Tag Archives: CFC

The worldwide trend of attacking the use of corporations as a way to reduce or defer taxation for individuals

Introduction – The war against corporations and the shareholders of those corporations

Corporations as entities that are separate from their shareholder/owners

As every law students knows, a corporation is a legal entity that is separate from its owner. As a legal entity that is separate from its owner, a corporation is capable of holding assets, carrying on a business and investing in a way that results in separation of the shareholder(s) from the business itself. It is a mistake to infer that the corporation’s status as a separate legal entity means that the corporation’s income will not be taxed to its shareholders.

Corporations as legal instruments of tax deferral

When corporate tax rates are lower than individual tax rates, there is incentive for individuals to earn and invest through corporations rather than to earn and invest as individuals. In other words, in certain circumstances, corporations can be used to pay less taxes.

Corporations as instruments of tax evasion

In many jurisdictions is it possible to create a Corporation and NOT disclose the identities of the beneficial owners. Because of this circumstance:

1. Corporations (as was made clear in the “Panama Papers Story”) can be used to hide income and assets for either legitimate or illegitimate reasons; and

2. Corporations can be used to avoid the attribution of income earned by the corporation to the shareholders.

Corporations and the rise of @TaxHavenUSA
Continue reading

Wisdom of “Three Monkeys” explains 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.

Continue reading

Is it Congress or Treasury that is responsible for “taxation-based citizenship”? Perhaps change is through regulation and not law!

This post is a continuation to my recent post: “The Internal Revenue Code does not explicitly define “citizen”, “citizenship” or require “citizenship-based taxation“. That post was reposted at the Isaac Brock Society, and received a comment which included:

Your statement that the IRC does not explicitly define citizenship is technically correct. It is also misleading. When the IRC was codified in 1939, the Secretary of Treasury was given an order to issue all needful regulations. That mandate is now found at 26 USC 7805. The needful regulation of the Secretary, Treasury Regulation, 26 CFR 1.1-1(c) explicitly defines citizenship in terms of the 14th Amendment and it included the term subject. 26 CFR 1.1-1(a) explicitly states that the tax imposed by section 1 of the IRC imposes the tax on citizens and residents. It does not list any other type, class or category of person upon the tax may be imposed by force.

In the original post I had demonstrated why taxation based on “citizenship” was a reasonable inference from Sections 1 and 2 of the Internal Revenue Code. The basic reasoning from Sections 1 and 2 of the Internal Revenue (without consideration of outside sources) is reflected in the following syllogism:

1. All individuals with the exception of non-resident aliens are subject to U.S. taxation.

2. Citizens are individuals who are NOT “nonresident aliens”

Therefore, citizens are subject to taxation.

Nevertheless, the comment raises a very interesting question. To put it simply the question is:

Could U.S. Treasury/IRS by regulation exempt Americans abroad from U.S. taxation?

The purpose of this post is to explore this very interesting question.

Let’s work with the information in the comment.

1. S. 7805 of the Internal Revenue Code gives U.S. Treasury the authority to make regulations to implement the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.

(a) Authorization

Except where such authority is expressly given by this title to any person other than an officer or employee of the Treasury Department, the Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title, including all rules and regulations as may be necessary by reason of any alteration of law in relation to internal revenue.

2. The regulation made to interpret S. 7805 of the Internal Revenue Code is:

§ 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.

(a) General rule.

(1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual. …

(JR Note: This does NOT say ONLY “citizen or resident”, but okay.)

(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States. …

(c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401-1459). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481-1489), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70-506, C.B. 1970-2, 1. For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born in American Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408). For special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of intention of becoming a citizen but who has not yet been admitted to citizenship by a final order of a naturalization court is an alien.

All well and good, what might this mean? Why might this be helpful?

A possible conclusion:

In the above regulation Treasury appears to have restricted the meaning and scope of the word “individual” to “citizen or resident”. For example a U.S. national is a broader term than citizen. (Confirmed by S. C of the above regulation “For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth“). Yet, in this regulation Treasury appears to have excluded “nationals”, who clearly are “individuals”, from payment of the income taxes imposed in Subtitle A of Title 26. Yet, U.S. “nationals” are clearly “individuals”.

Put it another way: In this Treasury regulation, Treasury is excluding at least one class of “individuals” (“nationals”) from the Income Tax. If Treasury can exclude one class of persons from the meaning of “individuals” for the purposes of S. 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, then why can’t it exclude another class of individuals?

I nominate Americans abroad as a class of “individuals” that Treasury could ALSO exempt from taxation under Subtitle A of Title 26 (the income tax).

To put it another way:

Could “taxation-based citizenship” be abolished by Treasury/IRS regulation? This seems like a simple argument. Why has this argument not been made before?

Afterthought …

In the last two Obama budgets, the White House has recognized the injustice of imposing “U.S. taxation” on certain “accidental Americans“. If Treasury believes it can define “individuals” in a way that excludes certain “individuals” from U.S. Income tax, then why not let the Obama government solve this problem through regulation (which he loves doing anyway) rather than waiting for Congress to change the law (at best as part of major tax reform) or through the Alliance For The Defeat of Citizenship Taxation lawsuit.

A question for President Obama and Democrats who have caused all the problems:

Cook v. Tait just means that the U.S. had (at least in 1924) the constitutional right to impose citizenship-based taxation. This does not mean that the U.S. is required to have citizenship-based taxation.

How about abolishing citizenship-based taxation through regulation?

With the stroke of a pen you could solve this problem – that is if you want to!

In fact, here is recent precedent of your attempting to amend the Internal Revenue Code by regulation:

Yes we can!!!

John Richardson

Thoughts from a conversation: Green Cards – Dangers of moving to America and moving from America

How could  somebody possibly not  know about  FBAR?

In our case my wife hailed from the Republic of Ireland. We were married in the early 1990’s. As any immigrant knows it is a hard road. Homesickness, difficulties with the Immigration Service, it’s an enormous adjustment. In our immigration packet of hundreds of documents I recall one that was quite frightening. It was from the US treasury and said that if you have more than $10K in assets you need to file an FBAR or you could lose half of what you owe. Thankfully we didn’t owe anything. At that time there was not 1040 tax requirement to list all overseas assets. That came in a few years later, about 1998. By 1997 my wife received a small lump sum pension. It put her over the limit, but by then we had plenty of other issues consuming us that drove the FBAR issue out of our line of sight. She was suffering from a mysterious illness that was weakening her by the month, she was homesick and I was struggling on a new job. I work somewhere else now. It was a very difficult time and difficult times can leave you open to mistakes.


Eventually somehow around 2000 I was reminded of the FBARs but realized that we were already in deep trouble. Had the first offense been in any way reasonable I would have paid up and gotten into compliance. The penalties however were far too harrowing. Today, you look on the internet and there are articles by the hundreds about filing an FBAR. Back then, because the government wisely didn’t enforce the FBAR rules and their draconian penalties, except for the most egregious offenders there simply were no reminders out there.
Fast forward to about 2010 and FBARs suddenly were pressing news, but for many it was simply too late.


There are several problems with the current scheme. Number one the penalties are insanely draconian for people who often owe less than $1K in taxes over the past 8 years. In our case that translates to $10K to a lawyer (the IRS highly suggest you get one) and $29K in IRS penalties. Any way you cut it that is a $40K penalty for less than $1K in back taxes. In fact it is possible that my attorney didn’t include foreign tax credits which could have brought our back taxes down to $0K. Because he is afraid of the Big Bad IRS, he doesn’t want to irk them and get penalized worse or rejected from the OVDP program. Another crazy thing is that if the IRS owes YOU in back taxes for previous years that doesn’t count by their reckoning. The only thing that matters is what you owe them. Therefore if they owe you $5K over the past 8 years but you owe them $3K over the past 8 years – are you ready for this accounting trick ? Therefore you owe them $3K over the past 8 years. They forgive themselves for the $5K that they owe you over the past 8 years. Therefore if in the Real World if you were owed $2K by the IRS thus strengthening your hand in opting out of the OVDP, think again. They only count what you owe them and you cannot carry forward what they owe you to cancel out what you them. How freaking convenient is that ?


This is a very dangerous trend. When truth and common sense are not the basis for our laws and regulations then we cease to live in a free and democratic society.


As I mentioned previously, every day, you and I are either heading to the light or to the darkness. We choose. We make the same choices with our country. It is “We The People” that is the conscience of our government. If we are too indulgent of our government, it is our fault if our government grows perverted, out of control and rapacious. We The People are our countries disciplinarian. We The People make our own collective breaks in what type of government we must live with. Silence is not Golden. It’s Golden only to tyrants.

 This post was prompted  because …

Today I had a brief conversation with somebody who was moving to America. I thought I would share some thoughts from the conversation. After all, tens of thousands of people move to the United States each year. Some move there as U.S. citizens. Some move there on Green Cards. Some move there on another type of U.S. visa.

The purpose of this is to reinforce some very simple points. I find that people always have more trouble remembering what’s simple. Here goes:

Moving to America

1. Asset Reporting

If you are moving to America, you are moving from another country. You will very likely retain financial assets and bank accounts in that country. From a U.S. perspective, these assets are “foreign” and therefore a “fertile ground” for penalties.

Please remember that if you are:

– a U.S. citizen – Internal Revenue Code – S. 7701(a)(1)(50)

– a Green Card holder – Internal Revenue Code – S. 7701(b)(1)(A)

– a person who meets the substantial presence test – Internal Revenue Code – S. 7701(b)(3)

that you are required to file FBARs, FATCA Form 8938s and possibly more forms and reporting requirements. Those who are leaving behind a limited company may meet the requirements to file Form 5471.

The failure to meet these reporting obligations has caused untold misery for may immigrants to the USA. Remember how many immigrants to the U.S. were damaged by the OVDI program in 2011. (The hyperlink in the previous sentence leads to a post with 382 comments!)

2. Make sure that you know the fair market value of any assets that you own at the time of your move to the USA. This (depending on your status at the time you entered the U.S.) may have implications for future taxes (including the S. 877A Exit Tax).

3. If possible do NOT enter the U.S. on a Green Card and do NOT acquire a Green Card.

If you acquire the Green Card you are one step away from being subjected to the S. 877A Exit Tax if you decide to leave America!

Green Card Holders Moving From America

Potential problems exist for those with a Green Card who move from the USA.

A partial list includes:

1. Read S. 877A of the Internal Revenue Code. You will see that if you held a Green Card for 8 of the last 15 years, you will be a “long term resident” and subject to the S. 877A Exit Tax rules.

2. You are deemed to be a tax resident until you File I-407 (or other reasons that are less common). In order to cease to be a “U.S. tax resident” you would file your I-407. But, be careful!  The filing of your I-407 may (depending on whether you are a “long term resident”) may trigger the Exit Tax rules! To put it simply: If you file the I-407, and you are a “long term” resident, you will be subject to the S. 877A Exit Tax rules. Extreme caution is warranted!

Moral of the story! Be careful. You will avoid many problems by avoiding the Green Card.

Conclusion:

To be forewarned is to be forearmed!