Strongly suggest #Americansabroad read this history of the "weaponization of US citizenship" (my words) in the form of US "citizenship stripping" (the author's words) by @Amanda_Frost1 who also confirms that "citizenship stripping continues to this day" https://t.co/0mCy7TPKJE
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) August 8, 2022
Recommended Reading For Americans Abroad
I recently came across the book “You Are NOT American” by Professor Amanda Frost. I read very few books from beginning to end. This particular book I read twice. The subtitle of the book is “Citizenship Stripping From Dred Scott To The Dreamers“. Ms. Frost documents the struggles of those unlikely people who were conscripted into the an internal struggle – invisible to all except those affected – in the United States. I think of this struggle as the “weaponization of citizenship”. Historically this struggle has resulted from the attempts of the United States to reconcile its ugly history of slavery with its beautiful aspirations of freedom. The book is well researched and Ms. Frost was able to tell the stories of the principal “warriors”, bringing them to life in a way that humanized them. Although each person/warrior was the public face of a legal issue (many of their cases were heard by the Supreme Court Of The United States) we learn and understand the facts and circumstances that brought them to the court. While reading the book, I could feel the pain, the frustration and the injustice. We learn how the laws of the day impacted the people of the day. This knowledge comes from Ms. Frost digging into the archives and finding many original sources. The footnotes constitute a “treasure trove” of information akin to reading old newspapers. The book tells the story of “citizenship stripping” as a commentary on American history, culture and values in a broader sense.
Introduction And Purpose
The 2008 notes of a law student about Justice McKenna's decision 1924 decision in #CookvTait. The basis of the ruling is more about the meaning of citizenship under principles of international law. It appears to have very little to do with tax. pic.twitter.com/Jb0zE5qTca
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) September 6, 2022
The focus of this blog has always been on citizenship, taxation and citizenship taxation. Although taxation has always been perceived as a necessary burden, citizenship has sometimes been a benefit and sometimes been a burden. James Dale Davidson, writing in “The Sovereign Individual”, expressed the view that in the 20th Century US citizenship was generally a benefit. In the 21st (digital) century US citizenship based taxation has transformed US citizenship into a burden. The numbers of people renouncing US citizenship are a testament to this new reality.
The Weaponization Of US Citizenship – Two Methods
The history of US citizenship as documented in Amanda Frost’s “You Are NOT American”, is an epic story of the “weaponization of citizenship”. I highly recommend Professor Frost’s book – “You Are NOT American” to those interested in the evolution of US citizenship.
The Weaponization Of Citizenship: From “You Are NOT American” to “You ARE American” https://t.co/ei4PadNr2x
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) September 7, 2022
Method 1: Weaponization By Claiming The Individual Does NOT Meet The Requirements Of Citizenship
Regardless of the benefits or burdens of US citizenship, it is clear that the United States has a long history of “weaponizing US citizenship”. Professor Amanda Frost in her superb book “You Are NOT American” provides many examples of how the United States has used the concept and status of citizenship to either punish or reward individuals. Generally, Professor Frost describes a history where the use (or misuse) of America’s “nationality laws” has created hardships for people. Citizenship is a part of who people are. It’s part of their personal identity. Citizenship (presumptively) gives people a place or country they can call home. Citizenship (presumptively) gives people a place where they can live without fear of removal. Citizenship matters and the loss of citizenship can be a frightening and destabilizing event in the lives of an individual. It was not until 1967 that the United States Supreme Court in Afroyim ruled that US citizenship was conferred by the Constitution, belonged to the individual and could not (at least if born or naturalized in the US) be taken by the Government. (Of course that is of little comfort to those who can’t prove their US citizenship.)
Method 2: Weaponization By Claiming The Individual Does Meet The Requirements Of Citizenship
A minority of countries in the world confer citizenship based on and only on birth in the country.
Only two countries in the world impose worldwide taxation based on and only on the fact of citizenship.
The United States is the ONLY country that does both!
FATCA assisted the United States in exporting US taxation into other countries and on to the individuals who live in and are tax residents of those countries. In short: the accusation of being a US citizen living outside the United States subjected one to the “disabilities” and “criminalization” imposed by the US extra-territorial tax regime.
The US Supreme Court, Justice Joseph McKenna, And Citizenship In The Early Part Of 20th Century
Update April 13, 2022 …
Here is yet a seventh way – the treatment of gifts as capital gains – that the Biden Green book would impact Americans Abroad
It’s The System Not The Parties!
As long as the United States employs @citizenshiptax and #FATCA, changes in US tax laws will continue to have dramatic (intended and unintended) effects on #Americansabroad – regardless of which political party is in power. https://t.co/t6N4zyLIBQ
— Care about #Americansabroad? Join @USVotersAbroad! (@USVotersAbroad) March 11, 2022
As long as the United States employs citizenship taxation any proposed changes to the US tax system will have an impact (some intended and some unintended) on Americans abroad.
The Biden Green Book for fiscal year 2023, released on March 28, 2022, contains a number of proposals to both increase tax rates and increase the tax base by increasing the number of activities that are taxable events. Generally the proposals include a number of provisions to create and enhance taxation on both income from capital and capital itself. These provisions continue to generate discussion in the mainstream media including: The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. This is certain to generate much discussion in the tax compliance community.
The 2023 Green Book is available here.
Much will be written about how the proposals would affect resident Americans. Far less will be written about how the proposals would affect Americans abroad. The US rules of citizenship taxation steal from Americans abroad (and the countries where they reside) in hundreds of ways. Some are intended and foreseeable. Others are the unintended consequences that result from tax changes that apply to people who are not considered in the political process.
Significantly the Green Book does not suggest a move away from US citizenship taxation toward resident taxation as embraced by the rest of the world. In their totality, the proposals (particularly those that create income realization events when a gift is made) suggest a worsening of the situation for Americans abroad. That said, one proposal “might” (depending on Treasury) allow for the relaxation for the 877A Exit Tax rules, for a narrow group of Americans abroad under certain circumstances.
The purpose of this post is to identify six ways (and I assure you that there are more) that the Green Book would impact Americans abroad. The “Group Of Six” includes:
1. Raising The Corporate Tax Rate To 28 percent – Creating Subpart F Income and Making More Americans Abroad GILTI – Page 2
Verdict: This will have the effect of increasing the number of Americans abroad subject to taxation on income earned by their small corporations but not received by them personally.
2. An increase in the Corporate rate would increase the GILTI rate (suggesting to 20 percent) – Page 2
Verdict: More Americans abroad will be GILTI and will possibly (depending on a combination of country specific factors and their specific circumstances) be subject to GILTI taxes at a higher rate).
3. Reducing Phantom Gains And Losses: Simplify Foreign Exchange Rate And Loss Rules For Individuals And Exchange Rate Rules For Individuals – Page 90
Verdict: This in interesting. While reinforcing that Americans abroad are tethered to the US dollar it does suggest a recognition of the unfairness of how the phantom gain rules harm the purchase and sale of residential real estate outside the USA). Imagine how this would interact with the proposed rules converting gifts to taxable capital gains?
4. Strengthening FATCA: Provide For Information Reporting by Certain Financial Institutions and Digital Asset Brokers For the Exchange Of information – Page 97
Verdict: This is an attempt to reinforce the core principles of FATCA which are about the identification of US citizens outside the United States.
5. Expatriation – The Stick: Extend The Statute Of Limitations For Auditing Expatriates To Three Years From The Date From Which 8854 Should Have Been Filed (Possibly Forever) – Page 87
Verdict: This is theoretically very bad. It means that those who renounce without filing Form 8854 would be subject to a lifetime of risk. Practically speaking these provisions are not understood on the retail level. Hence, I doubt this will influence many people.
6. Expatriation – The Carrot: Exempting Certain Dual Citizen Expatriates From The Exit Tax – Page 87
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) March 29, 2022
Verdict: This is good news for the narrow group of people impacted by this – mainly “Accidental Americans”. It is bad news for the rest because the existing rules will continue to apply to those “who are left behind”.
I assure you that the Green Book contains a large number of ways that Americans abroad will be impacted. I will leave it to others to add to this list.
The principle is:
Citizenship taxation can steal from Americans abroad at least a thousand ways. If you can understand even one hundred of them you are doing well!
Summary: Once again this shows how all proposed changes to US tax law impact Americans abroad in a world of citizenship taxation. There is nothing in this that suggests a move toward residence taxation. There are few crumbs which might make citizenship taxation easier to live with (example relaxing phantom gains). But, on balance these provisions are a “doubling down” on the problems of citizenship taxation. The provision to allow easier expatriation for “Accidental Americans” does nothing to make life easier for the rest.
If you have seen enough you can stop here. For those who want more of the details and explanation, continue on …
Introduction – The First Of A Series Of Short Posts
My name is John Richardson. I am a Toronto, Canada based lawyer. I am also a founding member of “SEAT” (“Stop Extraterritorial American Taxation”). I am an advocate for reforming the US laws which apply to US citizens who live outside the United States as permanent residents of other countries. The problems experienced by Americans abroad are at the “boiling point” and something must be done. This post is motivated by the following twitter thread which reveals the pain, desperation, anger and divisiveness experienced by Americans abroad:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – Taxation Task Force submission to @WaysMeansCmte Oversight Subcommittee in advance of hearing with the @YourVoiceAtIRS on Challenges facing taxpayers https://t.co/RY7M37kfCB #Taxation #IRS
— Rebecca Abroad (@AbroadRebecca) February 7, 2022
This is the first of a series of short posts in which I will share my thoughts and suggestions for how to proceed. I welcome your comments both here and on twitter where I am @Expatriationlaw.
Blind Partisanship Is Not Productive
I want to state at the outset that I am an independent and am not a member of any political party. I have been and continue to be supportive of independent candidates in Canada (and anywhere else). I state this because during this series of posts, I will express sentiments that are critical of political parties. When I criticize the Democrats it’s not because I am a Republican. It’s because the Democrats are deserving of criticism (or vice-versa). Healthy democracies are dependent on accurate observations and objective analysis. Excessive partisanship is simply an excuse for reasoned analysis.
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) February 19, 2022
The Difficulty Of Living As A US Citizen Outside The United States
First, if you are a “retiree living abroad” where all of your income is US sourced this post is NOT for you. You are filing the same US tax return while “retiring abroad” that you would if you were living in the USA. You are probably filing tax returns ONLY in the USA. Therefore, the US citizenship tax regime does not impact you in the same way. This post is for those who live permanently outside the United States and your income sources, assets and retirement planning are associated with the tax systems of other countries (foreign to the United States).
Second, As permanent residents of other countries, US citizens are treated as BOTH tax residents of the United States and tax residents of the countries where they live. In other words, they are subject to the full force of two (often incompatible) tax systems. Think of it. US citizens living outside the United States are subject to the tax systems of two countries at the same time. Leaving aside the anxiety this induces, the time that it takes to comply, the heightened threats of penalties and the outrageous costs of compliance (think tax accountants and lawyers), this puts Americans abroad in a position where:
3. The US tax rules prevent them from engaging in the normal financial planning and retirement opportunities (Canadian TFSA and UK ISAs are not tax free for US citizens)
4. In many countries, because and only because of their US citizenship they are prevented from maintaining the normal financial accounts they need to live in a normal way (this is the direct result of the 2010 Obama FATCA law)
The cumulative weight of these problems is that US citizens living outside the United States are being constructively forced to renounce their US citizenship in order to survive. But, it gets worse. Since June 16, 2008 certain Americans abroad who renounce US citizenship (“covered expatriates“) are forced to pay a special expatriation tax on their non-US assets to achieve this goal. (You can find a video of my discussing US citizenship renunciation here.)
Americans abroad are NOT renouncing because they don’t want to be Americans. They are renouncing because the US tax and regulatory regime is forcing them out of their US citizenship!
It’s The System Not The Parties
Regardless of which political party is in power, tax laws will continue to change.
As long as the United States employs citizenship-based taxation, changes in US tax laws will continue to have dramatic (sometimes intended and sometimes unintended) effects on Americans abroad. These negative effects and outcomes will continue regardless of which political party is in power.
Another example of the evil of @citizenshiptax imposed on #Americansabroad. The 3.8% NIIT cannot be offset by foreign tax credits which guarantees the double tax of #expats. Shouldn’t @AbroadRebecca be complaining? @Taxresidency cannot be based on citizenship period. https://t.co/4dbIPy38KT
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) February 13, 2022
The 2017 TCJA became law under the Republicans. The effects on Americans abroad were horrible. (Examples include: Transition Tax, GILTI, those using the “Married Filing Separately” category were required to file with zero income)
The 2010 FATCA law was enacted under the Democrats. The effects on Americans abroad were horrible. (Examples include: Form 8938, FATCA bank account closures, etc.)
Therefore, it is a mistake to bicker over which political party has done more or less damage to Americans abroad. As long as citizenship-based taxation continues and tax laws continue to evolve, whatever political party is in power will – by changing tax laws – continue to damage the lives and finances of Americans abroad.
Individual American Abroad Must Unite To Get This System Of Law Changed
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) February 19, 2022
Conclusion for today: The problem is the system! It’s not the political parties.
To be continued …
Republicans Overseas position On What Pure Residence-based taxation means:
Tax Talk 1 – November 22, 2021
Tax Talk 2 – November 29, 2021
Tax Talk 3 – December 10, 2021
Tax Talk 4 – December 15, 2021
Tax Talk 5 – December 20, 2021
Tax Talk 6 – December 27 2021
Tax Talk 7 – January 3, 2022
Tax Talk 8 – January 21, 2022
Another Tax Talk is up!https://t.co/yDusMLr3zq
— Republicans Overseas Global (@RepOverseas) January 22, 2022
Tax Talk – January 24, 2022
Another episode in RO Tax Talk is available!https://t.co/OAaqDBYtgK
— Republicans Overseas Global (@RepOverseas) February 3, 2022
When I hear people say that the IRC 911 FEIE and/or the IRC 901 FTC rules mean that #Americansabroad don't pay taxes to the US, I am reminded of John F. Kennedy's 1962 Commencement speech at Yale where he said: https://t.co/N6sOOPL4vO
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) October 8, 2021
This is the fourth of a series of posts about international tax reform generally and how FATCA, CRS, citizenship-based taxation, GILTI, etc. work together.
The first three posts were:
This fourth post continues where the third post – How The World Should Respond To The US FATCA Driven Attack On The Tax Base Of Other Countries – left off. That post described in a general way that FATCA facilitated the US taxation of residents of other countries. The purpose of this post is to give a small number of important examples. To repeat:
The imposition of FATCA on other countries means that …
The United States has effectively expanded its tax base into other countries by claiming residents of other countries as US tax residents. This is a direct attack on and the erosion of the tax base of those other countries.
#FATCA helps US erode tax base of other countries in two ways: 1. Attracting foreign capital to @TaxHavenUSA 2. Imposing direct tax on residents of other countries: "FATCA: The 2010 'tax evasion law' that's 'now an extra-territorial money-sucking machine'" https://t.co/1DYJJ7TYeX
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) October 7, 2021
This purpose of this post is to continue the general theme of focusing on the difference between what a law says and what the law means in application and effect. Yesterday’s post (The Pandora Papers, FATCA, CRS And How They Have Combined To Create Tax Haven USA) focussed on the role that the 2010 US FACTCA law played in in facilitating the rise of Tax Haven USA. (To be clear, I am not saying that FATCA was the sole cause.) That said, the unwillingness of the USA to sign the CRS (“Common Reporting Standard”) has also played a role in the growth of the US as a tax haven.
Many believe that FATCA is just the US version of the CRS. Because of this belief the US has received little or no resistance to its refusal to join the CRS. This belief that FATCA and the CRS are fundamentally the same is wrong. They are very different.
The purpose of this post is two-fold.
First, to explain how/why FATCA is very different from the CRS.
Second, to explain how FATCA is used to export the “original sin” of US citizenship-based taxation into other countries. To put it simply FATCA assists the United States in capturing the tax residents of other countries and subjecting them to direct US taxation.
Thanks to @Tpsmyth01 for help in "Take 1: Digging The Foundation To Build The House Of US Residency-based Taxation" – Hosting a zoom call to discuss proposal and related matters on Sat. July 10/21 at 8:00 am EST – Please DM to join https://t.co/MH9CxZYkeJ via @expatriationlaw
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) July 9, 2021
This is the fifth of a series of posts focussing on the need to end US citizenship-based taxation (practised only by the USA) and move to a form of pure residence-based taxation (practised by the rest of the world). The first post was titled “Toward A Definition Of Residence-based Taxation For Americans Abroad“. The second post was titled “Toward A Movement For Residence-based Taxation For Americans Abroad“. The third post was “Toward An Explanation For Why Some Americans Abroad Are Complacent About Citizenship Taxation“. The fourth post explains why some Americans Abroad actually OPPOSE changes to citizenship-based taxation. This fifth post in the series is to begin a discussion of what would be the basic changes (to the existing Internal Revenue Code) that would move the United States toward the world standard of pure residency-based taxation.
It’s about “pure residency-based taxation” and not citizenship-based taxation with a “carve out”
I have previously advocated that the United States should move to to a system of pure residence-based taxation. A system of pure residency-based taxation, means that:
Citizenship is NOT a sufficient condition for tax residency. If citizenship is not a sufficient condition for tax residency, income sourced outside the United States, which is received by people who are not residents of the United States, should not be taxable by the United States.
Note that pure residency-based taxation is NOT citizenship-based taxation with a “carve out” for US citizens living abroad. To put it another way: US citizens, simply because they are US citizens, would NOT be defined as US tax residents and subject to US worldwide taxation. This is different from US citizens being defined as US tax residents, but allowing (like the FEIE) for their foreign income to be excluded from US taxation. Note also that this is a legislative proposal. It is therefore different from our earlier proposal for “A Regulatory Fix To Citizenship Taxation“.
It is my opinion and the opinion of the members of SEAT, that only a system of pure residency-based taxation will solve the many problems of Americans abroad!
How is residency to be determined?
.@Taxresidency in Canada is largely based on being "ordinarily resident". This is based on actual circumstances and appears to be a combination of domicile, a degree of physical presence and the centre of gravity of your life. https://t.co/fs6m4Nlrz2 via @expatriationlaw
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) July 9, 2021
Residency is commonly determined in various ways. For example, Canada determines residency based on an objective deeming provision (number of days spent in Canada and through a “facts and circumstances” test described as ordinary residence). Generally, citizenship (if it is a factor at all) is not a significant issue in determining ordinary residence. The Canadian experience is proof that it is possible to have very sticky tax residency without citizenship being an issue.
Purpose of this post:
The purpose of this post is to propose some simple amendments to the Internal Revenue Code which would provide a foundation for the United States to transition from citizenship-based taxation to pure residence-based taxation. The goal is modest. The post is not intended to (I will write a separate post) deal with those who are CURRENTLY US citizens living outside the United States. It is NOT to address all the issues. That said, most of the Internal Revenue Code focuses on the taxation of those who are US tax residents. Little in the Code focuses on the actual definition of US tax residency.
The purpose of this post is begin with the fundamentals and ask:
How could the existing Internal Revenue Code be modified to provide a framework for residency-based taxation? Of course, readers will be left with many questions. But, the proposed foundation would allow for:
1. US citizens to move from the United States and sever tax residency with the United States.
2. US citizens to move from the United States and continue to be treated as tax residents of the United States.
Under either scenario, US citizens would remain US citizens. They would NOT be required to relinquish US citizenship in order to sever tax residency.
Obviously there will be many complications. But, every journey begins with a modest beginning. This is intended to be only a modest beginning. It is to begin digging the foundation to build the house of “residency-based taxation”.
The post is composed of the following parts:
Part A – Residents Are Subject To Worldwide Taxation
Part B – Nonresidents Are Not Subject To Worldwide Taxation
Part C – Definition Of Resident and Nonresident- 7701(b)
Part D – Definitions That Require Change “US Person”, “Relinquishment Of Residency”, etc.
Part E – Relinquishment Of Residence
Part F – Living abroad without relinquishing US residence
Generally, I believe that amendments to a small number of sections of the Internal Revenue Code provide the foundation from which to grow. Note that this proposal solves the problems of the “Retirees Abroad” (they don’t give notice under the new 877(a)(g)) and the problems of accidentals (they were never tax residents in the first place). There would be regulations (like the Canada Revenue Agency folio) for what constitutes residence. In Canada tax residency is defined largely by “ordinary residence” – a concept that is very sticky).
I am identifying the building blocks that could define tax residency under a US system of residency-based taxation, with few modifications to the Internal Revenue Code. (These building blocks are generally compatible with the existing Internal Revenue Code.) Once the foundation has been built we would then build our way out. This initial foundation solves the PFIC problem, the CFC problems and most problems related to foreign source income. The FinCEN 114 (FBAR) rules currently reference Internal Revenue Code 7701(b). Therefore, the proposals in this post would solve the FBAR problem.
I will discuss other issues impacting Americans abroad in subsequent posts.
I have included only the sections of the Internal Revenue Code that I consider the foundation of US tax residency. When a word is IN CAPS that means that there has been a change to facilitate a change to pure residence-based taxation.