(g) Definitions and special rules relating to expatriation For purposes of this section—
(1) Covered expatriate
(A) In general
The term “covered expatriate” means an expatriate who meets the requirements of subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 877(a)(2).
(B) Exceptions An individual shall not be treated as meeting the requirements of subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 877(a)(2) if—
(i) the individual—
(I) became at birth a citizen of the United States and a citizen of another country and, as of the expatriation date, continues to be a citizen of, and is taxed as a resident of, such other country, and
(II) has been a resident of the United States (as defined in section 7701(b)(1)(A)(ii)) for not more than 10 taxable years during the 15-taxable year period ending with the taxable year during which the expatriation date occurs,
Notice that the “dual citizen exemption” operates so that the individual does NOT become a “covered expatriate” if he meets the tests of “subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 877(a)(2)” (the income test or the asset test). The “dual citizen exemption” does NOT absolve the individual from meeting the “tax compliance test” found in section 877(a)(2)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code, which reads as follows: Continue reading →
In order to use your “dual citizen from birth” as a defense to being a “covered expatriate” and therefore subject to the S. 877A “Exit Tax”, you must (as both a Canadian and U.S. citizen from birth”) be subject to taxation as a Canadian resident. What does this mean? Are you actually required to live in Canada? What are the rules for determining whether one is “taxed as a resident of Canada”?
This could be considered from each of a “U.S.” and a “Canadian” perspective. “Resident in Canada” for tax purposes – from a Canadian Perspective
Calgary couple gets $18K bill after CRA questions residency for tax purposes https://t.co/WKOaW5DRyP – Resident or non-resident of Canada?
Living in Canada would be a “sufficient condition” for being subject to taxation as a Canadian resident (all Canadian residents pay tax).
Living in Canada may not be a “necessary condition” for being subject to taxation as a Canadian resident.
In other words, one could be treated as a “tax resident of Canada” without actually living in Canada. It seems clear that this is an issue that is decided on a “case by case” basis. That said, incredibly:
There are situations where one would want to be subject to taxation as a Canadian resident.
Here is information from the Canadian Revenue Agency (current as of the date of this post WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE). Continue reading →
Has it become too much work to remain a U.S. citizen? Has the time come to renounce U.S. citizenship? Would you be a "covered expatriate" if you renounced? Subject to the "Exit Tax"? https://t.co/1sSX7ZQeX9 via @ExpatriationLaw
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) March 11, 2018
Click here if you want help with your renunciation of U.S. citizenship.
____________________________________________________________________________________________ Updates – February 2018:
I am available to assist you on a “consultation basis” (fee based). If you wish assistance please contact me by email or through the contact form..
Received #greatholidaynews today from two "ecstatic" renunciants who confirm that the wait time for CLNs is down to 2 – 3 months in Canada!
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) December 17, 2016
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and London Mayor Boris Johnson are “high profile” examples of people who have the “unwanted citizenship” of the countries of their birth. Each of them has found the citizenship of the country of his birth to be inconvenient.
Ted Cruz was born in 1971 in Canada. He was therefore born a Canadian citizen. He claims to have been born to a U.S. citizen mother and was therefore a U.S. citizen by birth. (Whether he qualifies as a “natural born citizen” is a different question.) As a Canadian citizen he had the right (prior to renouncing Canadian citizenship) to live in Canada. Had Mr. Cruz, moved back to Canada, he could have avoided the U.S. S. 877A Exit Tax. Incredible but true. It will be interesting to see whether Mr. Cruz regrets renouncing his Canadian citizenship. As you will see, by renouncing Canadian citizenship, Mr. Cruz surrendered his right to avoid the United States S. 877A Exit Tax. Here is why …
The S. 877A Exit Tax rules in the Internal Revenue Code, are the most punitive in relation to U.S. citizens living outside the United States (AKA Americans abroad). To put it simply, with respect to Americans abroad, the S. 877A Exit Tax rules:
– operate to confiscate assets that are located in other nations; and
– operate to confiscate assets that were acquired by U.S. citizens after they moved from the United States.
There is not and has never been an “Exit Tax” anywhere else that operates in this way. The application of the S. 877A Exit Tax to assets located in other nations, is both an example of “American Exceptionalism” at its finest and a strong deterrent to exercising the right of expatriation granted in the “Expatriation Act of 1868“. But, the “Exit Tax” applies ONLY to “Covered Expatriates” and “dual citizens from birth” can avoid being “Covered Expatriates” …
As has been previously discussed, the Exit Tax applies ONLY to “covered expatriates“. There are two statutory defenses to becoming a “covered expatriate”. This post is to discuss the “dual citizen from birth” defense to being treated as a “covered expatriate”. I have discovered that this defense is NOT as well known or understood as it should be. The statute granting the “dual citizen from birth” defense to “Covered Expatriate” status reads as follows: Continue reading →
Jackie Bugnion has published a superb article describing the problems of U.S. citizenship taxation and why the United States must move to residence based taxation. Before, describing her article, for those who don’t know …
On May 7, 2015 I received notification that Jackie Bugnion had submitted her resignation to the Board of ACA “American Citizens Abroad“. I read the notification with a combination of sadness and total appreciation for the incredible efforts that Jackie has made in advocating for the rights of Americans Abroad. Jackie was largely responsible for organizing the “Citizenship Taxation Conference” (featuring the debate between Michael Kirsch and Bernard Schneider) that took place in Toronto on May 2, 2014. Some of you may have had the privilege of meeting her there. It’s unlikely that she could be replaced by any one individual. Continue reading →
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) February 4, 2016
Last Friday I was in Ottawa. I walked into a bookstore and saw the book: “The Lost Canadians” by Don Chapman.
It is a fascinating book. Once again, see how important citizenship is. Citizenship is “invisible” until your citizenship or lack thereof creates problems in your life. Don Chapman’s book “The Lost Canadians” is a history of the problems caused by Canada’s first citizenship act – the 1947 Canada Citizenship Act. Many (but not all) of the problems were caused by situations where, according to the 1947 Canada Citizenship Act:
According to S. 16 of the 1947 Canada Citizenship Act, a minor would lose his/her Canadian citizenship if the responsible parent became a citizen of another nation and in so doing lost her/her Canadian citizenship; and
According to S. 5 of the 1947 Canada Citizenship Act, a person born in wedlock outside of Canada to a father who was NOT a Canadian citizen and a mother who WAS a Canadian citizen never acquired Canadian citizenship by birth. (Note that in the Benner case the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that this distinction violated S. 15 of the Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms.) This injustice, which meant that those born in the U.S. did NOT acquire dual citizenship at birth (think of the definition of “covered expatriate” of the S. 877A “Exit Tax” rules), was “fixed in the 2009 changes to the Canada Citizenship Act.