Boris Johnson – revisited

82 thoughts on “Boris Johnson – revisited”

1. IF he’s already sold then the amount of tax he’s incurred depends on when he sold. Before or after the Bush tax cut expired in 2010 (raising the gain rate from 15-20%). Don’t forget that if the sale is very recent, he’d be subjected to the Obamacare tax on high income earners.

2. Who of us reads the fine print? I just came across a passport renewal form and there is a section asking whether you have done any of the expatriate acts of section 349. I admit to having not read it properly. The passport was the reason my relinquishment was rejected despite 3 oaths of allegiance to the Queen.

3. Another story…

   http://m.wsj.com/articles/BL-TOTALB-2547

   https://twitter.com/FATCA_Fallout/status/535896785382674432

4. @murdo Douglas
   I went back to the passport app and read the same thing. But, because of my feeling the need to see my mother before she died, I probably would have signed it even if I read it in the first place. Just curious about something though. You commited several expatriating acts in the oaths you took, and ceased being an American at that point. If you are now, once again an American because of the passport trap, when did that come into effect. Was it when you applied for the passport? Was it when you used it? Or, like me, did they go all the way back and claim you never left? If they expect you to be tax compliant, it would be important to know when the taxes applied to you.

5. This is interesting;

   http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Features/9FC48A57B09F00B085257D970054A723?OpenDocument

6. It certainly is interesting, George. Thanks for the link, highlighting the November 21, 2014 Tax Analysts New Analysis: Will London’s Mayor Enter the OVDP? by Ajay Gupta:

   …overseas citizens often become aware of U.S. tax liabilities after receiving the so-called substitute for return. Because it’s prepared by the IRS based on information gleaned from third parties, a substitute for return is unlikely to accurately reflect the taxpayer’s actual tax liability. The substitute for return often exaggerates the tax due because it fails to apply the proper deductions, Johnson and Moore said. Engaging with the IRS will usually help reduce the amount, they added.

   How many here have ever received that?

   Here is one other reference we had at Isaac Brock, from Steven Mopsick:

   …you are describing the “Substitute For Return” procedures in case you want to Google it or read up on it in the IRM (Internal Revenue Manual). Your instinct is correct. The IRS would not file a substitute for a return under your facts. SFR only works where the IRS is getting a bunch of 1099′s or other information returns reporting payments of US source income to a US Person but no tax return is ever filed by the US Person. FATCA or no FATCA, assume Canadian banks do roll over on outing their US citizens, it is most unlikely that a Canadian bank would ever have enough information on someone which would justify the IRS to invoke the SFR procedures. It ain’t gonna happen.
   30 Year IRS Vet

   The Tax Analysts piece continues:

   If what Johnson received was in fact a substitute for return, the IRS may very well have obtained information about his sale proceeds from publicly available records. Lacking knowledge of his cost basis, the agency probably multiplied the entire amount of Johnson’s sale proceeds by the highest capital gains rate to compute his tax.

   In that event, Johnson’s actual tax liability is likely to be significantly smaller. It would then behoove Johnson to respond to the IRS. And he probably will, despite his threat to ignore the notice.

   And their advice: entering OVDP??? Will that now be the only option for BJ? What about some good US tax law advice about relinquishment from one of his prior acts instead, as Anne Frank suggested? I would love to see how that could work out for him and whether then he would have to back file, etc.

   … And while he’s at it, Johnson should also consider coming into compliance with the various other reporting obligations that surely apply to him, including foreign bank account reports and Forms 8938, “Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets,” on his “offshore” bank accounts — obligations that he just as surely has been disregarding.

   The streamlined OVDP for U.S. citizens who live outside the United States may offer Johnson the least costly means of receiving absolution from the IRS. It may also remove a potential hurdle in his path to Number 10 Downing Street.

   **************

   PS: Since I haven’t checked Steven Mopsick’s site in a long, long while, Steven Mopsick has one in which he mentions that the Canadians in http://mopsicktaxlaw.blogspot.ca/2014/06/fatca-enforcement-voluntary-disclosures.html.

7. Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society | Boris Johnson @MayorOfLondon acceptance of “U.S. jurisdiction” means he must now resign