Tag Archives: citizenship-based taxation

What is Tax Residency? – Episode 1 with John Richardson & Olivier Wagner

The issue of tax residence has gained so much attention since the “crackdown” on non-resident US Persons began in 2009. It is commonly understood that you pay taxes to the country/state/city-town that you reside in. (For an interesting comparison of differences between countries please see this incredible list compiled by the OECD). It simply does not occur to anyone that they would be required to pay taxes to a foreign government.

However, the United States claims jurisdiction due to citizenship. One does not even have to have touched foot in the U.S., according to U.S. law. Of course, due to the viciousness of the U.S. “FBAR Fundraiser” many people began to resist whether of anger or fear.

Not much has changed* , in spite of all the factors that have contributed to this debacle (and debacle it is, what could one expect when a country tries to take what is someone else’s, based on an idea of fake residence?).

For a detailed discussion concerning the determination of tax residence and related factors, please see here.

In this interview, John Richardson speaks with Olivier Wagner about tax residency and how a seemingly simple concept has become so terribly important in the 21st century.

Listen here

The Nightmare for Mexicans who have US Citizenship………

 

The following comment appeared today at Brock. It is unbelievably shocking to see how this miserable situation is evolving-I have yet to hear anything like this. We have reached out a couple of times to try and link to the expat community in Mexico without results. I guess back then, this situation had not yet fully developed…………

escaped slave says
December 3, 2017
To whom it may concern, at,
calgaryfouroneone at gmail.com
and at, isaacbrocksociety.ca

¡Hola community!

Thank you for your fight against CBT on behalf of my family and those throughout the world who this affects. I will not sign any petitions until my minor children have renounced, but I would like to add a concept that so far, may not have been addressed in your UN human rights violation complaint and this is the purpose of my message.

Some Background on my grievance –

My family and I live in Mexico, a developing country. You may or may not know that since candidate Trump was put fourth, the Mexican peso nearly crashed against all currencies. It was already on its way down due to the price of oil declining, but when President Trump was sworn in, the peso value compared with the USD literally crashed. Its current more stable rate (for now) remains a 75% devaluation against the USD since before candidate Trump tossed in his hat to run for president in late spring of 2016. With this said, I am not making any statement for or against President Trump, but how his presence in politics has affected the exchange rate between the Mexican peso and the US Dollar.

Mexico, as you know is the birthplace of many immigrants (tens of millions) that have entered into the USA over the last several decades. Many immigrant Mexicans were born here (not in US) and are living illegally in USA. They are working in USA and most are paying into employment taxes, sales taxes and social security, disability, state, local, etc unless they are being paid under the table in cash. Many of these same people brought small children with them who have now grown up in the USA and are referred to as “Dreamers”. Many of these Mexican immigrants and dreamers have themselves given birth in the USA, making their children US citizens.

Mexican immigrant workers are an important labor pool in the USA used to fund social current and future security recipients while these same Mexicans, mostly young adults, will likely never see any of the benefits that the current generation of recipients enjoy. Young USA people have not kept up the birth rate to maintain and care for the aging “baby boomer and silent” generations. Low paid unskilled immigrant populations working in the USA have been introduced to boost the birthrate (future taxpayers).

The threat of deportation weighs heavily on on undocumented Mexican USA families who have established roots in their communities. The Mexican government has actively pushed its citizens into going up north where “they will make a better living”, and will be able to “send money to their family in Mexico”. The decades long push to the north has been caused by neoliberalism, regional violence, land disputes, a horrible education system, a huge wealth disparity, corruption and a decades long weak national economy (mostly due to NAFTA). Dollars that are sent South from the USA into Mexico are called remittances here or “remisas” and this money is the SECOND most important contributor to the Mexican economy. International financial institutions enrich themselves greatly on these one way cross border wire transfers, on the backs of poor working class immigrants.
Continue reading

13 Reasons Why I Committed #Citizide: (Inspired by the television series, 13 Reasons Why)

cross-posted from citizenship solutions

citizide graphic_reversed

Introduction – Guest post by a perfectly ordinary person who renounced U.S. citizenship for perfectly ordinary reasons

In a recent submission to Senator Hatch I argued that what the United States thinks of as “citizenship-based taxation”, is actually a system where the United States imposes U.S. taxation on the residents and citizens of other countries. That submission
included:

On July 4, 2017, Americans living inside the USA celebrated the “4th of July” holiday – a day that Americans celebrate their independence and freedom.

On that same day, I had meetings with SEVEN American dual citizens, living outside the United States. This “Group of Seven” were in various stages of RENOUNCING their U.S. citizenship. Each of them was also a citizen and tax paying resident of another country. They varied widely in wealth, age, occupation, religion, and political orientation. Some of them have difficulty in affording the $2350 USD “renunciation fee” imposed by the U.S. Government. Some of the SEVEN identify as being American and some did NOT identify as being American.
But each of them had one thing in common. They were renouncing their U.S. citizenship in order to gain the freedom that Americans have been taught to believe is their “birth right”.

On August 2, 2017 posts at the Isaac Brock Society and numerous other sources, reported that that there were 1759 expatriates reported in the second quarter report in the Federal Register. The number of people renouncing U.S. citizenship continues to grow.

Now on to the guest post by Jane Doe, which is a very articulate description of the reasons why people living outside the United States feel forced to renounce U.S. citizenship.

John Richardson

Continue reading

Wisdom of “Three Monkeys” explain why: Although there is little support for “citizenship-based taxation” repeal is difficult

cross-posted from citizenshipsolutions
by John Richardson

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wisdom of “Three Monkeys” explain why: Although there is little support for “citizenship-based taxation” repeal is difficult

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The uniquely American practice of “imposing direct taxation on the citizen/residents of other nations” (“citizenship-based taxation”) has NO identifiable group of supporters (with the exception of a few academics who have never experienced it and do not understand it).

The Uniquely American practice of imposing direct taxation on the citizen/residents of other nations has large numbers of opponents (every person and/or entity affected by it). In addition to the submissions of Jackie Bugnion, “American Citizens Abroad“,
Democrats Abroad“, Bernard Schneider there is significant opposition found in the submissions of a large number of individuals. It is highly probable that the submissions come from those who are attempting compliance with the U.S. tax system.

The “imposition of direct taxation” on the “citizen/residents of other nations” evolved from “citizenship-based taxation”. “Citizenship-based taxation” was originally conceived as a “punishment” for those who attempted to leave the United States and avoid the Civil War. I repeat, it’s origins are rooted in PUNISHMENT and PENALTY and not as sound tax policy.

In 1924, the U.S. Supreme Court in Cook v. Tait upheld the U.S. practice of “citizenship-based taxation”. This means only that (assuming the validity of the decision almost 100 years later), the U.S. has the right to impose “punishment and penalty” (Justice McKenna actually said that “government by its very nature benefits its citizens”) in the form of “citizenship-based taxation”. This does NOT mean it’s a good idea to do so. Cook v. Tait should be considered in terms of (1) the evolution of citizenship and (2) the evolution of taxation.
Continue reading

The Internal Revenue Code does NOT explicitly define “citizenship” or require “citizenship-based taxation”

reposted from citizenshipsolutions dot ca

It is widely understood that the United States Internal Revenue Code requires that “U.S. citizens” are subject to U.S. taxation wherever they may live in the world. Although this is true, Subtitle A (Income Taxes) of the Internal Revenue Code:

  1. Does NOT explicitly say that U.S. citizens are subject to
    U.S. taxation on their world income wherever they reside;
    and
  2. Does NOT explicitly define the term “citizen” or “U.S.
    citizen”. (This contrasts with the the terms: “U.S. Person”,
    “Permanent Resident”, “Substantial presence”, etc. that ARE
    explicitly defined in the Internal Revenue Code here and here. This means that the starting point for
    the definition of “U.S. citizen” is in the 14th Amendment of the
    Constitution and the United States Immigration and Nationality
    Act.

(Interestingly it appears that only the “Estate Tax” provisions in Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code (Internal Revenue Code S. 2001) specifically impose tax liability on the “taxable estate of every decedent who is a citizen or resident of the United States”.)

Some thoughts on each of these points …

Q. Who (according to the Internal Revenue Code) is subject to U.S. taxation on world income?

A. S. 1 of the Internal Revenue Code states that taxation is imposed on: “individuals”, “heads of household”, “estates”, “trusts”, etc. Note that the word “individual” is broad enough enough to include “citizen” but is NOT restricted to “citizen”. Put it another way: The Internal Revenue Code of the United States presumes that ALL individuals throughout the world are subject to U.S. taxation. Yes, its’ true …

Note that S. 1 of the Internal Revenue Code also defines which filing status one should use. (“Single”, “Head of Household”, “Married Filing Separately”, etc.) It also prescribes different rates of taxation for different filing statuses. Note that the most punitive status is “married filing separately” – which actually imposes a “hidden tax” – and is commonly used by Americans abroad.

U.S. citizens are subject to taxation on their world income because they are “individuals”.

The Internal Revenue Code does NOT define the meaning of “citizen”!

S. 7701(a)(5) creates the concept of the “tax citizen“. It doesn’t define who is a citizen, it merely states that, citizenship is not lost for tax purposes until the individual meets the requirements of Internal Revenue Code S. 877A(g)(4). Specifically S. 7701(a)(50) reads:

(50) Termination of United States citizenship
(A) In general

An individual shall not cease to be treated as a United States citizen before the date on which the individual’s citizenship is treated as relinquished under section 877A(g)(4).

Whoa!! How does any individual in the world escape U.S. taxation?

We look to S. 2 of the Internal Revenue Code which it title:

“Definitions and Special Rules”

S. 2(D) reads:

(d) Nonresident aliens

In the case of a nonresident alien individual, the taxes imposed by sections 1 and 55 shall apply only as provided by section 871 or 877.

In other words, if you are a “non-resident alien” you are taxable only on income connected to the United States. (By the way, S. 55 is the Alternative Minimum Tax. To see if you are required to pay it, see the Alternative Minimum Tax Assistant from the IRS.)

So, what’s a “nonresident alien”? Where is “nonresident” alien defined?

The answer (since January 1, 1984) is found in S. 7701(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. This section of the Internal Revenue defines the circumstances under which an “alien” has sufficient ties to the United States to move (or be
converted) from being a “nonresident alien” to being a “resident alien”.
I wrote an extensive post on this question here.

But, the starting point in the definition of “nonresident alien”
is:

Internal Revenue Code S. 7701 (b) definition of resident alien and nonresident alien

(1) In general For purposes of this title (other than subtitle B) (JR NOTE: SUBTITLE B IS THE ESTATE AND GIFT TAX SECTION) —

(A) Resident alien An alien individual shall be treated as a resident of the United States with respect to any calendar year if (and only if) such individual meets the requirements of clause (i), (ii), or
(iii):

(i) Lawfully admitted for permanent residence Such individual is a lawful permanent resident of the United States at any time during such calendar year.

(ii) Substantial presence test
Such individual meets the substantial presence test of paragraph (3).

(iii) First year election
Such individual makes the election provided in paragraph (4).

(B) Nonresident alien

An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States (within the meaning of subparagraph (A)).

(JR NOTE: S. 7701(A)(30) DEFINES A “U.S. PERSON” AS BEING A “CITIZEN OR RESIDENT. SO THIS SEEMS TO EQUATE NONRESIDENT ALIEN WITH NOT BEING A “U.S. PERSON)

Two ways of converting the “nonresident alien” to the “resident”
alien …

1. “Green Card” – Most of the focus of S. 7701(b)(6) is on Green Card Holders. A “Green Card” is a “permanent resident” VISA and is valid only as long as the person intends to reside permanently in the United States. This is both a matter of Immigration law and a matter of tax law (the Internal Revenue Code).

2. “Substantial presence test” – be very careful with this. The question is how many days is one entitled to spend in the United States each year before being treated as a “resident” for tax purposes. (I have seen people enter the United States on various “work related visas but then stay long enough to meet the “substantial presence” test.)

 

An IRS perspective is here:

The bottom line is that …

Every individual in the world is subject to full U.S. taxation on his/her world income unless he/she is a “non-resident alien”.

Think of it!!

John Richardson