The Republican Platform 2016 that was adopted at the Republican Convention in Cleveland last July stated the following at page 13 under the heading "The Fourth Amendment : Liberty and Privacy": "The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Foreign Bank and Asset Reporting Requirements result in government's warrantless seizure of personal financial information without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
Americans overseas should enjoy the same rights as Americans residing in the United States, whose private financial information is not subject to disclosure to the government except as to interest earned.
The requirement for all banks around the world to provide detailed information to the IRS about American account holders outside the United States has resulted in banks refusing service to them.
Thus, FATCA not only allows "unreasonable search and seizures" but also threatens the ability of overseas Americans to lead normal lives.
We call for its repeal and for a change to residency-based taxation for US citizens overseas.
This clearly stated policy position in the Republican Party platform has had no airplay in the local media, while there has been a fair amount of dancing around the issue of FATCA on the local scene over the last few months and the legislation remains in limbo.
There has been no consideration given to the fact that at 12.00 noon EST on Friday January 20, 2017, Donald Trump will take the oath of office to become the 45th President of the United States.
Will the Trump Treasury Department uphold or overturn the current policy position of the Obama Treasury Department on FATCA? That will be a function of many domestic and international policy considerations in Washington after January 20.
However, to act as though this political shift is not taking place will be foolhardy. President-elect Trump has already named former Goldman Sachs banker Steven Mnuchin as his nominee to be his treasury secretary .
What his approach to FATCA will be is yet to be determined. It is possible that Mnuchin may be questioned about it when he attends his Senate confirmation hearings and that might provide the first clues.
Trump has not made any public pronouncements on the subject, but the Republican Party is committed to its repeal.
So far, much of the local media coverage has been about the disagreements between the Government and the Opposition over the handling of the bill.
The Government, through Finance Minister Colm Imbert, had initially promised to have a Joint Select Committee to review the bill which would have eased the parliamentary passage of the legislation considerably.
For some strange reason, Imbert's public agreement to a Joint Select Committee last September has been overruled by others in the Government and he had to fall into line.
The American Chamber of Commerce, whose remit is principally to promote the interests of United States business opportunities and investment in this country, has decided to expand that remit to enter the political fray to voice opposition to a joint select committee.
They could have taken a cue from the Bankers Association of Trinidad and Tobago whose president, Anya Schnoor, basically said that she was not interested in the political strategies of the Government and the Opposition, but rather that they just get the bill passed.
Trinidad and Tobago is unique in this region for having its Bill of Rights modelled after the Canadian Bill of Rights 1960. As a consequence of that, any legislation that is likely to infringe human rights is subject to three checks and balances. This is the current reality with the FATCA legislation.
The first check and balance of the Canadian Bill of Rights 1960 model is that all such legislation must contain a confession on the face of the bill that overtly states that it is "inconsistent" with sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution.
The second one is that the bill requires a three-fifths majority in both Houses of Parliament.
The third one is that after the bill is passed it can be overturned by a judge on the ground that it is "not reasonably justifiable in a society that has a proper respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual."
So far, we are at stage two of the checks and balances which requires a three-fifths majority in the House of Representatives which the Government does not have in its own right.
Twenty-six MPs are required to vote in favour of the bill for it to go to the Senate and the Government only has 23.
Putting aside the political controversies, the argument that this country will be penalised if it fails to enact the FATCA legislation does not take into account the third plank of checks and balances that relate to judicial oversight and the real possibility that a judge could overturn the FATCA legislation on the ground that it is "not reasonably justifiable".
This particular judicial test has nothing to do with constitutionality, but rather with "reasonable justifiability" which is completely different.
Will the country be blacklisted by the US authorities if its independent judiciary were to strike down the law?