This is cross-posted from the Alliance for The Defence of Canadian Sovereignty website.
Welcome to 2015. On January 5, 2014 incoming Chairman Orrin Hatch of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee said:
National Review Online OpEd: It’s Time to Rebuild the Tax Code
Seven guiding principles for comprehensive income-tax reform.
Everyone agrees that the American tax system is broken and in need of reform. It stifles job creation, innovation, and competitiveness. It’s counterproductive, confusing, and a serious drag on the economy. Simply put: Tax reform is no longer an option but an obligation.
With the start of the new Congress, Washington has an opportunity to rebuild the tax code in a way that will spur economic growth, jump-start job creation, and once again restore prosperity to the American people.
To achieve this goal, however, the White House must get in the game and start to lead. This means putting smart policy ahead of poll-tested talking points and working with Congress in good faith. It also means accepting principles established by Congress to lay the foundation for true reform.
The most important principles were those followed by President Reagan nearly 30 years ago when Congress last acted to overhaul the tax code: economic growth, fairness, and simplicity.
Tax reform should promote growth in the economy and reduce economic distortions. It must eliminate the uncompetitive nature of the code and reduce disincentives to work, entrepreneurship, savings, and investment.
Tax reform should reduce tax expenditures to broaden the tax base and simultaneously lower tax rates. A broader base coupled with significantly lower tax rates is the foundation of what would be a much fairer tax system.
We also need a simpler system. Tax reform should reduce complexities in the tax code to lower compliance burdens, increase efficiency, and free up resources for productive activities, including job creation.
While these three principles will be vital to congressional tax-reform efforts, the demands of a 21st–century global economy will require even more, most notably: permanence, competitiveness, promotion of savings and investment, and revenue neutrality.
In today’s world, permanence and competitiveness are key. The code’s lack of certainty hurts job creation, stifles planning, and inhibits economic growth. Permanence would make our code reliable and predictable for American households and businesses.
We need a tax system that no longer threatens to change from year to year, and we need a tax code that is internationally competitive. Tax reform should substantially lower the corporate tax rate and move us to a territorial tax system, with base erosion protections, to ensure that American job creators are on a level playing field with their foreign competitors.
A tax overhaul should also promote savings and investment, which provide fuel for growth. Many aspects of the current U.S. income-tax system discourage savings and investment, which ultimately hurts long-term growth.
Lastly, tax reform should embrace the principle of revenue neutrality. If we’re scouring the tax code looking for ways to squeeze more revenue to fuel government spending, we’re not reforming the tax code, we’re raising taxes. It’s as simple as that. Tax reform should not be used as an excuse to raise taxes on the American people. Any such effort is a needless distraction.
In fact, those who believe that the American people are currently undertaxed should look at historical trends. According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal revenues already exceed historical averages and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. Congress should deal with the problem of excessive federal spending, but it shouldn’t look to tax reform for even more revenue.?
These seven principles should serve as the guideposts for any and all tax-reform efforts. Any serious idea should link back and be relevant to at least one of these seven principles. The best ideas should embrace all of them.
The 114th Congress is set to begin, and I’m hopeful that a path to real bipartisan tax reform will take shape. I plan to help move the conversation forward in the coming weeks and months by engaging with members of both parties and unveiling additional steps.
True success will take more than just talk. It will take hard work, commitment, and, of course, bipartisan compromise. The challenge before us is clear.
— Orrin Hatch is the senior senator from Utah and the incoming chairman of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.
I believe that Senator Hatch is serious. His statement on January 5, 2015 is a reinforcement of his December 16, 2014 speech in the Senate where he outlined 7 Principles For Tax Reform. His speech included:
“In the coming weeks and months, I plan to reveal additional steps. I plan to involve many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly those who will be joining me on the Senate Finance Committee. My hope is that, as this conversation continues, a path toward real bipartisan tax reform will begin to take shape. Of course, it’ll take more than just a talk and discussion. It’ll take hard work, commitment, and, of course, compromise,”
Senator Hatch is the Senior Republican Senator from Utah. (Senator Mike Lee of “FATCA Legal Action lawsuit fame is the junior Senator from Utah.) In December of 2014, the Republican Staff Committee of the Senate Finance Committee issued their report on state of the U.S. tax system. Although the report can be found at the Senate Finance Committee website, I am uploading it this post:
RepublicanStaffReportSenateFinanceComm2014
The report is long and comprehensive. At the very end it specifically identifies the “Taxation of non-resident U.S. citizens” as an issue that should be addressed. Although the discussion is minimal, it specifically states:
“… we think it makes sense to tax the individual as a general rule, on on come from U.S. sources.”
After a brief discussion about the necessity of defining “residence”, it goes on to say state:
“In addition an exit tax could be applied when the U.S. citizen is considered a non-resident and no longer subject to U.S. worldwide taxing jurisdiction.”
The Committee specifically identifies the March 2013 report from American Citizens Abroad as a possible approach to achieving this objective. There was considerable discussion of this at the Isaac Brock Society, the Facebook page of Republicans Overseas and American Citizens Abroad.
The submission from American Citizens Abroad is here:
The report from the Senate Finance Committee is almost 300 pages. The suggestion about the taxation of “Non-resident U.S. citizens” comes at the end. I won’t pretend to have read the complete report. I did read enough to see that it is very well researched. The clear inference is that the U.S. tax system is broken, dysfunctional and inappropriate for the 21st century. The clear inference is that the current U.S. tax system is incompatible with a global world. The clear inference is that U.S. tax reform is mandatory and that U.S. tax reform is going to happen! The section about the taxation of “Non-resident U.S. citizens” is Part J of Chapter 6 (which is about International Tax Reform). In other words, the reform of that taxation of “Non-resident U.S. citizens” should be understand in the context of “International tax reform”. For the most part the report discusses International Tax as it applies to corporations. It begins by noting that:
“The international tax regime that was developed in the 1920s has survived for almost 90 years.”
(Interestingly, the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Cook v. Tait that was decided in the 1920s has survived for almost 90 years.)
From that point on, the report recognizes that U.S. international tax is NOT compatible with taxation in the modern world and that it must be changed.
The report (which does consider the tax system of other nations) recognizes that:
– U.S. international tax rules discriminate against U.S. corporations (Yup, how true)
– U.S. international tax rules are out of sync with the modern world
– double taxation should be avoided
– the U.S. should move to a system of territorial-based taxation (of some kind) for Corporations
– the U.S. should move to residence-based taxation for individuals
Understand that the small discussion of U.S. citizens was the last part of the overall discussion of “International Taxation” as it applies to corporations. This suggests the Committee would agree that what is true for “U.S. corporate citizens” is also true of “U.S. DNA citizens”.
Therefore, I interpret the report to be a much stronger argument for residence-based taxation than the small part devoted to “individual DNA citizens” would suggest.
There is reason to be optimistic about:
1. The December 2014 report from the Republican branch of the Senate Finance Committee
2. The fact that Senator Hatch will be the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee (On January 6, 2015 Time Magazine identified Senator Hatch as an extremely influential member of Congress)
3. The likelihood of Tax Reform – As Senator Hatch says: “Simply put: Tax reform is no longer an option but an obligation”
4. That it may happen more quickly than people think. As I have suggested before:
The good news is that Congress has been considering tax reform. Corporate tax reform is a virtual certainty. As the number of inversions demonstrates, the only way that U.S. companies can compete internationally is if they cease being a U.S. company. Similarly, the only way that a U.S. citizen abroad can compete, is if he ceases to be a U.S. citizen. Contrary to “myth” U.S. citizens abroad ARE subjected to taxation from both the United States and their country of residence. Contrary to myth, U.S. citizens abroad are often subjected to double taxation. Contrary to myth, U.S. tax laws make it very difficult for Americans abroad to do meaningful financial and retirement planning. The controversy surrounding London Mayor Boris Johnson provides an excellent example of “double taxation”. The good news is that this message is starting to get through. The message is starting to be heard. The message is starting to be analyzed. As the message from Republicans Overseas indicates, the Senate Finance Committee has begun to consider the issue of “extra-territorial taxation”.
We are at an auspicious moment. Tax reform is on the agenda AND the Republicans have control of both the Senate and the House.
Furthermore, Senator Hatch, will be Chairman of the Committee, and he believes that tax reform is too important to be held captive to partisan politicians.
Sen Hatch: "I am willing to work with anyone – Republican or Democrat – to fix our country’s tax code" http://t.co/tuHKDvi2ra @GOPSenFinance
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) January 3, 2015
Senator Hatch has stated that he will work with and listen to anybody!
The loneliness and helplessness of Americans abroad – So far nobody has listened to them
I have watched Americans abroad suffer since 2009. Depending on when one had an “OMG” (Oh My God) moment Americans abroad have been suffering for as long as six years. Although they have sought help, no help has been forthcoming. It’s fair to say that Americans abroad (as a group) have failed to find support from:
1. The Government of the United States – For the most part Americans abroad have been “unpaid ambassadors and apologists for the U.S.A.” Many deserve a medal for their patriotism. What did they get in return? FATCA, the “FBAR Fundraiser” and the implementation of “extra-territorial taxation”. The U.S. can say that “extra-territorial taxation” and FBAR have always been the law. But there was NO education and NO enforcement before 2009. For all intensive purposes, what the U.S. calls “citizenship-based taxation” – AKA “extra-territorial taxation” – did not (in practical terms) exist until 2009.
2. The Government of Canada (or whatever your government is) – Participation in the IGAs was the equivalent of helping the U.S. identify those who it wants to claim as its citizens and turning them over to the U.S. By signing an IGA, The Government of Canada has allowed the U.S. government to claim Canadian citizens as U.S. tax subjects. (A philosopher might ask: What is the meaning of Canadian citizenship?” But, I won’t ask that question.)
The Government of Canada does NOT seem to understand that U.S. taxation of Canada citizens residing in Canada allows the U.S. to impose a “capital tax” on Canada!
3. The Media – For the most part the media has not supported those unfortunate souls with a “U.S. place of birth”. They have been told to “come clean“, etc. (That said, there have been some exceptions and the media is slowly coming around. As one example, consider the fine work done by Laura Saunders of the Wall Street Journal. Incidentally Ms. Saunders came from New York to attend the May 2014 ACA Global Conference on citizenship-based taxation. Patrick Cain has also done a fine job of framing the issues of U.S. “extra-territorial taxation” and FATCA.)
4. The cross-border tax compliance people – Very very few have provided responsible and competent counselling. Many have been more dangerous to your well being than the U.S. Government. You are undergoing severe emotional trauma. They are in the business of completing tax returns.
5. Friends and family – They can be excused. The problems can be understood only by those who have lived them. There is NO doubt that U.S. tax policies affect the marital relationship between a U.S. citizen and a non-citizen (AKA “alien”) spouse.
6. Elected representatives in the U.S.– Americans abroad have ZERO representation in the U.S. They have no defense against what Jackie Bugnion of ACA described as the “series of legislative events” that have made it impossible for U.S. citizens to live abroad.
7. Elected representatives in Canada – For the most part (with some notable exceptions and you know who the exceptions are), your MPs have NOT been helpful (taking the twin positions that the U.S. is free to define who its citizens are and to control their lives in any way it chooses).
8. The “Various Political Parties Abroad” – Their loyalty to the current U.S. administration has placed them in a position where they are NOT willing to “Boldly Oppose” unjust laws and policies.
Although U.S. “citizenship-based taxation” may have always been the law, it was neither communicated nor enforced prior to 2009. The same is true of the FBAR requirements. Therefore, in actual practice, U.S. citizenship-based taxation has “not always been the law” but should be considered to be a “new law”. FBAR should be considered to be a “new law”. FATCA is the “enforcement mechanism” of the new law of “place of birth taxation”. FATCA Hunt – AKA the hunt for those with a U.S. place of birth is beginning.
Those who have been targeted by these laws have felt a combination of terror, resentment, betrayal and (mostly) helplessness.
You are never “helpless” if you “empower yourself” by helping yourself!
You have empowered yourselves by launching the FATCA lawsuit against the Government of Canada. The FATCA lawsuit is an incredibly important first step in protecting those Canadians with a “U.S. place of birth”. You have set an example to ALL those, with “a U.S. birthplace” (regardless of their country of residence). It’s incredible that this lawsuit HAS been funded without a single “deep pocketed donor”.
Nevertheless, anger and frustration continues. The Canadian lawsuit is one way of channeling that anger and frustration in a productive way. The Canadian FATCA lawsuit has been a way to turn the negative effects of anger and frustration toward a positive purpose.
That said, the FATCA lawsuit cannot (by itself) force a change in U.S. law. Ultimately, changes in U.S. law must come from the U.S.
It’s time to participate in the changing of U.S. law
It is believed that there are approximately 7.5 million Americans abroad. This is larger than the population of many U.S. states. You have the right to be heard. You have the obligation to be heard.
The time has come to harness that anger and frustration and channel it into a massive effort into getting the U.S. Senate Finance Committee to recommend, as part of the overall package of tax reform, that the U.S. move to “residence based taxation“. Both the Republicans and Democratic political parties show signs of making tax reform a “partisan issue”. Tax reform cannot be allowed to be a “partisan issue”! Fortunately Senator Hatch has made it clear that “tax reform” is NOT and CANNOT be used by political parties for political advantage.
Therefore, I suggest that you:
1. Encourage all politicians to recommend residence based taxation; but more importantly
2. Actively collectively and purposefully (as an organized group) educate the Senate Finance Committee. The goal is influence it to recommend residence based taxation.
Your “elected representatives” are NOT likely to be helpful. (They just want to be elected.) The Senate Finance Committee is in desperate need of your help! (It is actually trying to do something for the good of the country.) It needs to understand the issues. It needs to be educated.
Nobody CAN educate the Senate Finance Committee better than those directly affected by this injustice! Nobody WILL educate better than those directly affected by this injustice!
To put it another way:
I suggest that Americans abroad commit themselves to the goal of becoming an active participant in the deliberations of the Senate Finance Committee.
They should NOT be satisfied with being a passive observer. As a group you have the commitment, the resources and the motivation. The Committee needs to understand the true effects of U.S. laws governing Americans abroad and how those laws are forcing people to renounce their U.S. citizenship. The Committee needs to understand how and why these laws are bad for its valuable “Ambassadors (citizens) abroad”. The committee needs to understand Roger Conklin’s arguments for why these laws are bad for America.
Educating the Senate Finance Committee will be much more effective than writing your Congressman (although you should anyway) because:
– individual Congressman/women will NOT understand the issues (how long has it taken you to truly understand all of this?)
– they have no incentive to listen to you (they just want to be elected).
On the other hand, the Senate Finance Committee is interested, eager to learn and willing to learn!
The Senate Finance Committee – The most influential voice for Tax Reform
The composition and membership of the Senate Finance Committee may be found here.
You will see that Americans abroad have a fantastic (once in a lifetime) opportunity to educate a variety of Senators.
As Justice Black ruled in the Afroyim case:
Citizenship is no light trifle to be jeopardized any moment Congress decides to do so under the name of one of its general or implied grants of power. In some instances, loss of citizenship can mean that a man is left without the protection of citizenship in any country in the world—as a man without a country. Citizenship in this Nation is a part of a co-operative affair. Its citizenry is the country and the country is its citizenry. The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship*, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.
The next question is:
“How is this educational campaign to be organized? What will it consist of?”
Stay tuned.
“Seize The Day!” – You are the only people who can and who will!
*P.S. You might find this interview interesting. It is an excellent discussion of how U.S. “extra-territorial taxation” resulting in “residence-based life control” is forcing Americans abroad to renounce U.S. citizenship.
Interview: @JackieBugnion on #FATCA #FBAR and the need for "Residence based taxation" for #Americansabroad https://t.co/XHBJ2ltYKx @ACAVoice
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) January 7, 2015
If the U.S. can be persuaded to abolish “extra-territorial taxation”, based on “place of birth”, many of the problems will be solved.
Brock was down for awhile today so I posted this at the Maple Sandbox …
I found a pdf from the George Mason Independent Law Review (1994) titled “TAX COMPLEXITY, REFORM, AND THE ILLUSIONS OF TAX SIMPLIFICATION” by Sheldon D. Pollack (University of Delaware) which says in its conclusion:
Since we lived through Reagan’s Tax Reform Act I can say I totally agree with Prof. Pollack. Perhaps the problem is that legislators and those who write the tax codes do not know what simple means. I hope, IF they make another attempt at “simplification”, that they do a much better job than they did in 1986.
Excellent news! Faster! Faster!
I seriously doubt we would see such a report if Carl Levin (Father of FATCA) were still there. May his legacy go into the dustbin forever. And may Chuck Schumer’s go into the bin as well.
I am much less optimistic that Senator Hatch and the other Republicans on the Finance Committee are interested in a non-partisan or bi-partisan approach to reform. Above he is quoted as saying the White House must accept Republican economic principles as the basis of any tax reform. (He refers to them as principles established by Congress but given the Republican majority that is just code for trickle down economics and many other things Republicans stand for and Democrats do not).
Being on the committee, it would be nice if Chuck Schumer put as much passion into encouraging Americans to keep their citizenships as he does for vilifying and punishing them for renouncing!
As always, looking forward to participating in any effort that brings our situation to light. Bring it on!
There are a couple things about this that stand out for me.
This goes together so well with LM/Muzzled’s post ‘anti-FATCA/CBT “To Do” List for 2015. I think getting our issues heard by those who will deal with the next round of “tax reform” is a necessary part of the game. Even if we don’t merit a long write-up in the Sen rept, we are listed and will obviously be part of the argument about residence-based taxation. I see two senators from OH (my home state) and another from Idaho (where I lived for a time) and I will write them in such a way to make them recognize I am not an idea or some traitorous rich tax evader, but someone who could have grown up next door to them. We need to reach them in a way where they can relate to us as people. Put it out plainly in a way they can “get it.” I don’t think most of them have a clue about the reality of what is happening and we have a new chance to try and get this right. Since I am not talking about connecting to Schumer or Grassley, I will avoid assuming they (my guys) are automatically against us ( though keeping in mind, what they may assume, if that makes any sense).
I have never been one to spend a lot of time writing politicans but am willing to give this a try. Imagine if this actually could turn out to be easier than we imagine. If someone had told me three years ago that the IRS would have produced a program that meant no OVDI, I would have thought the person was nuts. No FBAR penalties? Yeah, right. Or that I could have made a so-called “Quiet Disclosure” without any fear of fines, I would presume they were lying. IOW, there are some things that over time, are better than they were.
If nothing else, along with ADCS suit, Bopp suit, Florida/Texas bankers suit, etc, just another way to try and chip away of another chunk of what needs to go………..
OTOH:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/business/international/china-starts-enforcing-tax-law-for-citizens-working-abroad.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
2015 will bring the collapse that will free us in its confusion and devastation. ‘Meanwhile, the US is stupidly waging currency war against other nations that can only blow back by incurring the animosity of every trading partner we have on the only planet available to live on. In 2015, I expect Russia to enlist China’s aid in undermining the dollar’s reserve status. Both countries have weaponry in the form of cash reserves and gold in their vaults. They also have the computer hacking expertise to start seriously messing with US markets — as much Fed technicians and TBTF bank algos do — bringing on mysterious flash crashes, derivatives “accidents,” and other abnormal events that will leave even the Goldman Sachs MIT graduates scratching their heads. Such hacking may accomplish what years of arrant market interventions by US technicians failed to produce: a deadly loss of faith on all the institutions that govern money and markets. Then the US will be the cleanest shirt in a laundry basket that is on fire.’
http://kunstler.com/forecast/forecast-2015
Don’t miss this 2015 prediction because it is the most encouraging article and people should take heart that the system won’t last through the year. When all these events transpire the IRS will be neutered and to be laughed at. Hold on fellow Brockers, the light at the end of the tunnel is getting brighter and brighter
Dax- just as I was starting to get hopeful I read the article on the PRC apparently moving toward CBT! Imagine the complexity if someone holds more than one citizenship that taxes on the basis of CBT!! One step forward and five steps back
imagine this scenario: being a Chinese national who who happens to be a “US person” but now lives in Canada !
@Steve
Obviously any form of “citizenship-based taxation” is bad. But, it really depends on what is meant by “citizenship-based taxation”.
For example:
Eritrea has “citizenship-based taxation” but is a flat % of (I think) income. This is easy to calculate. It is more like a “surtax” or an “additional tax”. I am not trying to excuse it or justify it. But, the Eritrean version is NOT like the U.S. version. As these posts suggest, the U.S. version of Citizenship-based taxation is:
1. A disguised from of “life control” (There are many examples, but think of the tax complications if you marry a non-citizen, etc.)
2. Really does result in true “double taxation” of various forms of income
3. Really does result in the taxation of certain kinds of income that are not taxable in the country of residence
4. Is structured to penalize retirement planning in local investment vehicles
5. Is impossible to calculate without expensive professional help
6.Necessitates compliance costs that often exceed the tax
So, the question really is:
What does China mean by “citizenship-based taxation”? China could mean the kinder Eritrean version, the completely unworkable U.S. version or something in between.
The U.S. could make a lot of changes to its rules and still have citizenship-based taxation.
https://fatcalegalaction.com/
Donate to the litigation. Participation in the litigation will help to make LEGISLATION.
A $2 or $10 donation sends a message that people care enough to put money on it.
With regard to the potential adoption of residence-based taxation in the US: I just want to be sure that people who have been gone from US shores for decades already, who knew nothing of their tax liabilities in the US and have never filed a US tax return, will be considered exactly what they are, *already gone*. No exit taxes or penalties for past “transgression”. I remain very concerned about pitfalls and traps for us during a potential transition period from CBT to RBT.
MuzzeldNoMore: Bravo (or Brava)!!!
Also, for “accidentals” or others who didn’t know they were considered U.S. Persons until recently, or who thought they had already given up their U.S. citizenship and then found out that the law was changed retroactively, change the citizenship laws to make citizenship for non-resident “U.S. Persons” opt-in, as it once was. People born in the U.S. who then left and established their residence and citizenship in another country, but still wanted to remain a U.S. citizen, would have to return to the US. periodically (I think it used to be every seven years), and maintain a US, passport. Children born to American parents in another country would need to be registered at birth (or a certain short period later) with a U.S. embassy or consulate, or could apply as an adult by proving their American parentage, and would need to live in the U.S. at least periodically, and maintain a U.S. passport, etc. Otherwise, people who are allowed to become U.S. citizens would not have this citizenship imposed on them, and they would not be entitled to have an American passport, vote in American elections, receive benefits of American citizenship, or to live and work except as permitted to a foreign national.
If we concentrate only on removing U.S.tax obligations from non-resident “U.S.Persons” we stlll leave the U.S. taint on many Canadian citizens (or French, British, German, Swiss, Colombian, etc.) who do not want to be Americans even if they are not required to report to the IRS.
Thanks again, MuzzledNoMore and everyone else who has commented on this issue.
CBT for the Chinese: why not? Imagine being Chinese, being a US person for some reason, and living in, say, Europe. Triple taxation, anybody? Being tax compliant would probably be impossible, at least for anybody with meaningful economic activity. What a joke.
Looks like the USA is no longer the only country that taxes it’s citizens based on birthplace. I wondered how long it would take another country to “find” a law buried in the law books that would copy the USA’s controlling tax system. I wonder when other countries will do the same. It is a “monkey see, monkey do” type reaction. Soon, the whole world will be screwed.
@USCitizenAbroad, re: Eritrea’s ‘citizenship based taxation’, my understanding (someone correct me if I am wrong) is that birth on Eritrean soil is not enough to make one an Eritrean, so at least with Eritrea there are no ‘accidental Eritreans’ which makes its form of citizenship based taxation more like true CITIZENSHIP based taxation, rather than ‘place of birth’ taxation as is enshrined in US law.
John Richardson (and Tricia) are saying that it might be a good idea to educate better the U.S. Senate Finance Committee on the immorality of citizenship-based taxation — with the hope that this might increase the likelihood that residence-based taxation legislation will be introduced.
Those who do not care about U.S. laws will immediately trash this idea. I suppose those even those who do care can dismiss it from the start because there is good possibility that it may be a waste of time and that, even if successful, any final legislation might not contain everything that we want. But I support John’s suggestion because to me it makes sense.
I am encouraged by the report of the Republican staffers in the Senate Finance Committee who actually admitted that there should be changes in the tax laws that affect us. My initial thought would be to find out the names of those staffers (one? more than one?) and build a working relationship.
We should pursue John’s suggestion. However, my own default always is that the political process will never work in my lifetime and that we also seriously need to consider, as Plan B or maybe Plan A, how we will raise funds for a U.S. “citizenship-based taxation” constitutional lawsuit.
@Stephen Kisk, @Shadowraider made a lot of contacts in congress and had lots of meetings to present FBAR issues and support this cause. He might be one of the best persons to help with that.
He may already have contacts in the Senate Finance Committee.
I’m sorry, but that article is just wrong. The author badly misunderstood the whole thing, mixing Chinese residents with foreign income with Chinese citizens living abroad, and worldwide taxation with CBT. No, China does not tax people based on citizenship, nor is it planning to do so. You can check the individual income tax law straight from a Chinese government website here (the law is surprisingly short and simple). The criteria are domicile and residence, there is no mention of citizenship or nationality anywhere.
China is trying to enforce worldwide taxation, on its residents, and it has created something similar to the FBAR, for its residents. Chinese citizens living abroad are not subject to this.
The “extra deduction” he mentioned in the article is not for “overseas citizens” like the FEIE. As the tax law clarly explains, it’s for foreign income of Chinese residents and for Chinese income of nonresidents. Absolutely nothing to do with citizenship.
I repeat: China is not adopting or enforcing CBT. Just ignore that article.
@USCitizenAbroad, The tax rate for Eritreans abroad is 2%.
@WhiteKat, You’re right, Eritrean nationality is transmitted by descent, like almost all countries outside the Americas. Being born in Eritrea doesn’t confer nationality unless the parents are unknown.
Neither house of congress nor the president are serious about tax reform. What they want is to appear to be serious, but seriousness is hard to fake.
There is a way to reform the code and they all know it, but they will stand around and debate ways to keep the code and put amendments to the 73,000 pages and then stand back and reap the rewards they get for not totally destroying it and passing the FairTax, which even those who say they are for it really are glad only one fourth of the house, who cosponsor it, are glad and it will gather dust for 2 years and then dye when congress is over. Bah Humbug—a pox on them all.
Milton Friedman explained why Mr. Tidwell is right back in 1976. I can’t manage to paste the link on my iPad but Google ‘ tax reform; an impossible dream’ Not that I agree with the so called fair tax.
@ Dax, Steve, Unreal and Fred
Shadow Raider is correct.
You should also read Eric’s comment here:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/media-and-blog-articles-open-for-comments/comment-page-103/#comment-5174873
China is NOT imposing US sytle CBT on its citizens who live outside of China.
Oops … “sytle” should be “style”