As reported by American Expat Finance, which discusses an interview with Dr. Bernard Schneider of Queen Mary …
John Richardson Podcast: Dr Bernard Schneider, an expert in int'l tax law at Queen Mary U in London, says China does NOT have a US-style citizenship-based tax regime and isn't moving that that direction. (It does have somewhat "sticky" domicile regs…) https://t.co/hP4vkhaeHjpic.twitter.com/jRa1waZ1Ph
The Longer Version: “Tax Residency” Based Information Exchange In The 21st Century
The 21st Century has ushered in FATCA, CRS, voluntary disclosure programs and a general awareness of taxation. Many people have been subjected to the FATCA inquisition (“Are you or have you ever been a US citizen?) or a CRS motivated inquiry about “tax residence” (“List all countries where you are a tax resident.”)
In the 21st, the “citizenship by investment industry” is booming. There are many opportunities to acquire (through investment programs) “permanent residency” in a county. (I will refer to these programs collectively as “economic migration”). The value of these “economic migration” programs, to a specific individual, is largely determined by considerations of tax residency.
"What Is The Future Of Citizenship-Based Taxation?" Prof. William Byrnes (Texas A&M Law), Prof. Edward Zelinsky (Cardozo Law), John Richardson (Canadian attorney who represents US-Canada dual nationals), Kat Jennings (CEO Tax Connections) https://t.co/LP63MHEFYS
— William Byrnes (Tax Monk) (@williambyrnes) May 5, 2019
You are invited to submit your questions in advance. In fact, PLEASE submit questions. This is an opportunity to engage with Homelanders in general and the U.S. tax compliance community in particular.
Thanks to Professor Zelinsky for his willingness to engage in this discussion. Thanks to Kat Jennings of Tax Connections for hosting this discussion. Thanks to Professor William Byrnes for his willingness to moderate this discussion.
Tax Connections has published a large number of posts that I have written over the years (yes, hard to believe it has been years). As you may know I oppose FATCA, U.S. citizenship-based taxation and the use of FATCA to impose U.S. taxation on tax residents of other countries.
Tax Connections has also published a number of posts written by Professor Zelinsky (who apparently takes a contrary view).
This is the eigth of a series of post I have written as a run up to the May 17, 2019 Tax Connections discussion about U.S. citizenship-based taxation. You can read the previous posts here.
As you know, on May 2, 2014 ACA Global Foundation sponsored a debate on “21st Century Taxation of Americans Abroad: Citizenship-based taxation vs. Residence-based taxation. The debate featured Professor Michael Kirsch of Notre Dame University law school and Dr. Bernard Schneider of Queen Mary University in London, UK.
The debate has previously been discussed here and here. In addition, I used the ideas in the debate for a separate post on question of what connection to the United States should be required to justify citizenship taxation.
The video of the debate as been released and is referenced in the above tweet.
I reiterate my thanks to ACA Global, Professor Kirsch and Dr. Schneider.
I welcome your comments.
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) November 3, 2014
Since July 1, 2014, the United States via threats threats of the FATCA Sanction, has begun a “world wide hunt” for people born in the United States (or are otherwise deemed to be “U.S. tax subjects”). A compilation of my posts describing the mechanics, effects and costs of FATCA and the FATCA IGAs is available in “The Little Red FATCA Book“. FATCA has spawned litigation against both the U.S. and Canadian Governments. A discussion of the “Alliance For The Defense Of Canadian Sovereignty” FATCA lawsuit against the Government of Canada is available here. Some thoughts on the “U.S. FATCA Legal Action” lawsuit against the U.S. Government are here. Both lawsuits have been vigorously defended by the respective Governments. The U.S. lawsuit may have reached the end of its viability (lack of standing and various procedural issues). The Canadian lawsuit continues.
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) July 10, 2014
The above tweet references an Op-Ed by Thun Financial’s David Kuenzi which recently appeared in the Wall Street Journal. This is a nicely done article which adds reinforcement to the excellent journalism by the Wall Street Journal’s Laura Saunders and Liam Pleven which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on June 18, 2014 and (discussing the new IRS Streamlined procedures) on June 19, 2014. (The new Streamline Procedures were discussed by various “stakeholders” extensively: The OVDP and Streamlined Historians – Perspectives of various Americans Abroad: – at the Isaac Brock Society here and here – by American Citizens abroad here The second citizenship advocates: – by Mark Nestmann here The accounting firms:
– from Frank Hirth (U.K. based) here The “What is non-willfull” group here: – by Stephen Mopsick here and earlier here – by Patrick Martin here – more by Patrick Martin here – by Jack Townsend here – by Robert Steinberg (particularly good analysis) here The “Technicians” AKA “who is streamlined intended for” here: – by Moodys here – by Virgina La Torre Jeker here – by Jack Townsend here – by Robert Steinberg here) Those who recognize that citizens of certain countries may have a second level of “home country specific issues” (Iran): – by Virginia La Torre Jeker here The Logistics – How to manage Streamlined “conFORMity”: – by Virginia La Torre Jeker here
Interestingly both Mr. Kuenzi (as a presenter) and Ms. Saunders (as a journalist) attended the recent conference on U.S. Citizenship-based taxation conference which was held at the University of Toronto on May 2, 2014. The Toronto citizenship-based taxation Conference was a great success. Those interested can read: Thoughts and reflections on the Toronto Conference on the taxation of Americans abroad in the 21st century. Continue reading →