More Taxpayers Are Abandoning the U.S.

[Ares]

Year's Tally for Expatriations Sets Record; Increase Comes Amid Tax Crackdown on Offshore Assets

This year will set a record for expatriations by U.S. taxpayers, with at least a 33% increase from the previous high in 2011.

The Treasury Department published the names of 560 people who either were U.S. citizens renouncing their citizenship or long-term residents who turned in their green cards during the third quarter.

That brings the total so far this year to 2,369, according to Andrew Mitchel, a tax lawyer in Centerbrook, Conn., who tracks the data. For all of 2011, the number of published expatriates was 1,781, he said.

Treasury doesn't report when people renounced, and there could be a gap between that action and a name's appearance on the list. The department also doesn't distinguish between those giving up passports and those turning in green cards.

Taxpayers who expatriate aren't required to give a reason, but experts said the overall increase was likely because of tougher enforcement of U.S. tax laws.

"Nothing has changed in immigration law that would make people want to renounce," said Freddi Weintraub, an immigration specialist and partner at Fragomen Worldwide, a New York-based law firm. "Current or anticipated changes in tax law and enforcement are driving this increase."

People who renounced last year might have avoided higher taxes on income and estates—including those on long-term capital gains—that took effect in 2013. Those who renounce citizenship or turn in green cards can be subject to an exit tax.

The Internal Revenue Service declined to comment.

"The fact that renunciations have increased sharply is not surprising, given increased U.S. scrutiny in this area," said Fran Obeid, a partner at Obeid & Lowenstein LLP in New York, who specializes in offshore-account issues. "Renunciation can be expensive, but it may be easier than staying in compliance with U.S. tax laws that can be onerous for citizens of other countries."

Taxpayers who renounce aren't required to hold citizenship elsewhere, but as a practical matter they usually do.

Experts said the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act also may have contributed to rising renunciations. Set to take effect next year, it requires foreign financial institutions to report account information about U.S. taxpayers to the IRS. Affected taxpayers include both U.S. citizens and green-card holders living in the U.S. and abroad.

All income earned by U.S. citizens and permanent residents, even those who live abroad, can be subject to U.S. tax. The U.S. also confers citizenship on people born on American soil. Penalties for failing to report assets can be severe, including up to 50% of an account balance a year.

Although many of the U.S. laws on offshore accounts have been in effect for decades, experts say there was little enforcement of them until 2009, when Swiss banking giant UBS AG admitted that it had helped U.S. taxpayers hide assets abroad. The bank paid $780 million to avoid criminal charges and turned over the names of more than 4,000 account holders, piercing the veil of Swiss bank secrecy.

Since then, more than 38,000 U.S. taxpayers have confessed to having undisclosed offshore accounts and paid more than $5.5 billion in back taxes, interest and penalties. Lawyers estimate $5 billion more hasn't yet been paid.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-taxpayers-abandoning-u-181500097.html

[ShortJohnSilver]

Taxpayers who renounce aren't required to hold citizenship elsewhere, but as a practical matter they usually do.

What does that mean?

[midnight rambler]

Taxpayers who renounce aren't required to hold citizenship elsewhere, but as a practical matter they usually do.

What does that mean?

One is at a big disadvantage when one is stateless - that's the 'practical' side of things.

[milehi]

When filling out the form for a firearm purchase, one of the questions is "have you ever renounced your citizenship?" Will answering yes to this forbid you from the purchase?

[midnight rambler]

When filling out the form for a firearm purchase, one of the questions is "have you ever renounced your citizenship?" Will answering yes to this forbid you from the purchase?

What do you think?

[7th trump]

What do you think?

Depends on which citizenship you are renouncing.


“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Here in the United States, if you are born in the states, have a dual citizenship.
If you are going to renounce the federal citizenship (US citizen) and retain the state citizenship (the People) you were born in.......that federal firearms license to purchase is not necessary.....it doesn't apply to the People!
As one the political "People" (state citizenship) you can carry and purchase all day long.



“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)


“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)


"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

You could technically renounce the federal citizenship and claim the sole status of the "People" by retaining the state citizenship you were born in.
Only the white man can renounce the federal citizenship and retain the state citizenship......all else cannot attain the political status as the People!
The negro does not have a dual citizenship....they only have the federal citizenship.
The negro might have been freed, but the negro was never recognized as an equal to the whites.....they cannot reach the Bill of Rights full potential.
All they get is a watered down BoR and civil rights emanating from the Civil Rights Act of 1866!


"No white person. . . owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution."
Van Valkenbrg v. Brown (1872), 43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43, 47.


"The rights of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the 14th Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions."
United States v. Anthony (1873), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.


“There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”.
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)


One of the things that hit me real hard was sitting in the IRS office several years ago and looking around there was a poster that said the IRS will not ever violate your "civil rights".
Hmmm.....civil rights huh....interesting!
I already knew this from CFR 1.1-1(c)


(c) Who is a citizen.
Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401-145 9). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481-148 9), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70-506, C.B. 1970-2, 1. For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born in American Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408 ). For special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of intention of becoming a citizen but who has

What's underlined and in bold comes directly from the 14th amendment.

[Twisted Titan]

Hold israeli citizenship.....then you get all the goodies.

[palani]

Depends on which citizenship you are renouncing.
You are deluding yourself if you think there is a state for you to be a citizen of. The states currently are all administrative subdivisions of the United States.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
http://i43.tinypic.com/2hdyykw.jpg

[palani]

Hold israeli citizenship.....then you get all the goodies.

The advantage of statelessness is that when you come across some unclaimed land you might seize it and hold it in your own name. All those early European explorers who where sent across the sea by their monarchs could only seize and hold land in the name of the monarch. Should you be a U.S. citizen then you may only seize and hold land in the name of the U.S.

[mick silver]

so having your paper money taken in other lands is better , so this is the only country that taxes it people

[madfranks]

so having your paper money taken in other lands is better , so this is the only country that taxes it people

The US is the only country that taxes business and profit made in other countries if the business owner is a US citizen. So imagine yourself a successful businessman who was born in the US and still holds US citizenship, but is running a profitable company in another country. Would you want to pay US taxes as well as your other country's taxes too?

[7th trump]

You are deluding yourself if you think there is a state for you to be a citizen of. The states currently are all administrative subdivisions of the United States.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
http://i43.tinypic.com/2hdyykw.jpg

Central intellignece Agency?
Am I understanding you correctly?
You are basing your premise on what a CIA web page says?

Obviously you cannot comprehend law....actually you are to lazy to comprehend law.
I'll bet the CIA is using "administrative subdivision" in a different context than your conspiracy beleif.
First of all, you havent dug around enough to see if these "states" are the federal jurisdictional overlays from the actual "several states".
Second of all, the courts say there are two citizenships....and no white man owes any allegience to this second federal jurisdictional citizenship.



“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)


I say "federal jurisdictional citizenship" because that is exactly how the 14th describes this citizenship.


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.

One example of you being confused, in and of the law, is territories, insulars and such are not members of the 50 union states sharing a "statehood".....so your precious CIA website is not talking about the political "several states".

You lose again grasshopper!
Why do you even talk about law if you are not even going to study law or its structure?
Why palani?

[mick silver]

The US is the only country that taxes business and profit made in other countries if the business owner is a US citizen. So imagine yourself a successful businessman who was born in the US and still holds US citizenship, but is running a profitable company in another country. Would you want to pay US taxes as well as your other country's taxes too? ...... your part right most companys have so many loop holes that they pay little to no tax

[madfranks]

...... your part right most companys have so many loop holes that they pay little to no tax

True, if you're part of a big company. For instance, if I owned a small consulting business that operated out of Canada, why would I want to pay US federal taxes as well as Canadian taxes? In this instance, I might be inclined to revoke my US citizenship and simply work in Canada.

[palani]

Obviously you cannot comprehend law.
I comprehend reality.


actually you are to lazy to comprehend law.
In a sense I am too lazy to tilt at a legal windmill when the path marked LAWFUL clearly bypasses it. Are you going to jump off a cliff because it is legal when a lawful route has been laid out that saves you mucho pain and discomfort?


I'll bet the CIA is using "administrative subdivision" in a different context than your conspiracy beleif.
The CIA classification of the states as 'administrative subdivisions' follows from the unconstitutional act of Harry S. Truman on or about June 20th, 1948 when he signed a bill into PUBLIC law while congress was on a major break. You got anything more current than that? Stop citing 200 year old case cites when the landscape changed permanently in 1948. Your system is GONE. Face reality. YOUR reality is different from the guy whose case you are citing so the cite doesn't apply.

[govcheetos]

Taxpayers who renounce aren't required to hold citizenship elsewhere, but as a practical matter they usually do.

What does that mean?


It's like being a runaway slave in my opinion. If you get caught trespassing on another plantation you'll get shot or pressed into service for them. Sure you can keep your head low,and runnoft, but you end up always having to look over your shoulder and hide out in the swamps a lot.

[7th trump]

I comprehend reality.


In a sense I am too lazy to tilt at a legal windmill when the path marked LAWFUL clearly bypasses it. Are you going to jump off a cliff because it is legal when a lawful route has been laid out that saves you mucho pain and discomfort?


The CIA classification of the states as 'administrative subdivisions' follows from the unconstitutional act of Harry S. Truman on or about June 20th, 1948 when he signed a bill into PUBLIC law while congress was on a major break. You got anything more current than that? Stop citing 200 year old case cites when the landscape changed permanently in 1948. Your system is GONE. Face reality. YOUR reality is different from the guy whose case you are citing so the cite doesn't apply.

Its "administrative divisions".....not subdivisions that you slipped in there.
Why are you slipping in "subdivisions" when its doesn't say "subdivisions"?
Always trying a slick trick aren't you palani.
Yes, the states fall under the federal government when in an international sense which is exactly what this CIA website is about.
The website lists many country's and their territories in the international sense....the union states would fall under this as well as all the territories and insulars. And hence why you see the unions states listed with nonstatehood territories and insulars you twit
That was the whole reason behind the founding fathers forming a central federal government. It was formed so the individual union states didn't have to deal with foreign countries on an international level.

The land scape didn't change pee-wee.
The original system is in intact. Its intact because none of the Congressional Acts have ever repealed the organic US Constitution. That parchment is still in play!
I could careless about the reasons the court cases ever came to be...so yes, that part doesn't matter.....so what's your motive in bringing that up?
Your opinion is just that....AN OPINION!
And your amateur armchair opinion doesn't change what the courts had to say about the dual citizenship and the different Rights that each holds.
That's why I mentioned the civil rights act poster on the IRS wall saying they will never violate your civil rights.
If the courts are interpreting law in how the law is administered then it stands to this day.
And guess what grasshopper.........those court cases still stand to this day.

Like I keep telling you....you're lost in the law because you allow yourself to be fooled.
You're not honest and I doubt you will ever be honest with yourself.

[palani]

Its "administrative divisions".....not subdivisions that you slipped in there.
Why are you slipping in "subdivisions" when its doesn't say "subdivisions"?
Always trying a slick trick aren't you palani.
Divisions or subdivisions? I might divide an apple into six pieces and call each piece a division. If I make the apple king and then divide it these divisions then are 'sub' ... subdivisions. The U.S. federal government is king in the division they made of the several states into administrative sections. Or do you believe Oklahoma can tell the U.S. what to do? I wrote what I intended and your lack of comprehension shines again as bright as nite.

Yes, the states fall under the federal government when in an international sense which is exactly what this CIA website is about. Domestic sense as well.

The website lists many country's and their territories in the international sense....the union states would fall under this as well as all the territories and insulars. And hence why you see the unions states listed with nonstatehood territories and insulars E PLURIBUS UNUM ... Under NATIONALITY on the CIA site is listed American(s). Yet there are 50 other nationalities involved.

That was the whole reason behind the founding fathers forming a central federal government. It was formed so the individual union states didn't have to deal with foreign countries on an international level. Each state IS a foreign country with respect to the United States [except for those domestic relations established by the constitution]....so saith the supreme court.
http://books.google.com/books?id=VXJ1AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA263&dq=cherokee+nation+vs+georgia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jl-HUtm2AsuMyAHLoIGQAg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=cherokee%20nation%20vs%20georgia&f=false
http://i41.tinypic.com/wcd8r9.jpg


The land scape didn't change
The original system is in intact. Its intact because none of the Congressional Acts have ever repealed the organic US Constitution. That parchment is still in play!
Has the land scape changed with your ex-wife? You two entered the same agreement roughly analogous to the U.S. constitution. Each vowed to never depart. Was that agreement amended? Is THAT parchment still in play? Or has the last amendment eliminated the entire agreement? 'Fess up!!! Has the NOOKIE part been abolished?

I could careless about the reasons the court cases ever came to be...so yes, that part doesn't matter.....so what's your motive in bringing that up? Each court case has a reason or multiple reasons. If your reasons can't match the case then why bother referring to it? The circumstances of a case generally only apply to that case.

Your opinion is just that....AN OPINION! But I can tell YOUR opinion is of much greater weight.

And your amateur armchair opinion doesn't change what the courts had to say about the dual citizenship and the different Rights that each holds. Court opinions will matter when the court is willing to grab a rife and actually enforce their opinions.

That's why I mentioned the civil rights act poster on the IRS wall saying they will never violate your civil rights.
If the courts are interpreting law in how the law is administered then it stands to this day.
And guess what grasshopper.........those court cases still stand to this day. These cases STAND for the parties involved FOOL!!!! Nobody else. We examine the rhetoric for REASON yet you have allowed yourself to be convinced that you can stir a pot of chicken bones and foretell the past.

Like I keep telling you....you're lost in the law because you allow yourself to be fooled.
I am not the one who genuflects at every STATUTE.

[7th trump]

And there you go fellow GSUS'ers.
Palani's post is a testament of his failure to understand law, construction of law and implementation of law.
So now the CIA with their website trumps all court cases and law itself.
And all court cases cited in other cases, cannot and should not, have ever been used to determine the outcome of cases in the future....because palani says they don't.
States are divisions on the plane when talking about the NATIONALITY OF "AMERICANS" as the bases of the CIA website (that palani agrees is the bases) , sure I couldn't agree more. A Texas resident is no more and no less an "American" as any Iowan or Oregonian. But as palani is passing this off the states are not "subdivisions" of the federal government. He even cites some old book that says they are foreign to each other.....so which it palani?
Are they foreign or are they divisions?

Each state has its own Constitution, its own capital, its own government. These are not divisions, nor are they subdivision of the federal centralized government.
(I'm pushing this division and subdivision issue because in the legal sense these are not the same...they cannot be used interchangeably as palani is doing. Palani would know this if he actually read any law. There's a drastic "legal" difference and only someone who reads the law would pick this up....he doesn't pick this up as he doesn't read any law)
The federal government and the governments of 50 union states are entirely different from one another.
The idiocy of palani conspiracy mindset has himself fooled into believing they are the same because he read it on a CIA website......wow!

[palani]

And there you go fellow GSUS'ers.

Your main problem i s you preach to an audience rather than consider reason. Ever consider being a politician?

[Bigjon]

Discover the blueprint about how citizenship should work and how we have been deceived.


http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?74018-Foundations-of-Freedom

[palani]

States are divisions on the plane when talking about the NATIONALITY OF "AMERICANS" as the bases of the CIA website (that palani agrees is the bases) , sure I couldn't agree more. A Texas resident is no more and no less an "American" as any Iowan or Oregonian. But as palani is passing this off the states are not "subdivisions" of the federal government. He even cites some old book that says they are foreign to each other.....so which it palani?
Are they foreign or are they divisions?
A state under the constitutional form of government makes only gold or silver a tender of payment. That is a restriction upon the constitutional states. Do you see Iowa making only gold or silver a tender of payment? This should be your clue that you are not in a constitutional state. If you are not in a constitutional state then why bother checking their constitution (each state) because they are not the ones bound to operate under even their own constitution.

Whether the existing states are administrative divisions or subdivisions of the Federal government might be determined by the level of the flags. Should you spot an Iowa flag flying at the same level as the federal flag then you might have a case for calling them administrative divisions. I don't believe I have ever seen a state flag at the same level as a federal flag. They always fly the state flag lower than the federal flag. To me this signifies that the current UNCONSTITUTIONAL state whose flag is being displayed is a SUBDIVISION rather than a DIVISION. The federal minions are SUBSERVIENT.