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 …
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".
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…
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).
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.
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…
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
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.
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?
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
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.