Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The IRS does indeed have jurisdiction over dual citizens who reside abroad.
They cannot fly to the country and show up at your door and haul you away to jail.
You make it sound as if they were as powerful as interpol.
They're not. They're a bunch of pencil pushers.
This all started off with the "elite" hiding their money offshore and it ends up with the IRS getting money from housewives and white collar worker bees.
How are they going to collect those costs and penalties?
They confiscate the funds from U.S.-based financial transactions.
Yes, foreign financial institutions may be able to avoid FATCA costs and penalties if they never conduct business with a U.S. entity or financial institution. What are the odds of that?
They confiscate the funds from U.S.-based financial transactions.
Yes, foreign financial institutions may be able to avoid FATCA costs and penalties if they never conduct business with a U.S. entity or financial institution. What are the odds of that?
NO!!
They get the money when the money is on US soil!!!
NO way!
What happens if it's the Ledbetter bank on Frank Street in Thamesbury, and they don't have any holdings or transactions on US soil? How does the IRS handle that situation?
And that is one of the leading reasons more are giving up their US citizenship.
I read of one story of a lawyer in the UK and he's giving up his US citizenship because he's in line to become a partner and the entire law firm could be dragged into any US tangles. He felt that his US citizenship and our tougher tax laws would hinder him in his career growth. And he said he hadn't been back to the states in over 10 years.
I'm not the one trying to define "permanent domicile" as only "domicile."
Refer your question to Arus.
No.
I've asked you this before. You're the one telling us all how "permanent domicile" is supposed to be applied, legally.
You're right, you're not the one trying to define "permanent domicile". You're the one trying to tell us what it doesn't mean. But you can only prove that it doesn't mean illegal aliens and it doesn't mean people on visas and it doesn't mean whatever other group you're trying to exclude, you can only PROVE it by providing a legal definition.
They confiscate the funds from U.S.-based financial transactions.
Yes, foreign financial institutions may be able to avoid FATCA costs and penalties if they never conduct business with a U.S. entity or financial institution. What are the odds of that?
Only when it comes to individuals, not corporations.
And banks are refusing to deal with US citizens living abroad because of this law.
Proven to be false because InformedConsent has spoken.
I'm merely the vector. The information I posted is actual documented historic fact.
Read it again to verify it for yourself. Links included for your convenience:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The passage to which you've referred with that statement has already been proven to be historically inaccurate and therefore, NOT true. Proven to be false here: http://www.city-data.com/forum/31076944-post258.html
American jurisdiction that stops at American borders.
But it's likely that a prominent London law firm will have dealings beyond England's borders, isn't it? Why employ American attorneys, if you have no business in the United States?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.