Citizens Abroad and Social Cohesion at Home: Refocusing a Cross-Border Tax Policy Debate

Michael S. Kirsch
{"title":"Citizens Abroad and Social Cohesion at Home: Refocusing a Cross-Border Tax Policy Debate","authors":"Michael S. Kirsch","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2669543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modern developments raise significant questions about the future importance (or non-importance) of formal citizenship status. For example, while many have interpreted the European Union project, with its emphasis on the free movement of individuals, as portending the decreasing relevance of nationality, recent developments, such as the “Brexit” vote, suggest that national identity remains an important factor for many individuals. While much of the public debate over citizenship focuses on areas, such as immigration, that are more obviously tied to formal citizenship status, this debate also impacts cross-border tax policy. Over the past decade, several scholars have addressed the use of citizenship status as a jurisdictional basis upon which to tax the foreign-source income of individuals who live outside of their country of citizenship. Some writers have defended the United States’ use of this citizenship-based taxation (“CBT”) to tax the foreign income of citizens living abroad, while a more significant number of scholars have rejected it and proposed that the United States tax the foreign income of U.S. citizens only if they reside in the United States (residence-based taxation, or “RBT”). This Article considers the competing normative arguments surrounding the use of citizenship as a jurisdictional basis to tax, and distills the strengths and weaknesses of each. In so doing, it highlights the most salient factors upon which the debate hinges, and illustrates the importance of difficult-to-measure predictions of how both individuals and society will react to different regimes. The Article ultimately concludes that the debate between CBT and RBT often overemphasizes the subjective circumstances of particular individuals, and underemphasizes the broader impact of the alternative regimes on social cohesion within the United States. When coupled with the significant residence neutrality concerns that may arise under an RBT regime and the resulting potential to create a permanent class of wealthy U.S. citizens living abroad who would not be subject to taxation, these social cohesion concerns suggest that the United States should continue to exercise citizenship-based taxing jurisdiction. However, the Article acknowledges that such a CBT regime can only be defended in practice if the IRS and Congress are willing to address the significant practical compliance concerns faced by many citizens living abroad.","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Georgetown immigration law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2669543","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Modern developments raise significant questions about the future importance (or non-importance) of formal citizenship status. For example, while many have interpreted the European Union project, with its emphasis on the free movement of individuals, as portending the decreasing relevance of nationality, recent developments, such as the “Brexit” vote, suggest that national identity remains an important factor for many individuals. While much of the public debate over citizenship focuses on areas, such as immigration, that are more obviously tied to formal citizenship status, this debate also impacts cross-border tax policy. Over the past decade, several scholars have addressed the use of citizenship status as a jurisdictional basis upon which to tax the foreign-source income of individuals who live outside of their country of citizenship. Some writers have defended the United States’ use of this citizenship-based taxation (“CBT”) to tax the foreign income of citizens living abroad, while a more significant number of scholars have rejected it and proposed that the United States tax the foreign income of U.S. citizens only if they reside in the United States (residence-based taxation, or “RBT”). This Article considers the competing normative arguments surrounding the use of citizenship as a jurisdictional basis to tax, and distills the strengths and weaknesses of each. In so doing, it highlights the most salient factors upon which the debate hinges, and illustrates the importance of difficult-to-measure predictions of how both individuals and society will react to different regimes. The Article ultimately concludes that the debate between CBT and RBT often overemphasizes the subjective circumstances of particular individuals, and underemphasizes the broader impact of the alternative regimes on social cohesion within the United States. When coupled with the significant residence neutrality concerns that may arise under an RBT regime and the resulting potential to create a permanent class of wealthy U.S. citizens living abroad who would not be subject to taxation, these social cohesion concerns suggest that the United States should continue to exercise citizenship-based taxing jurisdiction. However, the Article acknowledges that such a CBT regime can only be defended in practice if the IRS and Congress are willing to address the significant practical compliance concerns faced by many citizens living abroad.
海外公民与国内社会凝聚力:重新聚焦跨境税收政策辩论
现代发展对正式公民身份在未来的重要性(或不重要性)提出了重大问题。例如,虽然许多人将强调个人自由流动的欧盟项目解释为国籍相关性下降的预兆,但最近的事态发展,如“英国脱欧”投票,表明国家身份仍然是许多人的重要因素。虽然关于公民身份的公众辩论大多集中在移民等领域,这些领域与正式公民身份的关系更为明显,但这场辩论也会影响跨境税收政策。在过去的十年中,一些学者讨论了使用公民身份作为对居住在其国籍国以外的个人的外国来源收入征税的管辖基础。一些作家为美国使用这种基于公民身份的税收(“CBT”)对居住在国外的公民的外国收入征税进行了辩护,而更多的学者则反对这种税收,并建议美国只对居住在美国的美国公民的外国收入征税(“基于居住的税收”,或“RBT”)。本文考虑了围绕使用公民身份作为税收管辖基础的竞争性规范论点,并提炼了每种观点的优缺点。通过这样做,它突出了辩论所依赖的最显著因素,并说明了难以衡量的个人和社会对不同政权的反应预测的重要性。这篇文章最终得出结论,CBT和RBT之间的争论往往过分强调了特定个体的主观情况,而低估了这两种替代制度对美国社会凝聚力的广泛影响。再加上在RBT制度下可能出现的重大居住地中立问题,以及由此产生的可能创造一个居住在国外的富裕美国公民的永久阶层,他们不会受到税收的影响,这些社会凝聚力问题表明,美国应该继续行使基于公民身份的税收管辖权。然而,该条款承认,只有在国税局和国会愿意解决许多居住在国外的公民所面临的重大实际合规问题时,这种CBT制度才能在实践中得到捍卫。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信