Small update
Thanks to USCitizenAbroad for posting links re Ms Ran Kim. Here is a piece she is listed on while interning at Caplin & Drysdale in Washington, D.C. (2012-2013, 2014)
Scott D. Michel, Zhanna Ziering & Young Ran Kim, U. S. Offshore Account Enforcement Issues, 16 J. Tax Practice & Procedure 65 (Aug./Sep. 2014).
U. S. Offshore Account Enforcement Issues
CONSIDERING "CITIZENSHIP TAXATION":
IN DEFENSE OF #FATCA– Hands Down Worst Academic Piece About FATCA ever Written https://t.co/qYvsrzpEyL— Patricia Moon (@nobledreamer16) May 27, 2017
Profesor Paul Caron, on his TaxProfBlog posted the following article:
CONSIDERING “CITIZENSHIP TAXATION”:
IN DEFENSE OF FATCA 20 Fla. Tax Rev. 335 (2017):
by Young Ran (Christine) Kim
If any description could possibly be demonstrated over & over in this piece it would be the term “offensive.” I confess to a hard-edged bias against academia, likely for the same reasons as most people; i.e., the rather noticeable and consistent lack of everyday common sense. Even in my own field (piano performance, where a doctorate is called a DMA not a Phd) there is a prevalence of people who may be perfectly schooled in the accuracy of Baroque ornaments, precise methods of articulation in Classic-period pieces or any number of other tedious accomplishments yet their actual playing (which is the whole point of a performance degree vs an academic one) is so devoid of vitality and inspiration it is enough to make one weep. I don’t know if the same exists in all disciplines but one thing that does apply here is a complete (and I mean complete) lack of awareness on the part of the author, of the harshness of how these theories play out on the lives of REAL people. What would make much more sense would be to address these problems head-on rather than justify “concepts” through a lot of theoretical jargon.
The following comment says it well:
The people affected by “citizenship-based taxation” are U.S. citizens and Green Card holders who live outside the USA and are “tax residents” (and often citizens) of other nations. The paper discusses (sort of) “citizenship-based taxation” as an abstract concept without considering the brutal effects that it has on the people subjected to it. The acknowledgement of the difficulties with pensions, retirement planning, foreign spouses, mutual funds, CFC rules, etc. (the reality of citizenship taxation) is most notable in its absence. And no, FBAR and Form 8938 (as obnoxious as they may be) are reporting requirements and not the specific tax rules (PFIC, etc.) that affect Americans abroad. I suspect that this paper will be subjected to the criticism that it so richly deserves.
Posted by: John Richardson | May 26, 2017 1:14:02 PM
While this criticism can be equally leveled at the members of Congress who passed FATCA, the Treasury Department personnel who wrote the regulations and last but not least, the heartlessness of many tax compliance practitioners, there is something especially repugnant about those pontificating from their ivory towers, proclaiming that FATCA, citizenship-based taxation, global transparency and all the rest of it, are worth the grief being caused.
Ms Kim indicates her paper finds its origins in Ruth Mason’s recent article, Citizenship Taxation, [89 S. Cal. L. Rev. 169 (2016),
A major difference between the two is that Ms Mason basically sees citizenship taxation in a negative light while Ms. Kim attempts to find it as a natural basis to support FATCA.
She addresses three main arguments; the fairness argument, the efficiency argument and the administrative argument.
I.) THE FAIRNESS ARGUMENT
Individual taxpayers’ obligations to file Foreign Bank Account Reports (FBAR) or report under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) are not seriously onerous. The fact that citizenship taxation along with FBAR and FATCA enhances global transparency further supports the case for citizenship taxation……..because the rules have been improved through various exceptions and substantially high reporting threshold amounts.
Ms. Kim asserts that the obligation to file FBARS is not “seriously onerous.” The very real threat of a non-willful penalty of $10,000 per account per year (or worse for “willful) is certainly enough to strike the fear of God in even the most reticent individual. The idea that this reality is not considered when evaluating FBAR is beyond reasonable. Articles about FATCA often cover only the reporting done by the FFI’s. However, the other component is the requirement to file 8938’s which duplicate information from the FBAR and can incur serious penalties. The average person is not able to complete an 8938 and will have to pay to have a professional do it. Nowhere in this article does the author address the issue of compliance costs for individuals which can easily be $2500 a year for someone owing no tax and involve 50 or more pages of returns. Not onerous? Furthermore, there are simply NO FIGURES yet, to make any claim that FATCA “enhances global transparency.” Professor William Byrnes describes
the oft-quoted figure of $10 billion. This amount has absolutely NOTHING to do with FATCA; it is largely comprised of penalties and interest collected through the OVDI programs (and does not even represent actual tax recovered). While the FATCA thresholds are higher, please, the threshold for FBAR remains at $10,000, the same figure when the Act was created in 1970 – 47 YEARS AGO!
FOCUSING ON THE ABILITY TO PAY PRINCIPLE
First, consent theory argues that taxing nonresident citizens is justified because retaining citizenship represents consent to such taxation.
One cannot consent to something one doesn’t even know about. Is the author completely unaware of the history underlying the persecution of expats once Treasury/Justice went after the Swiss banks in 2008? There are still likely more Americans abroad who remain unaware of the obligation to file taxes and worse yet, the oppressive information returns with penalties simply for not filing a piece of paper (i.e. no tax due). For those who do know and who retain citizenship, keeping it is much a matter of confusion and fear and could hardly be described as “consenting to taxation.”
Second, benefit theory attempts to justify citizenship taxation as an obligation of nonresident citizens in return for the benefits they receive from the government.
This argument is so ridiculous at this point it is hard to believe it remains part of the discussion. Cook v Tait is nearly 100 years old and does not address the large changes globalization has produced. There is the endless nonsense of hearing how “The Marines will come to rescue you,” after which you receive a full bill. How many living in first-world countries have any need for “rescue?” And last but not least we “owe” the U.S. for consular services (for which we pay, dearly in the case of renouncing – $2350 or $50 USD to notarize a single page). All tiresome and nowhere near justifiable for being taxed “the same” as Homelanders.
Third, social obligation theory
the underlying assumption of this theory is that people have an obligation to pay taxes to support the members of the society to which they belong in accordance with their ability to pay taxes, which should be measured by their worldwide income.
I remember my reaction to Prof Michael Kirsch’s comments (at the ACA Program in Toronto, May 2014, “CBT vs RBT”)regarding polity and such. It seemed ridiculous to me to consider those of us living outside the United States as being a member of that society in any meaningful way. In my own life, now 35 years outside the U.S.(over half my life), the only times I identified as a “member ” of U.S. society was when defending against strong anti-American sentiment (the first few years away) and national tragedies such as 911. I cannot see any way that those infrequent occurrences defined me as being an American more than being a Canadian. I would say a more meaningful and valid way to apply the social obligation theory is whether or not I support policies that promote the social welfare of those around me, whether or not I give the homeless guy I see everytime I go to the bank, a bit of money so he can buy some lunch. IOW, except in an idealistic or nostalgic way, one can really only measure his/her “social obligation” based upon what they come face-to-face with, i.e., where they live.
Due to the different factors affecting the ability to pay, such as difference in the standard of living or amenities between places, “it would be fairer to calculate a person’s ability to pay by reference to the place where she lives rather than to the place where she holds her citizenship.”
“actually tax them alike,” which would require the repeal of the foreign-earned income exclusion and the allowance of unlimited foreign tax credits, including foreign consumption taxes, as well as the implicit taxes and subsidies to compensate the differences.
While all expats readily understand the reality that they are NOT “taxed the same” as Homelanders, the idea of being able to adjust all these factors to the number of foreign countries with all the differences in structure etc., absolutely discourages any realistic notion that this could ever be accomplished. Current retirement-oriented plans such as the Australian Super; the lack of recognition of tax-deferred vehicles registered by governments being treated the same as their US equivalents; requiring capital gains tax on the sale of principle residences which are tax-free in the countries where they are located ; and above all else, the obscene “savings clause,” all speak to the built-in bias the US has for anything “foreign” and its pronounced tendency to punish people for making use of non-US instruments. Add the effect of the Patriot Act, which makes it impossible to even open a US account with a foreign address and a non-resident American understandably lacks the will to try and weave one’s way through all these complicated, impossible-to-delineate requirements and procedures. The fact that the IRS does not clarify ambivalent sections such as §877A as well as the fact that no two compliance professionals can be counted on to give the same opinion is proof positive that disparate tax systems simply cannot be adjusted “fairly.”
when its critics condemned the new obligations to file FBARs and FATCA as an excessive compliance burden for nonresident citizens created by the Bank Secrecy Act.
There are no “new” obligations to file FBARs; they have been required (and unenforced) since 1970 and are part of Title 31. FATCA was NOT created by the Bank Secrecy Act. It comprises part of the H.I.R.E. Act (2010) and is part of 26 U.S.C. § 1471–1474, § 6038D.
II.) THE EFFICIENCY ARGUMENT
citizenship taxation may distort both Americans’ and non-Americans’ citizenship decisions, is not convincing
American citizenship renunciation rate is not particularly serious compared to other countries
residence-based taxation confronts an additional hurdle on top of enforcement difficulties: determining the residence of the individuals. Determining residence by considering all facts and circumstances creates problems beyond enforcement difficulties. The facts-and-circumstances test itself contains inherent problems when compared to a bright-line test
….and to what extent renunciation is treated as immoral and/or illegal, and so on.
The idea that citizenship taxation does not affect the decisions of Americans abroad concerning their citizenship is patently absurd. Without question, citizenship taxation IS THE MAIN REASON anyone renounces. Not because of tax per sé (don’t even think of trying to scare with the Reed Amendment) but rather, due to all the complications of trying to match two different tax systems. Add the non-financial issues such as the stress on marriages (to “aliens”), passing U.S. citizenship on one’s children, etc. etc. It has become a nightmare not worth living and something to escape if one can.
Ms. Kim devotes a long section to establishing the idea that the renunciation rate of U.S. citizens is “not particularly serious.” Again, we have someone indicating that unless the numbers are large, whether compared to that of other countries, the proportion of renunciations to the numbers of those abroad or to the number of entering immigrants, there is nothing being lost here. If that is the case, then the U.S. has virtually nothing to lose by simply letting these people go without all the forms, swearing under penalty of perjury and so on. One might occasionally consider that Americans abroad were once the best ambassadors the country could have. Now those tables are turned and some are more anti-American than any “alien” could ever be. Nothing like betrayal to warm the heart.
Regarding determination of residency, it is interesting that all 191 other countries of the world are able to surmount this difficult obstacle, which will be even more pronounced once CRS is operative. The “bright line test” which I presume means using citizenship rather than residency to base reporting on, is not truly useful given the fact that only the U.S. (Eritrea does not count) does this. When a U.S. citizen is living abroad with dual citizenship, with no determinant indicia, ask any bank how easy it is to establish whether or not one is a U.S. citizen. If it were clear, one would not see so many institutions refusing to serve Americans.
The Expatriation Act of 1868 gives all Americans the right to give up their citizenship if they so desire. It is not an issue of illegality. When a country treats its own citizens in the manner we have experienced from 2009 onwards (particularly the Accidental Americans who are not American in any normal understanding of the term), who is there to even suggest renunciation is immoral?
III.) THE ADMINISTRATIVE ARGUMENT
ENFORCEMENT DIFFICULTIES
Citizenship taxation has been criticized as difficult to enforce on nonresident citizens abroad….Determining residence by considering all facts and circumstances creates problems beyond enforcement difficulties
Next to failing to point out the outrageous 30% withholding “sanction” inflicted on every other country of the world, this has to be the weakest argument in this paper. The fact that the U.S. cannot effectively collect anything outside of the country is the number one reason people feel safe in remaining “under the radar.” After the initial scare of 2009/2011 seeing that the people hurt the worst were those who tried to do the right thing, people started considering the reality that being identified (“caught”) may amount to virtually nothing for a number of reasons. First of all, the majority of expats who are not compliant are NOT wealthy tax cheats with foreign accounts in order to deprive the U.S. of tax revenue. They are first of all, compliant where they live, which speaks volumes. Secondly, they have these “foreign” accounts in order to live their lives. This is in no way comparable to Homelanders who are guilty of tax evasion when they stash money in tax havens (and let’s not forget Delaware, Nevada, South Dakota and Wyoming, shall we?). The Revenue Rule still stands; even the 5 countries with Mutual Collection Agreements (Canada, Denmark, Sweden, France and the Netherlands)WILL NOT collect on those who were citizens of their countries at the time the tax was incurred. Canada WILL NOT collect FBAR penalties. With regard to fear about crossing the border, if one is not in the U.S. system, there is nothing for the IRS to report to DHS or CBP etc. All these things may change over time but as it stands now, the most IRS can do to most people, is send them a letter asking them to pay. EXACTLY WHAT IS THE POINT OF HOLDING ON TO CBT IF THERE IS NO WAY TO COLLECT?
Is the Compliance Burden Actually Onerous?
the IRS has provided the OVDI that a U.S. taxpayer can utilize to avoid criminal sanctions for the failure to report the existence of, and income earned on, a foreign account on tax returns as well as for the non-filing of the FBAR. In exchange for avoiding criminal sanctions, taxpayers will generally be subject to a 27.5% penalty on the highest aggregate value of their undisclosed offshore assets.86 In addition, for non-willful violators, IRS provides Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures (SFCP), a program that was expanded in 2014 to cover a broader spectrum of U.S. taxpayers residing abroad and to provide penalty relief. Therefore, nonresident citizens who no longer have a strong economic and social connection with the United States or happenstance Americans are no longer likely to be subject to the severe FBAR penalties.
To suggest that OVDI and Streamlined “make everything alright” is to avoid the real issue altogether which is that citizenship taxation is simply wrong. No other country on earth “claims” its citizens for life. (Eritrea does not count). No other country on earth taxes its citizens after they abandon residence. No other country on earth applies an Exit Tax on assets that were acquired prior to obtaining residence in that country. There are reasons why no other countries do any of the things associated with citizenship taxation. It’s high time the United States stop this appalling abuse of human rights.
THIS ARTICLE FURTHER AIMS TO DEFEND the administrability of citizenship taxation in conjunction with the Foreign Bank Account Reports (FBARs) and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).
FBAR-absolutely not the way it is being conceived of now. FBAR, created in 1970 was aimed at uncovering money being laundered in smuggling, the drug trade and terrorism. It also was not originally conceived of being applied to those outside the U.S. Once the DOJ/Treasury departments went after the Swiss banks, they realized they could stretch the intent of FBAR to apply to non-resident Americans and the penalty regime thickened.
The criticism… has continued even after the U.S. government committed to enter into Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) in an attempt to address those concerns
A huge oversight on the part of the author. FATCA was without question an extraterritorial imposition on other countries. Only the United States would be as uncivil as to suggest imposing a 30% withholding charge on their allies and trading partners. The U.S. appeared not to understand that other countries could not comply even if they wanted to as privacy laws prevented the level of reporting required by FATCA. Banks would be sued were they to comply. To suggest that the US committing to the IGAs was a gracious act is revolting. Under the guise of being rooted in tax treaties, the IGAs simply bypassed what should have been required; that Congress ratify such agreements and implement legislation to do so. There is nothing in FATCA that warrants the creation of the IGAs. The U.S. downloaded ALL of the costs of compliance to the other countries. There is no mention of any penalties for the U.S. failing to comply. The U.S. made only the vaguest promises of reciprocity. It is simply unbelievable that the immorality of taking capital out of other nations is considered acceptable by the United States.
IV>) FATCA:MERITS AND CONCERNS
The OECD’s AEOI and the U.S. FATCA are two important developments, but FATCA plays a more important role.
First, FATCA provided critical momentum
Second, FATCA facilitates multilateral implementation of AEOI by creating an extensive network with more than 100 countries in the world, at the center of which is the United States.
This is unsubstantiated nonsense. First of all, it is bizarre to say FATCA “plays a more important role” Who gains from FATCA other than the United States? So far, nobody. The United States is at the Center of AEOI/CRS? The US has not even signed on to CRS. There are huge differences that matter greatly. The OECD AEOI/CRS agreements are determined by the countries involved; the terms of residency are established by those exchanging the information. FATCA is vastly different in that the United States alone determines who is/is not a “US Person” “US Citizen” irrespective of the status of such a person to the other country. And so far, the U.S. is not “paying its fair share” by requiring its banks to implement the same systems and legislation required (imposed) by FATCA. The IGAs do not constitute “acceptance” by other countries. To think otherwise is ridiculous. One could not possibly view such stipulations as reasonable.
criticism that…. FATCA exposes taxpayers’ private information to potential abusive use by foreign tax authorities.
This is a matter of real concern to Americans abroad living in some of the more troubled areas of the world-or those living Colombia in South America and particularly in some of the Middle East countries. Ironically enough, the U.S. has had some of the worst breaches of security and leakage of private information; certainly this is disturbing and worrisome.
Ms. Kim’s discussion of the Bopp FATCA lawsuit I will leave to someone else.
Second, opponents of FATCA and EOI argue that an EOI system removes a country’s unilateral control over its own tax policy, resulting in the forfeiture of sovereign autonomy. Although such argument has withered since the U.S. government entered into IGAs with other countries, it was strongly asserted by Canadian opponents of FATCA when the IGA Implementation Act included in Bill-31 was debated in Canadian Parliament.
How outrageous to suggest a foreign country does not have the right to have unilateral control over its own tax policy. The proof is in the pudding. The U.S. would never allow the equivalent. The IGA’s are the proof.
I have watched the video of the Canadian FINA hearings on FATCA many, many times. It is not possible to convey the absolute disgust we have for the majority Conservative government which minimized completely, the capitulation that occurred with the implementation of the IGA. It was nothing more than protecting the banks, without any regard to the effect it would have on Canadian citizens resident in Canada.
However, a government’s control over its tax policy is more severely harmed when a country segregates itself from the global community and loses the ability to enforce effectively its own tax laws against its taxpayers with interests in foreign jurisdictions
More unsubstantiated nonsense. This is an opinion completely unsupported up by any facts.
A Case for American Exceptionalism
conclusion, if FATCA makes the world better off by enhancing global transparency on tax information, then this may serve as another support for citizenship taxation, as well as an example of constructive exceptionalism.
While all of us raised in America understand unconsciously what exceptionalism is, it truly takes living outside the country to appreciate how incredibly arrogant and offensive it is. It is questionable whether FATCA “makes the world better off….” that a questionable tenet should “serve as a support for the imposition of citizenship taxation.” It is nothing short of reprehensible that the author should suggest what the U.S. has done is “constructive” or in any way justifies the gross aberration of power demonstrated by the creation of FATCA.
“That’s a damn insult to people who have no connection to the US except for place of birth (or birth outside the US to a USC parent). You cannot be a member of a society you have absolutely no connection to or interaction with. And people should be recognised for what they are, not what one would like them to be or think they should be. So, not right to call people something they’re not in the first place — and second, she’s implying that persons outside the US classified by the US as US citizens, are societal deadbeats if they’re not in the US tax system”
Exactly, when they’re called out on it, they resort to ad hominem attacks and jingoistic crap like “Since we’re defending the world, you guys should be paying for it.” Exactly the reason why I hate these assholes. There is no reasoning with these idiots. And especially those like Kim who are blinded by US exceptionalism to the point where there is no logical communication.
It reminds me of an old adage. “You can educate someone, but it doesn’t mean they’re smart.”
@TheAnimal
What a huge thing we have in common! Who could have known? (As a friend of mine often says……….)
Am familiar with Edward J. Parker. I think perfect pitch is overrated. Memorization, unfortunately a must. Always memorized first. It can be taught in such a way that each develops his/her own method……….despise the RCM and won’t go on about it. Gr 10 is great-though nowadays, except for the GGPS and YPS, the level is waaaaaaay down. They pass people who have no business having an ARCT in performance. They have destroyed the Teacher’s Program-turning it into an expensive pablum that requires no talent whatsoever-just passing endless, stupid exams. I won’ t go near the place in spite of great reports about Koerner Hall etc.
Came to Canada via studying pno at Banff Schl Fine Arts 1980. I would have killed to have had lessons as a child. Did not start until 14; horrible teacher and 2 yrs later-first rate. Had to do it in a hurry to get into university etc………It does come back. I have stopped/started several times since arriving here. I am more into late Romantic, Impressionism and all things 20th century and onwards. Current injury prevents. But still hoping for a period of playing before kick off………..LOL
@Eric
Indeed I can see you are working on it and look forward to reading it.
In spite of her statistics etc, I really don’t see the point. The focus of the piece is citizenship taxation. Comparing renunciation figures for the US due to CBT to those of other countries who do not practice CBT does not define the seriousness of US number. Seems to me its just another “you don’t matter because we have 730,000 more entering each year” piece of BS.
Ok, point taken re Singapore numbers. Respect to Singapore government for being adults about the matter.
Eric: according to Kim’s table, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan all had higher rates of renunciation than the US. She tries to attribute that to conscription…
Me: It seems relevant to note that in Taiwan, since 2016, conscription (of male nationals) is for four months, down from eight before that (when my nephew served).
Eric: In reality, childhood emigrants and emigrants’ kids are exempt from conscription in those countries,
Me: In Taiwan, it’s complicated,and Forumosa.com is always answering questions about this. One issue is how to determine who is a citizen or national (since, strange to say, the military has a different view than the Ministry of the Interior). Another issue has to do with how one acquires, or loses, Overseas Chinese / Overseas Compatriot status. (Your passport has to have a certain stamp, and if you stay in the country too long, you may get drafted anyway.)
Eric: and it looks like their high renunciation rates are due to prohibitions on dual citizenship (Taiwan doesn’t forbid dual citizenship, but most of their renunciants were naturalising in South Korea or Japan which do forbid dual citizenship). Am working on a post about this theme.
Me: South Korea changed its law several years ago, although immigrants there have to apply for permission to be dual. (As I understand it, permission is more readily given to those who marry Koreans, and to “elite” types of foreigners. There are message boards about this too.)
Very nice writeup by John Richardson. Couldn’t have been better done.
If she is a grad student then she is singing to the chorus, that being her adviser Take it up with her adviser. Might even be a Ms Bean lookalike.
Just read the update to this thread, the Caplin Drysdale article with Kim as a co-author. Wow! Did my wife lose the birth lottery or what???
Fuck them all. The sooner the us dollar collapses as the worthless piece of paper it is (and who is stupid enough to buy all these us treasuries the rest of the world is dumping in droves ……hmmmmm, maybe the us government trying to pretend all is well??) the happier I will be. Freedom at last, when the rest of the world no longer cares what the evil empire thinks.
Pacifica pointed out:
“Ms. Kim wrote in that article as a justification for CBT:
“. . . social obligation theory provides that, as a member of American society, nonresident citizens also have an obligation to contribute taxes according to their ability to pay. The underlying assumption of this theory is that people have an obligation to pay taxes to support the members of the society to which they belong.” [emphasis added]
This is a direct lift from Michael Kirsch whose writings some of us waded through years ago. It sounds like Ms. Kim’s whole paper is nothing more than similar regurgitation so I’ll give this one a pass. I appreciate the time and energy some of you have put in in response to it.
@PierreD, Unfortunately, there are a lot of sycophantic US loving foreign politicians in power to go around. Like you, I wish every day for economic collapse of the United States and a day where the reserve currency of the world is no longer the US dollar – this coming from a person who was nothing but enamored of the United States in his adolescence.
@MuzzledNoMore “nonresident citizens also have an obligation to contribute taxes according to their ability to pay.” And that is what pisses every expat off is the attitude of entitlement of these Homelanders to think that we should pay for their benefits that they use every day while we expatriates get no benefit of being able to use those benefits that Homelanders get to use every day for the tax dollars that expatriates have to pay into the US national coffers.
Any plagiarism should definitely be brought to the attention of (a) the journal editors, and (b) her department chair (and possibly other administrators as well). And if you can establish that a good portion of her paper was in fact plagiarized (not just a stray passage that can be explained as an error), then there would be no wiggling out of it–her career would be over.
MuzzledNoMore:
Kirsch appears to me to have been saying something quite different, at least in his paper titled “Revisiting the tax treatment of citixens abroad etc”
This true, and I’ve seen it happening over the fifty years I’ve lived in the UK. When I moved to England, I arrived by sea – then the cheapest way to travel. I seldom bumped into another American. America was a world away – exactly the reason I moved. Even airmail postage was a significant expense – significant enough for the Post Office to sell special foldable one-sheet no-envelope tissue paper for the purpose. Transatlantic telephone calls were out of the question other than in emergencies. There were so few Americans in London that American Express let us use the London office as a poste restante address.
Over the years, as air flight got cheaper, more arrived, and more, and more, and more – as tourists or on temporary work assignments but seldom to live in England as a purely English resident. These new arrivals did (and do) indeed see themselves as Americans abroad, and live lives surrounded by other Americans, reading American news, voting in American elections.
These are the Americans Kirsch is suggesting have a “social obligation” to America, and his argument on this point does not seem to me unreasonable.
His error is to assume that having a US passport – i.e., failure to renounce – identifies a person as an American abroad. It does not. It identifies a person as someone who doesn’t want to be permanently banned from visiting American relatives and prevented from flying over a huge area of the globe.
Re the block quote in Iota’s comment, above, replying to Muzzled No More, which block-quotes both me and Muzzled No More, I’d just like to clarify that the final sentence – “This is a direct lift from Michael Kirsch whose writings some of us waded through years ago” — is from Muzzled-No-More’s comment (the rest of the block-quote is from mine).
I didn’t comment on Michael Kirsch, wasn’t even thinking of him as I posted yesterday. I recall reading his paper, hearing him speak in Toronto in 2014 and having a brief discussion with him at that time about the situation of persons who do not have the mental capacity to renounce, something that bugs the hell out of me. My impression is that he seemed to come across a bit more nuanced about CBT and its implications on real people than Ms. Kim. That said, I still don’t support his stance on CBT as I categorically oppose it.
Not having read his article recently, I don’t have any opinion on whether Ms. Kim took any direct lifts from it.
@Pacifica – apologies, I should have reformatted it to make it clear that I was responding to MuzzledNoMore’s comment, not yours.
Pacifica: “Not having read his article recently, I don’t have any opinion on whether Ms. Kim took any direct lifts from it.”
Me: Not having read Ms Kim’s article, neither do I.
Kirsch is taken seriously, therefore his opinions are worth contesting. IMO, grad students are not taken seriously – nor (usually) should they be, as demonstrated by Ms Kim’s misinterpretation of what Kirsch wrote. She would have done better to quote his words rather than attempting to paraphrase. IMO.
@Iota, No apology needed — I’m probably super-picky ’cause I work as a proofreader — but thanks anyway.
@iota – “His error is to assume that having a US passport – i.e., failure to renounce – identifies a person as an American abroad. It does not. It identifies a person as someone who doesn’t want to be permanently banned from visiting American relatives and prevented from flying over a huge area of the globe.”
I’ll go one farther, and say that for some, “failure to renounce” is indicative of their financial status in that they don’t have the $2350.00 necessary now to renounce a citizenship that they no longer want. For us that is 1/9th of our annual income.
“I’ll go one farther, and say that for some, “failure to renounce” is indicative of their financial status in that they don’t have the $2350.00 necessary now to renounce a citizenship that they no longer want.”
Absolutely. And some are simply not allowed to renounce – ever.
If one votes in a US election,requests a US passport ,etc,you are exercising a privilege /benefit of being an American ,no matter where you are living,no matter what your source of income ,no matter what other national obligations you may have. By exercising any rights bestowed on an American, you identify yourself as an American.
In some measure ,one can buy into that logic. However, if one doesn’t takes any privileges or receive any benefits, one should have no obligations as well. As Kim doesn’t acknowledge such reciprocity but asserts the opposite, the only useful benefit of her report would be at the bottom of someone’s
birdcage.
@Robert Ross said:
“..if one doesn’t takes any privileges or receive any benefits, one should have no obligations as well.”
From the USG’s point of view, a person with US citizenship always has what they regard as the most significant benefit of all: right to enter and reside in America. The right can always be exercised, as long as the person is a citizen.
They reason on that basis that the person always has the obligations including paying US tax. But it’s obvious that the alternative, and just, solution is to let those who don’t want the blessings to renounce without hindrance and have exactly the same status as any other “non resident alien.”
And IMO the reason they don’t do that (let people go in peace without trying to stop them) is exactly the same reason the Russians shot people for trying to climb over the Berlin Wall.
And that’s my conclusion. Took me a long time but I got there. 🙂
Pacifica & iota: My apologies! I forgot to put a closing quotation mark at the end of the blockquote. Sorry for the confusion. I take full responsibility for what I said. And with that, I need to clarify further to:
Zla’od: I didn’t intend to suggest that Ms. Kim had plagiarized Mr. Kirsch’s work, only that she was regurgitating his ideas which he made quite clear at the CBT/RBT debate in Toronto several years ago as well as in his papers. He stated very clearly that US citizens wherever they lived were members of US society and, as such, he felt that they would *want* to help support it and was very surprised they would object. I should not have used the term “direct lift” and I apologize for mis-stating that.
iota, again: I appreciate you including that quote from Kirsch. He definitely thinks we should be taxed for emotional connection, family connection, visitors’ privileges, whatever you want to call our human right to return to the country where we came from. If that’s what he thinks then he should also be calling for IRS booths outside all polling stations on election day. Rights are free.
@iota
“They reason on that basis that the person always has the obligations including paying US tax.”
Just to finish on that last part ,the obligation to pay taxes
No foreign IRS offices,no foreign IRS personnel,no foreign IRS website to assist the non english speaking , no foreign IRS telephone numbers nor help lines.No foreign IRS police to enforce filing income tax requirements. Nothing. Nada.Just people made to feel obligated . To make it all legitimate they would have had to provide these services on foreign soil with their permission .and at what cost
All to say in the final analysis, the obligation is a toothless one run by the same ilk as run ransomware .
Since my comment of May 27 at 11:56 p.m. was seriously misunderstood I’m wondering if I could ask an administrator to take it down.
I usually choose my words more carefully than that. I goofed this time!
Thank you and I’m very sorry for this inconvenience.
“From the USG’s point of view, a person with US citizenship always has what they regard as the most significant benefit of all: right to enter and reside in America. The right can always be exercised, as long as the person is a citizen.”
US non-citizen nationals have the same right[*], but somehow the USG isn’t afraid to apply RBT to them.
[* Maybe some don’t; I’m not sure. Philippine citizens who were US non-citizen nationals at birth were deprived of the right to reside in the US, but otherwise remained US non-citizen nationals. For example every morning in school they put their hand over their heart and pledged allegiance to the flag of a country they weren’t allowed to reside in. I don’t know if they’re still US non-citizen nationals now. Even though the 14th amendment only prevents Congress from depriving US citizens of US citizenship, in Afroyim v. Rusk the US Supreme Court used the word nationality the same way as citizenship and might have prevented Congress from depriving US nationals of US nationality.]
“They reason on that basis that the person always has the obligations including paying US tax.”
Except that they don’t do it to non-citizen nationals.
“And IMO the reason they don’t do that (let people go in peace without trying to stop them) is exactly the same reason the Russians shot people for trying to climb over the Berlin Wall.”
Wasn’t it East Germans who did the shooting?
MuzzledNoMore: “Rights are free.”
In practical terms, rights are non-existent until/unless agreed and backed by law.
You may want a right that says everyone born in America has a right to return there. I would like a right that says where I was born does not have a bearing on how I get treated when I apply for a bank account or apply for a visa to visit America. Will either of us get our (conflicting) wishes? Who knows?
Most of all, I would like everyone to have the enforceable, unconditional, demandable right to renounce – not fenced around with threats and menaces and presumptions and extortionate demands for money, but a genuine legal right to leave.
Robert Ross: “… in the final analysis, the obligation [to pay tax] is a toothless one.”
Not entirely toothless – just largely unenforced because largely unenforceable, is my view.
I said: “From the USG’s point of view, a person with US citizenship always has what they regard as the most significant benefit of all: right to enter and reside in America. The right can always be exercised, as long as the person is a citizen.
They reason on that basis that the person always has the obligations including paying US tax.”
Norman Diamond said: “Except that they don’t do it to non-citizen nationals.”
Imperialism brings its own specific contradictions and injustices, as plentifully demonstrated by the inconsistent twists and turns of nationality laws of European former colonial powers esp. Britain.
@iota
Yes that is the bottom line. However in today’s age of use fees and so on it ould seem something other than the complete range of taxation could be used. I remember thinking early on that I would have been happy to pay some yearly amt to keep the USC even if it were more than any tax owed. It would be easier than all this crap etc. Then if one were to move back the “normal” range of taxation would apply.
Some might argue they have an unalienable right to not have to pay for their citizenship but it strikes me as too complicated to argue about…..