Featured post

Welcome to Citizenship Solutions (and Green Card solutions) – John Richardson

Leave a reply

Welcome to Citizenship Solutions – The blog of John Richardson

I am guessing (actually I know for sure) that you arrived here because of some aspect of being a U.S. citizen living outside the United States. Maybe you are a Green Card holder. Perhaps you are a former U.S. resident who has just learned that you may still be subject to U.S. “worldwide taxation” even though are a “tax resident” outside the USA. I also know how you are feeling.

“U.S. citizens” and “Green Card holders” are referred to as “U.S. Persons”. So, if you are a “U.S. Person Abroad”, well, life is pretty tough. in fact living as a “U.S. Person” outside the United States is: hard, expensive, confusing and (quite frankly) unsustainable.

Some of you are NOT in compliance with the intricate and (almost) impossible to understand web of tax and reporting requirements. Non-compliance has its share of problems.
Some of you ARE in compliance (as far as you know) with the intricate (and almost) impossible to understand web of tax and reporting requirements. Compliance also has its share of problems (stress, expense, anxiety).

Whether you are in compliance or not in compliance, you have problems. This is because:
U.S. citizenship is the one citizenship in the world that affects virtually every aspect of your life. in addition to the information on this blog, I help people with the following kinds of specific problems/questions (which include):

1. Are you a U.S. citizen at all? Have you relinquished U.S. citizenship along the way? If you have relinquished U.S. citizenship, are you a “U.S. Person” for FATCA and tax filing purposes?

2. Have you just received a “FATCA Letter” addressed to you as an INDIVIDUAL or to you as an ENTITY (corporation, trust, etc.)? How to respond. What’s a W9? What’s a W-8BEN-E anyway?

3. What about that old Green Card sitting in your drawer? You may still be subject to U.S. taxation, even when you don’t live in the USA! What are the tax obligations of Green Card holders? What to do? ….

4. Renouncing U.S. citizenship – What’s the “right way”? What’s the “wrong way”? The better question is “what’s the safest way”? What about that “back dated” relinquishment?

5. Green Card expatriation – How to exit the tax system and the U.S. immigration system.

6.  Oh My God!! The moment many of you will never forget. Yes it’s a problem. No it’s not as much of a problem as you think. Make certain that you respond and not react. If all you want to do is file U.S. taxes …

7.  U.S. S. 877A “Exit Tax” consulting. If you think you can leave the “Land Of The Free” for free, you better think again. A bit about the the United States expatriation taxes. Those of you with a  non-U.S. pension and want to renounce U.S. citizenship should take specific note!

8. Retirement and financial planning (including pensions) as a “U.S. Person” abroad – You will be surprised at the problems you will have living as a U.S. tax compliant American abroad. Think (or maybe you shouldn’t) “PFIC“.

9. Coming into U.S. tax compliance – What are the various options?  Why one option over another? What about “Streamlined” compliance? 99% of you should NEVER use “OVDP”!!

10. Non-U.S. AKA “Foreign Corporations” – Yes, these can be a BIG problem. Caution: The U.S. CFC tax rules may attribute income to YOU that you never received!

11. Getting a divorce? Are you a U.S. citizen married to a non-citizen? – Your U.S. citizenship will play a role.

Respond, don’t react! – Do NOT make any decisions without understanding the present and FUTURE consequences of those decisions.

So, how do I know this?

First, I am a person (Toronto based lawyer actually) who was born in the United States and has lived almost all of my life outside the United States. In other words, I have lived and do live these problems.
Second, I have spent the last few years of my life assisting “U.S. Persons abroad” survive the unjust imposition of FATCA, FBAR and “CBT” (AKA U.S. “place of birth taxation”) on Americans abroad. I work with many groups of people including: “accidental Americans“, long term dual citizens who wish to retain U.S. citizenship, long term dual citizens who feel they must renounce U.S. citizenship, Green Card holders (whether they live in the United States or not) and those who have ONLY U.S. citizenship. It’s what I do.

Third, I have been (and continue to be) actively involved in efforts to oppose FATCA in the courts and in the process of making submissions to the U.S. Treasury. If you want to learn about the Alliance For The Defense of Canadian Sovereignty lawsuit against the Government of Canada, see here.

I work with people all around the world! I have given “live presentations” about the “Problems of U.S. citizenship” all over Canada and Europe. I have given a number of “media interviews” about FATCA and the problems of U.S. citizenship. I have testified as a witness before the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance (May 2014). I have written hundreds of articles and blog posts about FATCA, FBAR and U.S. taxation-based citizenship. I have and continue to teach courses both for Americans abroad and for professionals who counsel U.S. citizens abroad.

Anyway, the blog is free. The counselling and assistance require individual consultations. Contact me if you want me to help you solve these problems as they apply to YOUR SITUATION.

John Richardson

P.S. Here is the one of the very first posts that I wrote on for this blog. Some posts are “timeless”. “What you need to consider BEFORE consulting a lawyer or tax professional“.

 

Related articles
Featured post

"Coming Into Tax Compliance Book" – How Americans can come into U.S. tax compliance in a FATCA world

3 Replies

Are you “Coming To America” by entering the U.S. tax system as an American Abroad?

The “How To Come Into U.S. Tax Compliance” book for Americans abroad

John Richardson, LL.B, J.D.

I have contributed to establishing the new “Citizenship Taxation” site. As part of launching that site, I have written a series of posts providing relevant information (in a broad sense) about how Americans abroad, who did not know about their U.S. tax obligations, can come into U.S. tax compliance.

Sooner or later, it’s likely that many people will receive a FATCA letter. In your panic, you should be careful. There are a number of things Americans abroad should consider before consulting a lawyer or tax professional.

This series of posts developed from my “Educational Outreach” program for Americans abroad. It is an effort to respond in a practical way to the questions that people have.

The chapters of “Coming Into Compliance Book” are:

Chapter 1 – “Accepting Cleanliness – Understanding U.S. Citizenship Taxation – To remain a U.S. citizen or to renounce U.S. citizenship”

Chapter 2 – “But wait, I can’t renounce U.S. citizenship if I’m not a U.S. citizen. How do I know if I am a U.S. citizen?”

Chapter 3 – “No matter what, I must come into U.S. tax compliance – Coming into U.S. tax compliance for those who have NOT been filing U.S. taxes”

Chapter4 – “Oh no, I have attempted U.S. tax compliance by filing tax returns. I have just learned that I have made mistakes. How do I fix those mistakes?”

Chapter 5 – “I don’t want to renounce U.S. citizenship. How to live outside the United States as a U.S. tax compliant person”

Chapter 6 – “I do want to renounce U.S. citizenship. This is too much for me. How the U.S. “Exit Tax” rules might apply to me if I renounce”

Chapter 7 – “I really wish I could do retirement planning like a “normal” person. But, I’m an American abroad. I hear I can’t invest in mutual funds in my country of residence. The problem of Americans Abroad and non-U.S. mutual funds explained.

Chapter 8 – “We all have to live somewhere. Five issues – “The problem of Americans Abroad and non-U.S. real estate explained”

Chapter 9 – “Receiving U.S. Social Security – #Americansabroad and entitlement to Social Security”

Chapter 10 – “Paying into Social Security – #Americansabroad, double taxation and the payment of “Self-employment” taxes”

Chapter 11 – “Saving the children – INA S. 301 – “Residence” vs. “Physical Presence” and transmission of US citizenship abroad”

Chapter 12 – “Issues surrounding 401k, IRAs, Roths and Americans Abroad”

Chapter 13 – “Married filing separately” and the “Alien Spouse” – the “hidden tax” on #Americansabroad”

Chapter 14 – “The Obamacare “Net Investment Income Tax” – Pure double taxation of #Americansabroad”

Chapter 15 – “To be “FORMWarned is to be “FORMArmed” – It’s “FORM Crime” stupid!!”

Chapter 16 – “Most “Form Crime” penalties can be abated if there is “reasonable cause””

Chapter 17 – “How to get “credit” for taxes (foreign) paid to your country of residence”

Chapter 18 – “I don’t pay taxes in the country where I live. Can I “exclude” my foreign income from the U.S. tax return?”

Chapter 19 – “Is it better to take the “Foreign Tax Credit” or the “Foreign Earned Income Exclusion” – a discussion”


Chapter 20 – “The child tax credit: take it, leave it or how to take it”

Chapter 21 – “How #Americansabroad can continue to use the #IRA as a retirement planning vehicle”

Chapter 22 – “To share or not to share” – Should a U.S. citizen share a bank account with a “non-citizen AKA alien spouse? – Reporting Edition”

The “Coming Into Compliance Book” is designed to provide an overview of how to bring some sanity to your life.
 Coming to America

You may remember the old Eddie Murphy movie about “Coming To America”.

Welcome to the confusing and high stakes rules for U.S. taxation and Americans abroad.
The United States has the most complex, confusing, most penalty ridden and most difficult anti-deferral regime in the world. McGill Professor Allison Christians has noted that Americans abroad are both:

“deemed to be permanently resident in the United States for tax compliance and financial reporting purposes” …

and are

“subject to the most complex aspects of the U.S. tax code regardless of any activity in the United States, and facing extraordinary compliance costs and disclosure risks even for nil returns”

Although Americans abroad are deemed to be resident in the United States, their assets are treated as “offshore”. In addition Americans abroad are subject to taxation in their country of residence.

All of this means that:

1. Americans abroad are subject to the worst and most punitive aspects of the U.S. tax system (there is no Homelander who is treated as badly as an American abroad); and

2. Denied most benefits of the tax systems of their country of residence.

To put it simply, Americans abroad get the worst of all possible tax systems.

The most horrific aspects of the U.S. tax system are saved for Americans abroad. Prepare to be shocked. As one commenter at the Isaac Brock Society site recently said:

Continue reading →

Featured post

Renouncing US citizenship? How the S. 877A "Exit Tax" may apply to your Canadian assets – 25 Parts

Leave a reply

Introduction:

usexittax

There is much discussion of the U.S. rules which operate to impose taxation on the residents of other countries and income earned in those other countries. You will hear references to “citizenship taxation”, “FATCA Canada“, PFIC, etc. It is becoming more common for people to wish to relinquish their U.S. citizenship. The most common form of “relinquishment is renunciation”. The U.S. tax rules, found in the Internal Revenue Code, impose taxes on everything. There is even a tax on “renouncing U.S. citizenship”. I don’t mean the $2350 USD administrative fee which everybody has to pay. (Isn’t that really a tax?). I mean a tax on your assets. To be clear:

You must pay a price to NOT be a U.S. citizen.

This tax is found in S. 877A of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.

It’s defined as the:
“Tax responsibilities of expatriation”

Few people are aware of this tax. Fewer still understand how it works.  As FATCA operates to enforce U.S. taxation on many Canadian citizens, and increasing numbers wish to NOT be U.S. citizens, the importance of understanding the U.S. “Exit Tax” increases.

It is particularly important to understand what triggers the “Exit Tax”. You will be subject to the “Exit Tax” if you are a “covered expatriate”. You must know what that means and why, sooner or later, everybody will become a “covered expatriate”.
The “Exit Tax” is not a simple “token tax”. For Canadians, the tax can be a significant percentage of their net worth. Furthermore, the tax is payable NOT on actual gains, but on “pretend gains”. (Where would the money come from to pay the tax?)
Hang on to your seats. You will shocked, amazed and horrified by this.

Since the advent of FATCA in Canada, this issue is increasingly important.*

To be forewarned is to be forearmed!

This is a 25 part series which is designed to provide you  with some basic education on:

How the U.S. S. 877A Exit Tax rules work; and

How they particularly affect Canadians with a U.S. birthplace, who lived most of their lives in Canada.

This will be covered over a 9 day period in a “9 part” series. (It has since been expanded to 25 posts and counting.)

Although this series is beginning on “April Fools Day”, I assure that this is NOT a joke.

The 25 parts are:

Part 1 – April 1, 2015 – “Facts are stubborn things” – The results of the “Exit Tax”

Part 2 – April 2, 2015 – “How could this possibly happen? “Exit Taxes” in a system of residence based taxation vs. Exit Taxes in a system of “citizenship (place of birth) taxation”

Part 3 – April 3, 2015 – “The “Exit Tax” affects “covered expatriates” – what is a “covered expatriate“?”

Part 4 – April 4, 2015 – “You are a “covered expatriate” How is the “Exit Tax”  actually calculated”

Part 5 – April 5, 2015 – “The “Exit Tax” in action – Five actual scenarios with 5 actual completed U.S. tax returns”

Part 6 – April 6, 2015 – “Surely, expatriation is NOT worse than death! The two million asset test should be raised to the Estate Tax limitation – approximately five million dollars – It’s Time”

Part 7 – April 7, 2015 – “Why 2015 is a good year for many Americans abroad to relinquish U.S. citizenship – It’s the exchange rate”

Part 8 – April 8, 2015 – “The U.S. “Exit Tax vs. Canada’s Departure Tax – Understanding the difference between citizenship taxation and residence taxation”

Part 9 – April 9, 2015 – “For #Americansabroad: US “citizenship taxation” is “death by a thousand cuts, but the S. 877A Exit Tax is “death by the guillotine””

Part 10 – April 10, 2015 – “The S. 877A Exit Tax and possible relief under the Canada U.S. Tax Treaty”

Part 11 – April 11, 2015 – “S. 2801 of the Internal Revenue Code is NOT a S. 877A “Exit Tax”, but a punishment for the “sins of the father (relinquishment)”

Part 12 – April 12, 2015 – “The two kinds of U.S. citizenship: Citizenship for “immigration and nationality” and citizenship for  “taxation” – Are we taxed because we are citizens or are we citizens because we are taxed?”

Part 13 – April 13, 2015 – “I relinquished U.S. citizenship many years ago. Could I still have U.S. tax citizenship?”

Part 14 – April 14, 2015 – “Leaving the U.S. tax system – renounce or relinquish U.S. citizenship, What’s the difference?”

Part 15 – May 22, 2015 – “Interview with GordonTLong.com – “Citizenship taxation”, the S. 877A Exit Tax, PFICs and Americans abroad”

Attention: Parts 16 – 21 focus on the “dual citizen exemption in the context of Canada’s Citizenship laws.

Part 16 – February 16, 2016 – “Why the S. 877A(g)(1)(B) “dual citizen exemption” encourages dual citizens from birth to remain US citizens and others (except @SenTedCruz) to renounce” – Note that this module is composed of Parts 16 – 21 – six posts.

Part 17 – February 16, 2016 – The history of Canada’s citizenship laws: Did the 1947 Canada Citizenship Act affirm citizenship or “strip” citizenship and create @LostCanadians?

Part 18 – February 16, 2016 -The S. 877A “dual citizen” exemption – I was born before the first ever Canada Citizenship Act? Could I have been “born a Canadian citizen”?

Part 19 – February 16, 2016 – The S. 877A “Dual Citizen” exemption: The 1947 Canada Citizenship Act – Am I still a Canadian or did I lose Canadian citizenship? (The “Sins Of The Father”)

Part 20 – February 16, 2016 -The S. 877A “Dual Citizen” exemption: The 1947 Canada Citizenship Act and the requirements to be “born Canadian”

Part 21 – February 16, 2016 – “The S. 877A “Dual Citizen” exemption: I was born a dual citizen! Am I still “taxed as a resident” of Canada?”

Part 22 – February 29, 2016 – “The S. 877A “Dual Citizen” exemption: MUST certify tax compliance for the five years prior to relinquishment”

More on the United States Expatriation Tax – ongoing miscellaneous:

Part 23 – “How the 1966 desire to “poach” capital from other nations led to the 2008 S. 877A Exit Tax”

Part 24 – “Clinton Treasury representative Les Samuels explains why the U.S. Exit Tax SHOULD apply to the assets of Americans abroad”

Part 25 – “Relinquishing US citizenship: South African Apartheid, the Accidental Taxpayer and the exit tax”
 
________________________________________________________________________________________
* Why this is of increased importance: The role of FATCA and U.S. taxation in Canada

A picture/video tells a thousand words. Have a look at the “Rick Mercer FATCA video” in the following tweet:

FATCA is U.S. law which is designed to identify financial assets and people, outside the United States, that the U.S. believes are subject to its tax laws. (It makes no difference whether the person is a Canadian citizen”.) This includes people who were:

– born in the U.S.

– Green card holders

– people born to U.S. parents in Canada

– “snow birds” who spend too much time in the United States

The Government of Canada is assisting the United State to implement FATCA in Canada. To be specific:

– on February 5, 2014 the Government of Canada formally agreed to change Canadian law to identify “U.S. connected” Canadians in Canada

– in May of 2014, the Government of Canada passed Bill C 31 which contained the implementing legislation

– on July 1, 2014 FATCA became the law in Canada

– since July 1, 2014 many Canadians have received a “FATCA Letter” (can the U.S. claim you as a taxpayer?)

The Alliance For The Defence Of Canadian Sovereignty has sued the Government of Canada in Federal Court on the basis that the participation of the Canadian Government in FATCA, is in violation of the Charter Rights of Canadians. You can keep up with their progress on the Alliance blog” which is here.
FATCA is a tool to enforce “U.S. taxation in Canada”. The result is that more and more Canadian citizen/residents  will be forced to pay U.S. taxes. But, U.S. tax rules include much more than tax. They are source of comprehensive information gathering and “information returns”. Typical returns required by U.S. taxpayers in Canada include: FBAR, FATCA Form 8938, Form 5471, Form 3520, Form 3520A and many more.

In addition, U.S. tax rules are different from Canadian tax rules. The most painful example is that when:

– Canada allows a “tax free” capital gain on your principal residence
– the U.S. imposes a 23.8% tax on the sale of your principal residence (you get a $250,000 deduction)

Sound horrible?

It is, but:

It’s only Canadian citizens with a past “U.S. connection” who will be subject to these taxes. It is estimated that approximately one million Canadians may be subject (as “U.S. Subjects”) to these rules. But, Canadians with a “U.S. connection” are members of families. Therefore, U.S. taxation in Canada will impact all members of a Canadian family which has at least one “U.S. connected” member.

John Richardson Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

Related articles
Featured post

Americans abroad and the compliance dilemma: What should be considered before contacting a lawyer

2 Replies

The “Readers Digest Version …

It’s difficult to be a U.S. citizen living outside the United States. The U.S. extra-territorial tax regime has created an industry of professionals who “feast off the injustice” of the U.S. tax and regulatory regime. U.S. citizenship taxation reinforced by FATCA has truly created for tax, financial planning, and immmigration professionals:

“The gift that just keeps on giving.”

The messaging to Americans abroad includes:

Americans abroad who don’t file U.S. taxes are constantly warned of the consequences of non-compliance.

Americans abroad who DO file U.S. taxes are constantly warned of the consequences of mistakes in their attempts at compliance.

Americans abroad attempting financial and retirement planning outside the United States are constantly on the search for financial products that wont’ conflict with U.S. tax rules.

Americans abroad who want to escape by renouncing U.S. citizenship are constantly being warned of possible tax and immigration consequences associated with renunciation.

(It’s clear that U.S. citizens living outside the United States are being punished for who they are and NOT what they do or don’t do.)

In this context, there continues to be a significant “fear mongering” coming from various players in the U.S. tax compliance industry. I suggest that Americans abroad should exercise caution in how they respond to these messages. In 2013 I wrote a post suggesting eleven principles for how one should respond to the U.S. tax compliance (or noncompliance) problem. This 2023 post is intended to provide an update to the 2013 post. The 2013 post is reproduced as Part C of this update.

This general purpose is to provide suggestions for how to RESPOND rather than REACT to your possible situation as a U.S. citizen living outside the United Staes. My thoughts are organized in the following four parts:

Part A – “Proper U.S. legal advice” – What does it mean and where should you seek it?
Part B – The evolution of the compliance landscape from 2013 to 2023
Part C – My original post from July of 2013
Part D – Summary and two final thoughts

Part A – “Proper U.S. legal advice” – What does it mean and where should you seek it?

Further thoughts and updates – November 24, 2023 …

This post (see Part C) was originally written on July 10, 2013. I had completely forgotten about it, but was reminded of it when I read an “advertorial” this week. The “advertorial” was from a U.S. tax compliance firm which was “fanning the flames of fear” and generally trying to market their services …

The article included the suggestion that U.S. citizens in Canada receive “proper U.S. legal advice“. The implication is that “proper U.S. legal advice” would come from a U.S. licensed lawyer (yes, sounds reasonable). That said, it’s important to understand that “U.S. lawyers” who “practise before the IRS” are subject to the Treasury’s Department Circular 230. Circular 230 includes what is in effect a code of professional conduct for tax professionals who practise before the Internal Revenue Service. (This includes U.S. licensed lawyers, U.S. licensed accountants, Enrolled Agents, etc.) Of particular note are the following two sections which are of direct relevance to Americans abroad seeking advice about their U.S. tax compliance obligations.

The obligations that Circular 230 imposes on the U.S. advisor include:

1. The obligation to inform the person of noncompliance and the associated penalties/consequences

§ 10.21 Knowledge of client’s omission.

A practitioner who, having been retained by a client with respect to a matter administered by the Internal Revenue Service, knows that the client has not complied with the revenue laws of the United States or has made an error in or omission from any return, document, affidavit, or other paper which the client submitted or executed under the revenue laws of the United States, must advise the client promptly of the fact of such noncompliance, error, or omission. The practitioner must advise the client of the consequences as provided under the Code and regulations of such noncompliance, error, or omission.

(Note that this directs the advisor to describe the possible penalties.)

2. The requirement of NOT assisting in or advising non-compliance

§ 10.51 Incompetence and disreputable conduct.

(a) Incompetence and disreputable conduct.
Incompetence and disreputable conduct for which a practitioner may be sanctioned under §10.50 includes, but is not limited to —

(7) Willfully assisting, counseling, encouraging a client or prospective client in violating, or suggesting to a client or prospective client to violate, any Federal tax law, or knowingly counseling or suggesting to a client or prospective client an illegal plan to evade Federal taxes or payment thereof.

(At a minimum this directs the advisor to NOT suggest that non-compliance is an option.)

Bottom line: “Proper U.S. legal advice” is likely to include: identification of noncompliance, a discussion of penalties and a directive that compliance is the correct course of action. It’s important that this be understood BEFORE seeking U.S. centric advice.

Would it make a difference if one consulted a non-U.S. advisor?

I suspect that the answer may vary on a county by country basis …

The situation in Canada appears to be that Canadian lawyers, accountants, etc. are NOT subject to Circular 230. I expect they might tell you that there is no Canadian law that requires Canadian residents to comply with U.S. tax laws. In any case, they clearly are NOT required to read you the “Circular 230 Riot Act”. While updating this post I came across a 2016 fascinating post at the Isaac Brock Society that discusses this very issue. Obviously, the post could not be understood to be legal advice. That said, it does make some interesting observations.

The context of the Isaac Brock Society post is captured in the introductory paragraph:

[Many readers living outside the U.S. who are not IRS compliant, have sought advice from tax attorneys on whether they should or should not enter into a lifetime of IRS compliance, and what would be the “cost”. Maybe your tax attorney living in Canada etc. is also an Enrolled Agent of the U.S. IRS, possibly affecting the nature of the interaction between attorney and you the client. What were the options suggested and especially disclosures made to you by your attorney? Attorneys must adhere to the professional and ethical standards of their law societies. See discussion below:]

As always, I suggest that your general advisor should be different from the person who does your actual tax preparation!

Part B – The evolution of the compliance landscape from 2013 to 2023

Generally since, 2013:

– the “Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program” – OVDP – was retired in 2018

– the “streamlined compliance procedures” are better and available to more people

– the IRS “Relief Procedures For Former Citizens” program was introduced in 2019

– the “delinquent international information return” procedures (including “Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures“) have evolved

A 2020 podcast exploring these options is available here.

My general advice about how to approach this problem remains intact. I continue to recommend separating the “advisor” from the “tax preparer”.

Part C – My original post from July of 2013

(Note that I have included a horizontal line through the parts that are no longer relevant because of the change in compliance options detailed in “Part B” above.)

What should be considered before contacting a lawyer

decision

The Reality of U.S. Citizenship Abroad

Nobody denied that the unintended targets of Congressional legislation aimed at those who supposedly “owe allegiance” to the USA, now assisted by craven foreign governments anxious lest their financial services entities lose access to the US market, are mostly unlikely to do anything at all. But the whole idea of universal self-assessment of taxation is to keep the taxpayer in an anxious condition, to make him overpay if possible, but at least not to underpay. Those now faced with an unprecedented, even retroactive, enforcement campaign and who must, if they wish to become compliant and avoid penalty or even prosecution (should they be identified in the future), sacrifice much of their wealth, even become insolvent.

Comment at the Isaac Brock Society blog – July 29, 2013

It’s a tough time to be a U.S. citizen abroad. The world is awash in FATCA anxiety. The U.S. has discovered FBAR as a way to raise penalty revenue and have embarked on an “FBAR Fundraiser”. Incredibly all bank accounts outside the U.S. are considered to be “offshore accounts“. U.S. law requires U.S. citizens to enter the U.S. with a U.S. passport. Those renewing their passports are now required to provide information relevant to tax compliance. Many are inclined to simply renounce their U.S. citizenship. Even renouncing citizenship has tax implications. Yet, all indications are, that the vast majority of U.S. citizens abroad are NOT tax compliant. Continue reading →

Part 51 – Twas The Night Before Moore – SEAT Members Discuss What They Expect In Moore Hearing

Leave a reply

December 2, 2023 – Participants include:

Dr. Karen Alpert – @FixTheTaxTreaty

Dr. Laura Snyder – @TAPInternation

John Richardson – @Expatriationlaw

SEAT members Dr. Karen Alpert, Dr. Laura Snyder and John Richardson discuss their predictions on how the Supreme Court will grapple with the difficult decisions in Moore. The SEAT/AARO amicus brief is here.

Prologue:

Twas the Night before Moore Poem

Twas the night before Moore, when all through the court
Not a justice was stirring, not even a clerk.
The issues were hung in the briefs with care,
In hopes that the justices soon would be there.

The tax profs were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of fake-income danced in their heads.
And Kathleen in ‘kerchief, and Charles in cap,
Had just settled their brains for a retroactive tax.

Interested in Moore (pun intended) about the § 965 transition tax?

Read “The Little Red Transition Tax Book“.

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

Americans Abroad Aren’t Denouncing Because They Want To. They Are Renouncing Because They Feel They Have To

1 Reply

Introduction/background:

Denunciation of U.S. Citizenship – From the perspective from a U.S. Senator

Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship – From the perspective of a U.S. journalist

It’s hard to have a discussion about why Americans abroad are renouncing U.S. citizenship. There are many different perspectives about renunciation. There is very little “shared reality”. Tax academics (who have the resources to know better), “pensioned intellectuals”, politicians and most journalists see this from a “U.S. resident perspective”. They don’t understand the reality of the lives of Americans abroad. But, Americans abroad are NOT a monolith. The ONLY thing they have in common is that they live outside the United States. Their circumstances vary widely. There is little “shared reality” among Americans abroad of what the issues are. AT the risk of oversimplification, I have attempted to divide “Americans abroad” into four categories (as defined below). The categorization will explain why different groups of “Americans abroad” experience the U.S. extra-territorial tax regime differently.

Hint: Americans abroad aren’t renouncing U.S. citizenship because they want to. They are renouncing U.S. citizenship because they feel they have to.

Politicians, tax academics, “pensioned intellectuals” and many journalists deal in the world of opinions. The opinions they hold are often “myths”. They are not “facts”. They are entitled to their opinions (as misguided and ignorant as they may be). They are NOT entitled to their “facts”.

This post is to describe the facts about how the extra-territorial application of the Internal Revenue Code and the Bank Secrecy Act pressure many Americans abroad to renounce U.S. citizenship. Interestingly a large percentage of those renouncing owe ZERO taxes to the U.S. government. They renounce anyway!

First, a bit of background to the problem – what is the problem and who is affected?

They do NOT meet the test of being “nonresident aliens” under the Internal Revenue Code

As SEAT cofounder, Dr. Laura Snyder explains, in the first of her 16 “working papers” describing the problems of Americans abroad:

The people most affected by the U.S. extraterritorial tax system are not a monolithic group. Some left the United States recently, some left years or decades ago. Some left as adults (some young, some middle-aged, and some retirees), while others left as children (with their families), and some have never lived in the United States (they are U.S. citizens by virtue of the U.S. citizenship of at least one parent). Some intend to live in the United States (again) in the near or distant future, while others do not intend to ever live in the United States (again). Some identify as Americans while others do not. Many are also citizens of the country where they live (dual citizens) while others hold triple or even quadruple citizenships. In referring to this group, there is no one term that sufficiently reflects its full diversity. What unites them is that they do not meet the test of “nonresident alien” under the Internal Revenue Code. Depending upon the context, this series of papers will use terms such as “persons,” “individuals,” “affected individuals,” and “overseas Americans.” The latter term has a drawback, however: it emphasizes connections to the United States while minimizing the important connections that such persons have to the countries and communities where they live.

That said, what divides Americans abroad may be greater than what unites Americans abroad!

Continue reading →

Canada’s Underused Housing Tax May Violate The Non-discrimination Clause In Tax Treaties

Leave a reply

Purpose and summary of this post:

Because Canada’s Underused Housing Tax treats nonresidents of Canada differently, based on their citizenship, the tax may violate the non-discrimination Article in many of Canada’s tax treaties (including the Canada U.S. tax treaty). Nonresidents of Canada are treated differently depending on whether or not they are Canadian citizens. For example a Canadian citizen who is a nonresident of Canada is “excluded” from the tax. But, a U.S. citizen who is a nonresident of Canada is “affected” by the tax. This appears to violate paragraph 1 of Article XXV of the Canada U.S. tax treaty (and other Canadian tax treaties).

Paragraph 1 of Article XXV of the Canada U.S. tax treaty:

1. Nationals of a Contracting State shall not be subjected in the other Contracting State to any taxation or any requirement connected therewith that is more burdensome than the taxation and connected requirements to which nationals of that other State in the same circumstances, particularly with respect to taxation on worldwide income, are or may be subjected. This provision shall also apply to individuals who are not residents of one or both of the Contracting States.

The question is what is meant by “in the same circumstances”. Relevant commentary from the OECD and from U.S. Treasury underscores that the words “particularly with respect to taxation on worldwide income” include whether the individual is taxed as a tax resident of the country or as a nonresident of the country.

Arguably all “nonresidents” of Canada are “in the same circumstances” (in relation to Canada’s tax system). Hence, “nonresidents” should not be treated differently depending on their citizenship.

Discussion and analysis follows.

___________________________________________________________________

Introduction – The Hypocrisy Of Representative Brian Higgins Continues

“Good Americans should NOT have a Canadian tax imposed on them!”

This is a recent statement from Congressman Brian Higgins. Click on the following tweet to listen to a recent interview with the Congressman.

The background …

As discussed here, Canada has a number of “Vacant Home Taxes“. Canada’s Underused Housing Tax is taxation based on citizenship and/or immigration status. (It is NOT based on “tax residency” and “tax residency” is irrelevant.) Notably the United States is the only major country in the world that makes citizenship and/or immigration status a sufficient condition for “tax residency”. In fact the United States imposes worldwide taxation and FATCA compliance on a approximately one million Canadian residents. Nevertheless, Congressman Higgins is certain of the injustice of Canada’s imposition of a citizenship based tax on U.S. residents. (The fact that the tax is based on property located in Canada appears to him to be irrelevant.) Furthermore, he seems intent on NOT acknowledging that:

“Good Canadians should not have an American tax imposed on them”.

Apparently what’s okay for the USA is somehow not okay for Canada.

But, hypocrisy aside …

Congressman Higgins’s objections hopefully will generate a discussion of the injustice of citizenship taxation generally. While ignoring the fact that the U.S. citizenship tax regime imposes direct U.S. taxation on the Canadian source income of millions of Canadian residents, Congressman Higgins is certain that Canada’s tax (which affects at most a few thousand Americans) violates the U.S. Canada tax treaty. In other words, Congressman Higgins’s hypocritical position appears to include:

“Only the United States has the right to impose taxation on the residents of other countries under the principle of citizenship taxation“.

In the spirit of affirming that Canada’s citizenship tax on Americans is in violation of the principle that only the United States has the right to engage in citizenship taxation, Congressman Higgins appeared as a witness before a Canadian Parliamentary Committee to discuss Canada’s Underused Housing Tax. The hearing took place in June 2023. During the hearing he raised the spectre of two possible legal challenges to Canada’s threat to the (presumptive) U.S. monopoly on citizenship taxation. The claim that Canada’s Underused Housing Tax violates the “non-discrimination” Article of the Canada U.S. tax treaty (and other Canadian tax treaties) is the subject of this post.

Food for thought:

The non-discrimination clause in the standard tax treaties suggests that certain kinds of citizenship taxation may be inappropriate. (How this reality bears on the question of U.S. citizenship taxation generally will be the subject of a separate post.)

Outline:

Part A – About Canada’s Underused Housing Tax
Part B – Representative Brian Higgins June 5, 2023 testimony to Canadian Parliamentary Committee – Includes “potential violations”
Part C – Thinking about the “non-discrimination” clause – A basic analysis
Part D – What does U.S. Treasury’s Technical Explanation suggest?
Part E – What about Canadian tax treaties with other countries? – Considering the Canada UK treaty
Part F – Appendixes – Various Tax Treaties

Part A – About Canada’s Underused Housing Tax

The statute and regulations are here. S. 2 of the statute deems certain individuals to be “excluded owners” of residential property. Those “excluded” from the application of the Act are defined to include:

(b) an individual who is a citizen or permanent resident, except to the extent that the individual is an owner of the residential property in their capacity as a trustee of a trust (other than a personal representative in respect of a deceased individual) or as a partner of a partnership;

To put it simply: Canadian “citizens” and those with the legal status of being “permanent residents” of Canada are excluded from the application of the statute. They are not subject to the tax. Those who are NEITHER Canadian citizens NOR permanent residents of Canada are (depending on the occupancy of the property) subject to the tax. This means that (in general) U.S. citizens, living in the United States, are subject (as”affected” owners) to the statute and may (depending on the occupancy of the property) be required to pay the tax.

To simplify the application of the law:

Canadian citizens and permanent resident owners (regardless of whether they are tax residents of Canada) are not subject to the tax.

U.S. citizens (who are neither Canadian citizens nor permanent residents) are subject to the tax.

To simplify the context:

Imagine four neighbors living in Buffalo, New York. They all drive Ford trucks. They all drink Budweisers. They all watch the Buffalo Bills on Sundays. They all work for the same company. They all file taxes jointly with their spouses. They all own seasonal homes (in their names only) located in Fort Erie Ontario, Canada (where they become “neighbours” instead of “neighbors”. Interestingly and completely arbitrarily, Canada’s Underused Housing Tax may or may apply to them. Let’s see how the tax might affect each of them.

Neighbor 1: Neither a Canadian citizen nor permanent resident of Canada – subject to the tax

Neighbor 2: A dual citizen of Canada and the United States – NOT subject to the tax

Neighbor 3: A U.K, citizen who has the legal status of “permanent resident” of Canada, but also a U.S. Green Card holder – NOT subject to the tax

Neighbor 4: A U.K. citizen living in the United States on an L visa – subject to the tax.

Notice that all four of these neighbors live in Buffalo, New York and are NOT tax residents of Canada. Neighbor 2 (Canadian citizen) and Neighbor 3 (permanent resident of Canada) are NOT subject to the tax. Neighbors 1 and 4 (neither Canadian citizens nor permanent residents of Canada are subject to the tax).

Part B – Representative Brian Higgins June 5, 2023 testimony to Canadian Parliamentary Committee – Includes “potential violations”

Excerpt from his testimony:

Continue reading →

Part 49 – 2012 Report Of Congressional Research Service Suggests @USTransitionTax May Be Unconstitutionally Retroactive

Leave a reply

Introduction and purpose

In an earlier post I argued that in the Moore appeal the Supreme Court should consider the retroactive nature of the MRT AKA transition tax. My argument was based my interpreting the law to be that retroactive legislation might be unconstitutional if it:

1. Was retroactive for an extensive period of time (in this case the period of retroactivity was 31 years); and

2. Was new legislation

After writing that post, I came across this 2012 Congressional Research Report which suggests that tax legislation could be unconstitutionally retroactive based on the same two principles.

A relevant excerpt from the report follows.

The 2012 Congressional Research Report: CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Constitutionality of Retroactive Tax Legislation

The following excerpt is of interest and relevance to the Moore appeal

Period of Retroactivity

The most common potential concern with respect to substantive due process is the length of the retroactivity. The Supreme Court has made clear that a modest retroactive application of tax laws is permissible, describing it as a “customary congressional practice” required by “the practicalities of producing national legislation.”9 As a result, tax legislation that is retroactive to the beginning of the year of enactment has routinely been upheld against due process challenges.10 There does not seem to be any serious question as to whether such a period of retroactivity is constitutional.

What then happens with periods of application that go beyond the year of enactment? The Court has upheld several tax laws where the period of retroactivity extended into the preceding calendar year.11 For example, in United States v. Carlton, the Court upheld the retroactive application of a federal estate tax provision that limited the availability of a recently added deduction for the proceeds of sales of stock to employee stock ownership plans. The deduction was added by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which had not included a requirement that the taxpayer own the stock immediately prior to death. The lack of such a requirement essentially created a loophole that Congress fixed with the 1987 amendment. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was enacted in October 1986, and the amendment was enacted in December 1987, to apply as if incorporated in the 1986 law. In upholding the 1987 law, the Court explained that the period of retroactivity was permissible since it was only slightly more than one year, as well as noting that the IRS had announced its concern with the original law as early as January 1987 and a bill to make the correction was introduced in Congress the very next month.12

However, it does appear that due process concerns may be raised by a more extended period of retroactivity. In Nichols v. Coolidge (one of the few cases where the Supreme Court struck down a retroactive tax on due process grounds),13 the Court disallowed the retroactive application of an estate tax provision that changed the tax treatment of a transfer 12 years after the transfer had occurred.14 The Court later unfavorably compared the 12-year period with periods where the “retroactive effect is limited.”15 This suggests that due process concerns are raised by an extended period of retroactivity. However, it is not clear how long a period might be constitutionally problematic. The Court has recognized retroactive liability for periods beyond one or two years in non-taxation contexts,16 but it is not clear how a similar situation arising under the tax laws would be addressed.

Reliance and Lack of Notice

One issue often raised is that it may seem unfair to change the tax laws once a taxpayer has done something based on the law as it existed at the time. The fact that taxpayers may have concluded a transaction in reliance on prior law is generally not important to the analysis as “reliance alone is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.”17 As the Court has made clear, “[t]ax legislation is not a promise, and a taxpayer has no vested right in the Internal Revenue Code.”18 In other words,

Taxation is neither a penalty imposed on the taxpayer nor a liability which he assumes by contract. It is but a way of apportioning the cost of government among those who in some measure are privileged to enjoy its benefits and must bear its burdens. Since no citizen enjoys immunity from that burden, its retroactive imposition does not necessarily infringe due process….19

Additionally, lack of notice of the retroactive effect of a tax law is not dispositive of whether due process has been violated.20 Lack of notice may, nonetheless, be a concern when the retroactive legislation enacts a wholly new tax. This was the issue in two cases where the Court struck down retroactive tax legislation on due process grounds—Blodgett v. Holden and Untermyer v. Anderson.21 Both dealt with the constitutionality of retroactive application of the Revenue Act of 1924, which enacted the gift tax. The legislation was introduced in February 1924, enacted that June, and applied to gifts made after January 1, 1924. The taxpayer in Blodgett made a gift in January 1924, and the taxpayer in Untermyer made a gift in May 1924, while the bill was in conference. The plurality in Blodgett and the majority in Untermyer held the retroactive application was unconstitutional because it was arbitrary as the taxpayers made gifts without knowing they would subsequently be subject to tax.22 In such a situation, a taxpayer has “no reason to suppose that any transactions of the sort will be taxed at all.”23

The Court in later cases has clearly distinguished the two cases on the basis that they dealt with the “creation of a wholly new tax” and therefore “their authority is of limited value in assessing the constitutionality of subsequent amendments that bring about certain changes in operation of the tax laws.”24 Thus, while lack of notice is not dispositive, the Court has suggested that lack of notice may violate due process if the retroactive law creates a “wholly new tax.”

Since the two cases dealing with the creation of the gift tax, it does not appear the Court has found any other situations where lack of notice was an issue.25 In some instances, the Court determined the retroactive tax provision was not a wholly new tax, as with the provision in Carlton, which amended a new estate tax deduction that was enacted 14 months prior as part of a major overhaul of the tax code.26 Even in a case with what looked like a brand new tax—a tax on silver under the Silver Purchase Act—the Court upheld a 35-day period of retroactivity.27 In that case, the law was enacted on June 19, 1934, retroactive back to May 15, 1934. In upholding the law’s retroactive application, the Court suggested that taxpayers had sufficient notice since there had been pressure for legislation for months, the President had sent a message to Congress encouraging such a tax on May 15, and the bill that became the act was introduced on May 23. This suggests that it would be rare for a tax provision to be characterized as a “wholly new tax” so long as taxpayers were on some kind of notice that a tax might be imposed.

The full report is available here:

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R42791.pdf

A pdf of the full report is here:

Retroactive Tax R42791

Interested in Moore about the § 965 transition tax?

Read “The Little Red Transition Tax Book“.

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

Part 2 – Citizenship Matters: Elvis, Casablanca, Citizenship and Immigration: When Art Imitates Life

Leave a reply

My day at the movies …

This post is a continuation of of my first post about Joe Grasmick’s “Free Trade Professionals” conference that took place in September of 2023 in Mexico City. The first post described the conference and why “citizenship matters”. The morning after the conference ended I boarded a plane for a long flight. I was still thinking about citizenship and immigration.

Usually I don’t watch movies on flights. This time (who knows why) I went through the movie selection and saw two movies where “citizenship/immigration status” played a huge role (whether directly or indirectly) on the lives of individuals. (I didn’t realize this until I watched both movies.) The new 2022 movie “Elvis” and the 1942 old movie “Casablanca” were on the menu. I watched both. Some thoughts on each …

“Elvis” the movie:

A great movie. Sure, it’s about the life and times of Elvis Presley. But, the story of Elvis also includes the role of his manager’s status as an illegal alien in the United States. A partial description includes:

Afterwards, Elvis headlines at the largest showroom in Las Vegas, the International Hotel, and resumes concert tours. Parker’s control of Elvis’ life tightens as he refuses Elvis’ request for a world tour. Motivated by gambling debts, Parker manipulates Elvis into signing a contract for a five-year Las Vegas casino residency. Elvis’ problematic behavior and prescription drug addiction overtake him, and a despondent Priscilla divorces him on his 38th birthday, taking their daughter Lisa Marie with her. After discovering that Parker cannot leave the country because he is a stateless illegal immigrant, Elvis attempts to fire him. Parker subsequently informs Vernon that the family owes him an $8.5 million debt accumulated over the years and convinces Elvis of their symbiotic relationship; though the pair rarely see each other afterward, Parker continues as his manager

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_(2022_film)

How might the life of Elvis Presley been different if Colonel Tom Parker had either been a U.S. citizen or had a Green Card? Would Elvis’s career have unfolded differently? For that matter would he have died at such a young age? Clearly he would have toured outside the United States.

But, enough on Elvis. The more interesting story of the role of citizenship and immigration (and how they relate to Americans abroad) is found in the 1942 classic movie “Casablanca”.

.
“Casablanca” the movie:

Casablanca is a true classic. Classics (whether books, movies or art) are interpreted in different ways, by different people at different stages in their lives. As the flight took off, I was still thinking about immigration and how everybody is an immigrant or alien somewhere. How certain people (because of their lack of citizenship are subject to a form of “citizenship apartheid“. Because my mind was in the world of immigration and because I had clearly been a “foreigner” in Mexico City, I saw Casablanca in a completely different light. As described by Wikipedia

“Casablanca is a 1942 American romantic drama film directed by Michael Curtiz, and starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, and Paul Henreid. Filmed and set during World War II, it focuses on an American expatriate (Bogart) who must choose between his love for a woman (Bergman) and helping her husband (Henreid), a Czechoslovak resistance leader, escape from the Vichy-controlled city of Casablanca to continue his fight against the Germans. The screenplay is based on Everybody Comes to Rick’s, an unproduced stage play by Murray Burnett and Joan Alison. The supporting cast features Claude Rains, Conrad Veidt, Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, and Dooley Wilson.”

Although Casablance may be in part a “romantic drama film” it is certainly a story about oppression, refugees, human mobility, citizenship, chance, injustice and human survival. Coming off the immigration conference, I interpreted the movie largely through the lens of circumstance, citizenship, fortune driven by the accident of birth and how little is required to disrupt the life any person. As the movie makes clear from the outset, people came to Casablanca because they were fearing and trying to escape from tyranny and were generally trying to get to “the Americas” (the safe haven of the time).

This is the trailer.

It’s a great movie. It’s great entertainment for people of all ages. But, seen through the perspective of citizenship and immigration it exhibits many parallels to the lives of Americans abroad.

What follows are some clips that exhibit analogies to common scenarios.

__________________________________________________________________________

Some meaningful clips from the movie Casablanca ..

A: Rick experiences an “Oh My God Moment”: On random events – sometimes bad things happen to good people…

B: About U.S. Citizenship and taxation – “It’s based on the circumstances of birth”

C: About the forced imposition of citizenship – Reminds me of the Accidental Americans – “I have never accepted tha privilege. I am now on French soil.”…

D: About the importance of the visa, passport and mobility documentation – It’s all relative … One way or the other, “citizenship matters”. Apparently Rick is always free (from an immigration and citizenship perspective) to return to the USA

E: “To renounce of not to renounce, that is the question”: On the meaning of the decision (including the renunciation decision) – If you don’t get on that plane (renounce), you’ll regret it …

F: Here’s looking at you kid – The U.S. extra-territorial tax regime (although a big problem is a “first world problem”)

G: I finally understood the origins of the title of the Wood Allan movie “Play It Again Sam” …

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

Appendix – The trailer for “Play It Again Sam”

Part 1 – Citizenship Matters: How The Lives Of “Free Trade Professionals”, Americans Abroad And Casablanca Overlap

Leave a reply

Mexico City – September 2023 – A reminder that citizenship matters

Last month I attended an Immigration Conference in Mexico City. It was organized by Buffalo immigration lawyer Joe Grasmick and focussed on the USMCA, CUSMA (formerly called the NAFTA Free Trade Immigration Visa- TN Visa). The conference highlighted the opportunities available to citizens of Canada, Mexico and the USA to live in any one of these three countries performing certain professional services for which they are qualified.

In a nutshell the “Free Trade Immigration” visa is an opportunity for:

1. Citizens of the United States, Canada and/or Mexico who have the status of being certain kinds of professionals (who they are and their professional qualfications); to accept

2. Certain kinds of employment (what will they actually be doing).

The devil is certainly in the details. Immigration under the “Free Trade Professional” category has its own nuances. It is certainly more difficult than it appears (and is described).

The conference was a “sobering” reminder that “citizenship matters”!

Continue reading →

American expats urged to comment on State Dept fee reduction plan by 1st Nov deadline

Leave a reply

October 29, 2023 By Helen Burggraf – American Expat Financial News Journal

Advocates for fairer tax treatment of American expats by their government, including both the Republicans Overseas and Democrats Abroad, are urging such expats not to hesitate in posting comments on a U.S. State Department proposal to lower the fee currently charged those seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenships, the deadline for which expires in less than three days. 

Continue reading →

Bonjour Part 2 – US Citizens Living In France Can Use French Tax As A Credit To Offset The Obamacare Surtax!

Leave a reply

A Quick Synopsis

Congratulations to lawyers Stuart Horwich & James Lieber for their work and success in achieving this result for Americans abroad.

Because of the specific provisions of the France/U.S. tax treaty, U.S. citizens who are resident in France are eligible to use French income tax paid as a tax credit against the 3.8% Obamacare surtax. Depending on the terms of the tax treaty in their country of residence, it is possible that U.S. citizens residing in other countries may be able to use taxes in their country of residence as a tax credit against the 3.8% Obamacare surtax.

As described below, I expect that to be able to use foreign taxes paid as a credit against the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax, the “Double Taxation” article in the relevant tax treaty must include a specific provision for “U.S. citizens residing in the country of residence”. (Canada comes to mind. But, I will have to some more research …)

Note that it is very possible that this decision will be appealed. The US government will be unhappy with this decision.

For more detail and analysis, keep reading. This post in organized into the following parts:

Part A – Introduction – Background
Part B – Before moving to another country, pay special attention to the tax treaty between the US and that country!
Part C – MATTHEW AND KATHERINE KAESS CHRISTENSEN V. UNITED STATES – Why does the US/France tax treaty work for them?
Part D – Not all tax treaties are the same! What kind of tax treaty provision create the eligibility to use foreign tax credits to offset the Obamacare surtax?
Part E – It’s great that I am entitled to a foreign tax credit. But, how is the tax credit to be calculated?
Part F – The Question: I live in country X. May I use foreign tax credits to offset the Obamacare surtax?
Part G – Dang! Can I get a refund? It appears that refunds ARE available to those who improperly were charged the Obamacare surtax!
Appendix – ARTICLE 24 Of the 1994 France/US Tax Treaty with the later protocols taken into account

Continue reading →

Part 50 – Moore: The Government And The Tax Academics Strike Back

Leave a reply

Introduction

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of Charles G. Moore v. United States on December 5, 2023. It is certain to be the most closely watched oral argument ever. I had originally considered travelling to DC to observe the spectacle in person. But, I have no desire to stand in a long line. I will have to settle for listening to audio online.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-800.html

The government’s reply was filed on October 16, 2023. It has been supported by (so far) a relatively small number of amicus briefs from various tax academics (law professors). The purpose of this post is to offer my impressions of what I have read so far. There is a saying that two good trial lawyers are like two ships passing in the night (each with a different theory of the case). This is also descriptive of the briefs (collectively) in support of the Moores and the briefs (collectively) in support of the government.

Outline

Part A – A Review – What is the Moore case actually about?
Part B – Some preliminary questions – in the context of understanding the 16th amendment:
Part C – The government’s reply and the “tax academic” supporters are notable in that they:
Part D – An attempt to consolidate what the government and tax profs are saying …
Part E – Retroactivity – An Uncomfortable Truth
Appendix – The Tax Law Center

_____________________________________________________

Continue reading →

Part 48 – Discussing The @USTransitionTax and Moore With @FAIRTaxGuys of @FAIRTaxOfficial

Leave a reply

Introduction – Previous Podcasts and Posts About The Fair Tax

I have previously written about the FAIR Tax as an alternative the existing income tax system. Basically, the FAIR Tax is a consumption based tax that would replace the income tax.

The Moore Appeal And The Income Tax

The Moore appeal is the most important case the U.S. Supreme Court has ever heard. The result will determine whether Congress can extinguish individual liberty under the guise of taxation.

At a minimum, the issue of whether Congress can tax unrealized income illuminates the evil and potential for weaponization and oppression the income tax affords. The FAIRTax is the only alternative.

During September of 2023 I had the opportunity to appear on Fair Tax Power Radio with Steve Hayes, Bob Scarborough and Bob Paxton.

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw