Now with even more taxes!

[cruelpupet]

This isnt political as its more informational. The Heros Act of 2008 has a small part in it that has nothing to do with benefits for veterans...its about taking more of your money if you decided to give up on your US citizenship.

http://www.mainstreet.com/theres-law-takes-away-money-if-you-leave-us-citizenship

[ShawnLee]

Eh - it's not much of a surprise. For example, the US gov't already refuses to recognize a loss in citizenship as a valid reason to stop paying US taxes. So, eh. Not seeing any reason for me to give up my citizenship? Not suprised or really bothered.

[cruelpupet]

and when they start hitting you up on that 9.4 trillion in debt?

[LPMiller]

don't you normally pay for debt?

[guiseppewv]

:shrug: I do not have a problem with it. Too many people are using off shore (i.e. foreign) shelters to shield themselves or hide themselves from taxes; it would not surprise me if people with big $$$$$$$ were switching countries just to avoid some taxes. Now let's keep companies from being able to "move" to the Bahamas....

[cruelpupet]

:shrug: I do not have a problem with it. Too many people are using off shore (i.e. foreign) shelters to shield themselves or hide themselves from taxes; it would not surprise me if people with big $$$$$$$ were switching countries just to avoid some taxes. Now let's keep companies from being able to "move" to the Bahamas....


This might be due to Haliburton leaving the country, but there are other ways of penalizing a company like that, without effecting average citizens.

[VTGreg]

:shrug: I do not have a problem with it. Too many people are using off shore (i.e. foreign) shelters to shield themselves or hide themselves from taxes; it would not surprise me if people with big $$$$$$$ were switching countries just to avoid some taxes. Now let's keep companies from being able to "move" to the Bahamas....

I disagree. If someone wants to leave the country and take money that has been rightfully earned and has been previously taxed, they should not incur additional taxes.

Furthermore, if a company wants to move its headquarters to the Bahamas because of our archaic tax code, so be it. Perhaps that just means that we need to rewrite the tax code so that companies want to setup shop here instead of moving overseas.

I do understand how this legislation may have been enacted to stop any chicanery but I think it does go overboard and is just another example where double taxation is allowed.

[Maarchk]

Wait. I paid income taxes. What is this, exiting taxes? That doesn't make any damn sense.
I swore we were built on capitalism. Countries make products overseas cause it's cheaper but they don't get punished. If i decide to go live where it's cheaper, why am i punished.

Nonsense that is attached to some do good bill. I hate that bs. I hate the government. I liked it better when we had colonies and it was just me and the townsfolk deciding things.

[guiseppewv]

First, this was a dem (Charlie Rangle) sponsored bill. Second, people need to look at the actual bill before you start disagreeing with it. The article is your typical blow things out of proportion type of article.
Bill's actual language:

TITLE III--REVENUE PROVISIONS

SEC. 301. REVISION OF TAX RULES ON EXPATRIATION.

(a) In General- Subpart A of part II of subchapter N of chapter 1 is amended by inserting after section 877 the following new section:

`SEC. 877A. TAX RESPONSIBILITIES OF EXPATRIATION. General Rules- For purposes of this subtitle--

`(1) MARK TO MARKET- All property of a covered expatriate shall be treated as sold on the day before the expatriation date for its fair market value.

`(2) RECOGNITION OF GAIN OR LOSS- In the case of any sale under paragraph (1)--

`(A) notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any gain arising from such sale shall be taken into account for the taxable year of the sale, and

`(B) any loss arising from such sale shall be taken into account for the taxable year of the sale to the extent otherwise provided by this title, except that section 1091 shall not apply to any such loss.

Proper adjustment shall be made in the amount of any gain or loss subsequently realized for gain or loss taken into account under the preceding sentence, determined without regard to paragraph (3).

`(3) EXCLUSION FOR CERTAIN GAIN-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The amount which would (but for this paragraph) be includible in the gross income of any individual by reason of paragraph (1) shall be reduced (but not below zero) by $600,000.

`(B) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION-

`(i) IN GENERAL- In the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2008, the dollar amount in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount equal to--

`(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by

`(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, by substituting `calendar year 2007' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.

`(ii) ROUNDING- If any amount as adjusted under clause (i) is not a multiple of $1,000, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1,000.

Sounds to me like they are trying to get people do declare gains in property as income before they leave the US. If I read it correctly if you purchase a house in 1990 for X. In 2009, you change citizenship to the Bahamas and your house is worth 3X. At that point the govt decides that you have to pay taxes on 2X (the increase in value of your house). If you lived in the house for 2 of the last 4 (or is it 5) years then you owe nothing because you are exempt from paying taxes on the gain for your primary residence. If it was a business then you would have to pay taxes on it. Seems fair to me. :shrug:



Furthermore, if a company wants to move its headquarters to the Bahamas because of our archaic tax code, so be it. Perhaps that just means that we need to rewrite the tax code so that companies want to setup shop here instead of moving overseas.



I disagree, if a company is really moving overseas then fine but most companies move their hq (in actuality it is a PO box and sometimes not even that) to the Bahamas and conduct business the same as before then they are dodging taxes, plain and simple.

[VTGreg]

That's fine if you determine that the word "property" in the legislation only covers real estate. However, property could be interpreted many different ways. If it were just real estate I would have hoped that they would explicitly note that.

With regards to corporations, that's the good and the bad of our tax laws. If the legal entity of the corporation is setup in another company, they are subject to those tax levels. This isn't any different than companies that setup shop in states that have more favorable tax codes or laws but don't actually have offices in the state. Again, the focus here should be our crappy corporate tax laws.

[cruelpupet]

First, this was a dem (Charlie Rangle) sponsored bill. Second, people need to look at the actual bill before you start disagreeing with it. The article is your typical blow things out of proportion type of article.



1. Republican or Democrat, it doesnt matter. Too many laws are passed without thought as to how it "can" be interpreted in the future. Sure maybe he wants your house to be exempt, but will that be how it is always interpreted?

2. I would semi-trust an accountants interpretation of this, as its something he has to know about, and deals with. (and i definitely trust his interpretation over my own or anyones here, especially if it means more money for the govt)


But Richard Kohan of Price WaterhouseCoopers drew my attention to one section of the act, which states that anyone voluntarily giving up his or her citizenship will be taxed on all of his assets as if he or she had sold them -- paying capital gains on assets that have increased in value, even though they have not been sold

[guiseppewv]

Well, believe it or not but people can twist what others say. This guy never quoted the accountant and the words are in black and white at congress.gov which is where I pulled the verbage from. :shrug:

[guiseppewv]

That's fine if you determine that the word "property" in the legislation only covers real estate. However, property could be interpreted many different ways. If it were just real estate I would have hoped that they would explicitly note that.


I never said that property is only real-estate. I gave an example of one type of property. There are also a bunch of ways to be exempt from this. One of those is having paid all your taxes in prior years.




Please, people - go read the code and then comment.