U. S. Taxes on Worldwide Income

Some of you guys have been discussing high U.S. tax rates on the American Politics thread. As we all know, such taxes are generally applicable to your worldwide income.

So here's a hypothetical question for tax / financial gurus.

Let's say you won the national lottery of Argentina for the equivalent of USD 1 million and that lottery winnings are not taxable by Argentina.

The USA is going to tax that at around 40% depending on your state, chopping your 1 million down to around 600k.

So what would you do - transfer the money to Switzerland or the Caymans? Buy some apartments in Buenos Aires? Transfer all the funds to the USA and pay the IRS 400 grand? Other?

Are there any reasonable loopholes for such a scenario?

[QUOTE=Moore]Some of you guys have been discussing high U. S. Tax rates on the American Politics thread. As we all know, such taxes are generally applicable to your worldwide income.

So here's a hypothetical question for tax / financial gurus.

Let's say you won the national lottery of Argentina for the equivalent of USD 1 million and that lottery winnings are not taxable by Argentina.

The USA is going to tax that at around 40% depending on your state, chopping your 1 million down to around 600k.

So what would you do - transfer the money to Switzerland or the Caymans? Buy some apartments in Buenos Aires? Transfer all the funds to the USA and pay the IRS 400 grand?

Are there any reasonable loopholes for such a scenario?[/QUOTE]There are no loopholes. You pay the tax or you break the law. The Cayman Islands and Switzerland now share information with the IRS. You can leave the money in Argentina or create dummy foreign companies with dummy directors and try and hide the money, but that's still illegal, and not worth the risk or the expense IMHO.

[QUOTE=Moore]Some of you guys have been discussing high U. S. Tax rates on the American Politics thread. As we all know, such taxes are generally applicable to your worldwide income.

So here's a hypothetical question for tax / financial gurus.

Let's say you won the national lottery of Argentina for the equivalent of USD 1 million and that lottery winnings are not taxable by Argentina.

The USA is going to tax that at around 40% depending on your state, chopping your 1 million down to around 600k.

So what would you do - transfer the money to Switzerland or the Caymans? Buy some apartments in Buenos Aires? Transfer all the funds to the USA and pay the IRS 400 grand? Other?

Are there any reasonable loopholes for such a scenario?[/QUOTE]The tax's are taken out before they give you the check, this topic is moot.

Exon

[QUOTE=Exon123]The tax's are taken out before they give you the check, this topic is moot.[/QUOTE]As mentioned, assume that the income is not taxable in Argentina, where it is paid.

[QUOTE=Moore]As mentioned, assume that the income is not taxable in Argentina, where it is paid.[/QUOTE]Then I'd spend the entire amount on "Hoe's" and booze, the rest I'd just waste.

Exon

[QUOTE=Exon123]Then I'd spend the entire amount on "Hoe's" and booze, the rest I'd just waste.

Exon[/QUOTE]Me too fuck Uncle Sam

You guys could spend a million dollars on ho's and booze?

[QUOTE=Exon123]The tax's are taken out before they give you the check, this topic is moot.

Exon[/QUOTE]Exon, you've once again again shown your wordsmithing abilities.

What an excellent pun, given that taxes are possessive.

Ha, ha.

Jackson

[QUOTE=Exon123]Then I'd spend the entire amount on "Hoe's" and booze, the rest I'd just waste.

Exon[/QUOTE]Exon, just a little credit to one of our predecessors:

"I spent all my money on booze, broads and fast cars. The rest I just pissed away."

George Raft's response to an IRS agent.

OK, Now I get it. Tom Daschle, Timothy Geithner, Al Franken, Leona Helmsley, Exon123 -- the reason Democrats don't care whether taxes go up is because they don't intend to pay them anyway.

[QUOTE=Tiny12]OK, Now I get it. Tom Daschle, Timothy Geithner, Al Franken, Leona Helmsley, Exon123 -- the reason Democrats don't care whether taxes go up is because they don't intend to pay them anyway.[/QUOTE]My taxs are paid on time every quarter.

Exon

If you have the $ in Argentina, or somewhere ELSE and you do NOT spend it and bring it into the US. Then you do not have to pay tax on that. But if you use a CC that is linked to that account in the us then you have to declare it.

As long as you keep it separate you should be ok, someone correct me if it's otherwise.

Thanks.

[url]http://www.irs.gov/publications/p54/index.html[/url]

[QUOTE=SanMichele]If you have the $ in Argentina, or somewhere ELSE and you do NOT spend it and bring it into the US. Then you do not have to pay tax on that. But if you use a CC that is linked to that account in the us then you have to declare it.

As long as you keep it separate you should be ok, someone correct me if it's otherwise.

Thanks.

[url]http://www.irs.gov/publications/p54/index.html[/url][/QUOTE]Doing what you say would reduce the possiblity the IRS will find out you have undeclared foreign income and charge you penalties and interest or possibly put you in jail. If you have income anywhere in the world, you're supposed to declare it on your U. S. Tax return. You might get away without paying additional tax, depending on the circumstances. If you have over $10,000 stashed in foreign accounts, you should file Form TD F 90-22.1 with the U. S. Government. If you do not, I believe the standard fine is $10,000 per year per account (plus penalties and interest) although failure to file or filing a false report can result in a fine up to $500,000 and imprisonment up to 5 years, according to what it says on the form.

I'm assuming here that the money you might have stashed in Argentina came from income you didn't report to the IRS. If you, say, took $9000 into Argentina and put it in a noninterest bearing bank account, and you don't have bank accounts in other countries outside the U. S. (so you don't have over $10,000 total outside the US) then you wouldn't need to do anything or file any forms. That's assuming you reported the $9000 income to the IRS when you earned it.

[QUOTE=Tiny12]Doing what you say would reduce the possiblity the IRS will find out you have undeclared foreign income and charge you penalties and interest or possibly put you in jail. If you have income anywhere in the world, you're supposed to declare it on your U. S. Tax return. You might get away without paying additional tax, depending on the circumstances. If you have over $10,000 stashed in foreign accounts, you should file Form TD F 90-22.1 with the U. S. Government. If you do not I believe the standard fine is $10,000 per year per account (plus penalties and interest) although failure to file or filing a false report can result in a fine up to $500,000 and imprisonment up to 5 years, according to what it says on the form.

I'm assuming here that the money you might have stashed in Argentina came from income you didn't report to the IRS. If you, say, took $9000 into Argentina and put it in a noninterest bearing bank account, and you don't have bank accounts in other countries outside the U. S. (so you don't have over $10,000 total outside the US then you wouldn't need to do anything or file any forms. That's assuming you reported the $9000 income to the IRS when you earned it.[/QUOTE]Was watching MSNBC this morning and this exact topic came up. Larry Kudlow (love him or hate him,) was throwing out the possibility that the Gov. Eradicate this foreign income tax plus lower tax rates in the States and that would allow about 500 billion of expatriate money to come back into the US markets. Pipe dream? Possibly. Good idea though especially since they're tweaking the stimulus package right now.

Jack

[QUOTE=Jackjack1]Was watching MSNBC this morning and this exact topic came up. Larry Kudlow (love him or hate him, was throwing out the possibility that the Gov. Eradicate this foreign income tax plus lower tax rates in the States and that would allow about 500 billion of expatriate money to come back into the US markets. Pipe dream? Possibly. Good idea though especially since they're tweaking the stimulus package right now.

Jack[/QUOTE]Larry K must be following the Kirchners. And, speaking of Kudlow, what do you think?:

1. Fag.

2. Pedophile.

3. Asexual

[QUOTE=Jackjack1]Good idea though especially since they're tweaking the stimulus package right now.[/QUOTE]It's not a stimulus package. It's a liberal pork fantasy bill masquerading as a stimulus bill.

It pays to have a dual citizenship, and you use the other passport to open an account, but then AGAIN keep the $ separate do not make transactions with that bank from the US.

[QUOTE=Doggboy]Larry K must be following the Kirchners. And, speaking of Kudlow, what do you think?:

1. Fag.

2. Pedophile.

3. Asexual[/QUOTE]Perhaps all of the above.

Jack

Sorry to veer off course here. Two quick points, 1) Kudlow, as I understand it, is a brilliant, *****-mongering, recovering coke-head (there is probably a physiological connection of those three things) and 2) the "stimulus" misnomer that has been foisted upon this colossus to deliberately mislead the lemmings into swallowing it. Stimulation is, by definition, temporary.

Consider, if you will, the following allegory, in which we shall consider the concept of stimulation. The biloche is the government, the chica represents the 'package' and the average monger's libido is the engine that drives the economy.

First, we shall explore stimulus in a free market system where information and money flow with relatively little governmental friction (think USA, pre-2009) The stimulation scenario is somewhat predictable, without guarantee of quality of results, based upon basic human want and desire. You are at one of many excellent biloches full of many beautiful chicas, from which you pick a real stunner (she hands you a laminated card showing that she is well reviewed on A / P -- both Exon and Dickhead gave her two thumbs up) and a majority of your friends think is a knock-out and a great choice and she agrees to go with you for exactly what you are willing to invest in the opportunity. The little guy starts doing the thinking, you make an educated decision, assuming the usual risks associated with golden pussy. You get back to your apartment or hotel. You have a drink, a little chit chat, she sidles up against you, clothes hit the floor. You get the picture. This mostly psychological 'stimulus' results in lots of endorphins (economic activity) and blood flow to strategic areas providing a turgid appendage (swelling tax coffers) Roused into action, said appendage (and dangling counterparts- corporate 'social investment' and charitable giving) continue to benefit from more direct 'stimulus' as the specifics of the package directly match the needs (ball washing, bbbj, f / s and completo) When the full effects of the stimulus package are visible (COF is my favorite) it is obvious that the stimulus has worked and, at that moment is no longer needed. Measuring results of the package are quite easy: 1) did it stimulate (yes); 2) was the response to the stimulation as expected (yes, simple 10th grade bio); 3) was the end result achieved (yes, at least once); 4) when the end result arrived, was the stimulus no longer needed (yes, she can't cook); and 5) when no longer needed could the package be retired or sent away (can you say "taxi!")

In the scenario now being forced upon the US, events will unfold on a different path. There is only one biloche in town, it is very dark (everyone knows that 'black lights' are destroying the environment and are the number one killer of gay whales) and you see only one chica. You think she is beautiful, because everyone tells you she is (how they can see in the dark is a mystery no one bothers to explore) Half of your friends (drunk with an inexplicable euphoria that makes them think they can see in the dark too) say, "dude, she's hot and she's the only game in town. You have to do it!" The other half of your friends say "it's too risky with too many unknowns (looks, weight, services, cost, etc) keep looking, worst case you can rub one out before you go to bed." The policy of the biloche is that the cost of your stimulation will be based upon your ability to pay, as determined by the biloche staff. At that point, swayed by uninformed friends and strangers, you are convinced that 'do nothing' isn't an option, that you really want this. You finish your drink and take her home, thinking "she'll stimulate me and make everything better." Once in the apartment, you feel a little funny and blackout. You come to disoriented and uncomfortable, to discover that you are chained over a barrel (like Zed in Pulp Fiction) and the Chica, you can now see, is not a beautiful chica but a large tranny packing a huge night stick. As your senses come back to you, you become aware of a painful rectum and in the mirror you can see a stitched up incision over a concave depression where one of your kidneys used to be. As you look around the room, you also notice that the safe is open and empty. The tranny gives you one last completo and facial and leaves with your laptop (with all of your most private information on it as well as access to your financial accounts) laughing and saying "I'll be back to stimulate you every time you need it (as determined by the biloche)" Again, looking to measure results of the package: 1) did it stimulate (clearly yes, however the stimulus was targeted to what the government wanted, not what you wanted); 2) was the response to the stimulation as expected, (clearly, you were thinking with your little head and susceptible to influence by people who don't know anything and let them make decisions for you); 3) were the end results achieved (absolutely, you got fucked, the government took all your money, gave you healthcare you didn't want, made you dependent upon the government for everything and they eliminated any previous expectation of the penumbra cast by the constitution (I can explain over drinks); 4) when the end result arrived, was the stimulus no longer needed (the end results manifest themselves into perpetuity, therefore the 'need" will never end—objective number one of the stimulus plan) and 5) when no longer needed could the package be retired or sent away? (see number 4 above)

I too agree the narrative was very entertaining and required a bit of thought and cleverness to make the point.

It is a shame the majority of the American populace will fail to expend 10% of the effort required to produce this little gem in studying what they are about to receive in the "stimulus package".

Perhaps the Republicans (those poor fools wandering in the wilderness braying like a wild ass) can delay the bill in the Senate long enough for someone to pay attention to all the pork.

Didn't someone say trying to spend your way out of debt was like fucking for virginity or was that making war to preserve peace?

I read the other day in some expat site that for the 2010 tax year the USA will tax foreign "assets" of over $50,000. The "assets" weren't defined and maybe this is a work in process, something floated by somebody, or one hopes, complete bullshit. My guess is that there is probably some truth in it given the US's history of chasing their expat community all over hell and back for as much money as possible. The IRS has reportedly stepped up their monitoring of expats with foreign bank accounts over the past year, and some aspects of the Patriot Act make it easier for expats to be fucked with for no good reason, other than the IRS getting their hands on more dinero.

I wouldn't give much of a shit about this (just more of the same) but I've been thinking about buying a place here in BsAs. My guess is that real estate would be the "asset" most likely to be taxed by Unkie Sam.

Does anybody have some insights into this? Maybe the boring asshole who spent over 200 large on some hooker has some info about it.

Cheers,

Dogg

[QUOTE=Doggboy]Does anybody have some insights into this? Maybe the boring asshole who spent over 200 large on some hooker has some info about it.[/QUOTE]Ha ha, thanks for the laugh Doggboy. I just spit water all over my keyboard.

Talk about a steep tax. Stupidity can be very expensive.

I don't see anything about taxing [I]assets[/i] on the IRS website. They [I]do[/i] tax any [I]income[/i] from assets you might hold offshore - such as banking or investment accounts, or rental income from any real estate you might own; and they do expect you to report any kind of offshore banking or investment account when you have an aggregate total over $10,000 in such accounts. But the "foreign assets" they're pursuing are the kind that are making money for you somehow.

At least that's the way I read it.

Something that you own - like a house, a car, a stamp or coin collection, or even a stash of Krugerrands - isn't "taxable" unless you're renting it out for a cash profit, or until you sell it for a cash profit. If you're going to live in that BsAs home, then it as an "asset" is not taxable; the IRS doesn't need or even want to know about it. But if you rent it out, then it's making money for you and the profits certainly are taxable; if you sell it for a profit, that profit is "capital gains" and so taxable.

(On the other hand, if you had a charmer living there "paying the rent on her back," that might be foolish but it would not be taxable.)

[I]If anybody KNOWS different, please speak up! Thanks![/i]

[QUOTE=Doggboy]I read the other day in some expat site that for the 2010 tax year the USA will tax foreign "assets" of over $50,000. The "assets" weren't defined and maybe this is a work in process, something floated by somebody, or one hopes, complete bullshit. My guess is that there is probably some truth in it given the US's history of chasing their expat community all over hell and back for as much money as possible. The IRS has reportedly stepped up their monitoring of expats with foreign bank accounts over the past year, and some aspects of the Patriot Act make it easier for expats to be fucked with for no good reason, other than the IRS getting their hands on more dinero.

I wouldn't give much of a shit about this (just more of the same) but I've been thinking about buying a place here in BsAs. My guess is that real estate would be the "asset" most likely to be taxed by Unkie Sam.

Does anybody have some insights into this? Maybe the boring asshole who spent over 200 large on some hooker has some info about it.

Cheers,

Dogg[/QUOTE]

I had lost this link but now found.

This is where I read about the "asset" issue.

[url]http://www.escapefromamerica.com/2010/04/us-tax-facts-for-americans-living-and-working-abroad/[/url]

[QUOTE=Doggboy]I had lost this link but now found. This is where I read about the "asset" issue.

[url]http://www.escapefromamerica.com/2010/04/us-tax-facts-for-americans-living-and-working-abroad/[/url][/QUOTE]The article refers to "financial" assets which I believe are cash, securities, fungible investments and investment vehicles. Unless ownership of a home is through a vehicle that qualifies it as a "financial" asset, it should not be included, even if it is a rental property (although the income and or profits from renting or selling the property are taxable)

Is not so much for a blanket tax on said assets, as it is a red flag for finding people who have been harboring taxable income abroad.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Is not so much for a blanket tax on said assets, as it is a red flag for finding people who have been harboring taxable income abroad[/QUOTE]Seems as though you have it down. Here is the response from my accountant:

"Thanks for the link. This is referring to "financial assets" and as stated the internal revenue service is still vague on its definition. It is my understanding that this is related to the foreign bank account reporting requirements, as opposed to tangible assets such as real estate. With the foreign bank account reporting requirements there is currently a $10k threshold but this definition does not include accounts such as mutual funds (has always been vague and even more so with the recent scrutiny that has been placed on these filings) held in a foreign country which is what this "financial asset" definition is set to include. This would not be a tax on the value of this asset rather a reporting requirement so that big brother can know what is going on everywhere at all times. I will keep you up to date as I hear anything further, but you are correct the IRS is ever changing and you never know what to expect."

[QUOTE=Doggboy]Seems as though you have it down.[/QUOTE]I have done business in a few far-off places and have investigated some different approaches to receiving the income as well as owning interests in foreign companies. That said, I am no expert and rely on real pros when setting up new ventures or dealing with foreign income.

Income, in whatever form it comes in, is almost always going to be taxable in the eyes of the IRS. However, there are various, legal means through which one can delay or lessen the impact of the tax bite. Generally, the goal is to legally delay the date upon which the tax becomes due as opposed to eliminating the tax obligation entirely (although that would be nice) The longer you hold onto the cash, the longer you can invest it and make more money off of it. With certain trust structures, you can delay the tax indefinitely.

The May 2010 [I]International Living[/i] magazine has an article that refers specifically to "foreign real estate" and the IRS, written by an economist with Casey Research. As the author puts it:

[quote]A direct investment in foreign real estate is free of any special U. S. Tax or reporting rules. It's just like buying a farm in Kansas. It would also present added difficulties for a lawsuit creditor looking for ways to collect. And it is unlikely that any regime of foreign exchange controls would touch existing foreign real estate investments.

Foreign real estate can also pay you a psychological divident. Knowing you have a place to go provides a sense of security.[/QUOTE]Money in financial accounts does have to be reported if you have an aggregate total of US $10,000 or more [I]in deposit[/i] offshore. That would include bank accounts, certificates of deposit, annuities, brokerage accounts, mutual funds and whatever else of the same sort. Physical assets, though, whether real estate or a stash of Krugerrands, are exempt from reporting requirements.

[QUOTE=Doggboy]I read the other day in some expat site that for the 2010 tax year the USA will tax foreign "assets" of over $50,000. The "assets" weren't defined and maybe this is a work in process, something floated by somebody, or one hopes, complete bullshit. My guess is that there is probably some truth in it given the US's history of chasing their expat community all over hell and back for as much money as possible. The IRS has reportedly stepped up their monitoring of expats with foreign bank accounts over the past year, and some aspects of the Patriot Act make it easier for expats to be fucked with for no good reason, other than the IRS getting their hands on more dinero.

I wouldn't give much of a shit about this (just more of the same) but I've been thinking about buying a place here in BsAs. My guess is that real estate would be the "asset" most likely to be taxed by Unkie Sam.

Does anybody have some insights into this? Maybe the boring asshole who spent over 200 large on some hooker has some info about it.

Cheers,

Dogg[/QUOTE]

Westy:

Good points that reinforce the primary interest of the US Govt when it comes to citizens' foreign assets and income: they want to be able to collect every dime of taxable income you earn as well as other taxes (estate tax, etc) that you may some day owe. In order to collect, they need to know at whom they should be looking.

Dogboy's initial post on the subject was driven by some written reaction to the enactment of "H. R. 2847, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act" on March 18, 2010 by President-for-life Obama. While I am confused (not really) about why would something aimed at domestic policy with a title including "Hiring Incentives," would include a number of international tax provisions, never the less they are there.

The existing $10k transaction threshold is derivative of efforts, clothed in anti-drug garb, geared towards identifying and stopping money laundering. Whilst those purposes were part of the design, the byproduct that it helps the IRS identify citizens that might have unreported foreign income was not coincident. Additionally, the IRS wants to find citizens with fungible assets in excess of $50k, anywhere offshore, that may not be snared by the $10k transaction net, and then look to see what else they might have offshore or might have earned offshore.

At the same time, while a direct investment in foreign real estate isn't a taxable event, income earned on such an investment is taxable as are transfers of property whether financial or non-financial in nature.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 428750]Romney never said that he didn't care about the 47% that are the net benificaries of the taxes that the rest of us have to pay.

The reality is that the 47% don't care about Romney (or the rest of us taxpayers either, for that matter.) [/QUOTE]For those of you who reside in Argentina, do you still pay taxes to Uncle Sam? If so, is it because you maintain your bank account in the states?

[QUOTE=Chicago Guy;428777]For those of you who reside in Argentina, do you still pay taxes to Uncle Sam? If so, is it because you maintain your bank account in the states?[/QUOTE]It does not matter whether or not you reside in a foreign country if you are a USA Citizen. Unless the IRC specifically exempts you, every USA Citizen is required by law to file a return. Whether or not you pay tax to Uncle Sam, depends on a number of factors; however, you still must file a return.

Tres3

[QUOTE=Chicago Guy;428777]For those of you who reside in Argentina, do you still pay taxes to Uncle Sam? If so, is it because you maintain your bank account in the states?[/QUOTE]Not the correct forum for this question, but the US taxes its citizens on worldwide income.

So does Argentina if you are a resident. Well it tries to tax it.

[QUOTE=Dccpa; 428780]Not the correct forum for this question, but the US taxes its citizens on worldwide income.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Doggboy; 428782]I don't follow the political thread much any more, but I'm glad I saw this post. Kudos B Shirt.

I haven't watched CNBC in years and haven't missed it. I stick all my money in a cookie jar, and I don't have to endure that pedophile on Friday mornings with his USA flag lapel pin.[/QUOTE]I'm an American citizen who has a small business here in Argentina, and I am absolutely required to file a return and pay 15.3% self employment tax on net income. This is in addition to paying Argentine national and City Taxes.

However, if you are a US citizen and you are physically out of the country for 330 complete days in any 365 day period, you can exclude income [B]earned[/B] Up to the amount of $95, 100 in 2012 from income taxation (but not from OASDI as Fred points out). This number is indexed for inflation. This is true whether you are self-employed or an employee. This saved me about $80, 000 over the time I lived in Argentina and another $5 or $10k when I was in the UK and Spain. And if you have no taxable income, then create some in an amount equal to what you can wipe out with the personal exemption and the standard deduction ($10, 000 combined for 2013) by converting your IRA to a Roth IRA. That means that money will never get taxed. I made out even better than this because my job was not covered under Social Security so all I had to pay was the 1. 45% Medicare tax. I would have maybe 3 or 4 more years to work if it were not for that tax provision.

Anyone deciding to become a legal resident of Argentina (I never did that even though I was there for most of seven years) needs to think very carefully about the tax ramifications of doing so. I was working over the internet so was never on the Argie radar but they are definitely looking to increase their tax enforcement substantially.

Were you planning on renouncing US Citizenship? You may need to think again, if you ever want to set foot in the USA. That's if this amendment to the immigration bill is passed, and if you exceed certain threshholds for income or net worth:

[URL]http://www.reed.senate.gov/news/release/reed-offers-amendment-to-prevent-ex-citizen-tax-dodgers-from-reentering-the-us[/URL]

And if you already expatriated and renounced and this becomes law? Well, you may be screwed.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;428787]However, if you are a US citizen and you are physically out of the country for 330 complete days in any 365 day period, you can exclude income [B]earned[/B] Up to the amount of $95, 100 in 2012 from income taxation (but not from OASDI as Fred points out). This number is indexed for inflation. This is true whether you are self-employed or an employee. This saved me about $80, 000 over the time I lived in Argentina and another $5 or $10k when I was in the UK and Spain. And if you have no taxable income, then create some in an amount equal to what you can wipe out with the personal exemption and the standard deduction ($10, 000 combined for 2013) by converting your IRA to a Roth IRA. That means that money will never get taxed. I made out even better than this because my job was not covered under Social Security so all I had to pay was the 1. 45% Medicare tax. I would have maybe 3 or 4 more years to work if it were not for that tax provision.

Anyone deciding to become a legal resident of Argentina (I never did that even though I was there for most of seven years) needs to think very carefully about the tax ramifications of doing so. I was working over the internet so was never on the Argie radar but they are definitely looking to increase their tax enforcement substantially.[/QUOTE]Here is a link to a good article on this issue.

[URL]http://taxes.about.com/od/taxhelp/a/ForeignIncome.htm[/URL]

There are two ways to qualify and Dickhead is referring to the physical presence test. The second method is the bona fide residence test. I have never researched what the IRS means by brief trips to the US, but I suspect there are more days allowed than under the physical presence test.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;434155]Were you planning on renouncing US Citizenship? You may need to think again, if you ever want to set foot in the USA. That's if this amendment to the immigration bill is passed, and if you exceed certain threshholds for income or net worth:

[URL]http://www.reed.senate.gov/news/release/reed-offers-amendment-to-prevent-ex-citizen-tax-dodgers-from-reentering-the-us[/URL]

And if you already expatriated and renounced and this becomes law? Well, you may be screwed.[/QUOTE]I wouldn't worry about that bill because even if it became law, it wouldn't apply to most of us anyway. And if things get very bad in America, they would welcome your money if you wanted to come back. That is if you want to come back. Does anyone know of many examples of people who gave up their US citizenships and then changed their minds? Personally, I would rather arrange things to legally avoid most US taxation and keep my citizenship.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;434161] The second method is the bona fide residence test. I have never researched what the IRS means by brief trips to the US, but I suspect there are more days allowed than under the physical presence test.[/QUOTE]When I was a legal resident of Costa Rica, the test was residency, not travel. One could travel, as I did, to the USA quite often; however, I imagine that if you over do it, the taxman will come after you. One warning is that many countries require paying their taxes as a condition of residency. Foreign country taxes are often more onerous than USA taxes.

Tres3.