Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT - A Question...
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Willow
Nov 2, 2011, 3:06:56 PM11/2/11
to
Now, let me get this straight.
The US demands that every person who is a US citizen file and pay
income taxes on worldwide income no matter where they live or for how
long they have lived there. Correct?
US corporations avoid or evade (take your pick) huge tax payments by
use of offshore tax havens.
The US Supreme Court has now ruled that a corporation is a person for
all purposes.
So why does a corporation not have the same duty as a person to pay
taxes on worldwide income, no matter where it is earned or hidden?
The US demands that every person who is a US citizen file and pay
income taxes on worldwide income no matter where they live or for how
long they have lived there. Correct?
US corporations avoid or evade (take your pick) huge tax payments by
use of offshore tax havens.
The US Supreme Court has now ruled that a corporation is a person for
all purposes.
So why does a corporation not have the same duty as a person to pay
taxes on worldwide income, no matter where it is earned or hidden?
John Oliver
Nov 2, 2011, 4:56:51 PM11/2/11
to
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 12:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Willow
<walittl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Now, let me get this straight.
>The US demands that every person who is a US citizen file and pay
>income taxes on worldwide income no matter where they live or for how
>long they have lived there. Correct?
I am no longer a US citizen so do not know the present tax laws. But
<walittl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Now, let me get this straight.
>The US demands that every person who is a US citizen file and pay
>income taxes on worldwide income no matter where they live or for how
>long they have lived there. Correct?
back in the 70s and 80s, I was a US citizen and had to file a report.
I then claimed credit for my Australian income tax and did not pay US
income tax.
>US corporations avoid or evade (take your pick) huge tax payments by
>use of offshore tax havens.
>The US Supreme Court has now ruled that a corporation is a person for
>all purposes.
>So why does a corporation not have the same duty as a person to pay
>taxes on worldwide income, no matter where it is earned or hidden?
Australian income taxes on their Australian income.
--
John Oliver
jdol...@westnet.com.au
John Oliver
Nov 2, 2011, 5:22:33 PM11/2/11
to
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 07:56:51 +1100, John Oliver
<jdol...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>I am no longer a US citizen so do not know the present tax laws. But
>back in the 70s and 80s, I was a US citizen and had to file a report.
>I then claimed credit for my Australian income tax and did not pay US
>income tax.
>
Further to this, Australia also taxes on a world wide basis.
<jdol...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>I am no longer a US citizen so do not know the present tax laws. But
>back in the 70s and 80s, I was a US citizen and had to file a report.
>I then claimed credit for my Australian income tax and did not pay US
>income tax.
>
http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.aspx?doc=/content/64144.htm&mnu=43667&mfp=001/002
You might also check on Canada.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/trty-eng.html
--
John Oliver
jdol...@westnet.com.au
Willow
Nov 2, 2011, 5:49:00 PM11/2/11
to
John,
The test for us is residency.
When Howard Hughes took up residence at the Bayshore Hotel in
Vancouver, he left the hotel and Canada after 176 days. Had he
remained for 180+ days he would have been deemed a Canadian resident
and thus liable for Canadian taxes. When I lived in Thailand and the
USA, I was not residing in Canada during the time and thus did not
become a resident for tax purposes. Had I been American, i would have
had to file and possibly pay (unless there is a tax treaty)...
Willow
The test for us is residency.
When Howard Hughes took up residence at the Bayshore Hotel in
Vancouver, he left the hotel and Canada after 176 days. Had he
remained for 180+ days he would have been deemed a Canadian resident
and thus liable for Canadian taxes. When I lived in Thailand and the
USA, I was not residing in Canada during the time and thus did not
become a resident for tax purposes. Had I been American, i would have
had to file and possibly pay (unless there is a tax treaty)...
Willow
Willow
Nov 2, 2011, 5:44:07 PM11/2/11
to
John,
I should have been more careful with wordes...
Canada does tax worldwide income - if you are resident in Canada.
When I lived in Thailand or the USA, I was under no obligation to file
or pay Canadian taxes. Americans are liable for US taxes (yes,
generally they can deduct the taxes paid to other states) from
worldwide income no matter where they reside. That's a very big
difference.
You were an American citizen? Better check - for tax purposes, you
may still be. Many residents of Canada are being shaken down and the
penalties are horrid. This includes those born an d living all their
lives in Canada, never going to the USA..
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Americans+living+Canada+risk+facing+massive+penalties/5275424/story.html
http://ottawalawyersconnection.com/2011/03/28/tax-obligations-of-u-s-citizens-living-in-canada/
"Considering all of the onerous reporting obligations, the idea of
simply relinquishing one’s U.S. citizenship may seem tempting.
However, to no one’s surprise, the U.S. government has created onerous
rules aimed at dissuading the relinquishment of U.S. citizenship for
tax purposes.
To successfully relinquish your U.S. citizenship, one must first
comply with all requirements of the U.S. State Department as well as
completing and filing all required forms with the IRS; notably Form
8854 and ensure all tax returns are up to date.
Also, it is likely the U.S. person will be deemed to have disposed of
all their worldwide assets at fair market value and incur taxes on the
deemed disposition; something to consider before starting the process
It is also possible that taxes may still be owed after one
relinquishes his or her U.S. citizenship. Those rules are complex and
ought to be discussed with a tax professional.
The expatriate tax will also apply if the relinquishing person is
present in the U.S. for more than 30 days in any calendar year during
the 10 years following the date that person relinquished his or her
citizenship. Note that the expatriate tax only applies if it is
greater than the amount of tax that would otherwise be imposed if you
were taxed as a non-resident alien"
Bonne chance...
I should have been more careful with wordes...
Canada does tax worldwide income - if you are resident in Canada.
When I lived in Thailand or the USA, I was under no obligation to file
or pay Canadian taxes. Americans are liable for US taxes (yes,
generally they can deduct the taxes paid to other states) from
worldwide income no matter where they reside. That's a very big
difference.
You were an American citizen? Better check - for tax purposes, you
may still be. Many residents of Canada are being shaken down and the
penalties are horrid. This includes those born an d living all their
lives in Canada, never going to the USA..
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Americans+living+Canada+risk+facing+massive+penalties/5275424/story.html
http://ottawalawyersconnection.com/2011/03/28/tax-obligations-of-u-s-citizens-living-in-canada/
"Considering all of the onerous reporting obligations, the idea of
simply relinquishing one’s U.S. citizenship may seem tempting.
However, to no one’s surprise, the U.S. government has created onerous
rules aimed at dissuading the relinquishment of U.S. citizenship for
tax purposes.
To successfully relinquish your U.S. citizenship, one must first
comply with all requirements of the U.S. State Department as well as
completing and filing all required forms with the IRS; notably Form
8854 and ensure all tax returns are up to date.
Also, it is likely the U.S. person will be deemed to have disposed of
all their worldwide assets at fair market value and incur taxes on the
deemed disposition; something to consider before starting the process
It is also possible that taxes may still be owed after one
relinquishes his or her U.S. citizenship. Those rules are complex and
ought to be discussed with a tax professional.
The expatriate tax will also apply if the relinquishing person is
present in the U.S. for more than 30 days in any calendar year during
the 10 years following the date that person relinquished his or her
citizenship. Note that the expatriate tax only applies if it is
greater than the amount of tax that would otherwise be imposed if you
were taxed as a non-resident alien"
Bonne chance...
John Briggs
Nov 2, 2011, 6:30:33 PM11/2/11
to
a "Natural Born Citizen") it is probably impossible (if male) to
completely relinquish US citizenship.
--
John Briggs
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
John Briggs
Nov 2, 2011, 8:16:10 PM11/2/11
to
On 02/11/2011 23:47, Mike Burke wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:17:26 +1100, Mike Burke<mbu...@pcug.org.au>
> wrote:
>> Here in Oz, it's six months residency, afaik. Americans can usually
>> become naturalized Australian citizens when they complete a two-year
>> residency requirement, apply, and pass the requisite checks. Under
>> modern law, I believe they now have the right to retain their US
>> citizenship.
>>
>> Locals figure the transition is complete when they lose their Mercun
>> accents. :-) Rarely been known to happen, no matter how hard they
>> try.
>
> Further to that, I just recalled that the immediate past Premier of
> the state of New South Wales here is an American-Australian woman. She
> married an Australian guy (a nephew of Thomas Keneally of Schindler
> Ark/List fame) 15 or so years ago, but I think she took out Oz
> citizenship in the days when you had to relinquish your former
> citizenship. She has worked hard to lose her American accent, because
> it is far from a welcome trait in the political niche that she
> occupies, ie well to the left of centre without being stupid about it.
>
> Apart from the fact that she is an insanely beautiful woman
> (http://tinyurl.com/664qz7s) - she's officially on the Parliamentary
> records as being "nobody's girl" - she is an example in support of my
> argument elsewhere that devout Catholics tend to be more liberal than
> otherwise. She and her husband met at a World Youth Day gathering
> organised by the Catholic Church every three years.
A chap I know has (I think) an American mother. In any event, he wasn't
born there, because various changes to the US citizenship rules have
meant that he has over his lifetime three times lost and then regained
his US citizenship. (He once left Southampton on the "Queen Elizabeth"
on his British passport and arrived at New York on his US one [actually
the correct procedure] - only to be promptly arrested as an American
stowaway, while they searched the ship for the missing British passenger
of the same name...)
--
John Briggs
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:17:26 +1100, Mike Burke<mbu...@pcug.org.au>
> wrote:
>> become naturalized Australian citizens when they complete a two-year
>> residency requirement, apply, and pass the requisite checks. Under
>> modern law, I believe they now have the right to retain their US
>> citizenship.
>>
>> Locals figure the transition is complete when they lose their Mercun
>> accents. :-) Rarely been known to happen, no matter how hard they
>> try.
>
> Further to that, I just recalled that the immediate past Premier of
> the state of New South Wales here is an American-Australian woman. She
> married an Australian guy (a nephew of Thomas Keneally of Schindler
> Ark/List fame) 15 or so years ago, but I think she took out Oz
> citizenship in the days when you had to relinquish your former
> citizenship. She has worked hard to lose her American accent, because
> it is far from a welcome trait in the political niche that she
> occupies, ie well to the left of centre without being stupid about it.
>
> Apart from the fact that she is an insanely beautiful woman
> (http://tinyurl.com/664qz7s) - she's officially on the Parliamentary
> records as being "nobody's girl" - she is an example in support of my
> argument elsewhere that devout Catholics tend to be more liberal than
> otherwise. She and her husband met at a World Youth Day gathering
> organised by the Catholic Church every three years.
A chap I know has (I think) an American mother. In any event, he wasn't
born there, because various changes to the US citizenship rules have
meant that he has over his lifetime three times lost and then regained
his US citizenship. (He once left Southampton on the "Queen Elizabeth"
on his British passport and arrived at New York on his US one [actually
the correct procedure] - only to be promptly arrested as an American
stowaway, while they searched the ship for the missing British passenger
of the same name...)
--
John Briggs
Willow
Nov 2, 2011, 9:12:55 PM11/2/11
to
They may become Australian, Mique, but unless they follow very strict
rules, they are still American and liable for US taxes (subject to
treaties, like the one with Canada).
"Considering all of the onerous reporting obligations, the idea of
simply relinquishing one’s U.S. citizenship may seem tempting.
However, to no one’s surprise, the U.S. government has created
onerous
rules aimed at dissuading the relinquishment of U.S. citizenship for
tax purposes.
To successfully relinquish your U.S. citizenship, one must first
comply with all requirements of the U.S. State Department as well as
completing and filing all required forms with the IRS; notably Form
8854 and ensure all tax returns are up to date.
Also, it is likely the U.S. person will be deemed to have disposed of
all their worldwide assets at fair market value and incur taxes on
the
deemed disposition; something to consider before starting the process
It is also possible that taxes may still be owed after one
relinquishes his or her U.S. citizenship. Those rules are complex
and
ought to be discussed with a tax professional.
The expatriate tax will also apply if the relinquishing person is
present in the U.S. for more than 30 days in any calendar year during
the 10 years following the date that person relinquished his or her
citizenship. Note that the expatriate tax only applies if it is
greater than the amount of tax that would otherwise be imposed if you
were taxed as a non-resident alien"
Willow
rules, they are still American and liable for US taxes (subject to
treaties, like the one with Canada).
"Considering all of the onerous reporting obligations, the idea of
simply relinquishing one’s U.S. citizenship may seem tempting.
However, to no one’s surprise, the U.S. government has created
onerous
rules aimed at dissuading the relinquishment of U.S. citizenship for
tax purposes.
To successfully relinquish your U.S. citizenship, one must first
comply with all requirements of the U.S. State Department as well as
completing and filing all required forms with the IRS; notably Form
8854 and ensure all tax returns are up to date.
Also, it is likely the U.S. person will be deemed to have disposed of
all their worldwide assets at fair market value and incur taxes on
the
deemed disposition; something to consider before starting the process
It is also possible that taxes may still be owed after one
relinquishes his or her U.S. citizenship. Those rules are complex
and
ought to be discussed with a tax professional.
The expatriate tax will also apply if the relinquishing person is
present in the U.S. for more than 30 days in any calendar year during
the 10 years following the date that person relinquished his or her
citizenship. Note that the expatriate tax only applies if it is
greater than the amount of tax that would otherwise be imposed if you
were taxed as a non-resident alien"
Mary
Nov 2, 2011, 9:40:37 PM11/2/11
to
Can you point me to the law that states that citizenship differs by sex?
Mary
Message has been deleted
Willow
Nov 2, 2011, 11:16:16 PM11/2/11
to
Indeed so, Mique...
The situation is dire. Iceland managed to survive but one doubts that
Greece has the same ethic. Germany and France have called the bluff,
if that is what Greece was trying. Rather like watching the lights
going out in Europe, with the rest of us to follow.
I am indeed concerned. For several years, my partner and I have tried
to be debt free and, save for a tiny amount on one card each and our
small mortgage, we are. We look at those with mortgages well over
$200k and shutter. Most have two leased cars (the next sub-prime
crisis) and several toys - ATVs and boats - as well as massive credit
card debt. A big nut to crack monthly. And so many one paycheck away
from disaster. At least here we are in an area with plenty of water
(the next global shortage) and push to shove, the flowers go out and
veggies in. We ev en have oil and coal, natural gas and more. Gawds!
That sounds like Browne back in the early 70s!
Let's see. Old Testament - every seven years debts are wiped out,
n'est-ce pas?
An old cause - greed. (I seem to recall the bankers complaining that
their bonuses were too small during the bailout - only 75 Million or
so. Of course, their companies failed. When did bonuses get paid for
loosing companies?) But now, passing seven billion on board, we
simply cannot feed the horde. If we all ate like Indian peasants,
this world - I am told, could feed ten billion. If all ate like North
AmerIcans, only two point five could be served.
Having lived in the US for five years, I am - or was - addicted to
American politics. I have to cut that out these days - I simply get
too mad and my blood pressure cannot be allowed to go that high.
Yesterday, The Reps said the way to cure the ills economic was to tax
the poor more. Hmmmm Well, Iived in our Golden Age. May the gods
have mercy on what follows...
Willow. .
The situation is dire. Iceland managed to survive but one doubts that
Greece has the same ethic. Germany and France have called the bluff,
if that is what Greece was trying. Rather like watching the lights
going out in Europe, with the rest of us to follow.
I am indeed concerned. For several years, my partner and I have tried
to be debt free and, save for a tiny amount on one card each and our
small mortgage, we are. We look at those with mortgages well over
$200k and shutter. Most have two leased cars (the next sub-prime
crisis) and several toys - ATVs and boats - as well as massive credit
card debt. A big nut to crack monthly. And so many one paycheck away
from disaster. At least here we are in an area with plenty of water
(the next global shortage) and push to shove, the flowers go out and
veggies in. We ev en have oil and coal, natural gas and more. Gawds!
That sounds like Browne back in the early 70s!
Let's see. Old Testament - every seven years debts are wiped out,
n'est-ce pas?
An old cause - greed. (I seem to recall the bankers complaining that
their bonuses were too small during the bailout - only 75 Million or
so. Of course, their companies failed. When did bonuses get paid for
loosing companies?) But now, passing seven billion on board, we
simply cannot feed the horde. If we all ate like Indian peasants,
this world - I am told, could feed ten billion. If all ate like North
AmerIcans, only two point five could be served.
Having lived in the US for five years, I am - or was - addicted to
American politics. I have to cut that out these days - I simply get
too mad and my blood pressure cannot be allowed to go that high.
Yesterday, The Reps said the way to cure the ills economic was to tax
the poor more. Hmmmm Well, Iived in our Golden Age. May the gods
have mercy on what follows...
Willow. .
ellen ford
Nov 3, 2011, 1:45:29 AM11/3/11
to
If a corporation is eqivalent to a human being,,I want to be taxed as a
corporation.. Fair''s fair.
Ellen
corporation.. Fair''s fair.
Ellen
Message has been deleted
Chris F.A. Johnson
Nov 3, 2011, 3:20:36 AM11/3/11
to
On 2011-11-03, ellen ford wrote:
> If a corporation is eqivalent to a human being,,I want to be taxed as a
> corporation.. Fair''s fair.
"I will not regard a corporation as a person until Texas executes one!"
> If a corporation is eqivalent to a human being,,I want to be taxed as a
> corporation.. Fair''s fair.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfajohnson.com>
Author: =======================
Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Francis A. Miniter
Nov 3, 2011, 10:59:44 AM11/3/11
to
Thompson (the newspaper magnate) case. He tried to avoid
taxes by setting up three residences, one in England, one in
Canada, and one in the Bahamas. He ended up with the worst
of all scenarios. The PC ruled that he was resident in all
three jurisdictions because of the regularity of his
presence in each.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Mesure is Medicine þauh þou muche ȝeor[n]e.
Al nis not good to þe gost þat þe bodi lykeþ,
Ne lyflode to þe licam þat leof is to þe soule.
William Langland, The Vision of Piers Plowman
Passus I, lines 33 - 35
Francis A. Miniter
Nov 3, 2011, 11:05:51 AM11/3/11
to
Carson Chittom
Nov 3, 2011, 11:12:28 AM11/3/11
to
John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> writes:
> It depends how he acquired US citizenship. If he was born in the US
> (ie a "Natural Born Citizen") it is probably impossible (if male) to
> completely relinquish US citizenship.
I thought, "Surely that can't be right," but it appears that I'm wrong
> It depends how he acquired US citizenship. If he was born in the US
> (ie a "Natural Born Citizen") it is probably impossible (if male) to
> completely relinquish US citizenship.
and you *are* right. "Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship"[1] has in
section E:
Also, persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should also
be aware that the fact that a person has renounced
U.S. citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her
U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal
Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more
information)....
Searching the IRS's website gave me something called "Expatriation
Tax"[2], which, to be frank, though it looks relevant, I can make
neither hide nor hair of it.
I couldn't find anything on the Selective Service.
[1] http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html
[2] http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97245,00.html
--
http://www.wistly.net
Carson Chittom
Nov 3, 2011, 11:18:19 AM11/3/11
to
Mary <mrfea...@a0l.com> writes:
> If male?
>
> Can you point me to the law that states that citizenship differs by sex?
Only males are required to register with the Selective Service.
> If male?
>
> Can you point me to the law that states that citizenship differs by sex?
--
http://www.wistly.net
Francis A. Miniter
Nov 3, 2011, 11:20:13 AM11/3/11
to
On 11/2/2011 15:06 PM, Willow wrote:
> Now, let me get this straight.
> The US demands that every person who is a US citizen file and pay
> income taxes on worldwide income no matter where they live or for how
> long they have lived there. Correct?
Correct.
> Now, let me get this straight.
> The US demands that every person who is a US citizen file and pay
> income taxes on worldwide income no matter where they live or for how
> long they have lived there. Correct?
> US corporations avoid or evade (take your pick) huge tax payments by
> use of offshore tax havens.
> The US Supreme Court has now ruled that a corporation is a person for
> all purposes.
> So why does a corporation not have the same duty as a person to pay
> taxes on worldwide income, no matter where it is earned or hidden?
Subtitle A deals with income tax. Chapter 1 is entitled
Normal Taxes and Surtaxes. Subchapter A is Determination of
Tax Liability. That Subchapter is further broken into
Parts. Part I is the tax on individuals. Part II is the
tax on corporations. Corporations have different rules from
individuals.
In addition, back up at the Subchapter level, Subchapter N
deals with Tax Based on Income from Sources Within and
Without the United Stated.
Furthermore, Congress has been known to pass what looks like
a rule of general application, but which everyone knows
deals only with a single corporation or a single line of
business, e.g., oil.
John Briggs
Nov 3, 2011, 11:40:20 AM11/3/11
to
On 03/11/2011 15:18, Carson Chittom wrote:
> Mary<mrfea...@a0l.com> writes:
>
>> If male?
>>
>> Can you point me to the law that states that citizenship differs by sex?
>
> Only males are required to register with the Selective Service.
And historically it was females who were required to relinquish
> Mary<mrfea...@a0l.com> writes:
>
>> If male?
>>
>> Can you point me to the law that states that citizenship differs by sex?
>
> Only males are required to register with the Selective Service.
citizenship upon marriage. Some jurisdictions have acknowledged such
relinquishment (is that a word?) as involuntary.
--
John Briggs
erilar
Nov 3, 2011, 12:10:21 PM11/3/11
to
In article
<cac3c269-b49b-4fc7...@t38g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
one of the weird one with no debts.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
<cac3c269-b49b-4fc7...@t38g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Willow <walittl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yesterday, The Reps said the way to cure the ills economic was to tax
> the poor more. Hmmmm Well, Iived in our Golden Age. May the gods
> have mercy on what follows...
I'm glad I'm 77, not 17, despite occasional aches and pains. And I'm
> Yesterday, The Reps said the way to cure the ills economic was to tax
> the poor more. Hmmmm Well, Iived in our Golden Age. May the gods
> have mercy on what follows...
one of the weird one with no debts.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
John Briggs
Nov 3, 2011, 12:40:38 PM11/3/11
to
evaporate.
--
John Briggs
erilar
Nov 3, 2011, 4:39:03 PM11/3/11
to
In article <euzsq.4722$M61...@newsfe09.ams2>,
My assets are not in stocks.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
John Briggs
Nov 3, 2011, 4:47:12 PM11/3/11
to
--
John Briggs
Francis A. Miniter
Nov 3, 2011, 8:10:14 PM11/3/11
to
Message has been deleted
erilar
Nov 4, 2011, 10:58:02 AM11/4/11
to
In article <o5Dsq.5229$Ey3...@newsfe27.ams2>,
John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 03/11/2011 20:39, erilar wrote:
> > My assets are not in stocks.
>
> You'd be surprised what can evaporate :-)
If they destroy Social Security, default on government bonds, kill
pension funds in both MN and WI, and all the banks fail(even local
ones), there will be a mass uprising I can join.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 03/11/2011 20:39, erilar wrote:
> > My assets are not in stocks.
>
> You'd be surprised what can evaporate :-)
pension funds in both MN and WI, and all the banks fail(even local
ones), there will be a mass uprising I can join.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Andrew Barss
Nov 17, 2011, 3:57:27 PM11/17/11
to
Willow <walittl...@gmail.com> wrote:
: Now, let me get this straight.
: The US demands that every person who is a US citizen file and pay
: income taxes on worldwide income no matter where they live or for how
: long they have lived there. Correct?
: US corporations avoid or evade (take your pick) huge tax payments by
: Now, let me get this straight.
: The US demands that every person who is a US citizen file and pay
: income taxes on worldwide income no matter where they live or for how
: long they have lived there. Correct?
: use of offshore tax havens.
: The US Supreme Court has now ruled that a corporation is a person for
: all purposes.
: So why does a corporation not have the same duty as a person to pay
: taxes on worldwide income, no matter where it is earned or hidden?
Good question! My brothers-in-law, and my older siblings' kids, are
: The US Supreme Court has now ruled that a corporation is a person for
: all purposes.
: So why does a corporation not have the same duty as a person to pay
: taxes on worldwide income, no matter where it is earned or hidden?
stuck in this new nightmare of the US trying to claim past taxes.
These are people who either have lived in Canada since childhood, and
have been Canadian citizens for decades, or people who were born and
raised in Canada (of American-citizen parents, who
later became Canadian).
Of the brothers-in-law, none have lived in ther US since
the early 1970s.
The penalties are enormous -- $10,000 for each bank account, per *year*,
all the way back. And apparently the government is quite serious about
forcing them to pay.
-- Andy Barss
Message has been deleted
0 new messages