Living Obituary for the US expat / diaspora population. USA’s #FATCA #Euthanasia Program for those

[riverbendviewgal]

Last edited Sun Jan 12, 2014, 07:47 PM - Edit history (3)

inflicted with the #FBAR & #CBT diseases & possessed by the US-personhood demon!

I know there will be replies by very jealous DUrs who know that CBT is only used by the USA in the world. The rest of the citizens of the world have MOBILITY, and can live anywhere they want because the rest of the world has RBT, resident based taxation. . ...But that's okay this is a post for every American Abroad who reads DU. For those who are NOT working for a fir abroad to eventually return to the USA nor it is NOT for those rich piggy tax evaders.....This is for regular working citizens who love the country they live in by choice and often by birth.

isaacbrocksociety.ca will help you understand.
and
maplesandbox.ca

You see, only US persons suffer from the disease of taxation by their home country—no matter where they live in the world. No other nation does this to its citizens and persons. The symptoms of this disease are significantly higher accounting costs, higher employment costs, and a number of unique taxations upon retirement funds, unemployment benefits, and US health care taxation.

US persons are assumed to be committing a crime if they have lived outside of USA. Hence, each year, they must report their savings accounts, retirement accounts, college-saving accounts, and other instruments back to US FInancial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN), on a Form called FBAR. If the reports are not received yearly on the Financial Crimes internet site, these persons are assumed guilty, without statute of limitations. A US person must not only report on his own personal financial details, he must also report the details of his corporation, spouse, or sports club—if that US person is a volunteer treasurer or international executive. The fines for not reporting in begin at $10,000 per violation, and go up to 300% of everything that suspicious US person owns, or even up to 300% of what that corporation owns!. You see, US Citizens cannot be trusted to live outside USA. that’s why they must report to the FInancial Crimes Enforcement Network.

MORE - CLICK ON THE LINK.
http://bancdelasteroideb612.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/obituary-for-the-us-expat-diaspora-population-usas-fatca-euthanasia-program-for-those-inflicted-with-the-fbar-cbt-diseases-and-possessed-by-the-us-personhood-demon/

I do feel sorry for those who are trapped in America and who do not want the dual citizenship of being American.


DU, I have never seen you so much full of hatred. you really have changed.

[elehhhhna]

1. Oh the humanity.

Keep offshore accounts sacred and untaxable!

[riverbendviewgal]

2. do you think it is off shoring if you live in a country other than the USA permenantly

And your accounts are in a bank just around the corner?

[riverbendviewgal]

3. $10, 000 penalties, even if you owe zero.

In 2015, the USA will begin processing that data, and begin implementing the FBAR fines according to the Financial Crime Enforcement Network rules. The fines could be $10,000, or they could be 300% of everything these US persons owned.

[Iggo]

4. Oh, jeez. Pay your taxes, Richie Rich.

[riverbendviewgal]

6. You are hilarious...YOu didn't read the article.It was too hard for you?

LOL

“They are all rich! Right. The population of US persons overseas has the same breadth of background as do homelanders. Congress, the administration, and the media have had a full blitz propaganda campaign out to smear its own US expat 7 diaspora population.

“They are all evading taxes” Right. More than 80% live in high-tax locations such as Canada, France, Finland, Australia. They already pay much higher taxes than what they would in the Homeland.

[Iggo]

7. They want to be called American, but without the responsibilities that come with being American.

Pay your dues or quit the club.

[riverbendviewgal]

10. Most are going to or have.

you guys are soooooooo jealous. We all live in nicer countries.
and we don't want to be called American most of us.

[El_Johns]

26. Then renounce your citizenship.

The United States has tax treaties with a number of foreign countries. Under these treaties, residents (not necessarily citizens) of foreign countries are taxed at a reduced rate, or are exempt from U.S. taxes on certain items of income they receive from sources within the United States.

These reduced rates and exemptions vary among countries and specific items of income. Under these same treaties, residents or citizens of the United States are taxed at a reduced rate, or are exempt from foreign taxes, on certain items of income they receive from sources within foreign countries.

Most income tax treaties contain what is known as a "saving clause" which prevents a citizen or resident of the United States from using the provisions of a tax treaty in order to avoid taxation of U.S. source income.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/International-Businesses/United-States-Income-Tax-Treaties---A-to-Z

[MADem]

58. Why would anyone be "jealous" of someone who wants club membership but doesn't want to pay the dues?

That is a very strange series of comments, and you are being absurd.

If you live in "nicer" countries, then become citizens of them.

If you don't want to be called American, then get off your collective asses and fix that by taking citizenship where you live.

But stop crying about paying taxes if you owe them. Those taxes pay for social programs for the 99 percent.

[NoOneMan]

70. "But stop crying about paying taxes if you owe them"

There is no logical reason a bona fide resident of another country should be double taxed on some portion of their income and "owe" tax, other than that it is a law. But simply being a law--an unjust and illogical one--does not make it a universal truth that we cannot "cry about" or advocate for change; even slavery was a law at one point you know. So the simple fact that a law exist is a silly reason to not be able to do something about it.

Your argument boils down to a universal talking point about any and all resistance to oppression and working for change.

Those taxes pay for social programs for the 99 percent.

First, these people already pay for the social programs in the country they live in. And the real truth is, those taxes pay for your freeloading tax breaks; they pay for your mortgage tax deductions and 83b election loopholes that people in those other countries do not get to enjoy.

You get that right? Other countries don't have all those fancy ass write-offs and tax dodges that you have. We don't get to whittle down our income because we play by different, more fair rules (so our taxable incomes are higher). And those higher totals are what uncle sam wants to get his grimey hands on to pay for Tea Bagger tax cuts.

God damn. Get your own house in order already

[MADem]

88. Wow....what an odd argument. "These people?" Really? You've no clue how you sound!

Comparing being charged taxes over and above an amount that is a handsome income is the equivalent to .... slavery? I'd laugh--only slavery really isn't a funny topic, and that comparison is a bit beyond the er, pale.

They don't mind doing that "double taxing" as you call it in France, now, do they? Ask Gerard "Russian citizen" Depardieu! Ask Johnny--ain't gonna live in France no mo'--Depp!

I think if your first hundred grand is exempted, you're not starving, first off, and secondly, I don't have a problem paying taxes even though I have a secure pension (which is FAR less than a hundred grand, mind you) and never had to deal with uncertainty re: medical care, thanks to TRICARE. Lucky me--but I won't begrudge others who aren't so lucky and how curious that you do.

See, I realize that a rising tide lifts ALL boats, and it ain't all about me. For example, I have no children who are benefitting from the public school system, yet I have no problem continuing supporting it financially, because I know that public schools educate future American adults.


My house is paid for; I don't get one of those mortgage deductions you're wailing about. And I don't have any "freeloading tax breaks," in fact, I have so few deductions that are worthwhile, I don't even bother "writing off" my charitable deductions--I short-form it. So maybe you should worry about "my house" a bit less, because I sure as fuck don't make enough money to have to worry about the IRS, should I choose to live abroad.

Bottom line--if you don't want to pay the dues, you should join the other club where you think you're getting the better deal. Stop griping. All you're doing is articulating why you need to drop citizenship papers in the wonderful and perfect country where you live, and give this USA place, that you think sucks, the boot. Make sure you renounce that citizenship, too, like Cruz dissing Canada--none of this "dual" bullshit. Get that taxman with his "grimey" hands off your back! It's a simple choice, you see. Either put up or take a hike. You do have options, you know, unless, of course, your host country won't have you on their rolls. In that case, why would you want to stay where you're regarded as "not good enough?"

"God damn" indeed!

[NoOneMan]

91. Yes, these people who I am among. Americans abroad

Comparing being charged taxes over and above an amount that is a handsome income is the equivalent to .... slavery?

I am not comparing as in saying they are the same (despite your strawman), but rather examining the nature of unjust laws. Why should I evoke anything but an a priori injustice when asking the question? Are laws universally right and to be obeyed (and not "cried about&quot or are they open to being repealed and altered in a quest for a more perfect state? The history of America points to the later.

They don't mind doing that "double taxing" as you call it in France

I am not familiar with the details of that case. Regardless, does yet another example make it "right" (if it is at all another example)? Its the equivilent of being born in California, moving the Washington, and filing a California return plus taxes for life. That is what we are dealing with here, in a larger national context.

I think if your first hundred grand is exempted, you're not starving

You don't know that. Please check the real estate in Vancouver, along with the tax rate, sales tax, cost of goods, etc. You simply don't know that.

but I won't begrudge others who aren't so lucky and how curious that you do.

Please show me where I begrudge anyone by defending hard working families abroad who support the social systems in the countries they reside. Please. Just one quote. Thanks for playing.

ee, I realize that a rising tide lifts ALL boats, and it ain't all about me.

Again, we live in civilized countries that pay for a safety net. The US pays for military drones. Come talk to me when you have this figured out. If you want a lecture about welfare, it is I that should be giving it to you.

My house is paid for; I don't get one of those mortgage deductions you're wailing about.

Wailing? I am pointing it out as a tax break American residents get ($380 billion) that Americans abroad do not get, which increases non-residents tax burden that is subject to double taxation. It is a great example of how this unjust system may make others unfairly subsidize those in the states.

Foreign residents will appear to have more taxable income because they wont have this loophole. There are multitudes of loopholes they miss out on while not living in the Teabagger Republic, and each and everyone makes their burden to the republic higher. Different rules for different folks. You advocate anything but fairness here

The one that vastly impacts me is the 83B election (that doesn't exist where I live). That will cost me vastly, leaving me asset rich with no liquidity (but as a US resident, it would cost me pennies to dodge this tax)

because I sure as fuck don't make enough money to have to worry about the IRS, should I choose to live abroad

Good. I'm glad you got your way out of having to care about it.

you should join the other club where you think you're getting the better deal

I literally have to. America is a country that forces its native sons and daughters to renounce, stay or pay. Since I'm currently not staying, I will have no ability to pay, the choice is simple. I'm glad you are cool with that.

and give this USA place, that you think sucks

Are you sure you aren't projecting and getting personally enraged? Do you just don't like people living elsewhere a while (or forever)?

Either put up or take a hike. You do have options,

I know this. We all know this. The USA makes people choose. I don't think that's right. I guess its simply a matter of jingoism and opinion

you know, unless, of course, your host country won't have you on their rolls. In that case, why would you want to stay where you're regarded as "not good enough?"

Ask that to the migrant workers of America. The fact of the matter is there is a legal process that takes time. When I complete it, I can proceed.


Stop being so emotional. Take solace in the fact that some of your freeloading brothers are getting their breaks paid courtesy of hard working families abroad.

[emsimon33]

132. If you don't want to pay the taxes, then drop your citizenship

It seems very simple...or come back to the U.S. and work here. It's the law. If you don't like it, then take action rather than getting your blood pressure up over the law. Change your life if you can't change the law.

[NoOneMan]

134. Exactly. That is why thousands of people are renouncing

Does that bother you? America is losing its expats and discouraging many more? Thats no problem with you?

Change your life if you can't change the law.

I'd appreciate an illogical and unjust law being changed, and awareness precedes that. But some do not have the luxury of time.

[emsimon33]

131. Then don't be "called" Americans and man up and get

citizenship in the "nicer countries."

[NoOneMan]

135. Ok. Is that your grand solution in regards to an unjust, illogical law?

Tell those that suffer to figure out a way to avoid the law, rather than understand at least that it should be changed?

[enlightenment]

12. Show me where "paying taxes"

is a requirement for being a citizen of this country. Chapter and verse, please.

What a ridiculous comment.

[NoOneMan]

31. "or quit the club."

That's pretty much what I'll be forced to do in the next few years. Otherwise there is a strong possibility I could go bankrupt or have assets taken from me. Sucks

[emsimon33]

128. Then, for goodness sake and your own peace of mind,

become a citizen of the country in which you are living. Why are you so desperate to cling to your U.S. citizenship if you do not want to reside in the U.S. and the country in which you are living is so much better?

[NoOneMan]

133. Im not.

That's the answer. I guess that satisfies you that your citizens are forced to make that choice?

[MattBaggins]

5. My eyes are still dry

[Tikki]

8. I am not being snarky, but if you say they are living overseas or around the corner permanently...

..why wouldn't they just denounce their American citizenship and move on with life?


Tikki

[riverbendviewgal]

11. Most are.

and with no regrets.

[Tikki]

14. Then problem solved…best to encourage that, then...

Tikki

[NoOneMan]

32. So this is a De Facto "Love it or leave it" law I guess

"If you don't love it enough to be double-taxed for life, get the fuck out. We don't need your commie ideas anyway!"

[Tikki]

34. If they are living somewhere else permanently… they already left it...

Tikki

[NoOneMan]

37. And?

What's wrong with a citizen living somewhere else for 20 years and bringing ideas, life, love, art and culture back if they so choose? Nothing, as long as they can afford it I guess. Fuck those caught in the donut hole I guess (those making enough to be double-taxed, but not enough to afford double-taxation)

Shouldn't citizens experiencing and bringing back those experiences enrich your country, as it does to so many around the world? Shouldn't the US encourage its citizens to see the world, rather than punish them?

Whatever. Grab your cane. And scream with me: "Get off my porch commies!"

[Tikki]

43. The OP said living abroad or around the corner permanently.

There is nothing wrong with sharing ideas from everywhere.

Coming back after 20 years, means coming back…unless you are passing away the day after you return..
..it means you did not relocate permanently…


Tikki

[Art_from_Ark]

45. As an American citizen but a permanent resident of Japan,

I can say that you don't know what you are talking about.

[Tikki]

47. Please see OP's #2 post...

I stand by permanently…

definition: Permanently: Lasting or remaining without change…


Tikki

[Art_from_Ark]

141. A permanent resident is merely someone who has permission to live in a foreign country,

permanently, if that person desires. There is no longer any need to go through the periodic ritual of renewing visas, but the holder of permanent residency does not have citizenship of the country of residence. So I am a permanent resident of Japan, but still a citizen of the United States. I cannot see the future, so I do not know if Japan will be my home until I die, but I will remain a permanent resident for the foreseeable future.

On edit: I think I should apologize for the tone of my previous post. I think I posted it a little too early in the morning

[NoOneMan]

64. I am both a citizen of US and perm resident of another country

You don't know what you are talking about

Permanent residency is in fact my legal status in another country. I will forever be such and it carries no tax obligation. Only residency does.

Being a permanent resident of another country, in regards to how it relates to the US, is only permanent until I decide for it not to be. In a span of a lifetime, who knows what could change such a decision.

But here is a scenario where the government is forcing such a decision anyway. The rich will get an opportunity to come back. Others will have to make that choice, quickly.

[emsimon33]

130. Yes, what is the argument?

They have already "decided with their feet" that they don't "love it," and so have already "left."

[NoOneMan]

136. Do you honestly believe every expat has committed to never returning?

Every taxable resident of another country who is a US citizen. Do you really, really believe that?


Sure, this law forces many to commit sooner than later. But that is not the case whatsoever.

[emsimon33]

129. But they are already living elsewhere

and, according to what is being espoused here, loving where they are living. So...it is not "love it or leave it," but "you have left and love it, so move on with your life and just forget about the U.S."

[NoOneMan]

137. For myriad reasons

Some may be pursuing an economic opportunity for a few years. Some may be teaching abroad. Some may be raising children in a different culture for personal reasons.

So what? Leave and never return is essentially what you are saying. I don't get it.

[MattSh]

36. Because you have to have citizenship somewhere else.

You cannot renounce your citizenship if you only hold residency status in another country.

[Tikki]

68. So this is why Cruz hasn't renounced his Canadian citizenship? He can't?

I don't understand…

The OP said he/she lives permanently in a Country around the corner…if you live in a Country
permanently why would you pay taxes for another Country if you could stop?


Tikki

[NoOneMan]

72. Why would a country make you?

I still don't see a valid logical reason that the US makes non-residents file and pay taxes. Not a single logical reason.

Yes, people don't want to do this. People are renouncing. They will continue. You don't seem to give a damn that you have a non-logical, unjust law forcing your own people to give up citizenship. You almost seem to like it. That is mind-boggling.

[riverbendviewgal]

76. You mis read my op

what I said. People who live outside of the US (American persons) who are duals of other countries they live in. HAVE THEIR BANKING IN THEIR OWN RESIDENT COUNTRY, JUST AROUND THE CORNER WHERE THEY LIVE (in that resident country.)

They have no intentions of banking in the USA because they do not live there or go there..

[Tikki]

79. Something was said about living permanently somewhere…I saw it in your post #2..

Living permanently in a Country changes the ball game to that person's side if they renounce that other one of their citizenships.

I bet property owned in the US and certain business taxes would have to be paid if you do certain business or if the money actually comes from the US…but otherwise, why hold on to something that appears to be a burden!?


Tikki

[NoOneMan]

80. "that appears to be a burden"

Why should it be a burden?

[Tikki]

82. The OP didn't want to "pay taxes to the US" because he/she didn't live in the US.

Lived permanently somewhere else.

This person wouldn't have to pay anything if they renounced their US citizenship part of their dual citizenship
and did no business in the US or owned no land in the US or had no money coming to them from the US.

Seems simple…NO?


Tikki

[NoOneMan]

83. If a black person didn't want to be a slave in the 1800's, they just needed to flee the country

Simple enough. No reason to change an unjust, illogical law. The burden should always be upon the damaged person to find a loophole or means to avoid injustice I guess.


And no, I'm not comparing taxation to slavery. I am examining unjust laws that have no logical foundation, and how a society should regard them. IOW, who should be burdened with avoiding or changing a society's laws. But since this doesn't bother you, why would you care?

[Tikki]

85. Actually, I support the law…if changes need to be made in a cap or so in the amount of….

income taxed, fight for that…

It is a good law for the tax payers of the US.


Tikki

[NoOneMan]

86. Of course its a great law for US taxpayers. Those abroad subsidies your tax breaks

I'd feel ashamed to freeload on foreign residents personally, especially when their codes aren't quite as generous


BTW, good law for one group doesn't make it a just, logical law. But I'm sure you know that

[emsimon33]

138. Because you said that being a U.S. citizen working in another

country will cause you to go bankrupt, thus the U.S. citizenship appears to be a burden for you.

[NoOneMan]

139. No, the US tax code is a burden

Its a code that changes frequently enough. Its not exactly a fantasy to assume it could be structured more fair to working families abroad.


What exactly about this is so difficult about this?


Would you enjoy paying taxes for life in the state your were born in, even if you chose to move to another state for a while?

[grantcart]

9. what bull.

I lived outside the US for 20 years and it has always been mandatory to report your income.

First of all you get a big exemption

Persons who qualify are eligible to exclude up to $99,200 in foreign earned income annually, depending on the year. The amount of the foreign earned income exclusion changes each year. Here's the maximum allowable exclusions for tax years 1998 through 2014.

Secondly the IRS isn't the least bit interested in the average person who is making less than 100k and if you don't report you won't have any problems. Remember the IRS can't take action without having proof and your foreign employer isn't going to report it.

This is aimed at exactly two types of American Expats:

1) Americans working for American firms overseas

2) Wealthy people who are trying to avoid taxes.

[riverbendviewgal]

13. who did your US income taxes

NOW they are extremely complicated and extremely expensive each year and one little mistake can be a big penalty

This FATCA is aimed NOT just
1.. & 2..

THe whales have slick lawyers and so do the firms overseas. The minnows are being hit.

Well, the minnows are renouncing and relinquishing. and more and more are doing it.

[riverbendviewgal]

16. who did yours

LOL.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

18. Turbo Tax will prepare the form for you. You just have to mail it as it can't be filed by internet

But you know this based on the last time you posted this false claim and I looked it up.

[riverbendviewgal]

19. One can not use TUrbo Tax

to file from abroad or HR BLOCK

Now one must use a specialized tax accountant who has a special number from the IRS.....It is not like the old days. There are over 7000 pages in instructions for filing abroad.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

38. BS. You can't file electronically but you can prepare the forms.

The you have to walk your ass to the mail box.

[grantcart]

95. I stopped by the consulate made an appointment with the IRS

ny who helped fill if out, it took 5 min and he described is work which was 95 percent following Americans working with American companies, and 5 percent trying tofind tax dodgers. In 20 years I never heard of an American living overseas who have much problem with the IRS for the obvious reasons IRS doesn't have any data on income from foreign companies and so the only companies cooperating with the IRS are American companies that are still subject to American law.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

15. The people who post this stuff remind me of tea-bagger dupes or Joe The Not Plumbers

They bitch and moan about laws that barely affect them. They post from websites and think tanks that have a HUGE vested interest in the Romneys of the world not having to report their overseas income or assets.

Be prepared for the phony baloney stories about little old ladies on pensions spending $40,000 dollars in tax preparation fees to comply with the laws. They propped up this so called "victim" to tell her story of the onerous Uncle Sam - they glossed over the fact she never paid a dime in income taxes (because of the huge exemption) but she supposedly spent $40,000 in filing fees. Pure unadulterated Bullshit.

[riverbendviewgal]

17. LOL

You know what you wrote is something that a tea bagger would write.

LOL.
You did not read up on FATCA.
You did not read this article...
You just did not obviously.
It is true about the $40.000 amount you quote That victim went before the US Committee .

[NoOneMan]

30. People who want to punish those who seek to live abroad remind me of old grouchy baggers

There is no logic for America's exceptional stance on taxing worldwide income. Zero. When supposed liberals adopt a non-logical position that punishes hard working families, it looks immensely ugly and ignorant.

[MADem]

60. We're supposed to be crying over people who are making MORE than a hundred grand?

Since just under the first hundred isn't taxed by USA?

Hilarious. Thanks for your post, it clarifies the situation!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

73. Yep. This a manufactured issue brought to you by people that stand to gain a lot by lax enforcement.

Expats have always had to file returns and the vast majority pay NOTHING. Now that the IRS is going after billionaire's hidden assets the phony "expats" are squealing like stuck pigs.

Every time one of these threads are started, we get new sign ups who know a little old lady from Toronto who lost her pension

Like the inheritance tax. The average Joe pay nothing. Even the above average Joe only pays a little.

When called on the fact that most pay nothing they make up BS about exorbitant onerous filing fees and preparation charges. One person is claiming thousands of dollars per year - BS- TurboTax will process the form(s) but they may or may not be able to file electronically. BFD. They might have to hand mail the return.

[riverbendviewgal]

75. You are presuming incorrectly

I know a lady who has lived up here in Canada for 50 years.. She makes about 16,000 a year. She asked IRS if she had to file because she made so little . They told her no...NOW since 2010 the law has changed. She is now a criminal.

[emsimon33]

140. Thank you!

[William769]

21. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Or this thread for that matter? inquiring minds want to know!

[JCMach1]

24. most peeps (like myself when I was an expat) are exempt up to around 90K

per year...

If you are making more than that... or have to pay a lot after all the other deductions you might get... hmmmmm... you are probably pretty rich and can afford to pay a little extra.

[riverbendviewgal]

25. Please read up on what the tax acountants now charge to do US abroad taxes

There is so much rules and regulations that an ordinary taxpayer , even in the USA homeland can afford.

Can you all afford one thousand dollars or MORE for each year...Most Americans abroad make way below the exampt level but still have to file AND report ALL their bank accounts and what is in them Americans Abroad can not not have Tax deductible educations savings for their children nor can they have tax savings accounts for their disabled members of t heir families.

They do not have the luxury of mortgage interest deductions as most countries , such as Canada do not have that.


It is not fair.

The fair way would be for the USA go join the rest of the world and become a resident based taxation nation.

Also the USA has its own tax havens as you all know. Delaware, Nevada and South Dakota .

I can see the USA having a FATCA for American homelanders who have foreign bank holdings out of the USA. while they LIVE IN the USA.

Decades ago American Persons would comply every year and file their US taxes themselves but no longer . It is too complicated and the IRS wants authorized tax accountants to do it. Believe these guys really really LIKE FATCA. LOL.

FATCA also touches spouses, children of American parent, accidental birth in the USA. (while parents are at school or at work and these accidentals return to their parents country when babies) It also touches green card holders past and present and SNOW BIRDS!!!!

[El_Johns]

27. Become a citizen of your chosen country, then.

Knowing that a big chunk of income is exempt makes me think people who complain about overtaxation are playing the angles.

[NoOneMan]

39. Yeah, Love it or leave it!

"If ya aint rich enough to afford to live abroad, get the hell out commies!"

[El_Johns]

61. I can't work up a lot of pity for the international tax problems of the top 5%. Sue me.

The poster already dissed the US and said s/he lived in a "better" country.

So renounce your fucking citizenship here in this "worse" country. Problem solved.

[NoOneMan]

65. Hate is more important than fairness I'd guess

And btw, those rich enough to afford this are not bothered by it; they aren't bothered by anything. Its people caught in the middle.

[El_Johns]

66. Who is it that I supposedly hate? Look, on my list of things to worry about, worrying about

the tax problems of people who live overseas by choice & make over $90K is not high up on my list.

Renounce your citizenship or move home if it's such a big burden.

[SidDithers]

67. ...

Good to see you.

Sid

[NoOneMan]

71. It is a big burden. That's my only option

Otherwise my goose is cooked and Ill go bankrupt and have my home seized.

It's sad that the US is the only country (2 others) that force people to make that choice.

It's sad that supposed liberals don't give a shit.

[msanthrope]

92. Missed you. Especially on the latest Dennis Rodman threads. nt

[DonCoquixote]

52. The fair way would be for the USA go join the rest of the world and

become a resident based taxation."

I can understand why the middle class types like yourself might be angry, as the rich will buy lawyers, but if you cannot see how much ABUSE your idea would open the doors to, than I am surprised. Every Millionaire will come here to "pay taxes" which means avoid paying taxes like the rest of our rich bastards do.

[JCMach1]

97. Of course you can't participate in pre-tax programs, but other tax-advantaged retirement

and investment products are open to you...

I never once used anything anything but a normal tax adviser who charged 50-100$ or so to prepare my taxes... IT ISN'T SO COMPLICATED unless it is complicated WHEREVER YOU LIVE.

[NoOneMan]

29. "you are probably pretty rich and can afford to pay a little extra."

Depending on the cost of living. Other countries have higher taxation. They have higher costs of good. In Canada, homes cost twice as much currently. Sales tax is 12% there too, in addition to everything else. And they don't have all the tax dodgey things in the US, like mortgage interest write-offs. You might be surprised how difficult it could be for someone making 150K in Vancouver to swing double taxation at the end of the day. Should Americans be perpetually double taxed for life in the state they were born in?

[LeftyMom]

35. I propose a tax on hyperbole.

Euthanasia, really?

[NoOneMan]

40. I wonder how the fear of these laws will manifest among the American youth

Will young Americans now find another hindrance to exploring the world? Will young Americans abroad simply renounce at 18 instead of explore their homeland? Will foreign ideas and cultures be shutout as America becomes insular and afraid of the outside world that they have little contact with? Just how isolated could America become, without its own citizens taking an active role in the rest of the world? America should be paying people to go and live abroad, and ultimately enriching their country with myriad points of views or children raised abroad (and in contrasts, Canada actually pays a universal monthly benefit for children, no matter where they live on the globe, even if the parents pay no taxes). But instead, we have this. Welcome to Teabagger nation where everyone pays no tax except the little people who can't complain. Welcome to the idiocracy

[uppityperson]

42. Didn't Sam Clemmons get into financial trouble and travel around the world giving lectures?

[uppityperson]

46. If someone does not live in a country, does use what taxes pay for, why should they pay?

[uppityperson]

49. California and New York are both in the US. In case you missed that.

[hrmjustin]

50. I live in ny and ny does not own me.

[hrmjustin]

54. I am for always taxing. My family has been in ny as early as the 1670's.

[NRaleighLiberal]

51. what happened at the end there? fall off your chair?

[uppityperson]

59. Heh, too fu, too fu, too

mid-post ban?

[El_Johns]

62. They pay on US-based income, for starters.

[uppityperson]

63. OK, that is fair, pay taxes on us-based income. I was thinking of those who work outside the us

and should not have to pay us taxes on that.

But the "usa usa usa" chanting troll is gone.

[99Forever]

55. I smell 1%er wannabe.

And the distinct odor that emanates from under bridges.

[JI7]

56. hahahha

[MADem]

57. Wait a minute--didn't Gerard Depardieu take Russian citizenship because he

was pissed about how France was taxing him while he lived in Belgium?

The very premise of the article is a lie.

[jmowreader]

69. Tell me how RBT wouldn't be abused

The only reason Mitt Romney, David Koch and Donald Trump pay any taxes at all, is that the United States has CBT.

If the United States had RBT, the entire 1 percent would move to the Bahamas (which has none of the taxes the rich hate) within 24 hours of RBT's passage.

[NoOneMan]

74. Hows that work for other countries?

The entire world does RBT. Do they have rich? Oh no, if we can't let them all go Galt on us!!!!!@!

FFS.

Does your country have nothing else to offer people to make them stay beyond draconian penalties?

[jmowreader]

81. I think within ten years CBT will sweep the globe

I did some looking into Britain's tax situation (because the articles are written in English) and it appears the British people are getting mighty pissed off with their "ultras" hauling ass for Monaco and Gibraltar to escape British taxation. The same thing is happening in Germany and France. Eventually the citizens of these countries are going to get pissed off enough at having to help pay rich people's taxes for them that they'll demand CBT.

[NoOneMan]

84. Oh USA. You're such a trailblazer

Teabagging is going viral too

[riverbendviewgal]

78. The Bahamas has RBT

the USA does not. The rich can still move to the Bahamas. They can buy their way to being citizen. just like in Malta.

http://www.expatadvice.com/html/article.php/zcid/2253/type/article/finance/The_Golden_Passport_Visa

[JI7]

87. all the arguments in support of OP sound the same as what i hear from the right wing

not really surprised about at least one poster which i have suspected of being a right winger for a while now.

[NoOneMan]

93. The arguments against the OP seem pretty right wing as well

My personal take is that this is an emotional issue and people seem to be talking past each other here; and some of that has to do with knee-jerking and not being familiar with the situation.

Of course I understand why people want the elite to have their offshore assets taxed. I do not understand why people would want American families abroad subject to double taxation, or have young Americans fear exploring and living overseas.

[JI7]

89. why do you want to punish Romney for being wealthy and "successful" you must be JEALOUS

hahhaha

[NoOneMan]

94. Where does Romney live?

[Godhumor]

90. No problem at all filling taxes when I lived in Japan

Did them by hand, too. This is about as close to a non-issue as I can think of. Still the breathless outage in the op was impressive.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

99. The OP has been peddling this crap for some time.

And the OP is impervious to facts. hmmm

[davidpdx]

96. From my perspective as someone who has lived overseas for 10 years

(and continues to live overseas) I am first and foremost an American and will never give it up (I qualify for dual citizenship, but really see no reason for it). I have permanent residency in South Korea because I am married to a Korean. The law is if you are overseas for 330 days you can take an exemption on income up to $97,600. he United States and South Korea have a treaty that prevents double taxation as long as you make below that amount. I continue to file the regular tax return every year like clockwork. I pay taxes in Korea (income, VAT, car registration, and property).

The issue is assets and how much you have. Starting a few years ago the IRS requires reporting assets over a certain level. The threshold is pretty high though. Also your primary residence does not count. I don't think I'll ever make enough to worry about it. I continue to file the regular tax return every year like clockwork. If I owned a second house and started accumulating money I might be concerned. I'm dead broke, with a mortgage and student loans, so for now it is not a big deal. The law is confusing though.

[JCMach1]

98. +1000

[NoOneMan]

100. So what I'm getting is, as long as it doesn't bother *you*, its ok?

I mean, I still haven't seen *anyone* justify with logic the entire notion that we should have to file, much less pay taxes, as non residents. Until that's even done, I'm not sure I can give it a free pass because it may or not be affecting me personally.


I've lived abroad 5 years and owed nothing in tax to the US (been hard here and there). That still didn't make it logical to me. This may likely change in the coming 5 years. Its still not logical to me.

[davidpdx]

101. No, on the contrary

I believe the rules should be changed and clarified. My understanding is DA is working on this with Senator Gillibrand to address the issues.

The IRS is trying to catch those with large amounts of assets, not the average expat. In changing the law they create a dragnet that includes us unfortunately. The question is at what amount should assets overseas have to be reported. Personally I think it should be $1 million in assets. I know of foreigners here in Korea who have small businesses who could probably stay below that threshold.

The income cutoff is very clear and unless you are an executive at a large company there is little chance it will affect you (I noticed the amount has gone up every year. I think when I came here it was around $82,500).

[NoOneMan]

102. That reasonable

nless you are an executive at a large company there is little chance it will affect you

In the case you work for a company that may compensate you with ownership (a structure all liberals should embrace), the value of that ownership is taxable when it vests in both countries simultaneously (even if you do not have the liquid assets to pay it). In the US there is a loophole around this, but not for those living abroad.

[El_Johns]

103. If your ownership is in the company both in the US & in the company you live in, obviously

you are going to pay income tax on the US-based income.

I hardly see that as some major "injustice".

E.g. if you're a partner in a law firm with operations in the US and Canada. You pay Canadian taxes on the income you get in Canada (part of which is not from -your- work, but from the work of more lowly attorneys in the firm) -- but that doesn't exempt you from also paying taxes on the income you derive from the US operations of the same firm (which is also your 'cut' on the work of more lowly attorneys working in the US, like any capitalist takes a cut of the work done by workers in his operations across the globe).

Why should you be exempt from paying taxes on US-based income just because you pay taxes elsewhere on income made elsewhere?

[NoOneMan]

104. The company has nothing to do with the US whatsoever

All investors are foreign and labor is performed done abroad, without any US ties. If any services were ever potentially performed for US clients, they are entirely tax exempt due to tax treaty exemptions. The company isn't the issue.

Its the ownership in the company that is the problem. If I resided in the US, I would elect to pay all taxes on the startup with an 83b election, and pay $0 in taxes. Thats a loophole.

I don't get that tax dodge. So if the company were to raise millions of dollars for R&D in the next year, I would essentially appear wealthy as the shares vest but have absolutely no money to pay the IRS. I would have no ability to liquidate such assets of a private startup in development. It would be a disaster essentially. It already will be because I owe these taxes in the country I live in (they don't offer a similar tax dodge)

But people here claim that is "fair".

People abroad don't have access to the same loopholes, elections and exemptions to whittle down their income and dodge taxes. So they are really not being treated equally by any means, as far as what they "owe" the US is concerned.

you are going to pay income tax on the US-based income.

I really don't think you are following this issue at all. The US taxes worldwide income. Worldwide.

[El_Johns]

107. So then don't take your compensation in ownership. And if I'm not mistaken, when the shares

vest, you essentially -will- be that wealthy, because you can sell them.

83b doesn't keep you from having to pay taxes. It just keeps you from having to pay -lots- of taxes should the start-up become wildly successful down the road.

Hey, life is unfair. I just had to sign an agreement that some TV show could do anything it wanted with my image forever, for free, just to keep a minimum wage job. And so did my coworkers, most of whom couldn't even READ the paper they were forced to sign. But what difference would it have made if they could? They have no rights whatsoever in the matter if they want to keep their job. They are poor, working poor, and can't afford any legal help.

So too bad for your & your "unfairness", I have my own to be angry about. And you know what? People are getting treated 100s of times more unfairly than you, ALL OVER THE GLOBE. Like being killed for being involved with unions, like having bombs dropped on them when they're going to school.

So I don't mean to be rude, but I didn't see you in my thread, talkinig about how unfair my situation was. Your problem is a question of making a lot of money v. making a lot more money. Too bad, hope you work it out.



When it comes to how much you pay, the IRS is going to calculate your tax liability based upon the fair market value of the equity at the time it’s transferred to you. When it comes to when you’ll pay those taxes, the IRS is going to require you to pay tax on the income during that year in which the equity is actually transferred to you such that you could do what you want with it.

Very frequently though, especially with founders, any grant of equity is going to be subject to a vesting agreement. What that means is that under the default rule, you don’t pay taxes on any stock until it actually vests, and you pay taxes based upon the value of the stock at the time of vesting. As a practical matter, what this means is that if the company does really well and goes up in value over the course of the vesting agreement, you’re going to end up paying more and more taxes over the years.

The IRS has implemented another option, though, the 83(b) election. Codified at 26 U.S.C. § 83(b), this election lets you decide at the start of your vesting agreement to be taxed for the entire amount that will eventually vest at the present value. Rather than paying tax each year then, you pay all the tax up front based on the value of the stock when it was granted to you. In order to make this election, you have to send a letter to the IRS within 30 days of the grant being made. The IRS has published a sample letter that outlines all the information needed.

http://ayrlaw.com/what-is-an-83b-election-and-when-do-i-make-it-part-1-with-graphic/

[NoOneMan]

112. Start-ups attract talent by rewarding shares. The alternative is not to be paid higher

Its to miss out on an opportunity or work somewhere else.

when the shares View profile vest, you essentially -will- be that wealthy, because you can sell them.

Phantom shares cannot be sold or transfered.

3b doesn't keep you from having to pay taxes. It just keeps you from having to pay -lots- of taxes should the start-up become wildly successful down the road.

It basically keeps you from paying taxes on a start-up, prior to fundraising.

Hey, life is unfair.

Exactly! Yes. Thank you for FINALLY admitting it. That doesn't mean we should all accept it.

I just had to sign an agreement that some TV show could do anything it wanted with my image forever, for free, just to keep a minimum wage job

That sucks. There is no way in the world I would of just told you to suck it up. Getting exploited sucks. Getting treating unfairly does too. These are things we should fight together.

And you know what? People are getting treated 100s of times more unfairly than you, ALL OVER THE GLOBE. Like being killed for being involved with unions, like having bombs dropped on them when they're going to school.

So is there some bar of unfairness that you are supposed just accept and forget? Who sets that bar? Does it change over the years? Is there a time in the US where one level of unfairness could just be told off by saying "suck it up"?

So I don't mean to be rude, but I didn't see you in my thread, talkinig about how unfair my situation was.

Erm, I didn't see your thread. Is this some personal issue? I don't get it.

Your problem is a question of making a lot of money v. making a lot more money

No, its a matter of going bankrupt and having my house seized because of where I was born. Yes I have an option. It sucks IMO

Too bad, hope you work it out.

Thanks. You too. Also thanks for finally admitting its not a fair system.

[davidpdx]

105. Because the income is not made inside the US, therefore it should only be taxed by the country you

live in. We are talking about being paid by foreign companies (or organizations) in a foreign country. South Korea and the US have a tax treaty that allows those working abroad only to pay taxes where they live.

Now if the income was from the US, I'd see your point.

Most expats don't make anywhere near the max amount (the $97,500 or whatever I said it was in another post). If you are teaching English in Korea salaries can be as low as $24,000 a year for a bare minimum (a noob) and if you are a very high level professor maybe as high as 2 to 3 times that. Still way short of the top limit.

I'm not sure what difference there is if someone is working for a US company. Usually the company figures taxes into the compensation so that the employee gets help if there are additional taxes to pay.

[El_Johns]

106. The person said his company gave him some kind of "ownership" in the company. Whether

that ownership is an actual partnership or just shares in the company, if the company has operations in the US, it makes money in the US.

If a person is just working for wages in a US company in another country, that's a different kettle of fish. But the person I responded to talked about ownership in a company with dual operations.

[davidpdx]

108. Probably because I was talking about small businesses

Which then means I caused a little confusion there. Yes, if it were a US based company then they would pay full taxes.

If it was a small or medium sized business in Korea they would pay taxes here. The issue would be the amount of assets they owned. I know of a foreigner who is American that owns a bookstore in Korea (never met him though). In that kind of a case you can probably end up with quite a bit of assets if the business is well-established (which this one is as it has been around for a long time). I can imagine it would be a nightmare tax wise.

For those of us who just work for a company it is much more straight forward. I'd only be concerned if I really started earning enough to amass large amounts of money. I doubt that will happen though.

[El_Johns]

110. And I expect that's the case for most expats, so the "living obituary for expats" in the OP is

misrepresentation to the nth.

But you don't pay income taxes on assets, you pay them on income.

[davidpdx]

117. True

But the IRS now requires you to report assets above a certain limit. The problem is that it is confusing for ordinary expats.

[El_Johns]

119. What kind of assets? House? Business? Stock shares? Everything?

Or only assets that produce income?

I'm not being snarky, just curious.

[NoOneMan]

121. "just curious."

You've made this many posts in a thread about FATCA and cross border taxation without even knowing much about FATCA?

I can't so much as have a $500 checking account without the IRS watching it

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-banks-to-be-compelled-to-share-clients-info-with-u-s-1.2437975

Guess who is paying for this bureaucracy? You!

[El_Johns]

125. Yes, actually, I'm a curious sort. I expect this is partly a result of 9/11, actually, and all

Bush's new laws.

[NoOneMan]

127. 9/11 seems to be what I hear everywhere about this stuff, if its true or not

A foreign corporation can't even open a simple banking account in the US anymore due to all these new banking laws (unless there is some institution I haven't heard of). Even a NAFTA tax exempt company can't, which turns receiving into a major fee ridden pain

[davidpdx]

123. Well it would be any assets

I've owned shares of stock in a Korean company for instance. It was only 100 shares. I have also had a CD and other investments at various times (this was before we bought our house which sucked all the money out of my pocket).

My vague understanding is that the only thing that is exempt is your primary residence. Other than that I only have my car which is getting old, so thankfully it's not a problem.

[El_Johns]

124. OK, it makes more sense with housing exemption.

[NoOneMan]

109. It doesn't matter if the company has nothing to do with the US

Under this tax code, vested ownership is considered taxable benefits/income, so it counts toward my income. The US taxes your worldwide income, and I must report such "income". If I get compensated $90K and receive shares worth $30 K in ownership, I will owe taxes in my country on $120K. That is the amount I would subsequently report to the US, a certain amount of which is above the exemption threshold. So I would then be taxed as a $120K income earner in two countries at once while only actually making $80 in liquid assets. While my tax burden to the US may not be large in such a scenario, I most certainly will not have the money to pay it after paying my residency taxes and the cost of living. Frankly, as far as what my vested fair market value could be, the sky is the limit depending on the success of the company (though that says nothing about the immediate liquidity of such vested stocks).

Now the problem becomes even worse for phantom shares, as those are untransferable and unsalable. You alone are stuck with them (and that is in fact what I am getting).

If I were a US resident, I can pay taxes prior to vesting when the fair market value is nominal. Google what an 83(b) election is.

I am following different, more fair rules IMHO, and paying more into the safety net of my country. Your country wants me to subsidize their tax dodges.

[El_Johns]

111. 83b means you pay taxes once, when the value is nominal. If not, you pay them every year

as the value goes up (or not, if the value goes down).

Yes, you're right, 83b is a tax dodge.

Why do you want in on it?

As a matter of "fairness," it's ordinary taxpayers who are subsidizing it.

[NoOneMan]

113. "Why do you want in on it?"

If its fair that all Americans pay tax (regardless of where they live and other taxes they pay), then its fair all their income is treated equally and they have access to the same exemptions and deductions.

[El_Johns]

114. You already admitted it was a tax dodge. And it is, a dodge that benefits a certain class.

Extend the issue of fairness a bit, eh?

Your issue is that this situation is unfair -- to you, because you can't use the same dodge you could in the states. If you could, you wouldn't be talking about unfairness, even though the dodge is also unfair to the poor schlubs who work for employers with no access to such dodges.

Nothing personal, you seem like a nice person (meaning you haven't insulted me for disagreeing with you), but it doesn't seem like fairness is really your concern.

Also, I don't see how you'll lose your house, because the initial taxes don't seem to be any different with 83b or without it. The 'ownership' has the same initial low value. Maybe I'm missing something here.

[NoOneMan]

116. Yes, young entrepreneurs who take risks

The 83(b) mainly helps when a company starts-up cash poor and doesn't have enough money to hire talent outright, so people work for reduced salary and vested shares (and they use the election to avoid getting crushed if they produce a viable company--yet they still pay taxes when/if they sell such shares). Its not for the by the Kochs and Romneys. Its for Americans who work hard to build a company they have ownership in from the start.

In any case, defining what tax loopholes are moral or not is a whole other issue. Another one I miss out on is the 380 billion the US gives away in mortgage interest write-offs. Is that one moral? Who does that benefit? Not renters.

As you said before, its not fair. I agree. I guess you can rub people's face in it and remain angry about your own life or have some empathy. When people are forced between renouncing (something they never envisioned) or otherwise losing their home (in such a scenario I mention, which I find myself in), its not something to laugh off.

[El_Johns]

118. OK, so young risk-takers work on the cheap (do you work for minimum wage?) & phantom shares.

The shares have no value until they are offered on the open market, right?

And you don't have to pay taxes on them unless you sell them, right?

And when you sell them you pay a lower rate than you do on regular income, right?

I don't see the problem. It's very possible I have something wrong, but what is it?

[NoOneMan]

120. Ug....

do you work for minimum wage

I work far below market for my profession, abilities and experience.

The shares have no value until they are offered on the open market, right?

No. The shares are considered taxable income when they vest, according to their vesting schedule, as they relate to the fair market value of the company at the time of vesting. They cannot be sold. They cannot be transferred. But they are taxable (in both countries). They can only be redeemed upon a majority change in ownership of the company, at which time the capital gains (difference between vested amount and current) is further taxable (in both countries).

Example: You are part of a startup with 1 guy who puts up the money. You will have 10% vested after you work there a year. After a year, the company raises $1 million based on the work you've done and your contributions. Your 10% is considered around $100K of income. You must pay 40% of that to the country you live in. You must also pay anything above the deduction level to the US (if you were being paid $50 K, you owe taxes on around $60k of income in the US). So if you made $50 K, you will be taxed on $150K where you live and on $60K in the states, with no way to ever redeem such amounts unless the company is sold in full at some later date in time. If the company goes bankrupt in the future, you are still liable in the past (if thats how the country you live in operates)

And when you sell them you pay a lower rate than you do on regular income, right?

Its treated as capital gains, but its already been taxed once (in two countries) as income mind you. Of course, you are assuming the country I am in (or anyone else) has capital gains rate as low as the US.

I don't see the problem. It's very possible I have something wrong, but what is it?

1) You are assuming the amounts can be sold. They can't be. They mean nothing unless a very unusual condition is met: the company has its majority stake sold. Until that condition is met, the owner is asset rich and cash poor.

2) That US residents don't have to face this issue because tax fairness is built in around it. You want non-residents that conform to different tax-codes to pay your taxes, but you aren't considering that their income isn't being counted the same as yours with equivilent exemptions and deductions.

3) This bitch of a problem is causing at least one American Citizen to have to give up citizenship--which should never be taken lightly. That is music to the ears of the love it or leave it crowd

[El_Johns]

122. Hard to believe that a "payment" that can't be used as cash & can't be sold is taxed as though

it were cash.

How is such an "asset" even valued?

It seems the value would be zero -- unless it's a portion of the $$ the money guy already put into the start-up. If you have no financing yet, how much could such shares possibly be worth?

If I incorporate a company and pass out shares of my valueless company, how does IRS determine their value?

[NoOneMan]

126. Sure is.

Hell, for me its hard to believe the US should even by taxing non-residents period. By hey, we all have our thresholds.

How is such an "asset" even valued?

I don't know yet honestly. Probably based on a company valuation (which I'm not in charge of). That's my next meeting.

If you have no financing yet, how much could such shares possibly be worth?

In the US, they elect in 30 days of issuance of the vesting schedule. The trick is to do so prior to fundraising so such values are $0 (and shouldn't it be, since these people are taking a chance and building something from scratch with talent?). But in my case, the value of the vested stock is determined at each year. We've already raised money, and will raise more. By year 1, there will be tangible assets to judge what 1% will be.

If I incorporate a company and pass out shares of my valueless company, how does IRS determine their value?

Um. It's what you claim, but that should be nothing in such a case. And thats the value of the 83(b). Its $0. Thats how members of start-ups turn their labor into capital gains (and their income is taxed as normal). This is what I am getting at here. This allows people who take a chance to wait until a majority stake of their creation is sold before they are taxed on it, instead of each year even if its never sold.

Some people may not think that's fair. That's fine. That's a debate the US should have. In this example, I'm just saying its not fair to (in addition to taxing non-residents) tax people when their income is calculated according to different codes and different exemptions.

Hell, I can also show you how I'll have more income on my returns because I couldn't write-off my morgtage interest. There are a multitude of these inequalities where my "income" isn't going to be the same living overseas as in the US. And to boot, the cost of living is already much higher

[Douglas Carpenter]

115. - A U.S. Citizen is exempted for the first $94,000 in earned income for purposes of calculating

their tax liability. They do have to meet certain criteria like no more than 30 days inside the U.S. during the first 12 months abroad. There is also a foreign income tax exclusion in the code but that is something I don't know any details about. Canada actually has much stricter restrictions than the United States when it comes to claiming non-Canadian residency for purposes of taxation. I worked most of my life abroad - so I am quite familiar with this. A Canadian has to be outside of Canada for 24 months - allowing brief periods back in Canadian territory - They have to sign over any real estate to someone else and a number of other restrictions. At least in the past - they had to legally separate if their spouse remained back in Canada. New Zealanders also have an number of restrictions - or at least they did in the past - such as only being able to claim tax exemption for certain specified reasons - much more restrictive than the United States.

Currently I am living in the U.S. Commonwealth Territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. I don't pay U.S. Federal Income Tax - as such on income I earn in the territories. I pay only U.S. Social Security and a Commonwealth tax which has a maximal rate of 15%.

[FreakinDJ]

142. That being said - the USA has ALWAYS required reporting of Foreign Income

Income reporting made overseas has always been required - its nothing new

The BIG deal is now they must report ALL their accounts AND income on 1 form and actually send it to an ENFORCEMENT Division.

So what are these people bitching about - they seem to be just now starting to report their income after getting away with not reporting it all these years

[NoOneMan]

143. U.S. FATCA tax law catches unsuspecting Canadians in its crosshairs

X-Post. Front page of CBC today. Interesting article about a specific person affected. Renouncing their citizenship is of course easier said than done:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024323032