<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Lookie here&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jim.roepcke.com/blog/archives/2001/12/02/lookie-here.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jim.roepcke.com/blog/archives/2001/12/02/lookie-here.html</link>
	<description>have browser, will travel (est. 1999)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:22:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Brian Carnell</title>
		<link>http://jim.roepcke.com/blog/archives/2001/12/02/lookie-here.html/comment-page-#comment-2327</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Carnell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2001 13:38:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jim.roepcke.com/blog/?p=3458#comment-2327</guid>
		<description>At 08:18 AM 12/3/2001 -0500, I wrote:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
&gt;2. Legally renouncing American citizenship, however, brings a number of&lt;br&gt;
&gt;immigration-related laws into play. For example, since these folks are now&lt;br&gt;
&gt;at best legal aliens when they are in the country. Most such people, for&lt;br&gt;
&gt;example, are required by law to spend something like no more than 6 months&lt;br&gt;
&gt;in the United States (such folks usually maintain homes in Caribbean nations).&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Just to be clear here, there are laws that specifically apply to former &lt;br&gt;
American citizens specifying how much time they can spend in the country &lt;br&gt;
before they become subject to American tax law. There was a controversy in &lt;br&gt;
the mid-1980s because the IRS and the INS were not keeping track of such &lt;br&gt;
matters and there were a number of people worth hundreds of millions of &lt;br&gt;
dollars who had renounced their citizenship but were living in the United &lt;br&gt;
States for 10 or 11 months a year, and just flying to their home in the &lt;br&gt;
Bahamas for what amounted to a short vacation.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At 08:18 AM 12/3/2001 -0500, I wrote:</p>
<p>&gt;2. Legally renouncing American citizenship, however, brings a number of<br />
&gt;immigration-related laws into play. For example, since these folks are now<br />
&gt;at best legal aliens when they are in the country. Most such people, for<br />
&gt;example, are required by law to spend something like no more than 6 months<br />
&gt;in the United States (such folks usually maintain homes in Caribbean nations).</p>
<p>Just to be clear here, there are laws that specifically apply to former <br />
American citizens specifying how much time they can spend in the country <br />
before they become subject to American tax law. There was a controversy in <br />
the mid-1980s because the IRS and the INS were not keeping track of such <br />
matters and there were a number of people worth hundreds of millions of <br />
dollars who had renounced their citizenship but were living in the United <br />
States for 10 or 11 months a year, and just flying to their home in the <br />
Bahamas for what amounted to a short vacation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Carnell</title>
		<link>http://jim.roepcke.com/blog/archives/2001/12/02/lookie-here.html/comment-page-#comment-2326</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Carnell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2001 13:18:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jim.roepcke.com/blog/?p=3458#comment-2326</guid>
		<description>At 01:22 AM 12/3/2001 -0500, Jim Roepcke wrote:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
&gt;&quot;P.L. 104-191 contains changes in the taxation of U.S. citizens who &lt;br&gt;
&gt;renounce or otherwise lose U.S. citizenship. In general, any person who &lt;br&gt;
&gt;lost U.S. citizenship within 10 years immediately preceding the close of &lt;br&gt;
&gt;the taxable year, whose principle purpose in losing citizenship was to &lt;br&gt;
&gt;avoid taxation, will be subject to continued taxation.&quot;&lt;br&gt;
&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&gt;Ahem.  So who wants to rebutt (http://jim.roepcke.com/3056) that it is, or &lt;br&gt;
&gt;should I say, was possible to avoid taxation by renouncing one&#039;s citizenship?&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Just to sum things up, Jim:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
1. It has always been possible to renounce American citizenship, and &lt;br&gt;
certainly a handful of wealthy people have reduced their tax burden by &lt;br&gt;
doing so.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
2. Legally renouncing American citizenship, however, brings a number of &lt;br&gt;
immigration-related laws into play. For example, since these folks are now &lt;br&gt;
at best legal aliens when they are in the country. Most such people, for &lt;br&gt;
example, are required by law to spend something like no more than 6 months &lt;br&gt;
in the United States (such folks usually maintain homes in Caribbean nations).&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
3. What you *cannot* do -- at least if you want to stay out of jail -- is &lt;br&gt;
try to tell a judge that the Constitution established a confederated &lt;br&gt;
government called the united states of America, that the post-Civil War &lt;br&gt;
amendments to the Constitution created a voluntary corporation called the &lt;br&gt;
United States of America, and since you&#039;ve never voluntary joined said &lt;br&gt;
corporation, you are not subject to taxation by said corporation.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At 01:22 AM 12/3/2001 -0500, Jim Roepcke wrote:</p>
<p>&gt;&#8221;P.L. 104-191 contains changes in the taxation of U.S. citizens who <br />
&gt;renounce or otherwise lose U.S. citizenship. In general, any person who <br />
&gt;lost U.S. citizenship within 10 years immediately preceding the close of <br />
&gt;the taxable year, whose principle purpose in losing citizenship was to <br />
&gt;avoid taxation, will be subject to continued taxation.&#8221;<br />
&gt;<br />
&gt;Ahem.  So who wants to rebutt (<a href="http://jim.roepcke.com/3056" rel="nofollow">http://jim.roepcke.com/3056</a>) that it is, or <br />
&gt;should I say, was possible to avoid taxation by renouncing one&#8217;s citizenship?</p>
<p>Just to sum things up, Jim:</p>
<p>1. It has always been possible to renounce American citizenship, and <br />
certainly a handful of wealthy people have reduced their tax burden by <br />
doing so.</p>
<p>2. Legally renouncing American citizenship, however, brings a number of <br />
immigration-related laws into play. For example, since these folks are now <br />
at best legal aliens when they are in the country. Most such people, for <br />
example, are required by law to spend something like no more than 6 months <br />
in the United States (such folks usually maintain homes in Caribbean nations).</p>
<p>3. What you *cannot* do &#8212; at least if you want to stay out of jail &#8212; is <br />
try to tell a judge that the Constitution established a confederated <br />
government called the united states of America, that the post-Civil War <br />
amendments to the Constitution created a voluntary corporation called the <br />
United States of America, and since you&#8217;ve never voluntary joined said <br />
corporation, you are not subject to taxation by said corporation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
