Featured post

Welcome to Citizenship Solutions (and Green Card solutions) – John Richardson

Welcome to Citizenship Solutions – The blog of John Richardson

I am guessing (actually I know for sure) that you arrived here because of some aspect of being a U.S. citizen living outside the United States. Maybe you are a Green Card holder. Perhaps you are a former U.S. resident who has just learned that you may still be subject to U.S. “worldwide taxation” even though are a “tax resident” outside the USA. I also know how you are feeling.

“U.S. citizens” and “Green Card holders” are referred to as “U.S. Persons”. So, if you are a “U.S. Person Abroad”, well, life is pretty tough. in fact living as a “U.S. Person” outside the United States is: hard, expensive, confusing and (quite frankly) unsustainable.

Some of you are NOT in compliance with the intricate and (almost) impossible to understand web of tax and reporting requirements. Non-compliance has its share of problems.
Some of you ARE in compliance (as far as you know) with the intricate (and almost) impossible to understand web of tax and reporting requirements. Compliance also has its share of problems (stress, expense, anxiety).

Whether you are in compliance or not in compliance, you have problems. This is because:
U.S. citizenship is the one citizenship in the world that affects virtually every aspect of your life. in addition to the information on this blog, I help people with the following kinds of specific problems/questions (which include):

1. Are you a U.S. citizen at all? Have you relinquished U.S. citizenship along the way? If you have relinquished U.S. citizenship, are you a “U.S. Person” for FATCA and tax filing purposes?

2. Have you just received a “FATCA Letter” addressed to you as an INDIVIDUAL or to you as an ENTITY (corporation, trust, etc.)? How to respond. What’s a W9? What’s a W-8BEN-E anyway?

3. What about that old Green Card sitting in your drawer? You may still be subject to U.S. taxation, even when you don’t live in the USA! What are the tax obligations of Green Card holders? What to do? ….

4. Renouncing U.S. citizenship – What’s the “right way”? What’s the “wrong way”? The better question is “what’s the safest way”? What about that “back dated” relinquishment?

5. Green Card expatriation – How to exit the tax system and the U.S. immigration system.

6.  Oh My God!! The moment many of you will never forget. Yes it’s a problem. No it’s not as much of a problem as you think. Make certain that you respond and not react. If all you want to do is file U.S. taxes

7.  U.S. S. 877A “Exit Tax” consulting. If you think you can leave the “Land Of The Free” for free, you better think again. A bit about the the United States expatriation taxes. Those of you with a  non-U.S. pension and want to renounce U.S. citizenship should take specific note!

8. Retirement and financial planning (including pensions) as a “U.S. Person” abroad – You will be surprised at the problems you will have living as a U.S. tax compliant American abroad. Think (or maybe you shouldn’t) “PFIC“.

9. Coming into U.S. tax complianceWhat are the various options?  Why one option over another? What about “Streamlined” compliance? 99% of you should NEVER use “OVDP”!!

10. Non-U.S. AKA “Foreign Corporations” – Yes, these can be a BIG problem. Caution: The U.S. CFC tax rules may attribute income to YOU that you never received!

11. Getting a divorce? Are you a U.S. citizen married to a non-citizen? – Your U.S. citizenship will play a role.

Respond, don’t react! – Do NOT make any decisions without understanding the present and FUTURE consequences of those decisions.

So, how do I know this?

First, I am a person (Toronto based lawyer actually) who was born in the United States and has lived almost all of my life outside the United States. In other words, I have lived and do live these problems.
Second, I have spent the last few years of my life assisting “U.S. Persons abroad” survive the unjust imposition of FATCA, FBAR and “CBT” (AKA U.S. “place of birth taxation”) on Americans abroad. I work with many groups of people including: “accidental Americans“, long term dual citizens who wish to retain U.S. citizenship, long term dual citizens who feel they must renounce U.S. citizenship, Green Card holders (whether they live in the United States or not) and those who have ONLY U.S. citizenship. It’s what I do.

Third, I have been (and continue to be) actively involved in efforts to oppose FATCA in the courts and in the process of making submissions to the U.S. Treasury. If you want to learn about the Alliance For The Defense of Canadian Sovereignty lawsuit against the Government of Canada, see here.

I work with people all around the world! I have given “live presentations” about the “Problems of U.S. citizenship” all over Canada and Europe. I have given a number of “media interviews” about FATCA and the problems of U.S. citizenship. I have testified as a witness before the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance (May 2014). I have written hundreds of articles and blog posts about FATCA, FBAR and U.S. taxation-based citizenship. I have and continue to teach courses both for Americans abroad and for professionals who counsel U.S. citizens abroad.

Anyway, the blog is free. The counselling and assistance require individual consultations. Contact me if you want me to help you solve these problems as they apply to YOUR SITUATION.

John Richardson

P.S. Here is the one of the very first posts that I wrote on for this blog. Some posts are “timeless”. “What you need to consider BEFORE consulting a lawyer or tax professional“.

 

Featured post

"Coming Into Tax Compliance Book" – How Americans can come into U.S. tax compliance in a FATCA world

Are you “Coming To America” by entering the U.S. tax system as an American Abroad?

The “How To Come Into U.S. Tax Compliance” book for Americans abroad

John Richardson, LL.B, J.D.

I have contributed to establishing the new “Citizenship Taxation” site. As part of launching that site, I have written a series of posts providing relevant information (in a broad sense) about how Americans abroad, who did not know about their U.S. tax obligations, can come into U.S. tax compliance.

Sooner or later, it’s likely that many people will receive a FATCA letter. In your panic, you should be careful. There are a number of things Americans abroad should consider before consulting a lawyer or tax professional.

This series of posts developed from my “Educational Outreach” program for Americans abroad. It is an effort to respond in a practical way to the questions that people have.

The chapters of “Coming Into Compliance Book” are:

Chapter 1 – “Accepting Cleanliness – Understanding U.S. Citizenship Taxation – To remain a U.S. citizen or to renounce U.S. citizenship

Chapter 2 – “But wait, I can’t renounce U.S. citizenship if I’m not a U.S. citizen. How do I know if I am a U.S. citizen?”

Chapter 3 – “No matter what, I must come into U.S. tax compliance – Coming into U.S. tax compliance for those who have NOT been filing U.S. taxes

Chapter4 – “Oh no, I have attempted U.S. tax compliance by filing tax returns. I have just learned that I have made mistakes. How do I fix those mistakes?”

Chapter 5 – “I don’t want to renounce U.S. citizenship. How to live outside the United States as a U.S. tax compliant person

Chapter 6 – “I do want to renounce U.S. citizenship. This is too much for me. How the U.S. “Exit Tax” rules might apply to me if I renounce

Chapter 7 – “I really wish I could do retirement planning like a “normal” person. But, I’m an American abroad. I hear I can’t invest in mutual funds in my country of residence. The problem of Americans Abroad and non-U.S. mutual funds explained.

Chapter 8 – “We all have to live somewhere. Five issues – “The problem of Americans Abroad and non-U.S. real estate explained

Chapter 9 – “Receiving U.S. Social Security – #Americansabroad and entitlement to Social Security

Chapter 10 – “Paying into Social Security – #Americansabroad, double taxation and the payment of “Self-employment” taxes

Chapter 11 – “Saving the children – INA S. 301 – “Residence” vs. “Physical Presence” and transmission of US citizenship abroad

Chapter 12 – “Issues surrounding 401k, IRAs, Roths and Americans Abroad

Chapter 13 – “Married filing separately” and the “Alien Spouse” – the “hidden tax” on #Americansabroad

Chapter 14 – “The Obamacare “Net Investment Income Tax” – Pure double taxation of #Americansabroad

Chapter 15 – “To be “FORMWarned is to be “FORMArmed” – It’s “FORM Crime” stupid!!

Chapter 16 – “Most “Form Crime” penalties can be abated if there is “reasonable cause”

Chapter 17 – “How to get “credit” for taxes (foreign) paid to your country of residence

Chapter 18 – “I don’t pay taxes in the country where I live. Can I “exclude” my foreign income from the U.S. tax return?

Chapter 19 – “Is it better to take the “Foreign Tax Credit” or the “Foreign Earned Income Exclusion” – a discussion


Chapter 20
– “The child tax credit: take it, leave it or how to take it

Chapter 21 – “How #Americansabroad can continue to use the #IRA as a retirement planning vehicle

Chapter 22 – “To share or not to share” – Should a U.S. citizen share a bank account with a “non-citizen AKA alien spouse? – Reporting Edition

The “Coming Into Compliance Book” is designed to provide an overview of how to bring some sanity to your life.
 Coming to America

You may remember the old Eddie Murphy movie about “Coming To America”.

Welcome to the confusing and high stakes rules for U.S. taxation and Americans abroad.
The United States has the most complex, confusing, most penalty ridden and most difficult anti-deferral regime in the world. McGill Professor Allison Christians has noted that Americans abroad are both:

“deemed to be permanently resident in the United States for tax compliance and financial reporting purposes” …

and are

“subject to the most complex aspects of the U.S. tax code regardless of any activity in the United States, and facing extraordinary compliance costs and disclosure risks even for nil returns”

Although Americans abroad are deemed to be resident in the United States, their assets are treated as “offshore”. In addition Americans abroad are subject to taxation in their country of residence.

All of this means that:

1. Americans abroad are subject to the worst and most punitive aspects of the U.S. tax system (there is no Homelander who is treated as badly as an American abroad); and

2. Denied most benefits of the tax systems of their country of residence.

To put it simply, Americans abroad get the worst of all possible tax systems.

The most horrific aspects of the U.S. tax system are saved for Americans abroad. Prepare to be shocked. As one commenter at the Isaac Brock Society site recently said:

Continue reading

Featured post

Renouncing US citizenship? How the S. 877A "Exit Tax" may apply to your Canadian assets – 25 Parts

Introduction:

usexittax

There is much discussion of the U.S. rules which operate to impose taxation on the residents of other countries and income earned in those other countries. You will hear references to “citizenship taxation”, “FATCA Canada“, PFIC, etc. It is becoming more common for people to wish to relinquish their U.S. citizenship. The most common form of “relinquishment is renunciation”. The U.S. tax rules, found in the Internal Revenue Code, impose taxes on everything. There is even a tax on “renouncing U.S. citizenship”. I don’t mean the $2350 USD administrative fee which everybody has to pay. (Isn’t that really a tax?). I mean a tax on your assets. To be clear:

You must pay a price to NOT be a U.S. citizen.

This tax is found in S. 877A of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.

It’s defined as the:
Tax responsibilities of expatriation

Few people are aware of this tax. Fewer still understand how it works.  As FATCA operates to enforce U.S. taxation on many Canadian citizens, and increasing numbers wish to NOT be U.S. citizens, the importance of understanding the U.S. “Exit Tax” increases.

It is particularly important to understand what triggers the “Exit Tax”. You will be subject to the “Exit Tax” if you are a “covered expatriate”. You must know what that means and why, sooner or later, everybody will become a “covered expatriate”.
The “Exit Tax” is not a simple “token tax”. For Canadians, the tax can be a significant percentage of their net worth. Furthermore, the tax is payable NOT on actual gains, but on “pretend gains”. (Where would the money come from to pay the tax?)
Hang on to your seats. You will shocked, amazed and horrified by this.

Since the advent of FATCA in Canada, this issue is increasingly important.*

To be forewarned is to be forearmed!

This is a 25 part series which is designed to provide you  with some basic education on:

How the U.S. S. 877A Exit Tax rules work; and

How they particularly affect Canadians with a U.S. birthplace, who lived most of their lives in Canada.

This will be covered over a 9 day period in a “9 part” series. (It has since been expanded to 25 posts and counting.)

Although this series is beginning on “April Fools Day”, I assure that this is NOT a joke.

The 25 parts are:

Part 1 – April 1, 2015 – “Facts are stubborn things” – The results of the “Exit Tax

Part 2 – April 2, 2015 – “How could this possibly happen? “Exit Taxes” in a system of residence based taxation vs. Exit Taxes in a system of “citizenship (place of birth) taxation

Part 3 – April 3, 2015 – “The “Exit Tax” affects “covered expatriates” – what is a “covered expatriate“?”

Part 4 – April 4, 2015 – “You are a “covered expatriate” How is the “Exit Tax”  actually calculated

Part 5 – April 5, 2015 – “The “Exit Tax” in action – Five actual scenarios with 5 actual completed U.S. tax returns

Part 6 – April 6, 2015 – “Surely, expatriation is NOT worse than death! The two million asset test should be raised to the Estate Tax limitation – approximately five million dollars – It’s Time

Part 7 – April 7, 2015 – “Why 2015 is a good year for many Americans abroad to relinquish U.S. citizenship – It’s the exchange rate

Part 8 – April 8, 2015 – “The U.S. “Exit Tax vs. Canada’s Departure Tax – Understanding the difference between citizenship taxation and residence taxation

Part 9 – April 9, 2015 – “For #Americansabroad: US “citizenship taxation” is “death by a thousand cuts, but the S. 877A Exit Tax is “death by the guillotine”

Part 10 – April 10, 2015 – “The S. 877A Exit Tax and possible relief under the Canada U.S. Tax Treaty

Part 11 – April 11, 2015 – “S. 2801 of the Internal Revenue Code is NOT a S. 877A “Exit Tax”, but a punishment for the “sins of the father (relinquishment)

Part 12 – April 12, 2015 – “The two kinds of U.S. citizenship: Citizenship for “immigration and nationality” and citizenship for  “taxation” – Are we taxed because we are citizens or are we citizens because we are taxed?”

Part 13 – April 13, 2015 – “I relinquished U.S. citizenship many years ago. Could I still have U.S. tax citizenship?

Part 14 – April 14, 2015 – “Leaving the U.S. tax system – renounce or relinquish U.S. citizenship, What’s the difference?

Part 15 – May 22, 2015 – “Interview with GordonTLong.com – “Citizenship taxation”, the S. 877A Exit Tax, PFICs and Americans abroad

Attention: Parts 16 – 21 focus on the “dual citizen exemption in the context of Canada’s Citizenship laws.

Part 16 – February 16, 2016 – “Why the S. 877A(g)(1)(B) “dual citizen exemption” encourages dual citizens from birth to remain US citizens and others (except @SenTedCruz) to renounce” – Note that this module is composed of Parts 16 – 21 – six posts.

Part 17 – February 16, 2016 – The history of Canada’s citizenship laws: Did the 1947 Canada Citizenship Act affirm citizenship or “strip” citizenship and create @LostCanadians?

Part 18 – February 16, 2016 -The S. 877A “dual citizen” exemption – I was born before the first ever Canada Citizenship Act? Could I have been “born a Canadian citizen”?

Part 19 – February 16, 2016 – The S. 877A “Dual Citizen” exemption: The 1947 Canada Citizenship Act – Am I still a Canadian or did I lose Canadian citizenship? (The “Sins Of The Father”)

Part 20 – February 16, 2016 -The S. 877A “Dual Citizen” exemption: The 1947 Canada Citizenship Act and the requirements to be “born Canadian

Part 21 – February 16, 2016 – “The S. 877A “Dual Citizen” exemption: I was born a dual citizen! Am I still “taxed as a resident” of Canada?

Part 22 – February 29, 2016 – “The S. 877A “Dual Citizen” exemption: MUST certify tax compliance for the five years prior to relinquishment

More on the United States Expatriation Tax – ongoing miscellaneous:

Part 23 – “How the 1966 desire to “poach” capital from other nations led to the 2008 S. 877A Exit Tax

Part 24 – “Clinton Treasury representative Les Samuels explains why the U.S. Exit Tax SHOULD apply to the assets of Americans abroad

Part 25 – “Relinquishing US citizenship: South African Apartheid, the Accidental Taxpayer and the exit tax
 
________________________________________________________________________________________
* Why this is of increased importance: The role of FATCA and U.S. taxation in Canada

A picture/video tells a thousand words. Have a look at the “Rick Mercer FATCA video” in the following tweet:

FATCA is U.S. law which is designed to identify financial assets and people, outside the United States, that the U.S. believes are subject to its tax laws. (It makes no difference whether the person is a Canadian citizen”.) This includes people who were:

– born in the U.S.

– Green card holders

– people born to U.S. parents in Canada

– “snow birds” who spend too much time in the United States

The Government of Canada is assisting the United State to implement FATCA in Canada. To be specific:

– on February 5, 2014 the Government of Canada formally agreed to change Canadian law to identify “U.S. connected” Canadians in Canada

– in May of 2014, the Government of Canada passed Bill C 31 which contained the implementing legislation

– on July 1, 2014 FATCA became the law in Canada

– since July 1, 2014 many Canadians have received a “FATCA Letter” (can the U.S. claim you as a taxpayer?)

The Alliance For The Defence Of Canadian Sovereignty has sued the Government of Canada in Federal Court on the basis that the participation of the Canadian Government in FATCA, is in violation of the Charter Rights of Canadians. You can keep up with their progress on the Alliance blog” which is here.
FATCA is a tool to enforce “U.S. taxation in Canada”. The result is that more and more Canadian citizen/residents  will be forced to pay U.S. taxes. But, U.S. tax rules include much more than tax. They are source of comprehensive information gathering and “information returns”. Typical returns required by U.S. taxpayers in Canada include: FBAR, FATCA Form 8938, Form 5471, Form 3520, Form 3520A and many more.

In addition, U.S. tax rules are different from Canadian tax rules. The most painful example is that when:

– Canada allows a “tax free” capital gain on your principal residence
– the U.S. imposes a 23.8% tax on the sale of your principal residence (you get a $250,000 deduction)

Sound horrible?

It is, but:

It’s only Canadian citizens with a past “U.S. connection” who will be subject to these taxes. It is estimated that approximately one million Canadians may be subject (as “U.S. Subjects”) to these rules. But, Canadians with a “U.S. connection” are members of families. Therefore, U.S. taxation in Canada will impact all members of a Canadian family which has at least one “U.S. connected” member.

John Richardson Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

Featured post

What you should consider before contacting a lawyer

decision

The Reality of U.S. Citizenship Abroad

Nobody denied that the unintended targets of Congressional legislation aimed at those who supposedly “owe allegiance” to the USA, now assisted by craven foreign governments anxious lest their financial services entities lose access to the US market, are mostly unlikely to do anything at all. But the whole idea of universal self-assessment of taxation is to keep the taxpayer in an anxious condition, to make him overpay if possible, but at least not to underpay. Those now faced with an unprecedented, even retroactive, enforcement campaign and who must, if they wish to become compliant and avoid penalty or even prosecution (should they be identified in the future), sacrifice much of their wealth, even become insolvent.

Comment at the Isaac Brock Society blog – July 29, 2013

Continue reading

Americans Abroad, Digital Nomads And The IRC 911 Foreign Earned Income Exclusion

The discussion:

The history of the FEIE:

The slides are here …

Foreign Earned Income Exclusion Version 2

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

Beyer, Titus Introduce Tax Simplification for Americans Abroad Act – September 2023

Introduction and initial reactions

Today, U.S. Representatives Don Beyer (D-VA) and Dina Titus (D-NV) announced the introduction of the Tax Simplification for Americans Abroad Act, legislation to help American taxpayers living overseas comply with their U.S. tax obligations by calling on the IRS to create a short form certification for Americans living abroad who owe no U.S. tax and earn below $400,000 annually. The bill would expand the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion to include additional types of income that are earned overseas like pensions and distributions from retirements funds. It would also consolidate duplicative and burdensome forms that taxpayers must file under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Bank Secrecy Act.

“Ordinary Americans living abroad are often overlooked when U.S. tax policy is written, which can make it extremely difficult and expensive for them to navigate the tax system,” said Rep. Don Beyer. “I saw a record-breaking number of Americans renounce their citizenship when I served as the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland, and the needless complexity of the U.S. tax code was often cited as a reason. This bill would help ordinary Americans fulfill their obligations without having to retain an expensive accountant to certify that they owe no U.S. taxes, and remove some of the frustrations faced by Americans living abroad who just want to follow the law.”

“Americans abroad face a uniquely complex set of reporting requirements that we here at home aren’t subject to. I’m joining Rep. Beyer to create a simplified income tax return for taxpayers living abroad because Americans shouldn’t have to jump through extra hoops simply because they reside or work overseas,” said Rep. Dina Titus, Chair of the Americans Abroad Caucus.

The announcement is here and that actual bill is here.

https://beyer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=5981

https://beyer.house.gov/uploadedfiles/americans_abroad.pdf

A pdf version of the bill is available here:

americans_abroad

This bill does NOT eliminate U.S. citizenship taxation – it is an attempt to make compliance with the existing rules of citizenship taxation easier!

Notably this is very similar to Congressman Beyer’s H.R. 6057 which was introduced in November of 2021. My analysis of H.R. 6057 is here:

http://citizenshipsolutions.ca/2021/11/21/the-beyer-tax-simplification-for-americans-abroad-act-a-first-look/

My first impressions of this bill are captured in the following twitter thread:

A “Readers Digest” Explanation Of The Bill

It’s important that “Section 2”, “Section 3” and “Section 4” are logically independent legislative proposals. To be specific:

– “SEC. 2. SHORT FORM FOR CERTAIN TAXPAYERS LIVING ABROAD”;

– “SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF INCOME ALLOWED AS FOREIGN EARNED INCOME”;

– “SEC. 4. INFORMATION RELATING TO SPECIFIED FOREIGN FINANCIAL ASSETS”

are independent of each other and are designed to achieve separate results.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tax Simplification for Americans Abroad Act’’.

SEC. 2. SHORT FORM FOR CERTAIN TAXPAYERS LIVING ABROAD

What it is intended to achieve: The overall purpose is to make compliance easier by creating a new kind of tax return for Americans abroad which will consolidate all the reporting information (and forms) into one form.

Who is allowed to use the new form: The tax return can be used ONLY by individuals who meet the following conditions:

– they qualify under the 911 “Foreign Earned Income Exclusion

– they have a “gross income” (presumably as defined under IRC 61) of not more than $400,000 (indexed to inflation). Note that this $400,000 would NOT include income that is excluded under the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. Therefore the practical meaning of this requirement would be no more than (1) the maximum income exclusion under the FEIE (currently $120,000) plus (2) an additional $400,000 of “GROSS income”

– they have zero U.S. tax liability … Note that this may be a very difficult condition to meet. Much of the income that cannot be excluded under the FEIE is income that typically attracts U.S. tax (GILTI, Subpart F, PFIC, phantom capital gains, sale of principal residence). Note also the spectre of the 3.8% Obama surtax in addition to the income tax.

Note that all three of these conditions must be satisfied. The requirement of zero U.S. tax may be difficult to meet.

SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF INCOME ALLOWED AS FOREIGN EARNED INCOME.

Like its predecessor (H.R. 6057) the bill tries to improve the situation for Americans abroad by expanding the definition of earned income. It does NOT increase the amount of income that can be excluded under the FEIE. It’s interesting to see what is now included as earned income and what is specifically excluded from the definition of earned income.

Specific inclusions in the definition of “earned income”

In addition to income from employment …

– pensions and foreign government benefits now qualify as earned income

Specific exclusions from the definition of earned income

– investment income does NOT qualify as earned income (brokerage accounts, savings accounts, etc.)

– dividends from small business corporations do NOT qualify as earned income

– interest, dividends, capital gains from investment accounts (including UK ISA and Canada TFSA) continue to be income

– GILTI, Subpart F and PFIC (fake income) are still included in income

– interestingly (carried over from H.R. 6057) income from 402(b) plans does not qualify as “earned income”. (Many consider the income from Australian Superannuations to be 402(b) income.)

These exclusions from “earned income” are “gross income” and count toward the $400,000 threshold to be eligible to use the new simplified filing procedure. Assuming no U.S. tax is owing the person would be eligible to use the “simplified filing procedure”. The problem is that “gross income” includes certain kinds of “fake income” that often create U.S. tax liability.

If the individual is not eligible for the new simplified filing process, he would file under the existing rules.

(See Appendix C below for the technical details.)

SEC. 4. INFORMATION RELATING TO SPECIFIED FOREIGN FINANCIAL ASSETS.

SEC. 4 contains provisions directed to both (1) Individuals and (2) Foreign Financial Institutions described in IRC 1471 (FATCA).

Provisions aimed at individuals

Generally (“The devil is in the details”) this is an attempt to relieve both the FBAR (FinCEN 114) requirement and the Form 8938 requirement for certain Americans abroad.

FBAR Relief – generally trying to make the threshold reporting the same as FATCA Form 8938 reporting:

It amends the FBAR Statute (31 U.S.C. 5314) as follows:

(1) IN GENERAL.—If a person makes a transaction that would require reporting under subsection (a), and such transaction involves a specified foreign financial asset, the reporting requirements described in subsection (a) shall—
(A) only apply if the transaction involves an amount that exceeds the aggregate value threshold set forth in section 6038D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
(B) be satisfied by attaching to such person’s return of tax for such taxable year the information required under section 6038D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

(2) SPECIFIED FOREIGN FINANCIAL ASSET.—
15 For purposes of this section, the term ‘specified foreign financial asset’ has the meaning given the term in section 6038D(b) of the 2211 Internal Revenue 18 Code of 1986.

Form 8938 Relief – Providing some exclusions from Form 8938 reporting including accounts that are excluded from reporting under Annex II in FATCA IGAs:

The most notable provision (and this is intelligent) is to NOT require reporting of accounts that are exempt from reporting under Annex II of the FATCA IGAS (generally retirement accounts).

(2) CERTAIN ACCOUNTS EXEMPT FROM FINANCIAL REPORTING.—An account is exempt from the reporting requirement under subsection (a) if it is an account—

(A) the maximum balance of which does not exceed $600 for the entire duration of the taxable year,
(B) the usage of which is limited to a single merchant, or
(C) the type of which is listed as an exempt account in Annex II of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act Intergovernmental Agreement in effect between the United States and the country in which such account is held.

Provisions aimed at “Foreign Financial Institutions – Amendments to IRC 1471

The language of the Beyer ‘‘Tax Simplification for Americans Abroad Act’’ in SEC. 4 includes:

(c) FURNISHMENT OF INFORMATION BY FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO OWNERS OF SPECIFIED FOREIGN FINANCIAL ASSETS.

Section 1471(c) of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘‘(4) REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ACCOUNT HOLDERS.—

If a foreign financial institution submits a report under this section, such institution shall provide account holders with a copy of such report within 15 days of such submission.’’

By its express terms this provision (found in Chapter 4) imposes additional administrative obligations on Foreign Financial Institutions. This additional obligation would certainly increase the motivation of banks to avoid doing business (past, present and future) with “U.S. citizens”.

As a practical matter, the FATCA obligations are governed by the FATCA IGAs and not the Internal Revenue Code. The “Tax Simplification for Americans Abroad Act” does NOT change the content of the FATCA IGAs. Therefore, I believe this specific legislative amendment, imposing obligations on the banks that are NOT included in the FATCA IGAs,IRC 1471 can be ignored by the foreign banks.

Conclusion …

While appreciating the sentiments of Congressman Beyer and Congresswoman Titus this bill keeps citizenship taxation intact. It provides certain “carveouts” for certain people, under certain circumstances and at certain times in their lives. It is not a solution, but it will (for some) make the “prison of citizenship taxation” more comfortable.

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

__________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix A – Beyer 2021 Bill – H.R. 6057

Post 1 – November 21, 2021

http://citizenshipsolutions.ca/2021/11/21/the-beyer-tax-simplification-for-americans-abroad-act-a-first-look/

Post 2 – November 27, 2011 – Podcast

https://citizenshipsolutions.ca/2021/11/27/hr-6057-tax-simplification-for-americans-abroad-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B – IRC 911 – The Foreign Earned Income Exclusion In Its Present Form

26 U.S. Code § 911 – Citizens or residents of the United States living abroad
U.S. Code

(a)Exclusion from gross income

At the election of a qualified individual (made separately with respect to paragraphs (1) and (2)), there shall be excluded from the gross income of such individual, and exempt from taxation under this subtitle, for any taxable year—
(1)the foreign earned income of such individual, and
(2)the housing cost amount of such individual.

__________________________________________________________________________________

(b)Foreign earned income

(1)Definition
For purposes of this section—
(A)In general
The term “foreign earned income” with respect to any individual means the amount received by such individual from sources within a foreign country or countries which constitute earned income attributable to services performed by such individual during the period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (d)(1), whichever is applicable.

(B)Certain amounts not included in foreign earned income
The foreign earned income for an individual shall not include amounts—
(i)received as a pension or annuity,
(ii)paid by the United States or an agency thereof to an employee of the United States or an agency thereof,
(iii)included in gross income by reason of section 402(b) (relating to taxability of beneficiary of nonexempt trust) or section 403(c) (relating to taxability of beneficiary under a nonqualified annuity), or
(iv)received after the close of the taxable year following the taxable year in which the services to which the amounts are attributable are performed.
(2)Limitation on foreign earned income
(A)In general
The foreign earned income of an individual which may be excluded under subsection (a)(1) for any taxable year shall not exceed the amount of foreign earned income computed on a daily basis at an annual rate equal to the exclusion amount for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.

(B)Attribution to year in which services are performed
For purposes of applying subparagraph (A), amounts received shall be considered received in the taxable year in which the services to which the amounts are attributable are performed.

(C)Treatment of community income

In applying subparagraph (A) with respect to amounts received from services performed by a husband or wife which are community income under community property laws applicable to such income, the aggregate amount which may be excludable from the gross income of such husband and wife under subsection (a)(1) for any taxable year shall equal the amount which would be so excludable if such amounts did not constitute community income.

(D)Exclusion amount

(i)In general
The exclusion amount for any calendar year is $80,000.

(ii)Inflation adjustment
In the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2005, the $80,000 amount in clause (i) shall be increased by an amount equal to the product of—
(I)such dollar amount, and
(II)the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined by substituting “2004” for “2016” in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof.
 If any increase determined under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of $100, such increase shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $100.

__________________________________________________________________________________

(c)Housing cost amount

For purposes of this section—
(1)In general
The term “housing cost amount” means an amount equal to the excess of—
(A)the housing expenses of an individual for the taxable year to the extent such expenses do not exceed the amount determined under paragraph (2), over
(B)an amount equal to the product of—
(i)16 percent of the amount (computed on a daily basis) in effect under subsection (b)(2)(D) for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins, multiplied by
(ii)the number of days of such taxable year within the applicable period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (d)(1).
(2)Limitation
(A)In general
The amount determined under this paragraph is an amount equal to the product of—
(i)30 percent (adjusted as may be provided under subparagraph (B)) of the amount (computed on a daily basis) in effect under subsection (b)(2)(D) for the calendar year in which the taxable year of the individual begins, multiplied by
(ii)the number of days of such taxable year within the applicable period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (d)(1).
(B)Regulations
The Secretary may issue regulations or other guidance providing for the adjustment of the percentage under subparagraph (A)(i) on the basis of geographic differences in housing costs relative to housing costs in the United States.

(3)Housing expenses
(A)In general
The term “housing expenses” means the reasonable expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year by or on behalf of an individual for housing for the individual (and, if they reside with him, for his spouse and dependents) in a foreign country. The term—
(i)includes expenses attributable to the housing (such as utilities and insurance), but
(ii)does not include interest and taxes of the kind deductible under section 163 or 164 or any amount allowable as a deduction under section 216(a).
Housing expenses shall not be treated as reasonable to the extent such expenses are lavish or extravagant under the circumstances.
(B)Second foreign household
(i)In general
Except as provided in clause (ii), only housing expenses incurred with respect to that abode which bears the closest relationship to the tax home of the individual shall be taken into account under paragraph (1).

(ii)Separate household for spouse and dependents
If an individual maintains a separate abode outside the United States for his spouse and dependents and they do not reside with him because of living conditions which are dangerous, unhealthful, or otherwise adverse, then—
(I)the words “if they reside with him” in subparagraph (A) shall be disregarded, and
(II)the housing expenses incurred with respect to such abode shall be taken into account under paragraph (1).
(4)Special rules where housing expenses not provided by employer
(A)In general
To the extent the housing cost amount of any individual for any taxable year is not attributable to employer provided amounts, such amount shall be treated as a deduction allowable in computing adjusted gross income to the extent of the limitation of subparagraph (B).

(B)Limitation
For purposes of subparagraph (A), the limitation of this subparagraph is the excess of—
(i)the foreign earned income of the individual for the taxable year, over
(ii)the amount of such income excluded from gross income under subsection (a) for the taxable year.
(C)1-year carryover of housing amounts not allowed by reason of subparagraph (B)
(i)In general
The amount not allowable as a deduction for any taxable year under subparagraph (A) by reason of the limitation of subparagraph (B) shall be treated as a deduction allowable in computing adjusted gross income for the succeeding taxable year (and only for the succeeding taxable year) to the extent of the limitation of clause (ii) for such succeeding taxable year.

(ii)Limitation
For purposes of clause (i), the limitation of this clause for any taxable year is the excess of—
(I)the limitation of subparagraph (B) for such taxable year, over
(II)amounts treated as a deduction under subparagraph (A) for such taxable year.
(D)Employer provided amounts
For purposes of this paragraph, the term “employer provided amounts” means any amount paid or incurred on behalf of the individual by the individual’s employer which is foreign earned income included in the individual’s gross income for the taxable year (without regard to this section).

(E)Foreign earned income
For purposes of this paragraph, an individual’s foreign earned income for any taxable year shall be determined without regard to the limitation of subparagraph (A) of subsection (b)(2).

__________________________________________________________________________________

(d)Definitions and special rules

For purposes of this section—

(1)Qualified individual
The term “qualified individual” means an individual whose tax home is in a foreign country and who is—
(A)a citizen of the United States and establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary that he has been a bona fide resident of a foreign country or countries for an uninterrupted period which includes an entire taxable year, or
(B)a citizen or resident of the United States and who, during any period of 12 consecutive months, is present in a foreign country or countries during at least 330 full days in such period.
(2)Earned income
(A)In general
The term “earned income” means wages, salaries, or professional fees, and other amounts received as compensation for personal services actually rendered, but does not include that part of the compensation derived by the taxpayer for personal services rendered by him to a corporation which represents a distribution of earnings or profits rather than a reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal services actually rendered.

(B)Taxpayer engaged in trade or business
In the case of a taxpayer engaged in a trade or business in which both personal services and capital are material income-producing factors, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, a reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal services rendered by the taxpayer, not in excess of 30 percent of his share of the net profits of such trade or business, shall be considered as earned income.

(3)Tax home
The term “tax home” means, with respect to any individual, such individual’s home for purposes of section 162(a)(2) (relating to traveling expenses while away from home). An individual shall not be treated as having a tax home in a foreign country for any period for which his abode is within the United States, unless such individual is serving in an area designated by the President of the United States by Executive order as a combat zone for purposes of section 112 in support of the Armed Forces of the United States.

(4)Waiver of period of stay in foreign country
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an individual who—
(A)is a bona fide resident of, or is present in, a foreign country for any period,
(B)leaves such foreign country after August 31, 1978—
(i)during any period during which the Secretary determines, after consultation with the Secretary of State or his delegate, that individuals were required to leave such foreign country because of war, civil unrest, or similar adverse conditions in such foreign country which precluded the normal conduct of business by such individuals, and
(ii)before meeting the requirements of such paragraph (1), and
(C)establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such individual could reasonably have been expected to have met such requirements but for the conditions referred to in clause (i) of subparagraph (B),
shall be treated as a qualified individual with respect to the period described in subparagraph (A) during which he was a bona fide resident of, or was present in, the foreign country, and in applying subsections (b)(2)(A), (c)(1)(B)(ii), and (c)(2)(A)(ii) with respect to such individual, only the days within such period shall be taken into account.
(5)Test of bona fide residence
If—
(A)an individual who has earned income from sources within a foreign country submits a statement to the authorities of that country that he is not a resident of that country, and
(B)such individual is held not subject as a resident of that country to the income tax of that country by its authorities with respect to such earnings,
then such individual shall not be considered a bona fide resident of that country for purposes of paragraph (1)(A).
(6)Denial of double benefits
No deduction or exclusion from gross income under this subtitle or credit against the tax imposed by this chapter (including any credit or deduction for the amount of taxes paid or accrued to a foreign country or possession of the United States) shall be allowed to the extent such deduction, exclusion, or credit is properly allocable to or chargeable against amounts excluded from gross income under subsection (a).

(7)Aggregate benefit cannot exceed foreign earned income
The sum of the amount excluded under subsection (a) and the amount deducted under subsection (c)(4)(A) for the taxable year shall not exceed the individual’s foreign earned income for such year.

(8)Limitation on income earned in restricted country
(A)In general
If travel (or any transaction in connection with such travel) with respect to any foreign country is subject to the regulations described in subparagraph (B) during any period—
(i)the term “foreign earned income” shall not include any income from sources within such country attributable to services performed during such period,
(ii)the term “housing expenses” shall not include any expenses allocable to such period for housing in such country or for housing of the spouse or dependents of the taxpayer in another country while the taxpayer is present in such country, and
(iii)an individual shall not be treated as a bona fide resident of, or as present in, a foreign country for any day during which such individual was present in such country during such period.
(B)Regulations
For purposes of this paragraph, regulations are described in this subparagraph if such regulations—
(i)have been adopted pursuant to the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.) or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and
(ii)include provisions generally prohibiting citizens and residents of the United States from engaging in transactions related to travel to, from, or within a foreign country.
(C)Exception
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any individual during any period in which such individual’s activities are not in violation of the regulations described in subparagraph (B).

(9)Regulations
The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section, including regulations providing rules—
(A)for cases where a husband and wife each have earned income from sources outside the United States, and
(B)for married individuals filing separate returns.

__________________________________________________________________________________

(e)Election

(1)In general
An election under subsection (a) shall apply to the taxable year for which made and to all subsequent taxable years unless revoked under paragraph (2).

(2)Revocation
A taxpayer may revoke an election made under paragraph (1) for any taxable year after the taxable year for which such election was made. Except with the consent of the Secretary, any taxpayer who makes such a revocation for any taxable year may not make another election under this section for any subsequent taxable year before the 6th taxable year after the taxable year for which such revocation was made.

__________________________________________________________________________________

(f)Determination of tax liability

(1)In general
If, for any taxable year, any amount is excluded from gross income of a taxpayer under subsection (a), then, notwithstanding sections 1 and 55—
(A)if such taxpayer has taxable income for such taxable year, the tax imposed by section 1 for such taxable year shall be equal to the excess (if any) of—
(i)the tax which would be imposed by section 1 for such taxable year if the taxpayer’s taxable income were increased by the amount excluded under subsection (a) for such taxable year, over
(ii)the tax which would be imposed by section 1 for such taxable year if the taxpayer’s taxable income were equal to the amount excluded under subsection (a) for such taxable year, and
(B)if such taxpayer has a taxable excess (as defined in section 55(b)(1)(B)) for such taxable year, the amount determined under the first sentence of section 55(b)(1)(A) for such taxable year shall be equal to the excess (if any) of—
(i)the amount which would be determined under such sentence for such taxable year (subject to the limitation of section 55(b)(3)) if the taxpayer’s taxable excess (as so defined) were increased by the amount excluded under subsection (a) for such taxable year, over
(ii)the amount which would be determined under such sentence for such taxable year if the taxpayer’s taxable excess (as so defined) were equal to the amount excluded under subsection (a) for such taxable year.
For purposes of this paragraph, the amount excluded under subsection (a) shall be reduced by the aggregate amount of any deductions or exclusions disallowed under subsection (d)(6) with respect to such excluded amount.
(2)Special rules
(A)Regular tax
In applying section 1(h) for purposes of determining the tax under paragraph (1)(A)(i) for any taxable year in which, without regard to this subsection, the taxpayer’s net capital gain exceeds taxable income (hereafter in this subparagraph referred to as the capital gain excess)—
(i)the taxpayer’s net capital gain (determined without regard to section 1(h)(11)) shall be reduced (but not below zero) by such capital gain excess,
(ii)the taxpayer’s qualified dividend income shall be reduced by so much of such capital gain excess as exceeds the taxpayer’s net capital gain (determined without regard to section 1(h)(11) and the reduction under clause (i)), and
(iii)adjusted net capital gain, unrecaptured section 1250 gain, and 28-percent rate gain shall each be determined after increasing the amount described in section 1(h)(4)(B) by such capital gain excess.
(B)Alternative minimum tax
In applying section 55(b)(3) for purposes of determining the tax under paragraph (1)(B)(i) for any taxable year in which, without regard to this subsection, the taxpayer’s net capital gain exceeds the taxable excess (as defined in section 55(b)(1)(B))—
(i)the rules of subparagraph (A) shall apply, except that such subparagraph shall be applied by substituting “the taxable excess (as defined in section 55(b)(1)(B))” for “taxable income”, and
(ii)the reference in section 55(b)(3)(B) to the excess described in section 1(h)(1)(B), and the reference in section 55(b)(3)(C)(ii) to the excess described in section 1(h)(1)(C)(ii), shall each be treated as a reference to each such excess as determined under the rules of subparagraph (A) for purposes of determining the tax under paragraph (1)(A)(i).
(C)Definitions
Terms used in this paragraph which are also used in section 1(h) shall have the respective meanings given such terms by section 1(h), except that in applying subparagraph (B) the adjustments under part VI of subchapter A shall be taken into account.

(g)Cross references
For administrative and penal provisions relating to the exclusions provided for in this section, see sections 6001, 6011, 6012(c), and the other provisions of subtitle F.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/911

____________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix C – Focusing on the specific changes to 911

26 U.S. Code § 911 – Citizens or residents of the United States living abroad
U.S. Code

(a)Exclusion from gross income

At the election of a qualified individual (made separately with respect to paragraphs (1) and (2)), there shall be excluded from the gross income of such individual, and exempt from taxation under this subtitle, for any taxable year—
(1)the foreign earned income of such individual, and
(2)the housing cost amount of such individual.

JR Commentary: The $400,000 of income is calculated after the foreign earned income is excluded.

__________________________________________________________________________________

(b)Foreign earned income

(1)Definition
For purposes of this section—
(A)In general
The term “foreign earned income” with respect to any individual means the amount received by such individual from sources within a foreign country or countries which constitute earned income attributable to services performed by such individual ‘‘attributable to services performed by such individual or benefits received by such individual’’ during the period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (d)(1), whichever is applicable.

(B)Certain amounts not included in foreign earned income
The foreign earned income for an individual shall not include amounts—
(i)received as a pension or annuity,
(i)paid by the United States or an agency thereof to an employee of the United States or an agency thereof,
(ii)included in gross income by reason of section 402(b) (relating to taxability of beneficiary of nonexempt trust) or section 403(c) (relating to taxability of beneficiary under a nonqualified annuity), or
(iii)received after the close of the taxable year following the taxable year in which the services to which the amounts are attributable are performed.
(2)Limitation on foreign earned income
(A)In general
The foreign earned income of an individual which may be excluded under subsection (a)(1) for any taxable year shall not exceed the amount of foreign earned income computed on a daily basis at an annual rate equal to the exclusion amount for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.

JR Commentary: Making it clear that pension/annuity income would constitute foreign earned income. But, still excludes 402(b) income which is widely understood to include Australian Superannuation.

(D)Exclusion amount

(i)In general
The exclusion amount for any calendar year is $80,000.

(ii)Inflation adjustment
In the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2005, the $80,000 amount in clause (i) shall be increased by an amount equal to the product of—
(I)such dollar amount, and
(II)the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined by substituting “2004” for “2016” in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof.
 If any increase determined under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of $100, such increase shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $100.

JR Commentary: This makes it clear that although the kinds of income included in the definition of “foreign earned income” have been expanded, the monetary limitation on the FEIE (approximately $120,000) has been retained.

__________________________________________________________________________________

(d)Definitions and special rules

For purposes of this section—

(1)Qualified individual
The term “qualified individual” means an individual whose tax home is in a foreign country and who is—
(A)a citizen of the United States and establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary that he has been a bona fide resident of a foreign country or countries for an uninterrupted period which includes an entire taxable year, or
(B)a citizen or resident of the United States and who, during any period of 12 consecutive months, is present in a foreign country or countries during at least 330 full days in such period.

(2)Earned income
(A)In general
The term “earned income” means wages, salaries, or professional fees ‘‘wages, salaries, professional fees, pensions, scholarships, fellowship grants, distributions from retirement funds,
or payments received by the taxpayer with respect to disability, unemployment, family medical leave, or childcare’’, and other amounts received as compensation for personal services actually rendered, but does not include that part of the compensation derived by the taxpayer for personal services rendered by him to a corporation which represents a distribution of earnings or profits rather than a reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal services actually rendered.

JR Commentary: An expansion of the definition of earned income, but GILTI still applies!!!

(B)Taxpayer engaged in trade or business
In the case of a taxpayer engaged in a trade or business in which both personal services and capital are material income-producing factors, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, a reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal services rendered by the taxpayer, not in excess of 30 percent of his share of the net profits of such trade or business, shall be considered as earned income.

(3)Tax home
The term “tax home” means, with respect to any individual, such individual’s home for purposes of section 162(a)(2) (relating to traveling expenses while away from home). An individual shall not be treated as having a tax home in a foreign country for any period for which his abode is within the United States, unless such individual is serving in an area designated by the President of the United States by Executive order as a combat zone for purposes of section 112 in support of the Armed Forces of the United States.

(4)Waiver of period of stay in foreign country
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an individual who—
(A)is a bona fide resident of, or is present in, a foreign country for any period,
(B)leaves such foreign country after August 31, 1978—
(i)during any period during which the Secretary determines, after consultation with the Secretary of State or his delegate, that individuals were required to leave such foreign country because of war, civil unrest, or similar adverse conditions in such foreign country which precluded the normal conduct of business by such individuals, and
(ii)before meeting the requirements of such paragraph (1), and
(C)establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such individual could reasonably have been expected to have met such requirements but for the conditions referred to in clause (i) of subparagraph (B),
shall be treated as a qualified individual with respect to the period described in subparagraph (A) during which he was a bona fide resident of, or was present in, the foreign country, and in applying subsections (b)(2)(A), (c)(1)(B)(ii), and (c)(2)(A)(ii) with respect to such individual, only the days within such period shall be taken into account.
(5)Test of bona fide residence
If—
(A)an individual who has earned income from sources within a foreign country submits a statement to the authorities of that country that he is not a resident of that country, and
(B)such individual is held not subject as a resident of that country to the income tax of that country by its authorities with respect to such earnings,
then such individual shall not be considered a bona fide resident of that country for purposes of paragraph (1)(A).
(6)Denial of double benefits
No deduction or exclusion from gross income under this subtitle or credit against the tax imposed by this chapter (including any credit or deduction for the amount of taxes paid or accrued to a foreign country or possession of the United States) shall be allowed to the extent such deduction, exclusion, or credit is properly allocable to or chargeable against amounts excluded from gross income under subsection (a).

(7)Aggregate benefit cannot exceed foreign earned income
The sum of the amount excluded under subsection (a) and the amount deducted under subsection (c)(4)(A) for the taxable year shall not exceed the individual’s foreign earned income for such year.

(8)Limitation on income earned in restricted country
(A)In general
If travel (or any transaction in connection with such travel) with respect to any foreign country is subject to the regulations described in subparagraph (B) during any period—
(i)the term “foreign earned income” shall not include any income from sources within such country attributable to services performed during such period,
(ii)the term “housing expenses” shall not include any expenses allocable to such period for housing in such country or for housing of the spouse or dependents of the taxpayer in another country while the taxpayer is present in such country, and
(iii)an individual shall not be treated as a bona fide resident of, or as present in, a foreign country for any day during which such individual was present in such country during such period.
(B)Regulations
For purposes of this paragraph, regulations are described in this subparagraph if such regulations—
(i)have been adopted pursuant to the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.) or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and
(ii)include provisions generally prohibiting citizens and residents of the United States from engaging in transactions related to travel to, from, or within a foreign country.
(C)Exception
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any individual during any period in which such individual’s activities are not in violation of the regulations described in subparagraph (B).

(9)Regulations
The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section, including regulations providing rules—
(A)for cases where a husband and wife each have earned income from sources outside the United States, and
(B)for married individuals filing separate returns.

__________________________________________________________________________________

(e)Election

(1)In general
An election under subsection (a) shall apply to the taxable year for which made and to all subsequent taxable years unless revoked under paragraph (2).

(2)Revocation
A taxpayer may revoke an election made under paragraph (1) for any taxable year after the taxable year for which such election was made. Except with the consent of the Secretary, any taxpayer who makes such a revocation for any taxable year may not make another election under this section for any subsequent taxable year before the 6th taxable year after the taxable year for which such revocation was made.

JR Commentary: Eliminating a technical burden

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/911

Part 47 – Are Refunds For Payments Of The MRT Possible If The Moore Appeal Succeeds?

To file a protective refund claim or to not seek a refund, that is question …

Individuals who were subject to the 2017 965 Transition Tax would have responded (whether using the 962 election or not) to the tax obligation in one of two ways:

1. They would have paid the tax in full.

2. They would have chosen to pay the tax over the eight year instalment period.

The Supreme Court will hear the appeal in Moore. It is possible that the Court will issue a decision that means the MRT was unconstitutional with respect to (some or all) individual taxpayers. Are those individuals who paid the tax in full entitled to a refund?

An interesting post from U.S. tax lawyer Virginia La Torre Jeker provides a possible answer:

Virginia’s post (focusing on whether to file a protective refund claim) includes an excellent analysis. I highly recommend taking the time to read it. In relevant part she writes:

Here’s the law in a nutshell:

Section 965(k) provides the IRS 6 years to assess any transition tax that is owed. However, this 6-year statute only favors the IRS. Taxpayers seeking a refund are bound to Section 6511 which deals with refund claims. Pursuant to Section 6511(a) a taxpayer must file a refund claim by the later of 3 years of filing the tax return, or 2 years of paying the tax.

Lost Opportunity

Under the general refund claim rule, taxpayers that paid the full transition tax on their 2017 income tax return filed in 2018 (or 2018 tax return, filed in 2019, if they report on a fiscal year that is not a calendar year) will not be able to claim a refund. The time for claiming the refund expired in 2021 (or 2022 for fiscal year filers). Normally refund claims must be filed within 3 years of filing the tax return or 2 years from the date the tax was paid so these taxpayers are out of luck.

Clearly “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished”!

Interested in Moore (pun intended) about the § 965 transition tax?

Read “The Little Red Transition Tax Book“.

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

Is A Canadian FHSA (“First Home Savings Account”) A Reportable Account Under The Canada/US #FATCA IGA?

August 23, 2023: An Important notice from the Canada Revenue Agency

Interim treatment of NEW First Home Savings Accounts (FHSA) under Part XVIII

The FHSAs are under consideration for being added to the list of the excluded accounts described in Annex II of the Agreement. These accounts do not need to be reviewed, identified or reported at this time.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/tax-policy/tax-treaties/country/united-states-america-convention-consolidated-1980-1983-1984-1995-1997.html

What does this notice mean for U.S. citizens living in Canada?

On August 23, 2023 the Canada Revenue Agency released its latest guidelines for how financial institutions should interpret the Canada/US FATCA IGA. The guidelines are updated annually to reflect changes (which include) evolving financial products. The Canadian “FHSA” (First Home Savings Account) was introduced in 2023. My recommendation is that U.S. citizens living in Canada should have an FHSA.

The good news is that the FHSA accounts will join other accounts under Annex II which are NOT required to be reported BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS under the FATCA IGAs! The FHSA should be reported by individuals on IRS Form 8938 with their tax returns when the Form 8938 is required!

In other words, U.S. citizens living in Canada can expect that FHSA accounts will NOT be reported to the Canada Revenue Agency and then the IRS.

The text from the guidelines – Section 5.6 (go directly to the bottom) – includes:
Continue reading

Part 46 – Why Other Countries Should File Amicus Briefs In The Moore MRT Appeal

Why U.S. deemed income events cause problems for U.S. citizens living in other countries and erode the tax based of the countries where they live

All countries in the world have an interest in the Moore MRT appeal and should file Amicus briefs in support of the Moores.

The U.S. citizenship tax AKA extraterritorial tax regime applies to ALL U.S. citizens and residents wherever they live in the world. With its very expansive definition of “tax residency”, the United States claims the tax residents of other countries as U.S. tax residents. Those unlucky dual filers are subject to additional administrative fees, additional taxation and the opportunity cost of the inability to effectively engage in retirement and financial planning.

In the Moore MRT appeal the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether “income” requires the actual receipt of income or whether “deemed income” meets the 16th Amendment test for income. Does the 16th Amendment require objective tests that must be satisfied before “income” can exist? The answer to this question will have profound implications for both the “U.S. citizen” residents of other countries and (2) the countries where they live. As previously discussed, if income does NOT have to be actually received, this opens the door for the U.S. tax the residents of other countries on income they have never received. Often the taxable event in the U.S. will take place before the taxable event in that other country.

The following post describes some examples where the United States is already deeming income to have been received for U.S. tax purposes before income has been received in the other country.

The following post describes how the U.S. deeming income to have been received for U.S. tax purposes prior to income having been received in the other country may result in (1) double taxation to the individual and (2) erosion of the tax base of the other country.

Continue reading

If You Understand It! You’ll Demand it! – Learning About The #FairTax with Jim Bennett and Steve Hayes of @FairTaxOfficial

When it comes to the “Fair Tax

If you understand it! You will demand it!

The problems that Americans abroad have with the U.S. tax system is that it is primarily an “income tax” system. All Americans deal with the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. But the U.S. income tax system is particularly punitive for Americans abroad. This is because the U.S.taxes U.S. citizens on their worldwide income regardless of where they live in the world. The “FAIR Tax” is a consumption based tax. The consumption based tax would be applied only to sales in the United States. In simple terms: U.S. citizens abroad would no longer be taxed by the United States unless (and to the extent) that they made purchases in the United States. Their problems would vanish.

Understanding the Fair Tax

Over the last few years I have had the opportunity to host (sometimes separately and sometimes together) Jim Bennett (Grassroots Coordinator & Secretary), Steve Hayes (Chairman and President) and special guest Joe Howard on my podcast. The discussions have been fascinating and have shown the opportunities that the FAIR Tax affords ALL Americans (but especially Americans abroad).

Highly recommend these discussions (they are listed in reverse order):

September 2, 2022

June 4, 2022

April 13, 2022

March 17, 2022

Americans abroad who support the end of U.S. citizenship taxation should follow:

@FairTaxAbroad

Facebook.com/groups/FairTaxAbroad

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

Part 45 – “Some” examples where the U.S. creates unrealized “foreign income” before a realization event in the source country

Let There Be Income And There Was Income!

The United States has an increasing propensity to create “deemed income” in circumstances where the taxpayer has received no income to pay the tax.

In some cases the “deemed income” created is “foreign source” income. In other cases it is purely domestic source.

When the “deemed income” is “foreign source” income over which the other country has primary taxing rights, the “deemed income” event creates a U.S. tax owing before an actual realization event in the foreign country.

The implications are experienced by both the country of source and the individual taxpayer.

1. Impact on country of source: The U.S. collecting tax owing before the source country has the opportunity to tax it

2. Impact on individual taxpayer: The U.S. creating a deemed realization event resulting in real taxation means that the taxpayer is more likely to experience double taxation. The taxpayer will first pay the U.S. tax and then (when an actual realization event takes place) pay the tax in the country of source.

“Some” examples of “deemed realization” of foreign source income

Note that each of these examples in found in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code (income tax)

877A Exit Tax,

951 Subpart F

965 Transition Tax,

951A GILTI

1291 PFIC

988 Phantom Capital Gains

_______________________________________________________

Interested in Moore (pun intended) about the § 965 transition tax?

Read “The Little Red Transition Tax Book“.

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

________________________________________________________________________________________________

U.S. Canada Tax Treaty – 1980

7. Where at any time an individual is treated for the purposes of taxation by a Contracting State as
having alienated a property and is taxed in that State by reason thereof and the domestic law of the
other Contracting State at such time defers (but does not forgive) taxation, that individual may elect in
his annual return of income for the year of such alienation to be liable to tax in the other Contracting
State in that year as if he had, immediately before that time, sold and repurchased such property for an
amount equal to its fair market value at that time

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/canada.pdf

Paragraph 7 provides a rule to coordinate U.S. and Canadian taxation of gains in circumstances where an individual is subject to tax in both Contracting States and one Contracting State deems a taxable alienation of property by such person to have occurred, while the other Contracting State at that time does not find a realization or recognition of income and thus defers, but does not forgive taxation. In such a case the individual may elect in his annual return of income for the year of such alienation to be liable to tax in the latter Contracting State as if he had sold and repurchased the property for an amount equal to its fair market value at a time immediately prior to the deemed alienation. The provision would, for example, apply in the case of a gift by a U.S. citizen or a U.S. resident individual which Canada deems to be an income producing event for its tax purposes but with respect to which the United States defers taxation while assigning the donor’s basis to the donee. The provision would also apply in the case of a U.S. citizen who, for Canadian tax purposes, is deemed to recognize income upon his departure from Canada, but not to a Canadian resident (not a U.S. citizen) who is deemed to recognize such income. The rule does not apply in the case death, although Canada also deems that to be a taxable event, because the United States in effect forgives income taxation of economic gains at death. If in one Contracting State there are losses and gains from deemed alienations of different properties, then paragraph 7 must be applied consistently in the other Contracting State within the taxable period with respect to all such properties. Paragraph 7 only applies, however, if the deemed alienations of the properties result in a net gain.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/canatech.pdf

Protocol to Canada/U.S. Tax Treaty 2007 – Article VIII – Replacing Article XIII Paragraph 7 in the 1980 Treaty

3. Paragraph 7 of Article XIII (Gains) of the Convention shall be deleted and replaced by the following:

7. Where at any time an individual is treated for the purposes of taxation by a Contracting State as having alienated a property and is taxed in that State by reason thereof, the individual may elect to be treated for the purposes of taxation in the other Contracting State, in the year that includes that time and all subsequent years, as if the individual had, immediately before that time, sold and repurchased the property for an amount equal to its fair market value at that time.

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/Treaty-Canada-Pr2-9-21-2007.pdf

Technical explanation of the 2007 Protocol

Paragraph 3

Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the Protocol replaces paragraph 7 of Article XIII.

The purpose of paragraph 7, in both its former and revised form, is to provide a rule to coordinate U.S. and Canadian taxation of gains in the case of a timing mismatch.

Such a mismatch may occur, for example, where a Canadian resident is deemed, for Canadian tax purposes, to recognize capital gain upon emigrating from Canada to the United States, or in the case of a gift that Canada deems to be an income producing event for its tax purposes but with respect to which the United States defers taxation while assigning the donor’s basis to the donee. The former paragraph 7 resolved the timing mismatch of taxable events by allowing the individual to elect to be liable to tax in the deferring Contracting State as if he had sold and repurchased the property for an amount equal to its fair market value at a time immediately prior to the deemed alienation.

The election under former paragraph 7 was not available to certain non-U.S. citizens subject to tax in Canada by virtue of a deemed alienation because such individuals could not elect to be liable to tax in the United States. To address this problem, the Protocol replaces the election provided in former paragraph 7, with an
election by the taxpayer to be treated by a Contracting State as having sold and repurchased the property for its fair market value immediately before the taxable event in the other Contracting State. The election in new paragraph 7 therefore will be available to any individual who emigrates from Canada to the United States, without regard to whether the person is a U.S. citizen immediately before ceasing to be a resident of Canada. If the individual is not subject to U.S. tax at that time, the effect of the election will be to give the individual an adjusted basis for U.S. tax purposes equal to the fair market value of the property as of the date of the deemed alienation in Canada, with the result that only post-emigration gain will be subject to U.S. tax when there is an actual alienation. If the Canadian resident is also a U.S. citizen at the time of his emigration from Canada, then the provisions of new paragraph 7 would allow the U.S. citizen to
accelerate the tax under U.S. tax law and allow tax credits to be used to avoid double taxation. This would also be the case if the person, while not a U.S. citizen, would otherwise be subject to taxation in the United States on a disposition of the property.

In the case of Canadian taxation of appreciated property given as a gift, absent paragraph 7, the donor could be subject to tax in Canada upon making the gift, and the donee may be subject to tax in the United States upon a later disposition of the property on all or a portion of the same gain in the property without the availability of any foreign tax credit for the tax paid to Canada. Under new paragraph 7, the election will be available to any individual who pays taxes in Canada on a gain arising from the individual’s gifting of a property, without regard to whether the person is a U.S. taxpayer at the time of the gift. The effect of the election in such case will be to give the donee an adjusted basis for U.S. tax purposes equal to the fair market value as of the date of the gift. If the donor is a U.S. taxpayer, the effect of the election will be the realization of gain or loss for U.S. purposes immediately before the gift. The acceleration of the U.S.
tax liability by reason of the election in such case enables the donor to utilize foreign tax credits and avoid double taxation with respect to the disposition of the property.

Generally, the rule does not apply in the case of death. Note, however, that Article XXIX B (Taxes Imposed by Reason of Death) of the Convention provides rules that coordinate the income tax that Canada imposes by reason of death with the U.S. estate tax.

If in one Contracting State there are losses and gains from deemed alienations of different properties, then paragraph 7 must be applied consistently in the other Contracting State within the taxable period with respect to all such properties. Paragraph 7 only applies, however, if the deemed alienations of the properties result in a net gain.

Taxpayers may make the election provided by new paragraph 7 only with respect to property that is subject to a Contracting State’s deemed disposition rules and with respect to which gain on a deemed alienation is recognized for that Contracting State’s tax purposes in the taxable year of the deemed alienation. At the time the Protocol was signed, the following were the main types of property that were excluded from the
deemed disposition rules in the case of individuals (including trusts) who cease to be residents of Canada: real property situated in Canada; interests and rights in respect of pensions; life insurance policies (other than segregated fund (investment) policies); rights in respect of annuities; interests in testamentary trusts, unless acquired for consideration; employee stock options; property used in a business carried on through a permanent establishment in Canada (including intangibles and inventory); interests in most Canadian
personal trusts; Canadian resource property; and timber resource property.

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/Treaty-Canada-Pr2-TE-9-21-2007.pdf

Model U.S. Tax Treaty 2016

The following provision appears first in the 2016 Model Tax Treaty. There is at present no technical explanation discussing the treaty. Therefore, it must be interpreted based on the presumed intent (which can be gleaned in part from the Canada U.S. Tax Treaty). Significantly, this provision is intended to prevent double taxation resulting from the deemed “alienation” of property upon severing tax residency. It is far narrower than the Article XIII – Paragraph 7 of the Canada U.S. Tax Treaty.

Article 13 – Paragraph 7

7. Where an individual who, upon ceasing to be a resident (as determined under paragraph 1
of Article 4 (Resident)) of one of the Contracting States, is treated under the taxation law of that
Contracting State as having alienated property for its fair market value and is taxed in that
Contracting State by reason thereof, the individual may elect to be treated for purposes of
taxation in the other Contracting State as if the individual had, immediately before ceasing to be
a resident of the first-mentioned Contracting State, alienated and reacquired such property for an
amount equal to its fair market value at such time.

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/Treaty-US-Model-2016_1.pdf

Part 44 – The Moores, Unrealized Income And Exporting US Taxes, Forms And Penalties To Residents Of Other Countries

Exporting U.S. taxes, forms and penalties to the residents of other countries

In the Moore appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States is charged with the task of determining whether “realization” is a necessary condition, for an “accession to wealth”, to qualify as “income” under the 16th Amendment. This broad question arises in the context of the Moores, who as “U.S. Shareholders” of a CFC, were subjected to the MRT which facilitated the double taxation of the Moores. The Moores, who reside in the United States, certainly have not and have no expectation of receiving a distribution from the India corporation. As problematic as the MRT was for the Moores, the MRT was far more devastating for Americans abroad, who were operating businesses that although “foreign to the United States”, were “local” to them. For the Moores their investment in the CFC represented an investment in a corporation that was “foreign” to both the Moores and the United States. Americans abroad were shareholders in CFCs (unlike the Moores and other resident Americans) that were “local” to them but foreign to the United States. In addition, for Americans abroad the CFC typically represents a pension/retirement planning vehicle. How can it be that the MRT could apply to individuals who live in other countries and are shareholders of corporations created in those countries? The answer is of course the extra-territorial application of the U.S. tax system to residents of other countries who happen to be U.S. citizens. In fact, the use of Canadian Controlled Private Corporations by dual US/Canada citizens living in Canada, demonstrates that it is possible for a U.S. citizen in Canada to be a shareholder in a Canadian corporation that would not qualify as CFCs if owned by U.S. residents.

The key takeaway is that the U.S. tax system, because of the extra-territorial tax regime (citizenship-based taxation) has a profoundly negative effect on individuals who are residents of other countries! U.S. tax law applies NOT only to U.S. residents but to residents of other countries who cannot demonstrate they are nonresident aliens. Therefore, a decision that the 16th Amendment does NOT require “realization” means that the U.S. will export the taxation of “unrealized income” to residents of other countries. The U.S. would tax the “unrealized income” of residents of other countries even when those other countries did not recognize the unrealized income as a taxable event!

In some circumstances the taxation of unrealized income would lead to double taxation. In other circumstances the taxation of unrealized income would frustrate the objectives of the tax policy of the other country. In many circumstances the taxation of “unrealized income” allows the United States to tax the wealth of other nations. It’s important to recognize that when the Supreme Court rules in the Moore appeal, it will also be deciding whether the U.S. can export the taxation of “unrealized income” to other countries! This has huge implications for both the residents and tax sovereignty of other countries.

Some EXISTING examples

Continue reading

Part 43 – The 1996 Treasury Regs, 2017 TCJA And The Looting Of Canadian Controlled Private Corporations

Punishing U.S. citizens who live outside the United States As Tax Residents Of Canada

The deadline for the submission of Amicus briefs in the Moore MRT appeal is rapidly approaching. As a result (partly by accident and partly by design) I have been rethinking a number of concepts including Subpart F generally, the 965 Transition Tax specifically, retroactivity in the context of the transition tax and (of course) the injustice inflicted by the U.S. “citizenship taxation” regime on dual Canada/US citizens who are resident in Canada. I just realized something that although obvious has not (to my knowledge) been discussed.

Bottom line: US citizens living in Canada who are subject to the 965 MRT AKA transition tax are (as individual shareholders of Canadian Controlled Private Corporations) subject to a tax that a U.S. citizen residing in the United States could NEVER be subject to!! Putting it another way: The U.S. citizen living in Canada is subject to a tax based on an activity (being a shareholder of a Canadian Controlled Private Corp) that a U.S. resident is not eligible to do. A U.S. citizen living in the United States is simply not eligible to be a shareholder of a Canadian Controlled Private Corporation that is a “Controlled Foreign Corporation”. A U.S. living in Canada is eligible to be a shareholder in a Canadian Controlled Private Corporation. Therefore, a Canadian resident is subject to the 965 transition tax with respect to a corporation that – vis-a-vis a U.S. resident – can never be a Controlled Foreign Corporation.

On the one hand this is clearly an abuse of U.S. citizens living in Canada (because of the U.S. citizenship tax regime) AND an attack on the Canadian tax base. On the other hand (as this post will demonstrate):

“It’s the American way!”

Part A – Prologue 1996: Treasury Creates The Legal Structure To Facilitate The 2017 Looting Of Canadian Controlled Private Corporations

America is obsessed with its corporations. The primary purpose of the 2017 TCJA was to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Individuals have a “love hate” relationship with Corporations. A country’s tax code is a reflection of the country’s values. The U.S. Internal Revenue Code has a hatred of “all things foreign”. But, nowhere is this hatred reflected more in the treatment of “foreign corporations” (think Subpart F, GILTI, transition tax and PFIC). Given the importance of corporations in U.S. culture and taxation, one would expect the Internal Revenue Code would define “corporation”. Shockingly it does not! The kinds of activities that are to be treated as corporations (unless there is an “opt out”) are defined NOT in the Internal Revenue Code, but in the Treasury Regulations – specifically the entity classification rules found in the 7701 entity classification regulations. These regulations were last subject to significant modification in 1996. The regulations created a class of entities that are called “**per se corporations”. A “per se corporation” is always treated as a “corporation”. This means that if they are “foreign corporations” they are always potentially subject to both the Subpart F and PFIC regimes. Notably almost ALL categories of Canadian corporations (including *Canadian Controlled Private Corporations) are treated as “per se” corporations. Because Canadian Controlled Private Corporations are deemed to be “per se corporations” they were “sitting ducks” for the 2017 TCJA changes – specifically GILT and the 965 Transition Tax.

In an earlier discussion how the 7701 Treasury entity classification regulations deemed Canadian Controlled Private Corporations to be “per se” corporations, I noted that:

Canadian corporations should NOT be deemed (under the Treasury entity classification regulations) to be “per se” corporations. The reality is that corporations play different roles in different tax and business cultures. Corporations in Canada have many uses and purposes, including operating as private pension plans for small business owners (including medical professionals).

Deeming Canadian corporations to be “per se” corporations means that they are always treated as “foreign corporations” for the purposes of US tax rules. This has resulted in their being treated as CFCs or as PFICs in circumstances which do not align with the purpose of the CFC and PFIC rules.

The 2017 965 Transition Tax confiscated the pensions of a large numbers of Canadian residents. The ongoing GILTI rules have made it very difficult for small business corporations to be used for their intended purposes in Canada.

Clearly Treasury deemed Canadian Controlled Private Corporations to be “per se” corporations without:

1. Understanding the use and role of these corporations in Canada; and

2. Assuming that ONLY US residents might be shareholders in Canadian corporations. As usual, the lives of US citizens living outside the United States were not considered.

These are the problems that inevitably arise under the US citizenship-based AKA extraterritorial tax regime, coupled with a lack of sensitivity to how these rules impact Americans abroad. The US citizenship-based AKA extraterritorial tax regime may be defined as:

The United States imposing worldwide taxation on the non-US source income of people who are tax residents of other countries and do not live in the United States!

It is imperative that the United States transition to a system of pure residence-based taxation!

Conclusion: The 1996 Treasury regulations deemed Canadian Controlled Private Corporations to be per se foreign corporations. Because they were deemed to be corporations this meant that they their “U.S. Shareholders” were subject to the Subpart F regime. Being subject to the Subpart F regime was both a necessary and sufficient condition for the 2017 looting of the retained earnings of those corporations through the 2017 965 MRT AKA transition tax.

Part B – The applicability of Subpart F, GILTI and the Transition Tax to “Canadian Controlled Private Corporations”

Continue reading

Part 42 – In Moore The Supreme Court Should Consider The Retroactive Nature Of The Transition Tax

Moore and Retroactivity – The Readers Digest Version

This history of the Moore case is described by Professors Brooks and Gamage as follows:

The taxpayers brought suit challenging the MRT, arguing that it was an unapportioned direct tax and therefore in violation of the Constitution.25 (They also argued that its seeming retroactivity was in violation of the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment,26 though this was not the main focus of the case, nor did the dissenters address it, nor do the petitioners raise the issue in the cert petition, so we put that claim aside.27) The district court dismissed the claim, and a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the dismissal.28 The taxpayers’ subsequent petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied.29

The Chamber of Commerce’s amicus cert brief filed on March 27, 2023 included on page 18:

The Constitution imposes numerous safeguards that prevent the government from making rapid changes that would unsettle expectations. Such principles “find[] expression in several [constitutional] provisions,” Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 265 (1994), and often implicate tax laws.

First, “a retroactive tax provision [can be] so harsh and oppressive as to transgress the constitutional limitation” of due process. Carlton, 512 U.S. at 30. When “Congress act[s] promptly and establishe[s] only a modest period of retroactivity,” like “only slightly greater than one year,” a tax law’s retroactive effect has been deemed permissible. Id. at 32–33. But a tax law that deals with a “novel development” regarding “a transfer that occurred 12 years earlier” has been held unconstitutional. Id. at 34 (discussing Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U.S. 531 (1927)). Here, of course, the Ninth Circuit called the MRT a “novel concept,” and it reached back—not one, not twelve—but more than thirty years into the past, long after companies made decisions about where to locate their long-term as- sets.2 App 6. The MRT’s aggressive retroactivity showcases the danger of unmooring income from its defining principle of realization. Erasing the realization requirement upends taxpayer expectations—leaving them looking over their shoulders for what unrealized gain Congress might next call “income.”

It may be difficult for the average person to understand Subpart F’s attribution of the income of a corporation to a shareholder. The average person would not doubt the unfairness of attributing 30 years of untaxed earnings of the corporation to the shareholder (especially when the income was never received by the shareholder).

How “retroactivity” was considered by the District Court and the 9th Circuit

The District court specifically found that the transition tax was a retroactive tax, but ruled that the retroactivity did NOT violate the 5th Amendment. The 9th Circuit “assumed” (without considering) the retroactivity of the tax and like the District Court ruled that the retroactivity did NOT violate the 5th Amendment.

The Supreme Court granted the cert petition based only on the question of whether the 16th amendment requires income to be “realized”. The issue in Moore is whether 30 years of income realized by a CFC, never distributed to the US shareholder, and never previously taxable to the U.S. shareholder (under Subpart F) in that 30 year period, can be deemed to be “income” (adding it Subpart F) and taxed in 2017.

Can a current attribution to a shareholder, of income earned by a corporation 30 years ago, meet the constitutional requirement of “income” under the 16th Amendment?

A ruling that 30 years of retroactive income could not qualify as 16th Amendment income might allow the court to:

1. Provide relief to the Moores (and other individual shareholders of CFCs); and

2. Avoid ruling on the broader issue and more general of realization.

Arguably a finding of “retroactivity” could mean that (whether realized or not), income earned by the CFC in the past 30 years cannot be considered to be current “income” under the 16th Amendment.

The purpose of this post is to focus on the issue of retroactivity. I do not believe that “retroactivity” was properly analyzed by either the District Court or 9th Circuit.

This post is divided into the following parts:

Part A – Introduction – Thinking about taxation of income
Part B – What is it about the “transition tax” that raises the question of retroactivity?
Part C – Retroactivity and the “Carlton” standard
Part D – Discussion of retroactivity: District Court Decision Moore
Part E – Discussion of retroactivity – 9th Circuit – Moore
Part F – Concluding thoughts …
Appendixes

Continue reading