This informative summary of the differences among U.S. state income taxes naturally leads to a discussion about the difficulty in severing @taxresidency from high tax states like CA, NY and Mass.
Whether constitutional or not I suspect that these high tax states will attempt to impose “Exit/Departure Taxes” on individuals who try to sever @taxresidency with the state.
As discussed in this WSJ article by Hank Adler California has already proposed a very “progressive” exit tax on people who sever @taxresidency. Great article here. wsj.com/articles/a-cal…
Mr. Adler kindly joined me to discuss this issue of imposing taxes on severing @taxresidency. Here is the discussion …
The media will focus primarily on movement from state to state and more “Exit Tax” proposals. But, since 2008 the United States - via IRC 877A - has imposed comprehensive/confiscatory Exit Taxes on US citizens who move (or live in) to another country and renounce US citizenship.
But it’s important to note that since 2008 the US has imposed a comprehensive exit on certain individuals who relinquish US citizenship or green card holders who wish to return home.
The US 877A exit tax is the most comprehensive and far reaching of any exit tax in history. Incredibly it is being applied to the non-US assets and pensions of individuals who have never even lived in the US. citizenshipsolutions.ca/2015/04/01/ren…
A video podcast of the application of the 877A exit tax to green card holders wishing to move home …
This video podcast with Peter Palsen of Frost Tax law discusses how the 877A exit tax applies to US citizens who relinquish US citizenship. Prepare to be shocked …
I predict the individual states will attempt to impose exit taxes on US residents who want to move to another state. Welcome to the Hotel California … You can check out but never leave …
@Threaderapp unroll

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with John Richardson - lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad

John Richardson - lawyer for

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ExpatriationLaw

Nov 2
Tuning in on the live argument in the Bitter #FBAR case. Will tweet some of my thoughts/impressions as this unfolds. supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments…
Suggestion that existence of "reasonable cause" mitigates against the threat of draconian penalties.
Judges suggesting that the quantum in the unreported accounts matters. "If you fail to do what the secretary required you to do then you are subject to a penalty of $10,000".
Read 48 tweets
Oct 31
The National Whistleblower Centre has filed an amicus brief in Bittner - TOTALLY DEVOID OF LEGAL ARGUMENT - arguing for per account #FBAR penalties because higher penalties would create incentives for Whistleblowers" to report @InFBARWeTrust violations. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/2… Image
As evidence of the significance of #FBAR violations (and therefore the need to incentivize whistleblowers) the brief cites statistics on the small number of FBARs filed in comparison to the far larger number of #Americansabroad (relying on info from @aaro). ImageImage
The brief seems to advocate that: 1. There is severe #FBAR noncompliance 2. The Government needs whistleblowers 3. Per account penalties will result in higher total penalties 4. The higher the penalty the more likely the whistleblowers will step in to assist the government. Image
Read 8 tweets
Sep 28
2022 FATCA Report: If US doesn't agree to amend #FATCA IGAs to include full reciprocity and respect GDPR (which it won't) options include: 1. Blocking law generally 2. Blocking law for @USAccidental 3. Deem #FATCA inapplicable to European residents period! europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes… ImageImageImage
The very last paragraph explains that #FATCA is not in the spirit of multilateral cooperation. Basically it saying that the US is essentially a 100% taken and a 0% giver. But, we know that Image
A "blocking" statute is a law that "blocks" the application of certain laws ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_….
Read 10 tweets
Sep 25
In her own words “Nancy” in a message to @DemsAbroad (1) fails to identify #Americansabroad as a priority while mentioning other groups (2) confirms that your value is ONLY in your vote. A vote for a Democrat anywhere is a vote against every American abroad everywhere.
@DemsAbroad Did @DemsAbroad assist in drafting this message? If yes DA confirms #Americansabroad are not a priority. If no @TheDemocrats confirm #Americansabroad not a priority.
Seriously, @DemsAbroad needs to respond to this “tone deaf” message from Nancy. You couldn’t invent a more offensive message if you tried. Maybe @DemsAbroadCan (home of so many potential voters) could/should respond?
Read 8 tweets
Sep 8
Lesson from @VLJeker: Some people may never be able to renounce US citizenship. Others may have capacity to renounce now but may not have the capacity to renounce in the future. The inability to renounce has implications for estate and life planning and should be taken seriously!
@VLJeker I have and do see cases where the aging process has eroded the capacity to form the intention to renounce. The result is that certain people are forced to continue to live and die as US citizens. While not a problem for US residents, it can be a big problem for #Americansabroad.
Problems of living/dying as @USCitizenAbroad include: 1. US @citizenshiptax regime while alive 2. Estate having to file US tax returns at death 3. Difficulties leaving assets to nonresident alien spouse 4. Possible Estate Tax 5. Estate Tax return to transfer certain US assets
Read 7 tweets
Sep 4
Supreme Court Asked to Consider if FBAR Penalty Is Excessive Fine taxnotes.com/research/feder…
Separately on Nov. 2/22, in Bittner, the US Supreme Court will hear the case on the issue of whether the non-willful civil #FBAR penalty (found in 5321) - can be applied (based on a reading of 5314) on a "per account" or on a per "form" basis. It's the season of @InFBARWeTrust!
So, Bitter is about the interpretation of penalty application under 31 USC 5314 and 5321. Toth (if the Supreme Court hears the case) is about whether there are constitutional limitations to any penalties imposed under 31 USC 5321.
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(