Category Archives: citizenship taxation

Double Taxation Of Americans Abroad Is Because Of Citizenship Based Double Tax Residency

Leave a reply

What Is Meant By The Double Taxation Of Americans Abroad?

On February 12, 2025 I hosted an “X Spaces“. The intended purpose was to discuss Professor Avi-Yonah’s new paper “Should The United States Abandon Citizenship-based Taxation”? The paper is clearly in support of the continuation of U.S. citizenship taxation. The paper is here:

ssrn-5130868

You can listen to the discussion here:

At the end of the discussion we focused on the question of:

Q. What is meant by ending double taxation?

I suggested that the answer is:

A. Double taxation is the result of double tax residency. For U.S. citizens “double tax residency” is caused by U.S. citizenship taxation. It is ended by severing citizenship from tax residency.

Two previous discussions about ending Citizenship-based “double taxation”

I have included the “slides” that were prepared for each of these presentations. They (in my opinion) do a good job in explaining what citizenship taxation really is and what is required to end it.

Enjoy (or not).

July 10, 2024 – What is REAL(ly) Residency Taxation?

Here are the slides for the presentation:

RBT 2

July 12, 2024 – Republicans Overseas Tax Proposal

Here are the slides for the presentation:

Severing citizenship from tax residency 3

In conclusion …

I believe that these two presentaions (along with the slides) will assist in understanding:

1. What the double taxation of Americans abroad actually is; and

2. How the double taxation of Americans abroad can (and must) be ended.

John Richardson – Follow me X.com @ExpatriationLaw

Extreme Caution Should Be Exercised In Applying For Non-Renunciation “Relinquishments” Of U.S. Citizenship

Leave a reply

January 25, 2025

Keeping this short, sweet and to the point:

I recommend NOT applying for Certificates Of Loss Of Nationality (“CLNs”) based on a past relinquishing act. Past relinquishing acts include ANY form of relinquishment that is not a present day “renunciation” of U.S. citizenship. (See the appendix to this post.)

If you need help with this problem feel free to reach out to me.

This recommendation is based on experiences in Canada:

– knowing several cases where the Consular appointments documenting the past relinquishing act took place almost two years ago. The individuals have still, despite repeated inquiries, NOT had a response from the State Department! To be clear, two of these were based on naturalizations as Canadian citizens after June 16, 2008 (meaning they were clearly subject to U.S. taxation up to the date of the appointment and were in fact tax compliant!)

– the new rules (using a new DS-4079) which took effect on November 1, 2024 make it VERY clear that the State Department is reviewing the evidence of voluntariness and intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship. The voluntariness and intent must be proven at the moment of the expatriating act!

– I know people who submitted applications to renounce U.S. citizenship (in Canada) prior to November 1, 2024 (and therefore prior to the beginning of the new DS-4079), who are awaiting appointments to renounce. They have subsequently received messages asking them (in anticipation of their renunciation appointments) to complete the new DS-4079. The message to them also included the statement that:

The Department of State will only have a legal basis to approve a CLN in your name if the preponderance of evidence shows that you voluntarily performed a potentially expatriating act with the intent to relinquish U.S. nationality.

Notice that the burden of proof is on the person seeking the CLN. The State Department decides what it takes to satisfy the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. This is a difficult burden to meet when the relinquishing act was many years ago. It appears that the facts of “NOT exercising any rights of U.S. citizenship” (after the relinquishing act) are insufficient to meet the evidentiary standard.

For many years I was able to assist (many) people in getting CLNs based on “relinquishing acts in the past”. The law has not changed. What appears to have changed is what the State Department will accept as evidence of meeting the “burden of proof” of voluntariness and intent. The shift in the State Department attitude appears to have started about two years ago. It is clearly expressed in the new DS-4079. I have been warning people about this for the last year or so. I strongly suggest that people exercise extreme caution in applying for CLNs based on relinquishing acts in the past. This is particularly true for those who need a CLN relatively quickly.

Bottom line: You should renounce!

At this point my suggestion is (assuming you qualify):

Renounce and use the 2019 “IRS Relief Procedures For Former Citizens“. Current information on the “Relief Procedures For Former Citizens” program is here.

If you need help, feel free to contact me.

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com @ExpatriationLaw

Appendix – 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

What follows is the statute governing relinquishment of U.S. citizenship. I have added “JR Commentary in italics“.

Notice that paragraph (b) describes the “burden of proof”.

I suggest using (5) renunciation as your method of relinquishment. The other options are now presenting hurdles that are difficult to meett.

§1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality–

JR Commentary: The general test is that the expatriating act must be or have been performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

JR Commentary: This is a past relinquishing act. I know of people who have relied on this and are having difficulty getting CLNs.

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

JR Commentary: This is a past relinquishing act. I know of people who have relied on this and are having difficulty getting CLNs.

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

JR Commentary: Again, only in the most extraordinary circumstances will this succeed.

(4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or

JR Commentary: This depends on the nature of the work for the foreign government. Only specific kinds of employment have a chance of success (and even then there is the problem of proof).

(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or

JR Commentary: So far I have never had a renunciation, at the Consulate rejected. If you want a CLN quickly this is the way to go.

(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

___________________________________________________________

(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

JR Commentary: It appears that the focus of the State Department is now squarely on whether the individual seeking the CLN has met this burden of proof.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 3, §349, 66 Stat. 267 ; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1256, §2, 68 Stat. 1146 ; Pub. L. 87–301, §19, Sept. 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 656 ; Pub. L. 94–412, title V, §501(a), Sept. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1258 ; Pub. L. 95–432, §§2, 4, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046 ; Pub. L. 97–116, §18(k)(2), (q), Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1620 , 1621; Pub. L. 99–653, §§18, 19, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3658 ; Pub. L. 100–525, §§8(m), (n), 9(hh), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2618 , 2622.)

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1481&num=0&edition=prelim

Understanding Double Taxation: A Methodology To Think About What It Is

Leave a reply

Introduction:

I received the following message from:

Dr. Suzanne de Treville
Swiss Finance Institute Professor of Operations Management, Emeritus
University of Lausanne
Faculty of Business and Economics
1015 Lausanne-Dorigny
Switzerland

A very interesting analysis of double taxation indeed. I am reproducing this as a blog post with her kind permission.

Suzanne has kindly agreed to participate in an upcoming “Spaces Discussion” as part of our “Understanding Double Taxation” series. Stay tuned!

________________________________________________________________________________

John,

This message is in response to your request for proposals for how to define double taxation..

My field is operations and supply-chain management. I recently retired as a professor of operations and supply-chain management at the University of Lausanne, and served as co-EIC of the Journal of Operations Management (a Financial Times 50 journal) from 2018 to 2023. I began applying operations logic to the taxation process a couple of years ago because of the usual expat problems—and the incredible difficulty of finding anyone who actually understands how this reporting should work. Democrats Abroad provided helpful material, I got to know Rebecca Lammers, and have been helping out on the analysis and drafting side of the Taxation Task Force for a couple of years.

I propose to define taxation as an operation, such that double taxation is a second pass of a taxation operation to revenue or assets.

An analogy is a harvester going over a field. We the taxpayers are the field. I am a tax resident of Switzerland, so the Swiss tax authorities make a first pass over my income and wealth. Because I am a US citizen, the IRS then makes a second pass over what has already been processed by the Swiss authorities.

A harvester making a second pass over a field collects a small fraction of what was harvested the first time. This is why 54% of 2021 returns from outside the US had no tax liability at all, compared to 19% for US tax returns as a whole. The fact that I receive a credit for the Swiss taxes paid means that my tax liability to the US is minimal. Whether or not I also pay taxes to the US does not change the fact that my income and assets have been doubly “processed”, first by Switzerland, and then by the US. And, the main costs of the second pass through the taxation process concern the cost and complexity of compliance.

Taking a harvester that is costly to run and deploying its capacity to cover fields that have already been harvested once is typically not cost effective. The IRS is short of capacity, so would do financially better to avoid using capacity in ways that bring little or no revenue. Also, collecting taxes from and managing the taxation process for those living abroad is more expensive than for domestic taxpayers. Again considering the 2021 data, we see that the tax revenue from returns with an AGI of less than $100,000 was only $708 million, and for those with an AGI of less than $200,000 it was $1.56 billion—again a relatively small number.

The complexity of reporting for expats comes not only from the need to prepare full reports to two jurisdictions, but to a large extent from the difficulty of reconciling the two operations that apply different principles. Let’s compare this to a Finnish citizen who moves to Switzerland and becomes Swiss. Each chunk of income is allocated via the tax treaty to one or the other country to be taxed. Pension income from work done in Finland before the move to Switzerland is taxed by Finland as source income if the person is a Finnish but not Swiss citizen. If the person becomes a Swiss citizen, they notify the Finnish authorities and the taxation shifts to Switzerland. There is very little in terms of duplication in reporting.

Many of the taxation problems that emerge for expats come from this second pass of a taxation operation. Although the second pass tends to produce little, it can unfairly increase the tax liability for income that is not taxed by the country of residence (e.g., disability payments). This provides little for the IRS, yet creates a crushing burden for the taxpayer. Defining taxation as a process/operation/“machine”—with double taxation being a second pass of that machine over the same revenue or assets—should make it easier to explain these problems. And, it makes crystal clear the deceptive nature of the savings clause.

Imagine that the US would eliminate this second pass over income (assets) that are taxed by the country in which the taxpayer is a tax resident. This could be combined with prioritizing US taxation of US-sourced income. I am, for example, first taxed by Switzerland on investment income from the US, then get a tax credit for those taxes to offset US taxes. The US could consider negotiating with Switzerland that US-sourced investment income would be first taxed in the US. Someone like Heitor David Pinto would be positioned to do a simulation of how an increase in US taxation of US-sourced income would compare to the loss of revenue from eliminating the second pass of the taxation machine.

One final point: International Information Returns and FATCA do not fit the definition of double—or even single—taxation. They are not that kind of machine! Their purpose combines control and penalty generation. This penalty-as-a-revenue model is beginning to be understood, and needs to be addressed, but it is not (double) taxation.

I hope that these thoughts are useful to you. Thank you for the leadership that you are showing at this critical time.

All the best,

Suzanne

_________________________________________

This slide presentation from Suzanne further explains the issue of double taxation.

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com/ExpatriationLaw

Republicans Overseas Announces President Trump Proposal To End Double Taxation Of Americans Abroad

1 Reply

October 2, 2024

Republicans Overseas today announced that former President Donald Trump wishes to end the double taxation of Americans abroad! Further details to follow …

For the moment, please reference the following tweets:

Republicans Overseas has a long history of advocating for Americans abroad. These initiatives include:

– 2014 FATCA Legal Action lawsuit

– 2017 House Hearings On FATCA

– 2018 Hugely influential in the development of the Holding Bill

– 2024 Announcement of Residence-based taxation proposal

– 2024 Announcement from President Trump

More to come …

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com @Expatriationlaw

Town Halls: Tuesday Sept. 17/24 – @RepOverseasTax Introduces Its Tax Proposal For Americans Abroad And Invites Discussion

Leave a reply

Update September 23, 2024:

Here is a link to the “Town Hall Discussion”

_________________________________________________________________________

There are two sessions coming up – both on X.com

Tuesday September 17:

North America – Note this 8 p.m. EDT

Rest Of World – Note this is 2 pm EDT

Feel free to attend either or both. Looking forward to discussion!

If you can’t make the town halls, here is a series of short videos created by John Richardson, Jim Gosart and Jonathan Constantine which explain why the cancerous tumor of citizenship taxation needs to be removed!!

Finally, here is the Republicans Overseas tax reform proposal for U.S. citizens living outside the United States.

Ending-the-Unjust-Taxation-of-Overseas-Americans-1

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com @ExpatriationLaw

Considering Renunciation Part 2: Recognizing And Overcoming The Emotional Barriers

Leave a reply

I recently wrote a post describing some of the objective tax, immigration and financial planning issues surrounding the renunciation of U.S. citizenship. For all people tax and financial planning issues should be objectively considered. But objective issues can take one only so far. We are all individual human beings who experience the world differently. We all ascribe various degrees of importance to different things. Citizenship is about more than immigration, tax and financial planning. Citizenship is also a huge component of how we see ourselves in the world. Citizenship is part of who we are!

Therefore, for many people the renunciation of U.S. citizenship is very much a psychological and emotional process. It is a process of transitioning to a both a new stage of life and a new stage of self! This is because citizenship is very much a component of (1) who we are today, (2) our personal histories and (3) how we see our futures. I was recently seated at a lunch table with a new Canadian citizen who immigrated to Canada from China. By becoming a Canadian citizen he ceased to be a citizen of China. I asked him how he felt about losing Chinese citizenship. He said that he felt very bad and very sad. But, he said his present and future was in Canada and that he wanted to be and identify as a Canadian citizen. (U.S. citizens do NOT automatically lose their citizenship by naturalizing as Canadian citizens.) To think about citizenship is to think about life planning and (especially for U.S. citizens) financial planning. Citizenship can deprive people of opportunities or open up new opportunities.

As I was counselling a people who was renouncing in February 2024, I was asked:

“Do many people regret renouncing U.S. citizenship?”

In all the years I have been assisting people I have had exactly two people regret their renunciations. But, this was immediately after renunciation and the regret was short lived. In most cases, people comment that they wish they had renounced sooner. That said (especially for those who grew up in the United States) people wish they were not placed in a position where they feel they must renounce.

When it comes to renouncing U.S. citizenship:

People are NOT renouncing because they want to.

People are renouncing because they feel they have to.

Two podcasts to help people overcome the regret of renouncing U.S. citizenship


1. The Retired Citizen – You can always identify as a U.S. citizen if you want to

https://prep.podbean.com/e/the-retired-us-citizen/

2. The Dodge Stratus ad – You’re not losing a sports car. You are GAINING two doors!

https://prep.podbean.com/e/about-loss-of-identity-what-the-dodge-stratus-teaches-us-about-renouncing-us-citizenship/


Hope this helps you clear the emotional hurdles!

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

The Five “Americans Abroad” Obama Would Meet In Heaven – How Taxation “Slices and Dices” Americans Abroad

Leave a reply

Reminder:

US citizenship abroad information/discussion sessions in January of 2024:

1. London, UK – Wednesday January 17, 2024 – 18:00 – Location: The Sutton Arms – first floor wine room – 6 Carthusian Street, London – EC1M 6EB

2. Prague, Czech Republic – Sunday January 21, 2024 – Brix bar & Hostel, Rohacova 132/15, Prague 3 Žižkov
– 200CZK – includes lunch

3. The Prague session will be livestreamed on the IRSMedic Youtube Channel. Check there for how to join.

Further details here.

Outline, table of contents and purpose of this post.

Because U.S. citizenship taxation impacts different groups in different ways, it is hard to garner a significant mass of people to committed to the mission of ending citizenship taxation. There are five different groups who are impacted by citizenship taxation. Yet they would seem very different if you were to meet them in heaven.

Part A – “The Five People You Meet In Heaven” – the notion of interconnectedness
Part B – Barack Obama and the revival of citizenship taxation – how did his administration “slice and dice” Americans abroad?
Part C – Different kinds of Americans abroad with different attitudes toward the taxation of Americans abroad
Part D – Fault Lines Among Americans Abroad – The discussion in Keith Redmond’s American Expatriates Facebook group
Part E – The Five Types Of Americans Abroad Obama Would Meet In Heaven
Part F – Conclusion

___________________________________________________________________
Continue reading →

Part 2 – Citizenship Matters: Elvis, Casablanca, Citizenship and Immigration: When Art Imitates Life

Leave a reply

My day at the movies …

This post is a continuation of of my first post about Joe Grasmick’s “Free Trade Professionals” conference that took place in September of 2023 in Mexico City. The first post described the conference and why “citizenship matters”. The morning after the conference ended I boarded a plane for a long flight. I was still thinking about citizenship and immigration.

Usually I don’t watch movies on flights. This time (who knows why) I went through the movie selection and saw two movies where “citizenship/immigration status” played a huge role (whether directly or indirectly) on the lives of individuals. (I didn’t realize this until I watched both movies.) The new 2022 movie “Elvis” and the 1942 old movie “Casablanca” were on the menu. I watched both. Some thoughts on each …

“Elvis” the movie:

A great movie. Sure, it’s about the life and times of Elvis Presley. But, the story of Elvis also includes the role of his manager’s status as an illegal alien in the United States. A partial description includes:

Afterwards, Elvis headlines at the largest showroom in Las Vegas, the International Hotel, and resumes concert tours. Parker’s control of Elvis’ life tightens as he refuses Elvis’ request for a world tour. Motivated by gambling debts, Parker manipulates Elvis into signing a contract for a five-year Las Vegas casino residency. Elvis’ problematic behavior and prescription drug addiction overtake him, and a despondent Priscilla divorces him on his 38th birthday, taking their daughter Lisa Marie with her. After discovering that Parker cannot leave the country because he is a stateless illegal immigrant, Elvis attempts to fire him. Parker subsequently informs Vernon that the family owes him an $8.5 million debt accumulated over the years and convinces Elvis of their symbiotic relationship; though the pair rarely see each other afterward, Parker continues as his manager

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_(2022_film)

How might the life of Elvis Presley been different if Colonel Tom Parker had either been a U.S. citizen or had a Green Card? Would Elvis’s career have unfolded differently? For that matter would he have died at such a young age? Clearly he would have toured outside the United States.

But, enough on Elvis. The more interesting story of the role of citizenship and immigration (and how they relate to Americans abroad) is found in the 1942 classic movie “Casablanca”.

.
“Casablanca” the movie:

Casablanca is a true classic. Classics (whether books, movies or art) are interpreted in different ways, by different people at different stages in their lives. As the flight took off, I was still thinking about immigration and how everybody is an immigrant or alien somewhere. How certain people (because of their lack of citizenship are subject to a form of “citizenship apartheid“. Because my mind was in the world of immigration and because I had clearly been a “foreigner” in Mexico City, I saw Casablanca in a completely different light. As described by Wikipedia

“Casablanca is a 1942 American romantic drama film directed by Michael Curtiz, and starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, and Paul Henreid. Filmed and set during World War II, it focuses on an American expatriate (Bogart) who must choose between his love for a woman (Bergman) and helping her husband (Henreid), a Czechoslovak resistance leader, escape from the Vichy-controlled city of Casablanca to continue his fight against the Germans. The screenplay is based on Everybody Comes to Rick’s, an unproduced stage play by Murray Burnett and Joan Alison. The supporting cast features Claude Rains, Conrad Veidt, Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, and Dooley Wilson.”

Although Casablance may be in part a “romantic drama film” it is certainly a story about oppression, refugees, human mobility, citizenship, chance, injustice and human survival. Coming off the immigration conference, I interpreted the movie largely through the lens of circumstance, citizenship, fortune driven by the accident of birth and how little is required to disrupt the life any person. As the movie makes clear from the outset, people came to Casablanca because they were fearing and trying to escape from tyranny and were generally trying to get to “the Americas” (the safe haven of the time).

This is the trailer.

It’s a great movie. It’s great entertainment for people of all ages. But, seen through the perspective of citizenship and immigration it exhibits many parallels to the lives of Americans abroad.

What follows are some clips that exhibit analogies to common scenarios.

__________________________________________________________________________

Some meaningful clips from the movie Casablanca ..

A: Rick experiences an “Oh My God Moment”: On random events – sometimes bad things happen to good people…

B: About U.S. Citizenship and taxation – “It’s based on the circumstances of birth”

C: About the forced imposition of citizenship – Reminds me of the Accidental Americans – “I have never accepted tha privilege. I am now on French soil.”…

D: About the importance of the visa, passport and mobility documentation – It’s all relative … One way or the other, “citizenship matters”. Apparently Rick is always free (from an immigration and citizenship perspective) to return to the USA

E: “To renounce of not to renounce, that is the question”: On the meaning of the decision (including the renunciation decision) – If you don’t get on that plane (renounce), you’ll regret it …

F: Here’s looking at you kid – The U.S. extra-territorial tax regime (although a big problem is a “first world problem”)

G: I finally understood the origins of the title of the Wood Allan movie “Play It Again Sam” …

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

Appendix – The trailer for “Play It Again Sam”

American expats urged to comment on State Dept fee reduction plan by 1st Nov deadline

Leave a reply

October 29, 2023 By Helen Burggraf – American Expat Financial News Journal

Advocates for fairer tax treatment of American expats by their government, including both the Republicans Overseas and Democrats Abroad, are urging such expats not to hesitate in posting comments on a U.S. State Department proposal to lower the fee currently charged those seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenships, the deadline for which expires in less than three days. 

Continue reading →

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

Leave a reply

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 →