8 ms·
Derek Sivers Renounces his US Citizenship
- pinko 14y agoIs anyone else slightly surprised that: (a) this is public info online, and; (b) it's apparently public because, of all things, HIPPA?
- waterlesscloud 14y agoIt's a revenue offset for the actual HIPAA-y part of HIPAA. IE HIPAA will cost the govt money, which will be offset by such and such provisions for raising revenue, including changes to the rules for taxing expatriates who renounced their citizenship for tax avoidance purposes.
- michaelhoffman 14y agoI think it should be public information online. As far as as HIPAA, I was slightly surprised too (although I must say, not very surprised). The long title of HIPAA is "An Act To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to [lots of stuff about health care] and for other purposes." This definitely falls into the "for other purposes."
- trebor 14y agoSort of, but this kind of hypocrisy in US legislation is common. I've turned up only a few articles/links on this matter. Apparently this falls under IRC 6039G, which appears to have nothing to do with HIPPA? Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later than 30 days after the close of each calendar quarter, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register the name of each individual losing United States citizenship (within the meaning of section 877(a)) with respect to whom the Secretary receives information under the preceding sentence during such quarter. http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Internal_Revenue_Code:Sec._6039G._Information_on_individuals_losing_United_States_citizenship http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Internal_Revenue_Code:Se...
- phren0logy 14y agoHIPAA is not really about privacy. The name is a good bit of marketing. Don't take my word, check it out for yourself.
- artmageddon 14y agoAnything beyond the exceptions listed in this link? http://personalinsure.about.com/od/health/a/Hipaa-Definition-Three-Most-Common-Hipaa-Privacy-Exceptions.htm http://personalinsure.about.com/od/health/a/Hipaa-Definition... I'm not really sure what you're referring to but I am curious.
- Kadrith 14y agoHIPAA stands for "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act" there is nothing about privacy in the name.
- MattGrommes 14y agoI don't know about the wording of the law but in the actual implementations I've done it does provide a measure of privacy and accountability. HIPAA-compliant companies are required to keep your data from being seen by anybody you haven't allowed to see it and for like the programmers working on the HIPAA system who might be exposed to your data you're required to not provide raw access to the data and keep a auditing log of who saw it and when.
- jlgreco 14y agoThe US practices 'name and shame' for people who renounce their citizenship. This doesn't make sense until you consider they're probably just bitter about lost taxes.
- _delirium 14y agoIt's not that uncommon for citizenship changes, in either direction, to be public record. In some countries they're even pro-forma passed as laws through parliament, which of course then becomes public record. (In Denmark, at least, only the parliament has the right to grant or revoke Danish citizenship for any reason, an old restriction intended as a protection against the King arbitrarily doing so. In practice the immigration authorities draw up lists of people, and Parliament rubber-stamps the lists a few times a year, reading them into the legislative record.) Another reason to make them public is that otherwise there's no way to determine if someone is actually a U.S. citizen, since there's no central register. For example, someone with a birth certificate showing they were born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen by birth... unless they've renounced it. So to determine if someone is a citizen you need: 1) a copy of their birth certificate; and 2) a list of renunciations so you can check that they aren't on it. Sort of like how key revocation works in crypto— you can't actually haul back the original documents, so you have to publish a revocation list.
- martey 14y agoLooking at the law [1] it seems to be part of Section V, entitled "Revenue Offsets". According to sources I could find online [2], it looks like prior to the law, people who gave up their citizenship were not required to report it to the IRS, even if they were doing so in order to avoid taxes (which is illegal [3]). [1]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ191/html/PLAW-104publ191.htm http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ191/html/PLAW-104pu... [2]: http://www.accidentaluscitizen.com/category/citizenship-renunciation/ http://www.accidentaluscitizen.com/category/citizenship-renu... [3]: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97245,00.html http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,...
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- sheraz 14y agoEduardo Saverin (of Facebook fame) is also on that list. Also in Singapore, I think. I wonder -- what their reasons are other than the US tax burden?
- jwwest 14y agoA cursory glance at Wikipedia suggests his middle initial is P. The middle name listed on the register is Luis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduardo_Saverin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduardo_Saverin
- neilc 14y agoA cursory glance at Wikipedia also suggests that "Since 2010, Saverin has lived in Singapore."
- _delirium 14y agoSingapore is one of dwindling number of countries that rejects the idea of dual citizenship, so it could be that they just wanted to become Singaporean citizens, in which case they have no choice but to renounce their US citizenship as a condition of doing so.
- makmanalp 14y agoSo, looks like he's in Singapore now: http://sivers.org/singapore http://sivers.org/singapore
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- theorique 14y agoDoes anyone know why? Tax purposes, political protest, or what? Also: it's funny that the government misspells the acronym of their own law, HIPAA.
- marshallp 14y agoThere's been talk recently of wealthy americans fleeing the country for tax reasons. If Obama gets reelected, as is expected, he's gonna go all out in his second term (I'm an Obama supporter but I dislike the idea of taxing the entrepreneurs more to fund the lazy government workers).
- ajross 14y ago...Obama has a propsal to tax entrepreneurs? Rant time: I despise what political discourse in this country has become. Rather than talk about policy we've trained everyone (like marshallp here) to regurgitate sound bites about how this or that politician is "gonna go all out" to do whatever evil thing sounds fun this week. Look: tax policy is a bunch of boring laws. You can read them if you like. You can look at proposed laws and make suggestions, and argue with the specifics of what our government is doing or what it proposes to do. But slinging around loaded terms like "taxing entrepreneurs" or "lazy government workers" is hurting us all, and helping no one but the spin doctors. Stop it. Try to be smarter than that. Edit: more spin terms from the reply: "out of our wallets", "my money". Spin if you want, but if you try to argue about policy using language you got from cable news, you'll merely perpetuate the current policy situation (designed almost exclusively to cater to the attention spans of cable news viewers).
- maratd 14y agoSpare me. Everyone is in it to manipulate the government to their benefit. We need a tax policy and a government policy in general, that stays out of our lives and out of our wallets. That way, policy wonks like you have less of my money to spend on your pet peeves. Spend your own money on your hobbies.
- jarek 14y ago
- akoumjian 14y agoI find it more interesting that this publication of names is part of HIPPA. I really wish each piece of legislation was restricted to small units of scope.
- sp332 14y agoAnything significant requires a lot of compromises in the legislature. It makes sense to put all the compromises in one bill so they can all be passed at once. Otherwise after a few pieces had been passed, the other legislators could reneg on their parts.
- akoumjian 14y agoI could be wrong, but I believe a Schulze method would solve that. The compromises could remain independent pieces which pass or don't pass depending on a preference matrix.
- snowwrestler 14y agoThis is a consequence of attempting to make every piece of new legislation revenue neutral. If the main purpose of the bill will cost money, Congress will look elsewhere to find new revenue. That is how a bill about patient data portability ends up having tax implications for expats. It would certainly be within the rules for Congress to just pass spending and revenue bills separately, but it would be politically difficult.
- hornbaker 14y agoOT, but I'm pretty impressed at that site's design, considering it's a .gov property.
- andrewcarpenter 14y agoThanks--we appreciate it! More info about federalregister.gov (the site is fully open source, has a powerful API, etc) can be found on this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2839137 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2839137
- mahmud 14y agoAs someone who holds three nationalities, and is 2 years away from a fourth: I look forward to the day I hold none. Beligerence of the "State" knows no bounds, I hope we can free ourselves from this regressive construct and, once again, live in this world judged by our own merit and character, beholden to none.
- joering2 14y agoyou want to live in a "free state" but yet you are acquiring just another citizenship? it feels to me like a meat lover giving a presentation on a vegan conference how beautiful world would be if we all eat veggies only, lol! btw: how is the custom board patrol treating you when you cross? some countries like in US while pulling up your name they can see all nationalities you have. I would assume they are hostile towards you in some way, right?
- rdtsc 14y ago> some countries like in US while pulling up your name they can see all nationalities you have How does a third world tell US which are its citizens. Doubt there is a global citizenship database? Is there?
- joering2 14y agoI would imagine by now there are some treaties between most nations that exchange such information. There is also passporting system. You gave them any sort of passport (at least here in US) and they will look it up in the computer. They have to be looking up some sort of database, right?) I could imagine someone holding so many citizenships would be very valuable asset to government agency that hire spies.
- refurb 14y agoIndeed there are! This one is just for signals intelligence, but you can be sure that they share a lot more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement "The United Kingdom – United States of America Agreement (UKUSA, /juːkuːˈsɑː/ ew-koo-sah)[1][2] is a multilateral agreement for cooperation in signals intelligence among the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand."
- patrocles 14y agoThe US Tax Code incents US citizens to drop their citizenship before they have 2M USD in net worth. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/877 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/877
- runako 14y agoAt best, you're referring only to US expatriates. The article you linked does not apply to people living in the US at all. Also, political innuendo aside, Sivers doesn't mention tax avoidance in his reasons for moving to Singapore: http://sivers.org/singapore http://sivers.org/singapore
- jlgreco 14y agoIIRC, it is impossible to renounce citizenship (and have it be recognized by the US government) while in the US (being inside a US embassy is I believe not counted as being in the US, and is indeed required). Expatriation is assumed whenever you are talking about (American) citizenship renunciation.
- branola 14y agoAssuming it's true that he's dodging taxes, why would he want to rub everyone's noses in it? I wouldn't expect it to be a particularly well received blog post for example, not to mention potentially endangering his ability to successfully expatriate - since I believe you are not 'officially' allowed to do so for tax reasons.
- rdtsc 14y agoBecause if he did he would be in trouble. Renouncing citizenship for the purpose of tax avoidance is not something US govt. likes very much.
- waterlesscloud 14y agoThe law in question defines things in such a way that it's assumed you are renouncing your citizenship for tax purposes if your income or net worth are over certain thresholds. It provides for exceptions under specific conditions and allows for govt officials to grant documented exceptions if you can convince them to do so. The assumption, though, is probably correct far more often than not.
- mbesto 14y agoNot sure if he reason is tax related, but I will say this...I'm not starting a company abroad without renouncing my US citizenship. I've been living in and out of the US for the last 4 years now and the fact that we get taxed when we are outside of the country is ludicrous to say the least. Are we really that arrogant?
- rdtsc 14y agoI wonder it if it stems from entities like corporations and individuals being treated in a similar fashion by some law. So they don't want to all of the sudden to have every single US company to end up headquartered in the Cayman Islands. Also if they don't do this. It pretty much guarantees that any wealthy individual will leave the country for a tax haven. Say you reach a $10M/year income if your tax rate is 30% in US, given your financial status, it would be very easy for you to move to Mexico or another country and just say "Well, I am not in US anymore, can't tax me". Now in actuality this is already happening. They are just making it harder. They are trying to plug the holes in hunk of Swiss cheese.
- woe 14y agoEven if we accept that this is undesirable, surely it is within the ken of mankind to devise a system that hits these wealthy tax evaders without placing unreasonable burdens on every single overseas national, regardless of their circumstances.
- jakeonthemove 14y agoDon't be hasty - there are a lot of ways to hide your foreign income from the IRS. Find them and do it...
- runjake 14y agoA quick look at US federal records searches pull up at least 3 living "Derek Sivers". Is there any corroboration from "our" Derek Sivers that this is indeed him? Otherwise it seems disingenuous to post this on HN under the assumption.
- cmillllllls 14y agoYou can become a canadian citizen, live in the Bahamas and pay no personal income tax. Canadian citizens are only taxed where they live, and thus, Bahamas doesn't collect personal income taxes as most of their money is made from tourism. cheers!
- run4yourlives 14y agoI'm a little disappointed that this would be posted and not include a commentary about the number of reasons that he would have for doing this. It seems rather useless to simply troll government websites for "revealing" data and make no other comment about it. We can add nothing to this data point beyond conjecture without understanding why a person makes this decision. EDIT: So people have figured out that he's moved to Singapore and married a Singaporean, which makes perfect sense given their stance on citizenship in general. I know a Singaporean - they don't like losing citizens. Namely, because of the extensive government involvement in their lives in the form of everything from social services to national ID cards to military service. The approach is a much different path of democracy than what we'd be used to in North America.
- secure1234 14y agoHe didn't marry a Singaporean. His wife was born in India.
- run4yourlives 14y agoGood point, his wife is Tamil. I didn't delve into his personal details with great gusto. :-) In that case though, given Singapore, it's a good middle ground between India and the US culture wise.
- cletus 14y agoEDIT: 48 upvotes in an hour and this submission just jumped from top 10 to second page? WTF? Honestly, the US is the most invasive government in the "free" world I've had the misfortune to encounter. I can't think of another developed nation that is quite so overbearing when it comes to foreign income. US citizens who haven't been in the US for 40 years and work in other countries STILL need to report their income to the IRS (as an Australian who lives and works in the US, Australia doesn't care about my income as one example). The reporting requirements on tax residents in the US (citizens and non-citizens) is absurd. If I fail to disclose my retirement account in Australia, established well before ever working in the US, the US government can technically imprison me and charge me a penalty of 300% of the value of that retirement account (all in the name of "fighting terrorism"). What really doesn't sit well with me is the presumption of criminality that exists in US law (actual and enforced). The presumption of innocence seems to be some kind of anecdote in history. I know I'll never take up US citizenship. No thanks. I'll stick with Australia/Britain (dual citizen) thanks. In all honesty the only reason I'm even here is because I want to see it (New York in particular) before it's gone. The US reminds me of the crumbling, dying days of the Roman Empire. Don't get me wrong. There are many great things about the US. Up until WWI, the US opened its doors to those seeking riches, a new life, freedom from religious persecution and any number of other terrible things in the Old World. In the span of a century (1800 to 1900), the US had turned itself from an agrarian backwater into an industrial superpower, a legacy that has lasted until the present day. The US has certainly played a key part in the technological progress of the 20th century. But now the government seems to consist of self-interested parties who are happy to persecute citizens of every country including its own. It really seems like it's lost its way and I'm not sure how it comes back from that.
- run4yourlives 14y agoEvery country has requirements of its citizens. A lot force you to serve in the Armed Forces. The US doesn't do that. While I agree that the US isn't as welcoming as it once was and has always had an onerous tax code, for foreigners it is still a huge benefit to work and do business there. The funny thing is that Citizenship in the US has been essentially devalued by non-citizen working categories that have been developed in order to make the economy function. Unlike Europe or Canada, the US as a country doesn't really provide anything substantial to its citizens that make moving from a green card to a full citizen really worthwhile unless you care that much about voting. Green Cards (or equivalent legal status) are gold though. Save the passports for EU countries or CAN/AUS. :-)
- jebblue 14y agoI'm pretty sure I'd not pick that country to live in: http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20101022-243590.html http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Singapore/Story/A1S... Short link: http://goo.gl/0vEQj http://goo.gl/0vEQj
- michaelcampbell 14y agoTo be fair, the guy in the story you're linking to overstayed his visa by over 6 mos. This cannot be seriously considered an "oversight", and Singapore is not known for leniency to lawbreakers, which he clearly is. He rolled the dice, and lost.
- jebblue 14y agoI agree they were enforcing their laws but to me they seem a bit harsh. I'm glad that in the US you don't get harsh punishment for being here illegally.
- michaelcampbell 14y ago...yet. Will be interesting to see what happens after the next presidential election.
- jebblue 14y agoI think the US will never create a law stating to cane people who are caught here illegally; regardless who occupies the White House.
- michaelcampbell 14y agoI agree, but there are other ways to do "harsh punishment". Still, I get your point; the US will probably never be as harsh as many other places.
- Mz 14y agoOT: Anyone know of online resources regarding dual citizenship issues? (Specifically German-American.) Thanks.
- woe 14y agoGermany has a very restrictive dual nationality policy. Though technically their rules do permit an immigrant to apply to be permitted to keep his original nationality, this is not something you can expect.
- Mz 14y agoThanks for replying, though I seem to have given the wrong impression. I am a former military wife. One of my children was born in Germany. I have told him it would be a bad idea to just show up in Germany. My understanding is he has dual citizenship and could potentially be drafted. The discussion here made me wonder if there might be more info online regarding potential repercussions of his status. I have no plans at this time to move outside the country, so I was not inquiring about pursuing dual citizenship. Again, thanks for responding.
- woe 14y agoAh, OK. Germany has always been a "jus sanguinis" country, meaning that the basic principle of its nationality law is blood descent. This stands in contrast with "jus soli" countries like the United States where the basic principle is place of birth. A child born in Germany is not automatically a German national. It used to be that birth on German soil was completely irrelevant to questions of nationality, but children born in Germany since 2000 can acquire German nationality by birth if one of the parents was a long-term permanent resident. I question whether a military baby would qualify, as a soldier stationed in Germany would presumably not be there under a German permanent residence permit. Assuming for the sake of argument that your son did have German nationality, he would certainly be subject to the draft - if it still existed. Germany ended compulsory service last year. But this does point to a larger issue: anybody with multiple nationalities is fully subject to all the legal obligations imposed on citizens of each country. (I am not an immigration lawyer, but I've sent a lot of time researching nationality issues. I've also spent some time in German embassies: I have a German wife and a child who is therefore also German by virtue of jus sanguinis.)
- noahc 14y agoFor those wondering about the Tax issue, I doubt that is the case because of: http://sivers.org/trust http://sivers.org/trust He put the company into a charitable trust, which isn't ever taxed except for on what he receives from the trust, which is set to the lowest amount possible.
- patrocles 14y ago~20M dollar exit; in the US, trusts have to pay out 5% per year; he has a ~1M income provided the trust invests well.
- noahc 14y agoMy understanding is that ~1M a year isn't enough to justify most people loosing their US citizenship over. However, Derek isn't exactly most people. My general sense on the issue is that money, in particular taxes, is something Derek worries about.
- noahc 14y agojust noticed this. I wanted to say, "Not something he cares about"
- mariuolo 14y agoWho?