It’s Happening Again – Enough is Enough is Enough

 

NB: STAY TUNED – a 7-part video on the Transition Tax, with
John Richardson & Karen Alpert will be posted in the next couple of days.

 
 
NB: For anyone with time to spare/the interest/needing specifics to make the point regarding the “intention” of the law, here are some of the relevant House/Senate hearings and/or documents:

Oct 3, 2017 Full Committee Hearing -Senate Finance

Nov 6 – 9, 2017 H W & M Markup
Nov 13, 2017 Open Executive Session to Consider an Original Bill Entitled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Sessions also continued Nov 14, 15, 16 with videos at the page)
Supporting Document Markup – Senate Finance Committee

*******

Another day, another set of articles and comments where the #TransitionTax & #GILTI are being stuffed down the throats of expatriates who have their own small corporations. The proliferation of articles on this issue, all proclaiming the U.S. can now inflict a deeper cut into the retirement savings of non-residents, is infuriating. The first two articles at least expressed the idea that these provisions might affect non-resident U.S. taxpayers.

Max Reed , posted on November 3, 2017:

As part of this transition, the new rules impose a one-time 12% tax on income that was deferred in a foreign corporation. Although perhaps unintentional, since US citizens will not benefit from a territorial model, the new rules impose a 12% tax on any cash that has been deferred since 1986.

Kevyn Nightengale, posted on November 10, 2017 (I have not included the updated comments because this is what we saw at that time):

This provision was not designed to catch individuals (I think), and certainly not Americans abroad – they are collateral damage. it’s incredibly unfair.

When I saw the House version, I expected that individuals would be exempted after a sober second (or third) thought. Or at least individuals living abroad would be exempted. But seeing a parallel provision in the Senate version makes me expect the worst.

Seems fairly obvious that the biggest clue that the #TransitionTax IS NOT meant to apply to small CFC’s is that they are not “transitioned” from a worldwide system to a territorial one. This is so basic it is hard to believe nobody just calls these people out on this. How many tax professionals watched all of the House/Senate hearings? Many of us did, all hoping to hear that the move to territorial would include individuals; or at least some mention of us. There simply was nothing to suggest that this tax applied to anyone except large multi-national corporations.This provides the context in which the law was conceived. It should be considered just as thoroughly as the plain reading that professionals claim catches expats in the net. Just exactly who is really making the law here?

Now, on to the two prominent articles of the week. The Financial Post has U.S. tax reform to bring double taxation to some Canadians by Julius Melnitzer. Mr. Melnitzer is well-known for making huge distortions of reality. Canadians are familiar with the fact that he perpetuated “the biggest personal loan fraud in Canadian banking history.”

The biggest personal loan fraud in Canadian banking history was the work of a wealthy, respectable London, Ontario lawyer, Julius Melnitzer. When he left the board of Vanguard Trust, a small firm with which his law firm had been dealing, he just happened to take a copy of the corporate seal that Vanguard had used, among other purposes, to attest to the validity of certain forms which it issued in lieu of custom-designed share certificates. Melnitzer’s first trick was to create fake shares by simply typing in the share amounts and stamping the certificates with the company seal. He created five certificates representing a total of almost 900,000 shares. Then he used these “shares” as collateral for personal lines of credit. He also forged financial statements of a company that his father had founded, in which Melnitzer owned 20% of the shares, along with a pledge from the company that it would guarantee Melnitzer’s debts. Using the Vanguard shares and the phoney loan guarantees Melnitzer received a total of $5.6 million in lines of credit from five major Canadian banks. The scam went on for years. Each time a bank would start to press him for repayment, he would threaten to take his business elsewhere. He would also request a letter of recommendation from one bank, then use it to obtain funds from its competitors. A few years later, the banks pressed him to either pay up or come up with better collateral. Emboldened by the fact that no one had questioned the veracity of the forged documents, he decided to do the second.

Melnitzer went to a small local printing company that his law firm had done business with for years. He told them he was representing a client charged with using forged stock certificates to get loans at banks. He wanted to prove in court that printing technology had improved so much, even a small shop like theirs could do a credible job. When the company agreed, he ordered single shares of five blue-chip companies in the name of his daughter to avoid suspicion. He then altered them to put in his own name and bumped up the amounts until they had a face value of about $30 million. Not only did the great majority of the financial institutions he dealt with accept these in the place of the initial collateral, but some even significantly increased his line of credit. Alas, when an officer at National became suspicious about how Melnitzer’s personal wealth had risen so quickly, the officer asked bank experts to inspect the stock certificates. Melnitzer was arrested three days later.

Further:

Julius Melnitzer, a London, Ont., lawyer, was brilliant in the courtroom and had a stable of powerful clients, including some of the province’s biggest landlords. Thanks to a tip from an observant middle manager at a bank, the police discovered Melnitzer had printed up more than $100 million worth of stock certificates bearing blue-chip names like Exxon Corp. and used them to secure around $67 million in loans from several banks. He also bilked several friends out of more than $14 million by getting them to invest in a bogus property deal in Singapore. In 1992, Melnitzer pleaded guilty to 43 counts of fraud. He was sentenced to nine years in jail but was out on day parole after a couple of years and full parole in 1995. Melnitzer is now a well-known and respected Canadian legal affairs writer.

For Mr. Melnitzer’s point of view see here.

So why am I making such a big deal out of Mr. Melnitzer’s background? Irony. Hypocrisy. Disgraceful. Despicable. Along with government and the tax compliance community, the media is guilty of presenting only one side of the picture, consistently. We are labelled as “tax cheats” “scofflaws” and so on for not filing pieces of paper we knew nothing about. This man, who cheated banks out of $67 million, his friends out of $14 million, is promoting a questionable point of view that seriously affects the lives of millions of expats. Sorry, I cannot consider him a “well-known and respected Canadian legal affairs writer.”

The article quotes Roy Berg on the Transition Tax issues and Paul Seraganian on estate tax issues. An example of the Transition Tax issue:
 
A doctor who is a dual citizen practising in Canada,
with $2M of accumulated earnings in a private Canadian corporation,
would have a one-time U.S. tax liability of $300,000 this year

Roy Berg, director, U.S. tax law, Moodys Gartner
 

“A one-time tax liability of $300,000.” Incredible. Just a “fact.” Doesn’t matter at all how immoral this tax is in the first place. Doesn’t matter that this likely represents the doctor’s retirement savings. He/she likely worked very hard to earn that.This is a real-life person, not a hugely wealthy individual such as a corporate CEO who makes far more than $2 million a year in bonuses alone. It’s not small potatoes to confiscate that from a non-resident “U.S.” person. A Canadian citizen and resident. It is unbelievable that anyone, in any country would simply accept that U.S law applies outside it’s borders. It seems to me that “tax professionals” need to think carefully about what they are doing, who they are hurting and their role in what is truly an amoral regime at best and an immoral regime at worst. And people affected by this should think long and hard about parting with such amounts. I sincerely hope renunciations will be off the charts next year. One can at least be certain that “unofficial” renunciations, people “just walking with their feet” (as in non-compliance) will continue. There is a limit to the value of anything and U.S. citizenship is quickly becoming something non-residents simply cannot afford to keep.

An excellent comment by Karen Alpert on this article:

It is patently clear that Congress was not thinking about the impact of tax reform on non-resident US citizens. None of the discussion in the lead-up to tax reform, or in the committee hearings, indicated that Congress intended to punish the citizens and residents of other countries who happen to be claimed by the US as citizens. Nothing written by the IRS so far has indicated that they believe this applies to non-resident individuals – every example in the IRS notices has specifically looked at corporate shareholders. The only indication that this might apply to non-resident individual shareholders is from the tax compliance industry that stands to earn a large amount of fees on attempts to comply with this extra-territorial over-reach by the US.

If applied to non-resident individuals, the “transition” tax would be a pre-emptive grab at the tax base of Canada and every other country where US emigrants and Accidental Americans are living. The “deferred foreign income” that would be confiscated is money that was never subject to US tax, and is only claimed by the US because of a fictional “deemed repatriation”. Think about what that really means – the US is pretending that US emigrants are “repatriating” funds back to a country where they don’t live, and that they may no longer really identify with. The only good that could possibly come from this is the long overdue realisation that US taxation of the citizens and residents of other countries is contrary to the national interests of those countries and contrary to normal international practice.

The comments section is still open; please go over and make your views known.

**********

The other major article this week is at the Financial Times.

You can see the article on the

citizenshiptaxation facebook group

 
Financial Times
Americans abroad hit by Trump’s new repatriation tax rules
by Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New York – FEBRUARY 4, 2018

John Richardson comments:

(A previous comment of John’s is here . )

@Mitchell @WBY @Brian Lillis @Monte

@Mitchell gives us an excellent description of the reality of this situation.

We are dealing with a situation where the “tax compliance community” says: “Resistance is futile” and the reality is “compliance is impossible”.

What will be people do? Those who have long term relationships with “tax compliance people” are probably in the worst situation. They will be under enormous pressure to transfer their pensions (in reality this is how these corps are often used) to the IRS. These people will be confused, frightened and “easy prey”for the amoral individuals who populate the industry. I saw one explanation of the “transition tax” from a highly regarded tax firm that noted that they must search their client base for “victims”.

Notably, this is also taking place against a backdrop where VERY FEW “tax professionals” even understand how this (so called) tax works and how to work with it (or against it).

It is laughable that the only way any individual could even know that this exists is because of the combined efforts of the media and the “tax compliance industry” (frankly the last group of people I would trust).

I would also like to stress that members of the tax compliance community do NOT know more about this than the individuals impacted. Sure, they may be able to calculate the tax better (assuming that it applies to Americans abroad at all.) But their insight into this is limited by the thought (if you want to call it a thought):

The law is the law – the intent of the law was irrelevant – the unintended consequences are irrelevant.

The unfortunate truth is this:

People are going to have to choose between following the advice from their tax professional that “the law is the law” and retaining their life savings.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

 
 

U.S. Tax Culture Sees Individual Using a Small Corporation as a “Presumptive Tax Cheat”

 
 

 
This post is an actual comment by John Richardson that appeared here (PAYWALLED)

You can see the article on the
citizenshiptaxation facebook group

 
Financial Times
Americans abroad hit by Trump’s new repatriation tax rules
by Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New York – FEBRUARY 4, 2018

 
 

Interesting article that demonstrates the impact of the U.S. tax policy of (1) exporting the Internal Revenue Code to other countries and (2) using the Internal Revenue Code to impose direct taxation on the “tax residents” of those other countries.

Some thoughts on this:

1. Different countries have different “cultures” of financial planning and carrying on businesses. The U.S. tax culture is such that an individual carrying on a business through a corporation is considered to be a “presumptive tax cheat”. This is NOT so in other countries. For example, in Canada (and other countries), it is normal for people to use small business corporations to both carry on business and create private pension plans. So, the first point that must be understood is that (if this tax applies) it is in effect a “tax” (actually it’s confiscation) of private pension plans!!! That’s what it actually is. The suggestion in one of the comments that these corporations were created to somehow avoid “self-employment” tax (although possibly true in countries that don’t have totalization agreements) is generally incorrect. I suspect that the largest number of people affected by this are in Canada and the U.K. which are countries which do have “totalization agreements”.

2. None of the people interviewed, made the point (or at least it was not reported) that this “tax” as applied to individuals is actually higher than the “tax” as applied to corporations. In the case of individuals the tax would be about 17.5% and not the 15.5% for corporations. (And individuals do not get the benefit of a transition to “territorial taxation”.)

3. As Mr. Bruce notes people will not easily be able to pay this. There is no realization event whatsoever. It’s just: (“Hey, we see there is some money there, let’s take it). Because there is no realization event, this should be viewed as an “asset confiscation” and not as a “tax”.

4. Understand that this is a pool of capital that was NEVER subject to U.S. taxation on the past. Therefore, if this is a tax at all, it should be viewed as a “retroactive tax”.

5. Under general principles of law, common sense and morality (does any of this matter?) the retained earnings of non-U.S. corporations are first subject to taxation by the country of incorporation. The U.S. “transition tax” is the creation of a “fictitious taxable event” which results in a preemptive “tax strike” against the tax base of other countries. If this is allowed under tax treaties, it’s only because when the treaties were signed, nobody could have imagined anything this outrageous.

6. It is obvious that this was NEVER INTENDED TO APPLY TO Americans abroad. Furthermore, no individual would even imagine that this could apply to them without “Education provided by the tax compliance industry”. Those in the industry should figure out how to argue that this was never intended to apply to Americans abroad, that there is no suggestion from the IRS that this applies to Americans abroad, that there is no legislative history suggesting that this applies to Americans abroad, and that this should not be applied to Americans abroad.

7. Finally, the title of this article refers to “Americans abroad”. This is a gross misstatement of the reality. The problem is that these (so called) “Americans abroad” are primarily the citizens and “tax residents” of other countries – that just happen to have been born in the United States. They have no connection to the USA. Are these citizen/residents of other countries (many who don’t even identify as Americans) expected to simply “turn over” their retirement plans to the IRS???? Come on!

What is the international reaction to the latest US Tax Reform by President Trump? Is there any Concern for worldwide tax competition?

 

Cross-posted from Quora

by John Richardson

Contrary to the early answers to this question, there is (internationally) a great deal of interest in U.S. tax reform and a great deal of reaction to it. All you need do is read the London Financial based Financial Times (and other publications) to read about this. A ten second search reveals (by way of example):

The “international interest” has been focused on (but not restricted to) three key areas:

First, the reduction in corporate tax rates (falling from 35% to 21%). Countries around the world compete for investment capital by offering lowering tax rates. Higher U.S. tax rates encourage companies to earn their profits in countries with lower tax rates. Lowering the U.S. corporate tax rates will lessen that incentive.


Second, there has been and continues to be concern that U.S. tax reform has NOT considered U.S. tax treaty obligations (non-discrimination clause, etc.) and could result in the USA violating its WTO (and possibly NAFTA) obligations. (At one point the Republicans were considering a “border adjustment tax” – disallowing a U.S. tax deduction if a component was purchased outside the USA.) The “border adjustment tax” was viewed negatively by Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau.

Third, U.S. tax laws imposes “worldwide taxation” on many residents of other countries. This is the result of what a U.S. tax system that defines U.S. “tax residents” in a way that includes certain individuals who are “tax residents of other nations”.

ALL individuals who are NOT “nonresident” aliens. Leaving aside the legal jargon, the simple fact is that the United States is attempting to impose “worldwide taxation” on the residents of other countries.

It is disappointing that the United States continues its obsession with defining the “tax residents” of other nations as U.S. tax residents”.

So, there are just a few areas of concern and reaction.

Epilogue …

Those interested in a more academic response might read:

http://www.capdale.com/international-aspects-of-us-tax-reform-is-this-really-where-we-want-to-go#.Wkvm0RQZfKA.linkedin

The author concludes that:

“The underlying problem is that the international provisions have been crafted on the unstated assumption that the U.S. is the only country whose tax policies matter. That is unfortunate not simply because it is untrue but because it holds the potential for serious harm to U.S. interests. It is a shame to see the country fritter away a position of world leadership in a field as important as international taxation – a field that has gained immeasurably in international recognition as a result of BEPS and other developments in the OECD, the European Union, and at the UN. The fact that the U.S. Congress pretended for years that the BEPS project did not exist is emblematic of the attitude that is now manifest in the new international provisions. Our companies are likely to pay a price for the decline in U.S. leadership but, make no mistake, it will ultimately have negative influence in many corners of our national life.”

***

About the Author John Richardson

John Richardson
Toronto citizenship lawyer: FATCA U.S. tax + renunciation of citizenship
Lawyer 1982-present
B.A., LL.B., J.D. (Of the bars of Ontario, New York and Massachusetts)
Co-chair of the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty and the
Alliance for the Defeat of Citizenship Taxation

Lives in Toronto, ON

ACA: TAX REFORM BILL AND AMERICANS ABROAD: WHAT HAPPENED? WHAT’S NEXT?

 

NB: While ADCT respects ACA’s positions and appreciates their lobbying efforts, this post in no way serves as an endorsement of their submission regarding RBT.

It bears repeating that no group approached Congress during the tax reform process and specifically requested RBT. Many chose to support RO’s effort (TTFI) assuming it more likely to succeed given Congress was clearly intent upon changing corporations to a territorial model.

ACA’s approach to RBT has been described by some as CBT with a carve-out (for those who are already compliant). It does not address the issues of Accidental Americans; becoming compliant for the express purpose of renunciation, etc.
 
 

TAX REFORM BILL AND AMERICANS ABROAD: WHAT HAPPENED? WHAT’S NEXT?
 

by Charles M Bruce
ACA’s Legal Counsel and Of Counsel to Bonnard Lawson-Lausanne

with contributions from Jonathan Lachowitz, Chairman, ACA, Marylouise Serrato,
Executive Director, ACA, and Jacqueline Bugnion, Former Director, ACA.

On the day President Trump signed the The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) , Mr. Bruce issued this letter (found on the ACA website).

EXCERPTS:

What happened?
 
Changes in the basic rules for Americans abroad were not made.
There are strong indications that Congress will soon return to the subject of tax law changes to make corrections in what was done and to address issues that were postponed. A couple of days ago Chairman Brady said, “I’m going to recommend that we do have some form of tax reconciliation in future budgets because there are still areas of the tax code I think . . . can be improved, including retirement savings, education, and streamlining,” Brady said. “And we had a number of good ideas from our members we weren’t able to accommodate. Plus, I think we’ll have to continue to modify the international code over time.”

What has not changed?
 

  • The basic foreign earned income and housing cost amount exclusion (FEIE) has not changed
  • The 3.8% net investment income tax to fund Medicare and The Affordable Care Act, remains in place and continues to apply in a way that, for Americans abroad, exposes them to double taxation because they are not allowed to credit foreign taxes against it.

 
There are some serious problems.
 
(a) The new participation exemption system adversely affects Americans abroad by not providing the dividends received deduction and yet taxing an individual on the deemed distribution.

(b) Special reduced rates for so-called “passthroughs” do not benefit Americans abroad that earn from a passthrough foreign income.

(c) Foreign real property taxes can no longer be deducted under the Act.
 
What are the good points?
 
Overall, the visibility of the subject of taxation of Americans abroad has greatly increased. The House Republican Blueprint for tax changes, developed early on, said that legislators would consider “appropriate treatment of individuals living and working abroad in today’s globally integrated economy.” Ways and Means Chairman Brady said that Congress is thinking about changes in the way American individuals abroad are taxed. Lawmakers, he added, take seriously the call for a shift from a citizen-based income tax system to a residence-based system that would only tax people on the income they earn in the U.S. Finance Committee
Chairman Hatch’s corporate integration proposal called for reconsideration of the taxation of nonresident citizens. Individual Members, such as, Representative Holding (Republican-North Carolina), have said that changing the way Americans overseas are taxed is high on their list of priorities. Late in the process, there was a very good floor colloquy between Representative Holding and Chairman Brady on the need to take up this subject afresh in the near future.

One of the most positive things that happened was that ACA successfully developed the best, most comprehensive baseline set of data for detailing the taxation of Americans abroad. This baseline information did not previously exist. It required five months of work by ACA and its independent revenue estimator, District Economics Group (DEG). Utilizing this information, ACA has been able to greatly refine its description of a possible approach to changes in the law and
to run revenue estimates. All of this shows that enactment of RBT can be made revenue neutral. This is an extremely important outcome. ACA has always said that for RBT to be adopted, it must be revenue neutral, tough against abuse, and fair for everyone, meaning among other things that no one would be worse off. ACA’s numbers-crunching shows that RBT can be adopted and the, at the same time, section 911 can be left in place.
 
What’s next?
 
Congress did not consider RBT and reject it. It’s noteworthy that no Member or committee arrived at the point where an RBT/territoriality-for-individuals proposal was put by a Member on the table, drafted in legislative language and “scored” for its revenue effects.Republican interest groups, as well as other groups such as Democrats Abroad, AARO, and FAWCO, all talked with many Members and “knocked on many doors”. They deserve great credit for their efforts……. However, the big, high-visibility subjects, including changes in the international tax rules for corporations, commanded most of the attention of decision-makers.Also, the approaches to these subjects, including the various versions of proposed changes in the corporate tax rules, resulted in a constantly changing landscape and made it difficult to insert residency-based taxation alongside them.
The effect of work on the other subjects can be seen from the fact that many effects on Americans abroad were simply overlooked or not fully appreciated until very late in the game, if it (sic) all.

ACA believes that Members, including Chairman Brady, Chairman Hatch, Representative Holding, and others, are sincere in saying that they want to change the tax rules for Americans abroad. We don’t think they would’ve made the statements they did if this was not the case.

In light of what was not addressed in TCJA and some of the overlooked outcomes, ACA strongly believes NOW IS THE TIME FOR CONGRESS TO HOLD HEARINGS ON THE TAX TREATMENT OF AMERICANS ABROAD. These can lay out the existing rules, including the rules added by TCJA. The Joint Committee on Taxation, the lead committee on matters having to do with tax, can construct its own baseline for dealing with the subject. ACA is making the results of the ACA/DEG study available. Hearings can also identify the key topics, including, for example, treatment of tax havens, various anti-abuse topics, etc. All the interested parties can present their views. It’s an opportunity for everyone generally to “get on the same page” or say why they choose not to be on that page. Of course, there will be differences in opinion as to what changes should be made. ACA suggests that the hearings be held by the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy. It looks to Members, both Republicans and Democrats, who have historically taken an interest in the subject to support hearings.
 
*******
 
On the Transition Tax:

The Merry-go-Round of Unintended Consequences
No Evidence of Intent to Apply the Transition Tax to Small Business Corporations of #Americansabroad
ADSC-ADCT Letter to US Congress
Seven Simple Points to be made re Transition Tax and CFCs
It’s the Subpart F Rules Stupid

ACA Papers:

submission to the Senate Finance Committee April 2015

Side-By-Side Analysis: Current Law; Residency-Based Taxation

Representative Holding’s comments:

It’s the Subpart F Rules, Stupid

 

 

There is a very good discussion going on over at Brock regarding the “Transition Tax” and the unintended consequences that may be passed on to expats. Fortunately, this cross-posted comment by USCitizenAbroad demonstrates how we have moved from the complicated verbiage of statutes/IRS Code to something understandable. (!!!!!)

@Plaxy

First, there has never been ANY background discussion that suggests that a transition tax would apply to individual shareholders (whether in the US or abroad) of non-U.S. corporations.

Second, ALL of the discussion has been in the context of finding a way to impose taxation on the offshore trillions supposedly owed by the corporate shareholders of foreign corporations,

Third, notice that some of the discussion (for example in the two Morse articles) raises the question of how the tax should be designed (inside the income tax system, outside the tax system, subpart F, etc.).

What I think has happened is that, by making a subpart F inclusion the mechanism for taxing the “offshore trillions”, it has theoretically drawn individuals (and by extension Americans abroad) into harm’s way.

Because the subpart F rules do apply to the individual shareholders of Canadian Controlled Private Corporations (even though originally intended for corporations), and the mechanism to capture the “offshore trillions” is subpart F, individuals have been drawn in.

Had the mechanism for inclusion been something other than subpart F, I suspect that we would not even be having this discussion. But, what discussion? What is generating the discussion?

Interestingly, the ONLY discussion of the impact of this on individual Americans abroad comes from the tax compliance industry in Canada (because they are the only group considering individual Americans abroad) and probably tax people in other countries.

There is no final legislation and the rules are complex. So, what happens is that one tax person says: “These rules apply to Americans abroad” and the rest follow. They have few (if any) independent thoughts on this. It is very difficult to read and understand this proposed legislation. They read legislation literally. They don’t read contextually. They in effect “make up the law”. We have seen this happen time after time.

Now, what are individuals to do? It’s obvious that this tax was NEVER intended to apply to them. But, (I expect) the tax compliance industry will work hard to force people to pay up. What is clear is the tax compliance community will NOT (if they adopt the “party line”) tell people that the tax does not apply to them. They won’t be willing (and understandably so) take the risk. But, they don’t know any more about this than you or I.

So, what should be done? What should the response be?

At the present time there are still many unknowns. But, I really don’t see how people can pay a tax that

  1. was never intended for them
  2. will confiscate their retirement plans
  3. is in effect a retrospective tax – they are (possibly) going back in time and deeming income that was not taxable at the time to be taxable now.
  4. is not based on any “event” whatsoever – this is why it is pure confiscation. Even if it were 1 cent it would be pure confiscation because there is no event triggering a tax.
  5. (5) reaches directly into the tax base of Canada.

Since July the Government of Canada has been discussing this same pool of Canadian capital. This whole discussion is confusing theory, reality and practicality. This cannot and should not be paid.

My suggestion I guess is:

Get your tax preparer to reveal his/her position on this before work on the returns commences. If the preparer will not sign the returns without paying this tax – then find another preparer or do them yourself or don’t file at all. Obviously the pressure to renounce has become even more intense.

What you cannot due is let the tax compliance community turn your retirement savings over to the IRS based on a law that was never intended to apply to you.

Furthermore, I think that tax preparers have a moral obligation to make their position on this known in advance.

 

Seven Simple Points to be Made Re: Transition Tax and CFCs

 


 
This comment from the Isaac Brock Society makes basic points to be made with regard to the proposed “Transition Tax” in both the House and Senate Tax Reform Bills.
 
Every expat who knows there are private individuals who are incorporated in their country should be contacting relevant government representatives giving them the information that U.S. Tax Reform may impose a “transition tax.” As it is widely surmised that this is an unintended consequence, now is the time to bring it to the forefront and create awareness/resistance to this. We have appealed to the U.S. government to change the relevant sections (or give some clarification); if this does not occur, we cannot allow the compliance community to decide what the law is. In the past this HAS occurred with regard to the treatment of PFICs, applying the Exit Tax retroactively to people who renounced prior to 2008 and putting “minnows” into OVDP/OVDI. Time to stand up and say “NO!”
 
The following points would work for any country; just change the numbers in point 1 and “Canadian” to your country (generally) and the ministers’ names to yours.
 
1. There are approximately one million Canadian citizens who are resident in Canada and are also U.S. citizens (mostly Canada/U.S. dual citizens – with the U.S. citizenship conferred on them because of a U.S.
birthplace).

2. It’s safe to say that a significant number of these “dual citizens” are “small business owners”, who carry on business through Canadian Controlled Private Corporations.

3. It is possible and likely that many of these “small business” owners have (since 1986 or the date of incorporation) accumulated earnings.
These accumulated earnings operate as their “retirement pensions” ( a fact that has been widely discussed with Finance Minister Morneau and Prime Minister Trudeau as part of their discussions on Canadian tax reform).

4. The United States imposes taxation on individuals based ONLY on U.S.citizenship (even if the person lives in Canada). The United States is the only advanced country in the world to impose “citizenship-based taxation”. The United States is the ONLY country in the world that BOTH:
1. Confers citizenship based on birth in the country AND 2. imposes “worldwide taxation” based on citizenship.

5. Many of the Canadian Controlled Private Corporations owned by Canadians with dual citizenship are deemed under the Internal Revenue Code of the United States, to be “U.S. shareholders”, of what are called “controlled foreign corporations”. To repeat, from a U.S. perspective the Canadian shareholders of Canadian Controlled Private Corporations, may be considered to be the “U.S. shareholders” of “Controlled Foreign Corporations”.

6. The United States is in the middle of a process of amending the Internal Revenue Code. It appears that both the House and Senate versions of the bill, include a provision that would require the “U.S. shareholder” of a “controlled foreign corporation” to include directly in his/her personal income, a percentage of the total amount of the “retained earnings” of the “controlled foreign corporation” (which could well be a Canadian Controlled Private Corporation”). This percentage would be based on the amount of the retained earnings which have accumulated since 1986. See for example Sec. 14103 of
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

(See the section starting on page 375 with Sec. 14103 beginning on page391.)

7. Although it is not completely clear that this provision would apply to the Canadian shareholders of Canadian Controlled Private Corporations, the “literal reading of Sec. 14103 suggests that it may.

Certainly there have been (and this is where the danger lies) some tax professionals who are adamant that this would apply.

Conclusion:

It is extremely important that this danger be understood by all “stake holders” in Canada. This would include Finance Minister Morneau and members of the small business community in general.

Some discussion of this problem may be found here.

.

ADCS-ADSC & ADCT Letter to U.S. Congress

 

— In this press release we ask United States Congress to fix a problem in the present House/Senate tax bills that targets certain Canadian citizen/residents who own an incorporated business — and more broadly — to “stop imposing worldwide taxation on any Canadian resident”.

The press release is being sent in part to members of U.S. Congress and also to Canadian politicians who should be in the business of defending Canadian citizens from harm caused by a foreign state.

The focus of the press release is intentionally on “Canadians”. The word “American” is not mentioned. Our use in the text of the now-offensive term “U.S. person” (defined by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service) does not imply that U.S. person law applies to any Canadian resident or that any of these so-designated (by the U.S.) Canadians have ever consented to be U.S. persons.

*******
 

 
 
November 24, 2017
For Immediate Release

U.S. CONGRESS: DO NOT CONFISCATE OUR SMALL CANADIAN BUSINESSES AS PART OF YOUR TAX REFORM

Dear Congressperson,

On November 16, 2017 Rep George Holding, of the House Ways and Means Committee, in an exchange with Chairman Brady, urged that as part of tax reform that: The United States join the rest of the world by adopting “residence-based taxation”. This would END the U.S. current practice of imposing worldwide taxation on certain residents of other countries.
 
As U.S. law currently stands, many Canadian citizen/residents (who are deemed by the U.S. to be “U.S. Persons”) find themselves subject to U.S. taxation (ON THEIR CANADIAN INCOMES and CANADIAN ASSETS), even though they live in Canada and pay taxes to Canada.
The application of U.S. tax law into Canada – a principle enforced by FATCA – has profoundly negative consequences, some of which are intended and some of which are unintended.
 
This is a request that the wording of the United States “Tax Cuts and Job” bill be revised so as not to harm, even more, small Canadian businesses possibly included, we believe inadvertently, by your proposed tax reform legislation.
 
As your tax Senate and House tax reform bills are presently worded, Sec. 14103, for example in the Senate bill, might be interpreted to confiscate a significant percentage of the retained earnings of certain small “Canadian Controlled Private Corporations”. This is evidently part of broader legislation to implement “territorial taxation”, in order to enhance the competitiveness of publicly traded U.S. multinational corporations.
 
We believe that this section is intended to apply ONLY to the foreign subsidiaries of U.S. domestic corporations. However, a strict reading of the language of the bill suggests that this “transition tax” MIGHT also be paid by those who are deemed by your country to be “U.S. persons” living overseas who happen (as is common in Canada) to own an incorporated small business. The “minnows” swept up by your bill will then include small businesses such as a one-person incorporated medical doctor’s clinic, should the owner be designated by U.S. law to be a “U.S. person”.
 
We do not believe that this was your intention and ask that you fix the language of the bills accordingly. Surely you would agree that “territorial taxation” for U.S. multinational corporations does NOT mean that the United States should extend its taxable “territory” to Canadians who happen to own small Canadian Controlled Private Corporations!
 
As part of U.S. tax reform, we conclude by asking that the United States stop imposing worldwide taxation on any Canadian resident AND clarify that the “Tax Cuts and Jobs” Bill does NOT apply to Canadian residents who are shareholders of Canadian Controlled Private Corporations.
 
John Richardson
Carol Tapanila
Patricia Moon
Stephen Kish

 
On behalf of the
Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty (www.adcs-adsc.ca ) Information@adcs-adsc.ca;
and
Alliance for the Defeat of Citizenship Taxation (www.citizenshiptaxation.ca)
 
Contact Mr. John Richardson at johnrichardson@citizenshipsolutions.ca
 
 

Parsing Proposed Legislation -Intended Confiscation or Not?

 
cross posted from The Isaac Brock Society
 

Is there a duty to obey a law that was never intended to apply to you,
even if the literal reading of he law suggests that it may/does apply?

 
 
 
 
USCitizenAbroad says
November 22, 2017 at 7:13 am

 
@Karen notes:

At the bottom of page 62 of the section by section summary:

” For the last taxable year beginning before the dividend exemption takes effect, a U.S. corporation that is a 10-percent shareholder of a foreign corporation must include in income its pro rata share of the undistributed, non-previously-taxed post-1986 foreign earnings of the corporation. The subpart F inclusion is taxed at rates of 10 percent for earnings attributable to liquid assets and 5 percent for other earnings. (emphasis added)”

Clearly, the Senate intends for the deferred foreign income to be taxable only to corporate shareholders. I’m not sure how the actual legislative text accomplishes this.

This is what the Senate summary says. This may even be what the Senate actually intends. I have spent considerable time trying to read through this crap to determine whether the “literal reading” of the proposed statute (regardless of legislative or Senate intent) can be interpreted to apply to the shareholders of Canadian Controlled Private Corporations. Although I do NOT believe that the intent is to apply this “transition tax” to Canadian Controlled Private Corporations, I believe that the literal reading of Sec. 14103 would include Canadian Controlled Private Corporations. So, the Senate Bill is no improvement (with respect to Americans abroad than the House bill).

What follows is my reading/parsing of the proposed legislation. I hope that those who are “wiser than I” can demonstrate why I am wrong.

1. What is the purpose of Sec. 14103?

The purpose is to confiscate a percentage of the retained earnings of certain corporations as a way of funding the move to territorial taxation for corporations.

2. Do the U.S. individual shareholders, including Americans abroad get the benefits of territorial taxation?

Absolutely not.

3. To what kind of corporations does Sec. 14103 apply?

The section applies to any “deferred income corporation”.

4. What is a “deferred income corporation”?

“The term ‘deferred foreign income corporation’ means, with respect to any United States shareholder, any specified foreign corporation of such United States shareholder which has accumulated post-1986 deferred foreign income (as of the close of the taxable year referred to in subsection (a)) greater than zero.”

Note that U.S. citizens are United States shareholders. So the question becomes …

5. What is a “specified foreign corporation”?

“For purposes of this section, the term ‘specified foreign corporation’ means— (A) any controlled foreign corporation,”

By “this section” they mean Sec. 14103 – noting that Sec. 14103 is the section that prescribes who is pay the “transition tax”. It does NOT mean Sec. 14101 which is the section that prescribes who gets the benefit of “territorial taxation”.

So, a “specified foreign corporation” appears to include any “controlled foreign corporation” which would include a very large number of Canadian Controlled Private Corporations!

Notice how similar the language in Sec. 14103 “specified foreign corporation” (who is subject to the tax/confiscation) is to the language in Sec. 14101 (who gets the benefit of territorial) “specified 10-percent owned foreign corporations”. The definition of “specified 10-percent owned foreign corporations” in Sec. 14101, is restricted to U.S. corporations that are the owners of a foreign corporation. See:

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘specified 10-per-cent owned foreign corporation’ means any foreign corporation with respect to which any domestic corporation is a United States shareholder with respect to such corporation.”

Conclusion …

The language in both the House and Senate bills seem to allow for the confiscation of the retirement plans of some Shareholders of some Canadian Controlled Private corporations. (In July of 2017, Mr. Morneau – of Trudeau Government Finance Minister fame) began a discussion of how the Government of Canada could attack this same pool of earnings. It appears that the U.S. Government may be interested in that same earnings pool.)

Actually, I remain convinced that this is not the intent. So, I will conclude with the question that I asked in my last comment on this issue:

Is there a duty to obey a law that was never intended to apply to you, even if the literal reading of he law suggests that it may/does apply?

________________________________________________________________________

Legislative Text of US Senate Tax Reform Bill

________________________________________________________________________

What follows is a very parsed down excerpt from Sec. 14103

1 SEC. 14103. TREATMENT OF DEFERRED FOREIGN INCOME
2 UPON TRANSITION TO PARTICIPATION EX-
3 EMPTION SYSTEM OF TAXATION.
4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 965 is amended to read
5 as follows:
6 ‘‘SEC. 965. TREATMENT OF DEFERRED FOREIGN INCOME
7 UPON TRANSITION TO PARTICIPATION EX-
8 EMPTION SYSTEM OF TAXATION.
9 ‘‘(a) TREATMENT OF DEFERRED FOREIGN INCOME
10 AS SUBPART F INCOME.—In the case of the last taxable
11 year of a deferred income corporation which begins before
12 January 1, 2018, the subpart F income of such foreign
13 corporation (as otherwise determined for such taxable year
14 under section 952) shall be increased by the greater of—
15 ‘‘(1) the accumulated post-1986 deferred for-
16 eign income of such corporation determined as of
17 November 9, 2017, or
18 ‘‘(2) the accumulated post-1986 deferred for-
19 eign income of such corporation determined as of
20 December 31, 2017.

1 ‘‘(d) DEFERRED FOREIGN INCOME CORPORATION;
2 ACCUMULATED POST-1986 DEFERRED FOREIGN IN-
3 COME.—For purposes of this section—
4 ‘‘(1) DEFERRED FOREIGN INCOME CORPORA-
5 TION.—The term ‘deferred foreign income corpora-
6 tion’ means, with respect to any United States
7 shareholder, any specified foreign corporation of
8 such United States shareholder which has accumu-
9 lated post-1986 deferred foreign income (as of the
10 close of the taxable year referred to in subsection
11 (a)) greater than zero.
12 ‘‘(2) ACCUMULATED POST-1986 DEFERRED FOR-
13 EIGN INCOME.—The term ‘accumulated post-1986
14 deferred foreign income’ means the post-1986 earn-
15 ings and profits except to the extent such earnings—
16 ‘‘(A) are attributable to income of the
17 specified foreign corporation which is effectively
18 connected with the conduct of a trade or busi-
19 ness within the United States and subject to
20 tax under this chapter, or
21 ‘‘(B) in the case of a controlled foreign
22 corporation, if distributed, would be excluded
23 from the gross income of a United States share-
24 holder under section 959.

1 ‘‘(e) SPECIFIED FOREIGN CORPORATION.—

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this sec-
2 tion, the term ‘specified foreign corporation’
3 means—
4 ‘‘(A) any controlled foreign corporation,
5 and
6 ‘‘(B) any section 902 corporation (as de-
7 fined in section 909(d)(5) as in effect before the
8 date of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs
9 Act).

U.S. CBT is Enforced ONLY by the Compliance Industry

 

 

This post is based upon a comment of USCitizenAbroad at Brock. It makes a very important point that all of us should keep in mind generally but especially if the Tax Reform Bill passes with the insidious clause concerning taxing the retained earnings of small CFCs (which really isn’t INTENDED but………..)
 
USCitizenAbroad says:
November 18, 2017 at 8:55 am
 

@Plaxy quoting @Badger writes:

badger: “What is with the reverence for or tacit acceptance of US
law on Canadian sovereign autonomous soil?”

Exactly. Why accept US law, US/Canadian duals residing in Canada?

Stop filing and renounce.

__________________________________________________________________

After having watched the proceedings at both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committees, I can say with absolute confidence that:

– the members of the these committees don’t even understand how these provisions affect Homeland Americans

– have no consciousness that the USA has “citizenship-based taxation”
that would apply to people living outside the United States

– do NOT understand the technicalities of how “territorial taxation” for corporations is being implemented

– have no understanding that there is a “transition tax” and/or that it could possibly apply to the owners of Small Business Corporations living outside the United States.

There is no possibility that the “transition tax” could possibly have been intended to apply to the small business corporations owned by Canadian citizens resident in Canada.

BOTH Mr. Reed and Mr. Nightingale state their views that the application of the “transition tax” to CCPCs is NOT intended; but

The plain wording of Sec. 4004 (by making the statute apply to individual U.S. persons as defined in the subpart F rules which reference back to the definitions in Sec. 7701) means that it would apply to any U.S. citizen (regardless of where he has “escaped to”) anywhere in the world.

Please remember that the U.S. legislators:

– equate citizenship with residence (didn’t you know that a citizen is a resident and a resident may or may not be a citizen)

– don’t know there is a world beyond the USA

– are therefore NOT thinking at all about the application of U.S. law outside the USA

Also, again I make the point that the Internal Revenue Code does NOT anywhere explicitly mandate “citizenship-based taxation” – referring only to “individuals” and then allowing the inference that “individuals”
include “citizens”. My point is only that the application of U.S. tax laws outside the USA is not something that is even on the radar in Washington.

Also, to the extent that U.S. laws impact Americans abroad, they are NOT enforced directly by the USA anyway. The USA has downloaded enforcement to the banks and tax compliance professionals. Think about it this way:

FATCA is enforced NOT by the USA directly but by the banks. Yes, your friendly neighborhood bank is a FATCA enforcement agent.

U.S. CBT is enforced ONLY by the compliance industry. If you stay away from the tax professionals you will not be within their “enforcement area” … The ONLY people with U.S. tax problems are those who have attempted U.S. tax compliance. Leaving aside the complicated legal/moral/ethical issues of “to comply or not to comply” (tax compliance people are amoral) the individuals who have been brutalized are those who have attempted compliance. The people who must renounce are those who have complied. Those Americans abroad who want to retain U.S. citizenship do so by NOT attempting compliance.

So, where are we now?

The early commenters from the compliance industry are saying: Bad luck, although NOT intended, this new and exciting instrument of confiscation applies to you. Okay, they should also add to their “news bulletin”
that: Because they are compliance “professionals” that they will NOT sign the returns of anybody who does NOT pay this tax.

This poses an interesting question:

What is a poor compliant person, dependent on his tax professional, doesn’t believe this tax applies to him and needs professional help to do? Completing his return (that form 5471 is not easy for an individual to do). Will you let your friendly neighborhood tax professional force you to turn your retirement fund over to the IRS?

The question it seems to me is this:

Is there a duty to obey a law that clearly was NEVER intended to
apply to you and can be construed to apply to you ONLY because of
the literal wording? That is the question.

This is the question that should have been asked in some other interesting contexts which include:

Were the PFIC rules really intended to apply to the Canadian mutual funds owned by Canadian residents?

Were the S. 877A Exit Rules intended to apply to those who clearly relinquished prior to 2004?

Were OVDP and OVDI appropriate compliance options for Americans abroad who have lived for many years outside the USA?

Were the CFC rules intended to apply to Americans abroad, etc. …

Are you going to allow your assets to be confiscated yet again?

When the “Call Of The Condor” becomes the “Law Of The Land”

Neither the IRS nor Congress really know how these laws apply (or not) outside the USA. What happens is that the compliance industry becomes the single most important vehicle for determining how these laws are to be interpreted. Once enough tax people start behaving in a certain way, the others are sure to follow. Put it another way: In general (and I am not referring to either Mr. Reed or Mr. Nightingale) tax professionals know less about this than you do. So, if you call a tax professional and
ask:

“Does the Sec. 4004 “transition tax” apply to Canadian business
corps” they will just ask their associate”. Yes, it really is that
bad. So, I would NOT rely on “tax professionals” to give you good
advice on how these laws might or might not apply to Americans
abroad.

But, to get back to my original question:

Is there a duty to obey a law that clearly was NEVER intended to
apply to you and can be construed to apply to you ONLY because of
the literal wording? That is the question.

I expect that different people will have different answers to this question. But, I don’t think that the “tax professionals” are worth asking. After all, they can’t sign your returns unless you comply with their interpretation of the law.

I have previously explored this issue in the following comments (which I am including here so that I can find them again later):

http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2017/11/02/here-is-the-2017-u-s-house-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-bill-does-it-help-or-harm-us/comment-page-9/#comment-8045126

http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2017/11/02/here-is-the-2017-u-s-house-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-bill-does-it-help-or-harm-us/comment-page-9/#comment-8045126

http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2017/11/02/here-is-the-2017-u-s-house-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-bill-does-it-help-or-harm-us/comment-page-14/#comment-8049389

isaacbrocksociety.ca/2017/11/02/here-is-the-2017-u-s-house-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-bill-does-it-help-or-harm-us/comment-page-25/#comment-8053507

And on the compliance choice …

http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2017/11/02/here-is-the-2017-u-s-house-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-bill-does-it-help-or-harm-us/comment-page-16/#comment-8049549

The Merry-Go-Round of “Unintended Consequences”

 

This provision is not designed to catch individuals (I think), and certainly not Americans abroad – they are collateral damage. it’s incredibly unfair.

A little more than 10 days ago, an article by a Canadian tax lawyer claimed the proposed House Bill contained two very startling changes that would affect #AmericansAbroad:

BAD NEWS FOR BUSINESS OWNERS
If your cross-border client owns a business, his tax position “may get substantially worse,” Reed says, noting two areas of concern:

a one-time 12% tax will be imposed on all income previously deferred from U.S. tax in Canadian (foreign) corporations; and
new complex rules make it difficult for U.S. citizens who own Canadian (foreign) corporations to defer active business income.
The 12% tax is part of the transition to a territorial corporate tax system.

“Although perhaps unintentional, since U.S. citizens will not benefit from a territorial model, the new rules impose a 12% tax on any cash that has been deferred since 1986,” says Reed.

He offers the example of a U.S. doctor who moved to Canada in 1987 and has since deferred income from personal tax in her medical corporation, and invested it — resulting in a potentially significant tax bill.

Deferring active business income

New punitive rules that apply to US citizens who own a business. Currently, most US citizens who own a Canadian corporation that is an active business don’t pay tax on the company’s profits until they take the money out. The House plan changes this. It imposes a new, very complicated, set of rules on US citizens that own the majority of a foreign corporation. The proposal would tax the US citizen owner personally on 50% of the entire income of the Canadian corporation that is above the amount set by an extremely complex formula. At best, this will make the compliance requirements for US citizens that own a business extremely complicated and expensive. At worst, this will cause double tax exposure for US citizens who own a Canadian business on 50% of the profits of that business.
 

This post was a response to the issues raised.

 

Today, another Canadian compliance professional made similar observations about the proposed Senate bill.

 

Kevyn Nightengale published an article on LinkedIn; excerpts below:

American? Own shares in a foreign corporation? Get ready for a pain in the wallet

Published on November 10, 2017
by Kevyn Nightengale

Accumulated deferred foreign income

One thing they will do is apply an immediate tax (well, sort of immediate – it’s to be paid over 8 years) to the retained earnings of those foreign subsidiaries. And there’s some logic to this as well. Those earnings have been tax-deferred until now. If they fell into the “exempt” system in future years, US multinationals will have effectively gamed the system by keeping them offshore long enough to completely escape tax.

One problem is that if you’re an American individual, and you own shares in a foreign corporation directly, this provision will create an immediate tax in your hands.

You won’t get a foreign tax credit for the corporate tax (like a US domestic corporate parent). You won’t get a special deduction (like a US domestic corporate parent). You just have to pay tax on the retained earnings.

It’s a double whammy if you live abroad

If you live in a country where it’s common to run a small business through a corporation (say, Canada), you already have enough double-tax issues to worry about (Subpart F, filing forms 5471, FINCEN 114, etc.). This new provision will probably lead to double taxation. And even if you can pay out dividends to limit that, it probably will create extra tax in your country. The US tax probably isn’t creditable in your country (in Canada, it isn’t).

Global intangible low-taxed income (“GILTI”)

…… The shareholder (yes, including a US citizen living abroad, in the same country as the company) has to include an amount in his income.

The amount is the company’s total income less a deemed return (10%) on tangible assets. This means that any type of income is caught. Companies that provide services are especially vulnerable, because they typically have only a small amount of tangible assets. Incorporated professionals are going to be hit hard. They’ll be taxed on their companies’ incomes, even if the company doesn’t distribute it to them. And that tax will apply at full tax rates, not qualified dividend rates.

Can this be avoided?

This provision is not designed to catch individuals (I think), and certainly not Americans abroad – they are collateral damage. it’s incredibly unfair.

*******
 
I find it puzzling that both gentlemen indicate these policies are not intended to include #AmericansAbroad, yet act as if they have no choice but to “enforce” this if it becomes U.S. law. Haven’t the “unintended” consequences of #FBAR caused enough grief for #AmericansAbroad? Why does everyone assume there is nothing that can be done to stop this from extending to expats? If the law is not meant to be applied that way, does not specifically indicate they are to be included, how can they claim they must do so because it is “U.S. law?” That is clearly not the correct position to take. And what will the result be if people are mad/scared enough to simply not deal with this U.S. situation any longer?

 

*******

John Richardson comments:

There are many who interpret the proposed changes, to include a provision that would lead to the confiscation of a significant portion of the retained earnings of small business corporations, owned by Americans abroad. I wrote the above referenced post and used the example of a U.S./Canada dual citizen living in Canada who owns a small business corporation. By the way, it is very common for Canadians to utilize small business corporations to carry on their businesses.

This specific provision is found in Sec. 4004 of the Proposed tax bill.
The way it would operate (after identifying those who own small Canadian Controlled Private Corporations in Canada) would be to:

1. Focus on the retained earnings of the corporation since 1986. Note that these earnings were either NOT subject to U.S. taxation at the time or were already included in the income of the shareholder via the subpart F provisions.

2. Impose a tax of either:

House Bill: 14% (cash) or 7% (non-cash)

Senate Bill: 10% (cash) or 5% (non-cash)

on the retained earnings by including those earnings in Subpart F income.

Understand that for many Canadians these small business corporations contain their retirement savings. So, the bottom line is the the United States proposed to literally confiscate these assets.

Understand also that Sec. 4004 is part of the section that creates the system of territorial taxation for U.S. corporations. The idea is that the “transition tax” is a way to repatriate the earnings which have not returned to the USA (obviously because of confiscatory taxation). After paying this “transition tax” those U.S. corporations will get the benefit of territorial taxation.

Understand also that U.S. individual shareholders of Canadian Controlled Private Corporations do NOT get the benefit of “territorial taxation”
but (if this is interpreted correctly) are still required to pay this.

What the USA, in it’s great wisdom is doing, is to:

1. Retroactively go back and deem income that was NOT taxable at the time to be taxable; and

2. Use the mechanism of subpart F inclusion (I am not going to dignify this by calling it a tax) to CONFISCATE the asset.

Understand also that this is one more of a long line of indignities inflicted on Americans abroad that includes:

– the virtual confiscation of Canadian pensions (via the Sec. 877A Exit Tax rules applied to some who renounce U.S. citizenship) that were earned in Canada while the individual was NOT living in the United States; and

– the application of the 3.8% Obamacare surtax to distributions of from Canadian RRSPs (the equivalent of U.S. IRAs) and excluding distributions from IRAs.

I suspect that this will be the “straw that breaks the camel’s back”.

And “The Band Played On ….””