— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) June 29, 2021
It is clear that the US extraterritorial tax regime, which imposes taxation on the non-US source income of US citizens living outside the United States, is an outrageous violation of the sovereignty of other nations. It is also an extreme injustice inflicted on US citizens living outside the United States. The US has successfully exported the extraterritorial tax regime to the world through a combination of (1) The US Internal Revenue Code (2) the FATCA IGAs (hunting down US citizens) and (3) the saving clause in US tax treaties (Country X agrees that the US can impose tax on any individual who has been identified as a US citizen and is tax resident of Country X). To understand the interplay between (1), (2) and (3) above see the following article I wrote for the American Expat Finance News Journal.
Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship triggers a “Reporting Frenzy”!
It’s simply unbelievable. The renunciation of U.S. citizenship triggers more reporting obligations on the part of individuals and government agencies than anything else. More than birth. More than death. More than marriage. More than bankruptcy. More than conviction of a crime (probably). It’s unbelievable.
The purpose of this post is to “slice and dice” what those reporting obligations are.
The rules governing information reporting when one relinquishes U.S. citizenship are found in Internal Revenue Code 6039G. They impose reporting obligations on “some” individual relinquishers (“covered expatriates”), the State Department whenever a Certificate of Loss Of Nationality has been issued and on U.S. Treasury. (I will comment separately on the situation of Green Card holders at the end of this post.) Most of this is summarized in the following two tweets. But, because this is so confused, I am going to take the time to parse the statute.
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) December 24, 2019
It’s all in Internal Revenue Code – 6039G Note that Section 6039G is found in Subtitle F which is the – “Procedure and Administration” – part of the Internal Revenue Code. In other words, it deals only with information reporting. It does NOT impose taxation. Interestingly, Section 6039G imposes reporting requirements on individuals, the State Department, U.S. Treasury (and in the case of Green Card holders) the Immigration authorities.
That pretty much sums it up. For those who want to understand the analysis …
The professors (who have clearly never lived under a citizenship taxation regime and have limited understanding of FATCA) explain the relationship between U.S. citizenship-based taxation and the success of a – “Made In The USA” wealth tax – in the article which includes:
The situation in the United States is different. You can’t shirk your tax responsibilities by moving, because U.S. citizens are responsible to the Internal Revenue Service no matter where they live. The only way to escape the IRS is to renounce citizenship, an extreme move that in both Warren’s and Sanders’s plans would trigger a large exit tax of 40 percent on net worth.
Some people tweet. Some people tweet for fun. Some people tweet to educate.
The purpose this post is to collect the series of tweets that Laura Snyder complied to provide a higher level of education to the professors.
Introduction: The Purpose and Limited Scope Of This Post
This post focuses on Green Card holders who are filing the 1040 tax return. The 1040 is the return that is filed by all individuals unless you are a “nonresident aliens”. Non-resident aliens file the 1040-NR. This post does NOT discuss (1) when it could be advantageous for a Green Card holder to file a 1040-NR (using a tax treaty tie breaker provision) and (2) what the (DANGEROUS) consequences of filing a 1040-NR (from both a tax and immigration perspective) could be. For a Green Card holder, there can be both disadvantages and also substantial advantages to using a tax treaty tiebreaker to file a 1040-NR. This post assumes that the Green Card holder is filing a 1040 and is specifically focused on the following question: Is it wise for a Green Card holder who is temporarily outside the United States to use the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion found in Section 911 of the Internal Revenue Code (as opposed to the Section 901 Foreign Tax credits) when filing the 1040?
(Most tax practitioners agree, that in general, it is better to use the Sec. 901 foreign tax credits and and not sue the S. 911 Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. Here is a post that explains why this is so. So, why would anybody ever use the FEIE? The answer is that some people live in countries where there is income tax and therefore no foreign tax credit to use against income that is taxable from a U.S. perspective.) Continue reading →
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) May 20, 2018
“Understanding U.S. Tax Residency …
The United States uses a form of “deemed tax residency“.
The Internal Revenue of the United States deems that all “individuals” (wherever they live in the world – including citizens and residents of other countries) except “nonresident aliens” are subject to taxation in the United States on their world wide income. One qualifies as a “nonresident alien” unless one is a:
1. A U.S. citizen
2. A U.S. resident as defined by Internal Revenue Code Sec. 7701(b) Continue reading →
This is an interesting and important question. This question is always important for determining how the Sec. 877A “Exit Tax” applies to “permanent residents” AKA “Green Card Holders” who with to abandon their permanent residence. There are many other many other reasons why this matters. U.S. tax residency (which is an example of “deemed tax residency“) can be a complicated thing. With the exception of U.S. citizens, U.S. tax residency is usually a function of some form of “physical presence”. U.S. tax residency can trigger:
– income tax payable
– reporting requirements with respect to non-U.S. assets and more (dual tax residents may be able to use a “tax treaty tie-breaker” to opt out of U.S. tax residency)
Remember that “residence” for purposes of taxation can be different from residence for the purposes of immigration. As the Topsnik case makes clear, it is entirely possible to NOT have the right to have lost the right to live in the United States, but still be subject to taxation as a U.S. resident.
Rather than reinvent the wheel, I am please to reproduce this post from Daniel Gray – a Toronto based CPA. Thanks to Daniel for allowing me to reproduce this post from his blog.
Everything you need to know but were afraid to ask: "Explanation And 10 Examples Of The Rules For Determining An Alien’s Period Of Residency In The United States" https://t.co/upuiP3DLnn via @taxconnections