-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 03:55 PM 5/30/97 -0400, Ray Arachelian wrote:
What's the justification behind this other than exit rape?
Same justification as any tax. "We want the dough." Note they haven't managed to pass a full exit tax yet, however: http://207.87.27.10/forbes/111896/5812044a.htm Forbes - 18 November 1996 "And don't come back" By Robert Lenzner In August 1996 the Republicans pasted some anti-taxpatriate language into the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act. This law now subjects expatriates with a net worth of over $500,000 to taxation on their income earned in the U.S. for ten years from the time they renounce their citizenship, no matter where they live or whose flag they salute. But this is a law without teeth. Any clever entrepreneur can live by borrowing against assets rather than paying himself an income. Any good international tax lawyer can move ownership of U.S. assets into a foreign corporation or trust, thus making most taxpatriates' U.S.-sourced income vanish. The latest effort to keep intrepid taxpatriates on the reservation was passed with no fanfare in early October. A little-noticed provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 says, in essence, that Americans can still renounce their citizenship and flee to tax havens like the Bahamas, Ireland and Switzerland. But if they do, they can't necessarily come back to the U.S., not even to visit the grandkids or attend their college reunions. Under the new law, the taxpatriateany expatriate for that mattermust apply for a visa for every visit. The law states that the U.S. Attorney General may prohibit the issuance of a visa to a former U.S. citizen if there are solid grounds to believe that citizenship was renounced in order to avoid taxes. In short, taxpatriates will now be treated as exiles without any visiting rights, just like the illegal immigrants the U.S. wants to cut off. *************** Utterly meaningless in both cases since, as mentioned, you can move your wealth overseas and in the case of the visa requirement, first they have to flag you as an expatriate and even if they do that, you can enter the U.S. via Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean which are all inside the "US Passport Control Area."
I suppose one way is to take loads of trips and loads of AmEx traveler's checks, then gamble on things with 50% chance of winning, take the winnings and dump'em in accounts outside. Repeat until nothing's left, then exit with very little.
I find that a SWIFT wire transfer is faster, safer, and easier.
So let's sue the system. Might fail, but maybe we can get it the fuck out of our income taxes. One less tax to bother with. Since it no longer does what it is supposed to, might as well get rid of it. One way is to calculate how much you've put in it, and what is expected you'll receive on retirement. Compare the two, then sue the bastards. (I donno what I've been smoking, but I should get more of it, that's for sure. heheheh)
If you can find a judge who doesn't have "a financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings" I suppose you could try but victory seems unlikely in either case. Rather than litigation or detonation why not just try to ignore them. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 5.0 beta Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM49nIIVO4r4sgSPhAQEYsQP/Wci/WaWwb533khhDPWxo+x1OGChODmh6 xpm/WbyFBR+gUwi29FvgO/4hR4AaNW1T5koh309wT8MqU3LGNT/zWWxOCDR03neN EXvZPFqNGLcU5aHimZpXfE8jaOtlYnNSL4kDRk9NbeCiryOhjgJrvpipZx1qki2X OQJiA9dWnkw= =pvEx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----