%E2%80%99s-ice-ban-have-global-impact
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/09/ipcc-report-un-climate-report-delivers-starkest-warning-yet.html
https://news.sky.com/story/climate-change-sale-of-new-diesel-and-petrol-hgvs-to-be-banned-after-2040-12355349
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/945829/tsgb-2020.pdf
https://www.openreach.com/news/major-british-companies-come-together-to-accelerate-the-electrification-of-transport-in-the-uk/
https://www.coversure.co.uk/redditch/blog/couriers-time-to-ditch-the-diesel
Members of the Democratic party in the US have called for a temporary ban on mergers and acquisitions (M&As) in America. The proposed ‘Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act’ would freeze mergers and acquisitions made by companies and financial organisations with more than US$100 million in revenue or market capitalisation.
In Europe, national governments and the EU have expressed concerns that foreign investors may try to take advantage of the financial impact caused by COVID-19 to acquire domestic businesses of strategic interest. The key point for acquirers to note is that deals may be subject to greater challenge from governments.
The over-riding notion to ban M&As is to avoid predatory acquisitions. The belief is that companies experiencing financial distress during the pandemic have less negotiating power when it comes to striking deals. In theory, struggling businesses are more inclined to accept the terms presented to them, meaning they may not realise their true value and could perhaps achieve a more attractive deal in non-pandemic times.
The Democrats in the US also argue that a temporary ban on M&As amongst large corporations would avoid long-term economic consequences, which would be caused by less market competition in the future.
While it seems understandable to relate to the sentiment of such proposals, they will do much more harm than good, and will only contribute to the economic consequences of COVID-19.
An outright ban on M&As could mean that struggling businesses have less opportunity to survive. With an acquisition off the table, a company more realistically faces insolvency. This could result in people losing jobs, while an element of competitiveness will disappear from the market and the government and the country’s road to economic recovery could become tougher.
In theory, struggling businesses are more inclined to accept the terms presented to them, meaning they may not realise their true value and could perhaps achieve a more attractive deal in non-pandemic times.
There is the consideration that the talent who have lost jobs because of the insolvency, then go on to find new employment with a company who may have been a prospective acquirer. This same acquirer may also have the opportunity to purchase the insolvent company’s assets and Intellectual Property (IP) rights at a later date, as administrators look to repay debts. This would be subject to complex negotiations but could essentially mean that after a period of disruption and lost time, the acquiring business still achieves its same objectives at a lower price, whilst the smaller struggling business ends up as the biggest loser.
An M&A ban could also prove counter-productive for any economy that chooses to enforce it. The laws underpinning a ban in one country may not be applicable, or certainly open to a greater challenge, in another geography. This would likely lead to companies looking to invest outside of their home country, creating jobs elsewhere and making financial contributions to another government and economy.
A governing body looking to ban M&As is also likely to be open to challenges from corporations under anti-competition laws. While there will be differences in the policies of these laws around the world, they are often bound by a similar premise of ensuring fair competition and promoting competition for the benefit of the market.
If a large corporation was prevented from taking part in a merger, whilst other companies could make acquisition offers because they had a lower turnover, it is reasonable to assume the excluded company has grounds to make a case of anti-competitiveness. Similarly, if a struggling company faces going out of business and has no option for survival through lack of acquisition opportunities, it’s questionable whether anti-competition policies are being upheld. After all, the ban would be contributing to lesser market competition when a business ceases trading.
Challenges under anti-competition laws would require careful consideration. This could have further negative economic impacts as an acquisition becomes long and drawn out. This may mean a struggling business running out of time to be acquired, resulting in job losses and insolvent debt. The latter can quickly ripple effect throughout supply chains, risking financial losses for other companies and putting further jobs under threat.
Should the ban be viewed as anti-competitive, a government would also need to consider how this impacts its relationship with large corporations. If companies feel trading conditions penalise their success, they may well decide to relocate their operations to another country. This could mean job losses in the home country and a decline in economic contributions, which may impact GDP.
Governments and anti-trust bodies are right to review M&As but it is draconian and short-sighted to consider banning them during the pandemic. It’s impossible to know how long the economic impact and business disruption of COVID-19 will last and freezing M&As until some level of financial stability and prosperity returns is likely to contribute to a higher risk of business failures. It’d be more effective to focus on upholding the laws designed to facilitate fair and competitive M&As.
Below Steve Noble, COO at Ultimate Finance, offers insight into the potential changes ahead and the way these will impact business and financing.
Ongoing Brexit discussions may mean it seems much longer ago, but in November both Houses of Parliament passed legislation to end Bans of Assignment contractual clauses. This is great news that lenders and SMEs will have been celebrating since the announcement was made.
What’s the problem with Bans on Assignment clauses?
Bans on Assignment often blocks the provision of vital funding to SMEs as some financiers are hesitant to supply this where clients and their customers have agreed a contract containing this type of clause. If the financier IS prepared to provide funding, they will either have to find a workaround – such as requesting that the business approaches their customer for consent –or request additional security from the client. Each of these options proves time consuming, incurs unnecessary costs and makes it difficult for clients to obtain invoice finance. Unsurprisingly, this can cause SMEs to either struggle on without the support they need or rely on alternative finance options that aren’t right for their business.
What does the change mean?
This means that from 2019 SMEs will be able to access the funding they need more easily. It’s why I’m welcoming the news that after two previously unsuccessful attempts, Bans on Assignment clauses are now null and void in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. SMEs will therefore be able to assign receivables to invoice finance providers without having to spend time and money seeking consent from customers or trying to find workarounds to these clauses which can make things unnecessarily complex.
The legislation also makes clauses prohibiting a party from determining the value of a receivable and being able to enforce it ineffective. Again, this will increase the appeal of invoice finance for so many SMEs across the country.
Does the regulation impact your business?
Clearly, this is great news for SMEs and funding partners across the country. However, there are still caveats in place which will inevitably frustrate some.
- The regulations apply to contracts entered into on or after 31 December 2018
- They do not apply to receivables due to be paid to large enterprises – traditionally defined as businesses with more than 250 employees – or special purpose vehicles
- They exclude certain contracts from the scope of the regulations, for example those relating to land and for the provision of financial services
- They only apply to contracts governed by the laws of England, Wales and Northern Ireland
The final point will likely prove the most frustrating, as the current legislation doesn’t change anything for more than 345,900 SMEs in Scotland, leaving them to potentially continue struggling to gain access to vital funding next year.
Hopefully this won’t be a permanent issue however as the Scottish Government may follow in the Central Government’s footsteps and announce similar legislation to ensure SMEs north of the border aren’t at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the UK.
Onwards and upwards
Despite the caveats, the news that Bans on Assignment clauses will soon be a thing of the past is great news for SMEs and lenders alike. This should result in a simplified invoice finance process and therefore more small businesses gaining access to the funding they need to continuing thriving in 2019. If that’s not good news, I don’t know what is.
Despite a well-developed electronic payment infrastructure, cash remains a dominant payment instrument in Singapore with 58.7% of transaction volume made at POS terminals in 2017, according to leading data and analytics company GlobalData.
In addition, more than 75% of transactions made at hawkers and wet markets are carried out in cash. This can be primarily attributed to the limited acceptance of electronic payments among small-sized merchants such as street vendors, food stalls and hawkers due to the high cost associated with POS terminals.
Singapore has for a long time been at the forefront of the payments innovation. Acceleration of electronic payments in the country has been one of the key objectives of the government’s Smart Nation Vision and in this regard, the country has invested substantially in building long-term infrastructure for cashless payments. Overall, the POS terminal penetration (number of POS terminals per thousand inhabitants) in Singapore stands at 35, compared to its Asian peers: Australia (39), Hong Kong (22), Japan (18), China (21), Indonesia (4) and India (2). In Singapore, card-based payments accounted for 32.8% of total payment transaction volume in 2017, increasing from 24% in 2013.
Singapore has a very high concentration of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). According to the Department of Statistics, Singapore, there were 220,100 business enterprises in the country in 2017, with 99% of them being SMEs. To encourage adoption of electronic payments among SMEs in particular, the government along with other payment participants is increasingly considering QR-based payments as a viable alternative for cash.
Kartik Challa, Payments Analyst at GlobalData, comments: “The economic rationale for QR codes is stemmed from the difficulty banks had in persuading smaller merchants to begin accepting payment cards. The QR-code based payment acceptance eliminates the need for a significant expenditure, as merchants can now either display a printed QR code on their stall or download the merchant app on their mobile phones to accept electronic payments.”
In November 2017, the Singapore Payments Council announced the development of a common standard for Singapore Quick Response Code (SG QR) payments, designed to work across all schemes, e-wallets and banks. Unlike the existing NETS QR system, which focuses on domestic market, the new system will accept electronic payments through both domestic and international payments. The SG QR, developed by an industry taskforce co-led by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and Infocomm Media Development Authority, will be deployed throughout 2018. Furthermore, as part of the process, the existing NETS QR will also be integrated into the new system and will be replaced with SG QR at all merchant locations.
Singapore's banks have also agreed to update their mobile payment apps/wallets to support SG QR. To expand the scope for SG QR, the Association of Banks in Singapore agreed to bring in banking P2P service –PayNow under the purview of SG QR. All seven participating banks of PayNow service, Citibank Singapore, DBS Bank, HSBC, Maybank, OCBC Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, and United Overseas Bank – enable their customers to transfer funds via SG QR.
Challa concludes: “The SG QR system is an important milestone, and to win over merchants, payment solution providers need to support the large number of e-wallets, offer quick payment settlement process and pricing benefits. Similarly, incentivizing consumers is a key factor to pique consumers’ interest in the new payment system. With the SG QR making a good headway, cash payments in Singapore are likely to soon become passé. Once again Singapore is at the forefront of innovation in payments, and other markets in Asia and globally are likely to follow the suit.”
(Source: GlobalData)
With digital currencies taking the financial world by storm, the banking industry is being revolutionized from the outside. And it’s about time. The global banking system, which relies on currencies whose value is partly determined by the people in power (and partly by the demand) and thus, spin the wheels of the capitalist machine, could possibly be turned inside out.
Cue cryptocurrencies. The premise is simple: They are not controlled by any particular country, which means supply depends on demand and the value depends on the movements within the blockchain. However, the programming gets far more complicated than that, as does their relationship with “regular” money and banking. It’s a love-hate relationship, or at least the banks love to hate them, seeing as the more transactions that are performed using crypto, the less power they have to maintain control of the financial capital in their country, and subsequently worldwide.
China was the first country to ban ICOs (initial coin offerings — the process to start a new currency). This shouldn’t really have come as much of a surprise from the country that has a bit of a history of trying to keep their population in check. When the news hit, it had a less than enthusiastic reaction from miners and investors alike. China says the move was to protect investors, which would make sense at a basic level because the Chinese stock market is less than 30 years old and investor protections need to be comprehensive enough for the ever-complicated ecosystem of alternative finance, which still needs time to develop. On the other hand, reports back in September revealed that China is hoping to eventually develop its own fintech sandbox, so their banning of ICOs could possibly be considered as a pre-emptive strike on the competition. Time will tell.
Other countries will also introduce some kind of regulation, but there’s nothing as extreme as China, yet. The USA doesn’t have an outright ban, but the strict regulations with the infamous IRS mean that you have to be an accredited investor to have the right to participate in ICOs. Malaysian officials have issued cautions and announced that there will be regulation to follow and they are not ruling out the possibility of banning cryptocurrencies completely. Most recently, South Korea has stated that strict controls are needed and there will be heavy penalties for offenders. Experts say that this is just paving the way for more control on cryptocurrencies in general. And it’s not just in Asia that governments are starting to play hardball: The banking capital of Europe, Switzerland, has introduced a code of conduct regarding ICOs and regulations for currency use.
Does this all come down to a country’s desire to regulate their own finances and wealth? Maybe. But it seems that they’re missing the point somewhat. The sheer beauty of digital currency is that they work independently of any government or central bank. And seeing as the cryptocurrency market is booming and is only set to continue, completely prohibiting ICOs in these countries is likely to be as effective as trying to ban gaming in the Bahamas, which now plays host to PokerStars' annual high-stakes championship tournament for poker.
As for bans in more countries, there are a couple of possibilities. Some countries will follow suit and introduce regulations on both ICOs and cryptocurrencies, making them lose what made them so appealing and successful in the first place. And others will allow investors to get in on the ground floor of this unregulated space for them to increase wealth in the hope that it benefits the country of the investor. Given the plans for economic growth in Southeast Asia, investors are sure to be plugging for this second option and subsequently leaving their competitors in the dust.
Of course, there will always be those looking for loopholes. After all, where there is a will, there is a way, and when the value of cryptocurrencies increases 400% in a six-month period, a will is easily found. It’s also possible that something as simple as a name change might suffice — premines are becoming an increasingly popular concept in the US at least — until regulations affect these as well, creating a cycle of innovations within the digital currency world.
ICOs are like IPOs, but for new coins. By now you’ll have heard about Bitcoin and blockchain, except that by now there are already over 900 other brand-new cryptocurrencies, just like Bitcoin, competing for a cryto-market in which digital money has created its own markets, with its own B2B markets and so forth.
One of China’s latest bans involved the absolute ban on introducing new currencies, whereby neither private companies nor banks can make a move on the cryto-markets. This is widely considered, by FinTech and crypto-enthusiasts at large, as a bad move.
However, Jakob Drzazga, co-founder of Brickblock, a firm that is on the verge of its own upcoming ICO, welcomes this ban, and explains to Finance Monthly why.
The Chinese know very well that pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered. The country’s rich list is often dubbed the 'Hogs-slaughtering List' and appearing on the list can immediately attract attention, investigation, and sometimes even prison time for financial misconduct.
Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) seem to have suffered a similar fate – getting too fat and attracting too much attention. On 4th September 2017, People's Bank of China declared ICO as an illegal fund-raising activity following weeks of intense and critical media speculations. ICOs have reached a state of frenzy in China with reportedly USD 400 million raised since the beginning of 2017, in comparison to the global total of USD 2.16 billion. Millions were raised based on a white paper containing fancy concepts elegantly outlined, but understood by few, and scrutinized by fewer still.
The secret formula of getting rich quickly spread. For a country that has produced more millionaires than any other in the last 30 years, ICO is seen as a fast track to join the millionaire’s club.
When ICOs have become a business model, rather than a financing method for an innovative business to grow, something has to be done. The Chinese regulator has rightly done just that.
According to the regulator’s in-depth study of numerous white papers circulated in the local market, the fund-raising activities of 90% of ICO projects were distinctly dubious. Of the rest, less than 1% is genuinely invested in the technology claimed behind most ICO projects – blockchain. Therefore, there is an important distinction between China’s ICO ban and its support to the development of blockchain technology which has been included in the country’s 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-2020).
So why would Brickblock, a start-up that is just about to launch its ICO globally next month, welcome the China ICO ban?
The ban will help to tame the ICO hype and provide a healthier eco-system for genuine and committed blockchain businesses to stand out and stand up to the test.
The ban will have an adverse effect on the short-term speculative investment but not too much on long term strategic investment committed to developing sustainable blockchain businesses.
The future of asset allocation is no longer about different asset classes, not even about including crypto currencies as an asset class, it is about bridging the digital and real world asset through tokenization.
At Brickblock, we have a grand but simple vision: building a trading platform on the blockchain where transactions are done seamlessly and asset classes transcend beyond forms or borders. We believe in tokenization as the future and as the new derivative market.
Just like the internet bubble, the fittest will survive and thrive. Neither ICO hype nor ban will help or hinder us to achieve our vision. To achieve that, we need strategic partners, visionaries, talents and the community who share our passion and long-term commitment.
Wayne Beecham, Director of Progressive Property, the UK's biggest property education and investment company below gives Finance Monthly his reaction to the Queen’s speech’ plans to ban landlord’s charging letting fees.
"Following the Queen’s speech we once again receive confirmation that a tenancy fee cap/ban is on the cards in the future, this has been a headline subject in the industry and I have heard many landlords, property professionals and property companies/ agencies groan at the thought of an outright ban on fees, in many ways I agree as an out-right ban tends to undermine the work and effort put into to the processes of renting properties and the hard work applied by a good quality agent who understands the importance of these fees to support the work required for a harmonious tenancy cycle. Though many people forget that the lettings industry has continued to fall short when it comes to regulations and change over the time and in some ways the landslide of changes we have been encountering over the last 10 - 15 years has been a result of the industry trying to catch up with the limited changes and regulations applied to the private rental sector and we should see these changes as a positive step forward to a better regulated, safer and fairer industry for all involved.
"I agree that an outright ban would not be a positive move forward for the industry and will encourage more agents and landlords to cut corners to try and achieve the outcome they require, a simple fee cap would be adequate to ensure consistency and fairness across the industry as well as acknowledging the works required to protect all parties in the private rental sector. Following conversations with referencing agencies a fee ban would merely promote more creative strategies to be implemented to the industry which would fundamentally cost tenants more money and completely undermine the purpose of a fee ban, as referencing agencies may look to increase their fees to tenants who require referencing for the purpose of renting a property and look to share this fee with letting agents the tenants will ultimately end up paying more to support essentially two fees. I agree any good agent is happy to promote more regulations within the industry which would ensure less bad practices and unscrupulous landlords who look to cut corners and potentially risk lives for their own personal gain, but we also need to ensure we are promoting becoming a property investor to ensure supply of good quality properties continues into the market place to keep up with demand and the shortage of housing we currently face.
"We have already seen a number of regulation changes which have failed to live up to their original objectives, this is clearly seen in the introduction of the protection of deposits and the choice of two different schemes. One scheme has met the objectives set and has a positive impact on the sector by holding the funds and therefore ensuring the purpose of the scheme to protect the tenants monies from any wrong doing or foul play, whilst the other has made little change and following personal experiences of bad practice by an agent the tenants and there deposits which were meant to be safeguarded where unfortunately left in the same situation they would have been if the scheme did not exist at all. We have also seen this with local councils and the eviction process as councils now inform tenants to stay even when legal notices have been served and even worse after county courts have instructed the tenants to leave, this short sighted advice has left many tenants in an even worse situation and delayed the inevitable outcome that they require alternative accommodations, following this advice they are now left in emergency housing or a hostel with a CCJ against their name and therefore narrowing their options for housing going forward and in many cases leaving them with the option of council housing which is already in short supply. By introducing a fee structure within the industry we would ensure consistency and transparency and therefore achieving the outcome required, if any agent or landlord was seen to be ignoring this structure a simple fine process would be enough discouragement."
In addition, Finance Monthly heard from Adrian McClinton, Associate Solictor at law firm Coffin Mew, on the Tenant's Fees Bill:
"Will the banning of letting agent’s fees help tenants? In my view probably not as much as hoped.
“Many of those renting do not want to be renting, but they cannot afford to buy because properties where people want/need to live are too expensive. On the flipside, landlords have seen their margins fall and therefore will understandably want to maintain already slim margins whilst still using the valuable services of letting agents. We have also seen an increase in competition within the letting agent market, recently joined by online providers.
“I think that landlords will stand firm and we will see the cost of this proposed ban being partly shouldered by letting agents, by reducing their prices and internal cost cutting, and by tenants, through an increase in rents, which is possible because of the huge demand for housing.”
It's not just citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries who are facing a US-enforced travel ban.
Under new rules, American citizens too could soon be banned from travelling by having their passports revoked for unpaid taxes, warns the boss of one of the world's largest independent financial advisory organizations.
Nigel Green, founder and CEO of deVere Group, is speaking out as the America's Internal Revenue Service (IRS) publishes details on its website of new powers to revoke US passports for taxes that remain unpaid.
He comments: "As President Trump hits out at the judge who has blocked his travel ban for citizens of seven Muslim majority countries, there are more travel complications from US authorities being introduced – ones that could prevent US citizens from travelling internationally.
"The IRS is to have a new tool to collect taxes. The new law will use the threat of stopping people being able to travel by revoking passports if there are unpaid taxes. It was passed by Congress in 2015 and details are now on the IRS website."
Mr Green continues: "If you have seriously delinquent tax debt, the IRS can certify that to the State Department. The Department generally will not issue or renew a passport to you after receiving certification from the IRS. The IRS website confirms that certifications will begin in early 2017."
He goes on to say: "This latest move would likely affect Americans living abroad most acutely for two reasons.
"First, because they would typically use their passports more often – not only for travel but for administrative matters, such as rental contracts, in their countries of residence.
"And second, since the worldwide rollout of the highly controversial Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA, in 2014, tax returns have become more complex, onerous and burdensome for US expats due to additional reporting requirements.
"Indeed, in our experience of working with US citizens who live abroad, 35 per cent are now likely to make a mistake on their tax return and/or file late due to the new complexities."
Mr Green concludes: "For US citizens who are resident overseas, the IRS' latest weapon to collect taxes, means it is more important than ever to stay on top of your taxes and file on time and correctly.
"With this in mind it's recommended that before submitting their tax returns they have them checked by an advisor with the relevant cross-border experience."
Mr Green concludes: "FATCA is a toxic law on many levels and there are renewed and strengthened efforts being made to have it repealed. But until that happens, Americans overseas must adhere to the FATCA rules or face the heavy consequences."
Earlier this week, the deVere CEO launched the Washington-based Campaign to Repeal FATCA, and with co-leader, Jim Jatras, a leading authority on FATCA, is assembling a team of experienced DC professionals to push the repeal effort over the top.
(Source: deVere Group)
