Should other nations be permitted to impose taxation on U.S. citizens or corporations?
At first blush, the question sounds absurd. Is there something about being a U.S. citizen that should exempt individuals from taxation in or by a another country? Some time ago, this question was explored in a discussion on a Facebook group. Interestingly, most participants thought the discussion was absurd and did not take it seriously. But truth can be stranger than fiction. When it comes to taxation there can be some benefits to being a U.S. citizen. In fact, in certain cases, U.S. citizenship can act as a “cloaking device” – a device that shields you from taxation in another country.
The two certainties are “death and taxes” …
It’s in the area of “death” where U.S. citizenship can be helpful. Sometimes it can be to your benefit to die as a U.S. citizen. Sometimes U.S. citizenship can be helpful when somebody dies leaving you part of their estate.
What follows are some categories where U.S. citizenship can protect you from taxation. These possibilities should be considered prior to renouncing U.S. citizenship.
The general message …
Our next webinar will provide you with a comprehensive overview of the US #ExitTax & all of its implications for US nationals looking to give up their passport. Starring @ExpatriationLaw & coming on Thursday, December 6 at 13:00 GMT. Hope you can make it! https://t.co/robcS2cFBq pic.twitter.com/9CZQaW0ZO3
— taxlinked.net (@Taxlinked) November 14, 2018
More details – hope to meet you online on December 6, 2018
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) September 2, 2018
What follows is a summary of a presentation I made in March of 2018 in London, UK:
The Internal Revenue Code of the United States imposes worldwide income taxation on ALL individuals who are U.S. citizens or who are otherwise defined as “residents” under the Internal Revenue Code. “Residents” includes those who have a visa for “permanent residence” (commonly referred to as a Green Card). A visa for “permanent residence” is a visa for immigration purposes. Once an individual receives a visa for “permanent residence” he will be considered to be a “resident” under the Internal Revenue Code. His status as a “resident” for tax purposes continues until he fulfills specific conditions to sever his “tax residency” with the United States. The conditions required to sever “tax residency” with the United States are found in S. 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code. (Basically a Green Card holder can’t simply move from the United States and sever tax residency.)
In the same way that U.S. citizens are subject to taxation on their worldwide income even if they don’t reside in the United States, “permanent residents” will continue to be subject to taxation on their worldwide income until they take specific steps to sever tax residency in the United States. In certain circumstances Green Card holders living outside the United States can avoid filing some of the “forms” that are required of U.S. citizens living abroad.
The steps to sever tax residency are found in S. 7701(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. Those wishing to explore this further are invited to read my earlier posts about Gerd Topsnik: Topsnik 1 and Topsnik 2. Those “permanent residents” who qualify as “long term residents” will be subject to the S. 877A Exit Tax rules if they try to sever tax residency with the United States. It’s probably easier to secure a “permanent residence visa” for immigration purposes, than it is to sever tax residency for income tax purposes.
On September 5, 2018 I had the opportunity to participate in a conversation with Mr. Gary Clueit who has been a permanent resident of the United States for 34 years. Interestingly Mr. Clueit is one more Green Card holder who never applied for U.S. citizenship. There are both advantages and disadvantages to a “Green Card” holder becoming a U.S. citizen. One often overlooked disadvantage to a Green Card holder becoming a U.S. citizen is discussed here. In general, “permanent residents” (Green Card holders) of the United States have certain “tax treaty benefits” that are denied to U.S. citizens. Because of the “savings clause” U.S. citizens are denied the benefits of tax treaties. Interestingly (at least until now) other countries have failed to understand that the inclusion of the “savings clause” in U.S. tax treaties means that the treaty partner is agreeing that the United States can impose worldwide taxation on the citizen/residents of the treaty partner country. The reason is simple:
The primary impact of the “savings clause” is that assists the United States in imposing “worldwide taxation”, according to U.S. rules on people who are “tax residents” of other countries and who do not live in the United States!
The following tweet links to the podcast of the conversation. Anybody considering moving to the United States as a “permanent resident” should listen to this podcast.
A man of uncommon humanity – Gary @Clueit – explains some @USGreenCardLaw (from both tax and immigration perspectives) and why the #GreenCard is "Tax Kryptonite". The S. 877A Exit Tax figures prominently. https://t.co/gUmbBYr1Hx
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) September 7, 2018
More from Mr. Clueit after the jump …
Updated September 12, 2015 – the IRS has issued “proposed rules” governing the issue of “The sins of the father”.
Here the proposed rules from September 9, 2015:
IRS Sec. 2801 2015-22574
IRS S. 2801 Guidance 2015-22574
S. 2801 of the US IRC punishes the children of "covered expatriates" for "The sins of the father" http://t.co/KZThcMUj0G
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) April 13, 2015
The above tweet references the following comment to Part 9 of this “Exit Tax” series.
I know many tax compliant, patriotic Americans who have renounced. Many have done so seeing the $2m threshold approaching, to protect their families and get on with their lives. All with heavy hearts.
You did not mention the additional burden on those who renounce who have US citizen relatives–the tax their relatives are supposed to pay on receiving a gift or bequest from a covered expatriate. More and more will be covered expatriates as the $2m gets smaller by reason of inflation and currency change. Although the IRS promises to give guidance on this unenforceable “succession” tax that punishes the children for the acts of their parents, so far, since 2008, we are still waiting for it. The reason for the delay is that there is probably no way of identifying those donors or deceased persons who were covered expatriates. Will the US take a FATCA approach and assume every foreign donor or deceased person is a covered expatriate unless the US recipient can demonstrate otherwise?? Certainly this law proves your point that an exit tax reflects the morality of a nation.
Thanks for the comment. S. 2801 is NOT part of the “Exit Tax” Regime. The “Exit Tax” punishes “covered expatriates” for relinquishing U.S. citizenship. S. 2801 is to inflict further punishment after relinquishment on both the “covered expatriate” and his heirs. You will see that S. 2801 exists for one and only one purpose – the punishment of “expatriation”.
The definition of “covered expatriate” is covered in Part 3 of this series of Posts about the S. 877A “Exit Tax”.
Yes, this post will focus on Internal Revenue Code S. 2801 punishment for the “Sins of the fathers“.
And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, …