Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810-11 (2d Cir. 1934).
The tax is only HALF the story:
LOTS of overseas banks simply refuse to do biz with Americans cuz of what Uncle Sam did to the Swiss —we’re lepers, now, basically.
You gotta wonder WHAT Uncle Sam knew about his financial state of affairs 3 years ago when suddenly he found it sooo important to find out about secret overseas bank accounts.
Did he KNOW about some financial whirlpool that risked to suck him under, and was stretching out to hang onto (and drown) as many other swimmers as possible?
The tax is only HALF the story, here.
He’s really more a Brazilian than an American. He’s free to leave. He’s free to renounce his citizenship and by doing so for tax reasons, he is indicating what he thinks U.S. citizenship is worth (or not worth) to him.
If he wants to visit the U.S., he should be given a visa for as long as he wants - for ten million dollars per day.
He is a cosmopolitan indifferent to the nation state.
He’s a hero. So is Jim Rogers (also in Singapore). I don’t even like Ayn Rand’s rantings or writings, but “go Galt!” De-fund the socialists, and they won’t control you tomorrow.
At last report Warren Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway, owed more than $1 billion in back taxes for income earned as far back as 2002.
Buffett didn’t move out of the country and renounce his citizenship to legally avoid paying taxes - he just refuses to pay them, the laws be damned.
Perfectly understandable. This is what happens when you tax the rich in the modern world is that they pack their bags and move. And why not? They can afford to!
‘60 Minutes’ did a story sometime back on the ‘special’ tax that Maryland levied on their 3,000 wealthiest citizens in 2007 and one of the reults was that a year later 2,000 of them had packed their bags and left. Many simply decamped to their second homes in Florida and made those homes their primary addresses.
One fellow interviewed said that while it was not a huge part of his income the fact was that living in Maryland cost him an additional $18,000 per month with the new tax. So he moved away. $18,000 per month is a lot of money to give away if you don’t have to.
For this FB boy he seems to prefer Singapore anyway so the tax thing was just enough for him to cut his ties. Good for him. And if the IRS goes to Singapore to bother him he can count on the police to flog the JBTs and send them back whence they came.
The problem is not this boy leaving the USA, the problem is a system that makes it better for him to leave than to stay.
We need to fix the system.
But we won’t. Sooner or later we’ll see exhorbitant taxes levied on anyone with a job and Singapore won’t look so bad after all.
When a Republican is president and somebody leaves or talks about leaving the response is don't let the door hit your rear end you contemptible ingrate.
The rules work in the opposite fashion on a site like DU. Back in the Bush presidency many of these current America lovers were talking about running out to Canada.
The way I see it, anybody so willing to abandon our great nation so quickly, on either side of the political divide, is an ingrate. Good luck in Singapore, Mr. Playboy. Just remember that your safety in Singapore is maintained by the American military, paid for by the American taxpayer. If we run out of money to defend the world, no place in the world is a safe partyland.
Mr. Saverin has simply provided new guards - Singapore - for his future security.
The money is HIS. He is free to chose his country of residence. Schumer simply wants to take Mr. Saverin’s money because he thinks he can. Basically, Schumer is a thief.
Firstly, he still has to pay capital gains taxes on wealth created before his renunciation. The IPO simply established a market value for his gain. The IRS is still going to get their money.
Secondly, the guy was born in Brazil, he’s still a Brazilian and he’s a now a permanent resident of Singapore living there full time. If he doesn’t want to pay taxes in three countries, that’s understandable. If the guy was born here and then defected just for cash, I might have more of an issue.
he’s already been queued up to pay $600m when he monetizes his shares
the extra $68m is an update to their value
so the dems want to tax him retroactively, sieze accounts to get the money, and ban hm from the US.
ok.... sounds great.
therefore we should expect them to go after the $21 BILLION sent annually to Mexico by illegals. that would be AT LEAST $2 BILLION in annual tax revenues
Title III - Revenue Provisions
Section 301 - Sets forth additional rules for the tax treatment of high-income individuals who relinquish U.S. citizenship or residency to avoid U.S. taxation (expatriates). Treats all property of expatriates as sold for fair market value on the day before the expatriation date and includes gain (over $600,000) or loss from such sale in their gross income. Allows expatriates to elect to defer payment of any tax resulting from expatriation if adequate security for payment of such tax is given.
Requires 30% withholding of tax for certain items of deferred compensation payable to expatriates.
Imposes a separate tax on gifts and bequests from expatriates exceeding $10,000, payable by the recipient of such gift or bequest.
This already exists! It treats one who expatriates as if they had died and requires the payment of the equivalent of the estate tax as a penalty for leaving the country. IT ALREADY EXISTS AS A LAW!
Either way, I hold no negative opinion of him at this point.
He appears to have lived and worked in this country legally.
So he is free to leave, stay and/or legally change his citizenship status for any reason he chooses.
I don't think it's appropriate for anyone, but especially the likes of Chuck Shumer, to use their government position to denounce the lawfull personal decisions of a legal private resident of the USA.
And to threaten to punish him financially for something that is not a crime?