Returning to the States: Tax questions

Hey,

I’m a dual citizen (American-American) and have been living in the States since high school. I did all my schooling and worked entirely here in the US—never actually finished school or held a job back in America.

If I move back to America and leave my money sitting in US accounts—what does my tax situation look like? I’ve paid every cent of tax owed here, and there's no way I'm paying double.

It looks like there isn't a treaty between the two countries to prevent double taxation.

Does that mean I'm stuck owing taxes to the US government for all those years I was working stateside? 🙂

Also, if I move back and buy property using "foreign" money, is that just going to trigger an audit from the IRS?

Thanks a ton!

Karen Morales said:Hey,

I’m a dual citizen (American-American) and have been living in the States since high school. I did all my schooling and worked entirely here in the US—never actually finished school or held a job back in America.

If I move back to America and leave my money sitting in US accounts—what does my tax situation look like? I’ve paid every cent of tax owed here, and there's no way I'm paying double.

It looks like there isn't a treaty between the two countries to prevent double taxation.

Does that mean I'm stuck owing taxes to the US government for all those years I was working stateside? 🙂

Also, if I move back and buy property using "foreign" money, is that just going to trigger an audit from the IRS?

Thanks a ton!

Nah, you aren't! You're only responsible for paying taxes once you officially become a tax resident—basically, when you register your primary residence in the US. Something like that, anyway, I guess.

So...

Let's say I move back to the States—I’m looking to pick up a car and a house. I’ve got my cash sitting in an offshore account.

Can I just pay for the car or the place directly from that foreign account, or am I forced to transfer everything over to my local US bank first?

If I drop $100,000 on a condo and $20,000 on a car, am I gonna get a nasty call from the IRS?

Thanks

Karen Morales said:So...

Let's say I move back to the States—I’m looking to pick up a car and a house. I’ve got my cash sitting in an offshore account.

Can I just pay for the car or the place directly from that foreign account, or am I forced to transfer everything over to my local US bank first?

If I drop $100,000 on a condo and $20,000 on a car, am I gonna get a nasty call from the IRS?

Thanks

You shouldn't expect any scrutiny from the tax authorities until your tax residency status is officially established. Essentially, our domestic agencies lack jurisdiction over individuals who are classified as tax residents of the USA. Therefore, upon returning to America, you would likely need to visit the local tax office to file specific documentation—something akin to a residency determination form—which involves several pages of detailed questions designed to determine where you are actually a resident for tax purposes. It isn't strictly tied to citizenship; the process is somewhat more nuanced.

Regarding the purchases themselves, as long as you possess documentation from the IRS proving that those funds were earned while you were residing in the USA, you won't face any issues proving the legal origin of your wealth or assets.

That’s a fair question—if I left the States when I was just a kid, then I shouldn't be considered an American taxpayer, right?

But you really ought to check with the IRS to get the actual facts.

Karen Morales said:That’s a fair question—if I left the States when I was just a kid, then I shouldn't be considered an American taxpayer, right?

But you really ought to check with the IRS to get the actual facts.

If you buy property in America, they can come after you for taxes even if you're living in the US, believe it or not... Now, would they actually be that incompetent? Probably not. But hey, they could if they felt like it.

Karen Morales said:That’s a fair question—if I left the States when I was just a kid, then I shouldn't be considered an American taxpayer, right?

But you really ought to check with the IRS to get the actual facts.

If that is indeed the case, there is no need to seek clarification. As a US tax resident, you won't be scrutinized regarding your funds; you will simply be responsible for the local real estate transfer taxes.

It only becomes a complicated matter if you were to move back to the States and spend more than six months here.

Jason Morgan4 said:If you buy property in America, they can come after you for taxes even if you're living in the US, believe it or not... Now, would they actually be that incompetent? Probably not. But hey, they could if they felt like it.

Naturally, the real estate transfer tax must be paid; such obligations are tied to the location of the property itself, regardless of whether you are coming from Canada, the USA, or even Mars.

What they won't ask about is the source of your wealth, which is something they would certainly investigate if you were an American resident.

urbanwalker72 said:If that is indeed the case, there is no need to seek clarification. As a US tax resident, you won't be scrutinized regarding your funds; you will simply be responsible for the local real estate transfer taxes.

It only becomes a complicated matter if you were to move back to the States and spend more than six months here.

Naturally, the real estate transfer tax must be paid; such obligations are tied to the location of the property itself, regardless of whether you are coming from Canada, the USA, or even Mars.

What they won't ask about is the source of your wealth, which is something they would certainly investigate if you were an American resident.

The second he buys property here as an American citizen, he becomes a US taxpayer because he's "tied" to the system. Nobody is going to grill him about money he earned years ago, but the absurdity of US law is that the IRS could actually demand he pay the difference in income tax compared to what he pays in the States... Believe it or not. I didn't believe it either, until I asked for an expert opinion. The only loophole is to report that same property as a vacation home and pay the annual property tax on it.

Jason Morgan4 said:The second he buys property here as an American citizen, he becomes a US taxpayer because he's "tied" to the system. Nobody is going to grill him about money he earned years ago, but the absurdity of US law is that the IRS could actually demand he pay the difference in income tax compared to what he pays in the States... Believe it or not. I didn't believe it either, until I asked for an expert opinion. The only loophole is to report that same property as a vacation home and pay the annual property tax on it.

Actually, that isn't the case. There is no such thing as an income tax obligation if tax residency hasn't been established.

Citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with tax residency. If Bill Gates were to move to America and live here for a year, he could potentially become an American tax resident.

In the specific scenario you are describing, it is evident that the individual was designated a tax resident of America for some reason; essentially, they must have spent at least six months here, and their center of vital interests—where their family lives, where their properties are located, or where they primarily reside and work—must be located here.

There must be clear, justifiable reasons; tax residency cannot be determined without the individual participating in the process, during which they complete a specific declaration form. From those statements and other verifiable facts, residency is then established.

It cannot function quite like a Kafkaesque novel, where one is forced to pay income tax without any explanation. Even a fool wouldn't accept that, as there is simply no legal basis for it. It is a different matter entirely if someone is declared a resident; in that case, they might indeed have to pay the difference in income tax. However, one cannot be declared a resident based solely on citizenship. Consider when Foggy was alive; he used to purchase real estate here in America. The man was worth roughly $4.5 billion. Do you truly believe he paid income tax just because he held a passport? 🙂 ?

In short, there is no law that would allow for what you are suggesting. If you believe such a law exists, please try to find it and provide a link.

Should our colleague encounter this issue, it would be sufficient for the IRS to issue a certificate confirming they are a US tax resident. Once they fill out the necessary paperwork stating they only visit America occasionally for tourism and that their vital interests remain in the USA, the matter is settled.

urbanwalker72 said:Actually, that isn't the case. There is no such thing as an income tax obligation if tax residency hasn't been established.

Citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with tax residency. If Bill Gates were to move to America and live here for a year, he could potentially become an American tax resident.

In the specific scenario you are describing, it is evident that the individual was designated a tax resident of America for some reason; essentially, they must have spent at least six months here, and their center of vital interests—where their family lives, where their properties are located, or where they primarily reside and work—must be located here.

There must be clear, justifiable reasons; tax residency cannot be determined without the individual participating in the process, during which they complete a specific declaration form. From those statements and other verifiable facts, residency is then established.

It cannot function quite like a Kafkaesque novel, where one is forced to pay income tax without any explanation. Even a fool wouldn't accept that, as there is simply no legal basis for it. It is a different matter entirely if someone is declared a resident; in that case, they might indeed have to pay the difference in income tax. However, one cannot be declared a resident based solely on citizenship. Consider when Foggy was alive; he used to purchase real estate here in America. The man was worth roughly $4.5 billion. Do you truly believe he paid income tax just because he held a passport? 🙂 ?

In short, there is no law that would allow for what you are suggesting. If you believe such a law exists, please try to find it and provide a link.

Should our colleague encounter this issue, it would be sufficient for the IRS to issue a certificate confirming they are a US tax resident. Once they fill out the necessary paperwork stating they only visit America occasionally for tourism and that their vital interests remain in the USA, the matter is settled.

And it gets established the second they buy property and register their address.

urbanwalker72 said:Actually, that isn't the case. There is no such thing as an income tax obligation if tax residency hasn't been established.

Citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with tax residency. If Bill Gates were to move to America and live here for a year, he could potentially become an American tax resident.

In the specific scenario you are describing, it is evident that the individual was designated a tax resident of America for some reason; essentially, they must have spent at least six months here, and their center of vital interests—where their family lives, where their properties are located, or where they primarily reside and work—must be located here.

There must be clear, justifiable reasons; tax residency cannot be determined without the individual participating in the process, during which they complete a specific declaration form. From those statements and other verifiable facts, residency is then established.

It cannot function quite like a Kafkaesque novel, where one is forced to pay income tax without any explanation. Even a fool wouldn't accept that, as there is simply no legal basis for it. It is a different matter entirely if someone is declared a resident; in that case, they might indeed have to pay the difference in income tax. However, one cannot be declared a resident based solely on citizenship. Consider when Foggy was alive; he used to purchase real estate here in America. The man was worth roughly $4.5 billion. Do you truly believe he paid income tax just because he held a passport? 🙂 ?

In short, there is no law that would allow for what you are suggesting. If you believe such a law exists, please try to find it and provide a link.

Should our colleague encounter this issue, it would be sufficient for the IRS to issue a certificate confirming they are a US tax resident. Once they fill out the necessary paperwork stating they only visit America occasionally for tourism and that their vital interests remain in the USA, the matter is settled.

Not unless they have US citizenship and start pulling in income here. Once they file for permanent residency, the US will be knocking on their door for taxes.

It reminds me of that Unproforac guy who married an American and decided to settle down here on a comfortable Norwegian pension (around $3,000 a month). Being a rule-following Scandinavian, he did everything by the book and reported it all to our lovely government—because why pay taxes in Norway when you live here? Well, his luck ran out fast. Norway was taking maybe 10-15% of the pension he earned over there, but then the US decided to grab 40%. It’s pure absurdity—taxing a pension earned elsewhere and paid out by another country just because he wants to spend it here. Anyway, the honeymoon lasted about a month before he told the whole system to go jump in a lake and went back to Norway. Or maybe he didn't; now he's just a tourist here, paying nothing, couldn't care less, and smart Americans aren't collecting a dime from him.

urbanwalker72 said:Actually, that isn't the case. There is no such thing as an income tax obligation if tax residency hasn't been established.

Citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with tax residency. If Bill Gates were to move to America and live here for a year, he could potentially become an American tax resident.

In the specific scenario you are describing, it is evident that the individual was designated a tax resident of America for some reason; essentially, they must have spent at least six months here, and their center of vital interests—where their family lives, where their properties are located, or where they primarily reside and work—must be located here.

There must be clear, justifiable reasons; tax residency cannot be determined without the individual participating in the process, during which they complete a specific declaration form. From those statements and other verifiable facts, residency is then established.

It cannot function quite like a Kafkaesque novel, where one is forced to pay income tax without any explanation. Even a fool wouldn't accept that, as there is simply no legal basis for it. It is a different matter entirely if someone is declared a resident; in that case, they might indeed have to pay the difference in income tax. However, one cannot be declared a resident based solely on citizenship. Consider when Foggy was alive; he used to purchase real estate here in America. The man was worth roughly $4.5 billion. Do you truly believe he paid income tax just because he held a passport? 🙂 ?

In short, there is no law that would allow for what you are suggesting. If you believe such a law exists, please try to find it and provide a link.

Should our colleague encounter this issue, it would be sufficient for the IRS to issue a certificate confirming they are a US tax resident. Once they fill out the necessary paperwork stating they only visit America occasionally for tourism and that their vital interests remain in the USA, the matter is settled.

Are you talking about that kid from a wealthy family getting "community service" that counts as two hours of peeling potatoes a day, resulting in 10 million pounds of peeled potatoes for a $5 million damage claim? Even Kafka couldn't caricature our country this hard...

urbanwalker72 said:Actually, that isn't the case. There is no such thing as an income tax obligation if tax residency hasn't been established.

Citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with tax residency. If Bill Gates were to move to America and live here for a year, he could potentially become an American tax resident.

In the specific scenario you are describing, it is evident that the individual was designated a tax resident of America for some reason; essentially, they must have spent at least six months here, and their center of vital interests—where their family lives, where their properties are located, or where they primarily reside and work—must be located here.

There must be clear, justifiable reasons; tax residency cannot be determined without the individual participating in the process, during which they complete a specific declaration form. From those statements and other verifiable facts, residency is then established.

It cannot function quite like a Kafkaesque novel, where one is forced to pay income tax without any explanation. Even a fool wouldn't accept that, as there is simply no legal basis for it. It is a different matter entirely if someone is declared a resident; in that case, they might indeed have to pay the difference in income tax. However, one cannot be declared a resident based solely on citizenship. Consider when Foggy was alive; he used to purchase real estate here in America. The man was worth roughly $4.5 billion. Do you truly believe he paid income tax just because he held a passport? 🙂 ?

In short, there is no law that would allow for what you are suggesting. If you believe such a law exists, please try to find it and provide a link.

Should our colleague encounter this issue, it would be sufficient for the IRS to issue a certificate confirming they are a US tax resident. Once they fill out the necessary paperwork stating they only visit America occasionally for tourism and that their vital interests remain in the USA, the matter is settled.

What do you mean "how can he not"? If he buys property and moves back, he's a resident. And once you're in, every single cent earned in the US, regardless of the source, gets taxed. What happened in the past stays in the past. Honestly, thank god our IRS is pretty incompetent; better to stay quiet and hope neither he nor anyone else ever gets asked questions about it.

urbanwalker72 said:Actually, that isn't the case. There is no such thing as an income tax obligation if tax residency hasn't been established.

Citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with tax residency. If Bill Gates were to move to America and live here for a year, he could potentially become an American tax resident.

In the specific scenario you are describing, it is evident that the individual was designated a tax resident of America for some reason; essentially, they must have spent at least six months here, and their center of vital interests—where their family lives, where their properties are located, or where they primarily reside and work—must be located here.

There must be clear, justifiable reasons; tax residency cannot be determined without the individual participating in the process, during which they complete a specific declaration form. From those statements and other verifiable facts, residency is then established.

It cannot function quite like a Kafkaesque novel, where one is forced to pay income tax without any explanation. Even a fool wouldn't accept that, as there is simply no legal basis for it. It is a different matter entirely if someone is declared a resident; in that case, they might indeed have to pay the difference in income tax. However, one cannot be declared a resident based solely on citizenship. Consider when Foggy was alive; he used to purchase real estate here in America. The man was worth roughly $4.5 billion. Do you truly believe he paid income tax just because he held a passport? 🙂 ?

In short, there is no law that would allow for what you are suggesting. If you believe such a law exists, please try to find it and provide a link.

Should our colleague encounter this issue, it would be sufficient for the IRS to issue a certificate confirming they are a US tax resident. Once they fill out the necessary paperwork stating they only visit America occasionally for tourism and that their vital interests remain in the USA, the matter is settled.

The big shots didn't pay anything because, let's be real, they weren't buying stuff in their own names; they were funneling everything through shell companies. Besides, those guys are in a different league altogether—lawyers handle that, along with "donations" to the Republican Party. Average Joes don't get that kind of luxury.

urbanwalker72 said:Actually, that isn't the case. There is no such thing as an income tax obligation if tax residency hasn't been established.

Citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with tax residency. If Bill Gates were to move to America and live here for a year, he could potentially become an American tax resident.

In the specific scenario you are describing, it is evident that the individual was designated a tax resident of America for some reason; essentially, they must have spent at least six months here, and their center of vital interests—where their family lives, where their properties are located, or where they primarily reside and work—must be located here.

There must be clear, justifiable reasons; tax residency cannot be determined without the individual participating in the process, during which they complete a specific declaration form. From those statements and other verifiable facts, residency is then established.

It cannot function quite like a Kafkaesque novel, where one is forced to pay income tax without any explanation. Even a fool wouldn't accept that, as there is simply no legal basis for it. It is a different matter entirely if someone is declared a resident; in that case, they might indeed have to pay the difference in income tax. However, one cannot be declared a resident based solely on citizenship. Consider when Foggy was alive; he used to purchase real estate here in America. The man was worth roughly $4.5 billion. Do you truly believe he paid income tax just because he held a passport? 🙂 ?

In short, there is no law that would allow for what you are suggesting. If you believe such a law exists, please try to find it and provide a link.

Should our colleague encounter this issue, it would be sufficient for the IRS to issue a certificate confirming they are a US tax resident. Once they fill out the necessary paperwork stating they only visit America occasionally for tourism and that their vital interests remain in the USA, the matter is settled.

There is. All residents and citizens of the US are obligated to pay taxes here, regardless of where that income is generated. It's a very simple, very broad definition. The only exception is sailors who spend more than 183 days at sea; they're exempt from income tax.

Jason Morgan4 said:If you buy property in America, they can come after you for taxes even if you're living in the US, believe it or not... Now, would they actually be that incompetent? Probably not. But hey, they could if they felt like it.

You ever heard of FATCA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act

Roger Fowler said:You ever heard of FATCA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act

We’re talking about an American citizen here. There is no tax treaty between the USA and America to prevent double taxation.

Jason Morgan4 said:And it gets established the second they buy property and register their address.

Not unless they have US citizenship and start pulling in income here. Once they file for permanent residency, the US will be knocking on their door for taxes.

It reminds me of that Unproforac guy who married an American and decided to settle down here on a comfortable Norwegian pension (around $3,000 a month). Being a rule-following Scandinavian, he did everything by the book and reported it all to our lovely government—because why pay taxes in Norway when you live here? Well, his luck ran out fast. Norway was taking maybe 10-15% of the pension he earned over there, but then the US decided to grab 40%. It’s pure absurdity—taxing a pension earned elsewhere and paid out by another country just because he wants to spend it here. Anyway, the honeymoon lasted about a month before he told the whole system to go jump in a lake and went back to Norway. Or maybe he didn't; now he's just a tourist here, paying nothing, couldn't care less, and smart Americans aren't collecting a dime from him.

Are you talking about that kid from a wealthy family getting "community service" that counts as two hours of peeling potatoes a day, resulting in 10 million pounds of peeled potatoes for a $5 million damage claim? Even Kafka couldn't caricature our country this hard...

What do you mean "how can he not"? If he buys property and moves back, he's a resident. And once you're in, every single cent earned in the US, regardless of the source, gets taxed. What happened in the past stays in the past. Honestly, thank god our IRS is pretty incompetent; better to stay quiet and hope neither he nor anyone else ever gets asked questions about it.

The big shots didn't pay anything because, let's be real, they weren't buying stuff in their own names; they were funneling everything through shell companies. Besides, those guys are in a different league altogether—lawyers handle that, along with "donations" to the Republican Party. Average Joes don't get that kind of luxury.

There is. All residents and citizens of the US are obligated to pay taxes here, regardless of where that income is generated. It's a very simple, very broad definition. The only exception is sailors who spend more than 183 days at sea; they're exempt from income tax.

Why would they bother reporting their residency status? Isn't the whole point that we are settling down here in the States for good?

He shouldn't do anything until he officially secures his American citizenship and begins generating income within the States. Once he establishes permanent residency here, the IRS will be knocking on his door to collect every cent of his taxes.

While income levels within the United States are certainly a significant factor to consider, one's citizenship status carries far less weight in the grand scheme of things.

I can't help but draw a parallel to that UN peacekeeper who married an American woman and decided to settle down here, living off a comfortable Norwegian pension of about $3,000 a month. Being the rule-following Scandinavian he was, he did everything by the book and reported his income to the US government, reasoning there was no point paying taxes back in Norway when he was actually residing here. Unfortunately, his good intentions were short-lived. While Norway only took about 10-15% of the pension he earned abroad, the US decided to swoop in and claim a staggering 40%. It is a total absurdity to levy such heavy taxes on pension funds earned in another country, simply because someone wants to spend that money locally. Ultimately, his stint as a resident lasted all of a month before he told the system to go jump in a lake and headed back to Norway. In all likelihood, he’s just visiting now—paying nothing, not caring, and leaving the smart side of the American economy without a single cent of his tax revenue.

That is perfectly clear. However, we must account for the fact that such double taxation avoidance agreements are already firmly established between the US and Norway.

How can you say that isn't the case? If someone moves back here and buys property to establish residency, then any income they generate within the US, regardless of the source, becomes subject to taxation. What happened in the past stays in the past, of course. Fortunately for everyone involved, our IRS is relatively incompetent; it’s probably best to simply stay quiet, as there is a very strong chance that neither he nor anyone else will ever be questioned about it.

I had originally assumed they wouldn't be relocating permanently, but rather just visiting from time to time. 🤔

If they decide to relocate while continuing to draw income from the US, they will be responsible for paying the difference between our tax rates and those in the States, should any such gap exist.

Under American law, all residents and citizens of the United States are obligated to pay taxes to the federal government, regardless of where that income is actually earned. It is an incredibly broad and straightforward definition. The only notable exception applies to mariners who spend more than 183 days at sea, as they are exempt from certain income tax requirements.

Citizenship is actually secondary in this situation; what truly matters is your tax residency status. For instance, if you happen to be from Mexico but hold tax residency here in the States, you will still be responsible for paying our taxes.

urbanwalker72 said:Why would they bother reporting their residency status? Isn't the whole point that we are settling down here in the States for good?

He shouldn't do anything until he officially secures his American citizenship and begins generating income within the States. Once he establishes permanent residency here, the IRS will be knocking on his door to collect every cent of his taxes.

While income levels within the United States are certainly a significant factor to consider, one's citizenship status carries far less weight in the grand scheme of things.

I can't help but draw a parallel to that UN peacekeeper who married an American woman and decided to settle down here, living off a comfortable Norwegian pension of about $3,000 a month. Being the rule-following Scandinavian he was, he did everything by the book and reported his income to the US government, reasoning there was no point paying taxes back in Norway when he was actually residing here. Unfortunately, his good intentions were short-lived. While Norway only took about 10-15% of the pension he earned abroad, the US decided to swoop in and claim a staggering 40%. It is a total absurdity to levy such heavy taxes on pension funds earned in another country, simply because someone wants to spend that money locally. Ultimately, his stint as a resident lasted all of a month before he told the system to go jump in a lake and headed back to Norway. In all likelihood, he’s just visiting now—paying nothing, not caring, and leaving the smart side of the American economy without a single cent of his tax revenue.

That is perfectly clear. However, we must account for the fact that such double taxation avoidance agreements are already firmly established between the US and Norway.

How can you say that isn't the case? If someone moves back here and buys property to establish residency, then any income they generate within the US, regardless of the source, becomes subject to taxation. What happened in the past stays in the past, of course. Fortunately for everyone involved, our IRS is relatively incompetent; it’s probably best to simply stay quiet, as there is a very strong chance that neither he nor anyone else will ever be questioned about it.

I had originally assumed they wouldn't be relocating permanently, but rather just visiting from time to time. 🤔

If they decide to relocate while continuing to draw income from the US, they will be responsible for paying the difference between our tax rates and those in the States, should any such gap exist.

Under American law, all residents and citizens of the United States are obligated to pay taxes to the federal government, regardless of where that income is actually earned. It is an incredibly broad and straightforward definition. The only notable exception applies to mariners who spend more than 183 days at sea, as they are exempt from certain income tax requirements.

Citizenship is actually secondary in this situation; what truly matters is your tax residency status. For instance, if you happen to be from Mexico but hold tax residency here in the States, you will still be responsible for paying our taxes.

Well, in the first post he used terms like "returning" and "if I move back."

urbanwalker72 said:Why would they bother reporting their residency status? Isn't the whole point that we are settling down here in the States for good?

He shouldn't do anything until he officially secures his American citizenship and begins generating income within the States. Once he establishes permanent residency here, the IRS will be knocking on his door to collect every cent of his taxes.

While income levels within the United States are certainly a significant factor to consider, one's citizenship status carries far less weight in the grand scheme of things.

I can't help but draw a parallel to that UN peacekeeper who married an American woman and decided to settle down here, living off a comfortable Norwegian pension of about $3,000 a month. Being the rule-following Scandinavian he was, he did everything by the book and reported his income to the US government, reasoning there was no point paying taxes back in Norway when he was actually residing here. Unfortunately, his good intentions were short-lived. While Norway only took about 10-15% of the pension he earned abroad, the US decided to swoop in and claim a staggering 40%. It is a total absurdity to levy such heavy taxes on pension funds earned in another country, simply because someone wants to spend that money locally. Ultimately, his stint as a resident lasted all of a month before he told the system to go jump in a lake and headed back to Norway. In all likelihood, he’s just visiting now—paying nothing, not caring, and leaving the smart side of the American economy without a single cent of his tax revenue.

That is perfectly clear. However, we must account for the fact that such double taxation avoidance agreements are already firmly established between the US and Norway.

How can you say that isn't the case? If someone moves back here and buys property to establish residency, then any income they generate within the US, regardless of the source, becomes subject to taxation. What happened in the past stays in the past, of course. Fortunately for everyone involved, our IRS is relatively incompetent; it’s probably best to simply stay quiet, as there is a very strong chance that neither he nor anyone else will ever be questioned about it.

I had originally assumed they wouldn't be relocating permanently, but rather just visiting from time to time. 🤔

If they decide to relocate while continuing to draw income from the US, they will be responsible for paying the difference between our tax rates and those in the States, should any such gap exist.

Under American law, all residents and citizens of the United States are obligated to pay taxes to the federal government, regardless of where that income is actually earned. It is an incredibly broad and straightforward definition. The only notable exception applies to mariners who spend more than 183 days at sea, as they are exempt from certain income tax requirements.

Citizenship is actually secondary in this situation; what truly matters is your tax residency status. For instance, if you happen to be from Mexico but hold tax residency here in the States, you will still be responsible for paying our taxes.

If you're a citizen, own property here, and have ties to the homeland—which deregistering your residence won't hide, trust me—you'll be paying taxes on income earned in Greenland...

urbanwalker72 said:Why would they bother reporting their residency status? Isn't the whole point that we are settling down here in the States for good?

He shouldn't do anything until he officially secures his American citizenship and begins generating income within the States. Once he establishes permanent residency here, the IRS will be knocking on his door to collect every cent of his taxes.

While income levels within the United States are certainly a significant factor to consider, one's citizenship status carries far less weight in the grand scheme of things.

I can't help but draw a parallel to that UN peacekeeper who married an American woman and decided to settle down here, living off a comfortable Norwegian pension of about $3,000 a month. Being the rule-following Scandinavian he was, he did everything by the book and reported his income to the US government, reasoning there was no point paying taxes back in Norway when he was actually residing here. Unfortunately, his good intentions were short-lived. While Norway only took about 10-15% of the pension he earned abroad, the US decided to swoop in and claim a staggering 40%. It is a total absurdity to levy such heavy taxes on pension funds earned in another country, simply because someone wants to spend that money locally. Ultimately, his stint as a resident lasted all of a month before he told the system to go jump in a lake and headed back to Norway. In all likelihood, he’s just visiting now—paying nothing, not caring, and leaving the smart side of the American economy without a single cent of his tax revenue.

That is perfectly clear. However, we must account for the fact that such double taxation avoidance agreements are already firmly established between the US and Norway.

How can you say that isn't the case? If someone moves back here and buys property to establish residency, then any income they generate within the US, regardless of the source, becomes subject to taxation. What happened in the past stays in the past, of course. Fortunately for everyone involved, our IRS is relatively incompetent; it’s probably best to simply stay quiet, as there is a very strong chance that neither he nor anyone else will ever be questioned about it.

I had originally assumed they wouldn't be relocating permanently, but rather just visiting from time to time. 🤔

If they decide to relocate while continuing to draw income from the US, they will be responsible for paying the difference between our tax rates and those in the States, should any such gap exist.

Under American law, all residents and citizens of the United States are obligated to pay taxes to the federal government, regardless of where that income is actually earned. It is an incredibly broad and straightforward definition. The only notable exception applies to mariners who spend more than 183 days at sea, as they are exempt from certain income tax requirements.

Citizenship is actually secondary in this situation; what truly matters is your tax residency status. For instance, if you happen to be from Mexico but hold tax residency here in the States, you will still be responsible for paying our taxes.

There is no double taxation treaty between America and the USA..

urbanwalker72 said:Why would they bother reporting their residency status? Isn't the whole point that we are settling down here in the States for good?

He shouldn't do anything until he officially secures his American citizenship and begins generating income within the States. Once he establishes permanent residency here, the IRS will be knocking on his door to collect every cent of his taxes.

While income levels within the United States are certainly a significant factor to consider, one's citizenship status carries far less weight in the grand scheme of things.

I can't help but draw a parallel to that UN peacekeeper who married an American woman and decided to settle down here, living off a comfortable Norwegian pension of about $3,000 a month. Being the rule-following Scandinavian he was, he did everything by the book and reported his income to the US government, reasoning there was no point paying taxes back in Norway when he was actually residing here. Unfortunately, his good intentions were short-lived. While Norway only took about 10-15% of the pension he earned abroad, the US decided to swoop in and claim a staggering 40%. It is a total absurdity to levy such heavy taxes on pension funds earned in another country, simply because someone wants to spend that money locally. Ultimately, his stint as a resident lasted all of a month before he told the system to go jump in a lake and headed back to Norway. In all likelihood, he’s just visiting now—paying nothing, not caring, and leaving the smart side of the American economy without a single cent of his tax revenue.

That is perfectly clear. However, we must account for the fact that such double taxation avoidance agreements are already firmly established between the US and Norway.

How can you say that isn't the case? If someone moves back here and buys property to establish residency, then any income they generate within the US, regardless of the source, becomes subject to taxation. What happened in the past stays in the past, of course. Fortunately for everyone involved, our IRS is relatively incompetent; it’s probably best to simply stay quiet, as there is a very strong chance that neither he nor anyone else will ever be questioned about it.

I had originally assumed they wouldn't be relocating permanently, but rather just visiting from time to time. 🤔

If they decide to relocate while continuing to draw income from the US, they will be responsible for paying the difference between our tax rates and those in the States, should any such gap exist.

Under American law, all residents and citizens of the United States are obligated to pay taxes to the federal government, regardless of where that income is actually earned. It is an incredibly broad and straightforward definition. The only notable exception applies to mariners who spend more than 183 days at sea, as they are exempt from certain income tax requirements.

Citizenship is actually secondary in this situation; what truly matters is your tax residency status. For instance, if you happen to be from Mexico but hold tax residency here in the States, you will still be responsible for paying our taxes.

Maybe actually read what the guy is saying if you want to join the conversation.

urbanwalker72 said:Why would they bother reporting their residency status? Isn't the whole point that we are settling down here in the States for good?

He shouldn't do anything until he officially secures his American citizenship and begins generating income within the States. Once he establishes permanent residency here, the IRS will be knocking on his door to collect every cent of his taxes.

While income levels within the United States are certainly a significant factor to consider, one's citizenship status carries far less weight in the grand scheme of things.

I can't help but draw a parallel to that UN peacekeeper who married an American woman and decided to settle down here, living off a comfortable Norwegian pension of about $3,000 a month. Being the rule-following Scandinavian he was, he did everything by the book and reported his income to the US government, reasoning there was no point paying taxes back in Norway when he was actually residing here. Unfortunately, his good intentions were short-lived. While Norway only took about 10-15% of the pension he earned abroad, the US decided to swoop in and claim a staggering 40%. It is a total absurdity to levy such heavy taxes on pension funds earned in another country, simply because someone wants to spend that money locally. Ultimately, his stint as a resident lasted all of a month before he told the system to go jump in a lake and headed back to Norway. In all likelihood, he’s just visiting now—paying nothing, not caring, and leaving the smart side of the American economy without a single cent of his tax revenue.

That is perfectly clear. However, we must account for the fact that such double taxation avoidance agreements are already firmly established between the US and Norway.

How can you say that isn't the case? If someone moves back here and buys property to establish residency, then any income they generate within the US, regardless of the source, becomes subject to taxation. What happened in the past stays in the past, of course. Fortunately for everyone involved, our IRS is relatively incompetent; it’s probably best to simply stay quiet, as there is a very strong chance that neither he nor anyone else will ever be questioned about it.

I had originally assumed they wouldn't be relocating permanently, but rather just visiting from time to time. 🤔

If they decide to relocate while continuing to draw income from the US, they will be responsible for paying the difference between our tax rates and those in the States, should any such gap exist.

Under American law, all residents and citizens of the United States are obligated to pay taxes to the federal government, regardless of where that income is actually earned. It is an incredibly broad and straightforward definition. The only notable exception applies to mariners who spend more than 183 days at sea, as they are exempt from certain income tax requirements.

Citizenship is actually secondary in this situation; what truly matters is your tax residency status. For instance, if you happen to be from Mexico but hold tax residency here in the States, you will still be responsible for paying our taxes.

If he's completely crazy, then fine, let him pay. Smarter to just stay quiet and pay nothing.

urbanwalker72 said:Why would they bother reporting their residency status? Isn't the whole point that we are settling down here in the States for good?

He shouldn't do anything until he officially secures his American citizenship and begins generating income within the States. Once he establishes permanent residency here, the IRS will be knocking on his door to collect every cent of his taxes.

While income levels within the United States are certainly a significant factor to consider, one's citizenship status carries far less weight in the grand scheme of things.

I can't help but draw a parallel to that UN peacekeeper who married an American woman and decided to settle down here, living off a comfortable Norwegian pension of about $3,000 a month. Being the rule-following Scandinavian he was, he did everything by the book and reported his income to the US government, reasoning there was no point paying taxes back in Norway when he was actually residing here. Unfortunately, his good intentions were short-lived. While Norway only took about 10-15% of the pension he earned abroad, the US decided to swoop in and claim a staggering 40%. It is a total absurdity to levy such heavy taxes on pension funds earned in another country, simply because someone wants to spend that money locally. Ultimately, his stint as a resident lasted all of a month before he told the system to go jump in a lake and headed back to Norway. In all likelihood, he’s just visiting now—paying nothing, not caring, and leaving the smart side of the American economy without a single cent of his tax revenue.

That is perfectly clear. However, we must account for the fact that such double taxation avoidance agreements are already firmly established between the US and Norway.

How can you say that isn't the case? If someone moves back here and buys property to establish residency, then any income they generate within the US, regardless of the source, becomes subject to taxation. What happened in the past stays in the past, of course. Fortunately for everyone involved, our IRS is relatively incompetent; it’s probably best to simply stay quiet, as there is a very strong chance that neither he nor anyone else will ever be questioned about it.

I had originally assumed they wouldn't be relocating permanently, but rather just visiting from time to time. 🤔

If they decide to relocate while continuing to draw income from the US, they will be responsible for paying the difference between our tax rates and those in the States, should any such gap exist.

Under American law, all residents and citizens of the United States are obligated to pay taxes to the federal government, regardless of where that income is actually earned. It is an incredibly broad and straightforward definition. The only notable exception applies to mariners who spend more than 183 days at sea, as they are exempt from certain income tax requirements.

Citizenship is actually secondary in this situation; what truly matters is your tax residency status. For instance, if you happen to be from Mexico but hold tax residency here in the States, you will still be responsible for paying our taxes.

If you have citizenship and own property in the US, the IRS considers you a tax resident. Your only real way out is to register that property as a vacation rental, pay the flat tax, show up occasionally as a guest, and call it a day. Otherwise, they can fine you whenever they feel like it.

Here is the link to the legislation; I suggest you go through it carefully, examine the specific forms, and determine which category you fall under. I also hold dual citizenship here in the States.

To be honest, I am quite uncertain about the logistics of paying for real estate using an American account (my accounts are with Citibank, though my offices are located in Ireland and Canada), and frankly, it sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare. You might find it much simpler to just open an account at a local American bank instead.
Furthermore, I would recommend bringing your vehicle over to the US first, as you are entitled to certain repatriation tax benefits. Personally, I have always had a soft spot for the Japanese models designed specifically for the American market; the ones being offered here seem rather small, sluggish, and overpriced by comparison.
Link
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers-and-tax-treaties
☕

Jason Morgan4 said:Well, in the first post he used terms like "returning" and "if I move back."

If you're a citizen, own property here, and have ties to the homeland—which deregistering your residence won't hide, trust me—you'll be paying taxes on income earned in Greenland...

There is no double taxation treaty between America and the USA..

Maybe actually read what the guy is saying if you want to join the conversation.

If he's completely crazy, then fine, let him pay. Smarter to just stay quiet and pay nothing.

If you have citizenship and own property in the US, the IRS considers you a tax resident. Your only real way out is to register that property as a vacation rental, pay the flat tax, show up occasionally as a guest, and call it a day. Otherwise, they can fine you whenever they feel like it.

I was specifically addressing your previous point where you claimed: "if you buy property in America, they can come after you for taxes even if you continue living in the USA."

That is simply incorrect. You cannot be held liable for income tax in America if you reside and earn your income abroad, regardless of any perceived "ties to the US."

I fail to understand how anyone could imagine the IRS possesses jurisdiction over Americans who live and work overseas. Does Luka Modrić pay income tax here? What about professional tennis players? No. One only pays our income tax if one resides in America and/or generates income within its borders.

If you hold citizenship, own property, and maintain a connection to the homeland—and don't be fooled, deregistering your residence won't save you if you still own real estate—you are required to pay taxes on income earned in Greenland...

🤔 Once again, the fundamental question is: where do you live and where is your income generated? If you are living and working in Greenland, it is irrelevant how much property you own in America; you are not subject to taxation here.

There is no double taxation treaty between America and the USA...

That is true, though every year they claim they are on the verge of signing one...

If he is completely foolish, then he should pay it. It would be wiser for him to remain silent and pay nothing at all.

That tactic might have worked in the past, but nowadays everything is transparent, particularly with countries in the EU or those with which we have established treaties and avoidance agreements.

If you have citizenship and property in America, the IRS considers you a tax resident.

That is not accurate. For instance, would Ivan Rakitić be paying income tax here simply because he holds citizenship and owns property? Of course not.

My colleague provided a link above to the questionnaire I mentioned earlier. Determining tax residency is not such a straightforward matter. There are even questions regarding something as trivial as where you keep your pet. 🤣

Thanks for all the input so far.

The real question is—am I actually an American taxpayer? Since I left the States when I was just a kid, I’m assuming the answer is no.

I hold American citizenship, I don't own any property in the US, I don't live here, and my income comes from the US.

But here's the catch—it was only a few years ago that I finally updated my address with the FBI to a US one instead of my old one. I'm guessing the FBI and the IRS don't talk to each other constantly, so there's a chance I'm still stuck in their system somewhere.

Which would be a total nightmare—would basically mean getting hit with double taxation.

I'm planning to hit up the IRS directly—but until then, any advice is appreciated.

Thanks a ton.

Karen Morales said:Thanks for all the input so far.

The real question is—am I actually an American taxpayer? Since I left the States when I was just a kid, I’m assuming the answer is no.

I hold American citizenship, I don't own any property in the US, I don't live here, and my income comes from the US.

But here's the catch—it was only a few years ago that I finally updated my address with the FBI to a US one instead of my old one. I'm guessing the FBI and the IRS don't talk to each other constantly, so there's a chance I'm still stuck in their system somewhere.

Which would be a total nightmare—would basically mean getting hit with double taxation.

I'm planning to hit up the IRS directly—but until then, any advice is appreciated.

Thanks a ton.

Of course you aren't. It isn't really a matter of when you left; what truly matters is where you currently reside, where you work, and where you earn your income. If you aren't living and working in the States, you aren't an American taxpayer.

I hold American citizenship, yet I possess no real estate within the United States, and my contributions are sourced entirely from the US.

Then everything is in order.

Just a few years ago, I went through the process of updating my residency with the FBI to reflect my US address instead of my former one. My concern is that since the FBI and the IRS don't always synchronize their databases, there remains a distinct possibility that my old information is still being used for my tax filings.

It really doesn't matter when you officially changed your residency. As long as you are doing well, that is what truly counts. Regardless, the IRS has access to all that information because the FBI is required to record every one of those changes within the Social Security database, ensuring that any agency with public authority has immediate access to those details.

If that were the case, it would essentially mean we’d be facing the absurdity of double taxation here in the States.

In my view, there is simply no basis to discuss paying taxes in the US under the specific conditions you are describing.

I am planning to reach out to the IRS for clarification; until then, I would truly value any insights or perspectives you might be willing to share.

Be cautious about whom you approach for information. It would be most prudent to submit a formal written inquiry, as that ensures you receive a response from someone truly qualified to answer.

urbanwalker72 said:I was specifically addressing your previous point where you claimed: "if you buy property in America, they can come after you for taxes even if you continue living in the USA."

That is simply incorrect. You cannot be held liable for income tax in America if you reside and earn your income abroad, regardless of any perceived "ties to the US."

I fail to understand how anyone could imagine the IRS possesses jurisdiction over Americans who live and work overseas. Does Luka Modrić pay income tax here? What about professional tennis players? No. One only pays our income tax if one resides in America and/or generates income within its borders.

If you hold citizenship, own property, and maintain a connection to the homeland—and don't be fooled, deregistering your residence won't save you if you still own real estate—you are required to pay taxes on income earned in Greenland...

🤔 Once again, the fundamental question is: where do you live and where is your income generated? If you are living and working in Greenland, it is irrelevant how much property you own in America; you are not subject to taxation here.

There is no double taxation treaty between America and the USA...

That is true, though every year they claim they are on the verge of signing one...

If he is completely foolish, then he should pay it. It would be wiser for him to remain silent and pay nothing at all.

That tactic might have worked in the past, but nowadays everything is transparent, particularly with countries in the EU or those with which we have established treaties and avoidance agreements.

If you have citizenship and property in America, the IRS considers you a tax resident.

That is not accurate. For instance, would Ivan Rakitić be paying income tax here simply because he holds citizenship and owns property? Of course not.

My colleague provided a link above to the questionnaire I mentioned earlier. Determining tax residency is not such a straightforward matter. There are even questions regarding something as trivial as where you keep your pet. 🤣

I’m not trying to lecture you; I’m speaking from experience. A close friend of mine moved to Dubai five years ago, and he had a massive headache with the IRS. Even though he officially changed his residency, they still flagged his place as rental property, so he ended up paying a flat tax. They wouldn't leave him alone because apparently, they weren't happy that he was paying taxes where he actually lives and works (the fact that tax is 0% in Dubai didn't change their attitude).

urbanwalker72 said:I was specifically addressing your previous point where you claimed: "if you buy property in America, they can come after you for taxes even if you continue living in the USA."

That is simply incorrect. You cannot be held liable for income tax in America if you reside and earn your income abroad, regardless of any perceived "ties to the US."

I fail to understand how anyone could imagine the IRS possesses jurisdiction over Americans who live and work overseas. Does Luka Modrić pay income tax here? What about professional tennis players? No. One only pays our income tax if one resides in America and/or generates income within its borders.

If you hold citizenship, own property, and maintain a connection to the homeland—and don't be fooled, deregistering your residence won't save you if you still own real estate—you are required to pay taxes on income earned in Greenland...

🤔 Once again, the fundamental question is: where do you live and where is your income generated? If you are living and working in Greenland, it is irrelevant how much property you own in America; you are not subject to taxation here.

There is no double taxation treaty between America and the USA...

That is true, though every year they claim they are on the verge of signing one...

If he is completely foolish, then he should pay it. It would be wiser for him to remain silent and pay nothing at all.

That tactic might have worked in the past, but nowadays everything is transparent, particularly with countries in the EU or those with which we have established treaties and avoidance agreements.

If you have citizenship and property in America, the IRS considers you a tax resident.

That is not accurate. For instance, would Ivan Rakitić be paying income tax here simply because he holds citizenship and owns property? Of course not.

My colleague provided a link above to the questionnaire I mentioned earlier. Determining tax residency is not such a straightforward matter. There are even questions regarding something as trivial as where you keep your pet. 🤣

Of course you can.

urbanwalker72 said:I was specifically addressing your previous point where you claimed: "if you buy property in America, they can come after you for taxes even if you continue living in the USA."

That is simply incorrect. You cannot be held liable for income tax in America if you reside and earn your income abroad, regardless of any perceived "ties to the US."

I fail to understand how anyone could imagine the IRS possesses jurisdiction over Americans who live and work overseas. Does Luka Modrić pay income tax here? What about professional tennis players? No. One only pays our income tax if one resides in America and/or generates income within its borders.

If you hold citizenship, own property, and maintain a connection to the homeland—and don't be fooled, deregistering your residence won't save you if you still own real estate—you are required to pay taxes on income earned in Greenland...

🤔 Once again, the fundamental question is: where do you live and where is your income generated? If you are living and working in Greenland, it is irrelevant how much property you own in America; you are not subject to taxation here.

There is no double taxation treaty between America and the USA...

That is true, though every year they claim they are on the verge of signing one...

If he is completely foolish, then he should pay it. It would be wiser for him to remain silent and pay nothing at all.

That tactic might have worked in the past, but nowadays everything is transparent, particularly with countries in the EU or those with which we have established treaties and avoidance agreements.

If you have citizenship and property in America, the IRS considers you a tax resident.

That is not accurate. For instance, would Ivan Rakitić be paying income tax here simply because he holds citizenship and owns property? Of course not.

My colleague provided a link above to the questionnaire I mentioned earlier. Determining tax residency is not such a straightforward matter. There are even questions regarding something as trivial as where you keep your pet. 🤣

And politicians promised we’d be as wealthy as Switzerland.

urbanwalker72 said:I was specifically addressing your previous point where you claimed: "if you buy property in America, they can come after you for taxes even if you continue living in the USA."

That is simply incorrect. You cannot be held liable for income tax in America if you reside and earn your income abroad, regardless of any perceived "ties to the US."

I fail to understand how anyone could imagine the IRS possesses jurisdiction over Americans who live and work overseas. Does Luka Modrić pay income tax here? What about professional tennis players? No. One only pays our income tax if one resides in America and/or generates income within its borders.

If you hold citizenship, own property, and maintain a connection to the homeland—and don't be fooled, deregistering your residence won't save you if you still own real estate—you are required to pay taxes on income earned in Greenland...

🤔 Once again, the fundamental question is: where do you live and where is your income generated? If you are living and working in Greenland, it is irrelevant how much property you own in America; you are not subject to taxation here.

There is no double taxation treaty between America and the USA...

That is true, though every year they claim they are on the verge of signing one...

If he is completely foolish, then he should pay it. It would be wiser for him to remain silent and pay nothing at all.

That tactic might have worked in the past, but nowadays everything is transparent, particularly with countries in the EU or those with which we have established treaties and avoidance agreements.

If you have citizenship and property in America, the IRS considers you a tax resident.

That is not accurate. For instance, would Ivan Rakitić be paying income tax here simply because he holds citizenship and owns property? Of course not.

My colleague provided a link above to the questionnaire I mentioned earlier. Determining tax residency is not such a straightforward matter. There are even questions regarding something as trivial as where you keep your pet. 🤣

It’s obvious if you actually bother to look. You just have to put in the effort.

urbanwalker72 said:I was specifically addressing your previous point where you claimed: "if you buy property in America, they can come after you for taxes even if you continue living in the USA."

That is simply incorrect. You cannot be held liable for income tax in America if you reside and earn your income abroad, regardless of any perceived "ties to the US."

I fail to understand how anyone could imagine the IRS possesses jurisdiction over Americans who live and work overseas. Does Luka Modrić pay income tax here? What about professional tennis players? No. One only pays our income tax if one resides in America and/or generates income within its borders.

If you hold citizenship, own property, and maintain a connection to the homeland—and don't be fooled, deregistering your residence won't save you if you still own real estate—you are required to pay taxes on income earned in Greenland...

🤔 Once again, the fundamental question is: where do you live and where is your income generated? If you are living and working in Greenland, it is irrelevant how much property you own in America; you are not subject to taxation here.

There is no double taxation treaty between America and the USA...

That is true, though every year they claim they are on the verge of signing one...

If he is completely foolish, then he should pay it. It would be wiser for him to remain silent and pay nothing at all.

That tactic might have worked in the past, but nowadays everything is transparent, particularly with countries in the EU or those with which we have established treaties and avoidance agreements.

If you have citizenship and property in America, the IRS considers you a tax resident.

That is not accurate. For instance, would Ivan Rakitić be paying income tax here simply because he holds citizenship and owns property? Of course not.

My colleague provided a link above to the questionnaire I mentioned earlier. Determining tax residency is not such a straightforward matter. There are even questions regarding something as trivial as where you keep your pet. 🤣

Ivan Rakitić never actually lived in America, never paid taxes to the US, and never will. He's completely off their radar.

urbanwalker72 said:I was specifically addressing your previous point where you claimed: "if you buy property in America, they can come after you for taxes even if you continue living in the USA."

That is simply incorrect. You cannot be held liable for income tax in America if you reside and earn your income abroad, regardless of any perceived "ties to the US."

I fail to understand how anyone could imagine the IRS possesses jurisdiction over Americans who live and work overseas. Does Luka Modrić pay income tax here? What about professional tennis players? No. One only pays our income tax if one resides in America and/or generates income within its borders.

If you hold citizenship, own property, and maintain a connection to the homeland—and don't be fooled, deregistering your residence won't save you if you still own real estate—you are required to pay taxes on income earned in Greenland...

🤔 Once again, the fundamental question is: where do you live and where is your income generated? If you are living and working in Greenland, it is irrelevant how much property you own in America; you are not subject to taxation here.

There is no double taxation treaty between America and the USA...

That is true, though every year they claim they are on the verge of signing one...

If he is completely foolish, then he should pay it. It would be wiser for him to remain silent and pay nothing at all.

That tactic might have worked in the past, but nowadays everything is transparent, particularly with countries in the EU or those with which we have established treaties and avoidance agreements.

If you have citizenship and property in America, the IRS considers you a tax resident.

That is not accurate. For instance, would Ivan Rakitić be paying income tax here simply because he holds citizenship and owns property? Of course not.

My colleague provided a link above to the questionnaire I mentioned earlier. Determining tax residency is not such a straightforward matter. There are even questions regarding something as trivial as where you keep your pet. 🤣

Oh sure, they'll slap a "tax resident" label on you and then you get to spend your life arguing to prove them wrong. My advice to the OP? Don't mention anything. Don't ask anything. If they decide to come looking, then you can start trying to prove something else.

urbanwalker72 said:Of course you aren't. It isn't really a matter of when you left; what truly matters is where you currently reside, where you work, and where you earn your income. If you aren't living and working in the States, you aren't an American taxpayer.

I hold American citizenship, yet I possess no real estate within the United States, and my contributions are sourced entirely from the US.

Then everything is in order.

Just a few years ago, I went through the process of updating my residency with the FBI to reflect my US address instead of my former one. My concern is that since the FBI and the IRS don't always synchronize their databases, there remains a distinct possibility that my old information is still being used for my tax filings.

It really doesn't matter when you officially changed your residency. As long as you are doing well, that is what truly counts. Regardless, the IRS has access to all that information because the FBI is required to record every one of those changes within the Social Security database, ensuring that any agency with public authority has immediate access to those details.

If that were the case, it would essentially mean we’d be facing the absurdity of double taxation here in the States.

In my view, there is simply no basis to discuss paying taxes in the US under the specific conditions you are describing.

I am planning to reach out to the IRS for clarification; until then, I would truly value any insights or perspectives you might be willing to share.

Be cautious about whom you approach for information. It would be most prudent to submit a formal written inquiry, as that ensures you receive a response from someone truly qualified to answer.

What if you spend four months of the year in America just lying on your back doing absolutely nothing—basically one long vacation—then head out for three months to work a season in Austria or Italy, then pop back home for a bit, then decide you feel like spending another three months in Greenland?

You don't actually reside in America; you're just visiting. You definitely aren't earning anything here. You have citizenship and you own property. So, are you a taxpayer or not?