is he still a US citizen ?
I know he was born on a US base in UK, and Americans HAVE to pay taxes where ever they live to the IRS but seems funny he is still a US citizen
Two US government tentacles this week snared John McAfee, accusing the one-time antivirus mogul of tax evasion and breaking securities law. The claims brought by the Department of Justice and stock-market regulator the SEC against the 74-year-old founder of McAfee – who has long-since departed the company – could potentially …
I guess the real question is - would any other country give McAfee citizenship? Most countries (at least those I've looked at) seem to require you to have settled in the country for several years before you are allowed to apply for citizenship. They often also have a requirement that you are "of good character". Both criteria might be a bit tricky for McAfee to satisfy.
Cyprus gives citizenship in exchange for money. It's how the rich brexitters are keeping their EU passports.
There's a fair number of countries which have two possible lists of criteria for citizenship. One is a boring list that contains such points as those you quoted. The other has a single line, its exact wording varies, but it boils down to "bring us a suitcase of cash and you get a passport, no question asked".
For example, Malta.
That's not the question. The US will consider him a legal citizen regardless of how many other citizenships or passports he holds unless he renounces his citizenship, in person, at a US Embassy or Consulate.
I don't know. Bill Clinton did that once, yet he still got elected President.
There's various things you can do that can get your US citizenship revoked but I suspect that they all depend on the US authorities deciding to act on them. Only real way is to apply to renounce citizenship and that can't be done until you've established that all your tax returns are upto date and paid.
My younger son was born in California when I was working there - he "left" aged 4 months and has only been back for three 1-2 week holidays since then but when he earns over something like £10k (not a problem as he's still a student though I think he needs to report his savings accounts) he'll need to start filing US tax returns. On the positive side he was able to fill in an online form to give his name, address and SS number and got sent a $1200 "stimulus check" plus a letter from theDonald thanking him as an American for supporting the USA thorugh COVID! (I was slightly amazed that basically filling in a webpage to say "I'm an American, this is my address - you don'tknow anythkng about me as I've never paid any US taxes" was sufficient to generate a $1200 check in the post!)
"My younger son was born in California when I was working there - he "left" aged 4 months and has only been back for three 1-2 week holidays since"
Better start filing tax returns or They might notice and put a tab out on him.
I think that you can opt-out of citizenship if born on US soil of non-US parents, but it's an automatic thing that needs to be gotten rid of.
The IRS requires taxes to be paid by all US "Persons". More encompassing than just being a Citizen.
Yes, it's rather droll that USians have to pay income tax on earnings abroad that presumably never touch US soil, but apply that thought to US companies (e.g. Apple with ~$200Bn abroad)? Never, perish the thought.
Surely with McAfee's wealth he could make a new McAfee Inc to hold all his cash abroad and be immune to this, employing Trumps accountants to certify that haircuts and other living expenses are actually tax deductable, so that they can't come after him that way? It costs <£100 to register in the UK, and I'm guessing similar order of magnitude elsewhere, so it probably makes financial (if not ethical) sense...
You don't pay tax on cash balances. You pay tax on the income that generates those cash balances.
The sorts of things that work for large companies with lots of shareholders don't necessarily work for a company with a single shareholder, no matter how large that company is. The IRS can't point to Tim Cook and say that Apple's income is his income, because most of it belongs to other shareholders, and he needs their agreement to get his share of it. A hypothetical McAfee 2 Inc would be a different matter.
By the way, the UK hosts way more companies than anywhere else in the world, possibly more even than the rest of the world put together. There are single buildings in London that have more companies than the whole of the British Virgin Islands. Other countries, it tends to cost a lot more to register a company.
> You pay tax on the income that generates those cash balances.
Yes, the IRS is chasing him for income from his digital currency adventures. If that income was held in a company, and merely spent for his personal gain (similar to Trump), then his bill would be a lot lower (assuming he can get away with such expenditure for personal gain as tax deductible). Until the company relocated the cash back to USA, it would not become liable for US taxes, just the local corporation tax so he can pick a friendly/convenient tax haven to host the company
Last I checked, the filing fee for an LLC was under $100 US. Although paperwork costs from lawyers can cost thousands (mine did back in the 90's) the LLCs were set up over here to make it possible for individuals to incorporate their small businesses affordably. LLCs have certain restrictions on income and ownership, though, and the tax rates are "individual" rates. 'S' corporations (what I have) can actually issue private stock and shareholders literally "share" the income or loss of the company based n number of shares owned [so it works well for partnerships], with fewer restrictions on revenue and so forth (high revenue might mean you pay an alternative minimum tax and hit limits on various kinds of expenses). But the cost of establishing the corporations is a lot of lawyer pocket lining, and not so much the government fees associated with establishing and maintaining them.
But if you earn millions per year in revenue, you probably need a 'C' corporation, and that's typically a LOT more involved, with quarterly meetings and reporting and so forth.
"Last I checked, the filing fee for an LLC was under $100 US."
It varies by state. I believe is around $800 in California. Even if you form an LLC in New Mexico where it's cheap and easy, if you have a "Presence" in California, you would have to pay a "foreign corporation" fee. What the definition of a presence actually is is a gray area. If you have a sales rep, that might be enough. Certainly an office or physical address would do it.
actually, it's my understanding that "foreign income" is NOT taxable unless you bring the money into the USA. So if you are an entertainer and earn money in, let's say, Spain, and you keep it in Spain, then I'm pretty sure that doesn't count as "income" until you bring it back into the USA. Similar for state income taxes (which vary from state to state, some having NO such tax), which don't tax income earned in other states. Notwithstanding, I Am Not a CPA.
But you STILL have to declare it and file your taxes every year. "Willfully not filing" - yeah, that's not a good thing for him. I believe Al Capone was taken down on tax evasion...
In a perfect world he would...but Trump apparently filed. The fact that his tax team played the rules like a pinball machine could result in big fines and/or bankruptcy but probably aren't going to lead to prison.
McAfee is in a different situation if he didn't file at all.
The IRS says: "Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside." which seems pretty unequivocal to me.
Although there are exemptions, as you mention, they still expect you to file a tax return (which as someone who has PAYE, seems incredibly old fashioned).
I wonder how much tax the US collects from it's overseas citizens, and it it's worth it?
"I wonder how much tax the US collects from it's overseas citizens, and it it's worth it?"
Tina Turner moved to Switzerland and renounced her US citizenship because of taxes. She had retired from show business and the cost of paying an accountant that could do US tax filings was massively expensive. If you are an accountant, you can move to another country and make loads more money doing US tax filings along with what you can earn with a regular accountancy company.
"actually, it's my understanding that "foreign income" is NOT taxable unless you bring the money into the USA. So if you are an entertainer and earn money in, let's say, Spain, and you keep it in Spain, then I'm pretty sure that doesn't count as "income" until you bring it back into the USA."
You would still have to declare it. If you put the money in a bank in Spain, they'd report that to the IRS as part of FACTA so if you don't declare it and give them a good reason why you shouldn't pay tax on it, they'll take it all.
Get paid in cash is my advice. If you get paid a bunch, buy a really expensive guitar, declare it along with a receipt for a fraction of what it's worth to show to customs and sell it when you get back. Take a bog standard laptop and replace it with a nearly new MacBook to flog off when you get back. One laptop outbound, one laptop inbound. Any number of small expensive items can be used that way. You do take a chance on being able to get a good price on what you bring back, but if you do a little research, it's not that hard.
Not quite. A US citizen is taxed on their global income. However, there are exceptions and deductions. For example, there is a foreign tax credit. If a US citizen resides in Spain, then the tax paid to Spain is a credit, and the citizen only owes the difference (assuming the US tax rate is higher than the Spanish). Also, there is a deduction if one lives more than 330 days of the year outside of the US, then the first $100k is deducted from the income that is taxable. Basically, only the high earners will owe any US income tax when residing elsewhere.
Corporations dodge taxes in a different way. An individual cannot be two different individuals, but a corporation can. US corporations register a different corporation in a tax haven country and funnel considerable profits into that corp, a tax haven country being one that charges a low tax rate and allows the registration of an essentially non-existent corp, sometimes nothing more than a post box.
. You see, in this case the money never actually made it to a US corp, so is not taxable by the US. However, to get the money back to the US corp amounts to the fake corp paying the real corp, and then it becomes taxable. This is known as "repatriating" the cash in the global business world.
" but apply that thought to US companies (e.g. Apple with ~$200Bn abroad)? "
That gets sticky. Money made selling a product outside the US that was manufactured outside the US where the money was never in the US (or even in US currency). This is where really big companies have a big advantage. They can earn profits in a low tax jurisdiction and claim expenses in another to wipe out any profits where the taxes are high. It's not the company's fault the accounting is done that way. Blame it on politicians for being so poor at writing tax codes (or corrupt). Why would Apple want to pay a 28%-35% tax on profits to bring the money into the US when they may be sending it back out again? The place where that money goes might also want a chunk of it as it hits the local banks.
No, once an American always an American (and subject to American taxes on worldwide income) unless you pay $3k to renounce citizenship having demoinstrated that all texes are paid. Also, technically, if you renounce citizenship to avoid paying US taxes then you are permanently banned from entering the USA.
Stupid McAfee/Trump, if only he hadn't run for President as the Libertarian/Republican candidate, he could have quietly laundered his Bitcoin/Russian money and lived out his life in peace.
Can I point out a couple of obvious things?
Look at Trump's taxes, he's turning borrowed money into income to keep afloat. So there's no way the version of assets he told the Internal Revenue Service and the version of assets he told his borrowers officially, is the same. So the next bombshell to drop is the bank fraud, as the other set of numbers become available and the two don't match up.
Secondly, you realize they don't just want to kill Obama care right? You know they want to kill Medicare too? It wasn't just opposition to Medicare FOR ALL, from Republicans, it was opposition to socialized medicine of all kinds. Anything that interferes with insurance company profits and the free market. Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court Judge they want to appoint, is their hopes for ending socialized medicine, all types, not just Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid too.
Estimates from the death toll for removing Obamacare was up to 60k deaths a year, Medicare covers some sixty million US old folks, without healthcare those old people will drop like flies, hundreds of thousands of them will die, even after the pandemic is over. Trump is part of the legal challenge to Obamacare due to be heard in mid November before the Supreme Court. She's already said she'll kill Obamacare, those 60k/year deaths will be dwarfed by the total deaths she'll ultimately sign up to when they get a Medicare challenge in front of her.
"She will serve on the Supreme Court, that's all."
She will kill a lot of people by playing partisan games with healthcare.
She will vote to kill Obamacare, slated to come before the Supreme court mid November, as per her previous stated view. When they get onto challenging Medicare she'll kill that too. She's made her position absolutely clear which is why she's their pick. Legal arguments haven't been put to her, let alone analyzed, yet she's stated her opinion already.
"Oral arguments for the Trump administration-backed lawsuit to strike down the Affordable Care Act (ACA), will be heard at the Supreme Court on Nov. 10, just one week after the presidential election."
"If successful, the lawsuit would result in 20 million people losing health insurance while the country is in the middle of a pandemic. President Trump and congressional Republicans have no replacement plan."
But she didn't kill them right? She just voted to take away their healthcare, in the middle of a pandemic and they died from lack of healthcare. They should have made better life choices.
And she won't be killing the rest of them either, when she votes to kill Medicare, all these old folks die from lack of basic medicines, that's not her fault either. She just annulled the law on technical grounds that she looked for as an excuse to back her previous partisan claims.
Well at least she'll tell herself that.
Oh yeah? So how come so many people I know have come to the US to get medical treatment despite "how good government healthcare is"? One of them living in Canada was put on a 3 year waiting list for surgery that could adversely affect his health in less that 3 months! He just came to the US and had it done, and payed out of his pocket. That is just ONE example I know of; I'm not even talking about what my cousins in Germany have been through; or even friends I know in the UK.
When people talk about the US having a shit healthcare system, they're talking about the average healthcare. They're not saying that it's impossible to get top quality healthcare in the US (if you have enough money), they're pointing out that almost 10% of the US population have absolutely no healthcare at all.
I guess this highlights the different ways of thinking about healthcare. In Europe, when we talk about it, we generally referring to the whole system, covering the whole country. Whereas, an America talking about healthcare usually seems to only be talking about their individual health.
(To answer your question, my best guess is that someone who went to the US to get an operation did it because they wanted a holiday. If you're willing to pay US prices you can get equivalent treatment in the UK straight away. We still have private healthcare, it's just not necessary for most people).
Stupid McAfee. if only he hadn't run for President as the Libertarian candidate, he could have quietly laundered his Bitcoin money and lived out his life in peace.
He never actually ran AS a Libertarian Party candidate. In his dreams maybe, but his own wet dreams don't make him an LP candidate.
Obamacare,,, my insurance doubled and coverage was reduced, same for most "employed" US citizens. Thanks to that health insurance law, as a single healthy person I pay over $600 a month now. It used to be under $300. I don't understand why anyone liked him besides his skin color, since he didn't do anything besides raise taxes at home and drop bombs on more countries than any president in history.
But your comment about the parallels, well might want to check the news today of where all that Russian money came from and went to, since it was just declassified.
"...Cruz cites the increase as evidence of how the ACA has 'driven up the cost of health care.' In fact, that increase in employer-sponsored premiums is lower than the premium increase for the previous eight-year period, both in raw dollars and in the rate of growth. The total average family plan cost increased by 97 percent from 2000 to 2008, but it went up by 43 percent from 2008 to 2016."
ACA also means someone can't be charged more or refused coverage for having a so-called pre-existing condition, which seems rather essential to me.
(Speaking as someone who's been on El Reg's company healthcare plan in the States since 2013.)
Most folks I knew lost their healthcare completely after the ACA because their employers said Obama was going to give it to them. Of course that was balderdash, but that is what they got told by their employers. I'm sure they were going to lose it anyway; but Obama lying about doctors choice and other technical details, didn't help.
The one thing neither party will admit is that if all of the country were allowed to go to get insurance from non-profit associations that could go across state lines; the ACA might have worked. That is one reason Kansas Governor Sebelius was sent to Obama's administration, as she successfully defended a buy out of one such association Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas. I really wondered if it was to keep her quiet about such a radical move; because the for profit insurance companies have still successfully blocked any such move, and you will not hear one politician try to suggest it as a solution to the healthcare crisis.
Discard all those under 38 is it.
Discard all those not multi millionaires or billionaires already.
Discard those who were not born in the US.
Discard those who are not at a minimum right wing (Democrats are centre right if you are being generous)
Discard those with principals who will not do what business tells (bribes) then to do.
Pretty soon you don’t have many options.
Give it another 12 years and most likely the Dems will be as fascistic as the GOP is now.
They always feel they have to appeal to 'wavering' Republican voters with Republican policies rather than give their own party voters anything at all but platitudes. That means they will continue to move to the right.
Just want to point out I'm from the UK and can plainly see this so...
I see a few Dems in denial there. You need to stop that.
But just remember my words as Biden (then Harris in two years after she takes over) and the senior Dems -
Won't increase the minimum wage to a living wage.
Wont increase taxes for the 1% and Corporations, just you.
Won't improve college tuition fees.
Won't get behind Medicare for All.
Keep lessening Wall St regulations.
Keep increasing the military budget.
Keep taking big pharma and fossil fuel lobby money.
Keep on fracking.
Start a couple more illegal wars and up a few existing ones.
You'll maybe think..."Hmmm what's the difference here? Who are these people trying to appeal to?"
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
He's wrong, but probably doesn't realize it so perhaps not lying. He's probably quoting some other right wing liar who made up something that Trumpies could circulate around in their little alternative facts bubble and provide an excuse for Trump paying less in taxes than a schoolteacher does.
The Times article clearly says the $750 amount is on line 56 of the 2016/2017 return. That's the line for taxes owed, not the line that tells you the size of check you have to write (i.e. after estimated tax payments, withholding, etc. are taken into account)
So this claim is 100% untrue, and it is trivially proven to be so by reading the Times article, and if necessary downloading a copy of the 2016/2017 1040 form to see what line 56 is. Trumpies never fact check when they see someone in their bubble share information that's pro-Trump. They accept it without question and repeat it, and shout down anyone who fact checks them.
This is old tax forms, so the line numbers don't match the current forms.
But 'total credits' includes form 3800, which includes business tax paid.
So the magic of $750 was not that it was total tax. The magic was that every year, after deducting expenses and tax paid, it came to /exactly/ $750. Which suggests that the tax returns were a form of fiction, written to get a particular result.
But that's true of all complex tax returns in the USA. The tax system is such a mess that even the IRS doesn't understand it, and their tax revues are a form of fiction, written to get a particular result.
I'm sorry. I give this one to Trump.
you have the actual evidence to justify your claim?
It's my understanding that possessing illegal copies of someone's tax returns is a federal offense. So NYT can _CLAIM_ they have them, but actually having them could get them arrested. And should. Because if they DID have them, they would have been OBTAINED ILLEGALLY. Publishing them would not only prove that point, but would also expose THEM to being prosecuted for violating U.S. law. it would be the journalistic equivalent of a suicide jacket.
It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information.
Proof, please. Or else your claim would appear to be part of the LIBEL the NYT would allegedly have engaged in by claiming they've seen the returns and then just making stuff up and publishing it as if it were true.
bombastic bob downvoted the first amendment? I am shocked, and much amused.
A little light relief after the Vice Presidential 'debate'. "Please Mr Vice President, please".
Next time give the moderator a gun. At least a paintball gun or a BB gun.
A fly landed on Mike Pence's weird hairdo. The idiom is you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, but in truth most flies prefer bullshit, and this proves it.
that the under-staffed US tax crowd would have their hands full just chasing down the crooks, er alleged tax evaders, in Trumps phone book, without wasting their time on aged has-beens.
Oh, I forgot, the cabinet member for the IRS, Charles Rettig, sole purpose is to protect Trump and his friends from investigation. Until 2021 January 20, that is.
Sounds like the IRS would rather prosecute poor people for claiming too much Earned Income Tax Credit, rather than pursing any portion of the $200 billion estimated that will be owed each year by the top 1%.
Priorities, I guess
Given that the IRS has the ability to pursue American citizens all over the world for tax, even if those persons haven't lived in America for *decades*, where is the 'freedom' that America so proudly espouses? Land of the free? Land of the enslaved, surely?
Seriously, why would anyone want to be an American citizen?
NO SPOILERS!!!!!! I've recently come across that podcast and have downloaded a few episodes to listen to (as a Limey, some of the names aren't familiar to me - so just going to listen to the ones I heard off) and have found them quite interesting.
Though I will ask - L. Ron Hubbard has 4 episodes, McAfee has two, does that mean he's half the bastard of the scientology bloke?
No, just that there's lots more documented material to work from. I won't give spoilers, and I have a huge backlog of episodes to get through now that I no longer commute and don't get time to listen.
I'm tempted to get my own machete, though. And bolt-cutters. (you may find this a common theme to the series...)
McAfee thought he could get away without paying accountants. There's the problem right there.
Trump can pay little to no taxes because he pays Gandalf level accountants to do his taxes. The wizards cast Asset Invisibility and hide the wealth.
For us little people, it's cheaper to pay the tax man than pay the accountant. We don't have enough in the way of assets to hide, let alone pay wizards to cloak.
You will pay, one way or another. McAfee tried to avoid paying.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021