Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship triggers a “Reporting Frenzy”!
It’s simply unbelievable. The renunciation of U.S. citizenship triggers more reporting obligations on the part of individuals and government agencies than anything else. More than birth. More than death. More than marriage. More than bankruptcy. More than conviction of a crime (probably). It’s unbelievable.
The purpose of this post is to “slice and dice” what those reporting obligations are.
The rules governing information reporting when one relinquishes U.S. citizenship are found in Internal Revenue Code 6039G. They impose reporting obligations on “some” individual relinquishers (“covered expatriates”), the State Department whenever a Certificate of Loss Of Nationality has been issued and on U.S. Treasury. (I will comment separately on the situation of Green Card holders at the end of this post.) Most of this is summarized in the following two tweets. But, because this is so confused, I am going to take the time to parse the statute.
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) December 24, 2019
It’s all in Internal Revenue Code – 6039G Note that Section 6039G is found in Subtitle F which is the – “Procedure and Administration” – part of the Internal Revenue Code. In other words, it deals only with information reporting. It does NOT impose taxation. Interestingly, Section 6039G imposes reporting requirements on individuals, the State Department, U.S. Treasury (and in the case of Green Card holders) the Immigration authorities.
That pretty much sums it up. For those who want to understand the analysis …
The professors (who have clearly never lived under a citizenship taxation regime and have limited understanding of FATCA) explain the relationship between U.S. citizenship-based taxation and the success of a – “Made In The USA” wealth tax – in the article which includes:
The situation in the United States is different. You can’t shirk your tax responsibilities by moving, because U.S. citizens are responsible to the Internal Revenue Service no matter where they live. The only way to escape the IRS is to renounce citizenship, an extreme move that in both Warren’s and Sanders’s plans would trigger a large exit tax of 40 percent on net worth.
Some people tweet. Some people tweet for fun. Some people tweet to educate.
The purpose this post is to collect the series of tweets that Laura Snyder complied to provide a higher level of education to the professors.
Introduction: The Purpose and Limited Scope Of This Post
This post focuses on Green Card holders who are filing the 1040 tax return. The 1040 is the return that is filed by all individuals unless you are a “nonresident aliens”. Non-resident aliens file the 1040-NR. This post does NOT discuss (1) when it could be advantageous for a Green Card holder to file a 1040-NR (using a tax treaty tie breaker provision) and (2) what the (DANGEROUS) consequences of filing a 1040-NR (from both a tax and immigration perspective) could be. For a Green Card holder, there can be both disadvantages and also substantial advantages to using a tax treaty tiebreaker to file a 1040-NR. This post assumes that the Green Card holder is filing a 1040 and is specifically focused on the following question: Is it wise for a Green Card holder who is temporarily outside the United States to use the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion found in Section 911 of the Internal Revenue Code (as opposed to the Section 901 Foreign Tax credits) when filing the 1040?
(Most tax practitioners agree, that in general, it is better to use the Sec. 901 foreign tax credits and and not sue the S. 911 Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. Here is a post that explains why this is so. So, why would anybody ever use the FEIE? The answer is that some people live in countries where there is income tax and therefore no foreign tax credit to use against income that is taxable from a U.S. perspective.) Continue reading →
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) May 20, 2018
“Understanding U.S. Tax Residency …
The United States uses a form of “deemed tax residency“.
The Internal Revenue of the United States deems that all “individuals” (wherever they live in the world – including citizens and residents of other countries) except “nonresident aliens” are subject to taxation in the United States on their world wide income. One qualifies as a “nonresident alien” unless one is a:
1. A U.S. citizen
2. A U.S. resident as defined by Internal Revenue Code Sec. 7701(b) Continue reading →
This is an interesting and important question. This question is always important for determining how the Sec. 877A “Exit Tax” applies to “permanent residents” AKA “Green Card Holders” who with to abandon their permanent residence. There are many other many other reasons why this matters. U.S. tax residency (which is an example of “deemed tax residency“) can be a complicated thing. With the exception of U.S. citizens, U.S. tax residency is usually a function of some form of “physical presence”. U.S. tax residency can trigger:
– income tax payable
– reporting requirements with respect to non-U.S. assets and more (dual tax residents may be able to use a “tax treaty tie-breaker” to opt out of U.S. tax residency)
Remember that “residence” for purposes of taxation can be different from residence for the purposes of immigration. As the Topsnik case makes clear, it is entirely possible to NOT have the right to have lost the right to live in the United States, but still be subject to taxation as a U.S. resident.
Rather than reinvent the wheel, I am please to reproduce this post from Daniel Gray – a Toronto based CPA. Thanks to Daniel for allowing me to reproduce this post from his blog.
Everything you need to know but were afraid to ask: "Explanation And 10 Examples Of The Rules For Determining An Alien’s Period Of Residency In The United States" https://t.co/upuiP3DLnn via @taxconnections
World politics is entering a new phase, and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it will be-the end of history, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism, among others. Each of these visions catches aspects of the emerging reality. Yet they all miss a crucial, indeed a central, aspect of what global politics is likely to be in the coming years.
It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.
Tax policy and the possible “clash of civilizations”
To what extent does the insistence of the USA on imposing the Internal Revenue Code (“citizenship-based taxation”) on the citizen/residents of other countries, foreshadow a “clash of civilizations”?
This post was motivated by the article by Virginia La Torre Jeker which is referenced in the above tweet. It is an excellent discussion of how the Internal Revenue Code might (or might not) accommodate the reality of Sharia law. The post raises many questions and alerts practitioners to the challenges of applying the Internal Revenue Code to the lives of people whose culture is largely outside the United States. The post raises many “technical issues”. I expect there will further discussion of this issue on Virginia’s blog.
Taxation does NOT exist in a cultural vacuum. A country’s tax system reflects the counry’s cultural values. As the tax historian Charles Adams has noted, the rise and fall of civilizations can be linked to its tax policies. To impose the Internal Revenue Code on people who live outside the United States is to export U.S. cultural values and impose those values on other nations. The United States claims the right to impose the Internal Revenue Code on U.S. citizens who live outside the United States. The reality is that there are millions of people with no connection to the United States (other than a place of birth). U.S. citizenship is acquired automatically if one has the fortune (or misfortune depending on your point of view) of having been (as Bruce would sing) “Born In The USA!”
FATCA and the tax compliance industry are working hard to identify those who may be U.S. citizens and do NOT live in the United States. What the United States views as a good source of tax revenue should be seen more broadly. Leaving aside basic issues of fairness, to impose U.S. taxation (according to U.S. rules/cultural values) on the residents of other countries, is sure to create problems. As part of tax reform, the United States must stop imposing the Internal Revenue Code on people who are NOT residents of the United States!
The following “Storification” is an attempt to explain the problem from an “outside the USA” perspective … Continue reading →