mbstone

According to the current version of S. 1813, the transportation bill now being considered by the U.S. Senate, effective 1/1/13 the State Department will not issue, and will be required to revoke, the passports of anyone owing $50,000 or more to the IRS. Taxpayers with an approved installment plan or Offer In Compromise would be exempt. Passports of affected persons would be confiscated upon their return to the U.S.

Under current law, passports can be denied issuance, or revoked, for persons owing $2,500 or more in child support; my understanding is the State Department does not presently use this authority to revoke passports after issuance.

However you may feel about tax obligors, it seems to me that this will be a slippery slope. Congress might in the future lower the amount to $25,000, or $5,000, or could revoke your permission to fly domestically. Or they could adopt other, lesser criteria for revoking passports or travel permission, such as unpaid parking tickets.

Since the era of Homeland Security, citizens and permanent residents now require passports to re-enter the U.S.; and permission for domestic travel is now granted or denied by the federal government at airport check-in. In my view, this is not readily distinguishable from a system of "internal passports" and "exit visas," once an attribute of closed societies such as the former Soviet Union:

The passport can also be used to limit mobility, monitor movement and place of residence. In the Soviet Union this type of permit was known as a propiska. The use of a propiska controlled movement and bound a person to his or her permanent place of residence. It was also necessary to get a job, to get married, or to receive medical treatment. This system was first introduced in Russia by the Tsars to control population movements. The Bolsheviks eliminated this system, but Stalin reinstated it in 1932. Historically, internal passports were used by authoritarian states in France and Russia to keep track of the movement of the peasants. In the case of the Soviet Union, monitoring people and restricting movement was accomplished through the use of an internal passport on a much grander scale. The internal passport served as a “state’s principal means for discriminating among its subjects in terms of rights and privileges.. (and) may be used to regulate the movements of certain groups of subjects to restrict their entry into certain areas, and to deny them the freedom to depart their places of residence.” In order for a Soviet citizen to travel abroad they had to obtain both an internal passport, and an external passport and an exit visa.

I don't know whether or not the House of Representatives version of the bill includes this provision. Write your congresscritters.

We Will Never Forget

On the other hand, can we revoke the passports of legislators that waste our tax dollars on ridiculous crap?

Same thing in my book.

GUWonder

Ironically, the reason for denial/revocation of passports for child support dues runs counter to this proposal to deny/revoke passports for tax dues. Many of those most impacted by this DHS and IRS-backed proposal will be people with cross-border family relationships where the children live in a country different than the (other/primary) custodial parent; and so this proposal (when enacted) will result in more children having less parental support and presence.

Stupid proposal, and yet it is likely to get passed into law. I am just curious if this proposal is crafted in such a way as to result in the US violating international law obligations. I would be surprised if it does not involve such violation.

It will be interesting to see how many IRS-related errors result in people getting stranded in the US for long enough that they end up unable to visit a dying relative abroad or attend a funeral abroad. That will be another awful result of this.

flyinbob

Actually the passport should only be revoked for reentry into the US. Let them go, but if you want back in, pay up!

Yes, I'd like to see some sort of similar penalty for those who have shoved this country into a debt hole that we won't get out of in any of our lifetimes. But they are too busy rewarding themselves I guess.

Allan38103

This proposal can't be true. We're not thinking of adopting third-world type tactics for for own people. This looks more like an eastern european police state than the Land of the Free.

Next thing they will have uniformed guards making make us "show our papers" whenever we get to a domestic checkpoint.

mahohmei

So now I'm wondering:

You're a US citizen living abroad permanently, and you have no plans or need to ever set foot in the US again. You have no outstanding contracts, liabilities, warrants, military service, or child support in the US, and you didn't "flee". You maintain a current US passport, which you use for all your travel.

We all know that the US imposes income tax on citizens who live abroad. Let's say you've been forgetting to do this, or your tax liability would be zero, so you simply don't bother to file.

Does this mean the US Department of State would refuse to issue you a US passport, thus stranding you abroad? Maybe expats should start working towards citizenship in their country of residence.

I've always wondered how the IRS can enforce income tax collection from a US citizen who lives abroad but has no US ties and never comes to the US. Are there any countries out there whose IRS equivalents have the gonads to tell the IRS to Foxtrot Oscar and refuse to fork over US citizens' income information?

GUWonder

Given US citizens have a right to re-enter the US, your suggestion wouldn't hold up. And in practice, your suggestion would result in US violation of international legal agreements to which the US has chosen to bind itself.

That said, I think you may be commenting in jest.

Current or former legislative and executive branch government officials -- much like the general public which has supported them previously or currently -- don't travel much -- if at all -- outside of the US. That is mostly except when the taxpayers are picking up the tab or they are enjoying the benefits of the revolving door to a private sector that loves that government officials are eager to do their bidding in and/or out of government office in a way that is little more than formalized corruption legally allowed.

With regard to your first question, perhaps it would result in a stranding or -- more likely -- a limited purpose passport good for return to the US under a rather narrow set of conditions. But the passports already issued would be valid until printed expiration date, seizure upon re-entry or other invalidation/seizure/loss/theft of passport occurs. In other words, the currently valid US passport would remain valid until the US person presents themselves at a US port of entry -- perhaps even a US port of entry that is in a country other than the US (e.g. many Canadian airports where US pre-clearance facilities exist) -- and is recognized as the legitimate bearer of a US citizen passport.

With regard to the question in your last paragraph above, the US has tax treaties with various countries -- most developed countries and increasingly with the largest developing countries -- that include mutual legal assistance elements that cover cross-border asset tracing and/or collection efforts.

PoliceStateSurvivor

What do you mean "next thing"? It is already happening.

Try driving I-8/I-10 corridor. You will encounter quite a few checkpoints staffed with uniformed armed thugs demanding that you prove your legal status. As I have posted some time ago, one of those thugs told that I could be subject to indefinite detention if I travel without papers.

You might luck out if your skin is white and you do not have a foreign accent.

Lest you dismiss it as paranoia, Google "U.S. Citizen deported". You will find a number of horror stories.

mahohmei

If a US citizen gets naturalized in a country with a tax treaty (Canada, UK...) and does _not_ renounce their US citizenship, are they off the hook for US taxes? Or does the treaty require sharing for dual citizens? Let's assume that this newly minted dual national has no need for a US passport and doesn't care if their US citizenship is revoked.

If your new country of citizenship _does_ still report your income to the IRS, is there really anything the IRS can do?

IIRC, US citizenship renunciations are quite rare; I've heard a figure of 500 per year, peaking around 2000 per year during the Vietnam conflict.

GUWonder

Response to Q1: US tax dues determined by the IRS remain due from the US citizens even if such US citizens have citizenship with that other country or another.

Response to Q2: There is no clear answer to that, and it is an issue that is increasingly coming up with regard to FATCA compliance which is going after banks that may be dealing with US citizens, many of whom have dual citizenship status but may not use their US passports with those foreign banks.

I will get back to the rest later.

cbn42

The slippery slope started when the US started issuing passports in the first place. By creating a document that is needed to travel out of the country, the government gave itself the power to decide who can and can't travel internationally.

I have no problem with this proposal. Anyone who owes more than $50,000 in tax should be either in jail or in bankruptcy court, depending on the circumstances.

ls17031

You do not need a passport to leave the United States.

stifle

You do by air. Of course it need not be a US passport.

RichardKenner

I agree with most everything else in your post, but the above is wrong. Permanent residents can still enter with just their Green Cards. US Citizens can enter with alternate proof of citizenship at land borders or at pre-screening points (such as in Canada or Shannon).

GUWonder

Not only is a US passport not required to travel internationally, the US started issuing passports in the first place so that governments would be less likely to exercise power over which US citizens can and can't travel internationally or return to the US.

The US government doesn't think that most such persons should be either in jail or in bankruptcy court. Both of your desires would result in the US collecting less money than is already the case.

The IRS having a debt claim over a citizen or other person/party does not mean the person/party is a criminal or even necessarily financially insolvent.