Month: August 2017

Investment Constraints 4: Structures

An entrepreneur starting a new business has a choice to make – how should she structure the business legally. In Australia, there are actually four alternatives to choose from: sole proprietorship, partnership, company or trust. The reasons for choosing a company or trust often include limiting legal liability, protecting personal assets, or ease of sharing or transferring ownership. And, in the wake of recent caps on superannuation contributions, more financial planners are recommending family trusts to hold savings that cannot be put into the superannuation system. What are these structures? How do they work in a purely Australian context? And what problems or challenges might arise when a US taxpayer tries to do exactly what her Australian neighbour would find optimal?

This is the fourth instalment in our series of posts discussing the ways US tax laws constrain the investment choices of US taxpayers living in Australia. These are the areas we will be covering:

  1. Superannuation
  2. Homeownership
  3. Real Estate
  4. Australian Managed Funds
  5. Australian Shares
  6. Business Ownership Structures
  7. Investing in the US
  8. Record keeping

This series (and everything on this website) is general information only. I am not a lawyer, tax professional, or financial planner, just someone who has learned about US tax and wants to pass on general knowledge. Many areas of tax law are interdependent, so changes in one area may have unintended consequences in another. You should consult a professional who can consider your own personal circumstances before taking any action. Continue reading “Investment Constraints 4: Structures”

Citizenship matters – Take 2

Here we go again… another Australian politician, Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce, has had his eligibility to sit in Parliament challenged based on claims he is a dual citizen!

John Richardson explains why the Australia should NOT allow foreign laws to dictate who can or cannot be a member of Australia’s Parliament. Where an individual has made no claim to citizenship and has not consented to become a citizen, must Australia recognise citizenship granted by a foreign country?

The Australian constitution was written in an era when dual citizenship was rare. Over the past few decades, dual citizenship has become almost common. With many countries granting citizenship by descent, it has become possible to be a citizen without any knowledge of that fact. In the past few weeks, it appears that Australian politicians have virtually weaponised citizenship.

Today’s Australian includes a list of MPs who may have citizenship problems, with leaders of both major parties threatening to refer members from the other side of the aisle to the High Court on this issue.

Citizenship was weaponised in another context when the Australian government agreed to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the US over FATCA. There will be many Australians, born in Australia (or elsewhere outside the US) with a qualifying US-citizen parent, who may never have been registered as a US citizen, or who were registered as a minor without their consent. The US government considers them citizens, but, if they have never consented to that citizenship, should they be considered US citizens by their Australian bank? A High Court ruling that Barnaby Joyce or Matthew Canavan need not be considered dual citizens under Australian law could be useful for those that the US considers citizens who either have not consented to that citizenship or who believe they relinquished their US citizenship long ago, but do not have a US Certificate of Loss of Nationality.