The general message …
Our next webinar will provide you with a comprehensive overview of the US #ExitTax & all of its implications for US nationals looking to give up their passport. Starring @ExpatriationLaw & coming on Thursday, December 6 at 13:00 GMT. Hope you can make it! https://t.co/robcS2cFBq pic.twitter.com/9CZQaW0ZO3
— Taxlinked (@Taxlinked) November 14, 2018
More details – hope to meet you online on December 6, 2018
A brief summary of #Greencard abandonment and the S. 877A Exit Tax as it applies to "long term residents" https://t.co/SuwTDtQhLs pic.twitter.com/ljKdkRdcV3
— John Richardson – Counsellor for US persons abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) September 2, 2018
https://www.taxation.co.uk/Articles/2018/04/24/337897/us-expatriate-tax-conference-pt-2
What follows is a summary of a presentation I made in March of 2018 in London, UK:
Continue reading
Circa 2013: Many people with @PermResidentUSA AKA #GreenCard holders live in the USA for years and choose to NOT become U.S. citizens: "Making Choice to Halt at Door of Citizenship" https://t.co/rBrLDHNrYn
— US Green Card Abroad (@USGreenCardLaw) September 10, 2018
There are many “permanent residents” of the United States AKA Green Card holders who have never become U.S. citizens. Citizenship is part of one’s identity. There are many reasons why a “permanent resident” of the United States would NOT become U.S. citizens. There are also many reasons why a “permanent resident” would become a U.S. citizen.
This post explores some of the factors that might influence one’s decision to become a U.S. citizen. What follows is an answer that I posed on Quora.
Introduction
The Internal Revenue Code of the United States imposes worldwide income taxation on ALL individuals who are U.S. citizens or who are otherwise defined as “residents” under the Internal Revenue Code. “Residents” includes those who have a visa for “permanent residence” (commonly referred to as a Green Card). A visa for “permanent residence” is a visa for immigration purposes. Once an individual receives a visa for “permanent residence” he will be considered to be a “resident” under the Internal Revenue Code. His status as a “resident” for tax purposes continues until he fulfills specific conditions to sever his “tax residency” with the United States. The conditions required to sever “tax residency” with the United States are found in S. 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code. (Basically a Green Card holder can’t simply move from the United States and sever tax residency.)
In the same way that U.S. citizens are subject to taxation on their worldwide income even if they don’t reside in the United States, “permanent residents” will continue to be subject to taxation on their worldwide income until they take specific steps to sever tax residency in the United States. In certain circumstances Green Card holders living outside the United States can avoid filing some of the “forms” that are required of U.S. citizens living abroad.
The steps to sever tax residency are found in S. 7701(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. Those wishing to explore this further are invited to read my earlier posts about Gerd Topsnik: Topsnik 1 and Topsnik 2. Those “permanent residents” who qualify as “long term residents” will be subject to the S. 877A Exit Tax rules if they try to sever tax residency with the United States. It’s probably easier to secure a “permanent residence visa” for immigration purposes, than it is to sever tax residency for income tax purposes.
On September 5, 2018 I had the opportunity to participate in a conversation with Mr. Gary Clueit who has been a permanent resident of the United States for 34 years. Interestingly Mr. Clueit is one more Green Card holder who never applied for U.S. citizenship. There are both advantages and disadvantages to a “Green Card” holder becoming a U.S. citizen. One often overlooked disadvantage to a Green Card holder becoming a U.S. citizen is discussed here. In general, “permanent residents” (Green Card holders) of the United States have certain “tax treaty benefits” that are denied to U.S. citizens. Because of the “savings clause” U.S. citizens are denied the benefits of tax treaties. Interestingly (at least until now) other countries have failed to understand that the inclusion of the “savings clause” in U.S. tax treaties means that the treaty partner is agreeing that the United States can impose worldwide taxation on the citizen/residents of the treaty partner country. The reason is simple:
The primary impact of the “savings clause” is that assists the United States in imposing “worldwide taxation”, according to U.S. rules on people who are “tax residents” of other countries and who do not live in the United States!
The following tweet links to the podcast of the conversation. Anybody considering moving to the United States as a “permanent resident” should listen to this podcast.
A man of uncommon humanity – Gary @Clueit – explains some @USGreenCardLaw (from both tax and immigration perspectives) and why the #GreenCard is "Tax Kryptonite". The S. 877A Exit Tax figures prominently. https://t.co/gUmbBYr1Hx
— John Richardson – Counsellor for US persons abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) September 7, 2018
More from Mr. Clueit after the jump …
The late Sir John Templeton pioneered the concept of “international” investing. Of course, by the standards of today, this would be considered “offshore investing”. He also pioneered the concept of “renouncing U.S. citizenship“. It is clear that Sir John’s renunciation of U.S. citizenship was the best investment decision he ever made. Like many Americans who are forced to renounce U.S. citizenship to create business opportunities, Sir John likely renounced to save his mutual fund business.
Sir John was fond of saying:
“The best time to invest is when you have money.”
Of course, that is a more difficult concept for Americans abroad. (The problem is particularly acute in Australia where it is believed that the Australian Superannuation may be subject to U.S. taxation.) Time after time, in country after country, I speak with people who avoid investing because they are Americans abroad. This is a great mistake.
It’s important for Americans abroad to heed the teaching of Sir John Templeton. They must (1) learn to invest when they have the money and (2) discipline themselves to acquire the money to invest!
One of my most consistently read posts is “The biggest cost of being a “dual Canada/U.S. tax filer” is the “lost opportunity” available to pure Canadians“.
Why #Americansabroad renounce U.S. citizenship: The biggest cost of being a "dual Canada/U.S. tax filer" is the "lost opportunity" available to pure Canadians https://t.co/SZjNRSUEin via @ExpatriationLaw
— John Richardson – Counsellor for US persons abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) August 6, 2018
I have been meaning to write a “follow up” post for a long time. Perhaps, the message was too simple. Perhaps it is only worth a tweet. Perhaps it’s dangerous to expand such a simple thought into multiple paragraphs, but here goes …
“Non-citizenship” has its privileges: An overlooked reason why a Green Card holder may NOT want to become a U.S. citizen https://t.co/yzxRjFikhp
— John Richardson – Counsellor for US persons abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) July 30, 2018
U.S. Tax Residency – The “Readers Digest” Version
Last week I participated in a “panel discussion” titled:
“Tax Residency In A World Of Global Mobility: What Tax Residency Means, How To Sever It, The Role Of Tax Treaties and When Exit Taxes May Apply”
The panel included a discussion of the “pre-immigration planning” that should be undertaken prior to becoming a “tax resident of the United States”. U.S. citizens and U.S. residents are “tax residents” of the United States and (from an income tax perspective) are taxable on their world wide income. (There are separate “tax residency” rules for the U.S. Estate and Gift Tax Regime.) For the purposes of “income taxation”, the definition of “U.S. resident” includes “Green Card holders” , who by definition are “permanent residents” of the United States. Those who come to America and get that “Green Card” have subjected themselves to the U.S. “worldwide taxation” regime. Note that a Green Card holder who becomes a “long term” resident of the United States has also subjected himself to the S. 877A Expatriation Tax Regime! In other words, a Green Card holder may NOT be able to move from American without subjecting himself to a significant confiscation of his wealth! To put it simply: If a prospective immigrant is “well advised”, the S. 877A Exit Tax rules will provide a strong reason to NOT become a “permanent resident” of the United States. But, remember:
The S. 877A Exit Tax rules apply to “permanent residents” who become “long term residents”.
Considering the EB-5 Visa? The U.S. S. 877A Expatriation Tax Demonstrates that “Not All @TaxResidency Is The Same!” https://t.co/QJnuiKmpQf
— John Richardson – Counsellor for US 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
Q. What do #MeghanMarkle and the @USTransitionTax have in common? A. They are two news items of 2018 that will draw attention to U.S. policy of imposing "worldwide taxation" on people who have @taxresidency in other countries and do not live in the USA. https://t.co/G8Q7l3KSdQ pic.twitter.com/Co7OmQiXn7
— John Richardson – Counsellor for US persons abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) April 16, 2018
This is the ninth in my series of posts about the Sec. 965 Transition Tax and whether/how it applies to the small business corporations owned by taxpaying residents of other countries (who may also have U.S. citizenship). These small business corporations are in no way “foreign”. They are certainly “local” to the resident of another country who just happens to have the misfortune of being a U.S. citizen.
Continue reading
Civilizations and countries define themselves in part by their tax policies
In 1993 Samuel Huntington wrote “The Clash Of Civilizations“. His basic thesis is captured in the following paragraph from Foreign Affairs Magazine.
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”?
"When Sharia and U.S. Tax Law Collide" (within and without the USA) explained by @VlJeker – https://t.co/bdDPKTaZw9 USA exports IRC abroad! pic.twitter.com/EKhO6xAcg0
— John Richardson – Counsellor for US persons abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) October 9, 2017
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
As goes taxation, so goes civilization.
This is Part 2 of my post discussing the South Africa tax situation. Part 1 is here.
South Africa is NOT attempting to compete with USA by challenging the US monopoly on citizenship-based taxation https://t.co/nPc82VIEUY
— John Richardson – Counsellor for US persons abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) September 6, 2017
This is a follow up to my post exploring whether South Africa is moving to a tax system that is based on “citizenship-based taxation” or (in the case of the United States of America) “taxation-based citizenship”. That post was the result of a “special request”. The response from that first post included:
I now understand the difference between the SA system and the US. I believe that the similarity that caused the consternation when this first came up was the issue of “tax residency”. CBT mandates that those declared US citizens by the US are simultaneously declared US tax residents. In a similar fashion SA has a concept of tax residency that *does* include some people who do not physically reside in SA but NOT just because they’re citizens. I get it. Thanks again for clarifying this!
That being said, I think the term “tax residency” is crazy. I wish that someone with the power to influence terminology in the general usage of language could come up with something that accurately describes the basis on which a person can be taxed by a country in which that person does not live. Taxes don’t reside; people do, and they can only live one place at a time. Any ideas? 🙂