Mister Taxman: Why Some Americans Working Abroad Are Ditching Their Citizenships

  • Share
  • Read Later
Getty Images

Why is Tina Turner switching from American to Swiss citizenship? The legendary singer, a longtime Zurich resident, told the Blick newspaper that she has been very happy in Switzerland and “can’t imagine a better place to live.” But some observers believe she may be one of thousands of American expatriates who have taken the drastic and irrevocable step of giving up their citizenship because of what they consider to be the unjust and discriminatory taxation practices of their government.

While Turner has indicated nothing other than a practical decision behind the switch, it comes at a time when American expats all over the world are turning in their passports in record numbers to avoid double taxation and other financial burdens imposed on them by Uncle Sam. According to government figures, nearly 1,800 Americans relinquished their passports in 2011, a process that requires a special application and a $450 exit fee. True, that number is just a drop in the bucket, considering that an estimated 6 million U.S. citizens live abroad. But the numbers are growing dramatically — a sevenfold increase since 2008, and that is not counting thousands of applications waiting to be processed in U.S. consulates and embassies around the world.

(MORE: Renouncing Your U.S. Citizenship to Stick It to the Tax Man? Not as Easy as It Looks)

The U.S. is the world’s only industrialized nation that taxes citizens who live overseas, even if their income is generated in a foreign country and they never return to America. And while high-profile cases like that of Turner or that of Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin (who renounced his American citizenship last year to become a resident of Singapore) catch public attention, the vast majority of expatriates affected by double taxation and increasingly draconian filing rules are middle-class or retired, or those who have never lived or worked in the U.S. at all but were born to American parents overseas.

Even though expatriates can claim a $97,000 exclusion on their U.S. taxes, most Americans who work in high-cost nations earn salaries far exceeding this amount, for which they already pay hefty income taxes in their countries of residence.

“I became increasingly frustrated by the necessity to file in two countries,” says Peter Dunn, an Anchorage native who now lives in Toronto and renounced his U.S. citizenship in 2011. Dunn became even more outraged when the IRS insisted on taxing his Canadian Tax-Free Savings Accounts, which are similar to the tax-free Roth IRAs in the U.S. “I could not live with the abuse of America taxing me even though I could not receive any services or benefits of living in the U.S.,” he adds.

In addition to the burden of double taxation, expats must deal with a myriad of increasingly complex and confusing IRS rules, like the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, which requires expatriates to report all foreign accounts exceeding $10,000, including those held jointly with their non-American spouses. Stiff financial penalties are imposed for noncompliance.

(MORE: Switzerland: Are Its Days as a Tax Haven for Foreigners Over?)

While filling out this form, Genette Eysselinck, a North Carolina native who lives in France, included the details of her accounts held jointly with her Belgian husband, as required by the IRS. “When I realized how distressed he was over my breach of confidence, I decided the only recourse left was to renounce my nationality,” she says. Eysselinck gave up her American citizenship last year.

Another law that affects expatriates is the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which will go into effect in July and require all foreign banks to report to the IRS information about accounts held by Americans. While this new regulation aims to prevent tax evasion, it also makes life difficult for millions of law-abiding expats.

“FATCA is the straw that broke the camel’s back,” says Jackie Bugnon, director of American Citizens Abroad (ACA), a Geneva-based expatriate advocacy group. Because this legislation forces local banks to invest in expensive new infrastructure in order to comply with the IRS rules, “access to foreign financial institutions is being shut off and Americans abroad are treated like criminals,” she adds.

Switzerland-based Amy Webster experienced the bias firsthand when she and her Swiss husband encountered difficulties getting a mortgage because of her U.S. citizenship. “This was infuriating and humiliating,” she says. “These unfair regulations imposed by the U.S. government are having adverse effects on the lives and well-being of U.S. citizens living in this country.”

(MORE: Why the Swiss Aren’t Neutral: Chocolate and the CIA)

Webster notes that while she understands “the political motivation of the current Administration to chase tax evaders and punish banks that contributed to such transactions, I am outraged that these regulations have impacted honest and hardworking citizens.”

One way to stave off the surge in renunciations, ACA’s Bugnon points out, is to tax expatriates on the same basis as nonresident aliens, who maintain a tax home in a foreign country and benefit from the same tax laws as American citizens within U.S. territory. That’s the proposal the ACA will push during the Overseas Americans Week, to be held in Washington, D.C., the week of Feb. 11.

Unless this change happens soon, disgruntled expats will continue to turn their backs on America, perhaps singing Tina Turner’s old hit, aptly titled, “Goodbye, So Long.”

MORE: Why More U.S. Expatriates Are Turning in Their Passports

108 comments
AtticusinCanada
AtticusinCanada

My Canadian spouse told his company to take any investments he had in his RRSP in the U.S. out of there. He no longer wishes to invest through his company in the U.S. because of FATCA and FBAR fines upon our family due to his being married to an American. I will renounce to protect his bank accounts and our children's too. It's the ONLY choice left under this ridiculous witch hunt. Foreign citizens should not be subjected to this just because they are married to an American. I can renounce or divorce him and I'm not divorcing a man who has supported me for over thirty years. Here I'd like to insert some choice words about Obama passing this with zero regard to what it's doing to honest Americans abroad who have always represented the U.S. in a positive light outside the country. And the U.S. press who has refused to tell the story of what this is doing to lower and middle income ex pats who have lived abroad for decades due to family reasons. I will always remember Obama as the president who drove those who would never, ever have considered renouncing to have to make that choice to protect their families abroad. The "Hire" legislation, FATCA and FBAR fines are draconian horrendous legislation trumped up to dig fines out of ex pats no matter if they are poor or not. The U.S. knew no one in the homeland would care what is happening to us and they need $$$. God knows they can't get it from the REAL "tax cheats" like Timmy Geither and Wall St. fraudsters. This is one of the most despicable things I've seen the U.S. do against it's own citizens. 

BeenThereSawIt
BeenThereSawIt

@arielle_maia Hi Arielle, thanks for the follow, By the way, I had Australia friends, they told me they get taxed overseas even more.

moniquevalcour
moniquevalcour

@andymolinsky I know this only too well from personal experience :(

LynneBlaze
LynneBlaze like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@FATCA_Fallout @TIME @planetmoney @MarketplaceAPM Mr. Taxman: It's not about taxes. It's about being able to have a normal life outside US.

SwissTechie
SwissTechie like.author.displayName 1 Like

@LynneBlaze it is not only about having a normal life outside of the US, but also about the fact that Americans are shooting themselves in the feet, destroying their beloved country simply because they don't want to think ahead and care about the damage American policy causes beyond US borders.  America needs to learn to become a team player which works with other nations instead of being a selfish snob who enjoys being hated so that it can cry and complain about the terrorist response while alienating itself from its friends, allies and loyalists by bankrupting itself with reckless and excessive spending on all wrong self-destructive things that money can buy.  These days, nobody hates America greater than the American nationalist who condemns Americans abroad simply because they pay their taxes and want to live a normal life.

bubblebustin
bubblebustin like.author.displayName 1 Like

"Jackie Bugnion, ACA’s Tax Team Director. “Our tax code makes Americans too expensive to hire, so US and foreign firms understandably replace them with qualified professionals from other countries without income tax, FBAR or FATCA filing requirements and the immense legal and financial jeopardy they entail. How can you work effectively when FATCA prevents you from opening a bank account?”

http://genevalunch.com/tag/fatca/

bubblebustin
bubblebustin like.author.displayName 1 Like

i don't think I'd be going out on a limb to predict that in within the next generation we will witness the extinction of the United States Person permanently living abroad .

JeffersonTomas
JeffersonTomas

It is hard to say that Tina would actually renounce for tax reasons. In fact it is more likely that middle class people with high rents and high expenses who might be squeezed by a few percent of extra tax would renounce for tax reasons. Not to mention the heavy burden of filling out all of the US tax forms correctly, which can by itself cost thousands of francs. Tina Turner is so rich that an extra few percent of tax will not take food off of her table. But people with lesser means, especially those with so called "unearned income" such as pension benefits, unemployment benefits, welfare, disability benefits can get squeezed out of their ability to meet their basic expenses by the US double tax burden, and as such would tend to renounce to avoid the additional tax, though the reason would not just be for tax reasons, but for survival reasons. 

Another reason to renounce is for privacy reasons. FATCA and FBAR regulations violate privacy, amount to a general warrant in violation of the 4th amendment, and put people at the risk of identity fraud. Spouses, other family members and business partners may also object to the disclosure of their information to the US, and even sue or press criminal charges against the US person who is compliant with US reporting requirements.

PatrickTaw
PatrickTaw

I agree it is best for expats to accept their new country and relinquish their US citizenship. They made a choice to immigrate, they should go all the way. If they complain their money doesn't belong to the US, then they should also give up the protections and benefits of US power and expertise. My parents immigrated to the US and happily gave up their original citizenship to become US citizens. You cannot have two loyalties and immigration is a statement of switching loyalties. Expats that live temporarily out of the US don't worry about the tax laws since they don't deal with it for the rest of their lives and only for a few years.

AtticusinCanada
AtticusinCanada

@PatrickTaw  I don't CARE if "MY" money belongs to the U.S. but, a ton of these fines and fees are coming out of our foreign spouses and childrens pockets. They are NOT American. There's the objection. And not everyone "chose" to go outside the country. Circumstances sometimes dictate where you live, such as aging parents abroad or aging in laws with health issues. Children with health issues so expensive you cannot return to the U.S. Nobody has anything against the U.S. in such circumstances and neither should our foreign spouses have their pockets dug into just for marrying an American. This is a LOT more complicated and harming a LOT of innocent people with zero taxes owed. I agree with you about having two loyalties yet the U.S. is one of only two countries that taxes on citizenship instead of where you live and use services. AND who taxes who you are married to whether they are American or not no matter where you live. No modern nation does this except the U.S. And the U.S. teachers its citizens that even though they are the ONLY ones taxing people in this manner that it is right and good to do so. It's not. People who have no representation in government, who do not use any services in the U.S. should not be taxed at all, let alone fined for not filing paper work on zero taxes owed AND have their family fined too. Anyone who thinks this is the right way to treat people is brainwashed. That's like you being born in Iowa but, moving to Oklahoma and marrying there and having children. Then Iowa says to you that you, your spouse and children are obligated to be taxed by Iowa for the rest of your life even if you haven't lived there for decades. Nobody can argue that this is a decent way to behave with honest working people. Nobody reasonable that is. That's why most countries don't do it.

SwissTechie
SwissTechie

@PatrickTaw, In 1975, America had its largest trade surplus ever in American history.  Americans abroad were exporting US products like never before in history.  Yet, then America adopted policy, that you happen to be advocating, which forced hundreds of thousands of Americans to renounce US citizenship or return to the US.  America has never had a trade surplus since.

Your argument is loaded with generalizations, stereotypes and anti-American hate-propaganda.  You are demanding that American patriots who fought for America to renounce US citizenship simply because they are exporting American products in other nations.

William Olenick is one of these American veteran patriots whom you are demanding to no longer export American products:  Packing up, going home: one US citizen in Switzerland vents his anger

Americans work oversees for various reasons such as defending America, representing America, advocating America, exporting US goods, proving US services, teaching US technologies, etc.  Some Americans are forced to live abroad, some volunteer, some seek to advance their careers, etc.  It is incorrect to argue that everyone chose to do what they do, or to condemn of being them of being non-American for the choices they made.

AlishiaGrzegorzek
AlishiaGrzegorzek like.author.displayName 1 Like

@PatrickTaw 97,001 dollars=60% taxes, by the time you pay to both countries. The last time I checked Australia and the US were, and always have been allies so yes I can maintain loyalty to both. I fell in love with an Aussie man. That doesn't make me un-American, and it doesn't make paying a 60% tax rate, right either. 




uneven
uneven

Who gives a damn what some pissy spoiled people living overseas are doing?

YO TIME, WE HAVE REAL PROBLEMS - TRY ADDRESSING THOSE.

bubblebustin
bubblebustin like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

@unevenAll other countries of the world allow their citizens to go to far off lands and take up residence elsewhere, no longer encumbered by taxation by the homeland. Not the US. The US punishes its citizens abroad by requiring them to fill out form after form to prove they aren't trying to hide anything, and send money to the homeland should they do well, both acquiring the help of cross-border tax specialists to help them though the mire of paperwork at a cost of at least $2-3K per year. Other countries let their citizens go, and welcome them back if they choose to return and again contribute to their home country's tax base. A citizen of the US who renounces citizenship will not likely ever contribute to the US tax base again. In fact, with the betrayal most ex-Americans feel, the US would be lucky to receive even a tourist dollar from them. Isn't that a kick in the teeth for everyone?

Pissy? yes. Spoiled? no.

SwissTechie
SwissTechie

@bubblebustin, if I ever go to America again, it will be because Americans in America want me to go there. Other than that, I'd rather spend my tourist dollars exploring the many other fascinating places of the world.

bubblebustin
bubblebustin

@uneven  i don't think I'd be going out on a limb to predict that in within the next generation we will witness the extinction of the United States Person permanently living abroad .

SwissTechie
SwissTechie like.author.displayName 1 Like

@uneven, all problems can be interrelated.  A poor foreign policy discourages the purchase of American products and prevents Americans from selling them, causing US companies to produce less and lay off employees, increasing unemployment which leads to increased crime and other problems in the states.  If this problem is also ignored, then many of the other problems will never be solved.

allafiorentina
allafiorentina

@RobertaK @nocrowds Its not right that we have to report & pay taxes on income made taxed & spent abroad Wouldnt renounce citizenship though

SwissTechie
SwissTechie

@allafiorentina I wouldn't renounce either, but I renounced because I need to have a local checking account.  Deny stateside Americans their local checking account, and they'll renounce US citizenship too because one must do what one must do to live a normal life.

bubblebustin
bubblebustin

@allafiorentina I was born in the US and moved to Canada at 12 and my husband was born in Canada and is a US citizen through his American father. Neither of us have ever worked in the US. Last year we paid a substantial part of our retirement savings to the IRS because the IRS taxes US persons on the sale of their homes in Canada only because Canada doesn't. We keep our eye on the carrot: renunciation.

NoCrowds
NoCrowds

@allafiorentina I wouldn't renounce either but still object to how we are treated & how our concerns are handled.

allafiorentina
allafiorentina

@NoCrowds or is it more purposeful mistreatment and not just negligence?

NoCrowds
NoCrowds

@allafiorentina I think laws made w/o concern for collateral damage but its damage just the same

allafiorentina
allafiorentina

@NoCrowds Do you think laws are made to prevent offshore tax evasion by US residents w/o concern for collateral damage to citizens abroad?

SwissTechie
SwissTechie like.author.displayName 1 Like

@allafiorentina absolutely.  Americans living abroad don't exist as far as the US government is concerned.  Americans living abroad have no representation since their vote is diluted among the 50 states which focus on local issues.  Thus, US politics focus on stateside issues without taking their global impact into consideration.

DavidSLesperance
DavidSLesperance

DID YOU HEAR THE ONE ABOUT THE SINGER, THE GOLFER, THE ACTOR, THE FACEBOOK FOUNDER AND THE LUXURY KING?
What do Tina Turner, Phil Mickelson, Gerard  Depardieu, Eduardo Saverin and Bernard Arnault all have in common and why are they generating such press? The answer is they are all "Golden Geese" who have dared to either threaten or have actually flown their current high tax coop. The real question is whether they are anomalies or high profile examples of a growing and dangerous trend?


Lost in the media frenzy is the basic truth that the US, France, and any other countries with a progressive tax system have an inherently fragile revenue model. This fragility exists whether you think such a system is "fair" or "unfair" and is caused by the simple fact that a very small number of people provide a very large portion of the total personal taxes collected. Generally, the top 1% contribute approximately a third of the total, while the top 0.1% contribute over 10% but is composed of a minuscule number of individuals. Contrary to Occupy Wallstreet dogma, the 1% or even the 0.1% are hardly homogeneous regarding their value system or attitude toward taxation. Just remember that both Michael Moore and these Golden Geese are all in the 0.1% group. About the only common attribute (aside from their wealth) is that as a result of globalizing "flattening effects", they are no longer bound to the tax home of their birth in order to make or maintain their wealth. In short, they are no longer "sticky" and can leave easily and quickly. 


The danger for France, the US or any other country with a progressive tax system is that they only need a tiny number of the 1% or 0.1% to leave their tax regime to cause a catastrophic effect on their future tax revenue. Individuals such as Depardieu, Mickelson, Saverin or even Arnault will not, by themselves, bring France or the US to its fiscal knees. However, such high profile opinion leaders may inspire other "Golden Geese" to leave. With such a fragile revenue model, an exodus of even a small number of Golden Geese could spell disaster. Most Golden Geese are not as high profile as Arnault or Saverin (who were "outed") or as eager to grab a microphone as Depardieu or Mickelson. So what is actually going through the minds of many Golden Geese today?


Like every immigrant in history, a Golden Goose first decides that they want to seek to change their current tax home. Each individual tends to have their own "straw that breaks the camels back". "On the push side, is a combination of increased fiscal requirements when aging populations meet existing entitlement programs; the inevitability that they will be called upon to pay the lion's share of this increase; decreased satisfaction with government's effective efficient use of tax dollars; and the failure of their fellow citizens to acknowledge that much of their wealth stems from their own efforts and risk-taking rather than the "government building that. The fiscal cliff problem was solved for 98% of Americans by the Golden Geese being tossed into the abyss. 

Overcoming "life inertia" is the major barrier between thought and action, but the fiscal crisis acted like a 'near death experience' which prompted many Golden Geese to look beyond their daily struggles and realize that the world had fundamentally changed. They were astounded to discover that many highly developed countries such as the UK, Switzerland, Canada, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia are actively competing for them. Increasingly Golden Geese are recognizing that they can reproduce their current business and personal lifestyle while legally and securely significantly reducing their global tax burden. 

The age when the only options for wealthy people are Monaco, Jersey or the Cayman Islands is long over. With homes and businesses in several countries, it is quite common for my clients not to spend enough time in ANY potential taxing jurisdiction to attract tax residency status based on day count alone. Therefore, we chose the new tax home where they will have a minimal global tax burden. The other places where they have homes and businesses, which often includes their former tax home will simply be places that they visit rather than be 'tax resident.


High profile Golden Geese who have followed this path include: 
Boris Abramovich (Russia to UK)

David Bowie (UK to Switzerland) 

Eduardo Saverin (US to Singapore)

Kim DotCom (Germany to New Zealand)

Alan Gibbs (New Zealand to UK)

Mark Mobius (US to HK)

Properly chosing and acquiring the best new tax home, is not a do it yourself project. With the stakes so high, proper advice and implementation is essential. The Golden Goose has to ensure that the chosen destination is a jurisdiction where they will have a proper home and acquire a long list of "indicia of residence". They must also spend enough time in that jurisdiction in order to make a strong argument that this is their new tax home. "Both Boris Becker and Luciano Pavoritti did not do this well in Monaco and suffered the consequences. After a long and difficult trial Pavoritti won the criminal case. Boris Becker was not so lucky". 

With such high stakes and to avoid emotional stress, many Golden Geese are chosing new tax homes that have an extensive tax treaty network (including one with their departed tax home) AND where they will be able to 'live the plan'. This allows them to add more certainty to their departure from their last tax home and establishment in their new tax home. If ever challenged they can use the tie-breaker rules of the tax treaty as a shield against a potential audit from their departed tax home. This is why, although some Golden Geese such as Richard Branson (Necker Island) and David Gilmor (Wakaya Island) own remote islands that they love, these are generally not their "tax homes" because they are located in jurisdictions (BVI and Fiji respectively) that do not have extensive tax treaty jurisdictions.

Lost in the politically partisan debate over increasing the tax burden on the Golden Geese, is the simple fact that the Golden Geese are not likely to sit idly by and accept what others implies on them. The danger is that more Golden Geese will follow in the footsteps of these recent high profile examples and the flood of departures will become a tsunami

SwissKay
SwissKay like.author.displayName 1 Like

OK, let's get this straight: Turner relinquished her U.S. passport for tax reasons, only she is not going to say so because otherwise she would get in deep ____ with the IRS. She didn't make this decision lightly. She didn't do it because she is greedy, and she didn't do it because she hates America, or that she likes living in Switzerland. She also did not do it because she refuses to pay any taxes to the U.S. She did it because (most likely) she would like to have the simple pleasure of having a joint bank account with her husband, who is German I believe, but as a U.S. citizen she would be obliged to disclose, and pay taxes on, her husband's fortune (FBAR nonsense). She also did it because, as a U.S. citizen, no Swiss bank is willing to do her investments for her anymore ( FATCA nonsense). She found it humiliating to be resigned to having a bank account with no more than $10,000 in it and signing everything else over to her husband in order to escape the unpredictable claws of the IRS. She also found it unreasonable that her family would have to turn over about 50% (this may have changed in the meantime, as so many IRS regulations do) of the sale value her estate to the IRS upon her death, even though she hasn't lived in the U.S. since 1995.  50% here because I assume her fortune combined with her husband's (should he die before her and she inherits) will be over $5 million.

SwissTechie
SwissTechie

@SwissKay, I don't know her exact situation, but the tax rate for top earners in canton Zürich is about 40%.  The tax rate for top earners in the US is about 43%.  With the Foreign Tax Credit, the tax that she may have been required to pay to the US government may have been the 3% difference.  If such is her situation, I would find it highly unlikely for her to relinquish because of a 3% tax.  Rather, it would seem more reasonable that the banking and filing complications are pushing her to no longer be a US citizenship.

JeffersonTomas
JeffersonTomas

In fact it is more likely that middle class people with high rents and high expenses who might be squeezed by the 3% tax would renounce for tax reasons.  Not to mention the heavy burden of filling out all of the US tax forms correctly, which can by itself cost thousands of francs.  Tina Turner is so rich that an extra 3% tax will not take food off of her table.  But people with lesser means, especially those with so called "unearned income" such as pension benefits, unemployment benefits, welfare, disability benefits can get squeezed out of their ability to meet their basic expenses, and as such would tend to renounce for tax reasons. 

DavidSLesperance
DavidSLesperance

@SwissKay You correctly articulate the probable "straws" that are breaking the back of Ms. Turner and other US Golden Geese.

bubblebustin
bubblebustin like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

All other countries of the world allow their citizens to go to far off lands and take up residence elsewhere, no longer encumbered by taxation by the homeland. Not the US. The US punishes its citizens abroad by requiring them to fill out form after form to prove they aren't trying to hide anything, and send money to the homeland should they do well, both acquiring the help of cross-border tax specialists to help them though the mire of paperwork at a cost of at least $2-3K per year. Other countries let their citizens go, and welcome them back if they choose to return and again contribute to their home country's tax base. A citizen of the US who renounces citizenship will not likely ever contribute to the US tax base again. In fact, with the betrayal most ex-Americans feel, the US would be lucky to receive even a tourist dollar from them. Isn't that a kick in the teeth for everyone?

JeffersonTomas
JeffersonTomas like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Here is the story of RC mentionned below, Mr. Roger Conklin, who contributes quite frequently at http://www.isaacbrocksociety.ca He has had some problems logging into the Time site to post here, so he has provided the following text of his experience to me with permission to post here on his behalf:

**QUOTE

FATCA is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The US government started piling them on with 1962 legislation which taxed just a handful of the very rich abroad – movie stars filming in Mexico. So they came home. But the Tax Reform Act of 1976 brought back hundreds of thousands of middle class Americans abroad who always insured a healthy US trade surplus. The largest-ever US trade surplus was in 1975, but when hundreds of thousands of overseas Americans were hit by a ton of bricks, they abandoned ship and the US trade balance immediately went negative. There has never been even one trade surplus since 1975 and our cumulative trade deficit since 1976 now exceeds $9 trillion!

I had been running a company in Brazil penetrating a new market for American products. When that Act was signed my combined Brazilian plus US tax shot up to 81% more than any non-American with my exact same income and family status. I could not survive. I closed out work in process, shut down the company and came home to start a new career.

A French company moved in, hired most of our employees and 8 years later was importing $1 billion in French products into Brazil to support that market. The US share of that market dropped to near zero. This happened around the world and that is why the 100-year period ending in 1975, during which the US recorded trade surpluses for 95 of those 100 years, overnight was transformed into our current perpetual trade deficit.

With FATCA, on top of being subject simultaneously to two very different and incompatible sovereign tax systems, there will be few Americans left abroad. The draconian FATCA rules obligate foreign banks to provide detailed reports on their accounts of US citizens, in open violation of the privacy laws of the countries where they operate. Rather than comply and risk massive penalties imposed by their governments, they are closing down accounts of American persons. Without an account to deposit their paycheck or out of which to pay their rent, they cannot survive. So it is either pack up and come home or renounce US citizenship. To those with foreign spouses renunciation is their likely choice because obtaining a visa for the spouse to immigrate to the US and start life over from scratch is rarely a viable choice. Being uprooted after 10, 20 or more years and forced to start over in a different country is absolutely inhumane. Yet that is exactly what FATCA does to middle class Americans living abroad.

**END-QUOTE

I believe that Swisspinoy may have already posted a link to this, but I can't find it here in the comments, so here is a link to a written statement Roger made to the House Ways and Means Committee:   http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/retired_international_sales_and_marketing_executive.pdf

MarkMercer
MarkMercer like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

It's even worse than the article mentions and the self-employment problem that eadejong mentioned. That $97,000 exemption also does not apply if you go back to the USA even one day in 330 days. So no visiting family, even if all your income is from your new country. No even connecting via the USA into a flight to another country, because the US stupidly does not have airside international transit areas so to connect from South America to Europe in Miami, for example, you are legally entering the US. And in many countries now if you are a US citizen, banks will refuse to do business with you or any American, and are closing all the accounts of US citizens. Even if those citizens are also legal residents of that country with a right under law to have a bank account. Here in Uruguay, for example, only the government-owned Banco Republica still allows accounts for US citizens. Every other bank has fired their existing customers. The reporting requirements for them are draconian - every account, no matter how small, and every transaction, even a small ATM withdrawal or a store purchase on the debit card, is a reportable item. Countries don't want to deal with this Roman Empire-style enforced tributes. Can't blame them. But it makes life very tough for law-abiding US citizens abroad, even us "little guys".

DavidSLesperance
DavidSLesperance like.author.displayName 1 Like

@MarkMercer Also remember that the Foreign Earned Income Exemption amount changes continually. Also remember that in the original version of the Bush tax cuts, it was going to be eliminated. Only lobbying by US companies abroad saved it. I wonder if they will be able to stop its elimination the next time.

The problem with staying in the US tax game, is that the government constantly moves the goalposts. That is why people like Ms. Turner are deciding to legally and properly leave the game forever.

bubblebustin
bubblebustin like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@MarkMercer According to the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion provided by the IRS,"You meet the physical presence test if you are physically present in a foreign country or countries330 full days during a period of 12 consecutive months." There's no mention of disqualifying oneself by being present in the US at any time during the year, in fact, "If you are in transit between two points outside the United States and are physically present in the United States for less than 24 hours, you are not treated as present in the United States during the transit. You are treated as traveling over areas not within any foreign country." http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Foreign-Earned-Income-Exclusion---Physical-Presence-Test

JeffersonTomas
JeffersonTomas

@markmercer @bubblebustin I haven't been to the US in many years but I think you lose the FEIE pro rata temporis once you go over the 65 days of presence in the US.   So if you were in the US you would lose either 1/12 or 2/12 of the 97'000 exemption. 



eadejong
eadejong

It's even worse if you are self employed. Then the $97,000 doesn't apply. I'm a tour guide and I have to file (not necessarily pay) if I make $400 or more!! That's less then it costs to pay for the accounts! I made about $4000 last year and paid more than $500 to the account, and $150 to IRS. This is only the last few years, for years I didn't work and although I called IRS in europe to ask about filing, NO ONE told me about the Foreign Bank account filings until I finally decided I had earned over the $400 and had better file. Thank God it was a pardon year or I would have been fined! I was so glad to discover the kids funds were in my husbands name and not mine.

JeffersonTomas
JeffersonTomas

The self employed have to pay their local country taxes as well as the US self-employment tax and normal income taxes adjusted by the Foreign Tax Credit.  This is unfair discrimination, restricting the business worthiness of a potential small business venture and possibly forcing the person abroad into being an employee.    Furthermore, the payroll taxes of foreign countries are appearantly not deductible from the US tax burden, even though many US persons abroad seem to deduct them as income-based taxes (which they often are). 

bryanfred1
bryanfred1

People with means (not just expats) can go anywhere in the world they like in today's global economy and connected world. Even within the U.S. there is tremendous migration from high-tax to low- (or no-) tax states among people of very average income. That's why tax schemes like this never raise anywhere near the amount their authors claim they will, while also damaging their own economies. Nevada has been saved from its horrible real estate bust by businesses moving across the border from California, which just hiked its top state income tax rate from 10.3% to 13.3% (just ask Phil Mickelson about that).

AtticusinCanada
AtticusinCanada

@bryanfred1 You don't have to be a person "of means" to live outside the U.S. In fact most ex pats are not rich. That's a very frequently repeated misconception inside the U.S. Most ex pats are of average means or lower income. They are school teachers, stay at home moms and dads married to foreign citizens. It's the Tina Turner's who get the press but, there are over six million of us and most are far, far from "of means"

TootlessWonderS
TootlessWonderS

@TIME @TIMEWorld WorldWide Embarrassment !!! #NoRespect Another 85Billion Currency Manipulation of Global Stock Markets to HALT @BlackBerry

dtduval
dtduval

@Swiateknz2 @TuiDeb Yep, we got stung by that when we first moved there.

karmedic
karmedic like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

When I started living abroad full time in Geneva I looked into giving up my American citizenship, especially as I already have Swedish citizenship from my father, American simply seemed as a burden. Going to the Embassy on the other hand, I found a web of bureaucracy and a ten year wait list to give it up! Regardless the U.S. still taxes you for ten years after you leave the country as a resident or  citizen. People are dropping the U.S. like a hot potato and they are desperate to keep their hand on you. (or your money).  

bubblebustin
bubblebustin like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@karmedic I don't know how your father's Swedish citizenship would help you in Switzerland. The US no longer taxes you for 10 years, they will cut you after a hefty exit tax if your assents and income meet a specific threshold (some exceptions) or if you can't show tax compliance for 5 years. This applies to US citizens and certain green card holders. Also new is the $450 exit fee applicable on every renunciation. I hope the US Treasury enjoys it because it's the last they'll be getting from them! 

JeffersonTomas
JeffersonTomas

Renunciations are much faster now, the turn around time in Switzerland is only a couple of months the last news we had at Isaac Brock (Correct me if I am wrong @@Bubblebustin). 

Actually, Swedish citizenship allows full residency rights in Switzerland, which has bilateral accords with all EU countries as well as other countries in the European Economic Area such as Norway, Lichtenstein, etc.  This has been the case for roughly 10 years or so.

SwissKay
SwissKay

@JeffersonTomas I can confirm this. In fact, it only takes a few weeks now to renounce in Switzerland. The embassy staff have been beefed up and the process streamlined. They had to meet the mounting demand. Also true that anyone with an EU pass can now live in Switzerland if they have a job.