Update: Residence Based Taxation Proposal

By Karen Alpert
Dr. Karen Alpert

Dr. Karen Alpert

This article was originally published on Fix the Tax Treaty

March 30, 2018

For the past few weeks there has been increasing speculation about the contents of a rumoured Residence Based Taxation proposal from Congressman George Holding’s office. Democrats Abroad reported that they had seen the proposal. Then Republicans Overseas were also on board. And, over on the American Expatriates Facebook Group, Keith Redmond reported on a meeting held at the offices of Americans for Tax Reform to discuss the proposal. It has been great to see such broad-based support for this much-needed reform.

Over the last week or so, I’ve been working with Greg Swanson (PurpleExpat.org) and John Richardson (citizenshipsolutions.ca) to provide feedback on this proposal. The three of us have sent a joint letter to Congressman Holding’s Tax Counsel outlining what long-term expats (including Accidental Americans) might like to see in a proposal to end Citizenship Based Taxation.

It’s important to note that the original proposal is really just a rough outline of what Residence Based Taxation might look like. Many of the provisions are (understandably) incomplete and unclear. Any final bill will look quite different because of the need to generate political support as well as the need for clarity in the final legislative language. However much we must compromise to get a result, it is important to be clear about what we want and the underlying principles we will be using to evaluate any proposed legislation.

These are the three basic principles that we believe should guide legislators in creating solutions to the problems arising from the taxation of non-resident citizens:

  1. American citizenship should not disadvantage a citizen living outside the US relative to expatriates from other nations.
  2. We believe that freedom of movement is a basic human right. We also believe that freedom of movement and international trade go hand-in-hand. Governments should never impose laws, taxation, regulations, or other limitations on their citizens that hampers the freedom of movement of those citizens.
  3. US citizens currently living outside the US who have arranged their financial affairs to be compliant with current US law should not be disadvantaged. Similarly, those non-residents who were unaware that they needed to arrange their financial affairs in accordance with US law should not have their savings confiscated just because they have foreign investments that are taxed punitively by the US relative to similar domestic US investments.

There is a trade-off between comprehensive legislation that fixes all of the problems faced by long-term expats and simpler, targeted legislation that may be easier to pass precisely because it doesn’t deal with the more controversial issues. It may be that the initial legislation is stripped down to the bare minimum, leaving some problems to be resolved in future legislation. Politics is never easy.

avatar
6 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
3 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Gussie11jimGussie11TamarWillieWanka Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
Notify of
trackback
Citizenship Counselling For U.S. Citizens in Canada and Abroad

If you want to be a shareholder in our Canadian business then you must renounce U.S. citizenship |

[…] of the Holding proposal is certainly evolving. Regardless of the final content, Karen Alpert, Greg Swanson and I have proposed three core principles against which a final proposal should be measured. (We […]

trackback
| Alliance for the Defeat of Citizenship Taxation

If you want to be a Shareholder in our Canadian Business then you must Renounce U.S. Citizenship |

[…] of the Holding proposal is certainly evolving. Regardless of the final content, Karen Alpert, Greg Swanson and I have proposed three core principles against which a final proposal should be measured. (We […]

trackback
The Isaac Brock Society |

If you want to be a Shareholder in our Canadian Business then you must Renounce U.S. Citizenship

[…] of the Holding proposal is certainly evolving. Regardless of the final content, Karen Alpert, Greg Swanson and I have proposed three core principles against which a final proposal should be measured. (We […]

Chrisat27
Member
Christine (Chris) Dymkowski

I’m really glad to see no. 3 above – quite apart from the general injustice of CBT,  the confiscatory tax on PFICs means  that people like me, who had no idea mutual funds in my country of residence were bad investments from the US tax point-of-view, risk losing their entire contingency funds for old age.  I hope CBT is scrapped entirely, but, if not, a change to PFIC rules is absolutely necessary.

WillieWanka
Member
WillieWanka

Christine, I agree.

Tamar
Member
Tamar

I believe that it is critical to make clear that the term “foreign” as used in Tax Code & regs & wherever, shall *not* apply to a resident of said foreign country. PFIC rules, e.g., made us invest in US – causing us to lose much of our life savings because our local currency hs risen strongly against the dollar and we use our local currency to live!

jim
Guest
jim

Is Congress truly talking about getting rid of CBT and FATCA and what are the chances of them getting rid of it?