Renouncing citizenship to avoid taxes may mean Savarin can never enter US again | Hacker News Reader

Renouncing citizenship to avoid taxes may mean Savarin can never enter US again

talkingpointsmemo.com

12 pointsbrown9-219 comments

It seems people are very sensitive about someone renouncing his citizenship, as if it's a big crime that's being committed here.

The guy has decided to go live in another country, for reasons none but his own, so why should he hold on to his US citizenship? Oh, I see, it's a US citizenship, given to you by the grace of God himself. You don't just throwaway a precious gift like that. Now do you?

To me it seems there is quite some spite about this with various overly patriotic people out there.

I think it's really more about the taxes. The US is (almost?) unique among countries for laying claim to the income of citizens who are living and working abroad, and the government has an established record of being pretty nasty about it. This law wouldn't be the first time I've heard of the US government taking a "if you don't give us money we won't let you visit your family" attitude towards its expats.

This is just (ugly) nationalism + envy disguised as "opinion". It is surprising to find some of that in the HN comments, but what can you do?

You think the guy now worth billions cares about what petty people think he is or isn't doing? Doubtful.

Best just ignore it and carry on. :)

The article quotes law/procedure that indicates that he would be 'excludable'. I didn't see where it gave evidence that he would be excluded, such as precedent? All aliens are supposed to be treated as a possible immigrant and must provide reason/evidence to prove otherwise.

Yeah, I'm sure the US will close the doors to a billionaire... just out of spite.

Is it "out of spite" when the government fines someone for speeding?

It's not "out of spite", but it's because they are breaking the law. What Saverin is doing is completely legal, and it would be petty on US's part to not even give him a US tourist visa.

> but it's because they are breaking the law.

No, it's because fining them is a deterrent to other would-be speeders. What Saverin is doing is not completely legal. It's technically legal. And the reason for that technicality is that the US can't really impose criminal penalties against non-citizens. But that doesn't mean they can't create a deterrent by denying those non-citizens visas in the future.

I would argue that it is quite worthwhile for the US to send the message that there are consequences for coming into our country, taking advantage of our corporate ecosystem to become immensely wealthy, and then skipping out before tax day (which is an exaggeration, I know, but you get the point). I don't see anything remotely petty about that.

Your statement that the US cannot impose criminal penalties against non-citizens is very wrong. There are a bunch of non-citizens in the USA who are arrested and penalized if they commit a crime. there are countless extraditions that happen for foreigners who commit crimes against US interests while being outside of this country. and of course there is Guantanamo.

No one is unreachable from the US, American citizen or not.

And what Saverin did is _legal_. You cannot have something be partially legal, or technically legal but somehow still illegal; it's the same with being pregnant. You either are, or are not. There is no middle ground.

And if we were smart, we would grant Saverin a visa right away. Anyone in the USA would prefer that money is invested in the USA than anywhere else. Or do we not want outside investment? "We don't want your money, go create jobs somewhere else!"

The law provides for a deterrent penalty to be used against people who renounce their citizenship to avoid taxation. Whether or not that makes it "illegal" is a matter of semantics and completely irrelevant to whether or not the law should be enforced.

And yes, there is some revenue lost by not letting a billionaire into the country, but that has to be weighed against the consequences of letting people skip out to avoid taxation.

I think you're making an assumption here that when they forgo citizenship they get all the good stuff (money) and they don't have to deal with the bad stuff (taxes). Saverin won't be able to make an investment in the US easily. He also won't be able to own or buy properties/businesses. If he truly wanted to earn more, he would pay up the taxes in order to take advantage of the privileges of being in a country like the USA. I'm not from here, and you guys have it great. If I were in Saverin's position, I would choose to stay because I would still want to contribute to the economy. But I also see the argument for wanting to take time off in other countries. I think its incredibly unfair for a ex-citizen to be denied a visa just because he chose to forgo its privileges and taxes.

Good thing he's not avoiding taxation then. I'm not sure where that idea started, actually. When he leaves, he will have to pay an "exit tax" that's just as if he'd sold all his stock. The standard 15% capital gains tax would come to about half a Billion dollars! So he's actually going to be paying a lot of taxes when he leaves.

Yes, but then he won't have to pay additional capital gains tax on the stock if it happens to skyrocket in the years following his renunciation of citizenship. You only pay tax on the profit you make on stock investments, so any profit he stands to make in the years following his renunciation will be tax free.

Any profit he stands to make in the years following will be taxed according to the laws of his new residence.

Yes but they won't be US taxes, which are the only taxes US immigration law cares about in this context. He's still avoiding US taxes.

As itsmequinn said, tax free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax#Singapore

As I read the relevant law, it's sort of a de facto determination that you're renouncing your citizenship for tax reasons if your net worth or income are over certain limits (which he's waaaay over).

It's possible to have that de facto determination overruled by certain government officials if you can present a convincing case to the contrary, but I haven't seen anything indicating that he's done that.

This may come as a shock, but some people manage to lead perfectly fulfilling lives without ever visiting the US.

About the only inconvenience I can imagine would be the inability to change flights (or refuel his jet) in Miami, but I'm sure he'll manage.

Not being allowed to visit your hometown or college buddies might also be rather inconvenient.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com