Archive for Citizenship Solutions

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

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

Biden 2024 Green Book: Message To Non-US Citizens – Time To Retire That “Sailing Permit” Law

Biden 2024 Green Book: Message To Non-US Citizens – Time To Retire That "Sailing Permit" Law

Introduction

Once upon at time (well back in the last century) I knew a person who – along with three other people – shared the rental of a house. The agreement was that they would split the rent equally and that they would split the utilities equally. The agreement also stated that on the last day of each month the group would meet and each contribute their 1/4 share of the utilities owing. The agreement further stated that in the event that any person did not pay his share of the utilities in cash that his property could be used (fair market value assessment) to pay his share. One week prior to the last day of the month one of the four realized that he would not have the money to pay his share of the utilities. As a result, two days before the last day of the month, that individual:

1. Removed all of his belongings; and

2. Moved out of the house.

The legend was that the remaining three had to pay his share of the utilities and his property remained intact. By moving out and removing his property he was able to avoid paying a debt that he owed to the group.

Unsurprisingly the Internal Revenue Code contains provisions to prevent individuals from leaving the United States or removing property from the United States to defeat the payment of tax debts. This is of particular concern to the United States if the individual is an “alien”. The requirement to obtain a “sailing permit” to leave the United States is neither well known nor enforced. That said, the “sailing permit” (even with the existence of “withholding taxes”) remains the law!

Read More

Written by | Posted in Biden 2024 Green Book • Citizenship Solutions

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

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

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 posts 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:

Read More

Written by | Posted in Canadian Housing Tax • Citizenship Solutions

State Department Announces Intention To Reduce Fee To Issue Certificates Of Loss Of Nationality From $2350 To $450

State Department Announces Intention To Reduce Fee To Issue Certificates Of Loss Of Nationality From $2350 To $450

Introduction And General Context

On Friday January 6, 2023 the State Department announced its intention to reduce the administrative fee for issuing CLNs (“Certificates Of Loss Of Nationality”) for US citizenship relinquishments from the current $2350 to $450. Notably in 2015 the State Department increased the fee from $450 to $2350.

The precise language found in the Declaration of Assistant Secretary For Consular Affairs Reena Bitter was:

3. Under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 22 U.S.C. § 4219, and Executive Order 10718, the Department has the authority to establish fees to be charged for official services provided by U.S. embassies and consulates. The Department intends to pursue rulemaking to reduce the fee for processing CLN requests from the current amount of $2350 to the previous fee of $450, as set in 75 FR 36522 on June 28, 2010. The Department will consider any necessary changes to this fee, as appropriate, in a future rulemaking.

24-1 (3)

The reduction was announced in conjunction with a lawsuit launched by the Association Of Accidental Americans arguing that the $2350 renunciation fee is unconstitutional. The announcement and general context is described in the article at the American Expat Finance News Journal.

show_temp (4) (2)

Those wishing to better understand the lawsuit might be interested in a 2020 podcast I did with the lawyer Marc Zell.
Read More

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

Summary Of The Reporting Obligations Triggered By Relinquishing U.S. Citizenship Or Abandoning The Green Card

Summary Of The Reporting Obligations Triggered By Relinquishing US Citizenship Or Abandoning The Green Card

The American Expat Financial News Journal reliably reports information about the “Name and Shame List”. The report generally includes information about the number of people on the list and people who are reported more than once. The report often attempts to determine whether those on the list are citizenship relinquishers or green card abandoners.

The purpose of this brief post is to explain the statutory basis for the reporting obligations, identify the relevant statutes and clarify some common misconceptions.

A summary of the analysis is that:

1. All individuals renouncing (whether “covered expatriates” or not) US citizenship during the relevant period are to be included on the “Name and Shame List”.

2. Green Card holders that are “long term” residents” are required to be included on the list

It is common knowledge that the lists contain many inaccuracies on the list.

Which statutes are relevant to determining the reporting obligations?

IRC 6039G – https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6039G

IRC 877 – https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/877

IRC 877A – https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/877A

Read More

Written by | Posted in Citizenship Solutions • Relinquishing U.S. Citizenship

US Supreme Court Denies Toth Cert Petition. Justice Gorsuch Invites Lower Courts To Consider Constitutionality Of FBAR Penalties

JOHN RICHARDSON

Prologue – Before The Supreme Court – The Background To The Toth FBAR Case

This Is Post 7 in a series of posts describing the statutory and regulatory history of Mr. FBAR.

These posts are organized on the page “The Little Red FBAR Book“.*

Historically the strength of America has been found in its moral authority. As President Clinton once said:

“People are more impressed by the power of our example rather than the example of our power…”

The FBAR penalty imposed on Ms. Toth is an example of the legal power to impose penalty and NOT an example of the restraint on power and the application of law in a just way. I have heard it said that when a person (and by extension country) loses its character it has lost everything.

The Story Of Monica Toth – Three Perspectives

Perspective 1: The story of Ms. Toth’s encounter with Mr. FBAR as described by Justice Gorsuch in his dissent:

In the 1930s, Monica Toth’s father fled his home in Germany to escape the swell of violent antisemitism. Eventually, he found his way to South America, where he made a new life with his young family and went on to enjoy a successful business career in Buenos Aires. But perhaps owing to his early formative experiences, Ms. Toth’s father always kept a reserve of funds in a Swiss bank account. Shortly before his death, he gave Ms. Toth several million dollars, also in a Swiss bank account. He encouraged his daughter to keep the money there—just in case.

Ms. Toth, now in her eighties and an American citizen, followed her father’s advice. For several years, however, she failed to report her foreign bank account to the federal government as the law requires. 31 U. S. C. §5314. Ms. Toth insists this was an innocent mistake. She says she did not know of the reporting obligation. And when she learned of it, she says, she completed the necessary disclosures. The Internal Revenue Service saw things differently.
Read More

Written by | Posted in Citizenship Solutions • FBAR Penalties • TaxConnections • U.S. Supreme Court Decision

How US Tax Treaties And The “Saving Clause” Prevent Countries From Establishing Retirement Programs For US Citizen Residents

How US Tax Treaties And The “Saving Clause” Prevent Countries From Establishing Retirement Programs For US Citizen Residents

Prologue – The Circumstances Of Your Birth Should Not Determine The Outcome Of Your Life …

The above tweet references a “human interest” story where US citizen children are denied benefits in their country of residence that are available to all people who are NOT US citizens.

The description includes:

Read More

Written by | Posted in Citizenship Solutions • TaxConnections