The only noise from the IRS in the Federal Register for 30 October, the thirtieth day after the close of the calendar quarter, is a request for comments about Form 3468, which you fill in to take tax credits for coal, gasification, or other energy projects. There is no Quarterly Publication of Individuals, Who Have Chosen To Expatriate, As Required By Section 6039G, With Too Many, Commas In The, Title.
So Tim’s question still stands: will the “name-and-shame” list come out right before the election? Will the names of ordinary emigrants be abused in order to pump up voter outrage about all the “wealthy people fleeing America”? Or will the list be delayed until a more convenient date?
Anyway, the IRS whistleblower program is looking for information about individuals who flout America’s tax laws — especially those relating to international tax. Why not fill out a Form 211 and send it in to see if you can get 30% of what they’ll extract from Mr. Secretary of the Treasury? Sure, 6039G doesn’t specify any fines, but maybe they’ll lure him into the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program and then they can just make up the fines themselves.
*What I have been noticing is that there is a movement to consider Americans Abroad as people who left the USA in order to avoid paying taxes and are now renouncing their citizenships for this reason. This is gain public opinion so it seems. We must protest this in all levels.
*No Name and Shame list yet? Par for the course, wouldn’t you say. Don’t hold your breath. And if and when it is finally published, if you have renounced, be sure and check to see if your name has been published. There is good reason to believe that, to keep the list short and sweet, numerous names are deliberately left off this list. This helps to keep focus off the large numbers of overseas Americans who have no choice but to renounce just in order to have a checking account where they live and to be able to obtain a mortgage to purchase a home like normal people from every other country of the world do with ease.
Discrimination based on national origin is a criminal offense in the US. But it isn’t if it is blackmail by the US government against US citizens who have exercised their constitutionally-guaranteed right to live and work in a foreign country.
FATCA has made this specific type of Blackmail legal.
After all we wouldn’t want to leave the false impression that overseas citizens don’t really mind paying thousands of dollars every year to support the professional tax preparers who pay the college expenses of their children through the fees they collect by helping tratorous expats to properly submit their FBARs and FATCA reports.
“There is no Quarterly Publication of Individuals, Who Have Chosen To Expatriate, As Required By Section 6039G, With Too Many, Commas In The, Title.”
I love it. 😀
*thatisme, that’s a tough battle. Have a look at this one:
*When a “study” like this is made those performing the study decide what they want to results to prove and then structure their “facts” so the results will support their already-decided conclusions.
Territorial taxation creates jobs at home rather than rewarding shipping them abroad. Check the figures and draw your own conclusions.
Here are some of the countries with territorial tax systems and their corresponding 12-month trade balances: None of the countries in this categary subject their overseas citizens to home country taxation of their foreign income. Not even one.
Germany, $239 billion trade surplus
Netherlands, $58 billion trade surplus
Denmark, $14 billion trade surplus
Russia, $203 billion trade surplus
Switzerland, $27 billion trade surplus
Australia, $19 billion trade surplus
Brazil, $23 billion trade surplus
Canada, $1 billion trade surplus
Ireland, $58 billion trade surplus
Korea,, $28 billion trade surplus
And the list of the “territorial taxation” conuntries goes on and on. Low-wage China, by the way, has a $184 billion trade surplus, which is $77 billion less than the trade surplus of high-wage Germany. Gemany also currently has the lowest unemployment rate in 20 years.
There is much more to success in selling your products in the export market than price, as is well-substantiated by this data. It is far more dependent on a nation’s fiscal tax policies than many of the so-called experts, on both sides of the aisle, are willing to acknowledge.
Below is a list of countries that subject its corporations to world-wide taxaton. They pay taxes abroad and then are taxed again when they remit foreign profits back home. They also subject their citizens living overseas to home-country taxation on income that has already been taxed once by the foreign country where they live and work, whether it is remitted back to their country of citizenship or not.. Here is the complete list of countries in this category:
United States of America, $750 billion trade deficit
(That’s right, there is only ONE country {USA} in this latter category.)
Trade statistics above are as published on-line by The Economist, October 13, 2012.
@Roger, I agree with the idea of territorial taxation, but let’s not mix things up. Territorial taxation means the country only taxes income generated inside the country’s territory, residential taxation means it taxes worldwide income of residents, and citizenship-based taxation means it taxes worldwide income of citizens. Countries don’t necessarily use the same system for individuals and corporations. For individuals, none of the countries you mentioned use territorial taxation, they use residential taxation. Most of them use territorial taxation for corporations, but Russia, Brazil, Ireland and South Korea don’t.
The US is not the only country that subjects its corporations to worldwide taxation. There are many others who do. The US and Eritrea are the only ones that subject their citizens to worldwide taxation regardless of residence.
Instead of taxing corporations on local or worldwide income, and exempting dividends, isn’t is more simple to not tax corporations at all, and just tax dividends like any other kind of income, when finally received by individuals? I think this is the best system, but as far as I know, only Estonia has it.
*@shadowraider, my previous posting was indeed an overkill. There are 7 OECD countries that practice Territorial taxatiot. Theere were 17 of them in 2000, but gradually they are changing to territorial taxation. The US has the highest tax rate of all of them which is 39.2%. Ireland’s is the lowest at 12.5%. Generally they allow a foreign tax credit that offsets their home country tax due, but since the US has the highest world-wide tax rate of any country, the US ratee places US exporters at a greater competitive disadvantage then any other country. Canada is a territorial tax country.
The US is the only industrialized countrywith citizenship-based taxation. Eritrea also subjects its diaspora to a home-country tax, but it is in the order of 3%.
@Roger, Thanks for the information.
The anomaly is not just that the US is the only industrialized country with citizenship-based taxation. It is the only country, period (other than Eritrea).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation
Eritrea’s diaspora tax is 2% and it only applies to wages and rental income. The tax form is very short, the only items to fill in are the net income and the tax due. There is no financial reporting because Eritrea doesn’t tax investment income. The main problem with Eritrea is the violations of human rights and its methods of intimidation to collect the tax.
http://www.embassyeritrea.org/consular/PDF-docs/mehwey_gibri.pdf
*Shadow Raider, Eritrea does not requrie its overseas citizens to submit FBAR or FATCA reports and subject them to horrendous penalties if every i is not dotted exactly so and every t crossed with a perfectly horizontal line I suspect that US citizens abroad end up paying more in professional accounting fees than the revenue they generate for the US Treasury – except those who have been subject to massive penalties for failing to submit FBAR reports they never knew they were required to submit.
Eritrea’s favorite collection method, so I understand, is to not allow Eritreans who have come home to visit family to leave the country until they have paid their taxes. But the way the IRS has been going after Americans abroad and the imposition of FATCA rules on foreign banks has made it very hard for US citizens to live abroad, unless they renounce their citizenship.
Oh, no, I just found out that Hungary has a kind of citizenship-based taxation. Hungarian citizens residing outside of Hungary are considered Hungarian residents for tax purposes unless they also have another nationality, or reside in a country that has a tax treaty with Hungary (there are currently 71 such countries, including the entire EU; unlike the US, Hungary doesn’t have a “savings clause”). Therefore, a Hungarian citizen with no other nationality, residing in a country without a tax treaty with Hungary, is subject to Hungarian citizenship-based taxation on worldwide income.
http://www.nestmann.com/hungary-now-imposes-tax-on-non-resident-citizens/
I didn’t realize this when I did my survey of tax systems around the world. But I think the exceptions of dual nationality and tax treaties are comprehensive enough that I’m going to consider Hungary as having citizenship-based taxation only in limited situations, like France and Spain.
Aaaaaand … nothing for the 31st either
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/10/31#internal-revenue-service
*@Shadow Raider, Hungary does also have a 1979 tax treaty with the US (before the fall of the Iron Curtain.) It was ratified by the US Congress and entered into force in 1980. So Hungarians are “tax safe” when living in the US, but Americans resident in Hungary are subject to the tax laws of both countries.
*I will note that four years ago this list was published on October 31st. I do think though to more than six days given past history of release dates would have a hard time passing the smell test.
Cross-posted comment:
I just got a reply (well – sort of) to my email to US Ambassador to Canada, David Jacobson.
From: Johnson, Sylvia D
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:55 PM
To: calgary411
Subject: Your Inquiry for Information
Dear Ms. Calgary411,
Thank you for your inquiry to the Ambassador. We will reach you to provide a response to you as soon as possible.
This email is UNCLASSIFIED.
Note: I have sent many emails to the US Ambassador to Canada. This is the VERY FIRST response (of any kind) I’ve gotten from the US Ambassador to Canada — or his office, so that has been progress over the last year.
@Calgary
Way to go. This is progress – hearing from the Ambassador’s office!
*
Admirable @calgary411! What a great idea. It definitely reflects badly on Jacobson, that under his time as ambassador to Canada, numbers renouncing from here are no doubt on a robust upswing. Can we ask him how many were ‘Canadian grannies’ who’d gotten tired of sitting tight and waiting for the US to demonstrate that it could act in a reasonable, rational and ethical way towards those it claims as citizens here in Canada?
*Calgary411, Great Work!
Today’s Federal Register has the renunciation list. I counted 236 names but would appreciate a re-count. Only spotted one prominent name, known to IBS and beyond:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/11/01/2012-26841/quarterly-publication-of-individuals-who-have-chosen-to-expatriate-as-required-by-section-6039g
The published list is notable for its incompleteness. Still no listing of names of individuals I know expatriated in February, March and April 2012. It does not seem possible to conclude anything about the actual numbers of expatriates in 2012 from the published lists.
I copied the list to a spreadsheet and got 238 lines. I also only found one known name. There are a lot of Chinese and Korean names, and I suppose many of them are former permanent residents who just returned to their countries of origin, not people who renounced US citizenship.
The three lists this year add to 887 names so far.
It’s funny how the notice starts with “This notice is provided in accordance with IRC section 6039G of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) of 1996, as amended.” What does a list of expatriates have to do with health insurance?
My name is finally on the list. My expatriation was approved in end of February, in the first quarter. They are two quarters late registering my name. I wonder now if that means I can travel without my CLN, since my name appears, border services can just consult the name and shame list to see that I have expatriated.
When it comes to reporting to the public, I don’t believe the US government. They regularly lie and manipulate data when it suits their needs.
At least it clears up one important question: the list contains all expatriates, not just those who are covered expatriates.
*@ Petros. Do NOT try to travel without a copy of your CLN. I don’t think the border services have even an inkling that the list exists and they might not have the patience or resources to try to look it up. I believe the list eventually will include all those citizens who expatriate, whether or not they are “covered expatriates”. As far as the list’s including long-term residents who have surrendered their green cards–it does not. Section 6039G referred to by Shadow Raider above provides that there shall be published in the Federal Register “the name of each individual losing United States citizenship…with respect to whom the Secretary receives information….” The names of long-term residents who relinquish their green cards are therefore not required to be published.
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society - 238 names in third quarter expatriation list, including Peter W. Dunn
@qm, Section 6039G says:
(d) Information to be provided to Secretary
Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
(1) any Federal agency or court which collects (or is required to collect) the statement under subsection (a) shall provide to the Secretary—
(A) a copy of any such statement, and
(B) the name (and any other identifying information) of any individual refusing to comply with the provisions of subsection (a),
(2) the Secretary of State shall provide to the Secretary a copy of each certificate as to the loss of American nationality under section 358 of the Immigration and Nationality Act which is approved by the Secretary of State, and
(3) the Federal agency primarily responsible for administering the immigration laws shall provide to the Secretary the name of each lawful permanent resident of the United States (within the meaning of section 7701 (b)(6)) whose status as such has been revoked or has been administratively or judicially determined to have been abandoned.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later than 30 days after the close of each calendar quarter, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register the name of each individual losing United States citizenship (within the meaning of section 877 (a) or 877A) with respect to whom the Secretary receives information under the preceding sentence during such quarter.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6039G
Translation: The IRS must inform the Treasury about people who file form 8854, the Department of State must inform the Treasury about people who get a CLN, and USCIS must inform the Treasury about people who return their green cards. The Treasury must publish in the Federal Register every three months a list of names of these people.
Section 877(e) states that “Any long-term resident of the United States who ceases to be a lawful permanent resident of the United States (within the meaning of section 7701 (b)(6)) shall be treated for purposes of this section and sections 2107, 2501, and 6039G in the same manner as if such resident were a citizen of the United States who lost United States citizenship on the date of such cessation or commencement.”
But you’re right, section 6039G only says “each individual losing United States citizenship”. So I’m still not sure whether it includes long-term residents.
As Petros wrote, now we know for sure that the list is not restricted to covered expatriates.