This is an incredibly significant development. See the following posts on their Facebook site. They also have a new Twitter feed. Follow them at @RepOverseas.
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
Thursday November 18, 2021 – “Work From Anywhere” – registration link:
Join the @AmChamCanada "Work Form Anywhere" Webinar – 12:00 noon to 1:00 pm Full details and registration link https://t.co/96LOkbv5XF pic.twitter.com/mQcdCCfzzF
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) November 11, 2021
November Work From Anywhere Webinar Flyer
Further details:
On Thursday, November 18 from Noon-1:00PM, AmCham will be holding a webinar titled Work from Anywhere: Tax and Legal Considerations for Employers and Employees. This webinar, which was originally scheduled earlier this year and which follows from the successful webinar AmCham held addressing corporate tax issues, will analyze tax and legal matters that arise from the pandemic induced trend to have employees work from anywhere in the world.
This webinar will discuss pertinent topics in this area such as:
1. What are the recent trends regarding work from home arrangements in Canada and throughout the world?
2. What are some of the emerging issues associated with remote working arrangements? and
3. What are some of the practical steps businesses and executives may take to manage these risks?
The panel for this webinar features four knowledge leaders in the field of law and taxation.
They are:
* Michael Pereira, Partner, KPMG – Michael focuses on providing consulting and compliance services to high-net-worth individuals and senior executives with complex U.S. and Canadian tax issues. Michael specializes in intricate tax matters such as: 1) U.S. estate tax issues affecting U.S. citizens living in Canada and their U.S. citizen and/or U.S. resident children; 2) tax issues regarding foreign private equity structures, and 3) U.S. anti-deferral tax system for interests in foreign corporations, including the passive foreign investment corporation and controlled foreign corporation regimes. Michael is a Chartered Accountant and a Certified Public Accountant who earned a Masters of Science in U.S. Taxation from Wayne State University.
* Laura Tippett, Partner (Leader of Program Services – Regions East), KPMG – Laura has 15 years’ experience in Canadian and US personal tax and expatriate issues. Laura assists companies and their employees who are travelling cross-border, working with a variety of industries, including technology, defense, construction, consulting, energy, crown corporations and non-profit organizations. She works with employees who are on foreign assignment, travelling internationally on business, working remotely cross-border or relocating abroad. Laura has managed the Canadian/US expatriate programs for numerous multinational organizations, including overseeing several programs that have hundreds of Canadian-touching assignees annually.
* Kaley Dodds, Senior Manager, Employment & Labour Law, KPMG – Kaley’s is a management-side employment lawyer who represents private, public and institutional clients in a wide range of matters. Her practice covers employment, labour and human rights issues, ranging from litigation strategy, legal risk management, policy development, workplace training, to day-to-day employee relations and human resources advice. Kaley is called to the bar in Ontario and Alberta and has appeared before all levels of courts, arbitrators and human rights tribunals in both provinces.
* Ellen S. Kief, Principal and Managing Attorney at Kief Law – Ellen works with clients across Canada, the United States, and throughout the world addressing issues associated with U.S. immigration law. Ellen’s practice focuses on cross-border travel, business visas, investor visas, entertainment and sports, family visas, permanent residence and citizenship. Ellen is a national speaker and educator who has presented on numerous U.S. immigration topics including cross-border business travel, family immigration, inter-company transfers, and various types of immigrant and non-immigrant visas.
If you would like more information about this event, please see the flyer attached to this message. The flyer contains a link at the bottom where you may register to attend the event.
We hope you will be able to join us on November 18 for what should be a stimulating event. Thank you for your support of AmCham and its mission. Have a good day.
Registration link:
Netflix
Aoife Wilkinson, The University of Queensland
On Friday, Naomi Osaka lit the cauldron at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics opening ceremony. This honour sent an important message to the world: Osaka represents a diversifying Japan.
Yet, some still question whether she really is Japanese.
The question we should be asking instead is: who is Naomi Osaka, really?
Netflix’s new three-part documentary series attempts to answer this question. Director Garrett Bradley followed the tennis player over two years from her first grand slam win in 2018 to her third in 2020.
The documentary touches on her tennis career, her mental health and her call to change the format of post-match press conferences.
But it also gives viewers a closer look at Osaka finding her voice in the world as a young, mixed-race Japanese Haitian woman.
In the documentary, Osaka speaks about her decision to renounce her American nationality in 2019. Reflecting on the public’s response to her decision, she felt “people really don’t know the difference between nationality and race”.
She is right when she says there is a difference.
Nationality is a form of legal identification specifying our membership to a nation. Race refers to physical appearances, and is often described as a social construct: not determined by scientific fact, but rather by the social meaning collectively attributed to biological traits. To avoid uncomfortable conversations, some choose to use the word “ethnicity” instead of race, a term used to define groups based on invisible factors like language or customs.
Despite the difference in their meanings, race, nationality and ethnicity are deeply interconnected in the ways we discuss identity.
Osaka was born in Japan in 1997 to her Japanese mother and Haitian father. She moved to the United States when she was three and grew up there as a Japanese-American dual national.
During the two years when the documentary was in production, Osaka celebrated her 22nd birthday. According to Japanese Nationality Law, dual Japanese nationals are required to renounce one of their nationalities before they turn 22.
For many, the decision to forfeit one nationality is tricky, uncomfortable and, where possible, avoided by dual nationals only showing their Japanese passport at Japanese airports.
In my research on mixed-race Japanese youth in Australia, participants told me their dual nationality opens up economic and personal opportunities for them to live or work in Japan without the restrictions of a visa.
But perhaps more importantly, the thought of forfeiting their nationality was a great concern for those who saw it as an intrinsic part of their identity.
In the documentary, Osaka says her decision to become a sole Japanese national was an obvious one. “I’ve been playing under the Japanese flag since I was 14”, she says. “It was never even a secret that I was gonna play for Japan for the Olympics.”
But while it was obvious, it wasn’t easy. Some people saw this renouncing of her American citizenship as a decision to forfeit her Black identity:
I don’t choose America and suddenly people are like, “your Black card is revoked”. And it’s like, African American isn’t the only Black, you know?
Despite choosing to become a sole Japanese national, Osaka is both Japanese and Haitian, and holds deep connections to America, Haiti and Japan. The film follows her as she plays for Japan, wears face masks to the US Open in support of the Black Lives Matter movement, and travels with her family to the Osaka Foundation — a school for Haitian children established by her parents.
Osaka isn’t the only person facing interrogation into their identity.
Many people of mixed-race heritage often have a sense of “racial impostor syndrome”: the sense of doubt they feel when others question the authenticity of their mixed-race background.
It is common for young persons of Japanese background living outside of Japan to only be beginner to intermediate speakers of Japanese. Speaking about her self-confessed “broken” Japanese skills, Osaka worries she is “doing something wrong by not representing the half Black, half-Japanese kids well.”
But Osaka’s openness about these difficulties is exactly how the half Black, half Japanese kids need to be represented.
Read more:
When Naomi Osaka talks, we should listen. Athletes are not commodities, nor are they super human
It is important for us to challenge static ideas of race, ethnicity and nationality by sharing the voices of people of mixed backgrounds like Osaka.
Our identities are complex, and they change over time. There is more to being Japanese than fluently speaking the Japanese language, looking Japanese or holding a Japanese passport.
We shouldn’t forget who Naomi Osaka is. A strong tennis player, a passionate activist, and a mixed-race woman who represents contemporary Japan.
Aoife Wilkinson, PhD candidate, The University of Queensland
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
On May 14 – 16 the Democratic Party had its Global Annual Meeting. It’s interesting to see the resolutions proposed. (Those not dealt with will considered at a later meeting.)
Americans abroad who understand that the single most important issue facing them is US citizenship-based taxation, should be aware of resolution 18. Shockingly this resolution was proposed by FOUR MEMBERS OF DEMOCRATS ABROAD and includes (but is not limited to):
1. A strong endorsement of US citizenship-based taxation and the proposed US Wealth Tax
#Americansabroad: In May 2021 at DPCA annual meeting FOUR members of @Demsabroad proposed resolution 18 (see page 37) that affirms their full support for US @citizenshiptax and full support for proposed @USWealthTax! Does the DA Tax Committee agree? 1/2 https://t.co/AhKrg03d5H pic.twitter.com/IG7hAk9poi
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) July 10, 2021
2. Some proposals to make US citizenship-based taxation, FATCA and FBAR work a little better
#Americansabroad: In May 2021 at DPCA annual meeting FOUR members of @Demsabroad proposed a resolution (page 37) confirming full support for US @citizenshiptax. They also proposed the following measures to make #FATCA and #FBAR work better … 2/2 https://t.co/AhKrg03d5H pic.twitter.com/L8dRdiiGQQ
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) July 10, 2021
Notice in this excerpt they completely acknowledge that at best, their proposal is designed to create “de facto” residence-based taxation for some Americans abroad. To put it very simply:
Clearly (at least) some members of Democrats Abroad:
1. Do NOT want pure residence-based taxation; and
2. Are playing the same game of proposing some “carve outs” for some people, some of the time, under some circumstances.
(The retention of citizenship-based taxation allows them to keep changing the rules.)
It’s shocking that this proposal is coming from members of Democrats Abroad!
Here it is in all of its glory …
All 25 DPCA Resolutions submitted to the 2021 Global Meeting_Adopted, Withdrawn, or Deferred
Synopsis:
The power to regulate is the power to destroy! That's why the regulatory process should require careful consideration of how and to whom regs apply. It's time for Treasury to consider "A Simple Regulatory Fix for Citizenship Taxation" https://t.co/6dUqXjtUNo via @SEATNow_org
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) June 27, 2021
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!
______________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
The United States imposes a separate and more punitive tax system on US citizens living outside the United States than on US residents. There are numerous examples of this principle – a principle that is well understood (but not directly experienced) by tax preparers.
The US tax system operates through a combination of laws, Treasury Regulations, enforcement by the tax compliance community and IRS administration. There are many instances where the extraterritorial application of the US tax system results in absurdities, that are very damaging to those who try their best to comply with those laws.
Treasury regulations have an enormous impact on how the Internal Revenue Code applies to Americans abroad. In a previous paper coauthored with Dr. Alpert and Dr. Snyder, we described how Treasury could provide “A Simple Regulatory Fix For Citizenship Taxation“. Treasury regulations can be extremely helpful to Americans abroad or extremely damaging. It is therefore crucial that Treasury consider how its regulations would/could impact the lives of those Americans abroad attempting compliance with the US extraterritorial tax regime. In some cases it may be appropriate to have different regulations for resident Americans than for Americans abroad.
Treasury has demonstrated that it can be very helpful
Although this post will focus on difficulties, it’s important to note that Treasury has demonstrated that it can be very helpful to Americans abroad. It has interpreted the Internal Revenue Code in ways that have mitigated what could have been extreme damage. Here are two recent examples from the GILTI context where Treasury:
– interpreted the 962 Election to allow individuals to receive the 50% deduction in GILTI income inclusion that was allowed to corporations; and
– interpreted the Subpart F rules to mean that ALL income earned by a CFC should be entitled to the high tax exclusion
Clearly some of the news coming from Treasury has been good!
The power to regulate is the power to destroy
This post provides examples of how certain Treasury regulations contribute to the application of the United States extraterritorial tax regime. The examples are found in the following two categories of regulations:
Category A: Foreign Trusts – The Form 3520A Penalty Fundraiser – Regulations That Are Unclear Resulting In Penalties
Category B: Business Entities Designated as “per se” Corporations – Creating CFCs In Unreasonable Circumstances (Canadian Controlled Private Corporations) – Regulations That Are Clear But Over-inclusive
________________________________________________________
The words “exit tax” should not be included in any discussion of RBT that includes existing #Americansabroad and what non-US assets they have. People should not have to buy their freedom.
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) May 23, 2021
Those contributing to conversations on Social media about FATCA and US citizenship-based taxation would find the following to be of great value.
Those who are trying to provide education on this topic should use this book.
Those who are trying to learn about this topic should use this book.
Also, see the following video accounts here:
http://www.vimeo.com/citizenshiptaxation
John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw
Introduction: As Goes Tax Reform For US Multinationals, So Escalates The Harm To Individual Americans Abroad
In the 18th century people were "guilty". In the 21st century people are #GILTI. pic.twitter.com/ItGBwKStFw
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) April 14, 2021
The Problem: The proposed changes in International Tax (mostly in relation to corporations) will affect numerically more individuals than corporations. The effects on Americans abroad, who run small businesses outside the United States, will be absolutely devastating.
Two Solutions: Suggestions for how to protect individuals (including Americans abroad) would be to make changes to the Subpart F regime – GILTI, etc. There are at least two ways this change can be achieved:
1. To NOT apply Subpart F to INDIVIDUALS who are shareholders of CFCs.
2. If Subpart F is to apply to individual shareholders of CFCs, it should NOT apply to those individual Americans abroad who meet the residence requirements to use the S. 911 Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. (I.e. people who are almost certainly tax residents of other countries.)
March 25, 2021 – The Senate Finance Committee Held A Hearing Described As:
Part I – What does the $50,000 threshold for FATCA reporting mean in practice?
This post is focused ONLY on accounts held by (1) individuals who (2) are “US Persons” within the meaning of the FATCA IGA who (3) have been identified as “US Persons” and who (4) have been unable to “self-certify” that they are not “US Persons”. There are tens of thousands of US citizens in Canada and other countries that carry on normal banking activities with their “USness” undetected. Their accounts are not being forwarded to the USA.
This post is NOT intended to apply to entity accounts or any other kind of account.
The Context …
As a result of the FATCA IGA, Canadian financial institutions are required to report any accounts owned by “US Persons” to the Canada Revenue Agency. The definitions section of the IGA stipulates that the definition of “US Person” is determined by the US Internal Revenue Code. Therefore, all countries who have signed FATCA IGAs have allowed the United States to define any of their citizens or residents as “US Persons” now and in the future. (I wonder whether this is a reason why China has not signed a FATCA IGA.)
The Canada Revenue Agency (acting as a conduit) forwards those (“US Person”) accounts to the US Internal Revenue Service. The rules are complicated and include some discussion of a $50,000 USD threshold before the account is to be reported. Although that threshold had some meaning with respect to pre-existing accounts, it has been rendered less meaningful through time. It is reasonable to infer that the Canadian banks are reporting some accounts that they are not required (but permitted) to report. Nevertheless, I suspect that most of the lower value accounts ARE subject to FATCA reporting. Many of the complaints focusing on the banks reporting accounts less than $50,000 are justified. But, many of those under $50,000 accounts are required to be reported. To put it simply: When it comes to accounts with balances less than $50,000 – some are required to be reported and some not.
The $50,000 USD Question? Concerns from 2016 …
As early as 2016, Elizabeth Thompson writing for iPolitics raised this issue here. At a minimum her article highlights the confusion surrounding the reporting of accounts with a balances less than $50,000 USD. Her article includes this paragraph:
Testifying before a House of Commons committee in April, Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien told MPs he was concerned that information on bank accounts under $50,000 that doesn’t have to be shared with the IRS is being shared.
“There seems to be a discrepancy between the agreement between Canada and the U.S – the IGA – on the one hand and the income tax act on the other as to what happens to accounts under $50,000,” Therrien explained in an interview after the hearing. “The agreement seems to suggest that accounts under $50,000 do not have to be disclosed to the IRS where the Income Tax Act, the Canadian legislation, says under $50,000 is disclosable unless the financial institution decides that it is not.”
“So that gives a lot of discretion to financial institutions to report or not and I think that’s not desirable.”
2021 – The $50,000 USD Question Continues …
The result of an information request to the Government of Canada, which was reported at the Isaac Brock Society, suggests that:
Information request suggests: Majority of Canadian Accounts Reported under #FATCA to Tax Authorities have balance below $50,000 USD. How does this follow from the IGA and Part XVIII of the Income Tax Act of Canada? Does any USness mean automatic reporting? https://t.co/9eyQlHP04z
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) March 11, 2021
I suspect that the majority of accounts reported under the FATCA are below $50,000 USD. Furthermore, I suspect that (at least with respect to accounts) opened after July 1, 2014, that reporting many lower value accounts IS required under the FATCA IGA. With respect to the small number of “depository accounts” that may not meet the reporting requirement, Canada’s banks probably find it administratively easier (and a certain route to remain compliant) to report.
The $50,000 USD threshold had greater significance for accounts that existed on June 30, 2014. The threshold (for reasons I will explain) has less significance for accounts opened after July 1, 2014. This post will explain why this is.
The $50,000 USD FATCA Question Answered – Quick And Dirty Summary
Canadian residents should not believe that accounts less than $50,000 USD are not reportable under the FATCA IGAs. (Registered accounts: RRSP, TFSA, RESP, RDSP, etc. are NOT defined as accounts and by therefore by definition are not subject to reporting.) All other accounts are, whether mandatory (as per the agreement) or optional (the banks can opt to report them), subject to FATCA reporting.
Pre-existing Accounts in existence on June 30, 2014: To the extent that a $50,000 USD exemption is available, that exemption would apply to ALL individual accounts in existence on June 30, 2014. In determining whether the $50,000 threshold had been met, account balances were not considered individually. They were considered in their aggregate.
New Accounts opened after July 1, 2014: To the extent that a $50,000 USD exemption is available, that exemption would apply only to “depository accounts”. Canadian banks are REQUIRED to report all accounts that are not “depository accounts”. “Depository accounts” below the $50,000 USD threshold are not required to be reported under the FATCA IGA, but are permitted to be reported under the FATCA IGA and the Income Tax Act of Canada. Again, when it comes to determining the $50,000 USD threshold: it’s the aggregate of the account balances that matters.
(At the risk of oversimplification, a “depository account” should be thought of as a basic bank account. An example of a “custodial account” would be a basic investment/securities account.)
Beware of the account aggregation rules in determining whether the $50,000 threshold has been met!!!
First there was FATCA. Then came the CRS
The CRS (“Common Reporting Standard”) came after FATCA. Although both FATCA and the CRS are AEOI (“Automatic Exchange Of Information”) information exchange agreements, they operate very differently.
On the most basic level:
FATCA: Information flows from a country where the individual does live and is a tax resident (Canada) to a country where the individual does not live, but is deemed to be a tax resident (USA). Because of the “saving clause“, tax treaties cannot be used by US citizens to assign tax residency to one country. This means that Canadian citizen/residents who are also US citizens are treated as though they are tax residents of both Canada and the United States. Information will be transferred from Canada to the United States.
CRS: Information flows from a country where the person is not a tax resident (Canada) to a country where the person is a tax resident (for example France). But, how is it determined where a person is a tax resident? Each country is free to determine its own rules for tax residency. In cases where a person is a tax resident of two countries, tax treaties CAN be used to assign tax residency to one country. A treaty can be used to assign tax residence ONLY to Canada. Because, tax residency is assigned only to Canada, information will not be transferred from Canada to the other country.
Both FATCA and the CRS require banks to ask customers to certify their tax residency. Canada uses one form to both FATCA and the CRS. Canada’s combined FATCA/CRS Self-Certification form focuses ONLY on questions of tax residency. The CRS has no monetary threshold for reporting. This has the effect of encouraging financial institutions to ignore any monetary threshold in the FATCA IGAs.
Declaration of Tax Residence for Individuals – Part XVIII and Part XIX of the Income Tax Act
The Contextual Background – Elizabeth Warren – January 28, 2021
Senator Elizabeth Warren plans to introduce legislation on Monday that would tax America’s wealthiest people. The proposed wealth tax would apply a 2% tax to individual net worth above $50 million and a 1% surcharge for net worth above $1 billion. https://t.co/fM6REHPM8o
— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 1, 2021
Excerpts from a recent CNBC interview (see the following link for context) …
WARREN: Based on fact, the wealthiest in this country are paying less in taxes than everyone else. Asking them to step up and pay a little more and you’re telling me that they would forfeit their American citizenship, or they had to do that and I’m just calling her bluff on that. I’m sorry that’s not going to happen.
WARREN: Look, they want to use American workers. They want to use American highways. They want to use American police forces. They want to use American infrastructure, but they just don’t want to help pay to support it. And that’s the trick, a wealth tax needs to be national because you can still get advantages, if you move from state to state. But the idea behind wealth tax is you have to pay it if you’re an American citizen. It doesn’t matter whether you live in Texas or California or even whether you move to Europe or South America. If you want to keep your American citizenship, you pay the wealth tax and it doesn’t matter where you put your assets. You can try to hide them in the Cayman Islands, you can try to put them up in Switzerland, but it doesn’t matter, you still pay the two-cent wealth tax. And here’s the nice thing about that, you know, a lot of the wealth is quite visible and easy to see, it’s right there in the stock market. A two-cent wealth tax changes this country fundamentally because it means we say as a nation, we are going to invest in the next generation. We’re going to invest in creating opportunity not just for a handful at the top, we’re going to create opportunity for all of our kids. That’s how we build a strong future in this country.
Prologue: For Whom The Tax Tolls – What Is An “Ultra” Millionaire?
One dictionary definition of “Ultra” includes:
ultra noun [C] (PERSON)
usually disapproving
a person who has extreme political or religious opinions, or opinions that are more extreme than others in the same political party, etc.:
Soon the ultras on the right of the party will resume their criticism of the prime minister.
On August 20, 2019 Forbes reported that Elizabeth Warren had a net worth of approximately 12 million USD. A large part of these assets are her pensions. But apparently her proposed wealth tax doesn’t apply (it’s unclear to what extent it would apply to pensions) to her. At a minimum, the proposal applies ONLY to “Ultra” millionaires (at least today).
Elizabeth Warren Introduces Wealth Tax – Version 1
On or about March 1, 2021, Senator Warren introduced her proposed “ULTRA-Millionaire Tax Act Of 2021”. Given that the threshold is $50 million USD, it appears that the Senator, although a millionaire, is not an “ULTRA” millionaire. There is nothing in the proposed act that suggests the plan is indexed to inflation. Even if the threshold is NOT lowered (which it will most certainly be), the inevitability of inflation will ensure that more and more people are ensnared by it. In the same way that the late Senator Kennedy referred to the 877A Exit Tax as the billionaire’s tax (when it applied to everyday people), over time, the wealth tax will become the millionaires’ tax that will be applied to (by the standards of today) thousandaires.
Now, I don’t believe that this is going to become law soon. But, all confiscatory taxation, starts as an idea that germinates, until enough politicians (who would not personally be impacted) are used to the idea and then it will become law. Tax laws have the potential to become law through either accident (a revenue offset measure which nobody reads) or by design (stated purpose of the legislation). This is exactly what happened with the S. 877A expatriation tax (a revenue offset provision).
Part A – The Evolution of Taxation From Taxation Of Income (Sharing Of Income) To Taxation On Wealth (Taking Of Assets)