There is much discussion now on ending imposition of U.S. birthright citizenship for persons born in the US whose parents do not have a meaningful relationship with the country.
This discussion does NOT involve, as some very sloppy journalism suggests, ending ALL birthright citizenship, but rather, interpreting part of the already existing section one of the U.S. 14th amendment to mean that children born in U.S. to (e.g., Canadian) parents who do NOT have a legal/permanent/meaningful relationship with the U.S — should not receive U.S. citizenship at birth:
They are not actually subject to the jurisdiction of/allegiance to the U.S. — they are, for example, Canadians and they don’t deserve the benefits or negative consequences of U.S. birthright citizenship irrespective of consent or whether some might like the idea of having a second passport.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside…”
I hope that the United States Supreme Court will confirm this common sense interpretation of the U.S. 14th Amendment.
Yes.
A futile hope, IMO.
However, legislative change (or change through executive order) could yet happen. A registration system for US expats could conceivably be useful to the US as well as being helpful for some (not all) expats. If such a system would serve US interests, it may eventually come about.
“the best thing you can do is to ignore the law and not file, as long as you have no US assets.”
Yes. For many expats, that’s generally the easiest and least stressful way to live with the US tax laws. Some may be able to file and claim US tax benefits. Some may need to file for other reasons – especially in IGA2 jurisdictions. But many, perhaps most, can simply ignore.
“In order to renounce, a citizen of a non-US country should make an appointment with a US consulate or embassy, gather the required documentation, keep the appointment, pay the fee, and swear the oath of renunciation. As soon as the oath has been sworn, US citizenship ends. The CLN gets sent later.”
How does one who is NOT a USC but a US Person renounce USCship?
A citizen of a non-US country who has a US birthplace can renounce, if they can afford the fee. The $2350 gets them a CLN, which can be shown to banks to prove the individual is not a US citizen, thus increasing the chances of being allowed to open an account.
That’s the value of renouncing US citizenship – getting the CLN. Not relevant for anyone who doesn’t have a US birthplace and isn’t a US citizen.
I don’t think ND’s wife is US born. I believe her entanglement comes from ND’s good boy days of filing as US law required and as what was prudent at the time.
God what a tiresome discussion.
“How does one who is NOT a USC but a US Person renounce USCship?”
I assume this question is meant rhetorically, because of course such a person cannot renounce something they don’t have.
However, a US person with a green card can submit the form to renounce it (I-407 I think but don’t trust that as gospel) then deal with the exit tax regime if necessary, or ignore both renunciation and compliance if their situation permits because by definition they don’t have a US birthplace; if they have significant US assets they may need to play nice with tax compliance.
As for the other flavours of US person (i.e. overstaying snowbird and others I can’t think of) I expect it’s a case of taking whatever action is necessary to no longer be considered a US person, then convincing the IRS and/or home country banks of this fact (though of course the banks were likely unaware of this status).
I’m not aware of any situation where the family members of non-compliant US persons can suffer any negative consequences.
The above analysis assumes that we do not yet live in a dystopian society where every detail of our private lives is known in full by the organs of the all-seeing state (i.e. it does not apply to Japan).
Fortunately, it’s all clearly explained at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-persons
In brief:
* a US Person is a person that is not a Foreign Person
* a Foreign Person is a person that is not a US Person.
“I’m not aware of any situation where the family members of non-compliant US persons can suffer any negative consequences.”
Plaxy’s point is that it is an easy fix, pay to renounce and be done. But ND has repeatedly told us of his ife, who has some dealings in court against the US despite never being a USC and having no US sourced income nor US based assets. How then does she exit?
Plaxy also says appearing in court against the US is a choice for ND’s wife, the statement that started this little discussion. I’d say she/they were coerced to appear in court. That She/they did so under duress.
Well, yet again, no one was aware of FBAR fines for the first 40 years of FBAR either. FATCA has not yet been on line long. It is early.
“Fortunately, it’s all clearly explained at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-persons
In brief:
* a US Person is a person that is not a Foreign Person
* a Foreign Person is a person that is not a US Person.”
Yet, ND’s wife has dealings with the IRS in court, which you say is her choice.
Fortunately, it’s all clearly explained at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-persons
In brief:
* a US Person is a person that is not a Foreign Person
* a Foreign Person is a person that is not a US Person.
Don’t forget the reason why the IRS can make it so simple. US law turns US non-citizen nationals into foreign persons. More precisely, US law does this when US law does this (i.e. Title 26 US Code, income tax) but US law doesn’t do this when US law doesn’t do this (various other titles).
This is beginning to sound like Dr. Seuss, though less fun.
Luckily, many people who are or are not US persons are learning when and how to ignore the US.
Also, ND’s wife was not “the family members of non-compliant US persons” but rather the spouse of a *compliant* US person. That’s where the trouble started.
I won’t comment on what would or would not have happened differently or how an exit could be achieved because I can’t follow the story, nor do I need to.
Nononymous says:
Hear! Hear! These endless Socratic dialogues on points of semantics between a couple people here are wearing me out. I suppose it fills the gap at a time when there’s no other news.
“Don’t forget the reason why the IRS can make it so simple. ”
I guess I shouldn’t have left off the irony label.
“Plaxy’s point is that it is an easy fix, pay to renounce and be done. ”
Plaxy’s point was that considering whether CBT is constitutional, or could be challenged in a US court, doesn’t help those who don’t want or need anything from America because they can simply ignore CBT; and doesn’t help those who do want/need something from America because America has the whip hand.
“Plaxy also says appearing in court against the US is a choice”
It’s a choice even when there’s an indictment, if they don’t come get you. Stefan Buck chose to travel to America and appear in a US court. If the US had been able to get Switzerland to extradite him, that would have been coercion.
The anti-IGA actions argue that the IGAs breach Canadian/French laws that grant certain rights to all citizens. (The right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of national origin; the right not to have one’s private information handed to a foreign government without one’s consent.)
A US anti-CBT action would be arguing that US tax laws are unconstitutional when applied to certain US citizens though not unconstitutional when applied to other US citizens. In effect, it would be necessary to create a new right – a right not to be taxed like an American while residing outside America.
Not straightforward, to say the least. What’s more, America already got their fiscal fingers burned, letting non-resident corporations defer taxation. Having only just recently managed to claw back control over corporate non-resident taxation, it really doesn’t seem at all likely that they would ever relinquish control over individual non-resident control – which, after all is the key (or a key) to the taxation of non-resident corporations.
IMO.
I said:
“ it would be necessary to create a new right – a right not to be taxed like an American while residing outside America.”
Worth noting that USCs living outside America already have the ability to do this, and most do it and always have done it.
That will presumably change, if a registration scheme is brought in.
“A US anti-CBT action would be arguing that US tax laws are unconstitutional when applied to certain US citizens though not unconstitutional when applied to other US citizens.”
No, mostly the argument would not be a matter of constitutionality. It’s a matter of jurisdictional boundaries. When the US doesn’t let Ethiopia tax US residents on their US sourced income, it’s not because Ethiopia’s constitution prohibits it, it’s because Ethiopia’s jurisdiction doesn’t extend into the US.
However, I might add a constitutional issue if the opportunity arises. Since the US rules that the US government itself isn’t controlled by the US constitution when the US government ignores the 5th amendment outside of the US, I would argue that the 16th ends at the same boundaries as the 5th.
“No, mostly the argument would not be a matter of constitutionality. It’s a matter of jurisdictional boundaries.”
Could be. At any rate, it would require somehow calling into existence a right for some citizens to be taxed differently from other citizens, am I right?
Whereas, the Canadian/French actions are arguing that the IGAs breach pre-existing legal rights.
“At any rate, it would require somehow calling into existence a right for some citizens to be taxed differently from other citizens, am I right?”
You mean like the US thinks Eritrean citizens in the US shouldn’t be subject to Eritrean diaspora taxation the way Eritrean citizens in Eritrea are subject to Eritrean taxation?
You mean like the way Canadian citizens residing in the UK are taxed as UK residents not as Canadian residents, and UK citizens residing in Canada are taxed as Canadian residents not as UK residents?
Yes I agree, RBT complies with the Treaty of Westphalia.
In a comment yesterday I wrote Ethiopia. This reminds me of someone who once asked “US, Canada, what’s the difference?” — while speaking with an Irish accent.
I hereby apologize to Eritreans.