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.
“They are on the radar. The IRS chooses to close their eyes unless the victim makes the mistake of trying to comply.”
By doing something (filing a US tax return, seeking a US tax refund, suing the IRS, etc) the individual elicits a response.
“my wife had to buy a US tourist visa to attend her Tax Court case.”
And?
Xxxxxxx fits perfectly the profile of a Canadian citizen who desires/requires nothing from America, and can peacefully ignore US law.
A person who invests in US assets / wants a US tax refund / wants a US SSN / sues the IRS does not fit the profile of a citizen of a non-US country who desires/requires something from America.
Stop tugging at America’s trouser-leg and eventually he’ll leave you alone. Leave him in peace, and he’ll leave you in peace.
Eventually. After you’ve settled your bill.
“A person who invests in US assets / wants a US tax refund / wants a US SSN / sues the IRS does not fit the profile of a citizen of a non-US country who desires/requires something from America.”
should read:
“A person who invests in US assets / wants a US tax refund / wants a US SSN / sues the IRS, does not fit the profile of a citizen of a non-US country who desires/requires nothing from America.”
“my wife had to buy a US tourist visa to attend her Tax Court case.”
‘And?’
And you might consider retracting your statement ‘Ah yes, that terrifying IRS radar that has never yet snared a helpless citizen of a non-US country and imposed on them an imaginary US tax debt and “filed a lien” on non-existent US property to collect non-existent US dollars in satisfaction of the imaginary US tax debt.’
“A person who invests in US assets / wants a US tax refund / wants a US SSN / sues the IRS, does not fit the profile of a citizen of a non-US country who desires/requires nothing from America.”
If I understand correctly, someone named Topsnik made the mistake of visiting the US on a temporary visa, made a further mistake of investing in a US asset, had a capital loss and didn’t owe any tax, but the IRS abused him after he returned to Germany and US courts further abused him.
https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/OpinionViewer.aspx?ID=10670
Like I say, leave them alone and eventually they’ll leave you alone.
Herr Topsnik did not leave America alone, and America won in US court. Who is surprised?
“you might consider retracting your statement ‘Ah yes, that terrifying IRS radar that has never yet snared a helpless citizen of a non-US country and imposed on them an imaginary US tax debt and “filed a lien” on non-existent US property to collect non-existent US dollars in satisfaction of the imaginary US tax debt.’ ”
In what way did the IRS snare your wife?
“the SSN application for my wife that was submitted in accordance with IRS instructions in 1974”
“In 2010 we refiled a return for 2005”
“my wife
had to[chose to] attend US Tax Court”“Sometimes I or my wife sends registered mail and a USPS search shows that it reached USPS but didn’t reach the IRS but just disappeared; other times a USPS search shows that it was delivered to the IRS but the IRS denies it.”
Nobody “has to” attend US Tax Court, short of extradition. Was your wife extradited?
Leave them alone. Eventually they’ll leave you alone.
I suspect that here again, you use “choose” in a very broad sense.
The alternative to “choosing” to attend US Tax Court would be to allow liens and levies to stand, even though the liens and levies were the result of trumped up corrupt allegations.
One alternative to getting penalized in the first place would have been to tell lies on returns, but I didn’t learn that until the IRS told me in 2010. Seriously, who could ever believe that it’s illegal to tell the truth on US returns until the IRS tells them that it was the reason for penalties?
One alternative to my wife’s need to attend Tax Court would have been for me to continue filing separately as I used to do, but everyone including homelanders (and including the IRS who reminded Congress about it in a report) knows that the US imposes especially punishing taxes on the status of married filing separately.
Of course as we know now, one alternative would have been to not file in the first place. If I’d known.
And of course one alternative would have been to renounce decades ago. If I’d known.
It often seems that plaxy has a time machine and believes that everyone has one as well, based on their comments. Also based on their comments, it seems that the concepts of coercion and duress are unknown to them.
“If I’d known.”
Maybe, if the knowledge led to understanding (and accepting) that when you’re fighting about something that’s under US control, the US is always going to win. Which is why Cook v. Tait and questions of constitutionality don’t help, but just muddy the waters. Basically there’s nothing to be done, if you want the citizenship, except live with the law as best you can (while lobbying for legislative change if that’s your bag. (Generic you)
Citizens of non-US countries who don’t want or need anything from the US have a much more straightforward exit – provided they can lay their hands on $2350 and can untangle their quite straightforward nationality issue from all the misleading disinformation streaming from tax advisers and the internet about US tax laws which, for them, are not relevant.
But those who have a US birthplace and no money to buy the CLN, are stuck. Only court action can lead to change.
Fingers crossed.
“Citizens of non-US countries who don’t want or need anything from the US have a much more straightforward exit – provided they can lay their hands on $2350“
Overly simplified. There are those with greencards who will also have the exit tax to contend with. Spouses and children of USCs and spouses of greencard holders are also in a troublesome spot. I have yet to learn of any situation that affects one but not any other family member. Cancer may take only one family member at a time but affects all those close to the departed, not only family members.
“Overly simplified.”
Nope. That’s it, for a citizen of a non-US country who doesn’t need or want anything from America. Pay the money, swear the oath, and you’re out.
Generic you.
““Overly simplified.”
Nope. That’s it, for a citizen of a non-US country who doesn’t need or want anything from America. Pay the money, swear the oath, and you’re out.”
How does that cover nonUS spouses of USCs? Oh, and read the rest of my post. Unless those are of no consequence to you.
Read my post:
“That’s it, for a citizen of a non-US country who doesn’t need or want anything from America. Pay the money, swear the oath, and you’re out.”
.Read my post:
“That’s it, for a citizen of a non-US country who doesn’t need or want anything from America. Pay the money, swear the oath, and you’re out.””
Relying heavily upon your time machine again.
plaxy,
All of this is avoidable even for USCs IF we know of the dangers before hand. Problem is, the only way to learn of the danger is to get trapped.
I’m not talking about avoidance, I’m talking about exits.
Renunciation is a straightforward exit which is easily available for a citizen of a non-US country who wants / needs nothing from America and can afford or raise $2350.
Again, over simplistic. Ignores those nonUSCs who are in any kind of relationship with USCs. From where does your constant dismissal of so many people come from?
“Renunciation is a straightforward exit which is easily available for a citizen of a non-US country who wants / needs nothing from America and can afford or raise $2350.”
How does a nonUSC spouse of a USC renounce that which they do not have?
“over simplistic. ”
No. The situation is simple, for a citizen of a non-US country who doesn’t want or need anything from America. If they can afford to renounce, they can easily do so, without any need to worry about US tax laws.
If they can’t afford to renounce, all they can do is try to manage their financial affairs working around the IGA obstacles as best they can.
How does a non resident US person renounce?
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.
“Basically there’s nothing to be done, if you want the citizenship, except live with the law as best you can”
No, the best thing you can do is to ignore the law and not file, as long as you have no US assets.
“But those who have a US birthplace and no money to buy the CLN, are stuck. Only court action can lead to change.”
We hope Canadian court action can lead to change (and other non-US court action).
Well, OK, people who haven’t been in US courts might hope US court action can lead to change too. Is ignorance bliss?