|
|
|
Does someone lose their U.S. citizenship if they swear an oath to a foriegn
government or governmental agency?
Robert Miller
Member of www.norfed.org
Bringing America back to value $1 at a time!
|
| |
| |
Robert Miller wrote:
Does someone lose their U.S. citizenship if they swear an oath to a
foriegn
government or governmental agency?
Robert Miller
Hmm... Would you be ging after the Catholics?
Or maybe the Episcopalians this time?
Member of www.norfed.org
Bringing America back to value $1 at a time!
These so called liberty dollars will *never* give
the greenback a run for it's money, because if
they ever start to be a problem the govt will
just seize all the precious metals backing them.
|
| |
| |
Robert Miller wrote:
Hmm... Would you be ging after the Catholics?
Or maybe the Episcopalians this time?
Why do you think I'm ging? after Catholics or any other Religious
organization? I asked a simple question, and you read into it what
you wanted to. Perhaps you think I should go after the Catholics?
Member of www.norfed.org
Bringing America back to value $1 at a time!
These so called liberty dollars will *never* give
the greenback a run for it's money, because if
they ever start to be a problem the govt will
just seize all the precious metals backing them.
Why would they do that? The Treasury, nor the Secret Service
has a problem with the Liberty dollars. The Federal Reserve might
but they aren't a government agency. Are they.
I'll ask the question and make it more simple to understand. If I swear
an oath of loyalty to a Chinese Trade Assoc. do I lose my U.S. Citizenship?
Not that I will, I assure you I wont.
Robert Miller
Member of www.norfed.org
Bringing America back to value $1 at a time!
|
| |
| |
Robert Miller wrote:
Does someone lose their U.S. citizenship if they swear an oath to a
foriegn government or governmental agency?
Robert Miller
Member of www.norfed.org
Bringing America back to value $1 at a time!
Not necessairly. Dual citizenship is possible.
|
| |
| |
robeml6@aol.com (Robert Miller) wrote in message news:<20040204184746.22711.00000939@mb-m19.aol.com>...
Robert Miller wrote:
[snip]
I'll ask the question and make it more simple to understand. If I swear
an oath of loyalty to a Chinese Trade Assoc. do I lose my U.S. Citizenship?
Not that I will, I assure you I wont.
No, that isn't even close. You have to do something that makes it
unmistakably clear that you don't want to be a US citizen anymore and
that you know what you are doing. The usual way is to appear at a US
embassy or consulate and take an oath of renunciation. See
http://travel.state.gov/renunciation.html
Only the most extreme acts, such as serving in high government office,
serving in the regular armed forces of a country at war with the US,
or becoming naturalized in a country that does not countenance dual
nationals, would carry an implication of renunciation.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
Robert Miller wrote:
Not necessairly. Dual citizenship is possible.
I didn't think that United States citizens had that option. I've always
heard that if a U.S. citizen joined a foreign military service or even
became a member of the body politic of another nation could void
his / her U.S. citizenship.
Robert Miller
Member of www.norfed.org
Bringing America back to value $1 at a time!
|
| |
| |
n 5/2/04 3:58, in article c31fa7b1.0402041958.6532e3ca@posting.google.com,
"Christopher Green" <cj.green@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
It takes some kind of affirmative act indicating both the intent to
renounce US citizenship and the understanding that loss of US
citizenship is a consequence.
A naturalized citizen occasionally has citizenship revoked; the usual
grounds is that the person lied about some material point during the
naturalization process.
It used to happen frequently in the past, but the Supreme Court and Congress
have changed the law. The more interesting questions is: "what is the status
of those who lost their US nationality in the past?"
Such persons seem to have been involuntarily restored US nationality and
subjected to tax, but only from Jan. 1, 1976 unless they earlier availed
themselves of some attribute of citizenship or took affirmative steps by
that date to renounce their nationality. (That rule seems contrary to
prevailing international law under which a person cannot be attributed a
nationality at a time later than birth or adoption except by affirmative act
of self or a parent or guardian or adopter.)
<begin text>
Rev. Rul. 75-357, 1975-2 CB 5, IRC Sec(s). 1
Headnote:
Rev. Rul. 75-357, 1975-2 CB 5 -- IRC Sec. 1 (Also Sections 871, 877, 2001,
2051, 2101, 2106, 2107, 2501, 2511, 7805; 1.871-1, 20.2001-1, 20.2051-1,
20.2101-1, 20.2106-1, 20.2107-1, 25.2501-1, 25.2511-1, 301.7805-1.)
Reference(s): Code Sec. 1 <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1.html>
Reg 1.1-1
<http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.go
v/cfr_2003/aprqtr/26cfr1.1-1.htm>
Citizenship lost under Expatriation Act of 1907.
A native born U.S. citizen who as a result of her marriage to a British
subject lost her citizenship under section 3 of the Expatriation Act of
1907, which under current law would be declared unconstitutional, is and
always has been a U.S. citizen taxable on income from sources both within
and without the U.S. and subject to the gift tax and estate tax provisions
of the Code. This ruling is not applicable for taxable years beginning prior
to January 1, 1976, or to estates of decedents dying before that date,
except where such individuals exercised a specific right of citizenship.
Full Text:
Advice has been requested whether for Federal income, estate and gift tax
purposes an individual, or a decedent at date of death, is a citizen of the
United States under the circumstances described below and taxable under
section 1 or section 1201(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 on income
from sources both within and without the United States; liable for the gift
tax on any transfer of property by gift wherever situated; and at death,
liable for the estate tax on the transfer of the taxable estate as provided
in section 2051.
A was a native born American citizen who married a subject of the United
Kingdom on November 15, 1910. Under the applicable statutory law of the
United Kingdom, A became a British subject by reason of the marriage. The
applicable statutory law of the United States, section 3 of the Expatriation
Act of 1907, ch. 2534, 34 Stat. 1228, provided that upon her marriage to a
British subject, A lost her United States citizenship. A died November 1,
1974.
Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the taxable income of every
individual, except that in the case of a nonresident alien individual the
tax imposed by section 1 of the Code shall apply only as provided by section
871 or section 877 of the Code.
Sections 1.1-1(b) and 1.871-1 of the Income Tax Regulations provide that all
citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien
individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue
Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the
United States. See, however, section 911 of the Code. Section 1.1-1(c) of
the regulations provides, in part, that every person born or naturalized in
the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For rules
governing the loss of citizenship, the regulations refer to sections 349 and
357, inclusive, of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C.
1481-1489 (1970)).
Section 871 of the Code imposes a tax on certain income received from
sources within and without the United States by a nonresident alien, but the
types of income subject to tax and the rates of tax differ depending on
whether the amount so received is or is not effectively connected with the
conduct of a trade or business within the United States, as defined by
section 864(b) and (c) of the Code and the regulations thereunder.
Section 877 of the Code, effective for taxable years beginning after
December 31, 1966, provides, with certain exceptions not material here, that
a nonresident alien individual who after March 8, 1965, and within the 10
year period immediately preceding the close of the taxable year lost United
States citizenship, unless such loss did not have for one of its principal
purposes the avoidance of Federal income, estate or gift taxes, shall be
taxable on all his United States source income as provided in section 1 or
section 1201(b) if the tax imposed pursuant to these sections exceeds the
tax which, without regard to section 877 is imposed pursuant to section 871.
Section 2001 of the Code imposes a tax on the transfer of the taxable
estate, determined as provided in section 2051, of every decedent, citizen
or resident of the United States. In the case of a decedent nonresident not
a citizen of the United States, section 2101 imposes a tax on the transfer
of the taxable estate, determined as provided in section 2106.
Section 2107 of the Code, effective with respect to estates of decedents
dying after November 13, 1966, provides, with certain exceptions not
material here, that a tax computed in accordance with the table contained in
section 2001 is imposed on the transfer of the taxable estate, determined as
provided in section 2106, of every decedent nonresident not a citizen of the
United States dying after November 13, 1966, if after March 8, 1965, and
within the 10-year period ending with the date of death such decedent lost
United States citizenship, unless such loss did not have for one of its
principal purposes the avoidance of taxes under this subtitle or subtitle A.
Section 2501 of the Code and section 25.2501-1(a)(1) of the Gift Tax
Regulations imposes a t
|
| |
| |
On 05 Feb 2004 06:21:00 GMT, robeml6@aol.com (Robert Miller) in
misc.legal, wrote the following:
Robert Miller wrote:
Does someone lose their U.S. citizenship if they swear an oath to a
foriegn government or governmental agency?
Robert Miller
Member of www.norfed.org
Bringing America back to value $1 at a time!
Not necessairly. Dual citizenship is possible.
I didn't think that United States citizens had that option. I've always
heard that if a U.S. citizen joined a foreign military service or even
became a member of the body politic of another nation could void
his / her U.S. citizenship.
Two different things, since one can have a dual citizenship without
renouncing his/her US citizenship. In renunciation, which is separate
from dual nationality, "renouncing" elements must be followed up by
formal legal procedures for renunciation - an affirmative act. Loss of
citizenship is no longer an automatic thing _even if_ certain actions
considered to be "renouncing" citizenship are done.
The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual nationality
is 'a status long recognized in the law' and that "a person may have and
exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the
responsibilities of both. The mere fact that he [sic] asserts the rights
of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the
other" (see Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717 [1952] ).
See on the issues of dual nationality and the affirmative requirements
for renunciation of citizenship by certain actions:
http://travel.state.gov/loss.html
--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.
DISCLAIMER:
Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.
|
| |
| |
If you commit apostasy that automatically terminates your US citizenship.
|
| |
| |
Robert Miller wrote:
Robert Miller wrote:
Does someone lose their U.S. citizenship if they swear an oath to a
foriegn government or governmental agency?
Robert Miller
Member of www.norfed.org
Bringing America back to value $1 at a time!
Not necessairly. Dual citizenship is possible.
I didn't think that United States citizens had that option. I've always
heard that if a U.S. citizen joined a foreign military service or even
became a member of the body politic of another nation could void
his / her U.S. citizenship.
That is quite possible if that country is at war with the USA.
There are several well known actors and politicians with dual citizenship.
If I'm not mistaken, Bob Hope is/was one.
I have a cousin who lived in Holland for two years.
During that time they had a son.
Is the boy a national and citizen of Holland only? Or is he also a citizen
of the United States simply becuase his parents are citizens of the US?
Or is the boy a citizen of both?
I never did know how that side of it worked.
|
| |
| |
Tam wrote:
On 5/2/04 3:58, in article
c31fa7b1.0402041958.6532e3ca@posting.google.com, "Christopher Green"
<cj.green@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Robert Miller wrote:
Does someone lose their U.S. citizenship if they swear an oath to a
foriegn government or governmental agency?
Robert Miller
Not if they are U$ by birthright. If they are naturalized, they
"could" lose their obtained citizenship under limited circumstances.
It takes some kind of affirmative act indicating both the intent to
renounce US citizenship and the understanding that loss of US
citizenship is a consequence.
A naturalized citizen occasionally has citizenship revoked; the usual
grounds is that the person lied about some material point during the
naturalization process.
It used to happen frequently in the past, but the Supreme Court and
Congress have changed the law. The more interesting questions is: "what
is the status of those who lost their US nationality in the past?"
Such persons seem to have been involuntarily restored US nationality and
subjected to tax, but only from Jan. 1, 1976 unless they earlier availed
themselves of some attribute of citizenship or took affirmative steps by
that date to renounce their nationality. (That rule seems contrary to
prevailing international law under which a person cannot be attributed a
nationality at a time later than birth or adoption except by affirmative
act of self or a parent or guardian or adopter.)
All well and good. However, I do believe that it has also been ruled that
the IRS can not lay claim to taxes while a citizen is working abroad if that
company has no connections with the USA.
e.g., a person working for "Procter & Gamble" in France and a US citizen
maintaining a residence in the USA would be subject to taxes.
A person who sold his home in the USA, moved to France, and works for a
company which is not a corporation in the USA, and has no dealings with the
USA, would not be subjectible to USA taxes.
Although I'm sure the IRS would argue the point that they have that right
simply because the person is a US citizen.
Excuse me. But the laws of the United States do not extend into foreign
countries.
|
| |
| |
jls wrote:
If you commit apostasy that automatically terminates your US
citizenship.
Complete bull#@($.
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
Richard wrote:
Robert Miller wrote:
Robert Miller wrote:
Does someone lose their U.S. citizenship if they swear an oath
to a > >> foriegn government or governmental agency?
Robert Miller
Member of www.norfed.org
Bringing America back to value $1 at a time!
Not necessairly. Dual citizenship is possible.
always > heard that if a U.S. citizen joined a foreign military
service or even > became a member of the body politic of another
nation could void > his / her U.S. citizenship.
That is quite possible if that country is at war with the USA.
There are several well known actors and politicians with dual
citizenship. If I'm not mistaken, Bob Hope is/was one.
Sure moron, citizen of Heaven and Hollywood.
I have a cousin who lived in Holland for two years.
Who cares?
During that time they had a son.
"They"? Your cousin was a blithering schitzophrenic like you?
Is the boy a national and citizen of Holland only?
Depends, you don't state the nationality of your
schitzo cousin.
Or is he also a
citizen of the United States simply becuase his parents are citizens
of the US?
Yes, always.
Or is the boy a citizen of both?
Depends on Dutch law.
I never did know how that side of it worked.
Among myriad other things ...
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
n Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:36:01 -0600, "Richard" <anonymous@127.000> in
misc.legal, wrote the following:
All well and good. However, I do believe that it has also been ruled that
the IRS can not lay claim to taxes while a citizen is working abroad if that
company has no connections with the USA.
e.g., a person working for "Procter & Gamble" in France and a US citizen
maintaining a residence in the USA would be subject to taxes.
A person who sold his home in the USA, moved to France, and works for a
company which is not a corporation in the USA, and has no dealings with the
USA, would not be subjectible to USA taxes.
Although I'm sure the IRS would argue the point that they have that right
simply because the person is a US citizen.
Also wrong: income is taxable everywhere in the world by the US, no
matter who pays the income. It all depends upon the treaties or
agreements the US has with a country as to whether you can be
_double-taxed_.
If you make money in the UK, for example it cannot be taxed by the US
ONLY because of a dual taxation agreement the two countries have. Thus,
if I make money from US income in the US, the UK cannot tax it, and if I
make income in the UK, the US cannot tax it. The idea runs that we have
paid our respective tax men their due.
All dual nationals must report all worldwide income by filing an
annual U.S. income tax return, regardless of whether they owe taxes to
the U.S. or pay taxes elsewhere.
For more information, see:
http://www.expatexchange.com/lib.cfm?networkID=159&articleID=1019
Elimination of Dual Taxation During Your Foreign Assignment
So, a foreign-based US citizen or dual national still has to
_report_ total income for all sources, US- or foreign-based, whether one
has to pay IRS tax on the income or not. With other countries, for
example, monies derived from income there is either fully- or
partially-taxable by the US IRS system. This is why many expatriate
families get into trouble with the US IRS, thinking that if they haven't
been in the US over years (or even never) they don't owe IRS taxes for
income they earned overseas. That's simply not true.
Even if you renounce citizenship, you are still obligated to pay US
taxes for a period of time, under the HRA of 1996. See:
http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00337/005064/title/subject/topic/tax%20law_income%20taxation/filename/taxlaw_1_299
In short, when you renounce citizenship, you must file certain forms
concerning tax:
"The HRA of 1996 requires individuals who expatriate to file an
information statement that includes the individual's:
1. Taxpayer identification number;
2. Mailing address at his or her principal foreign residence;
3. New foreign country of residence;
4. New foreign country of citizenship;
5. Information detailing his or her assets and liabilities if the
individual's net worth is at least $500,000; and
6. Any other information requested by the IRS.
A U.S. citizen must file the statement with the State Department or
other U.S. government agency involved in the relinquishment on or before
the date that the citizenship is treated as relinquished. A special
transition rule applies to any U.S. citizen who committed an
expatriation act before February 6, 1995 and who did not submit such a
statement.
Failure to submit the statement will result in the imposition of a
penalty for each year of the 10-year period that begins on the date of
expatriation that is equal to the greater of 5 percent of the
individual's section 877 tax liability or $1,000. The penalty can be
waived if the failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful
neglect.
The State Department and federal agencies involved in the act of
expatriation are required to provide the IRS with copies of the
statements, or the names and other information on individuals refusing
to submit such statements, and other government documents evidencing the
loss of U.S. citizenship or U.S. lawful permanent resident status."
See also
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97245,00.html
which has similar wording. The so-called "tax havens" such as the
Caribbean islands, Singapore, etc are of, course, available, but then,
if you renounce your citizenship merely to avoid paying taxes, that is
in itself an illegal act under the 1996 law. In short, the renunciation
is void and the taxes are still owed.
The IRS hasn't missed anything when it comes the various ways people
attempt to use overseas trusts and residencies as "tax havens" as a
means to avoid tax. See
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106562,00.html
and that it can use extradition powers to get to people who use
fraudulent tax evasion schemes, including renunciation of citizenship:
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/02_tax_701.htm
http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/temexico.pdf
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
denied the ability of expatriates who renounce citizenship from ever
re-entering the US under their new citizenship. Further, it authorizes,
under the Federal Register, the IRS to publish a quarterly list (in the
Federal Register) of names of all Americans (with incomes above $100,000
and assets of more than $500 million) who renounced citizenship, which
means they are to be watched government-wide.
As the Federal Register is the primary government document for
publication to _all government agencies_, publication of these names
puts the US embassies, consular offices, and those working within
revenue issues with foreign governments on notice of potential tax
evaders and authorises to keep a continual watch on tax-evading
expatriates. A continued watch for such individuals is carried out
worldwide.
Further, the IRS has international offices around the world with
criminal investigation divisions who will pursue those who
expatriate/renounce for the sole reason of avoiding taxes. As
mentioned, the HRA of 1996 law assumes that not complying with
its provisions makes a prima facie case that renunciation was for the
purpose of avoiding tax, which voids the renunciation _in toto_ and
allows the IRS to pursue the expatriate US citizen for tax evasion. The
IRS outlined part of its 2001 strategy for its international criminal
investigation of tax evaders at
http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=107502,00.html
The stated purpose of the International Division of IRS is for the
"Criminal Investigation's (CI) International Strategy is integrated into
the overall United States strategy to combat terrorism, money
laundering, tax evasion, and international crime."
Please note that part of the purposes of these international offices is
the "... location and extradition of fugitives."
For the specific wording, see the Internal Revenue Code, Section 877 [26
USCS 877]:
http://www.fordh
|
| |
| |
ichard wrote:
Tam wrote:
Green" > <cj.green@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Robert Miller wrote:
Does someone lose their U.S. citizenship if they swear an oath
to a >>>> foriegn government or governmental agency?
Robert Miller
Not if they are U$ by birthright. If they are naturalized, they
"could" lose their obtained citizenship under limited
circumstances. >>
It takes some kind of affirmative act indicating both the intent
to >> renounce US citizenship and the understanding that loss of US
citizenship is a consequence.
A naturalized citizen occasionally has citizenship revoked; the
usual >> grounds is that the person lied about some material point
during the >> naturalization process.
"what > is the status of those who lost their US nationality in the
past?"
nationality and > subjected to tax, but only from Jan. 1, 1976
unless they earlier availed > themselves of some attribute of
citizenship or took affirmative steps by > that date to renounce
their nationality. (That rule seems contrary to > prevailing
international law under which a person cannot be attributed a >
nationality at a time later than birth or adoption except by
affirmative > act of self or a parent or guardian or adopter.)
All well and good. However, I do believe that it has also been ruled
that the IRS can not lay claim to taxes while a citizen is working
abroad if that company has no connections with the USA.
Complete bull#@($. You really are a pathetic lying sack of #@($ Bullis.
e.g., a person working for "Procter & Gamble" in France and a US
citizen maintaining a residence in the USA would be subject to taxes.
A person who sold his home in the USA, moved to France, and works for
a company which is not a corporation in the USA, and has no dealings
with the USA, would not be subjectible to USA taxes.
Completely false you stammering psychopath.
Although I'm sure the IRS would argue the point that they have that
right simply because the person is a US citizen.
Funny, seems to be the argument for 99% of U$ laws/jurisdiction.
Excuse me. But the laws of the United States do not extend into
foreign countries.
Tell it to these countries you @$#*ing imbecile:
1948 - PRESENT
AMERICAN/ISRAELI STATE TERRORISM OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE
Estimated civilian deaths: 100,000 Palestinian people
From the very beginning of the Zionist State of Israel in 1948, One of the
earliest and most notorious incidents of Israeli terrorism was the Deir
Yassin massacre in April, 1948. 250 Palestinian men, women and children were
murdered in cold blood by Menachem Begin's Zionist "Irgun" group as it went
from house to house seeking to drive all Palestinians out of their ancient
homeland. It hasn't gotten any better since then.
Besides murdering women and children, Israelis routinely torture Palestinian
prisoners in jail. And almost all of it has been kept hidden by the
mainstream American mass-media for 55 years.
Just to give you another example of who the Israelis really are: in 1946,
Menachem Begin's terrorist organization blew up the King David Hotel in
Jerusalem, murdering British nurses, in order to drive the British out of
Palestine. Israeli society later rewarded Menachem Begin by electing him
Prime Minister.
The United States government gives billions of your tax dollars to the
Israelis every year. And the U.S. government never pays people to do things
it doesn't want done. Israeli state terrorism is essentially American state
terrorism.
1953 - PRESENT
AMERICAN-BACKED GENOCIDE OF THE GUATEMALAN PEOPLE
Estimated civilian deaths: over 200,000 people
From Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
by William Blum:
A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive
government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of military-government
death squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions and unimaginable
cruelty, totaling more than 200,000 victims - indisputably one of the most
inhumane chapters of the 20th century.
The justification for the coup that has been put forth over the years is
that Guatemala had been on the verge of the proverbial Soviet takeover. In
actuality, the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't
even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem was that Arbenz had
taken over some of the uncultivated land of the US firm, United Fruit
Company [Chiquita bananas], which had extremely close ties to the American
power elite.
Moreover, in the eyes of Washington, there was the danger of Guatemala's
social-democracy model spreading to other countries in Latin America.
Despite a 1996 "peace" accord between the government and rebels, respect for
human rights remains as only a concept in Guatemala; death squads continue
to operate with a significant measure of impunity against union activists
and other dissidents; torture still rears its ugly head; the lower classes
are as wretched as ever; the military endures as a formidable institution;
the US continues to arm and train the Guatemalan military and carry out
exercises with it; and key provisions of the peace accord concerning
military reform have not been carried out.
1955 - 1973
AMERICAN GENOCIDE OF THE CAMBODIAN PEOPLE
Estimated total civilian deaths: 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 people
Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American
client. After many years of hostility toward his regime, including
assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet
bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in
1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge
forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But the years
of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The
old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.
Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery upon this
unhappy land. And to multiply the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot
and the Khmer Rouge after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.
1957 - 1973
AMERICAN GENOCIDE OF THE LAOTIAN PEOPLE
Estimated total civilian deaths: over 500,000 people
The Laotian left, led by the Pathet Lao, tried to effect social change
peacefully, making significant electoral gains and taking part in coalition
governments. But the United States would have none
|
| |
| |
On 5/2/04 16:15, in article m2q420tg6jp7ctn7m9klq5m9im6dji979g@4ax.com,
"Katherine Griffis-Greenberg" <egylist@REMOVETHISgriffis-consulting.com>
wrote:
Also wrong: income is taxable everywhere in the world by the US, no
matter who pays the income. It all depends upon the treaties or
agreements the US has with a country as to whether you can be
_double-taxed_.
If you make money in the UK, for example it cannot be taxed by the US
ONLY because of a dual taxation agreement the two countries have. Thus,
if I make money from US income in the US, the UK cannot tax it, and if I
make income in the UK, the US cannot tax it. The idea runs that we have
paid our respective tax men their due.
All dual nationals must report all worldwide income by filing an
annual U.S. income tax return, regardless of whether they owe taxes to
the U.S. or pay taxes elsewhere.
Unfortunately you are wrong in detail as well although the gist of what you
say is correct. Some of your references point to the IRS position, which may
not be the correct one. Others conflict with (as you remark) treaties. For
example: civil service pensions of the UK are not taxed by the US to UK
nationals in the US but only by the UK; and vice versa. (This is not the
ordinary rule, and it does not apply to social security/state pension, but
it is UK policy and the US went along with in drafting the treaty.)
As I hinted in posting the interesting Revenue Ruling, the IRS would claim
that all those previously expatriated were ipso facto US citizens on January
1, 1976. That's impossible since an adult cannot be made a national of a
country without consent; but such persons would have been well advised not
to have assets in the USA thereafter. The fact that there is no case law
suggests that the IRS has not pursued the issue. (It has litigated, and won,
where the "expatriate" was shown to have availed herself of attributes of US
citizenship. And it won the Marc Rich and the Norman F. Dacey cases.)
http://tinyurl.com/3eo38
(PDF file)
Almost never is there dual taxation except insofar as Alternative Minimum
Tax applies. There is either a tax treaty credit or a unilateral credit
(certain countries like Cuba, N. Korea, Libya aside).
Then there is the interesting situation of American citizens married to
foreign diplomats. I don't have a tax case handy, but there an international
conciliation commission decision, the Merg case (American-born woman
married to an Italian diplomat and resident at the Italian Embassy in Tokyo
during the war; this was a property claim.)
http://tinyurl.com/2cs55
(PDF file)
Such persons are not entitled to sales tax exemption in the US but AFAIK the
IRS would never try to impose tax on their community property income; to do
so would surely violate the Vienna Convention. The children born in the US
to such diplomatic families (with an American spouse) are US citizens. The
State Dept. will not knowingly accredit US dual nationals as diplomats, so
that's as far as the reasoning needs to go.
There are many, many "accidental" Americans born abroad of whom the State
Department and the IRS have no knowledge whatsoever. There are many others
like Marc Rich may or may not have relinquished nationality but who never go
to the US and have no assets there. Except for the Protocol to the Canada-US
Tax Treaty, which provides for reciprocal tax collection (but only against
nationals of the requesting country), there is no collection of tax across
borders. Indeed, there are good reasons why there cannot be, at least
without the cooperation of the taxpayer. In bankruptcy, for example, there
is no provision for payment of foreign capital gains tax upon liquidation of
assets. Thus, an American citizen made bankrupt in Britain, whose London
house is liquidated at a gain of $1 million (it has happened, indeed to the
estate of an deceased American acquaintance of mine living in London,
bankrupted by Lloyd's of London as part of their now-notorious investment
scam), will find even the money that should have been paid to the IRS is
sequestered on behalf of British and other non-tax creditors.
I haven't read all your cited material; anyway it's familiar to me.
But your statement
if I make money from US income in the US, the UK cannot tax it, and if I
make income in the UK, the US cannot tax it.
Is plainly wrong. Such income is taxed in both countries and in principle
you pay the higher rate although there are so many inconsistencies that you
may well pay more (and perhaps less) than that. If you are resident in both
countries (there are many transatlantic commuters) you pay to both, usually
with some credit. Usually a totalization agreement means you don't pay
social security/national insurance tax twice; and you can appeal to
Competent Authority to decide certain issues such as domicile. See Caron v.
The Queen
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/1998/html/1998tcc954210.html
for a situation where both Canada and France claimed the taxpayer's
residence.
So: don't be dogmatic, the rules are too arcane and self-conflicting. It
isn't even true that "[a]ll dual nationals must report all worldwide
income". Clearly persons who were born abroad of an American parent and who
have never been registered with any US consular officer will be unknown to
the IRS. The IRS does not pursue them, and does welcome them if they choose
to start filing. Generally they never need to file more than 6 years back.
Although in principle if the IRS finds them first (wildly improbable) they
could forfeit their foreign earned income exemption, I know of no such
cases.
More interesting are the cases of dual nationals born and living abroad who
have never worked under social security and won't be covered by Medicare if
they live, or visit, the US. I tell such people to get ten years (40
quarters) of coverage, even if your friend has to hire you (current annual
earnings to get 4 quarters of coverage is only $3,600 in 2004:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/QC.html
The problem is discussed here:
http://www.fm/USEmbassy/social.htm
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:12:24 +0000, Tam <tamsuraiya@yahoo.ca> in
misc.legal, wrote the following:
On 5/2/04 16:15, in article m2q420tg6jp7ctn7m9klq5m9im6dji979g@4ax.com,
"Katherine Griffis-Greenberg" <egylist@REMOVETHISgriffis-consulting.com>
wrote:
Unfortunately you are wrong in detail as well although the gist of what you
say is correct. Some of your references point to the IRS position, which may
not be the correct one. Others conflict with (as you remark) treaties. For
example: civil service pensions of the UK are not taxed by the US to UK
nationals in the US but only by the UK; and vice versa. (This is not the
ordinary rule, and it does not apply to social security/state pension, but
it is UK policy and the US went along with in drafting the treaty.)
So, as you say, this was a special provision in the UK-US dual tax
treaty, correct?
However, I was trying to make the point more about the issue of work
income. As I understood it from my accountant (and trust me, living in
the UK as a US citizen, I have had to keep up with this), if a US
citizen makes US work income which does not come into the UK until
_after_ taxes are paid upon it, then the UK cannot touch it in taxes as
taxable income under UK law, according to the UK-US dual tax treaty.
This is also true, as I understand it, of pension (a US work-related
pension (not Soc Security) can be taxed by the US, but not the UK,
although it may be received and used in the UK, but after taxes are
paid).
If that is not correct, please point me to the proper resource for this
information.
<snip>
But your statement
Is plainly wrong. Such income is taxed in both countries and in principle
you pay the higher rate although there are so many inconsistencies that you
may well pay more (and perhaps less) than that. If you are resident in both
countries (there are many transatlantic commuters) you pay to both, usually
with some credit. Usually a totalization agreement means you don't pay
social security/national insurance tax twice; and you can appeal to
Competent Authority to decide certain issues such as domicile. See Caron v.
The Queen
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/1998/html/1998tcc954210.html
for a situation where both Canada and France claimed the taxpayer's
residence.
And the effect of the dual tax treaties? If the income has already been
taxed by the home country in full, then what part of the income can the
host country tax if a dual tax treaty is in place?
So: don't be dogmatic, the rules are too arcane and self-conflicting. It
isn't even true that "[a]ll dual nationals must report all worldwide
income". Clearly persons who were born abroad of an American parent and who
have never been registered with any US consular officer will be unknown to
the IRS. The IRS does not pursue them, and does welcome them if they choose
to start filing. Generally they never need to file more than 6 years back.
Although in principle if the IRS finds them first (wildly improbable) they
could forfeit their foreign earned income exemption, I know of no such
cases.
More interesting are the cases of dual nationals born and living abroad who
have never worked under social security and won't be covered by Medicare if
they live, or visit, the US. I tell such people to get ten years (40
quarters) of coverage, even if your friend has to hire you (current annual
earnings to get 4 quarters of coverage is only $3,600 in 2004:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/QC.html
The problem is discussed here:
http://www.fm/USEmbassy/social.htm
Very interesting: thanks.
Regards --
--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.
DISCLAIMER:
Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.
|
| |
| |
Robert Miller wrote:
Does someone lose their U.S. citizenship if they swear an oath to a
foriegn government or governmental agency?
Robert Miller
Member of www.norfed.org
Bringing America back to value $1 at a time!
Not necessairly. Dual citizenship is possible.
I didn't think that United States citizens had that option. I've always
heard that if a U.S. citizen joined a foreign military service or even
became a member of the body politic of another nation could void
his / her U.S. citizenship.
Robert Miller
The first attempt by Congress to define citizenship was in 1866 in the
passage of the Civil Rights Act (Revised Statutes section 1992, 8 United
States Code Annotated section 1). The act provided that:
"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power
are declared to be citizens of the United States."
I knew I'd seen this before. Sounds like if I am subject to any foreign
power either by oath or contract I lose my status as a citizen of the
United States. It this is true then it would seem any United States citizen
who is also a lobbiest for a foreign power would also lose their U.S.
citizenship.
Robert Miller
Member of www.norfed.org
Bringing America back to value $1 at a time!
|
| |
| |
On 5/2/04 22:34, in article v2g520l9hl3kqj2eq0qs6oa9p3b9hddlog@4ax.com,
"Katherine Griffis-Greenberg" <egylist@REMOVETHISgriffis-consulting.com>
wrote:
So, as you say, this was a special provision in the UK-US dual tax
treaty, correct?
However, I was trying to make the point more about the issue of work
income. As I understood it from my accountant (and trust me, living in
the UK as a US citizen, I have had to keep up with this), if a US
citizen makes US work income which does not come into the UK until
_after_ taxes are paid upon it, then the UK cannot touch it in taxes as
taxable income under UK law, according to the UK-US dual tax treaty.
This is also true, as I understand it, of pension (a US work-related
pension (not Soc Security) can be taxed by the US, but not the UK,
although it may be received and used in the UK, but after taxes are
paid).
If that is not correct, please point me to the proper resource for this
information.
Not correct. What is true is that if you are non-UK-domiciled (and I believe
you are, based on the scanty information you have given) then your unearned
income (your investment income) is not taxed in Britain until and unless
brought into, or otherwise spent (via credit or debit card, or by paying
back a loan used for buying stuff) in Britain. (Trust income is subject to
arcane rules.)
By the way, even though under English and Scottish law you are probably
domiciled in a US state, under the laws of that state you are doubtless
domiciled in England (or Scotland or NI, depending where you live). Renvoi!
And not only domicile is relevant, but residence and ordinary residence; and
source of income. And, for IHT (death duties), residence in the UK for 17
out of the last 20 years.
While I "trust" you, that is not the point. I spent more than 14 years
collecting university degrees in this stuff and otherwise getting
professional qualifications and licenses. Years ago there were numerous tax
scams that won't work anymore, most notoriously payment of "commissions"
offshore, and loans to the employee or contractor in Britain equivalent to
the commissions, loans that need not be repaid until the taxpayer returned
to the US.
This non-authoritative, private Web site is a good summary of current law:
http://www.netaccountants.com/nonuk.html
UK residents pay tax under Sch D Cases IV and V on income from overseas
trades, professions, property and investments. Income is calculated
similarly to UK income. UK residents who are non-UK domiciled or are UK or
Eire citizens not ordinarily resident in the UK, pay tax only on income
brought into the UK (remittance basis).
Also the official Inland Revenue statement:
http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/pdfs/ir20.htm
http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/menus/non-residents.htm
You should be aware that the apparent windfall from being a non-domiciled
taxpayer can turn out troublesome: you can be taxed by two countries in two
different tax years and thus lose the right to a tax credit. (The UK tax
year 6 April to 5 April is problem enough, and requires careful attention.)
Furthermore, in some cases US tax is higher than UK tax because of the
effects of AMT and state and local taxation. Some states (MD, VA, DC come to
mind) pursue their former domiciliaries abroad aggressively. Others (NY, CA,
IL) make no claim against their domiciliaries who live abroad and are not
present in the state a qualifying period of time (30 days for NY). But, as I
said, the UK and US definitions of "domicile" differ. See the classic case
on the subject, In re estate of Jones
http://snipurl.com/4bm7
On pensions, see the treaty at
http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/pdfs/ukusa_dtconvention.pdf
See Article 18. What is innovative about this Treaty is that it exempts from
tax in one country money earned and put into a tax-deferred pension scheme
in the other. While the IRS and the Inland Revenue rarely if ever tried to
assess tax on pension accruals, that was by forbearance and not by law. Such
provisions are still new to treaties.
Otherwise: pension and social security income is taxed in the state of
residence rather than payment (except for civil service pensions, as to
which see Art. 19 of the Treaty). Art. 17: "a) Pensions and other similar
remuneration beneficially owned by a resident of a Contracting State shall
be taxable only in that State." (But see Art. 19: "2. Notwithstanding the
provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 17 (Pensions, Social Security,
Annuities, Alimony, and Child Support) of this Convention: a) any pension
paid by, or out of funds created by, a Contracting State or a political
subdivision or a local authority thereof to an individual in respect of
services rendered to that State or subdivision or authority shall, subject
to the provisions of sub-paragraph b) of this paragraph, be taxable only in
that State...")
And to make things more complex, US states are not (rpt. not) bound by the
tax treaty, or any treaty that they have not agreed to be bound by (which
has caused lots of problems in connection with The Hague conventions) and so
UK civil service pensions are not taxed by the IRS to UK citizens living in
the US but they are taxed by, for example, the state of California.
My field of endeavor is analyzing other lawyers' mistakes.
|
| |
| |
"=> Vox Populi " <vox@popu.li> wrote in message news:<MGtUb.607$Dg2.14143@news.uswest.net>...
jls wrote:
Complete bull#@($.
--
Thus spake anus populi.
FoggyTown
"It may be only your humble opinion, sir, but it happens to clash with
my authoritative one."
|
| |
| |
"=> Vox Populi " <vox@popu.li> wrote in message news:<N2uUb.628$Dg2.15360@news.uswest.net>...
Complete bull#@($. You really are a pathetic lying sack of #@($ Bullis.
Thus spake anus popili.
FoggyTown
"It may be only your humble opinion, sir, but it happens to clash with
my authoritative one."
|
| |
| |
robeml6@aol.com (Robert Miller) wrote in message news:<20040204133958.20558.00000924@mb-m21.aol.com>...
Does someone lose their U.S. citizenship if they swear an oath to a foriegn
government or governmental agency?
Robert Miller
They will lose their citizenship IF (and it's a big IF)
their intention is to give up their US citizenship.
If their intention is to keep their US citizenship
then they will keep it.
The US State Department has an administrative standard
where they will take the position that a US citizen
who swears an oath of allegiance to another country,
does so with the intention of keeping his US citizenship.
This is, by the way, an almost 180 degree change from
the position that the US held on this in the past.
It's just that several Supreme Court decisions have
made an automatic revokation of citizenship or an
automatic presumption of a desire to give up citizenship
very difficult to prove.
Stephen Gallagher
|
| |
| |
robeml6@aol.com (Robert Miller) wrote in message news:<20040205012100.18962.00001647@mb-m28.aol.com>...
Robert Miller wrote:
Does someone lose their U.S. citizenship if they swear an oath to a
foriegn government or governmental agency?
Robert Miller
Member of www.norfed.org
Bringing America back to value $1 at a time!
I didn't think that United States citizens had that option. I've always
heard that if a U.S. citizen joined a foreign military service or even
became a member of the body politic of another nation could void
his / her U.S. citizenship.
At one time, that was the case. However the rules
have changed over the years. The US government
doesn't encourage dual citizenship but neither
do they prohibit it.
A good website that discusses the topic is at:
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
Stephen Gallagher
|
| |
| |
Mike Girouard wrote:
Thus spake anus populi.
Still sucking cock, eh Mike?
FoggyTown
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
Mike Girouard wrote:
Thus spake anus popili.
Still sucking cock, eh Mike?
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
| |
