Assistance required. Many people defend (not justify) citizenship taxation on the basis that:
- All U.S. citizens are subject to the same provisions of the Internal Revenue Code
- Americans abroad are U.S. citizens
Therefore, Americans abroad should be subject to the same provisions of the Internal Revenue Code as Homelanders.
Or in Homelanderspeak:
All U.S. citizens are subject to exactly the same set of tax laws. What could be unjust about that? We are ALL citizens. Therefore, we should ALL be subject to the same set of laws.
Could you please address your mind to the following question:
What is the best response to this argument? How can one best explain that it is wrong to justify citizenship taxation on the basis that ALL citizens are subject to it in the same ways?
I’m not sure why you believe the tax law you’re being asked to adhere to is unequal. It’s the same tax system that all other citizens are held to, except you get income exemptions due to not being resident. I agree that relinquishing should not be a financial burden. However, if the burden of complying is less than the one time $3000 cost of relinquishing, then how much of a burden is it?
You may recall the wisdom from 17th Century France (I wasn’t there) …
“The law in its majesty equality prohibits both the rich and the poor from sleeping on the park bench.”
Which Judge Rose carried forward into 21st Century America (I am here) …
FATCA in its majestic equality requires both Homelanders and Americans abroad to report their “foreign” bank accounts.
In the same way that the practical impact of the “park bench” law is to apply only to the poor, the FATCA reporting requirements apply only to Americans abroad.
In other words, Judge Rose is NOT looking to the effect of the law to consider a denial of equal protection.
Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.