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.
I'm specifically discussing the tax liabilities of those NOT living in the U.S.
Because tax liabilities and jurisdiction are the same thing in InformedConsent world. They aren't the same thing in the real world, but that's never stopped InformedConsent in the past.
When the IRS agents roll up to someone's house in Munich, then you can tell us about the IRS having jurisdiction.
No need. They require banks to do it for them.
Just one example...
Quote:
“government-to-government conversations” are underway involving the U.S. Treasury Department on proposed U.S. legislation that will compel Canadian banks to turn over information on their American clients to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, according to a source briefed on the matter.
The crackdown on [U.S.] tax evasion that would conscript Canadian banks “has far-reaching extraterritorial implications,” Mr. Flaherty [Canada’s Finance Minister] warned in his letter.
“It would turn Canadian banks into extensions of the IRS and would raise significant privacy concerns for Canadians,” he said.
FACTA is applied in conjunction with treaties and agreements. FACTA isn't an assertion of jurisdiction in foreign countries. It's an assertion that criminal activity is occurring (tax evasion is a crime), and that the banks themselves, and the countries as well, have treaties and other international agreements that do not allow the banks to assist or aid American citizens in committing criminal acts.
Many foreign citizens have bank accounts in the United States, and US banks are often required to disclose that information both to the US government (and the IRS is not the only agency with an interest) and to the relevant foreign government when that foreign government has treaties and agreements with the United States.
International law is not about superseding jurisdictions between countries. International laws don't give England jurisdiction in France, nor do they give the United States jurisdiction in Switzerland. Switzerland still has complete and unshared jurisdiction in Switzerland. They, and they alone, can criminally prosecute banks. But civil suits can be filed, by governments against other governments or against private enterprises such as banks. Whether civil suits involving international parties are successful depends on a range of factors, such as the level of cooperation between the countries involved, the treaties and agreements involved, and what leverage is involved between the parties. In the case of USB, the United States filed a CIVIL suit, and was largely successful because of existing treaties which both the United States and Switzerland are party to, but more importantly, because USB has substantial investments in the United States, where the United States does have jurisdiction. Since the United States did have evidence that American citizens were criminally breaking the law, and of USB involvement in those criminal activities, the investments of the USB on American soil were at risk. Which is why the USB could be pressured into a financial settlement with the United States and to giving up the names of American account holders.
Larger banks with multinational holdings are the banks that have the most to lose if they don't comply with IRS requests. Not because the IRS has worldwide jurisdiction, they don't; not because the IRS has any jurisdiction beyond US borders, they don't. But because the IRS can use the jurisdiction they do have within the United Stateson these foreign entities and because a network of international laws/treaties/agreements support the interests our nation has in our citizens paying their income taxes.
It should be noted, that when American citizens abroad pay their income taxes, there is a credit for the taxes they've paid on that income to foreign governments. There isn't a penalty for working abroad, there is simply an obligation of citizenship, whether that citizen lives within or without the United States.
FACTA is applied in conjunction with treaties and agreements. FACTA isn't an assertion of jurisdiction in foreign countries. It's an assertion thatcriminal activity is occurring (tax evasion is a crime), and that the banks themselves, and the countries as well, have treaties and other international agreements that do not allow the banks to assist or aid American citizens in committing criminal acts.
Banks don't have treaties.
However, you do ADMIT that presence in a FOREIGN country does NOT absolve one from adhering to their own country's laws. For example... automatic jus sanguinis citizenship laws by which foreign countries have worldwide jurisdiction in regards to nationality.
Thank you for admitting that what I've said all along is true.
It should be noted, that when American citizens abroad pay their income taxes, there is a credit for the taxes they've paid on that income to foreign governments. There isn't a penalty for working abroad, there is simply an obligation of citizenship, whether that citizen lives within or without the United States.
The US is the only country to tax its citizens that live abroad.
You buy and sell property in Europe for a profit and you owe the US cap gains tax.
It's more than just "reporting" because even if you have $0 US income you must file 50+ pages and pay tax on your foreign income.
The US practices citizen-based taxes, not residence based or source based.
And now the US has an "exit tax" when people renounce their citizenship.
And for those living abroad permanently it makes financial sense to renounce and pay the exit tax and be done with the IRS once and for all.
U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad
If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside.
The US is the only country to tax its citizens that live abroad.
You buy and sell property in Europe for a profit and you owe the US cap gains tax.
It's more than just "reporting" because even if you have $0 US income you must file 50+ pages and pay tax on your foreign income.
The US practices citizen-based taxes, not residence based or source based.
And now the US has an "exit tax" when people renounce their citizenship.
And for those living abroad permanently it makes financial sense to renounce and pay the exit tax and be done with the IRS once and for all.
U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad
If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside.
Exactly so. WORLDWIDE jurisdiction, as the U.S. IRS itself states (see my earlier post).
No different than the WORLDWIDE jurisdiction countries with automatic jus sanguinis citizenship laws, such as the U.K., have over their citizens' offspring born anywhere in the world.
Exactly so. WORLDWIDE jurisdiction, as the U.S. IRS itself states (see my earlier post).
Well I guess you could take that with a grain of salt.
The IRS can't just fly to Europe and show up at your door for an audit.
All the IRS can really do to folks living abroad permanently is heap on penalties and get foreign banks to report to them.
The IRS can't do anything physical like haul you off to jail.
The IRS is not on the same level as NATO or the UN.
Gray was talking about the Treaty that WKAs parents came over under and the establishment of a domicile and residence, that is why he listed the many cases of other Chinese.
Again, the CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT, prevented many Chinese immigrants from even entering the US, and disallowed ALL of them from becoming citizens.
YOUR QUOTE, directly refers to CHINESE PERSONS being treated the same as all OTHER ALIENS.
That includes ALIENS who WERE NOT in the US with permission.
You would have to purposefully obtuse to think that there weren't any immigrants here illegally at the time of Wong Kim Ark.
Quote:
Illegal alien wasnt a concept during the time, you are attempting to use a definition from the present to justify a case from the past. Your definition is useless. "Aliens" are always defined in every case to their actual status, from your own link: There are different categories of aliens....In the past the government used the terms "resident alien" and "non-resident alien,"
can you provide proof that EVERY SINGLE ALIEN in the US in 1890 was HERE legally?
I'm sure you have the paperwork of every Canadian and Mexican who came across the border and showed that they had permission in the form of a VISA or PASSPORT.
you would have to be purposefully obtuse to believe that the US Supreme Court did not realize that there were Aliens in the US who were here with permission.
Again, Gray (and I don't know why you keep on saying "Gray's Opinion" when the damn thing was approved and written by 4 other Justices) was speaking to the ISSUE of CHINESE PERSONS, because CHINESE PERSONS NEEDED PERMISSION TO BE in the US, from THEIR home country.
Quote:
Gray was speaking to the fact that many Chinese came over under a treaty and established domicile and residence.
And domicile in legal terms is the PLACE To live. Residency is to establish that YOU are living there.
Quote:
Ive not ignored it, but I hope you realize that during the time after the US Constitution, only "whites" were allowed to be born citizens provided the parents establish a domicile and residence.
Wrong. Again, you seem to not be able to understand the basic English as presented in this portion of the Wong Kim Ark decision:
Quote:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
THERE is no requirement of permanent domicile. There is NO REQUIREMENT of residency.
I've bolded the part you keep on ignoring.
Please show us where in this entire quote is the requirement for domicile and residency. All it says that anyone BORN IN England, and that the SAME RULE is in effect in the United States.
Once again, it applies to the child, NOT the parents. YOUR parents can be from MARS, for all the United States cares, their child if born on US Soil is a citizen at birth.
Quote:
There were requirements of a length of time (to establish a domicile and residence) or a declaration of intent (filing documents in the local courthouse, which still required the length of time to establish) by the father.
Please provide these "requirements". What law required at the time required this?
Quote:
Why do you think they needed the 14th Amendment? If you are going to exclaim your quote does it all, then the 14th is irrelevant.
The quote is RELEVANT because the US in Wong Kim Ark was trying to say that because WONG was CHINESE, and that we had the CHINESE EXCLUSION act in place, that he wasn't a citizen of the US.
the court affirmed the decision by citing the 14th Amendment.
the 14th was never irrelevant to the case; it was the REASON why Wong Kim Ark was a citizen from birth, despite a federal law that says Chinese persons cannot become citizens.
Again the text of the 14th Amendment for which you continue to ignore:
Quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Exactly so. WORLDWIDE jurisdiction, as the U.S. IRS itself states (see my earlier post).
I don't even know why I bother.
When the IRS is knocking on the door of an American in Germany let me know. Then you might have a case for American law enforcement extending its jurisdiction beyond America's borders. So far, you've got nothing. American citizens in foreign countries voting for the American President isn't an extension of American jurisdiction, it's American citizens exercising their rights as American citizens. Those rights are part of a RELATIONSHIP. Every relationship involves give and take. In the case of American citizenship, when Americans are abroad, they can use the resources of the American embassies and consulates nearest them. They can cast votes in American elections. And they are obligated to pay taxes on their income. That obligation, no more than their right to vote, is not an extension of jurisdiction. It's just a part of the RELATIONSHIP that is citizenship.
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.
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.
