Archive for John Richardson

Retroactivity, Realization And The Moore Appeal: A Focus On Retroactivity

Retroactivity, Realization And The Moore Appeal: A Focus On Retroactivity

Prologue – Taxation, Fairness And “The Man On The Street”

Imagine asking an individual (who was not a tax academic, lawyer or accountant) the following two questions:

1. Do you think that people should be forced to pay taxes on income never received?

2. Do you think people should be forced to pay taxes on on income from the previous 30 years that they had never received?

The average person would be shocked by the possibility of this.

It may be difficult for the average person to understand Subpart F’s attribution of the income of a corporation to a shareholder. The average person would not doubt the unfairness of attributing 30 years of untaxed earnings of the corporation to the shareholder (especially when the income was never received by the shareholder).

Read More

Written by | Posted in TaxConnections

Retroactivity, Realization And The Moore Appeal: A Focus On Retroactivity

Retroactivity, Realization And The Moore Appeal: A Focus On Retroactivity

Prologue – Taxation, Fairness And “The Man On The Street”

Imagine asking an individual (who was not a tax academic, lawyer or accountant) the following two questions:

1. Do you think that people should be forced to pay taxes on income never received?

2. Do you think people should be forced to pay taxes on income from the previous 30 years that they had never received?

The average person would be shocked by the possibility of this.

It may be difficult for the average person to understand Subpart F’s attribution of the income of a corporation to a shareholder. The average person would not doubt the unfairness of attributing 30 years of untaxed earnings of the corporation to the shareholder (especially when the income was never received by the shareholder).

Moore and Retroactivity – The Readers Digest Version

This history of the Moore case is described by Professors Brooks and Gamage as follows:
Read More

Written by | Posted in TaxConnections

Beyer, Titus Introduce Tax Simplification for Americans Abroad Act – Sept. 2023

Beyer, Titus Introduce Tax Simplification for Americans Abroad Act - Sept. 2023

Introduction and initial reactions

Today, U.S. Representatives Don Beyer (D-VA) and Dina Titus (D-NV) announced the introduction of the Tax Simplification for Americans Abroad Act, legislation to help American taxpayers living overseas comply with their U.S. tax obligations by calling on the IRS to create a short form certification for Americans living abroad who owe no U.S. tax and earn below $400,000 annually. The bill would expand the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion to include additional types of income that are earned overseas like pensions and distributions from retirements funds. It would also consolidate duplicative and burdensome forms that taxpayers must file under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Bank Secrecy Act.

“Ordinary Americans living abroad are often overlooked when U.S. tax policy is written, which can make it extremely difficult and expensive for them to navigate the tax system,” said Rep. Don Beyer. “I saw a record-breaking number of Americans renounce their citizenship when I served as the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland, and the needless complexity of the U.S. tax code was often cited as a reason. This bill would help ordinary Americans fulfill their obligations without having to retain an expensive accountant to certify that they owe no U.S. taxes, and remove some of the frustrations faced by Americans living abroad who just want to follow the law.”

“Americans abroad face a uniquely complex set of reporting requirements that we here at home aren’t subject to. I’m joining Rep. Beyer to create a simplified income tax return for taxpayers living abroad because Americans shouldn’t have to jump through extra hoops simply because they reside or work overseas,” said Rep. Dina Titus, Chair of the Americans Abroad Caucus.
Read More

Written by | Posted in TaxConnections

Is A Canadian FHSA (“First Home Savings Account”) A Reportable Account Under The Canada/US FATCA IGA?

Is A Canadian FHSA ("First Home Savings Account") A Reportable Account Under The Canada/US FATCA IGA?

August 23, 2023: An Important notice from the Canada Revenue Agency

Interim treatment of NEW First Home Savings Accounts (FHSA) under Part XVIII

The FHSAs are under consideration for being added to the list of the excluded accounts described in Annex II of the Agreement. These accounts do not need to be reviewed, identified or reported at this time.

What does this notice mean for U.S. citizens living in Canada?

On August 23, 2023 the Canada Revenue Agency released its latest guidelines for how financial institutions should interpret the Canada/US FATCA IGA. The guidelines are updated annually to reflect changes (which include) evolving financial products. The Canadian “FHSA” “FHSA” (First Home Savings Account) was introduced in 2023. My recommendation is that U.S. citizens living in Canada should have an FHSA.

The good news is that the FHSA accounts will join other accounts under Annex II which are NOT required to be reported BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS under the FATCA IGAs! The FHSA should be reported by individuals on IRS Form 8938 with their tax returns when the Form 8938 is required!

In other words, U.S. citizens living in Canada can expect that FHSA accounts will NOT be reported to the Canada Revenue Agency and then the IRS.

The text from the guidelines – Section 5.6 (go directly to the bottom) – includes:
Read More

Written by | Posted in TaxConnections

TaxConnections Members’ Blog Post About Expatriate Taxes Has Received More Than 7024 Reads (A Great Reason To Post Your Blogs With Us)

JOHN RICHARDSON

(This blog reposted due to its popularity and commentary. What has changed for expatriates in the past few years?)

Revenue Neutrality And A Move To Residence-based Taxation: Open Letter To Democrats Abroad

OPEN LETTER TO DEMOCRATS ABROAD

Democrats Abroad (DA) reached out to the Democratic presidential candidates to ask them about issues relevant to Americans living overseas. The questions DA posed and the responses it received can be accessed at this link:

https://www.democratsabroad.org/democrats_abroad_talks_with_the_candidates?fbclid=IwAR0TKNlkqnxPjdhQz22tUsnnBDotPiSR7NaRVm430LXvlZHma8FWF1HuhQs

We strongly applaud DA for this valuable initiative. But we believe that it is important—indeed, vital—to call out the framing of this question:

“Most Americans living abroad think that the time has come for Residency-Based Taxation, the principle guiding all other countries’ tax systems and a fix for numerous unjust burdens on Americans living and working abroad. There are bi-partisan, revenue-neutral proposals to implement RBT that include robust provisions to protect the law from abuse by tax evaders. All we need is a moment of leadership to get this done. Will you be that leader?”

We believe that it is a grave error to condition a move to residency-based taxation (RBT) upon a demonstration of revenue neutrality. Doing so would serve to perpetuate the immoral and unjust system in place today.

These are the reasons why:

Read More

Written by | Posted in TaxConnections

Because The US Exports Its Tax Code, Other Countries Should File Amicus Briefs In The Moore MRT Appeal

Because The US Exports Its Tax Code, Other Countries Should File Amicus Briefs In The Moore MRT Appeal

Why U.S. deemed income events cause problems for U.S. citizens living in other countries and erode the tax based of the countries where they live

All countries in the world have an interest in the Moore MRT appeal and should file Amicus briefs in support of the Moores.

The U.S. citizenship tax AKA extraterritorial tax regime applies to ALL U.S. citizens and residents wherever they live in the world. With its very expansive definition of “tax residency”, the United States claims the tax residents of other countries as U.S. tax residents. Those unlucky dual filers are subject to additional administrative fees, additional taxation and the opportunity cost of the inability to effectively engage in retirement and financial planning.

In the Moore MRT appeal the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether “income” requires the actual receipt of income or whether “deemed income” meets the 16th Amendment test for income. Does the 16th Amendment require objective tests that must be satisfied before “income” can exist? The answer to this question will have profound implications for both the “U.S. citizen” residents of other countries and (2) the countries where they live. As previously discussed, if income does NOT have to be actually received, this opens the door for the U.S. tax the residents of other countries on income they have never received. Often the taxable event in the U.S. will take place before the taxable event in that other country.

The following post describes some examples where the United States is already deeming income to have been received for U.S. tax purposes before income has been received in the other country.

The following post describes how the U.S. deeming income to have been received for U.S. tax purposes prior to income having been received in the other country may result in (1) double taxation to the individual and (2) erosion of the tax base of the other country.

Read More

Written by | Posted in Renounce U.S. Citizenship • TaxConnections

The MRT AKA Transition Tax – Exporting Taxes, Forms And Penalties To Residents Of OTHER Countries

The MRT AKA Transition Tax - Exporting Taxes, Forms And Penalties To Residents Of OTHER Countries

Exporting U.S. taxes, forms and penalties to the residents of other countries

In the Moore appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States is charged with the task of determining whether “realization” is a necessary condition, for an “accession to wealth”, to qualify as “income” under the 16th Amendment. This broad question arises in the context of the Moores, who as “U.S. Shareholders” of a CFC, were subjected to the MRT which facilitated the double taxation of the Moores. The Moores, who reside in the United States, certainly have not and have no expectation of receiving a distribution from the India corporation. As problematic as the MRT was for the Moores, the MRT was far more devastating for Americans abroad, who were operating businesses that although “foreign to the United States”, were “local” to them. For the Moores their investment in the CFC represented an investment in a corporation that was “foreign” to both the Moores and the United States. Americans abroad were shareholders in CFCs (unlike the Moores and other resident Americans) that were “local” to them but foreign to the United States. In addition, for Americans abroad the CFC typically represents a pension/retirement planning vehicle. How can it be that the MRT could apply to individuals who live in other countries and are shareholders of corporations created in those countries? The answer is of course the extra-territorial application of the U.S. tax system to residents of other countries who happen to be U.S. citizens. In fact, the use of Canadian Controlled Private Corporations by dual US/Canada citizens living in Canada, demonstrates that it is possible for a U.S. citizen in Canada to be a shareholder in a Canadian corporation that would not qualify as CFCs if owned by U.S. residents.

The key takeaway is that the U.S. tax system, because of the extra-territorial tax regime (citizenship-based taxation) has a profoundly negative effect on individuals who are residents of other countries! U.S. tax law applies NOT only to U.S. residents but to residents of other countries who cannot demonstrate they are nonresident aliens. Therefore, a decision that the 16th Amendment does NOT require “realization” means that the U.S. will export the taxation of “unrealized income” to residents of other countries. The U.S. would tax the “unrealized income” of residents of other countries even when those other countries did not recognize the unrealized income as a taxable event!

In some circumstances the taxation of unrealized income would lead to double taxation. In other circumstances the taxation of unrealized income would frustrate the objectives of the tax policy of the other country. In many circumstances the taxation of “unrealized income” allows the United States to tax the wealth of other nations. It’s important to recognize that when the Supreme Court rules in the Moore appeal, it will also be deciding whether the U.S. can export the taxation of “unrealized income” to other countries! This has huge implications for both the residents and tax sovereignty of other countries.

Some EXISTING examples

Read More

Written by | Posted in Citizenship Based Taxation • Citizenship Solutions • TaxConnections

The Supreme Court Should Consider The Retroactive Nature Of The Transition Tax In Moore

The Supreme Court Should Consider The Retroactive Nature Of The Transition Tax In Moore

Moore and Retroactivity – The Readers Digest Version

This history of the Moore case is described by Professors Brooks and Gamage as follows:

The taxpayers brought suit challenging the MRT, arguing that it was an unapportioned direct tax and therefore in violation of the Constitution.25 (They also argued that its seeming retroactivity was in violation of the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment,26 though this was not the main focus of the case, nor did the dissenters address it, nor do the petitioners raise the issue in the cert petition, so we put that claim aside.27) The district court dismissed the claim, and a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the dismissal.28 The taxpayers’ subsequent petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied.29

The Chamber of Commerce’s amicus cert brief filed on March 27, 2023 included on page 18:

The Constitution imposes numerous safeguards that prevent the government from making rapid changes that would unsettle expectations. Such principles “find[] expression in several [constitutional] provisions,” Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 265 (1994), and often implicate tax laws.

First, “a retroactive tax provision [can be] so harsh and oppressive as to transgress the constitutional lim-itation” of due process. Carlton, 512 U.S. at 30. When “Congress act[s] promptly and establishe[s] only a modest period of retroactivity,” like “only slightly greater than one year,” a tax law’s retroactive effect has been deemed permissible. Id. at 32–33. But a tax law that deals with a “novel development” regarding “a transfer that occurred 12 years earlier” has been held unconstitutional. Id. at 34 (discussing Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U.S. 531 (1927)). Here, of course, the Ninth Circuit called the MRT a “novel concept,” and it reached back—not one, not twelve—but more than thirty years into the past, long after companies made decisions about where to locate their long-term as- sets.2 App 6. The MRT’s aggressive retroactivity showcases the danger of unmooring income from its defining principle of realization. Erasing the realization requirement upends taxpayer expectations—leaving them looking over their shoulders for what unrealized gain Congress might next call “income.”

Read More

Written by | Posted in Citizenship Solutions • Transition Tax

Of The Six Faces Of The 965 Transition Tax – The Ugliest Face Applies To Americans Abroad

Of The Six Faces Of The 965 Transition Tax - The Ugliest Face Applies To Americans Abroad

Part I: Introduction – What Is The Transition Tax?

“Tell me who you are. Then I’ll tell you how the law applies to you!” I’ll also tell you whether you are a “winner” or a “loser” under this law.

At the end of 2017, Congress was enacting the TCJA. A major purpose of the TCJA was to lower U.S. corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%. This was a huge benefit to U.S. multinationals. One Congressional concern was how to find additional tax revenue in order to compensate the Treasury Department for the reduction in tax revenue which would result in lower receipts from corporations. Congress needed to find some additional tax revenue. They found this additional tax revenue by creating “new income” from the past and taxing that newly created income in the present. In fact, Congress said:

“Let there be income! And there was income …“

Significantly, Congress didn’t create any real income. No taxpayer actually received any income to pay tax on. The income created by Congress was not “real income”. Rather it was “deemed income”. But, this “deemed income” was intended to appear on tax returns. Real tax was payable on this “deemed” income.

Such, is the beginning of the story of the IRC 965 Transition Tax. The Transition Tax was a benefit to U.S. multinationals and destroyed the lives of individual U.S. citizens living outside the United States who organized their businesses, lives and retirement planning (as did their neighbours) through small business corporations.

This post identifies different groups impacted by the Transition Tax and the “winners” and “losers”.

Introducing the IRC 965 U.S. Transition Tax

26 U.S. Code § 965 – Treatment of deferred foreign income upon transition to participation exemption system of taxation

(a) Treatment of deferred foreign income as subpart F income

In the case of the last taxable year of a deferred foreign income corporation which begins before January 1, 2018, the subpart F income of such foreign corporation (as otherwise determined for such taxable year under section 952) shall be increased by the greater of—

(1) the accumulated post-1986 deferred foreign income of such corporation determined as of November 2, 2017, or
(2) the accumulated post-1986 deferred foreign income of such corporation determined as of December 31, 2017.

Read More

Written by | Posted in Citizenship Solutions • Citizenship Taxation • TaxConnections

With The § 965 Transition Tax – Congress Said: “Let There Be Income And There Was Income”

John Richardson

Part A – Prologue And Introduction

The Moore transition tax appeal is about whether “income” under the 16th Amendment requires “realization” in order to qualify as income. Resolution of this issue requires an analysis of both the meaning of “income” (whatever “income” may mean) and whether “income” must be “realized” to meet constitutional requirements. Generally, the income tax is constitutional because of the 16th amendment which reads:

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

The 16th Amendment (1) creates the constitutional jurisdiction for Congress to tax “incomes” but (2) creates the constitutional jurisdiction to tax ONLY “income” (under the 16th Amendment).

The 16th Amendment does NOT say that Congress has the power to collect taxes on anything that Congress decides to designate as income. Rather the 16th Amendment specifies a tax on “income”. In this respect, the 16th Amendment implies that there are limitations on the kinds of “accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion” (or other events) that qualify as income. Something must have some objective characteristics in order to qualify as “income”. Perhaps an “event”. Perhaps an “accession to wealth”. Perhaps “realization”. Perhaps something else.

Income must meet some necessary and objective requirements
Read More

Written by | Posted in TaxConnections

The § 965 Transition Tax Caused The Moore’s To Pay $14,712 Moore In Double Taxation

The § 965 Transition Tax Caused The Moore's To Pay $14,712 Moore In Double Taxation

In my last post I discussed the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Moore’s challenge to the 965 Transition Tax.

A direct link to the Supreme Court site which will track the progress and filings of all briefs (including what are expected to be a large number of amicus briefs) is here.

Although the 965 Transition Tax was the fact that prompted the litigation, the issue as framed for the Supreme Court was:

22-800 MOORE V. UNITED STATES
DECISION BELOW: 36 F.4TH 930
CERT. GRANTED 6/26/2023

QUESTION PRESENTED:
Read More

Written by | Posted in TaxConnections

Professor @Gabriel_Zucman Discusses A US Wealth Tax, Taxation Of Americans Abroad And FATCA

https://www.taxconnections.com/John-Richardson/12262041/Canada/Ontario/Toronto/profilepage

Introduction

In the appeal of the Moore Transition Tax case, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to answer the following question:

22-800 MOORE V. UNITED STATES
DECISION BELOW: 36 F.4TH 930
CERT. GRANTED 6/26/2023

QUESTION PRESENTED:

The Sixteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to lay “taxes on incomes … without apportionment among the several States.” Beginning with Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), this Court’s decisions have uniformly held “income,” for Sixteenth Amendment purposes, to require realization by the taxpayer. In the decision below, however, the Ninth Circuit approved taxation of a married couple on earnings that they undisputedly did not realize but were instead retained and reinvested by a corporation in which they are minority shareholders. It held that “realization of income is not a constitutional requirement” for Congress to lay an “income” tax exempt from apportionment. App.12. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit became “the first court in the country to state that an ‘income tax’ doesn’t require that a ‘taxpayer has realized income.”‘ App.38 (Bumatay, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing enbanc).

The question presented is:
Read More

Written by | Posted in Citizenship Solutions
« Older Entries