Cross-posting from Maple Sandbox, resulting from George’s comment at Isaac Brock:
Dual Citizenship: “Paramount Allegiance-Predominant Claim”
See: http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/07fam/ (shown in list of links as “-080 DUAL NATIONALITY [111 Kb])”
Over at Brock, George posted some information from U.S. Department of State on dual citizenship which is very useful to us. It says:
From the US Dept of State, 7 Fam 080, the formal and OFFICIAL US Position.
“b. It is a generally recognized rule, often regarded as a rule of international law, that when a person who is a dual national is residing in either of the countries
of nationality, the person owes paramount allegiance to that country, and that country has the right to assert its claim without interference from the other country.”
“e. U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
So, there we have it. Even the United States says we owe our “paramount allegiance” to our country of residence. That is exactly how most of us are living our lives.
Our countries of residence have “the right to assert its claim without interference from the other country.”
So, why aren’t Canada, France, Switzerland, New Zealand, China, Russia, Brazil and India telling the U.S. to just FATCA off? Our “paramount allegiance” is to those countries and those countries have a “predominant claim” to us.
I have just included this information in my Canadian citizen submission to New Zealand.
All tax treaties with the US have a “savings” clause that basically gives the US the right to tax a US citizen regardless of residency status. I’m not sure what, if any, value these treaties are to a US citizen wherever they live.
I was searching information about green cards and found an interesting thing about “green cards obtained by marriage to a US citizen” (that was my type). I can’t find when the change occurred or if it was always the case but now that type of green card is “conditional” for the first 2 years and if a couple does not file an I-751 (petition to remove conditions on residence) before 2 years is up the “alien” can be deported. Needless to say, because everything I did was wrong, I did not know anything about a conditional clause and we never filed an I-751 after 2 years. I guess I should have been deported from the USA for failure to file I-751 and now I wish I had been. However, I rather think this conditional green card thing is a fairly recent addition to immigration law (probably since DHS came into existence) but I haven’t been able to find out exactly what date it came into effect. I know there was no wording of “conditional” on my green card (just big bold “Resident Alien” stamped at the top), nor was there any mention of my green card being conditional when we were at my immigration interview — way back then. Water under the bridge but still interesting.
Here’s what Vern Krishna said about US citizenship taxation and FATCA in October of 2011: http://business.financialpost.com/2011/10/12/hard-to-slip-long-arm-of-uncle-sam/. I only put this here because it is the same for both, Vern Krishna is tax counsel with Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, and executive director of the CGA Tax Research Centre, University of Ottawa. Now I have to get my head around what he says.
THey want us to pay taxes yet those very profitable NFL franchises pay NO taxes.
Every now and then, a Republican gets on board with a good idea:
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) on Wednesday proposed legislation that would strip the National Football League’s tax-exempt status.
Chaffetz said professional football and hockey leagues are for-profit entities that don’t need an unfair tax break. He offered the measure days before the Super Bowl, the nation’s most popular sporting event of the year.
“In reality, the NFL and the NHL are for-profit businesses, and they should be taxed as such,” he said. “They are not charities nor are they traditional trade organizations like local chambers of commerce.”
My mother never became a USC the entire time she lived in the US, which was from the early 50’s to 1968. My mother isn’t around any more to ask her what any details about her status, but my sister remembers my mother having to go the post office every so often to renew her “resident alien” status.
At some point then, while living in the USA, I might have gone from being a “resident alien” to being an “illegal alien” because I never renewed my green card. I swear there was never any mention of renewal when I went for that immigration interview a month after we were married. We just had to convince the agent we were actually married and intended to stay married. (We have been married over 30 years so we did stay married.) After I returned to Canada, we informed the IRS annually (note attached to 1040s) that I was a “non-resident alien” which may or not be what I really was but it was truthfully what I thought I was. It just gets worser and worser. I’m beginning to doubt I’m really a Canadian now. 🙁
@ Northernstar. Re: The NFL. The reason we have to pay taxes and the NFL gets a pass (sorry folks, couldn’t resist!) is that they LOVE the NFL and they HATE us expats.
you got that right. My BF was impressed with the Green Bay Packers who are not owned by a big corporation. He went to a bike rally there last year… They loved him and his fellow Canadian bikers. This is what is needed. More people owing these big sports teams , not oligarchies. PS:: my BF hates football. LOL.
All the teams in The NFL are subject to tax law except the Green Bay Packer.
While there a number of unprofitable NHL teams I would imagine all NFL teams are profitable including Jcksonville.
“The Packers are the only community-owned franchise in American professional sports major leagues. Typically, a team is owned by one person, partnership, or corporate entity, i.e., a “team owner.” The lack of a dominant owner has been stated as one of the reasons the Packers have never been moved from the city of Green Bay. It has long been operated as a non-profit organization”
“The National Football League is an unincorporated nonprofit 501(c)(6) association, meaning its league office is not subject to income tax because it does not make a profit. In contrast, each individual team (except the non-profit Green Bay Packers) is subject to tax because they make a profit. The NFL considers itself a trade association made up of and financed by its 32 member teams.”
If you have information where the NFL paid a dividend to the team please tell me?
Now if you want to complain that teams should not have public financing of Stadium that is another matter but Green Bay Packer are probably the worst in that regard.
But I object to almost most public financing.
I just received acknowledgement from Minister Flaherty’s office: