Comment by gwd

Comment by gwd 3 days ago

94 replies

> The obvious loss is to government revenue, but the more subtle and still very real loss is the diversion of high-powered talent from what could have been gains in efficiency and productivity to focus instead on corporate reorganizations and tax evasion games.

It's also a loss to all of us who find ourselves owning a "foreign" corporation for legitimate reasons, and having to do a lot of work proving that we're not playing shell games.

I'm an American living in the UK; I've started what's now a one-man bootstrapped company and it just makes sense for it to be incorporated in the UK. I don't mind paying taxes, but I don't want to have to pay them twice. UK taxes are generally higher than US taxes, and there are tax treaties to avoid double taxation, so no problem, right?

Wrong. First, if a US citizen owns more than 10% of a foreign corporation, there's an insanely complicated form you have to fill out, two pages of which are incomprehensible questions ("Is your company considered an X corporation under sections Y and Z of the Blablablah act?") that simply require an expert to fill out.

Secondly, if a US citizens owns more than 50% of a foreign company, by default, income from that company counts as personal income, but taxes paid by the company to another government don't count as personal taxes. You can get around this, apparently, but it's even more complicated.

So because of [REDACTED] lawyers and accountants that have come up with these schemes, I have to spend precious starting capital to a bunch of accountants to prove I'm not evading taxes, rather than actually doing something useful with that money (and that accountant doing something more useful with their time).

gerdesj 2 days ago

The "problem" you describe is your US citizenship requires you to pay tax on earnings from outside the US - that's a condition of US citizenship. If you don't want to pay those taxes, then renounce your US citizenship once you have, say, gained UK citizenship, if that works for you.

A famous bloke once said (probably in Hebrew, written up in Aramaic or Greek and badly translated into middle, modern and somewhat strange English): "Pay unto Caesar, that which is due to Caesar and pay unto God that which is due to God" or words to that effect. Substitute IRS for God and you have a suitably cynical aside!

If your firm over here is good enough and you are reasonably settled then why not go all in? I'm not sure what the rules are on reconnecting with the US if you have formally renounced citizenship. However, I'm sure a birth cert from Yeehaw, TX or wherever will go some way. Even so, UK citizens are generally welcomed in the Land of the Free. An ESTA (great scheme IMO) costs about £20 for two years coverage - more than enough to visit the relos.

I know from second hand experience that our bureaucracy is just as convoluted as any other and it will take roughly one to two years (that was about 10 years ago) to get citizenship and probably involves a test that I would fail!

You might like to look into where your company is actually registered. A Ltd is not you - it is a separate legal entity and the UK (etc) is quite a complicated setup within quite a complicated environment. You might explore Jersey and the Isle of Man for places to headquarter. Don't overlook Eire either (EU with UK to the north, with special arrangements)

Anyway, the snag you have is solely US based and not UK (for a change).

  • khuey 2 days ago

    > I'm not sure what the rules are on reconnecting with the US if you have formally renounced citizenship. However, I'm sure a birth cert from Yeehaw, TX or wherever will go some way.

    It doesn't. Once you've renounced your US citizenship you're on exactly the same footing as any other foreigner in terms of visiting or living here.

    And that's assuming you're smart enough not to admit to the government that you're renouncing your US citizenship for tax purposes. If you make that mistake, you've made yourself permanently inadmissible to the United States under INA 212(a)(10)(E).

    • gerdesj 2 days ago

      "And that's assuming you're smart enough not to admit to the government that you're renouncing your US citizenship for tax purposes. If you make that mistake, you've made yourself permanently inadmissible to the United States under INA 212(a)(10)(E)."

      Blimey, that's a bit harsh!

      I wonder if Mr Adams and co, when throwing off the yoke of something, something, imperialism and that, and those jolly beastly Britons, would approve of INA 212(a)(10)(E)?

      That is some legacy for those freedom fighters. cough terrorists (sorry - I'm a Brit, its only been 250 odd years!)

      • AStonesThrow 16 hours ago

        Mr Adams recently wrote about the possibility of spending a year dead for tax purposes.

      • aardvark179 2 days ago

        It’s a hang over from the civil war I believe.

      • [removed] 2 days ago
        [deleted]
      • konfusinomicon 2 days ago

        hahaha, nothing beats a spoon of redcoat tears in a cup of salty boston tea

  • xpl 2 days ago

    > If you don't want to pay those taxes, then renounce your US citizenship once you have

    Haven't you heard of exit tax? If you renounce citizenship (or surrender your 8+ year green card), you must pay 30% of your worldwide assets' value (as if you sold it for cash) to the IRS. And if you own something illiquid, you're deep in trouble!

    So no, people can't renounce their U.S. citizenship easily, the IRS has accounted for that...

    • madaxe_again 2 days ago

      That’s why you put everything into trust first.

      I know a few folks who gave up their US citizenship over tax, and both had to plan for about a decade to do so without paying exit tax - and their lives continue to revolve around being tax exiles - 89 days here, 44 days there, etc. etc.

      I’m glad to be a Brit, if only because the revenue doesn’t pursue me around the planet.

    • Aeolun 2 days ago

      That doesn’t make any sense. I’m not a citizen any more, so clearly I’m not accountable for any tax.

      • ithkuil 2 days ago

        If you're no longer citizen you won't be accountable for any tax accrued after you're no longer a citizen.

        But you're still accountable for debt, so all they need is to frame this as taxes on earnings and property that you have accrued while you were a citizen and you keep to be accountable for your debts even after you renounce the citizenship.

        Now, what can the US government actually do to you while you're no longer a citizen depends a lot where you live and whether you care traveling or doing business with the US again

        https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/expa...

      • dathinab 2 days ago

        It's actually a pretty common law to have in some form to penalize tax evasion and capital flight.

        Most higher developed countries have it in some form (with varying degree of strictness, scoping etc.).

        Technically you also pay the tax in the process of losing your citizenship not after losing it.

        A more "fair" approach probably would be if capital (especially bound capital which generates more capital, like companies) are "pinned" to a country and transferring it from there involve paying tax (oversimplified).

        Then when renouncing US citizenship you would only need to pay "exit" tax if you also move your capital out of the US (e.g. your US company) but if you have a UK company it would already be pinned to the UK and you wouldn't pay exit tax on it (but you would have had to pay taxes on moving capital from the US to the UK to found the company).

        But I mean it's a purely hypothetical approach:

        - it is very much in conflict with globalization and investing in foreign companies (you have to pay exit tax on the money you invest outside the US!). This means it also hinds projection of US power by getting influence into foreign companies through investments.

        - it's not really viable to retroactively apply it

        - it kinda requires all countries to agree on this law

        - it would mess with investment banks, fond etc.

        - it's a mess when it comes to international buying of goods (as you want to prevent laundering capital moving through unusual good buying schemes)

      • roenxi 2 days ago

        All taxes are arbitrary. It doesn't need to "make sense". The only reason countries tend to tax their own citizens is more because of the practicalities of enforcement rather than any stance on the philosophical nature of taxation; as this particular rule illustrates.

    • wkat4242 2 days ago

      Wow I knew of the tax thing but not this. That's tough.

      • saxonww 2 days ago

        It's only if you qualify as a 'covered expatriate' though. I'm not a lawyer or an accountant but a plain reading of the standard suggests the vast majority of Americans would not be covered.

        https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i8854#en_US_2023_publink100...

        I think the key would be how they arrive at the net worth numbers. If it's just a calculation of all your assets as if they were sold at FMV, ~90% of the US is below the net worth threshold.

        https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentiles/

        The average tax liability standard looks like it would take 5 years at $600K+ of adjusted gross income, too. Plenty of people would meet this standard. Most people would not.

  • telotortium 2 days ago

    > probably in Hebrew, written up in Aramaic or Greek

    It is generally agreed upon by scholars that Jesus’ primary language, like in Palestine generally, was Aramaic, not Hebrew, which was already well on its way to becoming a liturgical language (although Jesus probably knew Hebrew well, as he was called “rabbi”, and likely Greek as well): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus. Certainly for the context of this quote, it’s likely that he was speaking in Aramaic, given that in the chapter he was responding to questions from a variety of local people.

  • gwd 2 days ago

    > The "problem" you describe is your US citizenship requires you to pay tax on earnings from outside the US

    No, I think you're missing the issue.

    Suppose the company (let's call it XYZ Ltd) is owned 100% by my spouse. Let's say XYZ has $XYZPROFIT in one year. It then pays $XYZUKTAX on that profit, but the US isn't involved whatsoever. If it pays me $MYSALARY, XYZ reports that to the UK government and pays $MYUKTAX. I then report the US government $MYSALARY and $MYUKTAX, calculate $MYINCOME, and then calculate $MYUSTAX (which is normally $0, since UK taxes are higher than US taxes).

    Now let's suppose I own more than 10% but less than 50%. Now I basically have to report to the US the same information about XYZ's financials that the company reports to the UK government, as well as answer 40-60 questions each of which would take a few days to understand the meaning of. Thankfully that's where it ends under normal circumstances; pay an accountant to prove you're not cheating the system and you're done.

    Now suppose XYZ is 100% owned by me. It has $XYZPROFIT for the year, and pays $XYZUKTAX on that profit. Now, by default, $XYZPROFIT is included in $MYINCOME, but $XYZUKTAX is not included in $MYUKTAX; meaning by default I'm going to be double-taxed. I can avoid this, but only with 1) extra paperwork, and 2) forgoing any tax breaks for start-ups that the UK government has.

    > "Pay unto Caesar, that which is due to Caesar and pay unto God that which is due to God" or words to that effect.

    As I said, I don't mind paying taxes, but I don't want to pay it twice.

  • helsinkiandrew 2 days ago

    > If you don't want to pay those taxes, then renounce your US citizenship once you have, say, gained UK citizenship, if that works for you.

    Boris Johnson - the ex UK prime minister - was born in the US, and complained loudly and frequently about having to pay taxes to the US - and appears to have refused to do so atleast partially. Having to pay tax on profits from the sale of his family home (which is tax free in UK) was the trigger to get him to renounce citizenship.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2022/07/10/boris-joh...

  • brandonmenc 2 days ago

    > The "problem" you describe is your US citizenship requires you to pay tax on earnings from outside the US - that's a condition of US citizenship.

    imo a feature, not a bug.

  • sidewndr46 2 days ago

    If you renounce your citizenship to avoid taxes, you are barred from ever entering the US or its territories again. Take one quick look at the EEZ of the US and tell me if you are OK with never traveling through those places again.

izacus 2 days ago

> The obvious loss is to government revenue, but the more subtle and still very real loss is the diversion of high-powered talent from what could have been gains in efficiency and productivity to focus instead on corporate reorganizations and tax evasion games.

Looking at all the corpo legal/HR departments really has to make you think - those are people that are paid to aggresively look for legal loopholes, to defeat the spirit of laws and to make sure that the corporation always has the advantage against the society and workforce they exist nearby. There's decades upon decades of man hours being put into chipping away the effectiveness of tax, workplace and other laws and finding loopholes to make them ineffective. We've been at war and we never even noticed.

jmyeet 3 days ago

This is completely unrelated to the post.

What you're complaining about is overreach by the IRS in relation to foreign assets held by US citizens (ie FATCA) and the reporting requirements (eg Form 7938 and FBAR). It's worth noting that real estate is carved out as an exception for reporting purposes somehow, even though it's a common vehicle for money laundering.

That has literally nothing to do the Double Irish Dutch sandwich, which has historically been used by US companies (particularly Big Tech companies) to avoid taxes by moving their IP to a foreign subsidiary and then paying "royalties" to avoid paying US taxes.

  • gwd 3 days ago

    You seem to think that the IRS doing that just for a laugh, or just because they hate rich people, and that Big Tech companies are the only ones playing shell games with their revenue in order to shirk paying their fair share to support the society they've benefitted from.

    I think it much more likely that rich people also play shell games with their assets / revenue to avoid paying their fair share to support the society they've benefitted from, and that the IRS requires the extra reporting to try to counteract that.

    This article is specifically about a specific loophole invented by unethical accountants and lawyers, but it's also generally about all the effort spent by unethical accountants and lawyers to come up with such loopholes, causing not only harm to society (in the form of free-riding on those who are paying taxes), but which in turn forces effort on the part of tax agencies and legislatures, which then forces effort on normal people like me who just want to make some money and pay our fair share. It's pure wasted energy.

    • skissane 2 days ago

      > and that the IRS requires the extra reporting to try to counteract that.

      The extra reporting largely exists because of the fundamental and rather unique misdesign of the US tax system - taxing citizens’ worldwide income for life. Most countries only tax (1) worldwide income for residents (2) in-country income for non-residents

  • skissane 2 days ago

    > What you're complaining about is overreach by the IRS in relation to foreign assets held by US citizens (ie FATCA) and the reporting requirements (eg Form 7938 and FBAR)

    A big problem is the US is one of the few countries in the world which taxes its citizens (and green card holders) worldwide, for life, no matter how long they’ve been outside the United States. Most countries don’t tax non-resident citizens, or only do so for a limited period of a few years.

    The only other country that does it, that I know of, is Eritrea - and it has been widely condemned by the international community for its “diaspora tax”. But no condemnation for the US diaspora tax, despite actually being far more onerous than Eritrea’s is

  • jpat 2 days ago

    I believe they may have been referring to the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) tax, which from what I've read is as bad as the OP describes in their post.

    https://www.investopedia.com/global-intangible-low-taxed-inc...

    • jmyeet 2 days ago

      That might be so but it's also, like I said, completely unrelated to the post.

      Like, how is it different from coming onto this thread and grinding an axe about laws against municipal broadband?

nickfromseattle 2 days ago

>Secondly, if a US citizens owns more than 50% of a foreign company, by default, income from that company counts as personal income, but taxes paid by the company to another government don't count as personal taxes. You can get around this, apparently, but it's even more complicated.

Curious, what are the even more complicated ways?

_rm 2 days ago

Yeah it's become an absolute nightmare now if you're an individual or small business involved in anything cross border.

Even if you're not unlucky enough to be a US citizen, if you're tax resident in one country and incorporate in another for completely legitimate reasons, as an individual you're just screwed if you want to be compliant. Rocket science is significantly easier.

You need some KPMG-tier advisor to work it out for you for $crap-ton/hr. Few sole operators have the revenue to afford that.

Log_out_ 2 days ago

The guild will get its due! Ironically this is also what the productivity gainsgames produce in the long run. All that excess human capability goes into bureaucracy labyrinths and highway robbery sometimes with the law behind and armed with subscription. The entrepreneur producing the beast that strangles him.

[removed] 2 days ago
[deleted]
csomar 2 days ago

Be careful it might be more complicated than that. I am not 100% sure but I think you might be required to pay taxes on unrealized gains for your company (or whatever assets you are owning).

CatWChainsaw 2 days ago

Would this be avoided if you renounced your US citizenship and became a UK citizen instead?

  • [removed] 2 days ago
    [deleted]
bozhark 2 days ago

Would this encourage shell company ownership behavior?

yunohn 2 days ago

Why is the top comment on this post a mostly unrelated rant about USA individuals being taxed in weird ways? The actual post is about global corporate shenanigans that enable them to evade astronomical amounts of taxes.

gamblor956 2 days ago

Secondly, if a US citizens owns more than 50% of a foreign company, by default, income from that company counts as personal income, but taxes paid by the company to another government don't count as personal taxes. You can get around this, apparently, but it's even more complicated.

This is the GILTI regime, which was intended to target foreign income from intangible assets. But, like most GOP legislation of the last two decades, it was written in a rush without regards to the practical consequences.

Note however that if the foreign income (from the company's perspective, local income) is being taxed at a higher rate than 90% of the applicable U.S. tax rate on that income (currently meaning, 18.9% foreign tax rate or higher) then the income does not get included in its owner's income (aka the high-taxed exception).

Also note that if you are for some reason subject to GILTI, you've basically just prepaid your taxes on actually receiving that income, meaning that you don't pay taxes again when the foreign corporation actually pays the income to you as a dividend.

This was super complicated for a year or two until the IRS released guidance clarifying some points. Now, for any accountant worth their salt, it's pretty straightforward and if they're still complaining about it, find a new accountant.

justchexking 3 days ago

[flagged]

  • bigstrat2003 2 days ago

    Bro what. It's very clearly meant to cover up a swear word.

    • onionisafruit 2 days ago

      They seem to think that [REDACTED] is something that hn automatically redacted and that dang will come check what the actual word was. Because this person assumes every negative comment about a lawyer must be antisemitic.