whatsupdoc

Members
  • Content count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by whatsupdoc


  1. Hi, thanks for this great info! Much to my dismay to some extent, unfortunately.

     

    I (US citizen) recently completed a divorce to a German citizen. Part of the divorce included the court-mandated equal distribution of all retirement assets, split by half in the provider they are with, i.e. state split by half, private split by half, etc. My ex-husband had a DWS TopRente in his name. After much back and forth, the court mandate required DWS to create an account for me (they generally refuse US citizens). German law requires that the provider give the beneficiary a contract with the same conditions as the original.

     

    When they gave me the paperwork it was for a DWS Premium, whereas the account being split is clearly listed as TopRente. I pointed this out and was told over the phone that the Premium was the same, etc. I insisted on seeing the new conditions but after many months of very unsuccessful communication and having received no additional information/paperwork plus shockingly rude, unhelpful telephone advisors, etc. (and losing all benefits to the account over those months since the split had been fixed prior), I eventually signed the paperwork. I did however write on all of the paperwork that I had not been informed correctly of the terms, etc. and that I was in fact an American citizen (since the paperwork states "I am not etc").

     

    Obviously I feel quite unfairly treated. Do you think there is any point in having this addressed or should I just move on? It has been one year.

     

    For the record and for everyone else: the DWS employees told me personally that Premium was essentially the same as TopRente and effectively refused to sell me the more attractive product, despite a court mandate stipulating the conditions I should be receiving. (They also dragged there feet another three months before actually transferring the funds and only did so after my sending a letter with "or else" deadline.)

    0

  2. Thanks! There's so much helpful information in this thread!

     

    So now I'm unsure about a "fondsbasierte bAV" with respect PFIC reporting ... everything stated above says that bAV is not subject to PFIC but somehow I'm wondering if the "fondsbasierte" form might well be?

     

    On a side but related note, I am supposed to be receiving half of a Riester Rente as the result of a divorce from a German national. The law dictates "interne Teilung" but the provider specifically prohibits contracts with US-nationals (I've seen the contract and couldn't sign it). Anyone have an idea what they will do with me?

     

    I've already contacted a number of people at the various providers but they all seem woefully uninformed to say the least and I haven't received any helpful responses yet.

    0

  3. Hi folks, I have an additional issue on the subject of the bAV. What about the limitations on American citizens investing in stock-market traded funds? Unfortunately most (all) of the brokers involved have brushed this question off without a second thought, but I think it's quite crucial.

     

    I am referring to clauses like this one:

     

    "Das Produkt darf nur in solchen Rechtsordnungen zum Kauf angeboten oder verkauft werden, in denen ein solches Angebot oder ein solcher Verkauf zulässig ist. So darf das Produkt weder innerhalb der USA noch an oder für Rechnung von US-Staatsbürgern oder in den USA ansässigen US-Personen zum Kauf angeboten oder an diese verkauft werden."

     

    If it's explicitly stated, the case is clear, but I can't get a straight answer from most brokers on the subject. I don't want to put the effort into choosing from several possibilities if several (all?) of them can be excluded from the outset. Does anyone have experience/knowledge of whether this applies to US citizens with respect to the bAV. Some brokers are claiming that the company is the contracting party, so it's not relevant, but as far as I can see I would still be the beneficiary, so it is very much relevant.

     

    Any input greatly appreciated!

    0