|
#6
| |||
| |||
| Stuart A. Bronstein wrote: - quote - > davidrosenbaum[at]gmail.com wrote:
Thanks. That is exactly correct. Since in this case, the US> > Stuart A. Bronstein wrote: > > > The heading says "adopted child" but the text says "any > > > child." Ignore the heading, believe the text. > > Thanks, Stuart. But if you noticed (and I admit that my > > formatting was not good here), the law said "any child of a > > taxpayer (within the meaning of subsection (f)(1)(B))". And > > (f)(1)(B) refers to adopted children: > I suppose they did it that way because it was unnecessary > to refer to natural children. If the citizen parent satisfies > 8 USC =A71401(g), the child was a citizen at birth. Section > 1401(g) says that a person is a citizen at birth if he is > "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United > States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom > is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, > prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in > the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or > periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of > which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:..." parent was not in the US for a period etc, the kid doesn't qualify. I checked this with their immigration lawyer and she confirmed that they were not eligible automatically for citizenship upon birth. So until they actually received citizenship, they were not US citizens. David << ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== > |
|
#5
| |||
| |||
| davidrosenbaum[at]gmail.com wrote: - quote - > Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
I suppose they did it that way because it was unnecessary> > The heading says "adopted child" but the text says "any > > child." Ignore the heading, believe the text. > Thanks, Stuart. But if you noticed (and I admit that my > formatting was not good here), the law said "any child of a > taxpayer (within the meaning of subsection (f)(1)(B))". And > (f)(1)(B) refers to adopted children: to refer to natural children. If the citizen parent satisfies 8 USC §1401(g), the child was a citizen at birth. Section 1401(g) says that a person is a citizen at birth if he is "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:..." Stu << ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== > |
|
#4
| |||
| |||
| <big ship by moderator Wow. That was an in-depth answer! Thanks. A couple of points: I wrote: Here, however, in the said years, the children were not US citizens, though I guess they could have received citizenship based on the US parent. You replied: "I'm not sure that's true. It would depend on the circumstances; the children might have had US citizenship since birth, or they might have acquired it (non-retrospectively) under the terms of a law such as the Child Citizenship Act of 2000." Actually, what I meant was that since eventually they did get citizenship, they could have received citizenship in those years using the same rules they eventually did actually use to attain citizenship. But I agree that that does not determine whether they were <automaticallyeligible. As to your point about them being dual citizens: indeed, they are dual citizens. And as you mentioned, that's irrelevant for this issue. I guess I'll have to look at the Immigration and Nationality Act. Though it seems to me that's more for an immigration lawyer. David << ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== > |
|
#3
| |||
| |||
| Stuart A. Bronstein wrote: - quote - > davidrosenbaum[at]gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, Stuart. But if you noticed (and I admit that my> > I have a case of a US citizen and a non-US citizen who > > reside abroad. They have three children, all born outside > > the US. A few months ago, they managed to get their kids US > > citizenship (passports, SS#, the works). > > > The Code says: > > > 152(b)(3) CITIZENS OR NATIONALS OF OTHER COUNTRIES. -- > > 152(b)(3)(A) IN GENERAL. --The term "dependent" does not > > include an individual who is not a citizen or national of > > the United States unless such individual is a resident of > > the United States or a country contiguous to the United > > States. > > > 152(b)(3)(B) EXCEPTION FOR ADOPTED CHILD. --Subparagraph (A) > > shall not exclude any child of a taxpayer (within the > > meaning of subsection > > > (f)(1)(B)) from the definition of "dependent" if -- > > 152(b)(3)(B)(i) for the taxable year of the taxpayer, the > > child has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer > > and is a member of the taxpayer's household, and > > 152(b)(3)(B)(ii) the taxpayer is a citizen or national of > > the United States. > > > So in our case, the kids meet (i) and (ii), but the problem > > is that (B) refers to an adopted child - and I assume an > > adopted child only. It seems funny that an adopted child > > should get a better deal than a natural child, but there > > could be a logic to it. > The heading says "adopted child" but the text says "any > child." Ignore the heading, believe the text. ` formatting was not good here), the law said "any child of a taxpayer (within the meaning of subsection (f)(1)(B))". And (f)(1)(B) refers to adopted children: "(B) Adopted child In determining whether any of the relationships specified in subparagraph (A)(i) or paragraph (4) exists, a legally adopted individual of the taxpayer, or an individual who is lawfully placed with the taxpayer for legal adoption by the taxpayer, shall be treated as a child of such individual by blood." So, as I see it, the text of the law is actually in agreement with the heading. David << ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== > |
|
#2
| |||
| |||
| David Rosenbaum wrote: - quote - > I have a case of a US citizen and a non-US citizen who
The children may (or may not) have been US citizens since> reside abroad. They have three children, all born outside > the US. A few months ago, they managed to get their kids > US citizenship (passports, SS#, the works). birth, and what the parents did may (or may not) simply have been a process of documenting the fact that the kids had been US citizens all along. For more precise detail on US citizenship law, you need to go to the Immigration and Nationality Act (which is codified in Title 8 of the US Code -- though the section numbers in the original Act are not the same as the section numbers in 8 USC). - quote - > I've had other cases in which children are born to two US
Actually, if both parents of a non-US-born child are US> citizens who lived in the US till adulthood, and the kids > are thus pretty much automatically entitled to citizenship. citizens (and the parent are married to each other), the child is a US citizen "at birth", provided either parent had =ever= lived in the US for =any= length of time. INA 301(c); 8 USC 1401(c). If only one parent of a non-US-born child is a US citizen, then the rules are more complicated, involving a certain minimum time period during which the American parent must have been physically in the US before the child's birth. Also, the rules have changed from time to time, and you need to be cognizant of the law as it stood at the time of the child's birth. The last significant change of this sort took place on 14 Nov. 1986. - quote - > Even in cases when the child wasn't "registered" until the
Because the child was in fact a US citizen at birth. The> following year, I've always claimed (and never had rejected) > them as dependents, and even had them eligible for the child > tax credit. process of registering the child with US consular officials abroad (or with State Dept. officials in the US later on) documents the fact of the child's citizenship status, but this registration is NOT a conferral of citizenship; that happened automatically when the child was born. (This also means, BTW, that a non-US-born child of an American parent or parent may arguably qualify as "natural born" and be eligible to become President one day -- but that's another story.) - quote - > Here, however, in the said years, the children were not US
I'm not sure that's true. It would depend on the> citizens, though I guess they could have received citizen- > ship based on the US parent. circumstances; the children might have had US citizenship since birth, or they might have acquired it (non-retrospectively) under the terms of a law such as the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. - quote - > "Child's place of residence. Children usually are citizens
That's a gross overgeneralization involving the citizenship> or residents of the country of their parents. laws of essentially every country in the world. - quote - > If you were a U.S. citizen when your child was born, the
Indeed. As I said, check the Immigration and Nationality> child may be a U.S. citizen even if the other parent was > a nonresident alien and the child was born in a foreign > country. If so, this test is met." "May be" doesn't help > that much. I assume what they're saying is - it depends > on immigration law. Act. Your starting point for citizenship at birth would be sections 301 et seq. of the INA (8 USC 1401 et seq.). Note, of course, that a child born outside the US to an American parent or parents may very possibly be a citizen, not only of the US, but also of the country of birth and/or the country of the non-American parent. Since each country defines citizenship according to its own laws -- generally without regard for the laws of other countries -- it's quite possible that a child could be born with two or more citizenships. From the point of view of US law, though, the other citizenships are irrelevant (just as the child's US citizenship may be irrelevant from the POV of another country's laws). Rich Wales richw[at]richw.org http://www.richw.org *DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer or professional tax adviser. My comments are for discussion purposes only and are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice. << ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== > |
|
#1
| |||
| |||
| davidrosenbaum[at]gmail.com wrote: - quote - > I have a case of a US citizen and a non-US citizen who
The heading says "adopted child" but the text says "any> reside abroad. They have three children, all born outside > the US. A few months ago, they managed to get their kids US > citizenship (passports, SS#, the works). > The Code says: > 152(b)(3) CITIZENS OR NATIONALS OF OTHER COUNTRIES. -- > 152(b)(3)(A) IN GENERAL. --The term "dependent" does not > include an individual who is not a citizen or national of > the United States unless such individual is a resident of > the United States or a country contiguous to the United > States. > 152(b)(3)(B) EXCEPTION FOR ADOPTED CHILD. --Subparagraph (A) > shall not exclude any child of a taxpayer (within the > meaning of subsection > (f)(1)(B)) from the definition of "dependent" if -- > 152(b)(3)(B)(i) for the taxable year of the taxpayer, the > child has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer > and is a member of the taxpayer's household, and > 152(b)(3)(B)(ii) the taxpayer is a citizen or national of > the United States. > So in our case, the kids meet (i) and (ii), but the problem > is that (B) refers to an adopted child - and I assume an > adopted child only. It seems funny that an adopted child > should get a better deal than a natural child, but there > could be a logic to it. child." Ignore the heading, believe the text. Stu << ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== > |
| | |||
| |||
| davidrosenbaum[at]gmail.com wrote: - quote - > I have a case of a US citizen and a non-US citizen who
It all is going to depend upon US law relating to a child> reside abroad. They have three children, all born outside > the US. A few months ago, they managed to get their kids US > citizenship (passports, SS#, the works). > It seems clear that going forward ,they can be claimed as > dependents (they meet the other tests), but I have some > doubt as to prior years (which are still unfiled). > I've had other cases in which children are born to two US > citizens who lived in the US till adulthood, and the kids > are thus pretty much automatically entitled to citizenship. > Even in cases when the child wasn't "registered" until the > following year, I've always claimed (and never had rejected) > them as dependents, and even had them eligible for the child > tax credit. > Here, however, in the said years, the children were not US > citizens, though I guess they could have received > citizenship based on the US parent. > Pub 201 states: > "Child's place of residence. Children usually are citizens > or residents of the country of their parents. If you were a > U.S. citizen when your child was born, the child may be a > U.S. citizen even if the other parent was a nonresident > alien and the child was born in a foreign country. If so, > this test is met." > "May be" doesn't help that much. I assume what they're > saying is - it depends on immigration law. > The Code says: > 152(b)(3) CITIZENS OR NATIONALS OF OTHER COUNTRIES. -- > 152(b)(3)(A) IN GENERAL. --The term "dependent" does not > include an individual who is not a citizen or national of > the United States unless such individual is a resident of > the United States or a country contiguous to the United > States. > 152(b)(3)(B) EXCEPTION FOR ADOPTED CHILD. --Subparagraph (A) > shall not exclude any child of a taxpayer (within the > meaning of subsection > (f)(1)(B)) from the definition of "dependent" if -- > 152(b)(3)(B)(i) for the taxable year of the taxpayer, the > child has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer > and is a member of the taxpayer's household, and > 152(b)(3)(B)(ii) the taxpayer is a citizen or national of > the United States. > So in our case, the kids meet (i) and (ii), but the problem > is that (B) refers to an adopted child - and I assume an > adopted child only. It seems funny that an adopted child > should get a better deal than a natural child, but there > could be a logic to it. > Any thoughts? obtaining citizenship "automatically." If the conditions were met, then the children would have been US citizens at birth. If not, then the children became US citizens when they met the criteria. A quick search on the internet found the following information from a US Embassy: Physical Presence This is the actual time when the parent was physically within the borders of the United States. This means that any travel outside the United States, including vacation, should be excluded. Maintaining a residence in the U.S. does not constitute physical presence. Please submit old passports if available, as evidence. If unavailable, other evidence may be required. Note: Any periods of time spent overseas with the United States Military/Government or qualifying international organization (such as the United Nations) may be computed as physical presence in the United States for transmission of citizenship purposes. Time spent as a dependent of such person may also be computed as physical presence. Military records or other proof may be requested. Children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents may have a claim to U.S. citizenship. The following is a brief description of the various circumstances under which a child born abroad acquires American citizenship. Child born in wedlock to two U.S. citizens: A child born outside of the United States or its outlying possessions to two U.S. citizen parents is entitled to citizenship, provided one of the parents had, prior to the birth of the child, been resident in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. (No specific period of time is required.) Child born in wedlock to one U.S. citizen parent and one non U.S. citizen parent on or after November 14, 1986: A child born outside of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. citizen parent may be entitled to citizenship providing the U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for five years, at least two years of which were after s/he reached the age of fourteen. This period of physical presence must have taken place prior to the birth of the child. Child born in wedlock to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. Citizen parent between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986: A child born outside of the United States to one U.S. Citizen parent and one non-U.S. Citizen parent, may be entitled to citizenship providing the U.S. Citizen parent had, prior to the birth of the child, been physically present in the United States for a period of ten years, at least five years of which were after s/he reached the age of fourteen. Child born out of wedlock to a U.S. Citizen mother: A child born outside of the United States and out of wedlock to a U.S. Citizen mother is entitled to U.S. citizenship providing the U.S. Citizen mother had been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of at least one year at some time prior to the birth of her child. (NOTE: The U.S. citizen mother must have lived continuously for 1 year IN THE UNITED STATES OR ITS OUTLYING POSSESSIONS. Periods spent overseas with the U.S. government/military or as a government/military dependent, may NOT be computed as physical presence in the U.S.). Child born out of wedlock to a U.S. Citizen father: A child born outside of the United States to an U.S. Citizen father where there is no marriage to the non-American mother is entitled to U.S. Citizenship providing the American citizen father had been physically present in the United States for the period of time as specified in previous paragraphs for children born in wedlock to one U.S. Citizen and one non-U.S. Citizen parent, either before or after November 14, 1986; and * the alien mother completes an "Affidavit to establish paternity of child" at this office before a consular officer; and * the father signs a sworn statement agreeing to provide financial support for the child until s/he reaches the age of 18 years; and * the father provides a written statement acknowledging paternity; or * the child is legitimated under local law; or * paternity is established by a competent court before the child attains the age of 18 years; << ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== > |
|
#-1
| |||
| |||
| I have a case of a US citizen and a non-US citizen who reside abroad. They have three children, all born outside the US. A few months ago, they managed to get their kids US citizenship (passports, SS#, the works). It seems clear that going forward ,they can be claimed as dependents (they meet the other tests), but I have some doubt as to prior years (which are still unfiled). I've had other cases in which children are born to two US citizens who lived in the US till adulthood, and the kids are thus pretty much automatically entitled to citizenship. Even in cases when the child wasn't "registered" until the following year, I've always claimed (and never had rejected) them as dependents, and even had them eligible for the child tax credit. Here, however, in the said years, the children were not US citizens, though I guess they could have received citizenship based on the US parent. Pub 201 states: "Child's place of residence. Children usually are citizens or residents of the country of their parents. If you were a U.S. citizen when your child was born, the child may be a U.S. citizen even if the other parent was a nonresident alien and the child was born in a foreign country. If so, this test is met." "May be" doesn't help that much. I assume what they're saying is - it depends on immigration law. The Code says: 152(b)(3) CITIZENS OR NATIONALS OF OTHER COUNTRIES. -- 152(b)(3)(A) IN GENERAL. --The term "dependent" does not include an individual who is not a citizen or national of the United States unless such individual is a resident of the United States or a country contiguous to the United States. 152(b)(3)(B) EXCEPTION FOR ADOPTED CHILD. --Subparagraph (A) shall not exclude any child of a taxpayer (within the meaning of subsection (f)(1)(B)) from the definition of "dependent" if -- 152(b)(3)(B)(i) for the taxable year of the taxpayer, the child has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer and is a member of the taxpayer's household, and 152(b)(3)(B)(ii) the taxpayer is a citizen or national of the United States. So in our case, the kids meet (i) and (ii), but the problem is that (B) refers to an adopted child - and I assume an adopted child only. It seems funny that an adopted child should get a better deal than a natural child, but there could be a logic to it. Any thoughts? David Rosenbaum << ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== > |
| Tags |
| citizenship, dependent, test |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | Last Post | |
| The 10 year rule on filing taxes after loss of citizenship Dick Adams: When someone formally renounces thier US citizenship, they have to file US income taxes for the next 10 years. In what year did that become the... | Taxes | 11 | 06-10-2006 08:19 PM | |
| dependent care benefits and credit for child and dependent care expenses Tobi: I put $3500 in a flexible spending account for daycare expenses, which reduced my income. If I fill out form 2441 I find that I can not claim the... | Taxes | 2 | 03-13-2006 06:37 PM | |
| "Exemption" Dependent vs. "Medical" Dependent Victor Roberts: I just discovered something interesting that may be useful to other non-professionals like myself (assuming I am correct.) The general rule for... | Taxes | 10 | 02-16-2004 06:10 PM | |
| Working Overseas - Dual Citizenship --Is filing a tax return required Patrick: Greetings, I am asking this question on behalf of my sister who lives in Italy. Main Question: Does my sister have to file a tax return? My... | Taxes | 15 | 08-04-2003 07:29 AM | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |