Tag Archives: citizenship taxation

The Issue Is Not @CitizenshipTax. The Issue Is Whether The US Can Claim The Tax Residents Of Other Countries As US Tax Residents!

1 Reply

Introduction – The United States has the “sovereign right” to define who are its “tax residents, but …”

Prologue

There is presently heightened advocacy directed toward the goal of influencing the United States to take action to end (what is described as) U.S. citizenship taxation. Notably this goal is for the purpose of influencing the United States to take action.

Perhaps it would be equally useful to define a separate goal of:

Not allowing the United States to claim the residents of other countries as U.S. tax residents!

Notably this goal would be to engage the governments of other countries!

Ideally both Americans abroad and their countries of residence should seek to stop the United States from reaching into those other countries and claiming the residents of those countries as U.S. tax residents!

In FATCA related discussions it has been common for Government Officials to claim that the United States has the sole right to determine who are its tax residents. Although true, this cannot mean that the United States (or any country) has the right to claim the residents of another country as its tax residents. (The debate is illuminated here and here.)

(Interestingly when the European PETI delegation visited Washington in July of 2022 they made it clear that they did NOT question the right of the United States to define European residents as U.S. tax residents. Rather, they just wanted to find a way to make it easier for European residents to be permitted to have access to bank accounts in the European countries where they live.)

It is appropriate for other countries to accept that the United States has the right (like any country) to define who are U.S. tax residents. It is completely inappropriate for Europeans to accept that the United States has the right to treat European tax residents (who actually live and work in Europe) as U.S. tax residents. By protecting European residents from the United States, European countries would be acting in a manner that is consistent with the OECD tax treaty which anticipates situations of “dual tax residency”. In circumstances of dual tax residency, the model OECD tax treaty (Article 4) provides that the treaty “tie break” will be used to assign tax residency to the country that correlates with the “circumstances of life”. (See page 111 in the document linked to in the previous sentence.) Interestingly, citizenship which absent naturalization, is based on “circumstances of birth” is considered to be the least important criterion under the treaty “tie break”rules.

The treaty tie break rules presumptively assign tax residency based on the “circumstances of life” and not on the “circumstances of birth“.

The bottom line is that, it’s time for the world to simply say:

Of course the United States can define who are its tax residents. But, the United States will NOT be permitted to treat the tax residents of our country (who actually live in our country) to be treated by the U.S. as though they are the tax property of the United States! That is the simple message that must be conveyed!!

Let’s now analyze how the United States goes about claiming the residents of other countries as U.S. taxable property. It’s explained by Mr. Paolo Gentoloni as follows …

Continue reading →

Like Canada’s Underused Housing Tax, U.S. Estate Taxation Depends On Citizenship Of The Owner

Leave a reply

Taxation based on source vs. taxation based on residence – More commentary on the Canada Underused Housing Tax

Suzanne Herman has got it right!

There is no doubt that Canada’s “Underused Housing Tax” is triggered by citizenship. There is no doubt that Canada’s Underused Housing Tax is unfair to Americans who own second homes and cottages in Canada. There is no doubt that Canada’s “Underused Housing Tax” in its application to noncitizen and nonresidents is similar to the U.S. Estate Regime*. (They both impose taxation on the noncitizen/nonresident owners of property located in their countries.) There is no doubt that while complaining about Canada’s “Underused Housing Tax” that Congressman Higgins should be apologizing for the way the U.S. Estate Tax treats nonresident/noncitizen owners. They are both taxes triggered by (n0n) citizenship and are based on property located in their respective jurisdictions.

Taxation of nonresidents triggered by the ownership of local property is different from U.S. taxation of non-US source income received by persons who don’t live in the United States

That said, there is no moral equivalence between Canada’s Underused Housing Tax based on property located IN CANADA and the U.S. taxation of INCOME received OUTSIDE THE United States by a person who does not live in the United States. The United States is using “citizenship” as a pretext to claim that people who are tax residents of other countries (including Canada) are U.S. tax residents.

It is an assumption of international taxation that every country has the right to define who are its “tax residents”. On the other hand, no country has the right to (1) claim that the tax residents of other countries are also their tax residents and (2) disable those “claimed” tax residents from using a treaty tie break provision to avoid the claim of tax residence! (The “saving clause” included in all U.S. tax treaties prevents U.S. citizens from using a treaty residence tax break provision to assign allocate residence to solely their country of actual residence.)

In FATCA related discussions it has been common for Government Officials to claim that the United States has the sole right to determine who are its tax residents. Although true, this cannot mean that the United States (or any country) has the right to claim the residents of another country as its tax residents. (The debate is illuminated here and here.)

It’s about American exceptionalism

The international standard for definitions of tax residence is “residence”. Residence is a term that is correlated with the “circumstances of one’s life”. The United States (in addition to “residence”) claims tax residence based on “citizenship” (which is mostly based on the “circumstances of one’s birth”). To put it simply U.S. tax residence is primarily defined in terms of the “circumstances of birth” rather than the “circumstances of life”.

In the 21st Century there is almost NO correlation between citizenship and residence.

At first blush, one might say:

Both Canada and the United States are taxing based on citizenship. They are both equally wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Suzanne Herman’s tweet explains the difference. As her tweet makes clear the Canadian tax is based on property that is located in Canada. It is a tax based on citizenship because of property located in Canada. Although the tax is based on the citizenship of the owner, Canada is NOT claiming that U.S. residents are “tax residents of Canada” for all purposes. The Canadian tax, although based on citizenship, is a tax based on the ownership of property located in Canada.

On the other hand, the United States is imposing full taxation on certain Canadian residents because and only because the U.S claims them as U.S citizens. The claim is that because they were “Born In The USA” that they are U.S. tax residents for ALL purposes. They are subject to U.S. taxation on ALL of their income received outside the United States. They are subject to reporting on all their assets LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. This is because and only because they are U.S. citizens.

To put it simply: The U.S. is using citizenship (the circumstances of their birth) to claim that residents of other countries are U.S. tax residents for ALL purposes!

A U.S. resident can avoid the Canadian tax by simply selling the property located in Canada.

A Canadian resident subject to the U.S. citizenship tax can avoid the tax only through relinquishment of U.S. citizenship or death (and that may not be enough).

Bottom line: Canada is imposing a tax based on the citizenship of the owner of property located in Canada. This is different from the U.S. imposing taxation on income earned outside the United States and received by a Canadian resident who has U.S. citizenship. The Canadian tax is based on the location of property in Canada. The U.S. tax is based on the citizenship of the person who is actually living in Canada.

The United States is using citizenship as the basis to claim the tax residents of other countries as U.S. tax residents.

The question becomes:

Should the United States be permitted to use citizenship to effectively claim the tax residents of other countries as U.S. tax residents? Should the rest of the world tolerate this blatant assault on their sovereignty and erosion of their tax base? Should the world sign tax treaties with the U.S. that entrench this principle (via the “saving clause”) in their tax treaties with the United States? Should U.S. citizens be the only people in the world who disabled because of their citizenship from being able to become treaty nonresidents?

Although all forms of taxation based on citizenship are wrong. There is no moral equivalence between Canada’s tax based on property located in Canada and the U.S. tax based on claiming Canadian residents as U.S. tax residents.

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter at @VacantHomeTax

________________________________________________________________________

*Appendix – The U.S. Estate Tax System Is Similar To Canada’s Underused Housing Tax

When it comes to the ownership of U.S. situs assets:

– a U.S. citizen is subject to an 11 million dollar lifetime estate tax exemption

– a noncitizen, who is NOT domiciled in the U.S. is subject to taxation on all U.S. situs assets in excess of $60,000 USD.

Although not the specific topic of this post I highly recommend the article by Omer Harel about the application of the U.S. Estate Tax to nonresident aliens. The article includes:

The U.S. estate tax imposed on NRAs today is an inefficient tax without serious policy justifications and it distorts behavior in ways that the estate tax imposed on residents does not. Also, this tax decreases the attractiveness of investments in the U.S. from the NRAs’ perspective as it forces NRAs to invest in U.S.-situated assets using a foreign corporation. This insulates them from estate tax exposure and subjects them to additional costs and higher taxes that the U.S. Treasury does not necessarily benefit from. The fairness arguments that were presented to support the retention of the NRA estate tax are not persuasive as NRAs owe much lower ‘‘debt’’ to the U.S. government than residents and, unlike residents, are sometimes unable to fully benefit from the step-up in basis. Further, after the Obama tax reform — which basically repealed the estate tax for almost all residents in 2011-2012 — the current regime has become extremely discriminatory and might in some instances violate U.S. income tax treaties.

Now that the U.S. (in particular the real estate industry) needs foreign investments more than ever, it is the right time to rethink this tax and repeal it or drastically modify it so that it will not deter foreign investors.

Bottom line: The United States is already doing exactly what Canada does in it’s Underused Housing Tax! Nobody seems to complaint about it! But, everybody should complain about it. Like Canada’s Underused Housing Tax, the U.S. Estate tax regime is simply a system of asset confiscation based on citizenship! Perhaps, Congressman Higgins should raise this issue with the U.S. Government?

Canada’s Underused Housing Tax: No Good Options For U.S. Residents Who Own A Second Home In Canada

Leave a reply

Introduction – Responding To Canada’s Underused Housing Tax

Canada’s Underused Housing Tax is NOT a tax imposed because the “foreign owner” doesn’t spend enough time in the property. Rather Canada’s Underused Housing Tax is a tax imposed because the “foreign owner” doesn’t make the property sufficiently available to non-owners!!

This is the fourth in my series of posts about Canada’s “citizenship-based” Underused Housing Tax.

The first three post are:

1. US Residents Who Own Residential Property In Canada May Be Subject To Various Vacant And Underused Property Taxes

2. NY Congressman Brian Higgins Draws Attention To The Injustice Of Citizenship Taxation By Challenging Canada’s Underused Housing Tax

3. U.S. FBAR And Form 8938 Penalties May Be A Bigger Problem For U.S. Residents Than Canada’s Underused Housing Tax

The purpose of this post is two-fold:

First: to explain what “Canada’s Underused Housing Tax” really means for “foreign owners” of certain Canadian property:

Conclusion: It means that foreign owners who own property that is NOT in a designated recreational location and who do NOT release their property into the rental market will be forced to pay the 1% tax.

Second: to explain that owners of most Canadian residential property that is not in a designated recreational location, who are neither Canadian citizens nor permanent residents of Canada can avoid releasing their property into the rental market ONLY if they either:

1. Pay Canada’s Underused Housing Tax

2. Sell their property in Canada

In my opinion U.S. (and other foreign residents) should be advised to simply pay the annual tax.

The Government Of Canada’s “Underused Housing Tax” is designed to force “foreign owners” of property to choose among the choices of: releasing their property into the rental market, paying the 1% tax or selling their property!

Explaining this conclusion.

This post ignores the “fringe situations” of properties that are newly purchased, uninhabitable, etc. I am focussing on the situation as it is likely to affect the majority of people. I urge people to read the actual legislation.

Final warning!!! All individual owners of residential housing in Canada who are neither Canadian citizens nor permanent residents of Canada are required to file the Underused Housing Tax return even if the tax is not payable! The penalty for failing to file the return is $5000 CDN.

Here we go …

Continue reading →

Should tax residency Be Based On The “Circumstances Of Your Birth” Or The “Circumstances Of Your Life”?

1 Reply

Panel session – US Expat Tax Conference from Deborah Hicks on Vimeo.

Should taxation be based on the “circumstances of your birth” or the “circumstances of your life”? President Obama doesn’t think (apparently) that the “circumstances of your birth” birth should determine the “outcome of your life”. Should the “circumstances of your birth” determine your tax residency?

This is a second post exploring what is the true meaning of U.S. citizenship-based taxation. In an earlier post – “Toward A Definition Of Citizenship Taxation” – I explored the contextual meaning and effect of U.S. “citizenship taxation”. The only “contextual effect” and “practical meaning” of U.S. citizenship taxation may be described as:

Therefore, the practical meaning of “citizenship taxation” is the United States imposing taxation on the non-US source income earned by people who live in other countries. To be clear: citizenship taxation means that the United States is claiming the residents of OTHER countries as US residents for tax purposes!

That’s amazing stuff! Most countries believe that they are sovereign and that includes sovereignty over matters of taxation. Yet, any country that is a party to a U.S. tax treaty has actually agreed that a subset of the treaty partner’s tax residents are ALSO U.S. tax residents! Although nobody questions the right of the United States to prescribe its own definition of tax residency, few would agree that the United States has the right to claim the residents of other countries as U.S. tax residents. Yet, this is what the U.S. citizenship taxation regime means. This U.S. extraterritorial claim of taxation is at the root of the FATCA administration problems and at the root of the the events that led to Treasury Notice 2023-11 (released on December 30, 2022).

Continue reading →

Toward A Definition Of US Citizenship Taxation

Leave a reply

Prologue

The term “citizenship tax” is abstract and meaningless without context. What does it really mean? In this short post I attempt to describe the defining aspect of US tax residency in simple terms.

Bottom line:

The ONLY contextual meaning of taxing based on citizenship is that it allows the US to impose tax on income earned outside the United States by people who live outside the United States.

Here is why …

What exactly is “citizenship taxation”? How/why does citizenship matter? It’s not what the “treaty partner” countries think!

1. Like all countries the United States imposes worldwide taxation on its residents. Individuals living in the United States will meet the “substantial presence” requirements and are therefore taxable on their worldwide income. Citizenship is irrelevant.

2. Like all countries the United States imposes taxation on income sourced in the United States. Generally the United States will have the first right of taxation and has the ability to withhold tax. Citizenship is irrelevant.

3. Like no other country (OK, sort of Eritrea) the United States imposes taxation on the non-US source income of people who do not live in the United States and do live in other countries. The US usually claims this right because those people were “Born In The USA” (making them US citizens). Therefore, the US imposes worldwide taxation on people who live in other countries. Citizenship is relevant because it is why the US claims the right to tax people who don’t live in the US and are residents of other countries.

4. Therefore, the practical meaning of “citizenship taxation” is the United States imposing taxation on the non-US source income earned by people who live in other countries. To be clear: citizenship taxation means that the United States is claiming the residents of OTHER countries as US residents for tax purposes!

5. This means that: Every country in the world who signs a tax treaty with the United States that includes a “saving clause” is agreeing that the United States has the right to tax income earned in the treaty partner country by residents of the treaty partner country. It is obvious that countries signing these treaties have no idea what they are signing. The problem has been further illuminated by the recent US Croatia tax treaty that allows the United States to imposes taxation on Croation residents who ARE and WERE US citizens.

So, US citizenship taxation means that the US can tax the non-US source income of residents of other countries!

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

Croatia Agrees To Allow The US To Impose Tax, Forms And Penalties On Its US Citizen Residents

Leave a reply

Big News – December 2022

On December 7, 2022 a US Treasury Press Release included:

December 7, 2022
WASHINGTON — In a ceremony held at the U.S. Department of State today, Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Jose W. Fernandez and Croatia’s Minister of Finance Dr. Marko Primorac signed a comprehensive income tax treaty between the United States and Croatia. The new tax treaty is the first of its kind between the United States and Croatia.

“I am honored to sign the U.S.-Croatia income tax treaty with you today, Finance Minister Primorac,” said Under Secretary Fernandez. “We look forward to taking this monumental step towards further strengthening trade and commercial ties between the United States and Croatia.”

“The Treasury Department is pleased to conclude this new tax treaty with Croatia. It is the first comprehensive tax treaty that the United States has signed in over ten years and reflects our current tax treaty policies and is a milestone in the Treasury’s efforts to expand the U.S. tax treaty network. We appreciate the collaboration Croatia showed throughout the negotiations,” said Lily Batchelder, Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy).

The new tax treaty closely follows the U.S. Model income tax treaty. Key aspects of the new treaty include:

Elimination of withholding taxes on cross-border payments of dividends paid to pension funds and on payments of interest;

Reductions in withholding taxes on cross-border payments of dividends other than those paid to a pension fund, as well as royalties;

Modern anti-abuse provisions intended to prevent instances of non-taxation of income as well as treaty shopping;

Robust dispute resolution mechanisms including mandatory binding arbitration; and
Standard provisions for the exchange of information to help the revenue authorities of both nations carry out their duties as tax administrators.

The new tax treaty will enter into force after the United States and Croatia have notified each other that they have completed their requisite domestic procedures, which in the case of the United States refers to the advice and consent to ratification by the U.S. Senate.

The text of the treaty document can be found at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/Treaty-Croatia-12-7-2022.pdf

Treaty-Croatia-12-7-2022

Of particular note in Treasury’s announcement is:

“The Treasury Department is pleased to conclude this new tax treaty with Croatia. It is the first comprehensive tax treaty that the United States has signed in over ten years and reflects our current tax treaty policies and is a milestone in the Treasury’s efforts to expand the U.S. tax treaty network. We appreciate the collaboration Croatia showed throughout the negotiations,” said Lily Batchelder, Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy).

The new tax treaty closely follows the U.S. Model income tax treaty.

Treasury’s announcement focuses on the mutually beneficial aspects of the US Croatia tax treaty. Notably Treasury’s announcement fails to comment on the inclusion of the enhanced “saving clause” which is identical to the following provision in the 2016 US Model tax treaty.

4. Except to the extent provided in paragraph 5 of this Article, this Convention shall not affect the taxation by a Contracting State of its residents (as determined under Article 4 (Resident)) and its citizens. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Convention, a former citizen or former long-term resident of a Contracting State may be taxed in accordance with the laws of that Contracting State.

5. The provisions of paragraph 4 of this Article shall not affect:
a) the benefits conferred by a Contracting State under paragraph 3 of Article 7 (Business Profits), paragraph 2 of Article 9 (Associated Enterprises), paragraph 7 of Article 13 (Gains), subparagraph (b) of paragraph 1, paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of Article 17 (Pensions, Social Security, Annuities, Alimony and Child Support), paragraph 3 of Article 18 (Contributions to Pension Funds), and Articles 23 (Relief From Double Taxation), 24 (Non-Discrimination) and 25 (Mutual Agreement Procedure); and
b) the benefits conferred by a Contracting State under paragraph 1 of Article 18 (Contributions to Pension Funds), and Articles 19 (Government Service), 20 (Students and Trainees) and 27 (Members of Diplomatic Missions and Consular Posts), upon individuals who are neither citizens of, nor have been admitted for permanent residence in, that Contracting State.

This represents a significant expansion of the “saving clause” to allow the US to impose US taxation NOT only on its” residents (as determined under Article 4 (Resident)) and its citizens” but also on “a former citizen or former long-term resident” which may are permitted to be subjected to any relevant future provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.

From the perspective of Croatia, the “saving clause” found in Paragraph 4 of Article 1 means:

4. Except to the extent provided in paragraph 5 of this Article, this Treaty shall not affect the taxation by the United States of its residents (as determined under Article 4 (Resident)) and residents of Croatia who happen to be US citizens. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Convention, a former US citizen or former long-term US Green Card holder who is a resident of Croatia may be taxed by the United States according to the Internal Revenue Code.

Continue reading →

Part 2 – Would A Move To Residency-based Taxation Solve The FATCA Problem For Americans Abroad Created By The FATCA IGAs?

Leave a reply

Purpose Of This Post – The “Readers Digest” Version

FATCA is administered through the FATCA IGAs (international agreements) and not through the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (domestic law of the United States). the FATCA IGAs do NOT include a provision to change the meaning of “U.S. Person”. Rather the meaning of “U.S. Person” is permanently defined as a “U.S. citizen or resident”. There is no provision in the IGA to change this definition. Therefore, the IGAs are written so that they will ALWAYS apply to U.S. citizens regardless of whether the U.S. continues citizenship taxation.

In effect, implementing FATCA through the IGAs has had the practical impact that:

– the FATCA partner country has changed its domestic laws to adopt the provisions of the FATCA IGAs which are intended to impose specific rules on “U.S. Persons” who are defined as “U.S. citizens or residents”

– those domestic laws reference the FATCA IGAs which contain no provision to change or adapt the meaning of “U.S. Person” which means that discrimination against “U.S. citizens” is permanent.

– resulting in a situation where the FATCA partner country is obligated under its own domestic law to target “U.S. citizens” for special treatment!

Note that this is irrelevant to how the United States defines tax residency! A move to residence-based taxation will not change this basic fact.

Bottom line: The United States has forced other countries to permanently discriminate against U.S. citizens. Because the discrimination is enshrined in the FATCA IGAs, the United States has effectively created an extra-territorial jail for its own citizens, forced other countries to lock U.S. citizens up and effectively thrown away the key!!

#YouCantMakeThisUp!

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction And Background On FATCA

FATCA has created many difficulties for Americans abroad. It has caused great anxiety, created an awareness of US citizenship taxation, expanded the US tax base into other countries and resulted in a growing number of Americans renouncing US citizenship. Because the US employs citizenship taxation, FATCA has created a situation where information flows from a country where Americans abroad live (for example Canada) to a country where they do not live (the United States). Any suggestion that FATCA and the CRS (“Common Reporting Standard”) are some how equivalent is wrong. Many of the differences between FATCA and the CRS are explained here. Finally, neither the FATCA IGAs nor FATCA as defined in the Internal Revenue Code (Chapter 4) impose any obligation of reciprocity on the United States. This has had the consequence of (1) the United States not providing information about accounts held by the tax residents of those countries in the United States while (2) demanding information about the accounts held by US citizens in those other countries. In other words: the combination of the US FATCA law coupled with the US refusal to adopt the CRS has supercharged the United States as a significant tax haven! All of this has had a considerable and life altering impact on US citizens who live, work and engage in retirement/financial planning outside the United States.

FATCA And Citizenship Taxation

There has been considerable discussion about how FATCA interacts with US citizenship taxation and what can be done to mitigate the effects of FATCA on the community of Americans abroad. There is an obvious correlation between the enactment of FATCA and renunciations of US citizenship. What is the solution? If the United States severed “citizenship” from its definition of tax residency (abolishing citizenship taxation) would that solve the FATCA problem for Americans abroad?

Severing citizenship from US tax residency – how would FATCA continue to apply to Americans abroad?

In Part 1 I considered the question of whether a move from citizenship taxation to residence based taxation would end the FATCA problems for Americans abroad under the Internal Revenue Code. I concluded that severing citizenship from tax residency would solve the FATCA problem for Americans abroad in the Internal Revenue Code. The problem is that FATCA is NOT administered through the Internal Revenue Code. FATCA is administered through the FATCA IGAs (“Inter-governmental Agreements”). It’s important to understand that implementing FATCA through the FATCA IGAs has meant that:

1. The FATCA IGAs (agreed to by both the United States and the partner country) have replaced the Internal Revenue Code (a US law made by and only by the United States) as the vehicle through which FATCA is implemented; and

2. The partner country has enacted the terms of the FATCA IGA as the domestic law of that country.

To put it simply, the use of the FATCA to implement FATCA has meant that other countries (at the request of the United States) have adopted laws for the express purpose of identifying US citizens, reporting their financial accounts to the IRS and ultimately discriminating against US citizens by not allowing them access to financial services! In 2008, Candidate Obama defined his vision as “Change You Can Believe In”. He neglected to say that the change included the United States forcing other countries to change their domestic laws to punish US citizens who live in their country!

In this post – Part 2 – I consider whether a move to residence taxation would end the FATCA problem for Americans abroad as it is defined in the FATCA IGAs. I conclude that it would NOT end the FATCA nightmare caused by the FATCA IGAs.

Therefore, a move to residence taxation would NOT end the FATCA nightmare for Americans abroad.

This issue is explored in the following four parts:

Part A: A Move To Residence-based Taxation Under The Internal Revenue Code Would End The Application Of FATCA To Americans Abroad Under The Internal Revenue Code
Part B: A Move To Residence-based Taxation Under The Internal Revenue Code Would NOT End The Application Of FATCA To Americans Abroad Under The FATCA IGAs
Part C: The FATCA IGAs Have Been Legislated As Domestic Law In The FATCA Partner Countries
Part D: What Amendments To The IGAs Would Be Required If The U.S. Severed Citizenship From Tax Residency?

Continue reading →

John Richardson – Information Session – London, UK – Thursday Oct. 13/22 – 19:00 – 21:00

Leave a reply

Attention!! Date, time and location updated!! – Thursday Oct. 13/22 – 19:30 – 21:30 – New location! See here.

___________________________________________________________

John Richardson – Information Session – London, UK – Thursday Oct. 13/22 – 19:00

What: John Richardson informal information and discussion session for those impacted by US extraterritorial overreach

When: Thursday October 13, 2022 – 19:00 – 21:00

Where: Pret A Manger – Directly Across From Russell Square Tube (careful to choose the correct Pret)
40 Bernard Street, London, WC1N 1LE
https://www.pret.co.uk/en-GB/shop-finder/l/london/40-bernard-street/284

____________________________________________________________________
Continue reading →

Part 1 – For Americans Abroad: Ending FATCA Would Not End Citizenship Tax, But Ending Citizenship Tax Would End FATCA Under The Internal Revenue Code

1 Reply

Introduction

Americans Abroad are crumbling under the weight of the application of US citizenship taxation to their “every day lives”. Pursuant to America’s “citizenship taxation regime”, the United States is actually imposing a more punitive and more penalty laden reporting regime on US citizens who do NOT live in the United States than on those who do live in the USA.

Think of it:

For every other country in the world, if one ceases to be a resident of the country and establishes residence in another country, one ceases to be taxed by the first country. US citizens who move from the United States: (1) not only continue to be subject to US taxation, but (2) are “subject(s)” to a more punitive taxation than if they remained in the United States!

In 2010 President Obama signed FATCA into law. The effect of FATCA was to (1) institute a “world wide search” for US citizens living outside the United States and (2) to create significant public awareness of US citizenship taxation. I have previously argued that the effect of FATCA was to expand the US tax base into other countries.

FATCA applies to Americans abroad because and only because of US citizenship taxation (the rule that says that Americans abroad are treated as US tax residents even if they don’t live in the United States). Because FATCA created awareness of US citizenship taxation many people have trouble understanding the difference between US citizenship taxation and FATCA. It is understandable that many believe that FATCA and citizenship taxation are the same.

How to understand how/why citizenship taxation is different from FATCA:

1. US citizenship taxation is the rule that says that all US citizens regardless of where they live are subject to all the provisions of the US Internal Revenue Code. These provisions include taxation, reporting penalties and of course full US taxation on all income earned earned while they are living outside the United States. Many US residents do NOT end up actually owing any US tax. Similarly, many US citizens living outside the United States do NOT end up owing any US tax.

2. FATCA is part of the Internal Revenue Code. Because the Internal Revenue Code applies to all US citizens, FATCA (as part of the Internal Revenue Code) applies to all US citizens (including US citizens living outside the United States). Generally FATCA is a provision to require non-US financial institutions to identify their US citizen customers and report their identity to the Internal Revenue Service. FATCA also imposes additional “reporting requirements” on US citizens (including those who live outside the United States) who have non-US bank and financial accounts.

Ending FATCA Would NOT End Citizenship Taxation, But Ending Citizenship Taxation Would – Under The Internal Revenue Code – Likely End The Application Of FATCA To Americans Abroad

The US Internal Revenue Code applies to ALL “individuals”. Because US citizens are “individuals”, the Internal Revenue Code applies to US citizens wherever they live. FATCA is just one part of the Internal Revenue Code. Even if FATCA were repealed the Internal Revenue Code would continue to apply to all US citizens AND its discriminatory impact on Americans abroad would continue.

But, if the United States ended citizenship taxation by severing citizenship from US tax residency (people can no longer be taxed by the United States just because they are a US citizen) the application of FATCA to US citizens abroad would (under the Internal Revenue Code) likely end.

Here is why – some technical “mumbo jumbo” for those interested

1. The Existing Statute Which Under The Citizenship Tax Regime: IRC 1471 (the operative FATCA section) refers to IRC 1473 for the definition of “Specified United States Person” which is defined partly in terms of “United States Person”. The point is that by ceasing to be a “United States Person”, one ceases to be a “Specified United States Person” for FATCA purposes.

The sequence of reasoning under the existing Internal Revenue Code is:

1. If “United States Account” then FFI has FATCA reporting obligations (1471(b)).

2. If account held by “specified United States Person” then “United States Account” (1471(d)(1)

3. If individual “United States Person” then “specified United States Person” (1473(3)).

4. If US citizen or resident then “United States Person” (7701(a)(30)).

The key point is that if an individual is a “US Citizen” (or resident) the FFI must treat the account as a “United States Account”. A “United States Account” exists if and only if there is a US citizen or US resident which triggers the sequence of 1. Becoming a “US Person” and 2. Then becoming a “Specified United States Person” 3.Then becoming a “United States Account” and 4. As a “United States Account” subjecting the FFI to reporting obligations.

The statute is written so that “United States Accounts” that are reportable. By changing the definition of “US Person” one changes whether an account is a “United States Account”. If Congress were to amend the definition of “United States Person” to include “All Blue Eyed Individuals” then accounts held by “Blue Eyed Individuals” would become United States accounts and therefore subject to FATCA reporting.

Bottom line: The disclosure obligations of FFIs applies to “United States Accounts”. Accounts held by “United States Persons” are “United States Accounts”. But any change in the definition of “United States Person” will change the characteristics/definitions of “United States Accounts”. Congress controls the meaning of “United States Account” by controlling the definition of “United States Person”.

2. A Proposed Statute Pursuant To Which The US Transitions To Residence-based Taxation: As part of ending citizenship taxation IRC 7701(a)(30) would be amended to exclude “citizen” from the definition of “United States Person”:

(30)United States person

The term “United States person” means—

(A)a citizen or resident of the United States,
(B)a domestic partnership,
(C)a domestic corporation,
(D)any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph (31)), and
(E)any trust if—
(i)a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust, and
(ii)one or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust.

By changing the definition of “United States Persons” to be “residents” the FATCA obligations imposed on FFIs would be determined under the following sequence of reasoning:

1. If “United States Account” then FFI has FATCA reporting obligations (1471(b)).

2. If account held by “specified United States Person” then “United States Account” (1471(d)(1)

3. If individual “United States Person” then “specified United States Person” (1473(3)).

4. If US resident then “United States Person” (7701(a)(30)).

A change to the definition of “United States Person” which defines a “United States Person” as a “resident” would mean that FFIs would no longer be required to disclose accounts held by US citizens but only by US residents.

Conclusion

Ending “citizenship taxation” AKA “severing US citizenship from US tax residency” should solve the FATCA problem for Americans abroad. That said, ending FATCA for Americans abroad would leave the citizenship taxation problem intact!

Ending FATCA would solve “A problem” for Americans abroad. Ending “citizenship taxation” would solve “THE problem” for Americans abroad! At, least under the Internal Revenue Code.

In Part 2, I will explore why ending citizenship taxation under the Internal Revenue Code would NOT solve the FATCA problem for Americans abroad under the FATCA IGAs!

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

Appendix – How Severing Citizenship From Tax Residency Would Impact The FATCA IGAs

The definitions section of the Canada US FATCA IGA (see page 7) includes:

ee) The term “U.S. Person” means

(1) a U.S. citizen or resident individual,
(2) a partnership or corporation organized in the United States or under the laws of the United States or any State thereof,
(3) a trust if
(A) a court within the United States would have authority under applicable law to render orders or judgments concerning
substantially all issues regarding administration of the trust, and
(B) one or more U.S. persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust, or
(4) an estate of a decedent that is a citizen or resident of the United States.

This subparagraph 1(ee) shall be interpreted in accordance with the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.

For the full text of the US Canada FATCA IGA see:

FATCA-eng

Assuming citizenship were severed from US tax residency, either:

1. The definition of “U.S. Person” would require amendment to exclude “U.S. citizen” in (1); and/or

2. The FATCA IGA would simply be interpreted to exclude “U.S. citizen” from the definition of U.S. tax residency.

In other words, the IGAs might require amendment to ensure that its provisions are not triggered by and only by a finding of U.S. citizenship.