Tag Archives: PFIC

Form 8621 and Form 5471 are required even if the tax return is NOT!

The Internal Revenue Code of the United States requires two things:

1. The calculation of taxes; and

2. The reporting of information.

The Internal Revenue Code of the United States is based on three basic principles:

1. A dislike of all things “foreign”. (If you see the word “foreign” a penalty is sure to follow.)

2. A hatred of all forms of non-U.S. “tax deferral”

3. An attempt to stop the “leakage” of “U.S. taxable assets” from the U.S. tax base. (Examples include the U.S. tax treatment of the “alien spouse” and the U.S. S. 877A “Exit Tax” that may be payable when one makes the decision to renounce U.S. citizenship).

“Forms” AKA “information returns” are for the purpose of forcing disclosure of information relevant to  “foreignness”, “deferral” and “leakage”.

The above tweet references an earlier post describing many of the “forms” required of Americans abroad. The post also describes the significant penalties which can be potentially imposed for the failure to file those forms.

For Americans abroad the information reporting requirements are extensive, burdensome and penalty laden. Normally (but not in all cases) the “forms” are filed as part of the tax return (1040 or 1040NR).

NEVER FORGET MR. FBAR – THE NEW SYMBOL OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP – AND THE POTENTIAL FBAR PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO FILE THE FBAR! THOSE WHO HAVE FAILED TO FILE MR. FBAR SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT HOW THEY “FIX THE FBAR PROBLEM“.

(Interestingly, Mr. FBAR has been used as a model for Russia which now has (for lack of a better term) the Russian FBAR.)

Many people do NOT understand that they may be required to file “information returns”, even though they may NOT meet the income thresholds to file a tax return!
Continue reading

Tweet #Citizide: The new response of US citizens to #FATCA #FBAR #PFIC


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

Tax Haven or Tax Heaven 3: Why the USA is an attractive place to lure “foreign capital” and keep that “foreign capital” secret

The United States as a “poacher” (AKA Tax Haven) of the capital of other nations

The above tweet references the following article which includes:

Leaving income-producing assets in the US may be advantageous for foreigners. If you are a foreigner who owns financial assets in the United States, you are not subject to the capital gains tax and interest on bank accounts is also tax free. You will, however, be charged at a rate of up to 30% for dividends. If there is a treaty between your home country and the US, then this tax rate could be reduced to 10% to 15%. You may also recover this tax as a credit in your country of residence.

This is found in Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Part II, Subpart A of the Internal Revenue Code.

IRC871

The following section of the Internal Revenue Code applies to “NON-RESIDENT ALIENS AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS”. Interestingly this part of the Internal Revenue Code also includes the S. 877A and S. 877 Expatriation Tax provisions. Interestingly both S. 871 and S. 877 were enacted in 1966 as part of the Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966, Public Law 89-809. It is reasonable to infer that that the enactment of both S. 871 and S. 877 as part of the 1966 Foreign Investors Tax Act, eventually evolved into the S. 877A Exit Tax of today.

For a pdf of the 1966 Foreign Investors Tax Act …

Foreign Investors Tax Act 1966 809

IRC8712

The text of S. 871 of the Internal Revenue Code is here. The IRS interpretation of S. 871 along with the requirements for when the non-resident alien is required to file a 1040-NR return are here.

The definition of “Non-resident alien” is found in S. 7701(b) of the Internal Revenue Code.

What does this mean from the perspective of a “non-resident alien”?

Very interesting. Rather than invest his capital at home (where he is certain to be taxed), he might consider investing in the United States where:

A. His interest and capital gains are NOT subject to U.S. taxation (this is how the U.S. attracts the capital of other nations to the United States); and

B. The U.S. will not (in the absence of a specific treaty) report your investment account information to the tax authority of your country (making it easier to escape any taxation on the investments).

Not bad at all!! It would appear that (1) this is a mechanism to “poach” capital from other nations and (2) make tax evasion (assuming the non-resident alien fails to report the income to his country of residence) much easier!

The United States certainly complained that Switzerland was doing the same thing.

It’s easy to understand why:

But, “Not all Tax Havens are the same!”

Some countries are more “TaxHavenly” (or is that more “Tax Heavenly” than others!

Hmmm …

Voluntary “poaching” of capital – The Tax Haven

Because the United States encourages and facilitates the “poaching” of capital, the United States is most certainly a major “Tax Haven”. Note that “Tax Havens” lure capital to the Tax Haven in question. The “transfer of capital” to the “Tax Haven” is voluntary.

The United States of America:

1. Is a “Public Tax Haven” because, by NOT taxing certain forms of investment income it “lures” capital to the United States.

2. Is a “Private Tax Haven” because it will NOT (with the exception of certain treaties) disclose the identity of depositors to the tax authorities of other nations. This is one of the many problems of FATCA. Although other countries are required to disclose “U.S. Accounts”, the United States is NOT obligated to disclose the accounts of tax residents of other nations.

Involuntary “poaching” of capital – “citizenship-based taxation”

U.S. citizenship-based taxation ALSO results in the direct “poaching of capital” from other nations! A thoughtful post describing the cost of U.S. “poaching” to Canada is here. This topic of – how “U.S. citizenship-based taxation” steals the capital of other nations – is deserving of a separate post!

#YouCantMakeThisUp

John Richardson

“Coming Into Tax Compliance Book” – How Americans can come into U.S. tax compliance in a FATCA world

Are you “Coming To America” by entering the U.S. tax system as an American Abroad?

The “How To Come Into U.S. Tax Compliance” book for Americans abroad

John Richardson, LL.B, J.D.

I have contributed to establishing the new “Citizenship Taxation” site. As part of launching that site, I have written a series of posts providing relevant information (in a broad sense) about how Americans abroad, who did not know about their U.S. tax obligations, can come into U.S. tax compliance.

Sooner or later, it’s likely that many people will receive a FATCA letter. In your panic, you should be careful. There are a number of things Americans abroad should consider before consulting a lawyer or tax professional.

This series of posts developed from my “Educational Outreach” program for Americans abroad. It is an effort to respond in a practical way to the questions that people have.

The chapters of “Coming Into Compliance Book” are:

Chapter 1 – “Accepting Cleanliness – Understanding U.S. Citizenship Taxation – To remain a U.S. citizen or to renounce U.S. citizenship

Chapter 2 – “But wait, I can’t renounce U.S. citizenship if I’m not a U.S. citizen. How do I know if I am a U.S. citizen?”

Chapter 3 – “No matter what, I must come into U.S. tax compliance – Coming into U.S. tax compliance for those who have NOT been filing U.S. taxes

Chapter4 – “Oh no, I have attempted U.S. tax compliance by filing tax returns. I have just learned that I have made mistakes. How do I fix those mistakes?”

Chapter 5 – “I don’t want to renounce U.S. citizenship. How to live outside the United States as a U.S. tax compliant person

Chapter 6 – “I do want to renounce U.S. citizenship. This is too much for me. How the U.S. “Exit Tax” rules might apply to me if I renounce

Chapter 7 – “I really wish I could do retirement planning like a “normal” person. But, I’m an American abroad. I hear I can’t invest in mutual funds in my country of residence. The problem of Americans Abroad and non-U.S. mutual funds explained.

Chapter 8 – “We all have to live somewhere. Five issues – “The problem of Americans Abroad and non-U.S. real estate explained

Chapter 9 – “Receiving U.S. Social Security – #Americansabroad and entitlement to Social Security

Chapter 10 – “Paying into Social Security – #Americansabroad, double taxation and the payment of “Self-employment” taxes

Chapter 11 – “Saving the children – INA S. 301 – “Residence” vs. “Physical Presence” and transmission of US citizenship abroad

Chapter 12 – “Relinquishing citizenship and your IRA – bringing your IRA home

Chapter 13 – “Married filing separately” and the “Alien Spouse” – the “hidden tax” on #Americansabroad

Chapter 14 – “The Obamacare “Net Investment Income Tax” – Pure double taxation of #Americansabroad

Chapter 15 – “To be “FORMWarned is to be “FORMArmed” – It’s “FORM Crime” stupid!!

Chapter 16 – “Most “Form Crime” penalties can be abated if there is “reasonable cause”

Chapter 17 – “How to get “credit” for taxes (foreign) paid to your country of residence

Chapter 18 – “I don’t pay taxes in the country where I live. Can I “exclude” my foreign income from the U.S. tax return?

Chapter 19 – “Is it better to take the “Foreign Tax Credit” or the “Foreign Earned Income Exclusion” – a discussion

Chapter 20
– “The child tax credit: take it, leave it or how to take it

Chapter 21 – “How #Americansabroad can continue to use the #IRA as a retirement planning vehicle

Chapter 22 – “To share or not to share” – Should a U.S. citizen share a bank account with a “non-citizen AKA alien spouse?

The “Coming Into Compliance Book” is designed to provide an overview of how to bring some sanity to your life.

 Coming to America

You may remember the old Eddie Murphy movie about “Coming To America”.

Welcome to the confusing and high stakes rules for U.S. taxation and Americans abroad.

The United States has the most complex, confusing, most penalty ridden and most difficult anti-deferral regime in the world. McGill Professor Allison Christians has noted that Americans abroad are both:

“deemed to be permanently resident in the United States for tax compliance and financial reporting purposes” …

and are

“subject to the most complex aspects of the U.S. tax code regardless of any activity in the United States, and facing extraordinary compliance costs and disclosure risks even for nil returns”

Although Americans abroad are deemed to be resident in the United States, their assets are treated as “offshore”. In addition Americans abroad are subject to taxation in their country of residence.

All of this means that:

1. Americans abroad are subject to the worst and most punitive aspects of the U.S. tax system (there is no Homelander who is treated as badly as an American abroad); and

2. Denied most benefits of the tax systems of their country of residence.

To put it simply, Americans abroad get the worst of all possible tax systems.

The most horrific aspects of the U.S. tax system are saved for Americans abroad. Prepare to be shocked. As one commenter at the Isaac Brock Society site recently said:

Continue reading

Interview with GordonTLong.com – Citizenship based taxation, PFIC, the S. 877A Exit Tax and #Americansabroad

On May 22, 2015 I was interviewed by Gordon T. Long. There is NO way to discuss U.S. “citizenship taxation” (which is primarily “place of birth taxation”) without discussing the S. 877A Exit Tax rules. During the month of April 2015, I wrote a 14 part series on “How the S.877A rules affect Americans abroad“. The interview with Mr. Long serves as a good reminder (or if you don’t want to read the posts) on:

– what it means to be a “covered expatriate

how the U.S. S. 877A “Exit Tax” rules operate to impose punitive “taxation” on non U.S. pensions (See the actual scenarios of how the Exit Tax applies to various individuals including those with a non-U.S. pension.

– more

This topic is of extreme important to anybody with a U.S. place of birth. Those with a “U.S. place of birth” begin life as a U.S. citizen. Therefore, those born in the U.S. are in effect:

“U.S. Taxpayers by birth”.

The U.S. is using FATCA to search the U.S. for people who were “born in the USA” to bring them into the U.S. tax system. More and more people are receiving “The FATCA Letter“.

This interview with Mr. Long really should be included as part of the “Exit Tax” series.

Therefore, I have designated my interview with Mr. Long to be:

Part 15 of the Exit Tax Series.

As a reminder this series of “S. 877A Exit Tax Posts” includes:

Part 1 – April 1, 2015 – “Facts are stubborn things” – The results of the “Exit Tax

Part 2 – April 2, 2015 – “How could this possibly happen? “Exit Taxes” in a system of residence based taxation vs. Exit Taxes in a system of “citizenship (place of birth) taxation

Part 3 – April 3, 2015 – “The “Exit Tax” affects “covered expatriates” – what is a “covered expatriate“?”

Part 4 – April 4, 2015 – “You are a “covered expatriate” How is the “Exit Tax”  actually calculated

Part 5 – April 5, 2015 – “The “Exit Tax” in action – Five actual scenarios with 5 actual completed U.S. tax returns

Part 6 – April 6, 2015 – “Surely, expatriation is NOT worse than death! The two million asset test should be raised to the Estate Tax limitation – approximately five million dollars – It’s Time

Part 7 – April 7, 2015 – “Why 2015 is a good year for many Americans abroad to relinquish U.S. citizenship – It’s the exchange rate

Part 8 – April 8, 2015 – “The U.S. “Exit Tax vs. Canada’s Departure Tax – Understanding the difference between citizenship taxation and residence taxation

Part 9 – April 9, 2015 – “For #Americansabroad: US “citizenship taxation” is “death by a thousand cuts, but the S. 877A Exit Tax is “death by the guillotine”

Part 10 – April 10, 2015 – “The S. 877A Exit Tax and possible relief under the Canada U.S. Tax Treaty

Part 11 – April 11, 2015 – “S. 2801 of the Internal Revenue Code is NOT a S. 877A “Exit Tax”, but a punishment for the “sins of the father (relinquishment)

Part 12 – April 12, 2015 – “The two kinds of U.S. citizenship: Citizenship for “immigration and nationality” and citizenship for  “taxation” – Are we taxed because we are citizens or are we citizens because we are taxed?”

Part 13 – April 13, 2015 – “I relinquished U.S. citizenship many years ago. Could I still have U.S. tax citizenship?

Part 14 – April 14, 2015 – “Leaving the U.S. tax system – renounce or relinquish U.S. citizenship, What’s the difference?

Part 15 – May 22, 2015 – “Interview with GordonTLong.com – “Citizenship taxation”, the S. 877A Exit Tax, PFICs and Americans abroad

 

 

How the logic of the quantifiers: “All”, “Some”, and “Not All” apply to Canadian mutual funds

What is a PFIC?

The acronym “PFIC” stands for “Passive Foreign Investment Corporation”. For your reading pleasure, I refer you to:

S. 1297 of the Internal Revenue Code which defines what a PFIC is; and

S. 1291 of the Internal Revenue Code which describes the “default taxation” of a PFIC.

Assuming that all Canadian mutual funds are PFICs, the results are horrific. I have written about this problem in two separate submissions to the U.S  Senate Finance Committee.

Continue reading

Part 1 – “Facts are stubborn things” – The possible effect of the US “Exit Tax” on Canadian residents

This is Part 1 of a 9 part series on the Exit Tax.

The 9 parts are:

Part 1 – April 1, 2015 – “Facts are stubborn things” – The results of the “Exit Tax

Part 2 – April 2, 2015 – “How could this possibly happen? “Exit Taxes” in a system of residence based taxation vs. Exit Taxes in a system of “citizenship (place of birth) taxation”

Part 3 – April 3, 2015 – “The “Exit Tax” affects “covered expatriates” – what is a “covered expatriate”?”

Part 4 – April 4, 2015 – “You are a “covered expatriate” How the “Exit Tax” is actually calculated”

Part 5 – April 5, 2015 – “The “Exit Tax” in action – Five actual scenarios with 5 actual completed U.S. tax returns.”

Part 6 – April 6, 2015 – “Surely, expatriation is NOT worse than death! The two million asset test should be raised to the Estate Tax limitation – approximately five million dollars – It’s Time”

Part 7 – April 7, 2015 – “The two kinds of U.S. citizenship: Citizenship for immigration and citizenship for tax”

Part 8 – April 8, 2015 – “I relinquished U.S. citizenship many years ago. Could I still have U.S. tax citizenship?”

Part 9 – April 9, 2015 – “Leaving the U.S. tax system – renounce or relinquish U.S. citizenship, What’s the difference?”

Part 1 – “Facts are stubborn things” – The results of the “Exit Tax”

factsarestubbornthings

This post will demonstrate how the U.S. “Exit Tax” affects “middle class Canadians who  have U.S. citizenship and wish to relinquish it. You will see how the “Exit Tax” imposes punitive taxes on Canadian assets and on income earned in Canada. You will also see how some U.S. assets are (in effect) exempted from the “Exit Tax”. We will learn from the example of a “Middle Class Canadian” with an average house in Toronto, a pension plan from the University of Toronto and a low value RRSP who decides that he no longer wishes to be a U.S. citizen.

This person has lived in Canada most (or perhaps all) of his adult life. You will see that he has NO U.S. assets and NO U.S. income. He was born in the United States, never officially relinquished U.S. citizenship and is therefore considered to be a U.S. citizen.

The U.S. imposes charges fees/taxes to NOT be a U.S. citizen. Everybody is required to pay an administrative fee of $2350 to no longer be a U.S. citizen. Others will have to pay an additional premium in the form of an “Exit Tax”.

In this particular case our “middle class Canadian”  would have be required to  pay the United States an additional fee in the form of an “Exit Tax”.

The amount of the “Exit Tax” is approximately $400,000 Canadian dollars.

Note that this “Exit Tax” is paid NOT on U.S. assets but completely on Canadian assets. It could very easily have been much more! Of course, if he had NOT been born ONLY a U.S. citizen he might not have to pay any Exit Tax (unless he was NOT living in Canada when he renounced) ….

This is all possible because of U.S. “citizenship (place of birth)” taxation.

The problem will be exacerbated by FATCA and by the agreement by the Government of Canada to assist the U.S. in the enforcement of FATCA in Canada

“Citizenship (place of birth) taxation” and FATCA are logically distinct but contextually related. The purpose of FATCA is to enforce “citizenship (place of birth) taxation.

This post will demonstrate  the graphic and horrific tax consequences of a middle class person in Canada who relinquishes  U.S. citizenship. If you understand this post, you will see that the claim that U.S. citizens abroad renounce citizenship to avoid taxes is absurd. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. Renouncing U.S. citizenship is more likely to subject a “long term, middle-class American abroad” to tax consequences that are horrific and unjust in the extreme.

How this works – the S. 877A “Exit Tax” rules in action  …

In order to see the graphic and brutal confiscatory effects of the U.S. Exit Tax in action I asked a licensed U.S. CPA who specializes in International Tax to consider the following factual scenario:

Relinquishment date: A person who renounced U.S. citizenship on November 1, 2014.

Profile: He was a “middle class” person who was completely tax compliant in Canada – his country of residence. He was a saver and investor. He had worked hard for this money.

The CPA was asked to calculate the Exit Tax based on the following “Financial Facts”. Note that the persons assets do exceed the $2,000,000 dollar U.S. threshold. Notice also that this example is representative of a typical “middle class” person.

Financial Facts – All amounts were in Canadian dollars.

– pension income from Canadian sources of $50,000

– principal residence bought in 1985 for $100,000 with a fair market value on November 1, 2014 of $1,200,000. The CPA calculated the taxes under the assumption that the relinquisher WOULD be entitled to the $250,000 capital gains deduction that would  normally be available under S. 121 of the Internal Revenue Code. It is NOT clear that he would be entitled to this deduction under the S. 877A rules. Note that if the S. 121 deduction does NOT apply the taxes owing will be significantly higher.

– pension from the University of Toronto with a present value of $900,000

– RRSP with a value of $500,000

– 500 shares of Telus common shares with a deemed sale on November 1, 2014 and a cost basis of half that. In other words the shares doubled.

Note that this person clearly exceeds the $2,000,000 U.S. threshold and is therefore subject to the Exit Tax. Yet he is a person with a “middle class” life style. The CPA graciously calculated the amounts to go on the Form 8854 (mandatory asset disclosure form) and calculated the Exit Tax (amount payable to the IRS to no longer be a U.S. citizen).

Our CPA calculated the “Exit Tax” based on the following five different fact patterns.

1. U.S. citizen only at birth – living in Canada – Canadian source INELIGIBLE (meaning Canadian source) pension

Exit Tax payable: $363,954 USD

2. Dual U.S./Canada citizen from birth – living in Canada

Exit Tax payable: $00.00 USD

3. Dual U.S./Canada citizen from birth living in U.K. – Canadian source INELIGIBLE (Canadian source) pension

Exit Tax payable: $363,954 USD

4. U.S.  citizen only at birth – living in Canada – U.S. source ELIGIBLE (U.S. source) pension

Exit Tax payable: $69,926 USD

5. U.S. citizen only at birth – billionaire – living in Cayman Islands – relinquishes before the age of 18 1/2

Exit Tax payable: $00.00 USD

A picture is worth a thousand words:

Exit tax chart_final

And more …

exit-tax

 

It’s because of the exacerbating factor of “citizenship (place of birth) taxation”

Notice that the most brutal and confiscatory effects of the U.S. Exit Tax are born by Americans abroad who have built their careers abroad and acquired their assets abroad. It is because of “citizenship taxation” that the U.S. is able to lay claim to income and assets earned in other countries. This results in (governments take note) U.S. confiscation taxation of capital earned in other countries.

As Ronald Reagan, remembering the wisdom of John Adams, used to say:

“Facts are stubborn things.”

The perverse application of the U.S. S. 877A “Exit Tax” is a graphic example of the immorality of a tax system that taxes people based on “place of birth”.

On April 2, 2015, in Part 2 of this series I will explore:

““How could this possibly happen? “Exit Taxes” in a system of residence based taxation vs. Exit Taxes in a system of “citizenship (place of birth) taxation”