This replaced a higher rate on US net income and global net income that lands in the US.
Form a second corporation that resells your product to your US customers at an insignificant markup. It pays tax only on said insignificant markup.
The company it buys from has no US operations or dealings of any kind, therefore does not even file US returns.
Let's walk down this rabbit hole:
So you want to tax corporate profits. Well, trouble is, it's easy to hide profits. For example, interest payments are subtracted from profits, which allows investors to lend money to corporations as loans, and the interest is only taxed by the recipient, but if you lend money to the corporation by purchasing equity, that is taxed twice. This asymmetric tax treatment incentivizes taking on debt and thus financial fragility and short-term thinking. OK, you say, let's treat interest and dividends the same. Then you have this issue with massive executive compensation, which is untaxed as it is treated as an expense. You'd like for that to not be tax-exempt as well. Thus you decide to tax value add -- that is revenue net of your cost of goods. That way, you catch cheaters, since if corp A reports something as a cost (payment to B), then B better record it as a revenue. B can't hide. Except now comes the foreign sector. What if B is a foreign company? There's the rub. One option is to say the foreign company also has to pay you taxes based on what it sells to A. This would effectively put an end to all the shell company shenanigans. To be fair, you can give credit for income paid to other jurisdictions so you don't end up double-taxing (like we do), but that's minor. So now you are happy with your system. You survey the landscape and what have you accomplished? A sales tax! This is just a value added tax, or VAT, which is another form of sales tax. But sales tax is regressive! And very unpopular. So there is this problem where Americans don't want a national sales tax of, say 20%, but they do want a corporate profit tax of, say 40%. And they are really angry when they see the effective corporate tax being so low, say 5%.
This reveals a cold truth, which is that corporations are effectively pass through entities for the human owners of the corporations. So why tax them twice? Well, because we have so many tax loopholes and such large trade deficits that 40% of our corporations are owned by foreigners that don't pay US taxes and 40% are owned by pension funds and tax-advantaged retirement accounts so that only 20% of US equities are subject to any tax at all. So this thrashing around about corporations reveals yet another uncomfortable truth, which is that our massive outsourcing has resulted in an erosion of the tax base just as much as it has destroyed middle class jobs.
This brings us back to a new variant of the old trilema, which is that you can't have free flow of capital (or equivalently, trade) across borders, a floating currency, and your own interest rate policy.
You can only have two of these. Except the tax version of this is that you can't have free flow of capital (that is trade), a floating currency, and your own corporate tax policy. The best you can do is a national sales tax for goods sold to your own citizens. If you try to tax corporations, you will run into the two-headed hydra that your corporations are owned by overseas investors and that your corporations have set up overseas businesses that sell them valuable inputs, so valuable that all the value is routed overseas.
So what happens is people create a tax policy that tries to also avoid tariffs on trade and foreign capital flows, and then they are shocked when corporations arbitrage that away.
Always wondered why US citizens do not make a bigger deal out of this. If I understand correctly, if you are a US citizen, but live somewhere else in the world, IRS still expects to be paid tax from your individual income in that foreign country (possibly in addition to the tax you pay in your country of residence) right? I assume there are minimum income thresholds but still...
Are there even any other countries that do this?
The real pain is for people who don’t really think of themselves as US expats, but who have US citizenship through an accident of birth and perhaps haven’t thought of that in years. For them, it is when e.g. a bank in their country suddenly doesn’t want to accept them as a customer due to the onerous reporting requirements, that they are aghast at the situation.
> Are there even any other countries that do this?
Reportedly Eritrea.
Also because the US government will not allow you to renounce your citizenship if you are doing so for tax reasons.
I wanted to know this, thank you!
It affects a relatively small set of people (those with substantial income who live abroad in a lower-tax jurisdiction), and it'd be politically difficult to change.
> I assume there are minimum income thresholds but still...
None other than the normal thresholds for income taxes.
The one ameliorating factor is the foreign tax credit: you get a credit for taxes you've already paid to your local jurisdiction. So, in the likely case that you live somewhere with higher taxes, you won't pay any net US income tax. If you live somewhere with lower taxes, you'll pay the difference to the US.
> None other than the normal thresholds for income taxes.
That's not right. There is a specific foreign earned income exclusion: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
It's around $100k (increasing with inflation) for individuals.
> However, you may qualify to exclude your foreign earnings from income up to an amount that is adjusted annually for inflation ($103,900 for 2018, $105,900 for 2019, $107,600 for 2020, and $108,700 for 2021).
That’s false. First $100k of foreign income is exempt.
If you live in a country with lower taxes you exempt a bunch of income, deduct housing costs and get credit for any taxes paid in your original country. You end up paying very little US taxes.
It costs money to maintain the meaning of a citizenship. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask people to pay for it.
The US does have an extremely good network of embassies, and the US is also probably the most effective country on earth at being able to evacuate their citizens from areas that turn hostile.
And of course... a passport is nothing without the state to back it up. That requires more funding than just a passport fee.
The only reason most citizens would go to an embassy is to renew their passport, so these embassies are needed once every 5-10 years. Do you really think that US embassies offer such high level of service coverage and quality that it is worth paying through the nose for?
>US is also probably the most effective country on earth at being able to evacuate their citizens from areas that turn hostile.
This is hardly a real benefit if you don't actively travel to unstable areas. How often does the need for evacuation from hostile areas come as a total surprise?
Countries turning hostile is a low risk for expats. And whenever major natural disasters have occurred in recent decades, it is often reported that smaller European countries evacuated their citizens better and more kindly than the US.
Does anyone know more about this? Do American pasport holders abroad pay taxes twice?